UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Guy Opperman – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    Guy Opperman – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by Guy Opperman, the Minister for Employment, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In the limited time that I have, I will endeavour to answer the various points raised. I start by briefly addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)—that there is a reduction in the value of benefits. She will be acutely aware that UK Government welfare spending has increased from £151 billion in 2010 to £245 billion in 2022-23, and that there have been significant increases in Scotland, which I will come to. I wholeheartedly reject the suggestion that there has been a reduction in the value of benefits, not least given the fact that this Government increased welfare support for the most vulnerable by 10.1% at the autumn statement.

    Let me address the original points raised by my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hesitate to call him an hon. Friend, because I realise that he will receive an SNP pile-on as a result. I was not aware that he is standing down from the Work and Pensions Committee after many years of distinguished service, and I congratulate him on that. As always with promotions, one never knows whether to congratulate or commiserate. I also welcome back the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) to his Front-Bench position. I believe I have held my position for 47 days, after my personal sacking over the summer and the sabbatical that I enjoyed on the Back Benches courtesy of the previous Prime Minister.

    David Linden

    Plus one.

    Guy Opperman

    Plus one. The long and short of it is that, in that time, I have engaged at length with multiple employers, Jobcentre Plus and individual work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions.

    I will endeavour particularly to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, given that this is very much his debate. He has engaged with the Department on a number of individual cases, and I will endeavour to write to him on the specifics of the particular case that he raised most recently. I am advised that we have responded to the case that he raised today, but I undertake to write to him with more detail before Christmas. Given the circumstances that we face, the letter will obviously have to be communicated by email as well as post.

    I turn to the second point. With no disrespect to the hon. Member and other colleagues who have raised this issue, I do not recognise the comments against individual DWP members of staff. Where there are particular examples of named individuals who people genuinely feel have transgressed and behaved in an inappropriate way, clearly there is a process that must be entered into.

    It is certainly not the case, in any way whatsoever, that there has been a change of policy by individual Ministers—either by myself in the 47 days that I have held this post, or by previous Ministers. I cannot speak for colleagues who have held these positions.

    Grahame Morris

    I am sure the Minister gives that assurance in good faith, but how does he explain the rapid increase in the level of sanctions in recent months? Can he rebut the allegation that there is a sanctions regime that incentivises DWP staff to apply sanctions?

    Guy Opperman

    On the second point, I am not aware of any such policy or any such incentivisation in any way whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of such incentivisation, he should publish it and name it individually, because there is no such evidence as far as I am aware.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rise in the numbers. It is right to have a legitimate discussion about what is a fair and effective welfare system that supports people into work and provides value for money for taxpayers. Our work coaches support claimants by setting out the activities to move them into work or to progress in work and work more. Activities are set out in the claimant commitment, which is surely the start or base of all the discussions. They are tailored to reflect individual circumstances and take into account health conditions, caring responsibilities, current work and opportunities for training.

    The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the rise in the number of sanctions. Some 98.2% of sanctions are for missing a meeting with a work coach. Such sanctions can be quickly and simply resolved by attending another appointment. The evidence is that approximately 50% of such sanctions are resolved with mandatory reconsideration.

    I wish to address in particular the issue in relation to the most vulnerable. It is right that the most vulnerable in society receive extra support. The Government have clearly shown a commitment to that by adding a further £26 billion in the cost of living support in the autumn statement, on top of the £37 billion for 2022-23 that we announced earlier this year, in May.

    Where benefit claimants have vulnerabilities, safeguards exist to ensure that they are not sanctioned inappropriately. Those with severe health and mental health conditions, those with full-time caring responsibilities and those with children under the age of one are not required to look for work and cannot be sanctioned. Many of the most vulnerable receive other elements of universal credit in payment, such as housing, child or disability support. Those payments are not affected by a sanction.

    Finally, when people experience particular challenges, such as childcare difficulties, accommodation issues or bereavement, work coaches have the discretion to switch off work-related activities for a period of time. Such measures enable us to support vulnerable claimants and provide tailored support. To answer the follow-on question, we have a well-established system of hardship payments, which are available as a safeguard if a claimant demonstrates that they cannot meet their immediate and most essential needs—including for accommodation, heating, food and hygiene—as a result of sanctions. I am advised that the relevant percentage is 1.987%.

    Various colleagues made specific points. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the hon. Member for Slough made the point that work is hard to find. I will address that point in two particular ways. First, the evidence from the labour market statistics shows that the employment rate is up 0.2 percentage points on the quarter; the number of payroll employees is up on pre-covid levels by 932,000 to a record high; and the inactivity rate has fallen. On the vacancies rate, which surely relates to the point that work is hard to find, there were 1.2 million vacancies. Although obviously it remains high, the rate has fallen for the fifth consecutive month, to 1.187 million. Inactivity, which is a long-term issue, has fallen by 0.2 percentage points on the quarter, to 21.5%.

    Scotland was raised specifically, so let me give the Scottish figures. The number of people employed is at 2.725 million, up 22,000 on the quarter and up 61,000 on the year. The employment rate is at 75.9%, up 0.7 percentage points on the quarter and 1.4 percentage points on the year. Unemployment is at 93,000, down 21,000 on the year and 12,000 against February to December 2020. The number of people in workless households has fallen by 113,000 since April to June 2010.

    John McDonnell

    I do not want to stop the Minister’s flow, other than to correct him: there is no Member here from Slough. I may have missed his answer to this question, but why has there been an increase in the number of sanctions on such a scale, even compared with pre-pandemic levels? Could he answer the question that we have all asked?

    Guy Opperman

    The answer has already been given to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). The figure in respect of persons failing to attend an individual appointment is at approximately 98%. That 98% is for failing to attend a specific appointment.

    John McDonnell

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)

    Order. Is the Minister giving way?

    Guy Opperman

    No. I have one minute left to address this debate. In November 2018 the Work and Pensions Committee specifically said that the Committee agreed with the Government that the principles of conditionality and sanctions were an important part of the welfare system.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West on securing the debate. The Government have been utterly clear that we are fully supportive of all people who are on benefits.

    John McDonnell

    Just answer the question!

    Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)

    Order. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced in this place and should know better. If the Minister is not giving way, he should not be speaking.

    John McDonnell

    I can tell the Minister—

    Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)

    Order. We are running out of time. Minister, I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West would like to hear replies to his questions at least.

    Guy Opperman

    I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s debate and set out how the Government are helping to get people into work. We have intensified our support for jobseekers. We have made great efforts on in-work progression. Employment figures are up. There is more to do, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics.

  • Karen Buck – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    Karen Buck – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by Karen Buck, the Labour MP for Westminster North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition to this short and important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on introducing the debate and making a powerful speech. We have heard powerful contributions, and many who spoke drew on their own experiences of cases as well as cases brought to them by advice agencies in their constituencies.

    Before the debate, I asked my local citizens advice bureau about the changes it had experienced in terms of clients with concerns about sanctions. It told me that there has been an increase in calls for help, including appeals from clients who were bedbound when the sanction was imposed because they had covid and were quarantining. I was told about someone who was sanctioned for attending a funeral and about a young woman who was forced to leave her home because she became pregnant outside marriage and feared for her safety. She was sanctioned for not wishing to return to a jobcentre near her family home in order to attend an appointment.

