John McDonnell
MP for Hayes and Harlington · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is not a laughing matter—I am sorry for interrupting the flow of the discussion. It would be useful if the review looked at NATS’s long-term investment plans, particularly since its partial privatisation in 2001, which I opposed. I thank the Minister for meeting Unite this morning and thanking the workers, who have worked so hard.”
“On a number of occasions, I have raised the case of Lee Cheuk-yan, who many Labour Members will remember was the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong. He was detained during the democracy movement five years ago.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. NATS used to be in my constituency and then moved down to Swanwick. Of course, with Heathrow in my constituency, I receive—as I mentioned yesterday—a large amount of correspondence from a whole range of other MPs’ constituents, who think I am responsible for Heathrow airport.”
“I fully agree, and let me also say that wheelchair compensation is significant in this legislation. Most of us have dealt with cases like that. Going back to accountability in the process, a number of different organisations have provided us with notes on the legislation.”
“I apologise to my right hon. Friend; I should have checked this before the debate. The proposed new section 61G refers to priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State, which include a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out those priorities and objectives for the CAA.”
“At the moment, when people in my constituency are faced with these problems, they do not know where to go; it is as simple as that. Finally, the debate that we will have on Heathrow expansion and the new policy statement will be interesting, given that we do not know what the flight paths will be. If I was a constituent of my hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,997 lines we hold for John McDonnell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 160.
“The intervention on an intervention was definitely worth it. I will briefly raise another issue. One of the messages the clinicians wanted me to get across was exactly that: children have not been spared. Some of the research they have done, for example, indicates that covid doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in children as well. A recent study in America indicates that up to 20% of children at the moment are endangered and experiencing long covid symptoms. One of the other issues that came out of my discussions with the clinicians is that repeat infections are cumulative and dangerous, resulting in long covid that increases the risk of cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal and endocrine diseases. These clinicians are trying to get across how challenging the situation is.”
“Have a good one, Mr Speaker! The big issues to consider in this decision-making process will be the economic and environmental impacts. As the Government develop their thinking, will they consider and report to the House on another issue? Ithaca is one of the companies seeking to benefit from the large profits from the Rosebank development. It is owned by Delek, an Israeli oil conglomerate that has been listed recently by the UN for human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not believe that our Government would want to be associated with a company like that, and many pension funds are now divesting from that company, too. Can we have a report as the Government’s thinking develops on that crucial matter?”
“For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.” In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.”
“Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess. New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally.”
“Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there.”
“Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result. With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.”
“There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced. What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built.”
“You will know, Mr Speaker, that I have raised on several occasions in the House the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British-Egyptian human rights campaigner who has been imprisoned in Egypt for many years, and whose mother Laila went on a 100-day hunger strike. I thank the Prime Minister for fulfilling his promise to contact President Sisi of Egypt to secure Alaa’s release, but unfortunately, months on, Alaa remains in prison and this week Laila started her hunger strike again. Could I appeal to the Prime Minister to again speak directly to President Sisi to secure Alaa’s release?”
“The record of Netanyahu is that he has not heeded the statements made here or elsewhere, and I think the general view of the House is that there is a need for urgent action with regard to the desperate situation. Can we come back to the proposal that has been raised before by a number of us? If the Israelis are not willing to provide aid, others must do so. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we cannot take unilateral action, but this Government are good at calling for coalitions of the willing, so can we now put on the table a call for a coalition of the willing to set a deadline for the Israeli Government to deliver aid, and failing that we will start taking action by delivering aid by air, sea or whatever other method we can use?”
“I declare an interest as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. It is the anniversary of the murder by Israeli forces of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned journalist. Alongside her on that day was another journalist, Ali Samoudi, who was shot in the back. Two weeks ago, the Israeli forces arrested him and dragged him from his home, and Ali is now in detention somewhere, but we do not know where. Under international law, journalists are afforded special protection. Will the Minister immediately take up with the Israeli Government the question of where Ali Samoudi is and seek to do everything we can do to secure his release? He works for CNN, Reuters and Al Jazeera, and all he was doing was simply reporting on some of the war crimes that are taking place.”
“I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. I thank the Minister for the working relationship he has established with the union since coming into office, but could I ask him to liaise with the POA and urgently bring forward a report, prison by prison, about staffing levels and the timescale set aside for training staff, particularly to deal with the violent prisoners they are dealing with at the moment?”
