Dame Meg Hillier
MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have huge respect for the Minister, but she has said that she will not take any interventions. She is a very good Minister, and I trust that she will answer in detail the points that have been raised in the House today; having discussions with her and the Government after the debate is too late…”
“My hon. Friend talks about who makes our laws, and she has talked in articles that she has written about the primacy of this place. If the Bill goes forward, is she willing to accept amendments?”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for that response, which demonstrates the complications of these schemes. I asked the National Audit Office to look into this, and yesterday the Public Accounts Committee published its report on compensation schemes, suggesting that a central body be established.”
“I am pleased by my right hon. Friend’s answer, but she is in a unique position across Government to ensure that we are protecting not only women, but those who are blind or have visual impairments, who really value this technology.”
“I welcome the Chancellor’s clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of the Budget; it is certainly an important step he has taken. On the issue of certainty, the National Wealth Fund is a critical investor in crowding in private investment around the UK. I noted that he has changed the remit.”
“Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), it is important that we talk here and that we have diplomacy, but what practical actions are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that there is a review of physical defence and security, so that we send a clear message to t…”
The complete record
Every one of 4,811 lines we hold for Dame Meg Hillier, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 97.
“My hon. Friend talks about who makes our laws, and she has talked in articles that she has written about the primacy of this place. If the Bill goes forward, is she willing to accept amendments? She has brought forward a Bill that is exactly the same as the previous Bill, despite its sponsor in the House of Lords himself saying that there needed to be 77 amendments to make it safer.”
“Is the hon. Lady not, like me, puzzled that the promoter brought back the same Bill, despite there being many amendments that the sponsor in the Lords agreed needed to be made and the promoter today acknowledged needed to be included?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have huge respect for the Minister, but she has said that she will not take any interventions. She is a very good Minister, and I trust that she will answer in detail the points that have been raised in the House today; having discussions with her and the Government after the debate is too late for today’s vote. I know she is a thorough and assiduous Minister and I am sure she will do her best to do that, but it is important to make that point to the House.”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for that response, which demonstrates the complications of these schemes. I asked the National Audit Office to look into this, and yesterday the Public Accounts Committee published its report on compensation schemes, suggesting that a central body be established. I know that she and her Department will respond formally to that in due course, but could she give the House a hint about whether she thinks there is room for improvement? The Government set up different compensation schemes on different systems that can be very complicated, and we do not seem to be learning from better practice.”
“I am pleased by my right hon. Friend’s answer, but she is in a unique position across Government to ensure that we are protecting not only women, but those who are blind or have visual impairments, who really value this technology. If regulation is being talked about across Government, will she ensure that it is about the person misusing it rather than the adaptive technology itself, which can be of so much use to so many people?”
“I welcome the Chancellor’s clampdown on speculation and leaks ahead of the Budget; it is certainly an important step he has taken. On the issue of certainty, the National Wealth Fund is a critical investor in crowding in private investment around the UK. I noted that he has changed the remit. How will he balance his desire to see change with ensuring that it is strong and stable and that there is certainty for businesses seeking to invest with the support of the National Wealth Fund?”
“Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), it is important that we talk here and that we have diplomacy, but what practical actions are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that there is a review of physical defence and security, so that we send a clear message to the Argentinians that they can go no further—that the words are too much, but they should go no further?”
“13. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of housing revenue account debt on the ability of local authorities to maintain and increase council housing stock.”
“My right hon. Friend is aware of the challenges with housing in my constituency and across London. Every home built that provides a foundation for people’s lives saves the state money as well, given the temporary accommodation costs that are saved when people are able to get that foundation in life. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to talk to Treasury colleagues about how to look at those maths, to make sure we understand that tackling issues with debt can save money in the long term? I recognise that it might be a long haul, but will he promise to start?”
“Devolution is a good thing, but what is she going to put in place to ensure that those mayors and the devolved authorities can report back about how well they are spending taxpayers’ money, and if they are not spending it well, what will the consequences be?”