    What has come through all of the speeches is the strong theme—it is a theme that has come up time and again whenever we have debated social security issues over recent months and years—of the impact on mental health. So many of the clients who come to us asking for help with sanctions and other aspects of social security problems are highly vulnerable and sometimes chaotic in their vulnerability, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) stated. Sometimes they have significant mental health concerns that should have been a red flag.

    As we have heard, this debate is well timed because over the last few months it has become increasingly clear that the DWP’s approach to sanctions has changed in ways that Ministers have so far been unwilling to explain or justify. The evidence lies in the sheer volume of sanctions that the Department has been handing out. Let us not be distracted by the suspension of most forms of conditionality during the pandemic. That was, of course, the right thing to do, and obviously that meant there was bound to be some degree of a resurgence in sanctions once things opened up again. But that does not explain—and this point has been made several times this afternoon—why sanction levels and rates are so much higher now than they were before the pandemic.

    Several Members have referred to the work of Dr David Webster, whose regular briefings on sanctions for the Child Poverty Action Group have served to bring the issue to the fore. He finds that the number of sanctions handed out per month in May to July of this year was on average 45,000, equivalent to 2.5% of people on universal credit subject to conditionality, compared with 1.4% in the three months before the pandemic. That increase in the number of adverse sanction decisions is reflected in the cumulative number of people on universal credit serving a sanction at any point in time. Dr Webster writes:

    “The number of universal credit claimants who were serving a sanction in August was 115,274…more than three times the pre-pandemic peak of 36,771 in October 2019.”

    Of course, there were more people on universal credit in August 2022 than in October 2019, but as Dr Webster shows, the percentage of universal credit claimants subject to conditionality serving a sanction was 6.4% in August, more than double the pre-pandemic peak of 3.1% in October 2019. And for unemployed people—those in the searching for work group—Dr Webster estimates that nearly 8% were under sanction in August 2022. My first question to the Minister is: how have we arrived at a situation where one in 13 unemployed universal credit claimants are currently under sanction?

    We should be under no illusion that sanctions are just a slap on the wrist for claimants. Typically, sanctions involve the withdrawal of 100% of the universal credit standard allowance, and even the reduced rate for the lowest level of sanction is 40% of the standard allowance. And except for the lowest level sanctions, the penalties continue after the person sanctioned has complied with the rules—for seven days rising to 28 days for low level sanctions, while higher level sanctions apply for 28 days and 91 days rising to 182 days, depending on whether there have been previous failures to comply in the same year.

    An increase in the sanction rate is not just a technical matter. People on universal credit do not have a margin of income that they can fall back on to weather an interruption to benefit payments—all the less as the four-year benefit freeze has permanently eroded the real-term value of benefits.

    There is an urgent need to understand what lies behind the increase. Has there been a revolution in people’s behaviour or attitudes since 2019? If so, what is the evidence for that? Has the level of non-compliance with conditionality really doubled since the pandemic? Have there been operational changes leading to more sanctions being issued without any change in the level of compliance? Has there been a change in the Department’s policy on sanctions? Or is the increase an unintended consequence of other factors? in other words, is the sanctions regime out of control?

    The purpose of sanctions has been well described by Professor Paul Gregg as a backstop to the system of benefit conditionality. The point is that while sanctions set at a reasonable level serve an important function, they are not an end in themselves. A sudden increase in the number of sanctions such as we have seen should be seen by any responsible Government as a cause for concern rather than for self-congratulation. It raises the fear that the sanctions tail is wagging the conditionality dog, that the Government are more concerned with signalling toughness than with improving employment outcomes, and that the purpose of conditionality has been twisted towards catching people out rather than maintaining contact with the labour market. Or, no less worryingly, it raises the fear that the number of sanctions has shot up because the Government have lost control of the sanctions regime and no longer know what they are doing.

    The fact that the Government have suppressed their own research into the effectiveness of the universal credit sanctions regime is hardly reassuring. In 2018, in response to a Work and Pensions Committee report, the Department agreed to

    “evaluate the effectiveness of reforms to welfare conditionality and sanctions,”

    and said that this would focus

    “on whether the sanctions regime within Universal Credit (UC) is effective at supporting claimants to search for work.”

    It said that it would publish the results in spring 2019, but we know what happened. The research was undertaken, but earlier this year the last Secretary of State but one—the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)— reneged on the commitment to publish the results. That is the behaviour of a Government who are uninterested in learning lessons, and evasive of public scrutiny.

    Chris Stephens

    I thank the shadow Minister for making that important point. The same applies to the drivers of food bank use, which include sanctions.

    Ms Buck

    Sanctions are indeed an important driver of the increase in food banks, which is another symptom of widespread structural failure in the system.

    It would be refreshing if the new Secretary of State took a different view of the matter. A doubling in the rate of sanctions in the context of a cost of living crisis and permanent reductions in the value of benefits is a serious matter. I hope that the Minister can give a suitably serious response.

  • David Linden – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    David Linden – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by David Linden, the SNP MP for Glasgow East, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.

    It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he does in fighting poverty and in his role as a trustee of Feeding Britain. I am very much looking forward to joining the Work and Pensions Committee in the new year, and I sincerely thank him for the work that he has done on the Committee. I wish him well as he takes on his new Front-Bench responsibilities.

    This has been a good, albeit one sided, debate. I often find myself questioning the point of having such debates, because while Opposition Members have showed up to talk about what happens in our constituency surgeries, the only reason the two Conservative Members are present is that they are compelled to be here. The Conservative party has some new red wall MPs. Surely people visit their surgeries to discuss the punitive sanctions regime. It ill behoves any of those Members intending to stand for re-election that they do not bother their backside to turn up and talk about the very thing that we know has an impact on many of our constituents.

    This debate is certainly timely, not least because recent data produced by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that benefit sanctions for young Scots have nearly doubled since 2019, which is the last comparable year for such statistics. The British Government certainly like to talk ad nauseum about their rather underwhelming kickstart programme. However, those statistics show that the DWP is only seeking to kick young people when they are down. I shall return to that slightly later when I discuss the wider context of the debate.

    My hon. Friend has already referred to the figures that he has uncovered via parliamentary questions. In my constituency of Glasgow East, £55,000 was deducted from universal credit payments in August alone, simply as a result of benefit sanctions. At a time when businesses are struggling and we have all just celebrated small business Saturday over the last week or two, I remind the House that that cash could have been spent at small businesses in the likes of Parkhead, Barrowfield and Lilybank. If the Conservative party does not get that from a compassionate point of view, it should consider it purely from the point of view of economics. Instead, the DWP has pressed ahead with a regime of conditionality that pushes people into destitution. To be frank, that is something for which the state ultimately bears the cost anyway, so it is also short sighted in that respect.

    The Scotland-wide figure for deductions from UC deductions by way of sanctions is even more eye-watering, at £2.3 million in August this year. Destitution is not cost-free for the state, and there is already a rich body of evidence out there from the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that shows the true cost of, for example, homelessness as people are pushed into destitution by a failing social security system. While 85% of welfare spending in Scotland is reserved to this institution, the Scottish Government are doing their level best to mitigate the very worst effects of Westminster’s assault on benefits.

