House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am pleased to update the House that, after removing the threshold last month and allowing direct applications for any number of roles, we saw an increase of 3,000 employer applications throughout February, which is a jump of 75%. There will continue to be an important role for gateways as we progress to our ambition of 250,000 kickstart jobs, which we are well on the way to achieving, with almost 150,000 roles approved, more than 4,000 young people having started their roles and another 30,000 vacancies live right now.
Richard Fuller
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Given the large number of small and medium-sized enterprises across the county, jobcentres in Bedfordshire, including the one in Biggleswade in my constituency, are raring to go to enable small businesses to take advantage of this change in Government policy. Can she advise me what she is doing to ensure that those small businesses are aware of the scheme and its benefits?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend should be aware that we have account managers working in all parts of the country to take up this scheme. In particular, we continue to work with a wide range of organisations closely connected to SMEs, including chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, to get the message out there and make it straightforward to apply. We should recognise that, due to eligibility criteria, not all direct applications may be successful, and the support of a gateway is likely to be beneficial. We are also enabling applications through the gateway plus model, which will particularly help sole traders, and we will continue to advertise that.
Peter Gibson [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. I welcome the removal of the 30-person threshold, which will help even the smallest firm in my constituency. Since the launch of the kickstart scheme, our phenomenal Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen has been facilitating SMEs to access it, and he has helped 350 young people sign up. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending Ben for the fantastic work he is doing to help young people in Darlington gain experience and employment?
Dr Coffey
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend that Ben Houchen is doing a fantastic job in his role as Mayor. In case people had not realised, as well as getting Treasury North in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Darlington—a project that I am sure my hon. Friend achieved with the Mayor—Ben Houchen is leading the way on making that difference to young people’s lives, which is really important. I have also seen it work well with Andy Street and, to be fair to other Mayors, I am confident that people like Steve Rotheram and others will continue to do so.
Andrew Jones
In Harrogate and Knaresborough, we have seen great organisations such as St Michael’s Hospice with North Yorkshire Hospice Care offer 30 roles in support services, from retail to catering, care and communications. Not everywhere is fortunate enough to have such a progressive organisation, so the policy change is welcome. I was originally going to ask my right hon. Friend about the increase that she has seen from this policy change, but she has answered that. Will she keep the House informed, so that Members of Parliament can help to promote this fantastic opportunity and see more people get the opportunities that kickstart can provide?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out that removing the threshold has enabled a number of institutions to apply directly to kickstart. The example he highlights was already under way, but it just shows some of the fantastic opportunities that this scheme can offer young people. By creating so many of these roles, with the wider variety of roles that we are seeing, we are reducing the risk of long-term unemployment for hundreds of thousands of young people, and we will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
Kickstart is only for young people claiming universal credit. Many disabled young people claim employment and support allowance instead. Will the Secretary of State consider extending kickstart to include disabled young people who are not eligible for it at the moment?
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that young people with disabilities can move on to universal credit, so there may be an incentive to do that, but this issue is under consideration. My hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has discussed this with me and the Minister for Employment, and we are considering it further.
Mr Speaker
I remind Members to put their masks back on if they can. I am sure that those who have not done so have a certificate, because they would not want to put the rest of us at risk.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We have made a series of improvements to the personal independence payment claimant experience following research and two independent reviews. Building on that, the forthcoming Green Paper on health and disability support is being influenced by the views of disabled people and representatives from disability organisations.
Cat Smith
I wrote to the Minister last week telling him about the work of the Morecambe Bay Poverty Truth Commission, which has empowered people who have experienced the social security system to speak truth to power and try to improve the system. Will he meet the PIP claimants in my constituency who want to tell him about their experiences?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for that question, and I would be delighted to do that. I know that she has been very proactive on a number of issues in my area over the years, and I would be delighted to have a meeting with her and her organisation to listen to their experiences.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Following the coroner’s damning prevention of future deaths report in the case of Philippa Day, who took an overdose and, sadly, passed away because of DWP and Capita failings, have the Government implemented the recommendations, and if not, when will they? As well as responding to the coroner, will the Minister keep this House updated, and do the Government not accept that, when so many people have to go through an inhumane assessment process, the system is flawed and it is time for a radical change?
Justin Tomlinson
While I cannot comment on individual cases, when we tackle any of these serious issues, we put a great amount of thought and care into doing so. That is why the Department set up the serious case panel, personally led by the Secretary of State, to look at the themes and to make sure, if there are any lessons that need to be learned, they are shared with the key decision makers quickly, and that we improve our support and our services for some of the most vulnerable people in society. It is a real priority for our Department.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
As part of our estates expansion and renewal programme, the DWP by summer will have rapidly increased the number of Jobcentre Plus sites, placing them in new locations where they are needed. This will ensure that we bolster our face-to-face support in a covid-safe environment for both our claimants and our additional 13,500 new work coaches. As Members will appreciate, negotiations on some sites are ongoing, and I will update the House further when appropriate to do so. Meanwhile, MPs with a new site opening in their constituency are being notified.
Rob Butler [V]
Sadly, the pandemic has meant that many people in my constituency of Aylesbury have lost their job and, for the first time in decades, find themselves looking for work. How can my hon. Friend ensure that the Jobcentre Plus estate and its staff are equipped to help jobseekers who are in their 50s and 60s, who have paid their taxes and their national insurance for their whole working lives and now need bespoke personal assistance to find a new job and continue to contribute to the economy?
Mims Davies
We are supporting people of all ages back into work in Aylesbury and beyond. The DWP has a network of 50-plus champions throughout our JCPs. These champions work with work coaches and stakeholders to focus help and support for the over-50s, highlighting the benefits of employing them and sharing best practice. Our plan for jobs provides new funding to ensure that everyone, including those 50 and over, get tailored support to build on their skills and move into work.
Selaine Saxby [V]
Many businesses in remote rural communities, as in North Devon, are a long way from a Jobcentre Plus, and therefore would not usually use the jobcentre to advertise vacancies, particularly given poor public transport. What assurances can my hon. Friend give that rural businesses will be actively engaged by Jobcentre Plus, as it is especially important that young people looking for work in such rural communities are able to access local jobs through the kickstart scheme?
Mims Davies
Our JCPs are engaged with local recovery plans, including in rural areas. They are essential to help people of all ages into work and help all communities to thrive. In North Devon, the DWP is funding the youth flow partnership with local businesses and the chambers of commerce to help young people engage with opportunities such as kickstart. I was delighted to join my hon. Friend at her recent event with local businesses in her community to discuss kickstart and how we can tailor those opportunities for every area.
Matt Vickers
In January, the DWP confirmed the lease had been signed on a new Jobcentre Plus in Stockton South. Can the Minister confirm how many work coaches are due to work at the new site and how they will be helping my constituents in Stockton South?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend will now be aware that we have signed a lease on a new jobcentre in Stockton’s Dunedin House. I am pleased to report that work is now under way on opening to support claimants, which is due by the end of this month. A total of 49 new work coaches have been recruited in my hon. Friend’s constituency to help local jobseekers, and 20 will be based in the new site, along with some of our more experienced work coaches and leadership, to ensure the sharing of best practice and helping people in Stockton to progress.
Tim Loughton [V]
May I pay tribute to Worthing jobcentre, which has been very proactive in dealing with new benefit claimants and will have a lot of extra work, alas, with people who find themselves out of a job because of the pandemic.
Work coaches offer important support to a diverse range of claimants, but self-employed claimants can really benefit from the wisdom of someone who has direct experience of setting up their own business, so what specialist support will be available to UC claimants looking to boost their incomes through self-employment in the future?
Mims Davies
DWP work coaches can refer claimants interested in moving into self-employment to our new enterprise allowance programme, and to other sources of local business advice and support as appropriate. The new enterprise allowance offers participants the important opportunity to develop that business, as my hon. Friend points out, to make that business plan and receive more than a year’s support from a business mentor to make a success of it, in Worthing and beyond.
Antony Higginbotham
May I start by thanking all the staff at Burnley jobcentre, who are doing an amazing job in supporting people day and night?
As a result of the pandemic, unemployment is increasing in Burnley, impacting on those who find themselves out of work for the first time as well as young people looking to enter the world of work. What steps is the Department taking to support people in Burnley who find themselves in that situation?
Mims Davies
Alongside our plan for jobs, Burnley JCP recently held a virtual careers event for jobseekers, which I know my hon. Friend was brilliantly a part of. In Cumbria and Lancashire we have recruited almost 400 extra work coaches to assist customers, with a further 90 due to join in the next three months. We have also set up a DWP youth hub in partnership with Burnley Borough Council and Calico, and we are working with local employers to provide local kickstart placements such as with the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and Stanley Black and Decker.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We stopped regular assessments for people with severe conditions for work capability assessment and personal independence payment claimants with the highest level of needs which will not improve. We are continuing to remove pensioners on PIP on to ongoing awards at their award review, and the upcoming health and disability Green Paper will consult on further improvements to the assessment process.
Karl MᶜCartney
As we move towards the end of this difficult period, what lessons can be taken forward regarding the simplification of the benefit process for those in my constituency and across the nation with confirmed severe conditions?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One lesson we can take from these unprecedented times is to look to extend the principle of the severe conditions criteria and, where possible, use clear evidence to remove unnecessary assessments. We will explore that further, working with disabled people and health and disability charities, in the upcoming health and disability Green Paper.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department is committed to delivering an improved benefit system for claimants nearing the end of their lives, and we are working across government to bring forward changes.
Christina Rees [V]
Will the Minister urgently correct the anomaly whereby someone with a severe condition eligible for an ongoing award under the normal rules has a light-touch review after 10 years, but someone with a terminal illness such as motor neurone disease has to reapply after three years under the special rules or risk having their benefits stopped?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point, referring to someone who qualifies under special rules for terminal illness normally having an award for three years. The point was raised during the review of changing the rules around special rules; we are considering it and I welcome its having been raised.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Since the start of the pandemic, our priority as a Government has been to protect lives and people’s livelihoods. That is why we are continuing to give our support, extending the temporary £20 a week increase in universal credit for a further six months, taking it well beyond the end of this national lockdown. I should point out to the House that total welfare spending in Great Britain for 2020-21 now stands at an estimated £238 billion, 11.4% of GDP. Alongside that, the Budget confirmed the ongoing measures that we will be taking as part of our plan for jobs, including the expected starting of the restart programme, particularly focused on long-term unemployed, before the summer recess.
Marion Fellows [V]
The Budget was a kick in the teeth for people claiming legacy benefits, who have been unjustly denied the extra £20 per week in support since last March. The SNP has pressed UK Ministers on this countless times. Will the Secretary of State now answer a simple yes or no question? Yes or no—did she ask the Chancellor to extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits in the Budget?
Dr Coffey
Discussions between Ministers are normally confidential, but the answer is no, the reason being that we have a process that was put in place as a temporary measure relating to covid. The rationale for that was set out last year. I encourage the hon. Lady to genuinely consider encouraging people who are still on legacy benefits to go to independent benefits calculators to see whether they would automatically be better off under universal credit. Universal credit has been a huge success during the last 12 months—if not the years before that, but it has particularly shown its worth—and I genuinely encourage people to really consider whether they would be financially better off moving benefits now rather than waiting, potentially, to be managed-migrated in the next few years.
Peter Grant [V]
I think the Minister has possibly given the game away there by linking an explanation of her refusal to ask for an uplift to legacy benefits to an attempt to pressurise my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) into pushing her constituents to move from a useless system of legacy benefits to an equally useless system of universal credit.
Does the Secretary of State not accept that the fact that universal credit had to be increased by £20 a week as soon as lockdown was imposed is a clear indication that the underlying rate of payment of universal credit is not adequate for people to live on? I defy anyone on the Conservative Benches to live on universal credit for more than a few weeks, never mind two to three years. Will the Secretary of State now accept that the underlying rate of universal credit is utterly inadequate and that the £20 uplift, as a minimum, should be made permanent with immediate effect?
Dr Coffey
No, I do not accept that, and I want to be clear. It has been explained to the House in multiple ways over the past year why that decision, which the Chancellor announced last year, was taken at the time. Let us be straight about this: universal credit is working and will continue to work. It worries me how many Members of Parliament criticise universal credit when it is clearly working. It has done what it was designed to do. For those people who have had their hours reduced, universal credit has kicked in and the payments have gone up. Frankly, unlike in the last recession, in 2008, when the Labour party did nothing to help with some of the financial instability that people were going through, I am very proud of what we have undertaken by investing over £7 billion extra in the welfare system in this last year.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Pensioners who have worked hard their whole lives have seen their life savings disappear after becoming the victims of some truly dreadful scams, which have happened both online and on the telephone. The Government say they want to protect the interests of savers. However, there is mounting evidence that they are failing to act sufficiently to curb some appalling abuses, and this was not mentioned in the Budget. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House just how these dreadful scams have happened, and will she commit to taking further action? She is taking action against scams on the phone; will she now also commit to taking action against scams online?
Dr Coffey
We have just passed the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and aspects of scams were considered in that legislative process, so the suggestion that somehow we are not doing things to tackle scams is far from the case. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the Budget of the ongoing support that we continue for pensioners in honouring our triple lock.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
In extending the £20 uplift of universal credit, albeit for only six months, the British Government are clearly conceding that without the £20 uplift, universal credit is insufficient to meet people’s needs. I want to take the Secretary of State back to a point she made to my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). She said that claimants should move from the legacy system to universal credit. Will she stand up at the Dispatch Box and make it crystal clear that for some people that will mean being worse off, particularly when the £20 universal credit uplift is taken away? Can she clarify why she thinks that disabled people, for example, have lower bills as a result of the pandemic and why they were not worthy of the £20 uplift?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Member should be clear about what I did say. I encouraged people who were on legacy benefits to get an independent assessment, which is available through a number of organisations and online calculators, rather than wait to be managed across to universal credit. It is really important that MPs encourage their constituents to consider the ways they could be financially better off, rather than waiting for the Government to go through quite an arduous process during the next few years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We do not collect information about individuals’ rent accounts. For universal credit claimants with rent arrears, alternative payment arrangements and support with budgeting are available. In 2020-21, we are projected to spend almost £30 billion on housing benefit and the housing element of universal credit to support people with their housing costs.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The evidence produced by the National Residential Landlords Association and a lot of housing charities demonstrates that rent arrears are growing and growing very fast such that they will probably never be repaid. What action will my hon. Friend take to ensure that rent arrears are eliminated and further assistance is provided to people who genuinely cannot afford to pay their rent?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a strong advocate on these issues. As I say, managed payment to a landlord is available where universal credit claimants are unable to manage monthly payments and are at risk of financial harm. That can be requested by the tenant, landlord or work coach. Our relatively new online tool makes it easier for landlords to request a managed payment to landlords. UC also enables a landlord to request recovery of rent when a UC claimant is in arrears or once a tenancy reaches two months’ rent arrears. I agree to some extent with my hon. Friend. Rent arrears concern me too and we continue to monitor the situation very closely.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
Of the 1.3 million universal credit households who are claiming housing support for their properties in the private rented sector—that is, the people who are most at risk of homelessness as a consequence of rent arrears—in more than 700,000 cases, so more than half, there is a shortfall between the rent being charged and the help available. That number has grown by a quarter of a million since the start of the pandemic. With housing support being cut again in the Budget, will the Minister answer this one question? Will that number have gone up or fallen during the remainder of 2021?
Will Quince
We increased the local housing allowance rates in April 2020. We invested nearly £1 billion in LHA, lifting rates to the 30th percentile, giving an average increase of £600 more housing support per year than would otherwise have been received. For 2021-22, all LHA rates will be maintained at the increased level, ensuring that claimants continue to benefit from the increase. For those who require additional support, £140 million of discretionary housing payments are available next year.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The latest official statistics from the Office for National Statistics show the UK employment rate is at 75%. The package of support put in place by this Government, including the furlough scheme, has protected many jobs during the pandemic, but there have been difficult times for many. Meanwhile, in the Budget we announced that the furlough scheme has been extended to the end of September.
Daniel Zeichner [V]
Unemployment has not really been a major issue in Cambridgeshire for some years, but with over 8,000 people furloughed in the city of Cambridge and 300 jobs in Chatteris lost recently, there is now real fear. Cambridge City Council is appointing an economic recovery officer, but overall where is the plan for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough? Where is the strategy to secure quality jobs in future?
Mims Davies
I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that we work with the local recovery plans and that we have a plan for jobs in Cambridge and beyond, so there is positive news in his constituency. We are doing our sector-based work academy programmes in construction, warehousing and care. We are working with our new job finding support service with the Papworth Trust. We are engaging with local companies on kickstart—indeed, we are working with Addenbrooke’s and a bunch of other local companies—and we have recruited 50 new work coaches for the Cambridge jobcentre since March, with 18 more to come, making an extra 68 to help in his constituency with that local recovery plan.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
In June, the Prime Minister promised an opportunity guarantee for every young person. With 800,000 young people now not in education, employment or training, and only 4,000 kickstart placements to date, the Minister recently told the Work and Pensions Committee, “Watch this space”, and that details on the guarantee would land at the Budget. If the Prime Minister announced it and she supports it, did the Chancellor not get the memo or has the Treasury once again blocked support where it is needed? Can the Government not get their act together on a jobs promise such as the one Labour has proposed so that young people out of work or training at six months get the opportunities that they need?
Mims Davies
I know the hon. Lady is committed to opportunities for young people, as am I, and our plan for jobs has multiple interventions: the £2 billion kickstart scheme, job finding support, JETS—job entry targeted support—the 13,500 new work coaches, our £150 million boost to the flexible support fund, and restart coming this summer. I assure her that our focus on youth continues. In her constituency, 17 employers are engaging with kickstart for young people, with 77 vacancies available and 11 starts. Of course, 140,000 opportunities are coming through the system now and I continue to have this focus on youth employment, as she rightly points out that we should, and I will continue to work across Government to highlight that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We introduced legislation on 16 November so that monthly earnings can be reallocated to another assessment period, meaning that claimants affected by this issue will therefore have one salary payment taken into account in each assessment period. We have also produced guidance to help to ensure that claimants, staff and representatives are aware of different earning patterns and the impact on universal credit payment cycles.
Matt Western
People such as Mr B in my constituency and across the country have been forced to survive with little to no support, all because of an error through the Minister’s Department. Worse still, the pain has been prolonged by pursuing this through the courts. Will the Minister do the right thing and properly recompense those affected, such as Mr B, who suffered as a result of utilities being cut off and consequent costs as a result? And will the Minister meet me to discuss that specific case?