“I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and her commitment that the British Business Bank’s new fund will not be interfered with politically, because when the Treasury Committee looked at the National Wealth Fund, we were very clear that it needed to be able to get on and do its job crowding in that private investment. There should not be a chop-and-change approach to the policy; it should not be a delivery vehicle for different Government policies, as Governments can change. I have spent my career backing devolution, but there is a challenge here, is there not? The Chief Secretary has to ensure that the money that taxpayers give to Government to spend is spent well, but there is a gap, with our regionally elected mayors, in the oversight and scrutiny of that public spending.”
“Some Sure Start places in London were created before Sure Start was formally created, and having seen my children go through it, I saw its direct benefits. Sure Start was structured around hubs, and there was a desire to go out and visit people at home—indeed, many of us visit people in their homes. As the right hon. Gentleman says, Ministers will interpret this measure, but there is something about a home visit by professionals that reveals a great deal about the challenges that children face, whether before going to nursery or afterwards, and whether by a health visitor or a midwife. From his research in developing the Bill, does he have anything to say about the importance of that?”
“My hon. Friend and I have had similar experiences of the system. For me, one of the important things was that it did not stigmatise going to seek advice, whether it be about child psychology or speech and language. Does my hon. Friend agree that when Ministers start working on how to flesh out this Bill and put it into practice, it is really key that it must be universal?”
“My hon. Friend referred to the former Member for Nottingham North, Graham Allen. He not only had the idea, but implemented it through the Nottingham strategic partnership, which he chaired from 2005. He turned it into something that started pre-pregnancy, in order to tackle the high number of teenage pregnancies. He lived this, and set a real blueprint for what Government can do—I look to the Minister—when they take forward the Bill, which we hope will pass today.”
“I and my fellow Committee Chairs look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee very soon so that we can drill into his agenda in more detail. I was pleased by the announcements over the summer on housing, which in London is really holding people back. One of the many challenges is releasing public land that was previously used for education or health, for example, for building on. Will he undertake to put a rocket under the release of that land where appropriate to best deliver housing?”
“Further to the Foreign Secretary’s responses to questions about the defence, security and resilience bank and the multilateral defence mechanism, can she flesh out how the UK envisages those initiatives working more closely together, in practical terms and maybe in financial terms?”
“I thank the Minister for his work and look forward to welcoming him to Graeae theatre in my constituency, which is an exemplar of how to support disabled people to work and fully participate. In the discussions he has had so far, is he looking at adaptive technology? Money can be one of the barriers to living a full life, but there are now new technologies that can sometimes be in place of some of the funding that has been available for people to buy things themselves. Is he having any discussions with the steering group on that issue?”
“I am proud to represent Shoreditch, which has a lot of tech start-ups, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s report. Following on from the question from, and answer to, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), will she expand on how we can get that money into tech businesses, so that they can grow and develop? A lot of my businesses find that the machinery of Whitehall is slow and clunky, and they can get better investment quicker from other jurisdictions and sources. What does my hon. Friend hope that the Government can do, in relation to setting up the new fund that her Committee proposes? Does she have any faith that the Government will be able to move at the pace needed for those tech companies to grow, and to stay in the UK?”
“I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for laying out her remarks so clearly—much better than I could have done—and to the Father of the House. Emotion rightly comes into this debate. We are not just legislators, and we need to bring that sense of feeling. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) is right to highlight not just that the settlements are happening, but that the aggression, backed up by the Israeli Government, exacerbates the issue. Does she have any hope that, realistically, any election in Israel will change that, and does she agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that we need to act internationally to resolve this? I do not have faith that an election in Israel will stop this happening.”
“Finally, postal delays are a real issue in my constituency and others, particularly in London—I see that Members from around the country are nodding—so could there be more use of email to, at the very least, get out the statement, even if there is eventually paperwork to be signed? Most organisations now manage to do paperwork via email, so could Capita not sort that out?”