    Whether hon. Members are Unionists or nationalists, surely we can all agree that devolution, be it in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, cannot simply be a sticking plaster for inadequate social security policies designed in Whitehall. For example, the Government in Edinburgh spend £80 million a year of their devolved budget on discretionary housing payments, purely to nullify Westminster’s bedroom tax. To be blunt, that is £80 million that could be spent on health and education, but the Scottish Government are having to spend it trying to clean up the mess that has been caused by Westminster. Indeed, using our limited social security powers, next year the Scottish Government will spend an extra £311 million on the game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 a week. That is in stark contrast to the British Government’s outrageous two-child policy and associated rape clause.

    We can begin to see a pattern emerging. In essence, DWP policy means that devolved Peter is being robbed to pay the price of reserved Paul. The same is true with the sanctions regime that my hon. Friend has highlighted today. Sanctions combined with deductions from universal credit mean that almost £2 billion per annum is snatched away from the very poorest people on these islands. As they face going hungry, that is when the third sector, which is already close to breaking point, needs to step in and pick up the pieces. To illustrate that, I will provide an example from my constituency.

    The Halliday Foundation helps people in poverty with free meals and furniture as they seek to rebuild their lives. It is funded by local government, which, in turn, is funded by central Government. So all that happens is that central Government sanction a constituent and then the Halliday Foundation has to step in to support them with the financial resources that have been provided by local government. Put simply, that is a total mess and a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, and it shows that moving people into destitution is something that the Government bears the cost of anyway.

    There is also an additional negative dimension to sanctions, which is very relevant just now and which I want to highlight to the Minister, backing up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Data shows that almost 700 Scottish households were denied the first £326 cost of living payment in September, simply as a result of sanctions. Let me make clear to the Minister that the freezing temperatures we are experiencing do not bypass houses and say, “Oh well, we’ll not go to minus 7° because that house has been sanctioned.” The decision to exempt sanctioned individuals from the cost of living payment is wrong and should be put right without delay.

    In my five years as a Member of this House, it has become clear that Whitehall does not know best when it comes to designing a strong, robust and compassionate social security net. Indeed, Ministers and senior officials who preside over this disastrous sanctions regime clearly do not understand what it is like to sit in a cold library in Glasgow’s east end on a Friday morning speaking to constituents who literally have nothing to live on. On Friday, I met a constituent from Greenfield who is a kinship carer for his grandson. We have had debates in this Chamber about the importance of kinship carers and the vast amounts of money they save the Government. However, our failing social security means that state support is so low that my constituent told me that he has rationed his primary school-age grandson to just two baths a week because he cannot afford the energy bills.

    The very fact that my constituent told me it costs 70p to run a hot bath shows just how close to the breadline that man is living and how much our social security system is failing the people who need it most. Indeed, he told me that he cannot afford to turn on the Christmas tree lights for fear of running up an energy bill that he simply cannot afford, not least because he is on a prepayment meter. These are the sorts of people who are impacted by the actions of a Department for Work and Pensions that day after day plunges the most vulnerable people in our constituencies into abject poverty—something that should shame the fifth richest economy in the world. This Government have the absolute temerity to prance around the world in their Brit-branded ministerial plane preaching about global Britain, when all the while my constituent cannot afford to run a hot bath the night before sending his grandson to school. It is utterly shameful.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West outlined a better way of doing things, perhaps via the yellow card warning system, and Ministers would do well to engage with us on ameliorating a system that is currently doing so much harm. Indeed, it is no wonder that the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has attributed over 330,000 excess deaths in the UK to austerity since 2010. It has long been the case that Governments of both colours in this House have talked a tough game on welfare—I certainly prefer to call it social security—but the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. For too many people who had no understanding or experience of benefits, the pandemic lifted a veil on a social security system that has been found to be utterly inadequate. We know from polling that the public will no longer buy into the lazy picture painted by politicians in London of this being a fight of strivers versus skivers; this is now firmly the fight of abject poverty versus fairness and decency.

    The only way to ensure that fairness and decency win is to end the punitive benefit sanctions regime and build a proper, robust social security system, underpinned by dignity, human rights and respect. In Scotland, we have already started that journey, but in truth most Scots know that it can only be completed with the full powers of independence. Nothing I have heard in this debate or, indeed, in my time in this House has convinced me that, with Westminster, the sanctions regime would end. That is why Scotland can, should and must make its own decisions on all social security, as with other policies, because Westminster is not working for us, and we all know that that is why Labour and the Conservatives are petrified of Scottish democracy prevailing.

  • Admiral Sir Tony Radakin – 2022 Speech at the RUSI Lecture

    Admiral Sir Tony Radakin – 2022 Speech at the RUSI Lecture

    The speech made by Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the Chief of the Defence Staff, in London on 14 December 2022.

    Firstly, thank you Jonathan for welcoming me back to RUSI.

    It’s a warm welcome and somewhat stands in stark contrast to my recent blacklisting by Iran. Sadly, I’ve had to cancel the family holiday in Tehran.

    And thank you Ritula for your overview of an extraordinary year that will forever be remembered for 2 monarchs, 3 prime ministers and the return of war in Europe.

    But let me start by paying tribute to those men and women from all three services who are on duty over Christmas, both at home and overseas.

    And we’ve seen today the Armed Forces are once more key to responding to tragic events, this time in the Channel. And the next few weeks we will be stepping in to fill vital public sector roles due to industrial action.

    Whether it’s the splendid ceremonial events that we saw earlier this year, or the critical work of driving ambulances, we serve the nation.

    So, a big thank you from me to those who will be away from home this Christmas, and especially to their families.

    Last year I steered away from focusing on the geopolitical outlook, and instead concentrated my remarks on my priorities for Defence, the need to transform the Armed Forces, and to better support and empower our people.

    That agenda has not changed.

    We’ve made lots of progress. In other areas we’ve not moved fast enough, and I could easily devote the next 25 minutes to unpacking all of this, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

    But rarely in our recent history has our purpose in Defence been in sharper focus. We protect the nation and help it to prosper. And given all that has happened over the past 12 months it would be remiss of me not to devote most of my time this evening to the situation we find ourselves in.

    My premise is three-fold:

    • First, that these are extraordinarily dangerous times.
    • Second, that extraordinary times call for an extraordinary response. This explains why Russia is losing. And the free world is winning.
    • And third – what comes next, the link between our security and prosperity and the need to stay global.

    Last year, in the margins of this event, I said that our worst-case intelligence assessments suggested a Russian invasion of Ukraine would unleash fighting on a scale not seen in Europe since the Second World War.

    In the headlines the following morning it seemed alarmist at the time, but they don’t now.

    What we have seen unfold is tragic and dangerous.

    An illegal and unjustified invasion. Naked aggression and territorial expansion. Extraordinary vilification and hatred. Ethnic scourges. Sub-human labelling. Thousands of missiles and armoured vehicles. Millions. I say again, millions of artillery rounds. Hundreds of thousands of troops. Millions of people displaced. Millions without electricity and water. Deliberate attacking of civilians and civilian facilities. IEDs in children’s toys.