Will Quince
Of course, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that individual case, and I am very sorry to hear of those circumstances. However, the Court of Appeal judgment was very specific and was limited to double earnings for those paid calendar-monthly caused by a non-banking day salary shift. We have chosen to go further and include all the monthly-paid who are affected by double earnings, but the judgment did not require the Department to apply the new arrangements retrospectively.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Northern Ireland Executive will be running the job start scheme to support young people to progress. Similar to the kickstart scheme available in England, Scotland and Wales, it is also focused on helping young people most at risk of long-term unemployment. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the DWP has been in regular contact with colleagues in Northern Ireland to discuss the development of the job start scheme and share progress and insight on the kickstart scheme.
Ian Paisley [V]
The Minister is absolutely right that the kickstart scheme is a wonderful, innovative scheme, which should be applied to Northern Ireland, but it has not yet been rolled out there. I wonder whether the Minister will be honest with us and tell us whether that is the fault of the UK Government or the fault of the local Communities Minister, who has been allocated the money but has not yet applied it to the scheme? Will the hon. Lady encourage her to get on with applying this scheme to Northern Ireland in the next telephone call that she has with the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Northern Ireland received Barnett consequentials to support the job start scheme, and our officials have been talking. The money is not ring-fenced, and I am keen to see all young people access this type of scheme across the United Kingdom so that they can get the support they need to progress. Should anybody need further support to make this happen in Northern Ireland, our officials continue to stand ready to see it start.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We have injected over £7 billion into our welfare system, including increasing the universal credit standard allowance for a further six months until September, providing claimants with an additional £1,560-worth of support over 18 months. We are extending the minimum income floor relaxation to July 2021 for all self-employed UC claimants affected by the economic impact of covid-19, and we are increasing the number of work coaches by 13,500 this financial year.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
Universal credit has helped millions of people during covid, including thousands in Hastings and Rye. It is one of the positive news stories to come out of the pandemic, but it is clear that many universal credit claimants need ongoing support tailored to their specific circumstances. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to deliver a strengthened universal credit support service that meets the needs of claimants and ensures a consistent and streamlined service for claimants, not just in Hastings and Rye, but across the country?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is a strong advocate for her constituents in Hastings and Rye. Since April 2019, and throughout the covid pandemic, we have provided funding to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland to deliver Help to Claim, which gives specific and targeted support for those people needing additional support to successfully make a universal credit claim. I am pleased to say that we will be funding that support for a further 12 months.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government have delivered an unprecedented package of support during the pandemic. Where eligible, financial support for those self-isolating in line with Government guidance includes access to employment and support allowance, universal credit, statutory sick pay and the test and trace support payments scheme, depending on individual circumstances.
Catherine West
The scientists on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies have said that many people are still not self-isolating for financial reasons. What assessment has the Department made of the means-testing involved in the £500 payment? Does the Minister not agree that this should go, and that everybody should be eligible for that £500 payment, because we cannot allow a stop-start recovery as we come out of lockdown? Secondly, does he agree that statutory sick pay is pathetically low for those jobs that are eligible for it, and that there are far too many jobs where people do not even get basic statutory sick pay?
Justin Tomlinson
While the £500 test and trace scheme payment is rightly targeted at those most in need, we have also provided local authorities with £35 million for discretionary payments, and we will continue to provide local authorities with a further £20 million per month while this scheme carries on. The rate of statutory sick pay should not be looked at in isolation because, depending on eligibility, people may also be able to claim universal credit or new-style employment and support allowance, and the majority of employers pay more than the statutory minimum.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Throughout the pandemic we have ensured that disability benefits remain open and we are committed to ensuring that claimants receive a high-quality, consistent and efficient service. We continue to complete paper-based assessments where possible and are now carrying out telephone assessments alongside a trial for video assessments.
Zarah Sultana [V]
The outsourcing of assessments for employment and support allowance and personal independence payments to companies such as Capita has been a travesty. Constituents tell me how they have been signed off work by their GP, only for non-specialist Capita assessors to refuse their claims. When they appeal, they are forced to wait absurd lengths of time for the decision, which causes severe financial hardship. Coventry Law Centre, which deals with the majority of appeals in the city, has found that a staggering 90% of appeals are successful. This pandemic has shown that things can be done differently, so will the Minister take this opportunity to scrap these cruel assessments, kick out outsourcing companies such as Capita and bring in a framework that treats disabled people with dignity and respect.
Justin Tomlinson
We have increased, in real terms, by £3 billion the support provided to those with disabilities and health conditions, through disability benefits. All of our assessors have at least two years’ experience and extensive training. The Department monitors closely the quality—this is carried out independently—and 92% of claimants have found their experience either satisfactory or better.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
In April 2020, legacy benefits were increased by £600 million, and they will increase by a further £100 million as part of the Government’s annual uprating exercise. Support is also available for legacy claimants migrating across to universal credit. Since July 2020, a two-week run-on of housing benefit, income support and income-related employment and support allowance and income-based jobseeker’s allowance is paid to eligible claimants to provide additional support to move to UC.
Kate Osamor [V]
Nearly 2 million sick and disabled people claiming ESA have missed out on £1,000 this year, at a time when they are facing increased costs. The Minister will know that for many of them a transition on to UC would see them significantly worse off. Will he review the Chancellor’s decision to continue to discriminate against those disabled people on legacy benefits? Almost a year into the crisis, what possible justification is there for this two-tier system?
Will Quince
The temporary UC standard allowance uplift was introduced to support those facing the most financial disruption due to the pandemic. Legacy benefits were uprated by CPI—the consumer prices index—last year and will be uprated again by CPI as part of the annual uprating exercise. Claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for UC if they believe they will be better off. I encourage anybody to go on gov.uk and use one of the independent benefit calculators to check carefully their eligibility, because on applying for UC their entitlement to legacy benefit will cease.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Disabled people and their carers have access to the full range of social security benefits according to their circumstances. DWP Ministers and officials regularly discuss support for disabled people and carers with their counterparts across government, and recognise and value the vital contribution made by carers in supporting some of the most vulnerable in society.
Florence Eshalomi [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer. A recent survey of disabled people conducted by Inclusion London, a disability organisation based in my constituency, found that more than one in three disabled people had experienced a worsening financial situation during the lockdown, and recent research by Citizens Advice found that one in four disabled employees has faced redundancy since the pandemic started. We know that even before this pandemic, disabled people faced an employment gap of nearly 30% when compared with non-disabled workers. Will the Government commit to using the upcoming national disability strategy to bring forward comprehensive proposals to address the chronic employment insecurity that disabled people face in the wake of covid-19?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for raising a very important point about disability employment. The Government are very proud that we delivered record disability employment—it is up 1.4 million since 2014 alone. Even during these unprecedented challenging times, over the past 12 months 25,000 more disabled people are in work. But we recognise that there will be challenges going forward, which is why we have made changes to Access to Work so that people can get support working at home; we have increased our support through Disability Confident, sharing best practice and providing resources to employers to be able to make changes, often small ones, to take advantage of the huge talent pool available. This is a key area, and in both the forthcoming national strategy for disabled people and the health and disability Green Paper we will continue to look at ways in which we can support employers to offer more opportunities for disabled people of all ages.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Government are committed to providing support to help young people move into work and avoid the scarring effects of long-term unemployment as we recover from the pandemic. The £30 billion plan for jobs includes new youth hubs and specific interventions targeted at young people. Our DWP youth offer and the kickstart programme are designed to move young people towards meaningful and sustained employment opportunities.
Rushanara Ali [V]
Happy International Women’s Day, Mr Speaker.
Last year, youth unemployment went up by 420,000, reaching 600,000, and it is set to reach 1 million, yet the Government’s kickstart programme has got only 4,000 young people into work, despite employers providing placements. Will the Minister explain by what date her Department’s own target of 200,000 placements will be met?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: we are converting more than 140,000 job placements into starts and 30,000 jobs are currently being advertised. In her area, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has approval for more than 500 kickstart opportunities in a variety of sectors across the borough. A virtual youth hub is also operating in Tower Hamlets to support people and we hope it will move to face-to-face contact shortly. There are 119 new work coaches in Hoxton and a new temporary Jobcentre Plus is opening in Leman Street in Tower Hamlets in April. We take youth unemployment incredibly seriously. As we move into recovery, we will make sure that young people take up roles and move into work safely, to get those kickstart opportunities going.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Minister for Pensions updated the House last week through a written ministerial statement on category pensions and the comprehensive correction exercise that we are undertaking. I am concerned by some of the ongoing accusations and assertions being made about how we are addressing the issue. I am very grateful to Sir Steven Webb for bringing his concerns to our attention last year, but it will not be lost on the House that he was Minister for Pensions from 2010 to 2015—indeed, he was a shadow Minister beforehand—when the issue was neither noticed nor tackled, including when the comprehensive reform of the pension system was under way.
I recognise that Ministers should expect the administration of pensions, however complex, to be undertaken accurately. I commend the Minister for Pensions, who is putting his shoulder to the wheel to put right this historical error. The House should be conscious that, when we became aware of the problem, we undertook a comprehensive investigation into its extent, which showed that the issue dated back many years and at a larger scale. We are now undertaking detailed, thorough processes for individual assessments that will take some time, but we will contact people whose payments should have been updated and they will receive any arrears.
James Daly [V]
As covid-19 restrictions are hopefully relaxed over the coming months, will my right hon. Friend support the establishment of a bricks-and-mortar youth hub in Bury, to offer invaluable support to all young people in my local area and build on the current virtual provision?
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The economic forecasts that accompanied last week’s Budget painted a challenging picture for the Department for Work and Pensions over the next few years. Forecasts are not always correct but, if those are, we face a period of low growth and high unemployment. Based on what the Chancellor said about unemployment peaking at 6.5%, what would be the shortfall between the total number of young people out of work for more than six months and the maximum number of places available on the kickstart scheme?
Dr Coffey
I do not have that assessment to hand. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility significantly reduced its forecast in respect of the impact on unemployment, in recognition of the excellent provisions already made by the Government in the past few months and the ongoing measures set out in the Budget. We made a commitment to aim for a quarter of a million kickstart jobs to be in place by the end of this calendar year; we are well on track to doing that. We should recognise that kickstart is designed for those people who are furthest from the labour market. We will continue to use our excellent jobs army of work coaches, of whom we will have nearly 13,500 extra by the end this month, to help young people to get into work.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her reply. I appreciate that that might not be information that she has to hand. Perhaps she could write to me with the specific figure because matching the scale of the challenge is surely what we all want to see.
In the Budget, the Government also chose to align the end of furlough, the end of the self-employment support scheme and the end of the universal credit uplift, so they all now come to an end on 1 October. She knows that we believe that the uplift should stay in place until we can replace universal credit with a better, fairer system, which, by the way, would be one where people are not worse off if they move on to it from the legacy system. Given that we all expect the end of furlough to at least have some impact on unemployment, would it not have made sense even to this Government to keep the uplift in place to at least help absorb the end of the furlough scheme? As it stands, just when people will again really need it, out-of-work support will be reduced to the lowest level in 30 years.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question about why these have all been taken in parallel. I think that it is to give certainty and direction to the country and to employers, particularly when it comes to the operation of the furlough scheme. As I have said before, this is really the time for those employers to get their workers ready again to go back into work, ideally sooner than before the end of September. Thinking about the temporary £20 uplift that was applied to universal credit, I think it is also fair to say that that is not the only way that we have supported people on benefits in the last year. There are also things such as the increase in the local housing allowance rate, which is on a permanent setting in cash terms. Those are the sort of other measures that we have taken, including to help some people on low incomes with the cost of living.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the Child Maintenance Service in what we are trying to do to make sure that children have income coming ideally from both parents during their upbringing and to give them support. My noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scot is actively working on ways to potentially improve aspects of the running of the Child Maintenance Service, which I am sure is something that the whole House will want her to continue to do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Due to continued British Government inaction, more than 126,000 UK pensioners living in Canada have seen their state pension fall in real value year on year, with average payments as low as £46 a week. In November, the Government of Canada wrote to the British Government offering a reciprocal social security agreement. Has the UK responded to that letter and, if not, what message does the Secretary of State think it sends from global Britain of its attitude to UK pensioners who live in poverty overseas?
Dr Coffey
I have not yet responded to that letter—I understand that officials will be responding to the embassy —partly because, and some of the aspects of this have been raised, I wanted to explore some of what our policies—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene and I am trying to give him an answer. [Interruption.] I think I have probably said enough as he does not want to hear the answer.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We welcome the involvement of all employers of all sizes in all sectors in the kickstart scheme. We have made it even easier to bring in small employers and sole traders by developing an important kickstart gateway-plus model to accommodate their specific needs. They can apply through an approved gateway-plus organisation that can provide a suitable pay-as-you-earn scheme process for young people on placements with them. With regard to working on agriculture, I am engaged with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers on this and we are focused on supporting all sectors that need labour. There is a covid economy and growing jobs in some sectors and we are keen to support them.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for this question. While there were delays to the review because of covid, we are committed to the three themes that have come out of the review: raising awareness, improving consistency and changing the six-month rule. I thank all the health and disability organisations and charities that have helped to support that review. I am committed to going further to explore extending the principle of the severe conditions criteria to remove unnecessary assessments as well as changing the six-month rule.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We understand how vital this support is to families who have suffered the loss of a loved one. We intend to take forward a remedial order to remove the incompatibilities from the legislation governing widowed parents allowance and bereavement support payment by extending those benefits to unmarried cohabiting couples with children. The order will be laid before the House in due course.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the over 15,000 individuals and organisations who have already responded to the national strategy pre-consultation. However, this is only part of our extensive stakeholder engagement ahead of the forthcoming national strategy for disabled people. I have also written to all MPs of all parties to say that I am keen for them to host events either with me or with senior officials, depending on parliamentary business, to get more real lived experience, whether from individual disabled people, organisations or charities. I would be very happy if the hon. Member would agree to do one of those on behalf of her constituency.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to praise the work coaches at his Jobcentre Plus, who are exactly the people who will help prepare people to get those opportunities as and when they arise. I was particularly pleased with the initiative of freeports, recognising not only the one that will help people in his constituency but the one—freeport east—that will benefit people in mine.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. If the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) had not tried to intervene on me, perhaps I could have given the fuller answer that I intend to give now.
It is my intention that the Department will respond to the Canadian embassy on this matter. My hon. Friend will know that UK state pensions are payable worldwide and there is often a reciprocal arrangement in place where that is a legal requirement. For the last 70 years, it has not been the policy to initiate new agreements. However, I understand the points that he and other Members have made in their representations and we will continue to consider the matter carefully.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
Yes, I would be happy to host such a meeting. I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing track record of raising very important issues in this area.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Mims Davies
I echo my hon. Friend’s words and those of other Members who have praised the very hard work of all our DWP staff, especially of course in Bolton and Leigh. They include an additional new 41 work coaches recruited for jobcentres that serve my hon. Friend’s constituency. Thanks to their efforts, the kickstart scheme has so far seen the development of more than 300 roles across more than 50 employers in the Bolton and Prestwich area.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues that constituents face. I encourage him to engage directly with my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, who runs surgeries for MPs. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I encourage my hon. Friend to recognise that we are looking into this issue and that we will continue to try to make progress to ensure that children get the money to which they are entitled.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman used the word “her”. I do not know if he is trying to suggest that I am corrupt in any way. That is not something that I would normally associate with him. However, just to be clear, I am very pleased to be working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on what we are doing about the initial element of the community fund, following into the UK shared prosperity fund. In that, the DWP will be particularly involved in making assessments for programmes that are targeted at helping those who are furthest from the labour market and not necessarily on benefits today. We want to try to ensure that as many people as possible get the opportunity to work and to take that follow-up to help UK plc’s productivity.
Mr Speaker
I just want to reassure the Secretary of State that that was never the intention of the question.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
Although the vast majority of people who access their benefits get the outcome they were hoping for, we recognise the need for continuous improvements, which we make working hand in hand with health and disability charities, organisation users and frontline staff. In the forthcoming health and disability Green Paper, we will look at the specific themes of evidence, advocacy, assessment and the appeals system to ensure we continue to deliver those improvements.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
NHS Staff Pay
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the Department of Health and Social Care’s recommendations on NHS staff pay.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
This pandemic has asked so much of our health and care system. The whole country recognises how our NHS workforce have performed with distinction and gone the extra mile throughout this crisis, which has also had a huge impact on our economy. It has been and still is a tough time for businesses and all those who work in them.
As hon. Members will be aware, most of the public sector is having a pay freeze. However, even against that backdrop, we will continue to provide pay rises for NHS workers, as the Chancellor set out at the spending review. This follows a multi-year pay deal, which over a million NHS staff have benefited from and which includes a pay rise of over 12% for newly qualified nurses. We are also ramping up our investment in our NHS, with a £6.2 billion increase for 2021-22, as part of our £34 billion commitment by 2024-25, and £3 billion for supporting recovery and reducing waiting lists. As part of that, we are increasing the number of staff in the NHS, with over 6,500 more doctors, almost 10,600 more nurses, and over 18,700 more health support workers in the NHS now than a year ago. We are also on track to have 50,000 more nurses in the NHS by the end of the Parliament.
Last week, we submitted our evidence to the NHS pay review bodies, which are independent advisory bodies made up of industry experts. Their recommendations are based on an assessment of evidence from a range of stakeholders, including trade unions. They will report their recommendations in late spring, and we will carefully consider their recommendations when we receive them.
I can assure the House that we are committed to the NHS and to the amazing people who work in it. Just as they have been so vital throughout this pandemic, they will continue to be the very essence of our health service, together with all those who work in social care, as we come through this pandemic and build a health and care system for the future.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the Minister, but where is the Secretary of State? Why is the Secretary of State not here to defend a Budget that puts up tax for hard-working families and cuts pay for hard-working nurses? The Secretary of State has stood at that Dispatch Box repeatedly, waxing lyrical, describing NHS staff as heroes, saying they are the very best of us, and now he is cutting nurses’ pay.
Last summer, when asked by Andrew Marr if nurses deserved a real-terms pay rise, the Secretary of State replied:
“Well, of course I want to see people properly rewarded, absolutely.”
Yet now he is cutting nurses’ pay.
Last year, the Secretary of State brought to this House legislation to put into law the NHS long-term plan. He said from that Dispatch Box that his legislation represented
“certainty for the NHS about a minimum funding level over the next four years and certainty for the 1.4 million colleagues who work in our health service”.—[Official Report, 27 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 571.]