“When serious legislation that could be contentious is being introduced, it is critically important that Ministers use language carefully. The Prime Minister referred to “an island of strangers”, reflecting the language of Enoch Powell. Does the Home Secretary realise how shockingly divisive that could be?”
“I wonder whether we could, through your good offices, impress upon the Government the fact that a response is required, and that it would best be given to the House.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. By the way, it would be useful to know from the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) how she pulled that one off. Last week, a number of hon. Members wrote to the Foreign Secretary after published research demonstrated, despite the Government’s assurances that arms sales to Israel had ended, that there has been a large-scale export of arms to Israel since those assurances were given. We asked the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to come to the House and make a statement. A statement has not been made, and I do not believe that an indication has been given to Mr Speaker that a statement will be made. We have not even received a response to the letter.”
“As I think the Minister can understand, there has been an expression of frustration at each of our all-party group’s meetings, because the structures are not implementing what the Government themselves want: the wise investment of resources and a more effective link-up with private sector pharmaceutical companies. We need some form of breakthrough event to enable us to move forward more effectively and more rapidly. Finally, I pay tribute to the various charities, including the Brain Tumour Charity, that are doing such hard work to raise funds and to give hope and comfort to people as their families go through this appalling experience. I thank them for all the support they have given us in the all-party group.”
“If there is to be a rationing process, it is better to be open and transparent about how rational the implementation is across England, Scotland and Wales. At the moment, there seems to be a bit of a postcode lottery in people’s ability to access these individual drugs, in particular when they are being developed for trial. We need a fresh initiative. I am sure the Government will commit to doing all they can in the coming period, and I hope that more resources will be applied, but unless we get the structures right, the application of those resources will be as frustrating as it is at the moment.”
“One of the suggestions I put to the Minister is that there needs to be a conference—it might be a one-off—where we bring everybody together again. The Government have put forward their proposals in the cancer strategy, and they have looked at the pathways, but a new element of zest is needed. We need to bring the pharmaceutical companies in and have an honest discussion about whether the existing structures are working well enough and whether there needs to be some rationalisation, to ensure that we are more effective and speedy in our actions and to investigate what the pharmaceutical companies need in order for research to be undertaken speedily, more effectively and with greater patient access. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, there is an issue with the funding of individual drugs.”
“The problem is that there are so many types of brain tumour, and it is difficult to see a company investing a large amount of money when there might be only a limited impact on a small group of patients. However, that is where Government come in. The resourcing of the experimentation, research and trials is so important, and that falls to the state. My hon. Friend has made the point in previous debates and in meetings of our all-party group that, even where the money is there to enable that to happen, it is not getting out there. We have gone through the different organisational structures to investigate what the issue is. I think it is a lack of leadership, and that needs to come from Government.”
“Friend made is that the system just is not working at the moment. It is producing an element of frustration and a lack of confidence in the NHS, which is disappointing. That is because the treatments are not being brought forward quickly enough, the access to the trials is tortuous to say the least, and there does not seem to be any mechanism by which we are co-ordinating better with the pharmaceutical industry and trying to set priorities for it. My hon. Friend mentioned why the industry concentrates on other cancers—because that is where the big profits are—but there has to be some way in which we can incentivise these companies to focus on this range of conditions.”
“I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, and we met one family who were desperate to get on to a trial of a particular drug, but the drug was being delayed through the mechanisms we have at the moment. I completely understand the processes we have to go through to ensure that a drug is safe and does not cause harm, but there is frustration at how long that takes and the fact that some people who have no other option are not being allowed to access those trials quickly or effectively enough. On that one occasion, we met the drug company, and as an all-party group, I think we did have a beneficial effect in bringing forward the trials and enabling some of the sufferers to access those trials, which we hope will be successful. One of the most important points my hon.”
“This year, I sang in Punjabi, and they had to lock the doors. The previous year, I danced to bhangra music—I tried to purchase the video off them because it was going viral at one point. That raised a large amount of money and shows the commitment in the wider community, as people become more aware of the situation and of the impact of brain tumours, particularly among children. People realise that something must be done. I want to make a particular point to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has said. There is a desperate need to look at the mechanisms by which new drugs are brought forward and trialled and people can access those trials.”