    War crimes. Sham referendums. Faux annexations. Arbitrary detentions. Show trials. Summary executions. Populations being bussed to ‘camps’ in another country. Millions put at risk of famine. Hundreds of millions suffering the pressure of increased energy prices, inflation, job losses, and the consequences that follow, whether mentally or physically.

    Nuclear threats. Nuclear anxiety. Crazy nuclear debates about whether ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ can be distinguished from ‘strategic nuclear weapons’.

    So, a war in Europe that challenges Euro Atlantic security and impacts the world.

    But it gets worse. Because the other challengers to the world order do not stand still. They support, take advantage and fuel the aggression, with war crimes and hideous justifications.

    And these other challengers to the world order are creating their own threat streams and initiating violence. Iran and its supply of missile drones – a captured one which I saw on my last visit to Kyiv with the Prime Minister.

    Or Iran and its nuclear programme.

    Or ask the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about the missiles fired at their territory by Iranian-backed Houthi forces this year.

    Head further East and we have another Putin ally, North Korea, seeking to smuggle artillery shells to Russia. This should not come as a surprise. This is nuclear North Korea. Pouring bile and anger on its neighbour and mixing rhetoric with over 60 ballistic missile launches this year. 23 of these were on a single day. In a ‘normal year’ that would astonish the world.

    And then there is China.

    Not a threat in the same vein as Russia or Iran or North Korea. But a tacit supporter of Russia, whether at the United Nations or taking advantage of cheap energy.

    Another nation that determines advantage from increasing substantially its nuclear arsenal, its missile inventory, its Army, Navy and Air Force.

    And doing so, accompanied by the language of threat and implication, whether in the Indo Pacific and the brazen claims of 80% of the South China Sea, the plundering of fishing grounds and the denial of protein to neighbouring states. Or the protests in Hong Kong. Or the aggression shown toward Taiwan.

    All of this combined with the use of economic and institutional power and hence, the label of ‘systemic competitor’, to quote the Prime Minister.

    So, as 2022 draws to a close, we have a world in which four separate geo-political crises are unfolding in parallel.

    Whether it’s Putin’s sense of impunity, Iran’s meddlesome and destabilising behaviour, North Korea’s outright belligerence, or an increasingly authoritarian China.

    None of these challenges exist in isolation.

    Each is connected. Each represents a test of the rules which have guaranteed global security and enabled the spread of prosperity and opportunity throughout our lifetimes. And in aggregate, are extraordinary and profound.

    If that all sounds gloomy – and it is – we can take confidence from the response, which is my second point.

    Because the response is affirming the perilous nature of using violence and the military instrument as the means to achieve political goals. That is profound. It has resonance around the globe. And it makes us all safer.

    At its heart is the will of one country to fight for its survival.

    The ingenuity, courage and determination of Ukraine. And the paradox and dilemmas that that has created for the Russian leadership. The brutality of Putin begets resolve. Resolve begets support. Support begets victory.

    Despite Putin’s best efforts to divide, he has unintentionally assembled an extraordinary coalition of democracies against him. It’s as if he has illuminated what our beliefs really mean and entail. The importance of aggression being defeated. The need to abide by international rules. The hideous thought of the nuclear taboo being broken.

    Governments have sought to examine and overturn long held policy positions. Be it German defence spending or Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Or Japan’s evolving defence posture. And the economic response to Russia’s invasion was far greater than has ever been seen and Russia was ill prepared.

    Of course, Putin will look for ways to get around sanctions.

    But the loss of capital, thousands of international companies fleeing, the brain drain as talent flees tyranny, the reductions in investment, the absence of critical technologies, all of these increase in impact over time.

    And the diplomatic response was unequivocal. At the UN 141 nations voted to condemn Russia’s invasion, with just five opposing. We can quibble that the world is not so bound together as at the shock in February. But come October it was 143 nations that declared Russia’s annexation to be invalid and illegal.

    And observe Putin’s non-attendance at the G20. Matched by the awkwardness of China, Turkey and India at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. And, even if much more privately, the strength of messaging that Russia had to endure from the United States, China, India, Saudi Arabia and others when anxiety surfaced about the prospect of nuclear avenues being considered. Thank you to those nations for being responsible.

    So now let us examine Russia’s predicament.

    NATO is stronger. Not just in the response on its eastern flank and in the Atlantic and the hard power amassed. But in its sense of purpose. And that purpose is backed by money. 20 nations have already agreed to increase their defence budgets since 24 February. And this is on top of an extra £320 billion of additional spending pledged by European members and Canada since the NATO Summit in Wales in 2014.

    This is all in contrast to the horror of the Russian army. About hundred thousand soldiers dead, injured or deserted. Whole battalion tactical groups destroyed. Some 4,500 armoured vehicles and 600 artillery systems destroyed or captured. And it extends to the sea with 12 ships, including a capital ship, lost either at sea or alongside in a supposed safe port. And in the air more than 70 helicopters, 60 aircraft and 150 drones destroyed. These are losses that will be felt for at least a decade.

    That is not to say that the coming year won’t be difficult. It will be incredibly demanding of Ukraine, and for all of us. But just look at the maths. Russia seeks solace with Iran, North Korea and China. Ukraine turns to the extraordinary might of America and the world.

    I attend the monthly contact group chaired by the US Secretary of Defense. It is usually 50 nations in the room and with others joining remotely from across the globe. Political resolve is public, backed by cash, ammunition, armaments, humanitarian aid and, most recently, winter clothing.

    We have to hand our phones in before entering the room. It’s a shame. It must be terrifying to be a Russian spy and to see what you are really up against.

    This, backed by that central will to fight, explains why Ukraine – a modest military power by any calculation – has recaptured already over 50% of the territory it lost.

    And it will only get worse for Russia.

    Putin’s generals were cussed for explaining the need to give ground to preserve their Army. Now they have a far more difficult conversation emerging.

    So let me tell Putin tonight what his own generals and ministers are probably too afraid to say: that Russia faces a critical shortage of artillery munitions.

    This means that their ability to conduct successful offensive ground operations is rapidly diminishing.

    There is no mystery as to why this is the case. Putin planned for a 30-day war, but the Russian guns have now been firing for almost 300 days. The cupboard is bare. Morally, conceptually and physically, Putin’s forces are running low.

    What about our place in this?

    I want to be radical and deeply unfashionable by talking up a few things. We should be proud of the UK’s response.

    I am grateful for bold action by ministers, a united parliament and responsible opposition politicians who have accepted briefings under Privy Council rules and abided by them.

    The sense of unity and cohesion across the political spectrum is a source of strength at a time when our democratic values are being tested internationally.

    The Government has made Ukraine a priority, in funds but also through National Security Council meetings, through Prime Ministerial time – with all three of them – and even some four or five dedicated Cabinet meetings at the outset.

    That attitude has been matched by our media: brave people going to the front line in the best traditions to tell astonishing stories. And we have all benefitted from the thoughtfulness of commentators, speed of analysis and the ubiquitous access to these views. Thank you, and especially to many of you here.