That long-term plan was based on a 2.1% pay increase for all NHS staff. Every Tory MP voted for it, the Minister voted for it, and now every Tory MP is cutting nurses’ pay.
The Minister talked about the Budget. Where is the Chancellor? Where are his glossy tweets? Where is his video? Why did he not mention in the Budget that he was cutting nurses’ pay? Why did he sneak it out the day before in the small print?
This is happening at a time when our NHS staff are more pressured than ever before. In the midst of the biggest health crisis for a century, when there are 100,000 shortages, what does the Minister think cutting the pay of NHS staff will do the vacancy rates? Perhaps she can tell us.
The Minister talked about the pay review body, but she did not guarantee that the Government will implement any real-terms pay rise that the pay review body recommends. Why is that? It is because Ministers have already made up their minds to cut, in real terms, NHS pay in a pandemic. Our NHS staff deserve so much better. If this Government do not deliver a pay rise, it shows once again that you simply can’t trust the Tories with the NHS.
Helen Whately
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome. As it is International Women’s Day, it is a shame that he does not have a female colleague by his side at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we just need to get back into reality. I do not think we need the personal slights. The shadow Secretary of State is entitled to ask for an urgent question and I have granted it, so you are questioning me, not the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately
My apologies, Mr Speaker.
I do not think that we should play politics with these very serious questions as we come through a pandemic that has hit us and the world so hard, when people have lost their lives, people have lost their jobs, and we as a Government have had to spend so much to support the economy, individuals and, indeed, the NHS. I have been speaking to staff on the frontline of health and social care throughout this pandemic, and I and the Government are grateful to them and thank them from the bottom of our hearts for what they have done and are still doing. While so much of the public sector is having a pay freeze, NHS staff will get a pay rise.
In these difficult times, the Government have submitted their evidence to the pay review bodies and, as I said in my opening statement, they will report back to us. They will look at a wide range of evidence, including, for instance, evidence from trade unions, inflation, and the wider situation with the economy and pay levels, and we will of course look at their recommendations carefully.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the vote that we had on the NHS Funding Act and, yes, we absolutely did vote for it. We are fulfilling our commitment to record investment in the NHS—£34 billion more. He also referred to the long-term plan and, although not something we voted on, the 2.1% increase within it will be invested in the NHS workforce this year. That will include not only these pay rises, but pay progression and further investment in the NHS workforce.
We will continue to invest in more doctors and more nurses for the NHS, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. We will continue to support the recovery of our economy and restore our public finances, so that we can fund our NHS not just through the pandemic, but into the future.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
The long-term plan budgeted for a 2.1% increase in salaries, which has now gone down to 1%, but an even bigger gap in last week’s Budget was identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility as a lack of funding from next year for annual covid vaccinations, for Test and Trace, for long covid and for millions of catch-up operations delayed by the pandemic. What discussions has the Health Secretary had with the Chancellor about that gap in funding, and where will that money come from?
Helen Whately
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He mentions the 2.1% increase within the long-term plan. That figure covers not only this pay rise for the NHS workforce, but the pay deals that have been agreed for staff in other multi-year pay deals, pay progression, and other investment in the workforce. As for his question on funding for the broader extra covid costs, that is not in the main NHS budget. Just as we had £63 billion invested in those costs throughout this year, there is an extra £22 billion set aside for covid costs outside the NHS budget and also £3 billion specifically for recovery and bringing down waiting lists.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The proposal for a mere 1% pay rise suggests this Government do not value the risks taken and sacrifices made by health and care staff throughout the pandemic, nor the challenge that they will face to clear the backlog. Like their initial refusal to extend free school meals, it also shows the Government are out of touch with the public.
With a workforce crisis before the pandemic, does the Minister really believe that such a mean award will help recruit and retain healthcare staff? Senior band 5 nurses in England already earn up to £1,000 less than their Scottish counterparts, while the removal of the nursing bursary and imposition of tuition fees has saddled recently qualified nurses with up to £50,000 of debt. I am sure the Minister knows that shops do not accept claps instead of cash. Will this Government not give health and social care staff a decent pay rise and consider a one-off thank you payment, as in Scotland?
Helen Whately
I am somewhat surprised by the language the hon. Lady used around 1%, because a 1% pay rise for this large number of staff will cost around three quarters of a billion pounds. She should remember that this all has to be paid for in the context of, sadly, around three quarters of a million people losing their jobs through the pandemic, while others are seeing pay cuts or reduced hours. We are in a time of huge economic uncertainty, but while much of the public sector is going to have a pay freeze, the NHS workforce is going to have a pay rise.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
I acknowledge the very difficult decisions that the Government have had to take as a result of the pandemic, with the majority of public sector salaries being frozen this year. Will my hon. Friend confirm that our amazing NHS staff being the exception to that in part acknowledges their hard work, and that we should now await the outcome from the pay review bodies?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The NHS workforce is the exception to the pay freeze for the wider public sector, recognising the huge amount of work done and the lengths they have gone to in looking after us all during covid. He is absolutely right that we will wait for the response from the independent pay review bodies before we announce the pay settlement.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
The Test and Trace programme, which the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies considers has had only a marginal impact on covid-19 transmission, will have had an almost 150% increase on its original £15 billion price tag following the small print buried in the Chancellor’s Budget last week. Is this Government’s claim that the 1% pay offer to NHS staff is all they can afford actually serious?
Helen Whately
The first thing I would say to the hon. Member is that the Test and Trace programme is doing a truly phenomenal job. The other thing I would say is that in the pandemic what we absolutely need is an effective test and trace programme, so I make no apologies for the fact that we are making sure it is funded.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Although everyone in this Chamber would really like to give nurses a decent pay rise as much as possible, may I ask the Minister how that equates with equivalent grades in the police, the fire service and the armed forces, particularly given that, as she has already mentioned, they are on a pay freeze at the moment?
Helen Whately
As my right hon. Friend says, most of the public sector—and that includes the police—is regrettably under a pay freeze for the coming year because of the challenging times we find ourselves in and in recognition that across the economy there are people who have lost their jobs and that we are having to spend a huge amount of money to support people’s incomes. It is against that backdrop that we are giving NHS staff a pay rise, but indeed these are difficult times that we are living through.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I have received literally hundreds of emails from constituents and from the Royal College of Nursing. The Democratic Unionist party and I support the campaign for a fair wage increase for NHS staff, because they have been at the forefront of the war against covid-19. They put their lives on the line day by day in defence of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since 2010, average weekly pay in the private sector has grown by 22%, compared with only 17% in the public sector, so I ask the Minister, very gently and kindly, whether she will in the name of justice and for moral reasons consider reviewing the decision and deliver for NHS staff.
Helen Whately
The Government have submitted our evidence to the pay review body of what we can afford for NHS pay, but the review bodies will look at a wide range of evidence on what is the right level to set and will make recommendations over the spring.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am proud to play a small role on the NHS frontline, and this last, most recent wave has been particularly brutal on nurses, healthcare assistants and, especially this time round, ambulance crews. May I urge her, during this period while the review body is considering the matter, to open up discussions with the Treasury to look at what more we can do for our NHS staff, be that a one-off additional payment or other support, such as just giving people more rest and recuperation time? We should do everything we can and make every effort to go further than what has so far been recommended.
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend; I know that he does tremendous work on the frontline. He makes a really important point: beyond pay, the question of what other support we are giving to the NHS workforce is really important. Through the pandemic, there has been lots of extra support for the workforce, whether that is with practicalities such as hot food and drink—things that make work and long hours more manageable—or mental health support, which is so crucial for those who have had really traumatic experiences. We are absolutely looking at what continued support we can put in place in the months ahead.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
NHS staff feel betrayed by this Government on pay. In July, the Secretary of State—who really ought to be in the Chamber today answering for his responsibilities—said the following:
“We absolutely want to reward NHS staff for what they have done.”
That is what he said, so can the Minister tell me how on earth delivering a real-terms pay cut meets that very clear promise from the Secretary of State?
Helen Whately
As I say, this discussion is against the backdrop of many people receiving a pay cut in parts of our economy, people losing their jobs and a wider pay freeze in the public sector. Against that backdrop, we recognise the enormous work that the NHS workforce have done, and that is why they are exempt from the pay freeze and will be getting a pay rise.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for the scale of economic intervention that he has provided for businesses and livelihoods in these unprecedented times, and I join others in paying tribute to our incredible NHS staff; the nation owes them a debt of gratitude for what they have done and continue to do. I understand that no decision on NHS pay will be made until May. Will the Minister wait for and heed the advice of the independent pay review body before confirming the scale of the pay rise that NHS staff can expect?
Helen Whately
Absolutely. We submitted our evidence to the pay review body last week, which included the affordable pay envelope from the Government. The Pay Review Body will look at a wide range of evidence, and we will look at its response when it comes back to us.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This pay proposal for NHS staff has managed to be both wrong and unpopular. Over two thirds of those surveyed, including nearly 60% of Conservative voters, think that a 1% pay rise is less than our NHS staff deserve, and I believe that the Secretary of State should be in the Chamber answering this urgent question about it. Does the Minister agree that NHS staff are worth a real-terms pay increase? Does she consider that the billions wasted on ineffective or undelivered personal protective equipment could have been better spent on giving our NHS heroes a pay rise?
Helen Whately
It is absolutely right that we invested in ensuring that we could supply PPE to the NHS and the social care workforce during this extremely challenging time. There was a global shortage of PPE, so it is right that we spent money on that. As we look ahead at the pay deal for the next year, it is right that we exempt NHS staff from the wider pay freeze for the public sector and ensure that they get the recognition they deserve for what they have done and are still doing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for the answers she has given thus far. Clearly we have to await the results of the independent pay review body, but can she explain to the House the basis on which the Government have put forward the proposal of 1% and how that compares with the commitments that were made to dramatically increase salaries, particularly for nurses at the start of their careers?
Helen Whately
We have delivered on the commitments in the multi-year pay deal for “Agenda for Change” staff, including nurses. That includes the 12% pay rise for newly qualified nurses, bringing the starting salary for a new nurse to almost £25,000. We are now going into a new pay settlement for the forthcoming year. As part of the spending review, the Budget will set the envelope to cover pay costs for that pay settlement, but there are extra pay costs for the growing number of staff as we increase our staff in the NHS, particularly nurses—as I said, we are on track to have 50,000 more nurses in the NHS by the end of this Parliament.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I met nurses—members of the Royal College of Nursing—in the west midlands, and Catherine, a young intensive care nurse told, with tears in her eyes, how she had worked for months to save lives. She told how she went off for a week’s holiday because she was exhausted, and when she came back, three of the four people she had been caring for had died and a member of staff had died. Does the Minister not begin to understand the dismay and despair on the part of tens of thousands of nurses like Catherine that, having endured purgatory to save lives, their reward now is effectively a pay cut?
Helen Whately
I disagree with the hon. Member about what he just said—as I said, we are committed to giving NHS staff a pay rise—but he actually made a really important point when he talked about Catherine and other frontline staff, who have been through incredibly difficult times. I speak to nurses and other healthcare workers all the time, and one of the things I have heard many times in recent weeks and months is how badly staff need time off, and many staff have not been able to take holiday because they have been putting in extra hours to help with the pandemic response. It is absolutely vital in the weeks and months ahead that staff get the annual leave they need to rest and recuperate, and I am working with the NHS to make sure that happens.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs during this pandemic and will be looking to the Government to support them so they can start earning again for their families. Millions of people in this country are on furlough and are living with pay cuts of 10% or 20% and will be looking to the Government to continue to support their businesses through extension of the furlough programme. Thousands and thousands of small businesses have seen the value of their businesses evaporate over the last 12 months and will be looking to the Government to support the economy to rebuild their businesses. So will my hon. Friend remind us that it is the Government’s job to balance all of those calls on the taxpayer, and it is the job of the pay review body to come back with a recommendation?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So many businesses have been so hard hit by the pandemic, and it is vital that we support not only the livelihoods of individuals who work in the businesses that have been hit, but those businesses themselves, because they are what will help us come through this and recover from the economic pain of the pandemic. He is right that the Government are having to balance these enormous demands on the public finances, and we also need to take steps ourselves to recover those finances so that we have a strong economy for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Does the Minister realise that there is a sense of the most enormous anger all across the country? Nurses have seen us through this crisis and have saved many lives, yet they are offered a pay cut as a result of it. Some are already having to resort to food banks to survive, and a third are thinking of leaving the profession unless they get a decent pay rise. Surely to goodness, if £37 billion can be found to pay Serco for a failed track and trace system, the money must be available to pay NHS staff properly. You cannot clap for them, and cut their pay at the same time. Surely we should just pay them properly, so that we can have a national health service that we can all be proud of and all rely on for all time in the future.
Helen Whately
Actually, talking of anger, it is probably not very helpful for many of those on the Opposition Benches to be fuelling a level of anger by calling a pay rise a pay cut. We are being absolutely clear that NHS staff are getting a pay rise. I also say to the right hon. Member that we need an NHS Test and Trace system to control the virus and we need NHS staff.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to the fact that my wife works in the NHS. NHS staff pay is and always will be a highly contentious issue—it was contentious during the junior doctor contract debate and we do not need the back end of a pandemic for it to be so at the moment—because of the mere existence of national pay contracts, pay awards and review bodies. As part of the implementation of the changes proposed in the future of health and care White Paper, will my hon. Friend view alternative models that allow decisions on individual staff pay to be set by local employers, such as NHS trusts themselves, so that they can be best suited to the employees and the services they work for?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point. The balance between nationally set pay and local pay has been a point of much debate over the years. There are pros and cons to both ways. We do not want to have trusts competing directly all the time for workforce, but on the other hand there are higher costs of living, for instance, in some areas. That is why there is some flexibility in the system for different levels of pay according to different areas, as he will well know, and some extra support in areas where it is hard to retain staff. I always to listen to his expertise, which I really value.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Earlier this year, Baroness Harding defended giving £1,000 per day to private sector consultants on the failing test and trace programme. Now, the Minister says we cannot afford to give our NHS heroes a real-terms pay rise. Given that covid will be with us for years to come, given the outstanding non-covid backlog in treatment, and given the incredible pressure on NHS staff, the existing 100,000 NHS vacancies and the resulting reliance on expensive agency staff, can we really afford not to?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady talks about the NHS workforce. One of the fabulous things we have seen throughout the pandemic—I am really grateful to all those who work in the NHS for this—is a reduction in the leaver rates, so more people are staying and sticking with the NHS, which is truly phenomenal. We have to make sure we look after those people, and I talked earlier about some of the support for the NHS workforce as we recover. It is also fabulous to see such extra interest in careers in the NHS; for instance, over a third more people are applying to become nursing students this year compared with last year. I also want to make this point on the test and trace question: it is not either test and trace or the NHS workforce. We need to have a test and trace system, and, of course, pay our NHS workforce.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I had several bits of correspondence about NHS pay over the weekend. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether any decision has been made specifically about nurses’ pay and what the total allocation for NHS pay rises is in the Budget? Will she ensure that those on lower pay bands are prioritised in any pay awards?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Nurses are just a part of the workforce being considered in the pay review, which involves over 1 million staff. About 300,000 of those are nurses. The cost of a 1% pay rise is about three quarters of a billion pounds, but we will absolutely look at the recommendations from the pay review bodies when they come through later in the spring.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has today said that she is grateful to NHS staff for their hard work during the pandemic, yet the reward the Government have suggested is a real-terms pay cut. Does the Minister feel that that is the right response, both morally and economically?
Helen Whately
In our submission to the pay review bodies we said we have a funding envelope to enable a 1% pay rise for NHS staff. As I have said to other Members, the pay review bodies will look at a wide range of evidence and at factors including inflation. They will also look at what is happening to pay levels across the economy.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend will be aware of the heroic efforts made by NHS staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and across Harlow during the pandemic; they put their health and lives at risk looking after Harlow residents. While absolutely recognising the economic constraints and the £2 trillion debt that our country owes, will she reconsider and at least propose a larger increase for lower-paid NHS workers?
Helen Whately
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the heroic efforts of NHS staff at hospitals and primary care and community trusts across the country, including the Princess Alexandra Hospital. As I have said, we have submitted to the pay review body our envelope for funding—the 1% that the Government say they can afford—and we will look at its recommendations when they come back. I should also say that there was a commitment in the spending review to ensure that lower-paid staff would get at least a £250 pay rise, and that applies to those in the NHS as well.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
We heard this weekend about nurses in particular wishing to leave the profession, so does the Minister have any figures on departures in recent years? Does she agree that the elephant in the room is not pay across the board but low pay in the NHS? Even a 10% pay rise on not very much is not very much. Do we not really need a grown-up conversation about what we pay those who do some of the least glamorous jobs across health and social care day in, day out, every single year?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should be thinking about the whole workforce. As the Minister with oversight of social care, I have many conversations with that sector about the pay levels for people working in social care. I want to see us appropriately rewarding and recognising staff across our whole health and social care system, not only in pay terms but in the wider package of support that people get, and making sure that each day at work is a good day. That is something that I will continue to work on in this role.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
It has not taken the Conservatives long to revert to type and forget the contribution that our NHS staff have made to fighting this pandemic over the last year. Since 2010, “Agenda for Change” staff have seen their pay cut in excess of 10% on most of the spine points on the column. What assessment has the Minister made of the effect that this pay increase will have on the retention and attraction of high-quality staff into the NHS? Surely, we need to attract those people into the NHS, and this will not do it.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about the retention of staff. I am working to make sure that we have another 50,000 nurses in the NHS by the end of this Parliament. On one hand, that is about making sure that we have more newly qualified nurses graduating with nursing degrees; on the other, it is about making sure that we keep the nurses and the other NHS workforce that we have. We have seen an improvement in retention, but I want that to be maintained. That is why I am working with NHS England on making sure that we have the greatest possible package of support, including mental health support, for staff who have been through a really tough time.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
May I first wish the House a happy Commonwealth Day and International Women’s Day? Will my hon. Friend outline how many pay rises we expect to see through pay progression by raising pay bands?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, in addition to the pay settlement that we will reach through this pay review process, there are many staff who will be eligible for pay progression. About 40% of the staff we are talking about are eligible for pay progression, so many of those will get a pay rise in addition to the figure that we get to through this process.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister was right when she talked about the amazing people who work in the NHS who have, in her words, “gone the extra mile” for the country. Does she understand why they will see this real-terms pay cut as a kick in the teeth? She justified it by reference to the pay freeze for other key workers, but that was a decision of this Government. Should they not recognise that they have got it wrong on both counts, review the pay freeze and give NHS staff the pay rise they deserve?