“I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for the way she has pursued this issue seriously and with such emotion. I knew her sister Margaret. She was a Labour party organiser and I knew her for 45 years. She terrified me, to be honest, over the years, but I always admired her commitment to the Labour party and the wider community. I think Margaret would be proud of her sister for the speech she made today and the work that she has done. I congratulate the Milan group, a women’s group in my constituency—they call themselves a ladies group. It is a group of Asian ladies who came together when one lost their daughter to a brain tumour. They come together every year, including last weekend, when they raised £2,500 for the Brain Tumour Charity. Each year, they get me to do something.”
“I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal in my constituency, who lost their daughter and have been doing fundraising. One of the most effective things they have been doing is ensuring that at local community events there is a stall that provides information about how to access a diagnosis. That has proved to be incredibly effective, as a range of other professionals have picked up on the information. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Atwal for their creativity.”
“When such changes occurred in the last round of austerity under the previous Government, people lost their lives. I do not like to do this to my own Government within their first year—they are so new—but I will be voting against the proposals. I hope that the Government will think again and withdraw them.”
“For the last few years, I have chaired a group of unpaid carers—the Minister has met them—who struggle to manage on carer’s allowance as it is. Under the Government’s proposals, 150,000 unpaid carers will lose the carer’s allowance. Already, 1.2 million carers live in poverty and 400,000 live in deep poverty. I fear the impact of the proposals on carers who have devoted their lives to looking after family members. A few months ago, I hosted a drop-in with Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, whose team have been researching the risk of suicide and suicide incidence among carers. Most MPs who attended were shocked by the scale of risk and the scale of incidence at the moment. I am absolutely terrified that the proposals will push more carers over the edge and that people will suffer.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to creatives throughout the debate. As I have said in earlier debates, I am the secretary of the parliamentary group of the National Union of Journalists, and we have expressed our concern about journalists and photographers, whom we also represent. The union position is very straightforward, espousing adherence to copyright but also to openness and transparency, and regulation of the mechanisms that will be used in future for scraping in particular. This is now having an impact on the quality of journalism, on which our democracy rests.”
“The issue the right hon. Gentleman is addressing is the immediacy of the threat within the journalistic sector at the moment. I missed the opening remarks by both Front Benchers because I was in the debate on the personal independence payment, but I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister was as eloquent as ever in advocating for the Government amendments; he is a very persuasive fellow. However, those amendments are merely about publishing a report in 12 months’ time—that is all. There will be parts of the journalistic sector that will no longer exist in 12 months’ time as a result of this legislation.”
“The memorandum of understanding is significant, and the message to the Minister about the recognition of the state of Palestine is equally significant. Member after Member has raised the famine in Gaza and its implications. We are seeing pictures of children who, as a result of malnutrition, are not surviving the hospital treatment they are getting. Historically, our country has been faced with this situation before, and we have overridden blockades. We have not allowed other countries to veto humanitarian aid. Are we not near that stage now? We cannot allow Israel to veto the delivery of aid. Should we not be looking with our partners at the logistics we have on the ground in that region to deliver the aid by sea and by air, whatever statements Israel makes?”
“This legislation rides roughshod over that long 1,000-year tradition. On privacy, whatever assurances we are given about the Bill’s compliance with human rights legislation— I have my doubts—it introduces, for the first time that I have seen in this country on an issue like this, mass surveillance.”
“When I wrote to the then Chancellor and to various Ministers, I received responses that had almost been dictated by the banks, saying that all the security measures had been put in place and that it was being administered effectively; we then discovered that it was, I think, £13 billion, although we recovered an element of that, so I am very wary about ensuring that public expenditure avoids the levels of fraud that we saw during that time. I am concerned about this Bill, which takes huge steps constitutionally, legally and on civil liberties. Others have made similar points. Our tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty—that has been the legal principle from Magna Carta onwards. The investigation powers are usually triggered by some element of suspicion.”
“Sometimes in these debates, we are trying to influence those on the Front Bench; to be honest, on this legislation, I have given up on that. I just want to get on the record, for my constituents, why I am concerned about this piece of legislation and why I support amendment 11. We have all prefaced our speeches by saying that we all want to tackle fraud. To follow on from the speech by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), in that process during covid, I think I was the first MP to raise the issue of the massive fraud that was going on with bank loans.”