    That backdrop has been further supplemented by our magnificent intelligence community. Defence Intelligence and GCHQ, alongside American NSA colleagues, cued us at the very beginning and provided remarkably accurate windows into plans and psyche all the way through.

    People ask does it make a difference? Absolutely. And we have been able to spike guns, prepare plans and galvanise allies. Similarly, MI5 have been essential in keeping the home base safe at a point of tension. And, yes, MI6 do provide an astonishing array of insights and opportunities. Thank you to all in the UK Intelligence Community.

    We should also be proud we were the first European country to supply lethal aid. We have gifted almost 200 armoured vehicles and more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Over a hundred thousand rounds of artillery ammunition.

    Now, as the year ends, nearly 10,000 Ukrainian troops have been trained on British soil in an effort that includes Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and, from next month, Australia.

    This is significant. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. We support Ukraine because we share their belief in the rule of law and the simple conviction that aggression must not pay.

    The result is Russia is losing. And the world is winning. Russia has failed – and will continue to fail – in all its war aims. Russia is diminished on the world stage. Its claimed ‘near abroad’ is weakened. NATO is strengthened. And if President Putin acts now and withdraws his forces, he would also be able to save Russian and Ukrainian lives.

    And providing we maintain our cohesion and resolve, the real victory within our grasp is much more significant. The message to despots and authoritarians attracted to using violence is both classical and modern.

    Classical in the sense that violence and outcomes are hard to predict and control.

    And modern because we have a world where the leading powers and economies might be prepared to act. Extraordinary collective power that, when harnessed, puts an aggressor’s economy, authority and regime at risk.

    So, this really has been an extraordinary response for extraordinary times.

    My final point is what next? These are difficult times. And we have the opportunity to refresh last year’s Integrated Review.

    Last year’s Review proved remarkably prescient and stands up well when measured against previous strategies.

    It was correct to identify Russia as the most acute threat and was the first to begin to grapple with the scale of the challenge of China.

    It was correct to emphasise the importance of continued collective security, nuclear deterrence and defence modernisation.

    And it was correct to view the Armed Forces as part of the wider machinery of government, and to advocate the role we play to support the national interest in its very broadest sense.

    We have made significant progress over the past year to implement the accompanying Defence Command Paper and modernise the Armed Forces in a way that will further strengthen NATO over the coming years.

    All nine P8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft have entered service. The A400M aircraft is replacing the C130. E7 Wedgetail is on the way and the Lightning Force is growing. We’ve established Space Command.

    We’re sorting out Ajax. Boxer production is underway, with UK production now ramping up. We’re investing in Apache and Challenger 3 and recapitalising our deep fires.

    We’ve placed the contract for the second batch of Type 26 frigates, and for the Naval Strike Missile. The Fleet Solid Support Ship programme is moving forward, and we’ve purchased a new Multi-Role Ocean Survey Ship to protect our critical underwater infrastructure.

    This has been matched by more support for our people: a pay rise of nearly 4%; capping of food and accommodation costs; and providing Wraparound Childcare and Forces Help to Buy Scheme.

    But what has happened is that events of the past year have trended towards the most negative scenarios we envisaged in the IR. And we have seen all too clear the far-reaching consequences this has for our domestic wellbeing. So, it’s important to recognise what the IR got right while also having the humility to recognise what has changed.

    And this poses a series of questions which the IR Refresh will seek to answer:

    • How do we manage a weaker but more vindictive Russia over the long term?
    • Are we going to remain committed to a global outlook?
    • And if so, how much do we invest?

    These are serious questions. And I welcome the Government’s willingness and seriousness to undertake the answers.

    One view for the IR Refresh is that we will draw on the tenets of our traditional way of warfare:

    • The belief that Britain is an expeditionary rather than a continental power.
    • That our interests are best served through the indirect application of power by, with, and through our partners.
    • That our operational advantage comes not from the mass but through disproportionate effect.
    • And that we do not shy away from our status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear power with global responsibilities and the 6th largest economy in the world.

    There is something very British about our approach to having the bomb: almost mild embarrassment. And yet perhaps one of the starkest lessons of the past year has been our extended nuclear deterrence. It has protected us and our Allies, allowing us to resist coercion and continue to do what is right. A reminder that nuclear and conventional deterrence are linked.

    And in the same way, the notion that you can separate security in Europe from security in the Pacific seems difficult – especially if you happen to be a global trading nation with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

    There is not some easy option of focusing on our own backyard while leaving the US and others to deal with the rest of the world. The two are inextricably linked. And once again, Europe is the beneficiary of American generosity.

    Were the US to contemplate a more radical pivot to the Indo-Pacific, it would cost NATO’s European nations more than $300 billion over 10 years to match US current investment in our security.

    We also need to consider the melting of the ice caps in the coming decades, which will unleash a difficult new competition for minerals and resources; halve the time it takes for shipping to travel between Europe and Asia, and surely China’s military forces will start to reach into the Atlantic.

    But when we get it right, our spend on defence invests in our security and prosperity.

    We invest in people and places, and we invest in our nation’s future.

    And this will be at the heart of our approach as we work to update the Integrated Review, just as it was in the original Review. To protect the nation and help it prosper. Opportunity and not just threat.

    In this regard, AUKUS is totemic on so many levels. On one level it’s an opportunity to join with our closest allies to offer a technological and strategic response to the challenges of the Indo-Pacific.

    But if we have the courage to do this properly then it’s also the means to strengthen the resilience of our own nuclear enterprise and grow our submarine numbers in the decades to come. This will benefit our contribution to NATO as well as our presence in the Indo-Pacific.

    The same is true for FCAS, now called the Global Combat Air Programme or GCAP.

    A project that looks both west and east. To Italy and the proven strength of our traditional European industrial and military cooperation. And to Japan, a new partner that reflects the post-Brexit opportunity and ambition that is bound up with our domestic prosperity.

    More than 2,500 people are already working on GCAP, sustaining an industry that employs 40-50,000 people in the UK.

    The submarine programme currently supports almost 30,000 jobs across the UK.

    And the Land Industrial Strategy supports 10,000 jobs directly and another 10,000 indirectly, but more importantly reflecting a capital budget that is prioritising the need to strengthen our Army.

    So, if the costs of Defence may be high, and the timescales lengthy, the value we derive is every bit as large:

    • £320 billion to GDP annually.
    • £6.6 billion of R&D.
    • £8 billion of exports annually – and our position as the second largest defence exporter in the world.
    • 410,000 jobs.
    • 22,000 apprenticeships.

    The IR update will reflect the lessons of Ukraine because it is vital to learn in real time: rebuilding and enhancing stockpiles, filling the gaps in our inventory. Unlocking the potential of our people so we can be more agile and inventive, particularly in our approach to technology.

    But it’s also about thinking big: accelerating the transformation of the Armed Forces to become even more lethal and integrated. Maximising the capabilities that offer a decisive advantage. Being even more global in our outlook.

    Might that mean an Army equipped with anti-ship or hypersonic missiles capable of striking the enemy thousands of kilometres away?