“This is a real mess, and I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that, but there are a few practical things that could be delivered. There is no MP hotline, and there is a long and complicated process for MPs and their staff to go through the other hotline. Could that perhaps be resolved, because it would make things a lot quicker? When emails are sent, the same AI-generated generic responses are sent back repeatedly, which means that no progress is made. The to-ing and fro-ing is just wasting time. There could be clearer guidance about what MPs can pass on to our constituents who have challenges.”
“I was interested in the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He said that, notwithstanding the regulations and all the work to set out the rules and scope of the compensation scheme, there is an opportunity for people who are affected or infected to go all the way to the chief executive or chair of IBCA—to all the bodies involved or even the Minister, if necessary. Could the Minister set out in detail the parameters of that? That could ride roughshod over a carefully developed scheme, even if not everything is perfect. How far could it go? There might be a risk that many people feel that they have not been fairly treated and then take it all the way up to the Minister, which would put this or a future Minister in an invidious position.”
“I wonder whether he, or others in the Cabinet Office, are thinking about how lessons can be learned from IBCA’s approach in this case that could be applied to other areas of Government and other compensation schemes, so that we do not lose the learnings from this for the next time—because, inevitably, sadly, things will go wrong with Government.”
“There have been occasions, in various roles I have had in this place, when we have looked at documents. The Government have a document destruction plan. At the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, a year after death one’s records will be destroyed; that has been an issue when there have been problems with pensions. Although the Minister is focused today on the regulations, what he has said is very interesting in the context of document retention and other schemes that require proof in order to pay out. With immigration, for instance, someone might need to prove that they had been in the country, and they might need to access doctors or school records.”
“I have had the opportunity to look over defence equipment plans for the last 13 years, and have repeatedly seen—a profiling from over a decade—huge optimism about savings and efficiencies, which is how plans get across the line of affordability. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of the plan, through the Public Accounts Committee, the Defence Committee and, hopefully next week—if Ministers from both the Treasury and Ministry of Defence agree to attend—the Treasury Committee, at a meeting including Defence Committee colleagues?”
“Many young people and children on disability living allowance end up going on to PIP very readily. While it is of course important that people get support, what work is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that those young people are not written off, but given every opportunity to work?”
“My right hon. Friend is right to highlight those challenges. Throughout the 10-year equipment plan, there was always a £14 billion deficit that never seemed to go away. It is great that we are seeing more investment, but could the Chancellor update the House on what conversations she or her Ministers are having with Governments in Europe and with Canada about the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism for funding and procuring defence across NATO?”
“The Secretary of State is aware of the challenges caused by the drop in population in my constituency, which is resulting in the closure of some schools. What work is being done to ensure that if there is a need to create housing on those sites for future pupils, the Department can move more quickly to change the designation of education sites for other uses?”
“I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister reiterated support for Ukraine, but for that we need the defence investment plan. Could he explain what conversations the Prime Minister had at the G7 about defence investment, particularly through the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism? Both could be important to Britain. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what is happening?”
“We all know how important housing is, and I applaud the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new homes, but we have seen Enfield, where we now have a Conservative-led council propped up by the Greens, decide to axe completely the Government’s proposal for 21,000 new homes. Does the Leader of the House not think it would be good to have a debate in Government time on how we can reprofile that spending with the Mayor of London, to ensure that constituencies such as Hackney South and Shoreditch and neighbouring east London constituencies can get the housing we need? Even if it is not a new town in one big space, we could consider a revision of the Government policy to create new towns with a cluster of smaller developments in seats such as mine.”
“My hon. Friend may be aware of the work that the National Audit Office has done, looking at different compensation schemes. Does he think that there are lessons that this and any future Government need to take on board when proposing a compensation scheme? Some matters are dealt with by compensation, and some through bureaucratic procedures of the civil service; other resolutions come about as a result of a campaign, like the one he led with others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Are there lessons from this that should be applied more widely, and has he had conversations with the Government about taking that approach?”