“That is why I think this is a poor piece of legislation, and it will not be long before we are back here again to amend it, to restore some elements of civil liberties and protection for the poorest in our society.”
“And they are the ones who get sanctioned time and again, not because of any deliberate act, but often because they have mental health issues, or because something in their life, prevents them from attending that interview, or from applying for enough jobs in time. What will happen to them? They will be dragged into this system again. At the moment, they come to us—this is largely the case in my constituency—because most of the advice agencies have been closed down thanks to the cuts that have taken place, and they come to us in desperation. This Bill will make people even more desperate. It will deter people who qualify for benefits from claiming, and it will cause real hardship and impose severe penalties on those who least deserve it.”
“They are often older people, but there are others as well. Why do they not claim? In my experience, it is because of the stigma attached to claiming benefits. With this Bill, we are adding a bit more stigma, which will act as a disincentive to those who genuinely qualify for benefits and should be coming forward. It is that terror of making an error, that fear of risking being penalised for claiming a benefit they may not be entitled to—or of being paid too much. There is a real fear among my constituents about such miscarriages. Most of the constituents who come to our constituency surgeries have tried everything else by the time they get to us. They are the ones with the most chaotic lives.”
“We seem to have learned nothing from where we have made those errors. As I also raised on Second Reading, what is happening here is discriminatory. We are choosing a class of people—largely working-class people—who are claiming benefits, and we are targeting them. If there is a class of people we should be targeting who have a record of fraud and of claiming things that they should not, well, here we are. As the expenses scandal demonstrated, if there is one group of people we should be examining more closely, it is Members of Parliament. I want to talk very briefly about the impact of these measures from a constituency point of view. As an MP for 28 years and a councillor for over 12 years—40 years in total—I have met lots of people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled.”
“Our responsibility is to deal with the matter here. We also do not know how the “independent persons”, as they are described in the legislation, are to be appointed or how they are going to operate. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised the question of how their reports and recommendations will then be implemented. There is also the question of whom they will be accountable to and whether there is any accountability for those independent persons to this House. Time and again, when we have introduced legislation like this in the past that has short-circuited the traditional protective constitutional and legal mechanisms, it has led to debacles and miscarriages. I warn Ministers that that is exactly what we are facing here. Reference has been made to issues with regard to the use of computers, models and algorithms.”
“Following the right hon. Gentleman’s track record on issues like this—he has been proved right on virtually every occasion—I agree. In addition to the mass surveillance, the extent of the information that can be sought and interpreted from the Bill is extremely wide-ranging and open to challenge. What has annoyed me is that we are now introducing legislation in advance of what we were promised by way of codes of conduct and operation. We have no idea how this will work out in practice without those codes. Members may recall that the codes set out detail on how the system would operate at every level, with the information seeking, investigatory powers and so on. We do not have those, but we are being told not to worry, because the other place will receive them—well, that is not our responsibility as MPs.”
“Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who secured the debate, eloquently and comprehensively set out that that law is actually not unclear or disputed—it exists. The simple rule is that if someone wants to use someone else’s material, they must secure a licence with the rights holder. As a result, through that collective bargaining mechanism, we can protect everybody in future.”
“I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and have worked with Equity through the Performance Alliance and the Musicians’ Union for the last 25 years. I just want to get on the record the union perspective. As other Members have said, often in these debates the workers have been portrayed as luddites. It is quite the reverse; it is the workers who are creating these mechanisms. As hon. Members have said, all that the trade unionists are asking for is for their rights to be protected—protected through collective bargaining, which is the mechanism that we have used for over a century for negotiations between the trade unions and the trade associations. The request is straightforward: that copyright law should be respected. The hon.”
“That is the role of Government; the Government should not be taking us backwards rather than moving us forwards. I hope that the Minister leaves this debate with a full understanding of the tenor not just of what is needed, but of the cross-party strength of feeling. We need the Government to intervene positively to protect people’s rights and to protect that gold mine of creativity in this country.”
“Members have made it clear that nobody has discovered an effective opt-out mechanism that is applicable at this time—maybe some time in the future, but certainly not in the immediate future. The other issue is that the performers’ rights framework needs to be updated now. That demand has come from virtually every trade union, and other bodies representing individual artists as well. That is the debate we should be having—about how we could update and improve that framework, and about enforcing existing GDPR. One of the briefings that I saw said that this country is a gold mine of creativity and creative content. Well, at the moment, there is a gold rush on. It is a wild west out there, and the people benefiting are the big US tech companies. I do not want to push the analogy too far, but we need a sheriff.”