Helen Whately
I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the difficult times that we are living in: many thousands of people have, sadly, lost their jobs through covid and others have had pay cuts. We are in times of great economic uncertainty, and against that backdrop the Government have to make very difficult decisions. They have made the decision that there will be a pay freeze for much of the public sector, exempting those on the lowest pay and the NHS from that pay freeze—so the NHS workforce will get a pay rise.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
Every 1% increase will cost the taxpayer £750 million, but I did not hear the shadow Health Secretary say by how much he would increase pay or indeed which taxes he would increase to pay for that. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that one way to increase resources for health and social care and remuneration for our care workers is by means of a German-style social care premium?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am smiling, because it is not the first time that he has mentioned to me a German-style social care system. I absolutely appreciate the work he has done to look into that and say to him, as I have before, that we will bring forward proposals for social care reform. He is absolutely right that we also need to look at the whole health and social care system as we consider these difficult questions.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The efforts of NHS staff during the pandemic have been nothing short of heroic, and, although deserved, recognition and good will are no substitute for proper pay and investment. Given the current level of vacancies and the fact that the use of agency staff in Welsh health boards costs nearly £70 million a year, does the Minister not agree that a substantial pay award would not only be fair but would constitute an investment in the NHS workforce that could help recruitment and retention of staff, thereby reducing reliance on agency staff?
Helen Whately
I am absolutely committed to increasing the NHS workforce. As I mentioned in my statement, we already have 10,000 more nurses than a year ago; and 6,500 more doctors and over 18,000 more health support workers. We saw fantastic growth in the number of students starting nursing degrees last autumn—nearly 30,000—and nearly 50,000 have applied to study nursing this autumn. I am absolutely determined that we will continue to increase the size of our NHS workforce to meet the healthcare needs of the population.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for the answers she has given today, but will she set out in more detail the process of the pay review body?
Helen Whately
The process begins with the Secretary of State sending the pay review body a letter to set up its remit, which was done in December. We then submitted our evidence to the pay review body last week, which covered the point about the pay envelope as well as a whole load of information about, for instance, retention and staff levels and support for the workforce. The pay review body will consider that, along with other evidence from the NHS, trade unions and others, and will report back to us in late spring. We will carefully consider its recommendations and come to a decision.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
By the end of the year, £37 billion of taxpayers’ money will have been spent on the Serco Test and Trace programme, which is not even fit for purpose. That is on top of the Government spending £10 billion more on PPE contracts than they should have spent. Given that waste, how do the Government justify the view that most of the 300,000 NHS nurses are worth only a £250 a year pay rise?
Helen Whately
The pay conversation that we are having at the moment is indeed about nurses—who are a fabulous part of our NHS workforce, and I cannot thank them enough—but it is also about the wider NHS workforce, which includes paramedics and health support workers, and this pay settlement will also include some doctors. More than 1 million staff are being considered in this process, and that is why the cost is closer to £1 billion than the figure the hon. Lady mentioned; it is around £750 million. The Government were absolutely right to invest in PPE to protect staff in health and social care during the pandemic at a time when there was a global shortage of PPE, and we are absolutely right to have invested in a world-beating test and trace service, which is doing a phenomenal job and is essential to our country’s recovery from this pandemic.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister confirm that the public sector pay review body can take into account the exceptional service and sacrifice of our nurses and medical staff over the last year, and that if it recommends a higher pay rise than 1%, the Government will look at funding that from new resources and not have to scrimp and save elsewhere in NHS to fund the difference?
Helen Whately
I agree: our NHS workforce—in fact, our whole health and social care workforce—have done a phenomenal job through the pandemic and, we should not forget, continue to do so. I will not pre-empt the recommendations that we will receive from the pay review body, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will absolutely consider them carefully before coming to a decision.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Women’s Health Strategy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the women’s health strategy. Today is International Women’s Day, and on this important day we must acknowledge that for generations women have lived with a healthcare system that is designed by men, for men. As a result, women have been underrepresented in research. Despite women making up 51% of the population, we still know little about some female-specific issues, and there is less evidence and data on how conditions affect women and men differently. Despite living longer than men, women spend a greater proportion of their lives in ill health and disability, and there are growing geographic inequalities in women’s life expectancy. That makes levelling up women’s health an imperative for us all, so we must meet our goal of extending healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035.
There is already a lot of excellent work under way to achieve that. The Government are working on the next strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, and we have announced plans for a new sexual and reproductive health strategy, led by the Minister responsible for prevention, public health and primary care—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—which we plan to publish later this year.
Although this focused work is vital, it is also important that we take an end-to-end look at women’s health from adolescence to older age. I am thrilled to inform the House that today we are embarking on the first Government-led national women’s health strategy for England. It will set an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England. As we know, not all women have the same experience, so we want to hear from as many women as possible, from all ages and backgrounds, about what works well and what we need to change as today we launch our call for evidence.
The call for evidence, running until 30 May, seeks to examine women’s experiences of the whole health and care system, including mental health, disabilities and healthy ageing, as well as female-specific issues such as gynaecological conditions, pregnancy and post-natal support, and the menopause. The call for evidence is based around six core themes, which cut across different areas of women’s health, and I would like to set them out briefly in the House.
The first pillar is placing women’s voices at the centre of their health and care. We know that damaging taboos and stigmas remain around many areas of women’s health, which can prevent women from starting conversations about their health or seeking support for healthcare. When women do speak about their health, all too often they are not listened to. As the Minister for patient safety, I regularly hear from and meet people who have been affected by issues of patient safety. As independent reports and inquiries have found, not least the Cumberlege review and the Paterson inquiry, it is often women whom the healthcare system fails to keep safe and fails to listen to, and this has to change.
The second pillar is improving the quality and accessibility of information and education on women’s health. If we are to tackle taboos and ensure that women’s voices are heard, the provision of high-quality information and education is imperative. To give a timely example, March is Endometriosis Awareness Month. Endometriosis is a common condition affecting one in 10 women of reproductive age, yet the average diagnosis time is seven to eight years. It greatly saddens me to hear how so many women think, or worse, are told that the debilitating pain and symptoms that they are experiencing are normal or imagined and that they must live with it. We must ensure that women have access to high-quality information about health concerns. We must also ensure that health and care professionals can access the necessary information to meet the needs of the women they provide care for.
The third pillar is making sure that the health and care system understands and is responsive to women’s health and care needs across their life course. Women have changing health and care needs across their lives, and we know that specific life events, or stages of life, can influence future health. For example, we know that women who have high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia during pregnancy are at greater risk of heart attack and stroke in future. We also know that women can find it difficult to access services that meet their specific needs, or that meet their needs in a convenient place or time, and that there are significant inequalities between different groups of women in terms of access to services, experience of services and health outcomes. For example, women of black ethnicity are four times more likely than white women to die in pregnancy and childbirth. That is why I recently established the maternity inequalities oversight forum to bring together experts to consider and address the inequalities of women and babies from different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic groups. There is still more to do, so levelling up women’s health must be a priority for us all.
The fourth pillar is maximising women’s health in the workplace. The pandemic has brought home just how important this is. Some 77% of the NHS workforce and 82% of the social care workforce are women, and throughout the pandemic women have been on the frontline, making sure that people receive the health support and care that they need.
There is some evidence that female-specific health conditions—such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endo-metriosis, pregnancy-related issues and the menopause —can affect women’s workforce participation, productivity and outcomes. There is little evidence on other health conditions and disabilities, although we know that common conditions that can lead to sickness absence—for example, mental health conditions and musculoskeletal conditions—are more prevalent in women. Investment in women’s health in the workplace is therefore essential to women’s ability to reach their full potential and contribute to the communities in which they live, so that is a fundamental pillar of our strategy.
The fifth pillar is ensuring that research, evidence and data support improvements in women’s health. We have a world-class research and development system in the UK, but women—particularly women from ethnic minorities, older women, women of childbearing age, those with disabilities, and LGBT women—have been under-represented in research. This has implications for the health support and care that women receive, their options for and awareness of treatments, and the support that they can access afterwards. We must work to ensure that women and women’s health issues are included in research and data collection and so finally end the data gap that sadly exists. The better the evidence, the better we can understand the health and care needs of women and deliver the change that we need to see.
Our sixth and final pillar is understanding and responding to the impacts of covid-19 on women’s health. This pandemic has taught us so much about our society and our health and care system. As we build back better after this pandemic, we must make sure that we fully understand the impact of covid-19 on women’s health issues and what we can do to take that understanding forward.
The call for evidence is about making women’s voices heard. We want to hear from women from all backgrounds and will be inviting all organisations and researchers with expertise in women’s health to provide written evidence, too. We will respond to the call for evidence after the summer and we aim to publish the strategy later this year. I hope that the strategy will be welcomed across the House.
I thank the Members who have been working with us on this vital agenda. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for breaking down taboos around women’s health through her advocacy in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) for her initial work on the strategy. I also thank the Members who lead the all-party parliamentary groups on women’s health, on endometriosis, on sexual and reproductive health and on women and work, and many more. We will keep working with Members in all parties as we take forward this essential work.
This strategy marks a turning point for women in this country. We are making women’s voices heard and putting them at the very centre of their own care, so that we can make sure that our nation’s health system truly works for the whole nation. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of the statement. I wish every woman in the House and throughout the country a very happy International Women’s Day.
It is welcome that the Government want to understand the plight of women throughout the country, but although the Minister said that this strategy is the first of its kind, in reality it is not. We heard much that was in this announcement when the Government launched the women’s mental health taskforce in 2017. If the Government took this matter seriously, it would be a first. The Minister responsible for mental health at the time, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), said:
“This report is a call to action for all providers, commissioners and practitioners across the health care system to drive forward the ethos of trauma- and gender-informed mental health care.”
That echoes what the Minister just said, so why are the Government asking the exact same questions four years later?
A multitude of health concerns are unique to women and are often overlooked. In hospital, I hold the hands of women in their darkest times: young women and girls presenting with eating disorders; trans women admitted after suicide attempts and substance abuse because they had been made to feel as though they do not belong; and women of colour presenting far too late with conditions that could have been easily treatable if they had found healthcare more accessible. I meet many women victims of domestic violence. They use healthcare services more than non-abused women, so I hope to see the Government’s upcoming violence against women and girls strategy address their needs.
The coronavirus crisis has had a disastrous impact on many women, and I have been honoured to listen to colleagues share their heartbreaking experiences of baby loss. My heart breaks for all those women who have had to go through that alone during the pandemic. What support will be offered to women who experience baby loss without their partners by their side? Within maternity services there are huge inequalities. The Minister is right to highlight the fact that black women are four times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth, and I welcome the launch of the forum, but the Government have known about these inequalities for years, so why has there not been action sooner? The Government are running a separate sexual and reproductive health strategy; would it not have made more sense to bring it, as part of that working, into this? A part of this which is widely stigmatised is the menopause. How will the Government be seeking to engage women who have to go through difficulties throughout the menopause?
The “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health” recommended that by 2020-21, in England, 30,000 more women each year would be able
“to access evidence-based specialist mental health care during the perinatal period”
and said that that was important. Can the Minister tell us whether that target has been met? Today, it is huge news that a woman of colour has spoken about her mental health struggles during pregnancy. Many women face difficulties but stay silent, afraid to seek help. With stigma attached to mental illness, the Government must ensure that evidence is collected from all of our ethnically diverse communities.
Women are still being misdiagnosed in 2021. With male bodies being seen as the default body, there is a huge historical data gap in understanding women’s health needs. It is shocking that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack simply because our symptoms differ from those of men. What research will the Government commission to bridge that divide?
Finally, pay is a gendered issue. Women are 82% of the social care workforce and 90% of the nurses. Can the Minister justify the real-terms pay cut to our frontline NHS staff? Will she end poverty wages in social care? We need healthcare to work for every woman across the UK—young and old, white and women of colour, cisgender and transgender. We cannot wait any longer. Women’s health and wellbeing should not be an annual PR exercise. We need action and we need action now.
Ms Dorries
I join the hon. Lady in wishing every woman across the world a happy International Women’s Day. She opened by talking about the mental health taskforce and saying it is not the first of its kind, but it absolutely is. It was a five-year project that the NHS used to bring together women and organisations from across the healthcare sector to develop a mental health plan—a five-year view—which it did and reported on. As she knows, partly as a result of that, we now have the long-term plan in mental health.
The hon. Lady also spoke passionately, as she always does, about the patients she meets as part of her work and the women who are suffering from eating disorders—sadly, that has been a tragic cost of covid. We know that two groups have been affected by the past 12 months in the mental health sphere: people, including women, with pre-existing mental illness; and, in particular, young women aged 15 to 26, in whom we have seen an explosion in the number of referrals—I believe the figure is 22% for young women seeking help with eating disorders. We have committed funding during the spending review, when £500 million was announced, and I announced £79 million on Friday. Part of that is going to deal with the problems that we have as a result of the pandemic, and with young women and girls—and in some cases young men—who are suffering from eating disorders.
The hon. Lady talked about the stillbirth and neonatal target of halving the number of stillbirths by 2025. We are way ahead of our target on that. The Office for National Statistics published new data last week, and I believe we are looking towards a 30% figure already. We are way ahead of target, and that is a result of the measures that have been put in place in the maternity safety arena, including the saving babies’ lives care bundle and the early notification scheme.
I reiterate that what we are announcing today is a call for evidence from women everywhere in the UK: from every organisation and every friend, every partner, every family of every woman.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 5MC.] The link has been published today. I published it on the Government website and it is on the Department of Health and Social Care website and on my Twitter feed. It is a link that women can easily access using their phones or their laptops, and it takes a few minutes to complete. We want to develop the first ever women’s health strategy within the Department of Health and Social Care that will deal with all the issues—there are too many for me to talk about now—and all the ways in which women have been affected. These will include research funding and cohorts of trials not using women, using all the information that we have from Paterson and Cumberlege and from women stating clearly that women are not listened to in the healthcare sector. To address that, we need to hear not just from the Paterson women and the mesh women who spoke to Cumberlege; we need to hear from all women everywhere, and that is why we have launched this call for evidence today, to develop this strategy before the end of the year.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I really welcome this call for evidence and my hon. Friend’s clear commitment to hear from all women everywhere. Can she please reassure me that the consultation will not just be about reproductive health, important though that is, and that it will include all conditions and ensure that women have the ability to express freely what they want to see from their strategy? I welcome the timescale of the strategy coming forward in September.
Ms Dorries
My right hon. Friend is a huge champion for women’s rights and a Committee Chair. I would ask her, following the work that was undertaken by the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health, to contact anybody that she knows who can help to get this dealt with or who she has liaised with throughout her time as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, so that they can help to get this message out to the people who they know, to encourage women everywhere—and, as I said, not just women but families and anybody who wants to contribute.
Within the first minutes of the link going live this morning, we instantly had 300 responses. I have not checked what the figure is now. We need huge numbers of women and yes, absolutely, it is not just about the usual issues that get talked about, although they are an important part of this. Menopause, menstrual health, maternity and neonatal issues are the things we talk about frequently, but this will be about everything. For example, we know that drugs that are used on women are trialled and developed using all-male cohorts, and that doctors are taught in medical school to recognise symptoms that are taken from men and not applied to women. We know about the inequalities, and we need to know about any subject from disability to mental health; anything that a woman experiences in a healthcare setting, we need to know about it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s statement, which is timely on International Women’s Day. I also refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A gender health gap has arisen during covid-19, and the Scottish Government are also developing a plan to address women’s health inequalities. Research indicates that young women in particular have been found to have increasing anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and loneliness. With coping strategies and social support diminished, eating disorders are tragically on the rise with high levels of morbidity. Young women disproportionately struggle to be referred for treatment due to an antiquated medical model based on body mass index to identify eating disorders rather than on a psychological model, treating the whole person. Will the Minister work with the all-party group for eating disorders and cross-party parliamentarians who want urgently to address this matter via the funding announced, but also to ensure the timely access to treatments for those crying out for help and a diagnosis, saving the lives of young women, and, in many cases, those of young men, too.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In fact, we met recently to discuss this very subject, and I have also had meetings with a number of Members from across the House who have an interest in this area. I also thank her for the work that she does in this area. I think that, as a result of our private conversations, she understands both my commitment and that of the Government. I know that she is aware of the funding that we have allocated to assist with this surge of eating disorders that have presented of late and of our commitment in the long-term plan to assist young women with both mental health issues and eating disorders in particular. An eating disorder is the most deadly of all mental health illnesses and also one of the most difficult to treat. I am delighted to hear that this issue is being taken seriously in the devolved nations as well and that Scotland is also embarking on a similar path. I hope that, as we do on all issues related to health, we and the devolved nations will share data and the methods of collecting it, experience and the evidence to develop a women’s health strategy, which will one day be rolled out across the UK.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 5MC.]
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I really congratulate my hon. Friend on her statement today, particularly on International Women’s Day. Does she agree that the women’s health strategy, including the detailed pillars that she has outlined, is the first of its kind and will mark a real step change in approach in the way that it centres women, their voices, their lived experiences, and their evidence in making real change to the future of health policy in England?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for her encouragement. She is absolutely right. We are very excited about this strategy because it is the first of its kind. That is why we have put quite a tight timeframe on this to keep the momentum going. We will be collating all the information and data before the summer and we will be reporting when we come back after the summer recess. We will then be able to announce our women’s health strategy before the end of this year. I hope that everybody is as excited as I am about women getting involved and giving us their information, telling us what they feel, when we know that their voices are not heard. We have, I believe, provided the platform for women to have their voices heard. I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and I hope that she will follow this process. I hope that she will download the link, provide evidence herself—I hope that every woman in this House does that—and be there when we announce the women’s health strategy later in the year.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Last year, the all-party group on sexual and reproductive health, which I chair, produced a report called “Women’s Lives, Women’s Rights” on women’s access to contraception. I hope the Minister will shortly meet me to discuss this report, which showed that, over the past 10 years, with cuts to public health budgets and the fragmentation of NHS services, women’s access to contraception has reduced, most strikingly in access to long-acting reversible contraceptives; that Black, Asian and minority ethnic women, in particular, lose out; and that abortion rates have increased. What does the Minister say about how we can put this right and how the separate sexual and reproductive health and HIV strategy running alongside a woman’s health strategy will actually work and ensure that women are at the centre of NHS services?