    Might it mean a British carrier regularly deployed in the Indo-Pacific at the heart of an allied strike group?

    Or an ambition to embrace drones on a far greater scale than previously envisaged – perhaps in the order of 10,000 by 2030?

    And do we tackle our productivity, with fresh ambitions to double our outputs – such as deployability and lethality – between 2020 to 2030?

    Some of these ideas will fly, others won’t. But they are all worthy of scrutiny.

    Because the biggest lesson from the past year is to recognise that we are part of a generational struggle for the future of the global order.

    And the alternative to thinking big, and to thinking on a global scale, is that we become an introspective, cautious nation, that looks the other way.

    And we’ve seen what happens when countries look away. Authoritarians are emboldened. Rules get broken, economic turmoil and global insecurity follow. And we all pay the price.

    So, to conclude. These are worrying times. But I remain optimistic and confident about our security.

    We should take succour in the way we and international partners have responded to the challenges.

    And we should heed the catastrophe that the Russian leadership has landed itself in.

    Let me end by reiterating how incredibly proud I am of our response to the events of the last year: from our servicemen and women, regular and reserve, but also our civil servants our diplomats, our industry partners, and our allies.

    This is how we will succeed.

    By being confident in our values.

    By staying strong at home and in the world.

    And by leveraging the extraordinary strengths and opportunities this presents. Thank you.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Joint Statement from UK and France on Small Boat Incident in the Channel

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Joint Statement from UK and France on Small Boat Incident in the Channel

    The joint statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, and Gérald Darmanin, the French Minister of Interior and Overseas Territories of France, on 14 December 2022.

    Early this morning authorities were alerted to an incident in the Channel concerning a small boat in distress. Regrettably, multiple fatalities have been confirmed.

    Our thoughts are with everyone affected by this tragic event, and on behalf of the UK and France, we send our deepest condolences to the loved ones of those involved.

    There has been a coordinated response to this terrible tragedy, with UK and French actors working side by side. We commend the engagement of all those involved.

    This tragic incident – like the loss of at least 27 people on 24 November last year – is a stark reminder of the urgent need to destroy the business model of people-smugglers.

    We have prevented more than 30,000 crossings so far this year, and together with other European partners, including Europol, we have made over 500 arrests since 2020.

    We recently agreed on a renewed bilateral framework to tackle illegal migration, with closer joint working and intelligence sharing, more French officers equipped with cutting-edge technology patrolling the French coast and UK and French officers working with each other’s law enforcement teams as embedded observers.

    We also held a meeting in Calais format (Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Netherlands) in Brussels on 8 December and resolved, with our European neighbours, to intensify our police, border and judicial cooperation, with the support of EU agencies.

    Today’s tragic incident underlines the importance of taking this forward together.

  • Claudia Webbe – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    Claudia Webbe – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by Claudia Webbe, the Independent MP for Leicester East, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this valuable and important debate.

    The Government claim that evidence clearly shows that their sanctions regime is clear, fair and effective in getting people into work, so why are they hiding data from experts who want to study that effectiveness? Benefits sanctions are an utterly inhumane blunt instrument that have not been shown to be effective in their supposed aim. Instead, almost every study that has looked at the benefit sanctions regime seems to include the word “cruel”—indeed, it is “pointlessly cruel” according to a Select Committee report, and “cruel”, “inhumane” and “degrading” according to academics. That is what the experts conducting those studies have found.

    The sanctions regime is enormously disproportionate and punitive: a complete withdrawal of support for missing a single jobcentre appointment. Examples of people sanctioned because of illness, a lack of wi-fi connectivity or other reasons outside their control are easy to find. That cruelty can be imposed with little effective scrutiny for up to three years. The organisation Feeding Britain reported that in Leicester, one woman with two children was sanctioned after she missed appointments as a result of going to Iraq to look after her sick father. It left her in a terrible state, with bills and rent arrears. Another referral over the summer had his appointment with his work coach rearranged because the work coach was not in. He was then sanctioned because whoever was standing in for the work coach rearranged the appointment to be earlier, and he missed it.

    The UK is an international outlier in this cruelty. Indeed, the UK is unique among OECD nations in using sanctions to punish claimants. A Bristol University Press publication on the impact of sanctions shows that they are largely ineffective and often make people more likely to remain out of work. This consciously cruel regime is operating at record levels—more than double its pre-pandemic numbers—in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and a huge number of working people in my constituency of Leicester East are being sanctioned for not accepting zero-hours contracts to top up their incomes.

    Of course, the more vulnerable a claimant, the greater the impact of this conscious cruelty. The Government cannot claim to be unaware of this, as they have been repeatedly warned by MPs, academics and advocate groups about the huge damage being done. Rethink Mental Illness recently called for an immediate halt to sanctions, with the group’s chief executive officer describing them as

    “incredibly damaging to people’s mental health”

    because of

    “the massive financial and psychological impact”

    of sanctions and of the fear that they might be imposed.

    Speaking of the more than doubling of the number of sanctions, David Webster of the University of Glasgow said:

    “A Universal Credit claimant is now more likely”—

    in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory—

    “to be under a sanction than to have Covid”,

    which is a truly horrifying illustration. Dr Webster also accused the Government of withholding information about the scale of the crisis they have created. That is not a new phenomenon. As we have heard, in February the Government blocked access to data for academics who simply wanted simply to study whether benefit sanctions were driving up suicide rates, bringing a vital study that was already under way to an immediate halt. Even for the Conservative party, this is an astonishing level of disregard for people’s mental health and, indeed, for their lives. It is institutional cruelty.

    It is time to end the culture of secrecy about the impacts and effectiveness of the Government’s benefit sanctions policy. Will the Minister commit the Government to releasing this data? It is an open secret that information already in the public domain showed that a staggering 43% of unemployed disability benefit claimants had attempted to take their own lives because of the horrors inflicted on them, and that was in 2018—long before the sanctions reached their current appalling high level.

    Sanctions are indeed pointlessly cruel, inhumane and degrading. If the Government think that the facts show otherwise, why are they hiding them?

  • Kenny MacAskill – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    Kenny MacAskill – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by Kenny MacAskill, the Alba MP for East Lothian, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on introducing this important issue that it is very appropriate to debate at this time. I will start by saying what this debate is not about. It is not about benefit fraud, in case the Daily Mail or others thought it was. That is rare—far rarer than tax avoidance—but it is dealt with by criminal prosecution, and rightly so because it is about public funds.

    Equally, I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that there should be no sanctions. What is required is an appropriate form of sanctions in every walk of life, whether in a social club or a political party. If someone transgresses, there have to be repercussions. If we breach the rules here, we can rightly face sanctions. I am a former chair of the judicial panel of the Scottish Football Association; even in sport, if someone breaks the laws through misconduct on or off the park, they will rightly face some challenge. The issue is that the extent of it is far too great, certainly at a time of huge austerity.

    More importantly, it is about the reasonableness and proportionality of sanctions. Players do not get banned sine die for two minor yellow cards in a football match, yet people are facing something that would almost bring them to the end of their life. Equally, it is about the circumstances in which these sanctions are being imposed. There has to be some understanding of the individual we are dealing with and the circumstances in which they are living, as opposed to having draconian measures.