“There are some discussions going on about how there should be oversight of Government’s acceptance of recommendations from public inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) talked about the statutory option, but there are also discussions about whether Select Committees should have a role in that space. That would bring the matter right to the heart of Parliament, in full view of the public. Sunlight shone on things means they might be followed through. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have any thoughts on that process?”
“The challenge was that this Bill was launched very fast in the House of Commons, without pre-legislative scrutiny, whereas other private Members’ Bills have often been knocked around for a long while and discussed in detail, so that their flaws were recognised, adjusted and amended at different times. This Bill came very fast and there was a lot that was missing that had never been debated in the Commons, because of the way that the system works—not just for private Members’ Bills but generally. We need to legislate better in this country— I think we would all agree with that—and the Lords were doing their job.”
“That is just the way that the House of Lords works, and it is really important not to criticise the Lords for following their normal procedures. There was not anything special or different in their approach to the Bill.”
“A lot of people voted on Second Reading for change and discussion in Committee, but few changes were made—most of the amendments were made by the sponsor. Bills relating to hunting and equal marriage were supported by Government, whereas assisted dying is not explicitly supported by this Labour Government. If they were to support it, I think there would be a major crisis in the party, as that policy was not in the manifesto and was not discussed in any of our normal policy procedures. It is important to correct what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) kept saying in his opening speech about there being no votes or opportunities to divide in the Lords. That is because Committee stage in the Lords is not an amending stage and there is no opportunity to vote—the votes happen at a later time.”
“It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Before I go on to make some other comments, I want to nail a few myths that have been brought up. There has been some talk of how Government Bill Committees that Members have sat on have been shorter than the private Member’s Bill on assisted dying. That is because Government Bills are timetabled. Guillotines are put in because the usual channels get in touch to limit the debate, and there is always an in-built Government majority on those Committees. It is not unusual for more time to be spent on a Bill that does not have those constraints. It is also worth noting that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee had a majority built in by the sponsor, so there was very little chance of any change in that.”
“I need to make progress, but I will give way in a moment. Most of the Lords speeches on the Bill were very short. Filibustering, which many hon. Members in this Chamber will have done or seen, is when Members stand up to speak for prolonged periods. Sometimes the Whips ask Members to do so, perhaps because someone is off site and they need to prolong a debate—those things happen. Yet most of the speeches in the Lords were around five minutes or less. The pregnancy amendment, which has been discussed, was often ridiculed, but when the Bill went to the Lords, there had been no discussion in the House of Commons about what would happen if someone who was pregnant wanted an assisted death. In some jurisdictions, such a person must have a termination before they can have an assisted death, while in others, they must have given birth.”
“Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, there was no real pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and little time for MPs to engage with it. The Bill Committee sat for a long time but it had an in-built majority. It is important that we discuss how we legislate, but let us not demonise the House of Lords. We in the Commons need to do a better job. That is not just about standing up and reading out pre-prepared speeches; it is also engaging and having discussions. In my 21 years in this House, I have had the privilege of engaging on issues with people with whom I disagree. Sometimes we find points of agreement, but we challenge each other in the House on such issues. We are not doing that well enough in this place. We need the Lords to do it.”
“There is a role for a revising Chamber, because, frankly, we do not do that well in the Commons. We often have very little scrutiny, alongside in-built Government majorities. In recent times, perhaps because of the nature of a large majority, business has run short in the Chamber. We are unable to make changes in secondary legislation because of the in-built Government majority on delegated legislation Committees. The assisted dying Bill had an awful lot of Henry VIII powers: 42 delegated powers for any future Government—who may be mad, bad or dangerous, and of any existing party or one yet to be thought of—to make these decisions. That is what we would be giving away if the Bill were to pass. That is why we have a revising Chamber to discuss such matters. As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon.”