Ms Dorries
The Government are committed to developing a sexual and reproductive health strategy, which we plan to publish in 2021. Development of the sexual and reproductive health strategy will be separate from the women’s health strategy. However, officials are working closely together to ensure coherence between the sexual and reproductive health strategy and the women’s health strategy. We hope that they will not contradict each other; we want them to work closely together. The sexual and reproductive health strategy is an incredibly important piece of work in its own right.
Abortion is not a part of the women’s health strategy because, as everyone in the House knows, abortion is a free vote issue—it is a conscience issue; it is something that Members decide as individuals, not as parties—and therefore it is more appropriate that that goes into a strategy on sexual and reproductive health and contraception than the women’s health strategy. That does not mean that those subjects are off limits when women respond to the call for evidence on the women’s health strategy. Nothing is off limits; women can talk about anything. We have not yet decided what will go into the women’s health strategy, because we want to hear what women have to say and what issues we are contacted about that we can develop in terms of policy. We will be working closely, and officials will be working side by side.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned LARC. Access to SRH services is being maintained during covid-19, with a scaling up of online services. In response to covid, Public Health England launched a national framework for e-sexual and reproductive healthcare, which allows local authorities and service providers to purchase an expanded range of online services, including emergency contraception and the contraceptive pill. Those services have continued during the pandemic.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the work that she does in her APPG. I hope that she will inform its members and those she knows who have an interest in women’s health issues to click on the link and provide their evidence to us.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
On International Women’s Day, I would like the House to think about women with complex and multiple needs—addiction, trauma, abuse and eating disorders. Some lives are just too complicated for one service, and some experiences are just too awful for many of us to contemplate. These women can, however, turn their lives around safely with the right support; I think of organisations in my constituency such as the Nelson Trust, which does so much brilliant work. Will my hon. Friend confirm that women with complex and multiple needs will not be forgotten in this strategy?
Ms Dorries
I would like to reassure my hon. Friend, and I hope that she will do her utmost to make sure that those women she is aware of are aware of the link and will provide us with their evidence. It is the evidence that we need to develop the women’s health strategy, so we need to hear from exactly the women she is talking about. Complex needs are just that: they are very complex. We need to know about these women’s experiences in the healthcare sector—what acts as a barrier to them, where they think they are not heard, where they think their voices are drowned out and where they feel they are not listened to and do not get the services they should get. I will use endometriosis as an example. It can take women seven to eight years to be diagnosed, all the time being told that they may have a mental health condition, that it is something they have to live with and that that level of pain is normal for a woman to experience, when none of those things is true. We want to hear from those women.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is really important. She is right: many women suffer from a number of complex health issues and have difficult lives. That is why we have made responding so simple, via a link on a phone and taking a few minutes. I really hope that those women hear this call and will respond.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s statement on the women’s health strategy. It has already been mentioned this afternoon but, as the chair of the eating disorder all-party parliamentary group, it needs emphasising again: eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. While eating disorders do not discriminate, they affect women disproportionately. The longer they go untreated, the longer and more complicated it is to recover. Will the Minister look at the evidence—there is already plenty of it—showing that we urgently need waiting time targets for adult eating disorder services?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; I was waiting for it as I knew she would be contributing today. We have had private conversations about this issue, and I want to reassure her. I hope she noticed that some of the £79 million I announced last week will be going towards dealing with eating disorders and the recent surge in referrals to mental health services. She is right to say that there is lots of evidence, and we are aware of what happens with eating disorders and how they develop, and we work with charities, as she well knows. We would still like those women to respond to this call to evidence.
Many women struggle to get anyone to listen or understand that they have an eating disorder. We struggle to identify them early enough or pick up such things. We still need to gather that evidence, because it is at certain points of contact that healthcare professionals do not recognise or realise that they are dealing with an eating disorder. That is the kind of thing that we think we could get fresh evidence about from women by them clicking on the link and letting us know, either via their phone or their laptop. The hon. Lady has a huge number of contacts, so I urge her to inform them and ask them to contribute to the call for evidence.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Keighley has fantastic women’s mental health charities such as Roshni Gar, which provides culturally appropriate responsive services for south Asian women experiencing mental health issues, and Wellbeing Women Talk & Thrive, which does an excellent job. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the forthcoming women’s health strategy will contain measures to level up access to mental health services for women and girls across England, so that no matter where they come from, they can always access the mental health support that they need?
Ms Dorries
Parity between physical health and mental health is a priority in the Department for Health and Social Care. This is about breaking down taboos and stigmas. That is why we have invested £2.3 billion, year on year, into mental health and into the development of a long-term plan. That is why we had another £500 million allocated at the spending review a few weeks ago. That is why we allocated £79 million of that on Friday to dealing with the very issues my hon. Friend has just raised. When we talk about a call for evidence for a women’s health strategy, I hope it is understood that we are talking about both physical health and mental health. I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is important that such issues are raised as often as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I, too, welcome the launch of this call for evidence today, on International Women’s Day. The consultation refers to evidence that female-specific health conditions can affect women’s workforce participation. However, the welfare system does not currently provide adequate support for many such conditions. For example, statutory sick pay is available to an employee only for a linked period of sickness for a maximum of three years, which penalises those people—women, of course—with chronic long-term conditions such as endometriosis. Will the Minister commit to the women who come forward with evidence that she will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to resolve those issues?
Ms Dorries
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. If women are giving evidence that substantiates the points that she has just made, we will take it and provide it to the DWP. It is not the case that we would not do anything with that evidence; we absolutely will share it with other Departments.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
This is a really positive announcement on International Women’s Day as the women’s health strategy will deliver a much-needed step forward to improve the health and wellbeing of women across the country. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that women’s experience of healthcare can vary across different geographies, and can she confirm that the forthcoming strategy will contain measures to address this?
Ms Dorries
I have no idea what the women’s health strategy is going to contain because we have not had the evidence yet. We do not want to decide in advance where we are going to go with it; we are going to wait to hear women’s voices before we do that. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned in my statement, there is a geographic disparity in many areas. I think that, as part of the evidence that we receive from women, that will become very apparent. I hope that she will be involved, click on the link herself and direct any women she knows who could be involved to do so.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
The pandemic has seen us make dramatic changes in how we live, and the impact of these changes has been especially sharply felt by women. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that mothers are only able to do, on average, a third of the uninterrupted paid work hours of fathers, so is it any wonder that six out of 10 women are finding it harder to stay positive day to day compared with 47% of men? What are the Government going to do to ensure that there is support available for these women, whose labour is paid and unpaid, and who have been instrumental in getting the country through this pandemic? What will the Minister do?
Ms Dorries
That is not strictly a health question but, on the mental health issues that I think the hon. Lady was referring to—the stress and other issues that women are feeling—I hope she will encourage the women she knows to click the link and contribute to the call for evidence.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and welcome the launch today, on International Women’s Day, of the Government’s call for evidence to help to form the basis of a new women’s health strategy. Given that an estimated 13 million women in the UK are currently peri-menopausal or menopausal, including this woman, which equates to one third of the entire UK female population, will she assure me that menopause services will be at the heart of the strategy, and will she agree to meet me and a group of women experiencing the menopause to discuss how we can ensure that women are properly supported and do not have to deal with this major, life-changing experience on their own?
Ms Dorries
I answer this question as a post-menopausal woman. The online survey within the call for evidence seeks information on the menopause. It explores the menopause across various themes, including listening to women’s voices, access to information on women’s health across the life course and women’s health in the workplace. I encourage stakeholders and women with experience of this area to respond to the call so that we can identify future work. Women often face damaging taboos when starting a conversation about their health. It is really important that we start smashing those taboos here, as we have been doing for a number of years now, and that we talk about the menopause openly. Women can often face unsympathetic and stigmatised responses when speaking about the menopause, particularly in the workplace, which is clearly unacceptable. This Government are committed to breaking down those taboos, supporting women and working women at all stages of their life, and enabling them to reach their potential. This includes, of course, having more open conversations on the menopause, whether that be with healthcare professionals or employers, and assisting women through that stage in their life, so that they can remain full and active contributors during that stage of their life in their chosen careers or workplaces. I urge my hon. Friend to click on the link, to get involved and to make sure that women she knows do the same.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Minister for outlining that women can discuss anything during this consultation. Can she therefore outline what efforts will be made to reach out and gather evidence from mums such as Rachel Mewes, who said on Twitter that she was pressured to consider having a late-term abortion at seven months pregnant, when she had previously stated repeatedly that she would never terminate for Down’s syndrome? As a result, she now has post-traumatic stress disorder and has said that being forced to imagine someone killing her little girl Betsy nearly destroyed her. Has the Minister considered the devastating impact that this kind of treatment is having on women’s health and wellbeing during pregnancy, and does she agree that disability discrimination in the womb should end?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting her constituent’s concerns. Abortion as such will not be part of the women’s health strategy, because it is being discussed under the sexual and reproductive strategy, which is also ongoing, and is a conscience issue in this House. It is not decided on party lines, it is down to individual Members’ votes, so it will not form part of the women’s health strategy, which will be about policy. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right; we will take evidence, we will look at that evidence and, if it comes in via the portal, we will pass it on to the sexual and reproductive strategy. However, there are no taboos and nothing that cannot be discussed. We want to hear about all women’s health issues, and I urge her to urge everybody she knows to click on the link and get involved.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for her statement and fully welcome the call for evidence. One area that I have been contacted about is IVF, for which we know there is currently something of a postcode lottery. I was contacted by my constituent Klara Halpin, who was seeking to have a child through IVF but was rejected NHS treatment in County Durham because her partner has children from a past relationship. However, if Klara had lived under a different clinical commissioning group, she would be eligible for that IVF treatment. Will my hon. Friend encourage women undergoing IVF to share their experiences, either to this review or the sexual and reproductive health review, to try to ensure more equalised provision of services right across the country?
Ms Dorries
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for highlighting that case. I urge her constituent to contact us and share her experiences with us. Fertility clinics across England have remained open throughout the last lockdown. Clinics obviously have to meet robust criteria to assure the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that safe and effective treatment can be offered. I am not sure of the geography that my hon. Friend was talking about, but I am disappointed to hear the difference between two care commissioning group areas and would ask her to ask her constituent to contact us and let us know more details about her experience.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
In January, Bedford Hospital’s maternity services were downgraded to inadequate due to significant concerns on the part of the Care Quality Commission about staffing levels and insufficient training. Maternity staff are facing extreme burnout during this pandemic. The hospital has taken steps to improve services, but will the Minister tell me what her Government’s plan is to urgently train, recruit and retain more midwives so that all women can receive safe maternity care?
Ms Dorries
One of our objectives is to be the safest country in the world in which to give birth, and we have made tremendous progress by halving stillbirths and neonatal deaths. This is an area in which we are making huge progress, and I would ask the hon. Member to ask those with whom he is discussing these issues to respond to today’s call for evidence.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her continued work ensuring that women have equal healthcare outcomes and experiences, and I look forward to taking part in this call for evidence. Consultations are most valuable when there is significant participation, allowing us to gather information from a wide range of people and experiences. Will she therefore say what conversations she is having with other Departments and organisations to ensure a broad reach, for instance, through participation from colleges, schools and universities, as well as charities and the workplace?
Ms Dorries
This call for evidence is going to last for 12 weeks, we are going to keep up the drumbeat consistently and it will be cross-departmental. I hope that other Ministers in other Departments will pick up part of the load along the way and use their contacts and access to charities and organisations. We are working strongly with journalists and other outlets to try to get the news over about what we are trying to achieve, our aims and objectives. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that working with charities, organisations, the third sector and all women, and their families and friends, across the UK is really important.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 6MC.] I ask her, as I have asked everybody else: if she knows of any particular organisations or charities that feel that they can contribute, she should encourage them to do so.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
For decades, women with epilepsy were prescribed sodium valproate and were told it was safe to take during pregnancy. It was not. Their babies were harmed, and women continued to be prescribed sodium valproate and babies continue to be harmed right to this day. The Minister in her statement paid lip service to the Cumberlege review, but this statement comes on the same day she has given me a written answer that I have here, where she said that she is not going to implement recommendation 3, which is about a redress agency for victims of sodium valproate. If this statement is meant to mean anything on International Women’s Day, can the Minister remember those women with epilepsy whose babies were harmed in the womb? Can we get a redress agency for the victims of sodium valproate?
Ms Dorries
Ever since sodium valproate was first licensed, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s position has been clear: valproate should only be used in women of childbearing potential if no other medicine is effective or tolerated. The MHRA has kept sodium valproate under constant review. The national director for patient safety has recently set up a clinically led valproate safety implementation group to consider the range of issues relating to valproate and prescribing and to explore options to review and reduce prescribing. In terms of the redress agency, we have looked at that across the board as a result of the Cumberlege recommendations. A number of redress processes are available already, and we did not want to complicate the landscape any further. We feel that, with the MHRA and the national director for patient safety, we have a response to sodium valproate.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
I absolutely applaud the statement from the Minister, especially as it comes on International Women’s Day. I speak on behalf of Broxtowe constituent Sarah Kolawole and her daughter Ariella Kolawole, who sadly passed away shortly after being born in February 2019. I welcome all the research that has been conducted to explore why negative birth outcomes and traumatic births for pregnant women of black, African and Caribbean descent are more frequent than other ethnicities. As we move forward with our NHS long-term plan, does my hon. Friend agree that we must use this call for evidence to ensure that equal outcomes are achieved for mothers of all ethnicities?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. It is the very reason I established the maternal inequalities oversight forum, so that I could learn from experts and organisations such as MBRRACE —Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries—and Maternity Voices about the issues that affect black, Asian and minority ethnic women in particular and why the statistics are as they are. I thank him for raising the individual case of his constituent, and I ask him to ask her to provide us with her evidence of what her experience was. It is really important that BAME women understand that we want to hear their stories and birth experiences. BAME women are five times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. We need to know what those issues are, and it is important to get that message out to those women.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 6MC.]
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I was pleased to hear the Minister mention endometriosis and acknowledge the shocking fact that it currently takes eight years, on average, for a woman to get a diagnosis, and the underlying assumption that it is just something that women have to put up with if they have pain during their periods. As I am sure the Minister knows, it is National Endometriosis Awareness Month, and campaign groups are asking for a commitment to reduce average diagnosis times to four years or less by 2025, and a year or less by 2030. I am slightly concerned that if we wait for this strategy, it will delay action being taken. What reassurance can she give that the Government are acting to reduce waiting times now?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, which I have spoken to. The report has raised a number of important issues, and we are grateful to the APPG for raising awareness and for contributing to our understanding of this very important issue. The report’s recommendations are to be considered as part of the work to help the women’s health strategy. I urge that APPG and others, and the stakeholders, to participate in the call for evidence. As this is an issue in the women’s health strategy, we cannot go any quicker than putting the call out now for 12 weeks, doing what we can before the summer recess to get the data and working on it over the summer recess, and then have a strategy before the end of the year. Our timetable is tight and quick, but that is what we want, because we do not want to lose momentum. We want to get this report out before the end of the year.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Happy International Women’s Day to all colleagues on both sides of the House.
Our successful vaccine programme has shone a light on concerns based on a lack of trust that make members of some communities more hesitant about coming forward to access services that could save their lives. Will my hon. Friend confirm that she is taking steps to ensure that a range of voices, from different communities, are consulted on this strategy, so that it leads to better outcomes for women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds?
Ms Dorries
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer. The impacts on BAME women in the health sector are of the utmost importance. That is why, over a 12-week period, we are using all Departments and all Ministers to keep the drumbeat up and make sure that we reach all women across the sector. It is really important to us that as many women from as many backgrounds and as many geographical locations as possible across the UK respond to this call for evidence.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 6MC.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to all 20 questions on the call list. May I ask Members to be very careful as they leave the Chamber? We have Karen Buck on video link, which means that we can go straight on to the ten-minute rule motion. Perhaps during that period we could sanitise both Dispatch Boxes so that we can go straight on to the next business, if the principals have taken their places, and get at least one extra person in for the Budget debate.
Housing and Homelessness (Local Accommodation Duty)
Monday 8th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Housing and Homelessness (Local Accommodation Duty) Bill 2019-21 View all Housing and Homelessness (Local Accommodation Duty) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that persons for whom a homeless duty has been accepted are accommodated in the local area, including on discharge into private rented accommodation; to require local authorities to publish annual reports on steps relating to housing demand and supply taken or intended to be taken to meet that duty; and for connected purposes.
Listen to anyone who has been through the experience of homelessness and it will become clear that losing your home is one of the most traumatising things that can happen. Yet homelessness is a reality for tens of thousands of people every year, and over the past 30 years, since the repossessions crisis that followed the 1990 recession, successive waves of families and individuals have had to live through it, and they have done so in the context of a shrinking supply of stable, affordable social housing to meet need. That shrinking of supply and the ratcheting down of support for housing costs as rents have risen have both caused homelessness and made it increasingly difficult for many councils to meet their local needs.
Housing legislation requires all local housing authorities to secure accommodation in their own district, as far as reasonably practical. In response to a debate in my name last December, the then Housing Minister said:
“We are clear that local authorities should, as far as possible, avoid placing households out of their boroughs...that should really be a last resort.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 183WH.]
Yet that is clearly and obviously not the case and not adhered to in practice. My own borough of Westminster routinely accommodates homeless families out of borough: 55% of the 2,217 homeless households from Westminster were out of borough last year, up on the year before. The council has now also stated its intention to further cut costs by discharging homelessness duty into the private rented sector for 500 more households.
London as a whole is the worst affected region in the country. There were 16.7 households per 1,000 in London living in temporary accommodation last year, compared with just 1.8 per 1,000 households in the rest of England. In the last full year to 2020, 19,727 of those homeless households were found out-of-area housing in London, which is 56.8%, while a quarter—25%—were not even in their sub-region and 2,559 were placed outside London.
Even across the country as a whole, a quarter of homeless households are accommodated out of area, because councils cannot find suitable properties for them. This is not, of course, to denigrate the places where disproportionate numbers of homeless households end up—quite the reverse. It is to point out the manifest unfairness of requiring some of the poorest and most stressed boroughs to take an ever larger share of homeless households from other places, increasing pressure on their housing stock and other services. As we know, it also leads to the use of substandard properties thrown up under permitted development rules in places such as Harlow, Merton and Croydon.