    It is well over 40 years since I graduated in law. I did welfare law as part of my law degree. At that stage, it was national insurance and supplementary benefit. Even then, when supplementary benefit was brought in in the Beveridge plan, it was set at a level that was the very minimum upon which someone could live. But our circumstances have changed since then. Not simply have we gone through mass unemployment; we have moved towards a gig economy and people in vulnerable occupations. We have moved away from the national insurance supplementary benefit scheme to universal credit. That has caused challenges and difficulties, but it seems that the moral compass has been lost. We have lost any element of compassion. Looking back, sanctions did apply to national insurance and supplementary benefit, but they were proportional, reasonable and certainly not to the extent that we have today.

    Three issues follow from that. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and others, punishment is being exacted upon those who work in the Department for Work and Pensions. They are threatened with punishment, and potentially with dismissal, if they do not get their number of sanctions up. That is simply unacceptable. This should be not a target-driven system, but a welfare state and a welfare system. It should be about the individual and the circumstances, not any spurious targets.

    We know from PCS and other whistleblowers that many people worry that if they do not enforce a sanction against an individual, they will face consequences. That is simply unacceptable. That is not simply from the PCS; we know it from welfare rights officers. Any welfare rights officer in any constituency will tell a similar tale. It even goes beyond that. We see it in fiction on television and cinema screens. It is a few years now since “I, Daniel Blake” came out—an award-winning movie that highlighted the difficulties and, indeed, tragedy of the sanctions scheme. It is a few years past now, but the circumstances remain. I am fortunate to have been a friend of that film’s writer for over 40 years, and I know that although the movie was fictional, it was based on fact. As we would meet and discuss, he would tell me about the meetings he had had with people at food banks, trade union representatives and welfare representatives. He told me stories, such as that of the woman who had a miscarriage, who was unable to get to her appointment with the DWP and who was sanctioned, or the young father who rushed to the hospital to be at the birth of his child, whose sister phoned the DWP to say, “He cannot come; he’s gone to see the birth of his child. Surely that will be okay.” No, it wasn’t, because when he next turned up, he found himself sanctioned.

    Those stories are not fiction: they are fact, and that is simply unacceptable. That is why it was not Paul Laverty but Ken Loach, who filmed the movie, who described our benefits system as “institutionalised cruelty”. The sanctions system is institutionalised cruelty, because we are taking the most vulnerable people—those who have the least income at a time of inclement weather, rising costs and enforced austerity, when work can be hard to find as unemployment figures are going up—and treating them harshly.

    It is not even as if it works. As other Members have mentioned, many of these people, if not most of them, have significant challenges, whether with mental health, educational difficulties, or—as shown in “I, Daniel Blake”—simply being able to access IT. In some instances, it can be the inability to access the equipment; in other instances, it can be a generational gap. I am challenged by IT systems, and people of my age who do not have access to those systems will be even more challenged. Sanctions do not help those people; what they require is more of a mentoring scheme.

    In summary, what we have to do and what the Minister must try to move towards is a system that by all means contains sanctions for those who fundamentally breach it, because that is unacceptable to those who pay their taxes and abide by the law, but where an individual is challenged, they have to be supported. Where an individual has reasonable, proportionate circumstances and an explanation, they most certainly should not be punished, and we most certainly should not see people being treated harshly as a result of a tick-box system to get the figures up. That is fundamentally wrong. It would not apply in most private businesses, and it certainly should not apply in a welfare state.

  • Beth Winter – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    Beth Winter – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by Beth Winter, the Labour MP for Cynon Valley, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.

    I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this important debate and on all the amazing work he does on this issue. As we know, inflation is at a 40-year high, energy bills are rising, real wages have fallen for the last 13 months, the number of people living in deep poverty is increasing and we are living through a cost of living emergency. It is in that context that sanctions are being applied to people in receipt of social security benefits.

    I have to start by reiterating the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). Sanctions are by their nature punitive, but continuing to operate them in such an aggressive manner in the worst cost of living crisis for a generation is actively harmful to the individuals who suffer, as my hon. Friend illustrated with horrific examples of people who have lost their lives as a result, but also to the wider economy and society. The scale of sanctions is totally unacceptable. They simply drive people into far greater debt and greater poverty, and punish people for things that are no fault of their own. People are in these situations because they may have lost their job or fallen on difficult times, and they are being punished for that. We should be supporting people in those circumstances.

    It is little wonder that the Public Law Project has said that sanctions “do not work” and has referred to them as “a presumption of guilt”, or that the Welfare Conditionality project has found:

    “Benefit sanctions do little to enhance people’s motivation to prepare for, seek, or enter paid work. They routinely trigger profoundly negative personal, financial, health and behavioural outcomes”.

    Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that sanctions do not work, the DWP is using them more and more. Statistics from November show that more than 320,000 adverse sanctions decisions were made across the UK this year alone, up to July. The number of people subject to sanctions continues to grow. In August 2022, 115,000 people—6.5% of all recipients—were subject to them in one month. We can compare that with August 2021, when the figure was only 18,000. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I would be particularly interested to hear the Minister explain why there has been such an astronomical increase in the use of sanctions. Why that has happened is just beyond me.

    The latest sanctions were worth, on average, £262 a month. That is nearly a third of the average UC payment. This is a full-frontal attack on universal credit recipients that must end.

    In my opinion, the Government should end completely the sanctions regime, especially during this inflation and cost of living crisis, just as they did during the covid pandemic. They need to conduct a review of the impact on poverty, ill health and employment. They can also look to improve the application of easements and allow decision makers to cancel sanctions—the list goes on of measures that the Government could and should introduce.

    I want to take this opportunity to say something about the deductions that are taken from almost 2.1 million claimants to repay debts. I recently submitted a written question on the issue to the DWP, which responded that 3,300 universal credit recipients in my constituency of Cynon Valley are subject to deductions for debts and overpayments. That is 52% of all recipients. A majority of those who use universal credit as a lifeline are having some taken away. People cannot afford those deductions. I back campaigners’ calls to convert them into grants or to write off the debts completely, which would be a much better solution. The Government must seriously consider those proposals, and at least adopt the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendation that debt repayments be paused.

    From the contributions today and the overwhelming evidence, it is clear that the sanctions system is ineffectual and extremely cruel to the most vulnerable people in our society, whom we should be supporting and helping. Prior to entering this place, I worked for many years as an advice worker, and I worked with lots of people who were suffering from homelessness. I also volunteered in a food bank. The number of people who had to access the service because their benefits had been stopped was unbelievable. They were people who were in work or who were suffering mental health problems. There were families. A gentleman who came in with his three children had been unable to attend his benefits appointment because one of his children was ill; he was sanctioned for two weeks. In the 21st century, that is absolutely appalling. It beggars belief.

    The use of decision makers who are not known to the individuals being sanctioned is completely inhumane. I worked with a lot of older people who are digitally excluded and unable to navigate the system. People are penalised because they are excluded from a system that is, quite frankly, designed to prevent people from accessing an entitlement. That is what benefits are: they are an entitlement that people should be allowed to access.