“That is exactly right. One of the key issues raised by the hon. Member for Bury North is that lack of transparency, because people are not even aware that their stuff is being used until a later date, and then they are outraged. The role of Government is to ensure that they can enforce that the AI being developed is compliant with the regulations. In addition to that, as has been mentioned, the Information Commissioner has made very clear the role of GDPR and how it applies in such cases, and that the issue is about ensuring, from Government, that there is proper enforcement. The simple message from this debate to the Minister is to just drop the Government’s proposed text and data exception. Several hon.”
“I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of Unite, and I am very proud of that; I think four generations of my family have been members. Not to rise to the provocations of Conservative Members, but there is a difference between having three military advisers and having troops on the streets. The latter would be seen as an act of provocation and a worsening of the situation. May I suggest that the Minister or the Secretary of State convenes the meetings between the council and the union to secure progress in the negotiations?”
“Before the hon. Member moves on, and to save people from going to the website, can I mention Brunel University? I have been on the picket lines with UCU, and there are large numbers of job cuts being threatened. It is a successful university that is doing everything asked of it by Government to provide skills training for the future. What is extremely disappointing to me is the refusal of management to even engage with the union to look at transitional arrangements and future planning. There must be a way in which we can work through this, after years of austerity. The Government must work with universities’ management and the unions to see the way through.”
“We are not even sure what the numbers are, so we would all be extremely grateful to the Minister if he could pay attention to that issue. Finally, the principle of the all-party group’s work has been to seek a process in Government for co-production of the strategy, in a timetabled way and with funding allocated over the life of this Government. That way, by the time we get to the next election, we can be confident that the strategy has been implemented based on the expertise of those who really know what needs to be done—the sufferers themselves and the families who support them. That process of co-production is as important even as the scale of funding that we need to achieve. Otherwise we will be wasting resources, rather than investing them effectively on the basis of what will work.”
“I ask the Minister to look at the consultation on disability benefits and support for people with long-term sickness conditions that is taking place now. Again, it is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure that sufferers do not lose their benefits as a result of this review. The Government are undertaking consultations, but not on the criteria for the personal independence payment, the points-awarded system. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that and liaise with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, so that sufferers do not lose the benefits support that they have. Also, some families who are receiving carer’s allowance as a result of the award of PIP to an eating disorder sufferer may be at risk of losing that benefit, but they should not be.”
“We had school nurses come forward with a package that was incredibly effective in raising awareness on the issues, including online safety. We need community level support services, specialist units and family support. One of the issues raised in the briefings we have circulated from the all-party parliamentary group is the lack of family support. As has been exemplified, when a family member becomes a sufferer of these conditions, the family feel completely isolated and lack support in some of the most challenging situations any family can face. During the discussions around this strategy, there is a need to go into the detail of family support, including the professional advice and community support they can access, to ensure that they do not become isolated. There is also the issue of financial support.”
“I do not know how to follow that speech. I just want to thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). I can understand how tough it was. I also put on record that we all agree that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is a star, who has been working on this throughout, and so are Hope Virgo and Dr Agnes Ayton and all the others behind the scenes. Just to give some hope to hon. Members, we now have a Minister in place with a record of understanding these issues, and with some of the sharpest elbows in Government to get the resources, so I am confident that there will be a move forward. He is aware of the strategy. It is straightforward. There must be input into training not only for health workers, but for teaching staff and education psychologists.”
“I raised with the Minister the reform of disability benefits, which will have implications for sufferers and their carers. My understanding is that the universal credit health element is to be denied to those under the age of 22. In addition, it will be halved and then frozen, and the PIP criteria are changing. As I said, I simply want the Minister to check with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions what the implications are for sufferers of these conditions and their carers. We need specific action to protect them in the consultation; otherwise, people who are already suffering financially as a result of such conditions—particularly when the whole family supports the sufferer—will be further harmed.”
“I think I still have the largest number of asylum seekers in hotels in the country, with more than 2,000, and I have experience of Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere. It would be really helpful if the new contractual arrangements involved full consultation with some of the organisations working at the frontline of supporting asylum seekers, so that some of the lessons can be learned about past performance to improve future performance.”