However, most of all, this is about the impact on homeless people themselves. It is the tearing up of local connections—not infrequently, lifelong—that are cast aside when they are most needed at a time of crisis. Uprooted families and vulnerable adults are removed from friends and family, support networks and communities, schools, work, and caring responsibilities that they themselves undertake. Parents are often desperate to keep their children in the same school to maintain what little continuity they can in lives marked by disruption. Forced mobility and upheaval have terrible outcomes for physical and mental health and educational achievement.
These are the stories of some of the families affected. One constituent said:
“My 6 year old, who has been through so much trauma from repeated changes…has to do a 4 hours a day bus journey back and forth to attend her current school. She often eats breakfast on the bus and does homework on the way back and most of the time she falls asleep”.
Another said:
“I have a child who attends a school in Westminster and who has been through a tough few years as have we all as a family. Her brother was diagnosed with a brain tumour and sadly passed away. My daughter has gone through and endured things I wouldn’t have wished for her to have faced at her age or any other child but we were still sent to a temporary property on the other side of London. My housing officer advised there was ‘no other option and I would advise you to accept as if you don’t you could be taken off the housing register’. I told her I just wanted anything so I didn’t need to commute for 1.5 hours every morning and ever afternoon and that school was one of only consistent things that has kept my daughter happy & well. I was born in Westminster, I’ve always been a resident and paid my dues and taxes and voted. I feel like I’ve been treated extremely unfairly and I feel sick to my stomach to the point I’ve been so stressed I’m not sleeping. I’ve been getting migraines, it’s just non-stop stress…and I feel like I have no rights.”
Another said:
“I am a 19 year old…who is registered blind and am going through daily stress and anxiety. My case worker had said”
she is unable to find anywhere to live in Westminster
“despite showing her all my records and how I have been living there all my life, knowing the area well and how to get around. They put me first up in North West London, but are now offering me”
east London,
“even further than where I am now. I am completely unfamiliar with the area. I’m very frightened from places I’m unfamiliar with as I can’t get around... The council told me if I do not accept it they will end my contract for where I am now.”
Another said:
“I have lived, studied and worked in Westminster all my life. I lived with my elderly father and looked after him, but we were too overcrowded. Thankfully, after being classified as statutorily overcrowded, the council accepted my family as being effectively homeless. However, notwithstanding our pleading and objections, we were moved away from my elderly father and placed in temporary accommodation in east London. I cannot begin to describe the negative impact this has had on myself, my wife and my family, but more importantly on my father. He effectively, overnight, lost his family and the people who helped and cared for him on a daily basis. I find it sad and frustrating that the Council are prepared to separate an old man from his family. For more than two years we have continued to travel back and forth every day from what should have been short term accommodation, in order to cook, clean and care for my father. However, this is expensive, time consuming and taking a toll on our health, marriage and on our children.”
Finally, there is a letter from a mental health worker about a family who were moved first to east London for eight months and then to another flat in outer west London for two and a half years. The parents made the choice not to move their children to another school because at the time three of them were taking their exams. One child, I am told, started to lose her hair from anxiety when they became homeless. The youngest are extremely anxious and stressed; one has problems with eating and is having panic attacks. The mother has had cognitive behavioural therapy in the past and tries to give her children the tools to cope, but her own mental health condition is deteriorating.
As I have said, successive Ministers have stressed that out-of-borough placements should be the exception rather than the rule. There have been landmark legal cases, but nothing has changed. Temporary homeless accommodation is expensive and too large a share of the cost is put on councils—£189 million for London councils alone. The truth is that councils are between a rock and a hard place. The shrinking stock of social housing and social security cuts, from reductions in local housing allowance to the benefit cap, make it impossible to do what successive Ministers say should happen, leaving cases to be tested against the law one by one. All too often, the families affected are failed. It is no good offering platitudes in the full knowledge that the system is broken. Local connections must be maintained and councils enabled to meet those needs in line with Government commitments.
The Bill strengthens the protection that is now honoured increasingly in the breach and, in doing so, reduces the harm being done to tens of thousands of the most vulnerable people in the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Karen. I do not know whether you know that you were on audio link rather than video link, but we heard you loud and clear. I have been given no indication that anybody intends to oppose the 10-minute rule Bill and I see nobody rising, so I intend to put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Robert Halfon, Bob Blackman, Fleur Anderson, Ms Lyn Brown, Siobhain McDonagh, Dawn Butler, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Feryal Clark and Dame Margaret Hodge present the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 266).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Secretary Oliver Dowden, I would just like to indicate to those participating remotely that there is a clock on whichever device you are using to transmit. Please could you abide by that, because the time limit of three minutes will be introduced from the beginning of Back-Bench contributions? If you cannot see the clock, please have another device handy. For those who are participating in the Chamber, the usual monitors will be used for timing.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
This Budget represents a turning point in our fight against coronavirus. It is almost a year to the day since the Prime Minister, in a televised address to the nation, took one of the most dramatic steps of any peacetime Government in history and imposed a national lockdown. From that moment on, we were facing twin crises: not just a public health emergency, but an economic emergency too. The Government promised to do whatever it took to see the British people and British businesses through the crisis, and we did. A year on, thanks to one of the most comprehensive and generous Government support packages in the world, we are now in a position to begin rebuilding our economy. This Budget lays the first bricks in that process. It offers businesses protection to get through the next few months, but, with the road map as a guide, it also sets them on a course to stand on their own two feet once the country reopens, and, most importantly, it puts us in a position to build back better from the pandemic, leaving us a country that is stronger, safer and greener than the one upended by the coronavirus.
In a debate about supporting businesses during covid, it is worth taking stock of just how much was at stake when coronavirus brought our country to a standstill last March. On the day that national lockdown was imposed, all non-essential shops were forced to close their doors, alongside pubs, restaurants, museums, galleries, gyms, theatres and cinemas. In the space of a few short hours, millions of business owners across the country had their income wiped out. Their livelihoods were hanging in the balance, and nowhere was that more apparent than at DCMS. Arts, culture and tourism thrive on the walls of human interaction. Theatres, cinemas, live performance venues, museums and galleries simply cannot exist without an audience or visitors; with lights switched off, seats empty and stages bare, people genuinely worried that a century’s worth of culture and heritage was at risk.
In Germany, the arts have been described as Lebensmittel —that which sustains life. Our museums, our theatres and our artistic and creative life are not frivolous add-ons; they are essential to our economy and to our national sense of wellbeing, so we stepped up to the plate and protected them. We unveiled the biggest single intervention in the arts in the history of the United Kingdom: the culture recovery fund, an unprecedented £1.75 billion safety net that protected theatres, cinemas, museums, galleries and live performance venues across the country. It has supported every thread of our rich cultural tapestry, from national Crown jewels such as the Royal Albert Hall to regional gems such as the Wolverhampton Grand and Norwich theatre, and through that fund we have given £170 million to music, £21 million to independent cinemas, £60 million to museums, and £180 million to theatres. Surely we can finally put to bed the old lie that the Conservative party does not care about the arts. After protecting arts and culture through a long covid winter, we are now preparing them for the spring and summer of reopening, with another £390 million in this Budget to help museums, galleries and theatres open their doors when restrictions finally ease.
Likewise, the Budget extends our hugely successful film and TV restart scheme, which during the pandemic has supported more than 200 productions up and down the United Kingdom. It has kept cameras rolling on movies such as “Mothering Sunday” and shows including “Grantchester” and “Peaky Blinders”. Most importantly, it has protected more than 24,000 jobs and £800 million-worth of production spend here in the United Kingdom. As a result, studios including Pinewood are currently running at full capacity. In fact, the British film industry just celebrated one of its most productive quarters on record. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will applaud the Chancellor’s decision to extend the scheme.
Members on both sides of the House should also applaud our decision to make another £300 million available to sports clubs as fans begin returning to stadiums, and a new fund that gives local communities the power to take ownership of their local sports clubs. These clubs are not just businesses; many, particularly smaller clubs, are the hubs of their communities, bringing life to villages, towns and cities across the country. The Budget will help to ensure that they are still standing when the pandemic is over, ready and waiting to have their seats filled once more with spectators.
However, support to DCMS sectors is only one small part of the unprecedented offer of support by the Government during the crisis. Together, the safety net we have placed under the British people totals £407 billion —more than the GDP of Sweden—and the Budget builds on that support, adding extra security for businesses to make it through to the end of the road map and back into normality. We have also extended the furlough scheme, which has already supported 11.2 million jobs across the United Kingdom; to be clear, more than 11 million people and families have been given the stability and security of money coming in the door and being able to put food on the table for their children. These are not just statistics; they are real people who have been able to get through the last 12 months thanks to the furlough scheme. We have also extended support for the self-employed to include an additional 600,000 freelancers, making this one of the most generous programmes for self-employed people in the world.
While we continue to support the British people through the final stage of this crisis, we have also announced measures that will put businesses across the country on the footing to stand on their own once more. They will no longer have to subsist day to day off the state; instead, we will put them in a position to thrive on their own. We have therefore extended the VAT cut and the business rates holiday, we are offering new recovery loans, and we are offering new restart grants to help businesses of all shapes and sizes get going again.
If last year’s package was a package of support—the vaccine against economic ruin—this Budget is the booster shot. These measures allow us to put covid in the rear-view mirror and start looking forward to a brighter future.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hospitality and tourism, may I place on the record my thanks to the Government for the incredible support that they have given the sector to help it reopen? There is no doubt that the Government have done their bit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we now need, as soon as it is safe, is for the British people to do their bit—to take holidays in the UK, to go back to our pubs and restaurants, to go back to our theatres and cinemas, and to get our economy rolling?
Oliver Dowden
I of course agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I very much look forward to visiting Cornwall again myself. I spent many happy childhood summers on Crantock beach and have taken my own children there. That sits alongside other support we have provided for Cornwall and, indeed, my hon. Friend’s constituency, including, for example, the Lost Gardens of Heligan, which has had more than £600,000-worth of support. Under the culture recovery fund, a total of more than £1 million has been provided to his constituency alone.
Seven decades ago, when we were rebuilding from the rubble of the second world war, we looked to heavy industry—to coal and steel production—to power our recovery, but today our economy will be rebuilt on the back of cleaner, greener industries, and tech has the power to turbocharge all those other technologies. Science and tech now underpins our entire economy. Millions of businesses rely on the UK’s broadband networks to trade, to connect with customers and to advertise their goods, and in the year of pandemic, Zoom and Teams have temporarily replaced office spaces all over the world.
In building back better, tech will be at the heart of our recovery. We have set 10 clear tech priorities for this Government in the coming years—we will be setting those out later this week—but we also included a number of measures in this Budget to make the most of the digital revolution.
During this pandemic, millions of businesses were forced to move their operations online—to pivot to deliveries and to click and collect. This time it was a necessity, but we want to turn that into a long-term opportunity for British businesses. That is why we are launching a new UK-wide Help to Grow scheme to help 100,000 small and medium-sized businesses to get online or expand their digital businesses.
At the same time, we are cementing our position as the tech powerhouse of Europe. We have unveiled a new visa to attract the most exciting and talented tech brains in the world, alongside a new, improved visa process for scale-ups, entrepreneurs and disrupters. We have also launched a £375 million future tech fund. That is a breakthrough scheme for groundbreaking tech businesses. We have a plan to unlock billions from pension funds and funnel that money into new innovative ventures.
We also have ideas for a new listing regime that will make it easier for companies to raise money and list their businesses here in the United Kingdom, not on other markets. Some of the most successful and innovative businesses in the world have therefore chosen to make the UK their long-term home, as Deliveroo did just last week when it announced that it would be listing in London. This Budget paves the way for the next generation of tech entrepreneurs and disrupters to join them here in the United Kingdom.
Of course, the other great future-facing industry and powerhouse of DCMS and, indeed, the wider economy is the creative industries. We are genuinely a creative industries superpower. Our fashion and design businesses, those in film and TV, video games, architecture, advertising, publishing and beyond lead the world in every sector. They are a source of pride at home and envy abroad, and they now drive our economy. Film and TV alone are today worth more than the UK’s car industry. The sectors are not discrete—they are businesses that feed off one another and into this country’s wider, vibrant creative ecosystem.
When a UK business, for example, in the video games industry, designs a new game, they do not just support the video games industry. They boost tech, our artists and designers, the musicians who compose the game’s soundtrack and the animators who bring the characters to life. The furlough scheme, business grants and support for the self-employed have been a lifeline to all those businesses, which will continue to benefit from the schemes, as well as from the Budget’s new apprenticeship offer.
Those businesses have also benefited from our unprecedented, multi-billion-pound investment in the cultural and creative industries. That investment was made with our hearts, but also our heads. Cultural and creative businesses are vital to our economy, as they are vital to our national identity and, indeed, our very way of life. They will play a key role as we look to the country’s long-term recovery and renewal.
That recovery and renewal will also centre on the rehabilitation of the tourism industry, which, with planes grounded and airports closed, has been particularly hard hit by covid. Tourism is a major enabler in this country, supporting around 230,000 businesses in every part of our United Kingdom. Through the pandemic, including in the Budget, we have provided extensive support to those businesses, including through the cut in VAT. Our new levelling-up fund will invest in tourism infrastructure across the entire Union.
In spring, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, we will go even further, publishing a comprehensive tourism recovery plan that sets out an ambitious vision for the sector to bounce back from the pandemic and drive that new era of growth. At that point, Britain will start reopening for business. Shops will be pulling up their shutters, people will be returning to pubs and restaurants or working out in gyms and leisure centres. Day trips and mini-breaks will be back on and eventually, overseas tourists will begin pouring back into our great country.
We want a decade of great British summers, culminating, we hope, with the football World cup back here in the United Kingdom in 2030. Much sooner—indeed, next year—that feeling of national recovery and renewal will find its outlet in three unifying show-stopper events: the Commonwealth games, Festival UK* 2022 and the platinum jubilee, when the nation will come together to give thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for seven decades of unwavering public service.
After such a difficult time for all of us, those events represent a much-longed-for return to normality: the return of packed stadiums, packed theatres and streets full of people celebrating. They are not just an opportunity for us to come together and remember what unites us. They are milestone moments, alongside the rugby league world cup, Coventry city of culture, the centenary of the BBC and the 75th anniversary of the Edinburgh festival. They will help drive our economic and social recovery from the pandemic. They will reboot our tourism industry, demonstrating that our doors are wide open. They will bolster our creative industries, with tens of millions of pounds being invested in our arts and creators from every nation of the UK, and they will showcase our remarkable and wonderful country to the rest of the world.
Of course, we are not there yet. Coronavirus has shaken our economic foundations like no other peacetime crisis in our history. I know that businesses up and down the country continue to face many challenges as a result of the pandemic. The road map back to full economic health is rightly cautious, but it is one-way. As normality gradually returns, we have so much to look forward to as a country and so many opportunities to revive our businesses and our economy.
This Budget allows us to make the most of those opportunities. We protected businesses when they could not trade as usual or at all. Now we are putting them in a position where they can finally unroll their awnings again and declare Britain back open for business. I commend the Budget to the House.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We just heard from the Secretary of State how very well the Government have done through this crisis, and he said how much we could look forward to the Government—to the Tories—uniting the country in times ahead. To use an old-fashioned northern expression, “I’ve heard ducks quack before”. The Secretary of State joined this House in 2015, so while I think I am right in saying that he is two years older than me, I have been around this Budget roundabout 13 times to his seven. That is nothing that I am proud of—I have spent my time in opposition and he has not—but, that said, he did work for David Cameron during 2012, so I am sure that he has experience enough to know the golden rule of Budgets: never tax anyone’s pasties.
Despite the exceptional context that the Secretary of State talks of, despite the many Budgets that he and I have heard in this House, the question at every Budget is the same. It is the question at the heart of all economics—who has what and is it fair, and what will this Budget do to change the prospects for the people of the United Kingdom? Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, that question is the same. So when I look back over those 13 Budgets that I have seen, I think, “What have the Tories done to make our country fairer?” They removed regional development agencies and slashed local authority funding, and now they complain that the economy is unbalanced. They ran down social security only to realise that when people with higher incomes needed it at the last minute, they had brought it to breaking point. They wasted years spending money on a costly reorganisation of our health service that they now say they want to reverse. Child poverty is high and rising. Food bank use is through the roof and we are staring down the barrel of an unemployment crisis. Economically, it has been a decade of misrule and now this Budget is on top of all that. Despite all that the Secretary of State says, I suspect that in the long term it will be neither use nor ornament at this time of economic peril, because this is a diabolical record, and I regret very much the choices that the Conservative party has made over the past decade. There is only one thing I regret more than its choices, and that is the failure of my party so far to replace it.
I have said that the economic questions remain the same year after year, but the economy moves on and, therefore, so must the answers. To make our economy and our country fairer, we need to understand the situation that we face. It is dire, as a result of both the pandemic and the pre-existing flaws arising from a decade of Conservative Government. Unemployment for young people has increased by 13% and 1.7 million people are currently unemployed, and the Bank of England predicts that this will continue to rise throughout this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the scarring effect of the virus a year from now will be that the pandemic lowers output in the medium term by 3% relative to its pre-pandemic path, and that is after the existing problems created by our exit from the European Union. This is the backdrop to my 13th Budget and the Secretary of State’s seventh—a lost decade of growth, with us now facing economic challenges that surpass even the crisis of a decade ago.
So what do the Government do? Well, finally, we have long overdue confirmation of the extension to furlough and vital business support, yet there is still a planned cut to universal credit, just at the very time that unemployment is predicted to spike. Also, less spoken of are the £14 billion cuts planned to public services for the rest of the Parliament and a 4% hit to our economy, as I said, due to our exit from the European Union. That is before we get to the things that they appear to have forgotten, including that missing pay rise for our nurses and cleaners in the NHS and the long-term plan for social care that the Chancellor remembered the day after. There was really very little help on the employment front either. As we know, just 2,000 young people have started their kickstart apprenticeship, when the Tories promised us 120,000.
Businesses in the UK have been challenged over the past 12 months in unimaginable ways, from total shutdown to recreating themselves overnight. UK business organisations, along with those in our social economy, have by and large proved themselves to be brilliantly creative and dynamic as well as having a keen interest in the public health imperative that we have all had to focus on. This Budget does far too little to support those businesses that really need it and too little to plan for the future. If a Government did get the framework right, the innovation and creativity of UK businesses would be able to thrive.