    The sanctions system completely fails to achieve its stated objective, which is to encourage compliance and people’s return to employment. It has the opposite effect, and I talk from experience: it alienates, unfairly punishes and stigmatises people. All of that has a serious detrimental impact on people’s health and wellbeing. Instead of punishing people, the Government should overhaul the social security system, so that it provides people with an adequate payment that prevents poverty—rather than pushing people into poverty, as the current system does—encourages and enables people to find employment, and treats people with dignity. The current system does not treat people with dignity.

    Other measures might include the reinstatement of the £20 UC uplift and its extension to those on legacy benefits, the ending of the five-week waiting period and the removal of the two-child limit. Lots of changes could and should be made to the social security benefit system. With 40% of UC claimants in work, it is clear that wages in this country are insufficient, which is why I and many others here support the campaign for a £15 minimum wage.

    The crisis that the Government’s approach is causing is the reason for the increasing calls in Wales, for instance from the Bevan Foundation, for a Welsh benefits system. The Welsh Affairs Committee has said that the Government should assess the merits of devolving the administration of benefits to Wales, as happened in Scotland. In yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on pensions, I said that £1.7 billion of pension credit is unclaimed. The figure for unclaimed means-tested benefits is £15 billion. Some 7 million people in this country are not claiming what they are entitled to. I really wish the Government would spend more time ensuring that those people who are not claiming get what they are entitled to than punishing people in dire straits.

    There are many problems with the Government’s approach, but very little interest in a solution. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why there has been such a significant increase in sanctions and what evidence the Government have that they work. All the evidence that I have seen is to the contrary. Can the Minister respond on the suspension of punitive sanctions, debt and overpayment deductions, the role of the decision maker and the question of devolution in Wales? Let me finish by congratulating again the hon. Member for Glasgow South West on securing this debate. I fear that we will revisit this issue if things do not change.

  • Grahame Morris – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    Grahame Morris – 2022 Speech on Benefit Sanctions

    The speech made by Grahame Morris, the Labour MP for Easington, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on the 13 December 2022.

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I will endeavour to heed your advice about the timings. I thank my good and honourable friend and comrade, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for securing this important debate. I also congratulate him on his assiduous work in questioning Ministers, both in the Chamber and with the use of written questions. I also thank him for sharing the figures that he has discovered—the constituency-based figures—with other Members.

    In my remarks, I will first go over the purpose of universal credit and look at the level of sanctions. I also want to stress the human cost of sanctions. Universal credit is the last line of the social security safety net. It is set at a level no one should fall below. By any standard, it is set at a very low level. Let us just remind ourselves that for a single person under 25 the standard allowance—this is a monthly allowance not a weekly allowance—is £265.31. There are additional premiums for disability and so on, but the standard allowance is intended to cover council tax, utilities, food, clothing and other bills. Sometimes the housing element does not meet the full rent, so there is a top-up element for rent as well.

    For a couple over 25, the standard allowance is £525.27. In a functioning economy, housing, heat and food should not be scarce commodities. They should be readily available, whether an individual is retired, employed —many people are in low-paid, insecure employment—or in receipt of social security. Universal credit should alleviate poverty. Instead, sanctions are entrenching hardship and destitution. It is a terrible shame that the Government do not put the same effort into hunting down tax evasion and apply sanctions against the very wealthy individuals who evade payment of many millions of pounds in the tax that they owe.

    The level of sanctions is excessive. I thank again the hon. Member for Glasgow South West for highlighting the figures and sharing them. He mentioned that throughout the whole country the figures are as follows: in June 2020, there was over £34 million in sanctions; in July 2022, a little under £35 million; and in August 2022, £36,397,000—£36.5 million basically. If we total those together, sanctions at that level is almost half a billion pounds a year.

    Where is the one-nation, caring and compassionate Conservative party, if the Government force people into poverty and destitution, particularly those who are vulnerable? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quoted the figures for his constituency, but the figures are worse for my constituency of Easington. Deductions amount to roughly £75,000 a month from people who are in the direst hardship before the deductions for advance payments, for bedroom tax, or overpayments caused by administrative error or neglect.

    The hon. Member for Glasgow South West made a great point about digital exclusion and the number of people who simply cannot access the system because they do not have even a basic smartphone or the wi-fi connectivity to be able to do that. The consequence is rising poverty, growing queues at food banks, and now the need for the voluntary and community sector to create warm spaces to accommodate people and at least give them a hot drink and some shelter, particularly in this terrible cold weather that we are experiencing. Sanctions harm society and can have tragic consequences.

    I want to quote a BBC article dated 10 May 2021. It is a moving piece entitled “Deaths of people on benefits prompt inquiry call”. The article states:

    “Cases where people claiming benefits died or came to serious harm have led to more than 150 government reviews since 2012”.

    It highlights cases, including this one:

    “Ms Day, 27, who had been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder, had previously said her benefit claim left her feeling ‘inhuman’, her sister told the BBC.”

    After Ms Day’s death, the inquest concluded that the authorities made 28 errors in managing her case.

    In another case:

    “Errol Graham starved to death in 2018 while seriously mentally ill. His benefits were stopped when he failed to attend a work capability assessment and did not respond to calls, letters or home visits from the DWP. When his body was found, Mr Graham weighed four-and-a-half stone (30kg) and his family said he had used pliers to pull out his teeth.”

    We need to end the sanctions culture. It harms society, leaves the poorest in destitution and places the sick, the ill and the disabled in extreme circumstances in which they can often see no way out. The Minister can act by introducing a moratorium on sanctions. Sanctions should not be used routinely; they should instead be reserved as a last resort for the most extreme circumstances and cases. This is a matter of life and death. The Minister has an immense responsibility to safeguard those in need and the vulnerable. I urge him not to fail them as his predecessors have failed them, and to end the sanctions culture we have today.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on London Fire Brigade Being Moved Into Special Measures

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on London Fire Brigade Being Moved Into Special Measures

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 14 December 2022.

    I welcome the additional scrutiny and support the HMICFRS will provide to the deep-rooted cultural reform that has already started within the London Fire Brigade. I have long been clear that wide-ranging changes are urgently needed within the Brigade and that’s why I appointed Andy Roe as a reforming Commissioner to transform the Brigade inside and out and fully supported the Commissioner in commissioning the recent Cultural Review.

    The Commissioner and I both agree that all of the review’s recommendations and findings must be acted upon with urgency and conviction to rebuild public trust and the confidence of LFB staff and firefighters who have been failed for far too long.

    Huge changes to policies, procedures and equipment mean that the Brigade are now better prepared, organised and equipped to fight fires and keep all Londoners safe. A new independent service has now been set up to investigate complaints and London Fire Brigade will be the first service in the country to issue body-worn cameras to their crews, both to protect them but also to ensure public safety and reassurance, as part of a landmark pilot.

    These changes were necessary and will help improve standards and rebuild public confidence but I have always been clear that despite the progress, there is still much more to do. That’s why I will continue to support and hold the Fire Commissioner to account on delivering a Brigade that is trusted to serve and protect London, fit for the challenges of modern firefighting, and a workplace where Londoners of all backgrounds can thrive.