“No. The point is that the Lords had a discussion about what to do in those circumstances, for which there was no policy. Such things are important to nail down and resolve, yet that issue is still not resolved. There is public support in principle for the Bill but that is not carte blanche. There is massive concern about the detail, but I do not have time to go into all of it. We know that most of the royal colleges are concerned about the Bill. It is important to remember that we are legislators: we make law that must be deliverable and unambiguous. The Commons is not simply a debating Chamber. Members debate, and this Chamber is a debating Chamber—we are not voting on law in this debate—but it is important that we legislate for the real world.”
“I have very little time left and I need to make a couple of other points. [Interruption.] Well, we have had strict instructions on time. I will, as I said at the beginning of my speech, take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central in a moment. The Bill that was introduced did not benefit from Government drafting, from policy development or from the whole weight of the machinery of Government and Whitehall, which includes interaction between Departments, such as on how money is spent.”
“The whole point of the process is that we have a revising Chamber. If the Bill were to be reintroduced under the Parliament Act, we would be in dangerous territory. We are mischaracterising the Lords. We need to be careful about that, and very careful about using a parliamentary mechanism such as the Parliament Act to set a precedent for any mad, bad or dangerous Government to take things that were never in their manifesto and ram them through Parliament via a private Member’s Bill. That may appeal to many people in this Chamber in relation to the assisted dying Bill, but we must also look at the long-term precedent. In considering how we legislate in this place, let us not demonise the Lords for doing their job in the current system.”
“I very much welcome this report by Alan Milburn, who highlights the need to work cross-sectorally to support young people. I wonder if the Minister could take away the thought that he could test and learn by doing a pilot with Choice in Hackney, which works with disabled people, and with my local Mind, which has very good employment training schemes to help people into work. Their success rate is phenomenally higher than the DWP success rates, and we would be very keen to work with the Government on this matter.”
“I wonder whether the Minister could clarify this specific point. If a single-sex organisation wanted to open its doors to trans people, would that be to all trans people, or could a women’s organisation, for example, open its doors or membership to trans women exclusively?”
“It never fails to amaze me that the shadow Chancellor tries to lecture this Government on inflation when many of us were here in September 2022 when the Conservative party crashed the economy. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s interventions. I am particularly interested in the cut in VAT in the leisure sector, and I hope that she will commission a full study from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury about the impact, because it could be a great way to fuel, promote and keep our stretched leisure and hospitality sector going. Will she commit to that?”
“What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to joining the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank to make sure that we are really pushing the investment that we need to see in defence in the current world situation?”
“I really welcome my right hon. Friend’s work in this area, given that so many young people are unemployed, but what is he doing to evaluate how many apprentices get proper, long-term, full-time jobs as a result? Clearly, that is the end goal that we all want to see.”
“Q5. Poor housing and temporary accommodation is having a devastating impact on families, their life chances, our schools and communities. Will the Prime Minister put the full weight of Government behind ensuring that new developments in London are delivering for Londoners, not private investors and landlords, including on the Billingsgate market site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum)?”
“Some of my borough’s schools are among the top 1% in the country, but we have a forecast drop of 6.1% for reception and 8.3% for year 7 over the next three years. The picture is poor across London, but Hackney is one of the worst-affected boroughs. Given the patchwork of local schools, with academies, free schools, which fall under the Secretary of State’s remit, and voluntary aided and maintained schools, how will we ensure that the school communities and families work together across our capital and across the country?”
“You know that you are making your mark when Ministers name your station before you do—or one does, I should say. I am delighted that it has got to the next stage. I invite the Minister or the Secretary of State to visit Dalston Kingsland to see the impact of not having a lift at this station when, along the rest of the Mildmay line, stations are accessible. It is a key station for the world-famous Ridley Road market in my constituency. Will a visit be possible?”