This poor lack of innovation is exemplified nowhere more clearly than in our brilliant creative industries. In this Budget, the Government have fallen well short of creating an environment for growth for creative and cultural businesses, which altogether contributed £225 billion to the UK in 2018, accounting for 12% of the economy. It is the part of the economy for which the Secretary of State is supposed to be responsible. The culture recovery fund, which he trumpets, saves buildings, but it does not do enough to save jobs and support the growth that is needed in creative industries across the whole country. The Secretary of State gave the game away when he said that the fund is there to protect the “Crown jewels”. There is no need for me to add to the extensive commentary on the royal family today. However, the Secretary of State’s comments reveal an obsession with that which we have inherited, rather than the demonstrable opportunities in the next generation.
The adjustments made to the self-employment income support scheme were not good enough either. Bringing newer entrants to the industry into the scheme was welcome, but analysis by the Musicians’ Union suggests that around 23% of its members are still left out in the cold. I understand from Prospect trade union that, while the fifth round of the scheme may run from May to September, it only provides three months’ worth of support, which means that the effect is identical to the scheme running out at the end of July. This will affect many industries, but it is particularly acute in the creative industries, in which it may take until much later in the year for normal work patterns to resume and in which two thirds of people are self-employed.
This is all a mistake because the creative industries deserve to be taken seriously. In growth terms, as we said the day before the Budget, the creative industries were up 7.5% in 2018 on the previous year, meaning that growth in the sector is five times larger than growth in the UK economy as a whole. That is a huge amount of potential that the Government simply have not met. Instead, they decided to spend £25 billion of taxpayers’ money on a tax incentive for businesses to invest in plant and machinery. It is pretty obvious that many of our newer businesses simply will not be helped by that. It is no bad thing at all to invest, but we are facing an unemployment crisis, and many small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. I think it is fair to ask the Government whether this tax cut will really get the money where it needs to be. How they will ensure that money is not spent on investments that were already planned?
If the Government do finally agree on a fundamental change to our tax system, undoing much of the direction of travel of previous Chancellors—and has anyone checked if George Osborne is okay?—where is the proper review that is needed? There appears to be a view across the House that the losses and gains from the pandemic have been hugely unequal, so what steps have the Government taken to ensure that billions of pounds are not handed over to global logistics companies whose profits have already soared during the pandemic? Whether it is the culture recovery fund or this tax relief, there seems to be a pattern: the Tories handing cash to the already lucrative.
Worse still, what if some of the most important structural changes needed in our economy, which this Budget should be an opportunity to address, cannot be sorted out by these sorts of tax incentive? In fact, on International Women’s Day, could somebody explain to me how this tax cut for plant and machinery will unleash all women’s entrepreneurship? How does focusing on tax breaks for big firms solve the underlying structural issue of poor childcare, which is one of the biggest drags on the well-documented productivity problem in the UK? I worry that the Help to Grow scheme will be about as successful as kickstart and restart have been in reality.
It is not just that. The Government seem to be missing the point of the pandemic entirely: that a strong economy requires a healthy workforce. The Secretary of State seems not to realise that we need a comprehensive plan for public wellbeing. That means supporting public services properly and giving every person in the UK a chance to improve their quality of life.
We know that a healthy population is an important input to a strong economy. Labour councils are already leading the way, with Coventry City Council giving residents free and discounted access to cultural and leisure facilities. The council specifically argued that it was vital for women’s participation, and particularly for those from lower-income backgrounds. In the local elections, councillors are putting health and wellbeing right at the centre of their manifestos. For example, the Labour party in Lancashire launched a manifesto that includes free swimming for residents over the age of 50 and under the age of 16. Given all that we have been through, Labour in Lancashire is putting health and wellbeing at the heart of future economic prospects. To make our economy work well, we need DCMS to focus on a big, bold plan for national wellbeing, which is something that the Government have either forgotten or just do not understand.
Something else that has been forgotten is the fact that our economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. Not only have our financial services led the world, for good or ill, but so have our music, fashion, art and publishing industries. Creative industries exported £36 billion worldwide in 2018 because they are part of the modern services economy that the UK brings to the world. When pandemics hit, our open economy is going to be affected long after everyone is vaccinated at home, which is why, if we really want to rescue our economy, we need a much better plan than cutting aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
It gets worse. In addition to the year of hell that the pandemic has been for many businesses is the underlying cause of the disruption and damage to our economy that will last long after the pandemic: our exit from the European Union. As I said before, our country may be an island economy, but it is also an integral part of the continent of Europe. The project of those on the hard right and the far right—to blame European politicians for every ill that this country has ever faced, just as the Prime Minister did for years in his Telegraph column, with little connection to reality—is having a real impact on our economy across the board. Organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses highlight its impact on small firms, whose profits are being wiped out as a result of post-Brexit costs.
The creative industries about which the Secretary of State and I have spoken have been hit hugely by Brexit, as well as by covid. The Government show no show sign at all that they will fix the problems. Those in the fashion industry warn that restructuring is necessary due to the industry’s European and global supply chains and the disruption that our leaving the EU has caused, but where is the help? Musicians and performers are unable to tour freely in Europe—a vital stepping-stone for many emerging artists and a key part of a crucial industry. All that because the many are having to pay the price for the ideological obsession of the few.
As the journalist Rafael Behr wrote recently, Brexit has been turned into a “perpetual grievance” machine. Let me give an example. The Secretary of State got himself into hot water by asking the fashion roundtable to use its star quality to influence our European partners—whom the Conservative party has so successfully hacked off. Was that an honest acknowledgment that there just is not anyone in his Department who has star quality of their own? Or was it, on this International Women’s Day, an admission that the Tories see the fashion and creative industry not as a serious, leading industry that puts clothes on the backs of millions around the world but rather as a flighty and insubstantial part of our economy in which women are too busy doing the stitching to be consulted about the future of our economy? Is that how the Tories see us?
It is not lost on me that here we are, on International Women’s Day, debating the Budget—the money in people’s pockets and whether our kids have a decent life or not— and many of the speakers are men, as is often the case in this House. Who can say why that is? I can certainly tell the Secretary of State that I am not the only woman in the country who is a little bit fed up of the Prime Minister’s male-dominated Cabinet. We are fed up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in his Budget, forgot to mention social care, in which thousands of women work. The Budget also does little or nothing for the creative industries, in which thousands of women also work and which the Secretary of State dismissed in such pathetic terms.
The women of this country are not very enamoured of the Prime Minister, but that was true long before this Budget. We do not want his patronising arms around the nation. We want work that pays as much as men’s, we want to share the care of our children and older people so that we can have the same status as men at work, and we want people to listen when we speak. And before anyone says anything, yes I know that the Tory party has had two women Prime Ministers while the Labour party has had none, to which I would say yes, that is a serious criticism and it should be taken seriously. That is why Labour women will keep fighting, forever and a day, for women to be elected to the highest offices of state, not in order to get one woman on a pedestal but to achieve for all women the systematic undoing of the assumptions and strictures that make us less than we are.
In the context of this debate, the assumption consistently revealed by the Tories is that the work women do, from care to creativity and culture, is worth less than the work men do. That assumption—that revealed preference, as the economists would say—is wrong, and it will be the priority of Labour Governments to undo it, alongside the many other aspects of this Government’s economic policy, which, after a lost decade of growth, is nowhere near up to setting our country on the right path. The winners from this Budget will be those who are already comfortable enough. The losers will be the small businesses whose prospects have been shut down temporarily by the pandemic or permanently by Brexit, the children struggling after a decade of disaster for family benefits, and every woman, man and child whose ambitions are not well served by a Tory Chancellor more interested in his own.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am delighted, as a woman on the Conservative Benches, to be joining this debate. As I have only three minutes, I am unable to go through the many things in the Budget that I think are wonderful. It is a great Budget and there are many things to praise in it. The numbers that have been quoted by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) are frankly eye-watering in terms of Government spending, but in the midst of those big numbers there are some losers and some areas of our economy that need focus. I would like to spend my three minutes—two and a half, as it is now—focusing on them.
First, the self-employed who are employed through a limited company have not had any support at all. I cannot be the only Member in this House who has constant emails from such constituents asking for support. I am not saying that this is easy, but perhaps the Treasury could see whether there is a way to help the self-employed. Many of those who are self-employed through limited companies are in the creative industries, and it would be great if we could find some way of helping them.
The wedding sector has also been particularly hard hit. Wedding venues are too large to qualify for business rates relief. They have no turnover, so the VAT reductions do not help them, and they do not serve food, so eat out to help out could not help them. I know that support has been given to the wedding industry, but these venues want to get back open and to hold weddings. They can do that in a covid-safe way, and they were doing so before this lockdown. I ask the Government to bring forward support for that sector.
I also want to touch on pubs, and I declare my interest in that my family run pubs and it is the industry in which I grew up. While great support has been given, wet pubs in particular have suffered. Support such as eat out to help out has been available, as well as the VAT reduction to 5%, which is very welcome and I am pleased that it has been extended—as is Alton Towers, one of the biggest employers in my constituency. However, if a pub does not sell food, it does not qualify for the 5% reduction. Would the Government consider finding some way to help those wet pubs? They will be reopening just as the football season comes to an end and will therefore not have the benefit of people coming in to watch the football, and they do not serve food and therefore cannot benefit from many of the Government’s incentive schemes. Just a suggestion: maybe there could be a way to allow those businesses to continue furloughing staff but let the staff come back in to work to help them to reopen. There are great costs involved in reopening that they need to think about.
My final point is about getting people back into town centres and spending money in the hospitality businesses. We need a whole-of-Government effort to ensure that not just the great events that my right hon. Friend mentioned but local events are held. I spoke to the leader of my district council today, and we are looking to see what we can do because we want those businesses to be able to stand on their own two feet, as the Secretary of State said.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Let me join other Members in marking today as International Women’s Day. It is certainly a day for us to reflect on the contribution of women, and on how we ensure that everyone is able to make their fullest possible contribution and how we advance the cause of equality. It is also important for law makers to be considering the impact of the choices that are made all year round. With last week’s Budget, it is particularly important to ensure that the decisions as far as possible enhance equality and opportunity rather than diminish them.
Siren voices have been calling for action to be taken on the deficit that has resulted from the economic responses to covid, by which they inevitably mean the Government taking steps to cut public spending. Unfortunately, the Chancellor shows every sign of wishing to heed that. The only comparable economic event to the covid crisis in its impact on national debt was world war two. Most of us would find it hard to imagine the political voices that prevailed after world war two saying that a national health service was unaffordable, that public services were unaffordable or that it simply was not feasible for the Government to play a leading role in rebuilding housing and industry.
The important figure, of course, is not the debt in itself, but the debt as a share of gross domestic product. Economic demand will return as vaccinations start to take effect and more of life can begin to return to normal. If the Government continue to support that economic demand, the economy will return to trend growth and overall government debt will begin to shrink proportionately, exactly as it did after world war two. However, if the brakes are to be put on spending in the future, demand will assuredly fall and people will have less money to spend and growth in employment will be stifled. Inevitably, the impact will then fall most heavily on all those who have least, such as families that have one or more adult out of work and in receipt of benefits.
There are many actions, both big and small, that the Chancellor could have chosen to take in this Budget which could help or hinder the recovery, but one of the most significant choices would have been to make permanent the £20 uplift in universal credit. It is no exaggeration to say that for many families that £20 has made the difference between bills being paid or not, and food being on the table or not. It is a comparatively modest financial commitment, but one whose impact for the good has far outweighed the resources it has required. Extending it for six months falls well short of doing “whatever it takes” to ensure the financial security of the least well-off. Governments all over the world have increased their support for their economies throughout this crisis, many with interventions that are proportionately far larger than we have seen from the UK Government. Having rightly carried the economy this far, it would make no sense for the Chancellor to drop that commitment now. It is a real disappointment that he is not doing more to do “whatever it takes” and provide the 5% of GDP stimulus that the Scottish National party has called for repeatedly.
There are of course things that can be welcomed. We certainly welcome the excellent progress being made on vaccinations and on reducing infection levels of the virus, which gives us ever more hope that when restrictions start to be lifted they might be able to stay lifted. We can also welcome the extension of the furlough and the self-employment income support scheme. Obviously, the furlough is not without its cost to employers, and together with the SEISS it still fails to reach too many people, but both have been lifelines for those they benefit. To help fill in some of those gaps, the Scottish Government have provided nearly £30 million for newly self-employed people to mitigate the financial challenges for those who have been unable to access the UK Government’s SEISS. It is past time for the Chancellor to recognise the shortcomings of his support mechanisms, understand those they have left behind, recognise the hurt caused and undertake to do “whatever it takes” from this point onwards to support those people who have been left behind.
Although everyone recognises that those schemes cannot continue forever, the threat to end both in September is not at all helpful for those who are trying to plan how to trade out of their present difficulties. The repeated short-term extensions that we have seen over the past 12 months are obviously better than the alternative of not extending. However, it creates an image not so much of a Chancellor carefully planning a route back to recovery, but almost of a Wallace and Gromit Chancellor, desperately laying the rails in front of the train just before it runs out of track.
Ahead of the Budget the British Chambers of Commerce warned that a quarter of British businesses would fire staff immediately if the Chancellor failed to extend the scheme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies urged the Chancellor to recognise and address the multiple inequalities exacerbated by the crisis, saying that emergency support should be extended and that the furlough scheme
“should not be cut completely in one go.”
Placing a full stop date on furlough, rather than having an open-ended promise of continuing it until it is no longer needed, risks pushing businesses to lay off their workers while they are still in recovery. The resulting loss of skills and experience can only hinder the recovery of individual businesses and the economy, so we urge the Chancellor to reconsider the date. No business is or will be furloughing staff unnecessarily, and a Chancellor truly committed to doing “whatever it takes” would surely agree to maintain both schemes for so long as is required while restrictions remain in place.
Turning to the tourism and hospital sector, the best way to help it right now would be to allow it to trade out of its difficulties by getting money across the counter just as soon as it is safe once again to do so. The VAT reduction will be crucial. My party welcomed the VAT reduction to 5% for the sector, but to stop that on 30 September will not be helpful. It should continue for the full year.
Business rates relief will also be crucial and has been a lifeline for leisure, retail and hospitality businesses, helping them to strip out fixed costs and stay alive. It is a matter of regret that the Chancellor has not committed the same level of resource as the Scottish Government, who have announced a £1 billion package that not only cuts the poundage rate, but offers 100% relief not just until June, but for the next 12 months for retail, tourism, hospitality, newspapers and the vital aviation sector.
As a Member of Parliament representing the north-east of Scotland, I am only too aware of the importance of the energy economy and the criticality of ensuring a just transition to net zero. While I acknowledge the £27 million that has been announced for the energy transition zone in Aberdeen, it still falls well short of the wider £62 million transition fund committed last year by the Scottish Government.
Listening to the Scottish Tories would lead someone to think that the levelling-up fund will leave not a single pothole unfilled, not a bridge unrepaired and not a project unfunded in north-east Scotland. Instead, now that the detail has been revealed, we see that Aberdeenshire has been placed in the lowest category and Aberdeen city in the second tier. We are essentially being left empty handed, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK Government are so far falling far short of the necessary response to help secure the economic future of north-east Scotland. We can only hope that there is better news to come in the sector deal that we have been promised in the first quarter.
As I have said, there is also essentially nothing for the 3 million who have been excluded. If she has spent years of practice and study in pursuit of her dream to perform, Fatima’s next job should not have to be in cyber. She should have a fighting chance to get her next job in the area that she has worked so hard to be in. Our arts and cultural sector would be vital to our sense of who we are even without its economic contribution, but this is not just about the performer we see and admire, because there are so many other parts of the pyramid that helps to put that performer on the stage. Those people have been left behind without the ability to earn. If we impoverish them, we impoverish us all.
There has also been no additional funding to support musicians and touring artists who have suffered the double whammy of coronavirus and an end to visa-free touring in Europe and no provision for live events insurance, without which the industry will be reliant on support for much longer than necessary. The Scottish Government have stepped in with funds for the performing arts venue relief, for cultural organisations and the venues recovery fund, which has supported theatres and other performing arts venues across Scotland. That provision is supporting grassroots music venues and providing a stabilisation fund, furlough top-up payments and one-off grants for nightclubs and soft play centres. The UK Government can and should follow suit. Interventions have also been made in tourism and hospitality with no UK equivalent: in the wedding industry fund, the bed-and-breakfast hardship fund, the tour operators’ fund, and the events industry support fund. These tourism and hospitality businesses have lengthy supply chains, reaching all parts of the economy. It is not just the accommodation provider, but the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker as well. The recovery from the pandemic will not begin when covid recedes, as businesses will simply move on to dealing with the Brexit crisis. We need to offer wide-ranging support for businesses in this regard. Instead of offering loans, it would be better to convert loans to grants.
In conclusion, let me just make this observation: through the Barnett formula, Scotland is still dependent on problems being felt and choices being made in Whitehall in order to release the resources that we would wish to have in order to act in all the ways that we need. Scotland desperately needs borrowing powers, but as the UK Government take back control from the Scottish Parliament, they are also taking away resource and with it any reason for many to support the current constitutional and fiscal settlement. I am certain that that will not go unnoticed as we approach May’s election in Scotland.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure both to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and to be back in this Chamber to support the Chancellor on this Budget for recovery and renewal. In particular, I support his commitment to continue the unprecedented level of support: the extension of furlough relief, which will have given huge reassurance to many families around the country—£280 billion already spent on covid relief in the past 11 months; his help for the self-employed; his extraordinary commitment to freeports to drive transformational growth, investment and innovation in some of the most left-behind communities; his support for business-led investment, which is the key to growth and job creation; and, in particular, his support for green growth to drive a sustainable economic recovery.
I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but after a Budget, I look for a judgment not from the Opposition Front Bench but from the business community of this country as they are the people who drive the investment that creates prosperity. This Budget has been welcomed by the CBI, the FSB, the Institute of Directors and all the key trade bodies, which speaks volumes for the confidence of boardrooms in this country in this Chancellor and in this Budget.
As former Minister for life science, agri-tech and transport technology, I can say that the Chancellor is absolutely right to back the businesses of tomorrow—the highest growth sectors, which produce not just the odd single digit growth in jobs, employment and prosperity, but double digit and, in some cases, triple digit growth. Those new sectors of the economy are the best for getting us out of debt and releasing a generation from what could otherwise be a decade of decline after this covid disaster.
Let us be in no doubt about the scale of the economic disaster of covid as well as the healthcare impact. A total of £280 billion has been spent in 11 months, which is an unprecedented level of debt in peacetime. This is also the biggest recession that we have experienced in peacetime. This is a trauma on the public finances on a scale we have literally never seen in this country, and it takes us back to a debt-to-GDP ratio that has not been seen since 1760. This is an extraordinary moment. It is even worse than the economic legacy that we inherited in 2010.
How will we avoid a decade of decline and the next generation paying for it? The Chancellor is right about two things. First, we have to reassure the markets that we are the party still committed to returning our public finances to a sensible and balanced state. Let us not forget that a 1% rise in interest rates, if markets lost confidence in us, would lead to an extra £25 billion a year in interest payments. The Chancellor has taken some tough decisions and he is right to have done so, but, crucially, it is growth that we need and that commitment to those new sectors. Nine years ago, we set out an industrial strategy for life sciences, which has paid dividends this year in our ability to deliver a vaccine more quickly than anywhere else in the world, and if we do the same now in bioeconomy, artificial intelligence and robotics, we can do the same again, and the Chancellor has laid the foundations for a decade of growth.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Let me begin by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that the measure of a Budget is not the Pollyanna-ish speeches of the Culture Secretary but the slow peeling away of the unpleasant and unfair political choices that the Chancellor made last week. I lay on a ventilator while medical and non-medical staff were saving my life, as they did the Prime Minister’s, and I did not come out of hospital to clap those NHS workers and then say to them, “But you will have a real-terms pay cut.” It would have been hypocritical of me to do that, as it would for anyone else.
One of the crises we face in this country is the crisis in social care. We know that the sector is dominated by low-paid women workers—indeed, far too low-paid. We have to do something about that, yet we saw nothing in the Budget to relieve those problems.
Rochdale is a town in a borough that has seen £170 million taken away by successive Conservative Governments since 2010. We have very high unemployment among our young people—probably 50% higher than in the country as a whole—and 17,000 universal credit claimants. With that kind of background, it makes no sense to say that universal credit will be cut by £20. That will take £17 million a year out of the Rochdale economy, and stopping furlough in September will do equal damage.
If this is a jobs-first Budget, what about the missing millions—those who got no help, such as Sarah Graham, who runs a business in Rochdale as part of the Travel Counsellors franchise? She has had almost no financial support for the last 12 months and will probably have no income for another 12 months, because that is the nature of her work. It makes no sense for businesses such as that to be put at risk. Where is the ambition in the Budget? Where is the hope for the future? Where is the plan for investment in education for our young people or jobs skills training for the future? It is not there. Where is the commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail? We have heard it promised so many times, but not a spade has yet hit the ground.
This is a Government that talk the talk on greening our economy, but nothing in the Budget will address the urgency of the climate crisis. This Government have failed, this Budget has failed, and the Chancellor has failed the nation. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is what I like, a timer. Well done, Tony.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd).
I would like to make three brief points in this important debate on the Chancellor’s Budget statement. First, I applaud the priority to help to protect jobs and support businesses as we emerge cautiously from the restrictions imposed to combat the covid pandemic. I therefore welcome the extension of the furlough scheme to September and the increased support for the self-employed, in particular those who started a new business during the year before covid struck. I am grateful to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who opened the debate, for the work he has done to secure survival funding for the sports, arts, culture and heritage sectors. These groups have been a lifeline for cultural venues like the Ludlow Assembly Rooms and the Majestic cinema in Bridgnorth in my constituency, with major support going to the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, to ensure that these will all soon be able to reopen. The continued business rates holiday and the VAT cut for hospitality and tourism businesses will also be a huge help in south Shropshire when they are able to reopen.
Secondly, I welcome the green finance measures, extending the Bank of England’s remit to reflect the transition to net zero Britain, which the Environmental Audit Committee had specifically called for. The confirmation of the £15 billion green gilts issuance, the launch of environmental retail savings products and the review of carbon offset market trading will all help to cement the City of London’s leadership in green finance. The City and its regulators should lead the way in developing global standards of taxonomy to monitor and rate company performance and investment products and portfolios, as part of our contribution in hosting both the G7 and COP26 this year.
The Budget had some encouraging pointers to help the UK to meet its environmental obligations. The major boost to business investment through the super deduction capital allowance will help business to invest in newer, cleaner technology. It was also good to see the £12 billion investment in the new UK infrastructure bank, with a remit to help to drive green growth and create green jobs, as will the development of freeports and growth hubs, and the hydrogen projects, unlimited investment in offshore wind and the port infrastructure that were announced.
But despite these promising moves, covid has delayed many of the detailed environmental policies needed to deliver net zero Britain. The private sector is poised to invest in projects contributing to the economic recovery and to net zero Britain, but they need the demand signals and policy structures in place from Government to do so. The Chancellor missed this opportunity and made little further progress in aligning recovery measures to the overarching Government ambition to achieve net zero Britain. Last summer, the Chancellor launched the green homes grant—an excellent initiative to help the 19 million homes that need energy efficiency measures to cut carbon emissions, but unfortunately he did not choose the Budget to overhaul and extend this scheme so that it would live up to his ambitious targets.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
This is a shameful Budget. On International Women’s Day, whether you are a mother in a food bank queue in Britain struggling to feed your children or a mother of a child in Yemen, this heartless Chancellor is turning his back on your suffering. It is shameful because of the hypocrisy of standing on doorsteps clapping nurses and now slapping them in the face by cutting the pay of our NHS heroes and heroines. It is especially shameful because at the head of this Government who are insulting our NHS workers is a Prime Minister whose life they saved. The ultimate irony is that the Prime Minister is riding high in the polls on the backs of the hard work and dedication of the NHS staff who are rolling out the vaccination programme so successfully.
Anyone voting for this Budget will bear a mark of shame for throwing another 500,000 people into poverty when the Government cut the £20 a week in universal credit from the poorest families in our community, a mark of shame for yet again failing to provide even that meagre uplift to disabled people living in poverty on legacy benefits, and a mark of shame for failing to tackle the low level of sick pay that is forcing many workers to put their health at risk by returning to work. I have tabled an amendment to the Budget resolutions calling for a distributional analysis of the Chancellor’s proposals to freeze the tax thresholds. The Chancellor said:
“Nobody’s take-home pay will be less than it is now as a result of this policy”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]
The tax threshold freeze is a real-terms pay cut for millions of workers. The OBR estimates that this will mean 1.3 million more people paying income tax. Their take-home pay will be less. In 2019 the Conservative manifesto, like the Labour manifesto, pledged no rises in income tax, VAT or national insurance for basic rate taxpayers. This Budget breaks the pledge on which over 550 Members of this House were elected. Many low-paid workers are in rent arrears, in household debt or taking mortgage holidays, accruing more debt interest. We should not be legislating to cut their take-home pay.
I have seen it reported that in this Budget the Chancellor is stealing my policies. No, he is not. His Budget plagiarises the rhetoric but not the substance, with promises of corporation tax rises, but delayed and overridden by tax giveaways—tokenistic gestures to levelling up but contaminated by pork barrel politics. Taken alongside the fast-track award of crony contracts to Tory friends and donors, it is hardly surprising that many now refer to this Government as corrupt. The decisions to freeze fuel duties and to dig a new coal mine, and the pathetic scale of environmental policies, do not just pay lip service to the climate crisis we face but put future generations at risk. By any measure, this is a Budget to be ashamed of.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]
We all understand the maelstrom in which the Chancellor is operating and must congratulate him on his efforts to deal with the immediacy of the crisis. Despite this, I was somewhat disappointed that there was no reference to Morecambe’s Eden Project North.
Eden Project North meets all the Prime Minister’s policy priorities: it can be an exemplar project in terms of levelling up. As the project is shovel-ready, it is now possible that workers can be on-site this year, with immediate gains, demonstrating the green shoots of recovery from covid-19 and being a showcase for the Government’s commitments to COP26 in Glasgow in November. Eden Project North is precisely the type of project that the Government should be backing. Three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors have agreed with this, as did the Minister in my recent Adjournment debate.
The benefits and employment opportunities are obvious. Morecambe has a vibrant creative arts and tourism sector, and Eden will complement that as it has a proven track record of hosting arts and tourism events at its Cornwall site. I have submitted to the Treasury a private letter signed by 46 MPs from all areas of the UK, not just the north-west, to back Eden Project North, and almost 100 businesses in the wider Morecambe area have also signed a petition to Parliament. It seems that if there is any project to change lives, this is one that should be endorsed. I urge the Government to back this project as we emerge out of the pandemic crisis.
The levelling-up fund is good but is capped at £20 million per district, not per seat, with multiple restrictions on use and existing funding streams now seemingly being redirected through a levelling-up bank in Leeds yet to be implemented. How can Eden Project North access this scheme, especially as it has already been endorsed by the Government and can only apply in two years’ time through a council that will be abolished in the next 12 months? The levelling-up funds are not enough for Eden Project North unless they can be applied through an infrastructure scheme for £30 million to £50 million, seemingly only for roads. There needs to be more clarity on the levelling-up prospectus and I call on the Government to match-fund the £55 million Eden has on the table to get the bulldozers and builders to work on Eden Project North in Morecambe sooner rather than later.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
There is nothing in this Budget for Northumberland. There is nothing in this Budget for my constituency of Wansbeck. It is typical of what has happened in the north. We have seen decades of decline and decay since the social and economic fabric of whole communities was torn apart and left unreplaced. The decline has accelerated in recent years as a brutal regime of austerity and cuts has taken its toll on already abandoned communities. Last week’s Budget was a kick in the teeth for my constituents and many more in the surrounding area, who, despite years of being left behind, could see no sign of any attempt to level up in the region.
Despite that, the exciting proposal of a new state-of-the-art electric battery manufacturing gigafactory in Cambois in my constituency presents an opportunity that our communities can be rebuilt around—a new industrial power in the north that centres on green energy, upon which we must and will become increasingly reliant. This will only be possible with the firm support of this Government, and the question from my constituents to the Government is simple: “Will you support us this time round or cast us aside once again? Will you deliver, or will you boot us into touch once again?”
Climate change is a real and dangerous threat, yet there was little mention of it in the Budget last week. But, believe me, there is no get-out-of-jail card with climate change; there is no vaccine for climate change. It is crucial that the Government do what they can to support the development of this gigafactory in my region. It is an opportunity for the people to get just employment—to get fair wages, and terms and conditions.
The Britishvolt gigafactory is only the first step in what has the potential to be a revival for the north, which has been given so little to cheer about in recent decades. We need this; we need and deserve this chance and opportunity. I urge the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and the Prime Minister to do whatever they can and whatever is in their power to ensure that this proposal is successful. It will transform the lives of thousands of families in my constituency. I urge them and their teams to work closely alongside those who understand our region. We are a proud region and a proud people; give us the respect we deserve and deliver.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
This was a Budget that had a clear direction. Whether we like it or not, if we do not continue to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the country, particularly in the private sector, we will not have an economy to return to that does any of the things that we take for granted, such as providing stability, growth or the tax receipts to fund the public sector. The Chancellor focused on that No. 1 priority. That is of the moment, and I commend him for it.
I have listened to the speeches by Opposition Members over the last few days bemoaning what was not in the Budget rather than acknowledging the sheer depth of support that this Conservative Government continue to offer. It is astonishing. Wake up! The answer to the biggest economic shock in history is not like a vaccine. We cannot fix where we are overnight; this situation will take years and years to recover from. It is a question of priorities—and where do we even begin to start? We do what this Government have done since the start of the pandemic—we protect people. We protect people’s jobs and livelihoods with support that is still needed now.
We heard it when the Chancellor said that the OBR now expects the UK economy to recover to its pre-crisis level six months earlier than originally thought. Unemployment is now expected to peak at 6.5%, instead of nearly 12% as feared last summer; 1.8 million fewer people are expected to be out of work than first forecast. That is not a bit of luck; that is a Government that have produced one of the best financial responses in the entire world to support their citizens.
We cannot fix the public finances in a single Budget when we are in the midst of spending £407 billion in total fiscal support, with our national debt reaching its highest level since the ’60s. The recovery from this economic shock will be long and prolonged, but like our exit from lockdown, the Chancellor’s plan is the right step. My right hon. Friend was honest: the steps will be steady, moving in the right direction and priority-driven. That is responsibility.
For my constituents in North Norfolk, the message has been heard. Tourism, leisure and hospitality, the dominant sectors for many rural areas, are on their knees, but we welcome the extension of the VAT rate cut and of business rates relief, and the restart grants to get our businesses back on their feet. No one, but no one, can question the commitment that the Government have given to this sector, and I am confident that we will see another year of safe domestic tourism into North Norfolk.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
The Budget announced on 3 March left a lot to be desired. While there were certainly some welcome measures, it is astounding that so little was said about the NHS and social care, public sector pay, legacy benefits, schools, or what those families relying on universal credit will do once the uplift is phased out in September. Yet those are the issues that so many of my constituents in Hall Green regularly contact me about.
At the front of people’s minds is the NHS, yet here we heard nothing of substance from the Government—no new funding announced for the NHS in the midst of one of the biggest public health crises we have ever faced. To add insult to injury, the Government are now saying that they can afford only the derisory sum of a 1% pay increase for nurses. I direct them to the Royal College of Nursing on this issue and recommended that nothing less than a 12.5% pay increase is satisfactory for our nurses, who have worked hard and risked their lives to keep us safe and healthy over the course of the pandemic.
Also notable by their absence from the Budget were children and parents. In my constituency, nearly half of all children live in poverty—twice the national average—which is completely unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours. While the Budget gave sorely needed certainty to businesses, children and parents were given none whatsoever. As the Child Poverty Action Group has argued, the temporary uplift to universal credit only delays an inevitable and considerable fall in income for many families living in poverty. This is simply not good enough. The uplift should be permanent.
Finally, there was nothing on public sector pay. Many of our key workers in the public sector now face squeezed incomes as lockdown eases and the economy returns to normality. After all they have done for this country, to keep their pay frozen is a disgrace. This pay freeze must be abandoned, and decent pay rises must be granted to all public sector workers.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I do not think any reasonable person could have expected to see anything except a tough Budget this year. The measures taken by the Chancellor over the past year have been essential. We could not have stood by while so many fellow citizens saw their jobs and livelihoods disappear, so I pay tribute to the Chancellor for his speedy response and for the massive support packages he has put in place. Instinctively, I believe in low taxes and small government, but in a crisis like this, measures of this kind—unwelcome but necessary tax increases—are vital, as, I am afraid, are pay freezes, except in the NHS. I also very much agree with the Chancellor’s continuing focus on jobs. I say that as a former Minister for Employment who spent a long time trying to help people back into work a decade ago, when unemployment was 2.6 million. Getting people back into work has to be our priority.
However, there are a few areas where I would like the Treasury to have another look. The first is the situation facing people who have missed out on support over the past 12 months, and in particular those who pay themselves by dividend. I understand why the Treasury took the approach it did at the start of the pandemic, and I agreed with that approach then, but after 12 months and three lockdowns, the Treasury should be taking a different view. It should be offering support to those people, potentially as part of an expanded self-employment income support scheme. We have to do something for them now.
My second concern is the travel and tourism sector. The Secretary of State pointed out what a dreadful time this has been for businesses in that sector. From airlines to event managers, businesses across the sector have been crippled over the past year, and as of now, they have no certainty about when they can return to anything like normality. This sector is vital to our economy, and my constituency hosts a large number of small businesses that operate in it. I urge Ministers to make 17 May the start of an unlocking process. We cannot continue with borders shut to the degree that they are now. But if that is not going to happen and international travel cannot begin again without onerous restrictions, the Chancellor will need to return to the issue.
Finally, will Ministers look again at the conditions that apply to the rescue package put in place for zoos? The fund was welcome, but it is very difficult for zoos to apply for it. It makes no sense to have a rescue fund go unspent while the zoos go bust. Can Ministers look at this again and change the ways of applying for the fund?
This was a Budget that none of us would have wanted. I hate to see taxes rise, but a smart Budget deals with the challenges of the moment, and this Budget did that very well.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I have three tests for this Budget. The first is: does it leave anybody behind? If someone works hard and plays by the rules, they should be able to expect to get on in society. People who are unable to work should be protected and expect to have benefits that secure a decent life, and public services should be universal, properly financed and available to all. By those standards, the Budget fails.
Government Members argue that there is not enough money in Britain. This is one of the richest countries in the world. The problem is that the wealth is located in a handful of large corporations and a few thousand very wealthy people. In the last six months, during the pandemic, the stock exchange increased in value by £630 billion. Since the banking crash, the 1,000 richest people in our country have increased their wealth by £400 billion. There is almost £1 trillion in unspent corporate liquidity in the banks. There is a large amount of wealth available in our country. The problem is that it is held in a very few hands, and the Chancellor failed to touch it. At the same time, working people, who have sustained our country through the pandemic, are facing a disgraceful situation. We have £8 million being taken by stealth because of the income tax changes. We have a third of key workers now paid less than the living wage. Ten million people are currently working in precarious employment and 14 million people are living in poverty in our country today, alongside the vast wealth I have just spoken about.
It is true that the Budget envisages expenditure on infrastructure, but it is £2.4 billion a year. That is a large amount of money, but it is 147 times less than the amount of money that Germany is spending on infrastructure and it is 15 times less than what the Government are spending with their Tory chums on the track and trace system, which is not working very well. All those things mean that one has to worry about the chronic nature of the problems facing working people in our country. A towns fund has been created, but it has already been cut, actually, through austerity and it is not going to the towns in most need. It is going to those that are most convenient to the Tory party. As for housing, of course they are giving more money to buy houses, but they have done nothing to build more houses, thereby contributing to the chronic problem of housing facing our country.
This is not a Budget to build back better. This is a Budget that sustains everything we have seen—unemployment, poor work, precarious employment, poverty, cuts to the public services and austerity. It should be rejected tomorrow night. The Chancellor needs to go back, with a new calculator, to bring a new Budget back in due course.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The extension of the furlough scheme, the extension of the VAT reduction and the restart grants are all hugely welcomed by businesses and individuals across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, particularly ceramic manufacturers such as Churchill China and Steelite, which have been hugely reliant upon furlough, so they can bring back workers steadily as demand for their world-leading tableware increases.
If I can, however, make one further pitch for brewers, such as Burslem-based Titanic Brewery, I would argue that more must be done to help the on-trade. The new rate of duty for draught beer, defined as beer sold in containers of over 20 litres, could be set at a lower rate, reducing the price gap between cheap supermarket booze and a beer at the pub. This policy targets a sector that has suffered throughout the pandemic and is only possible now the UK has left the European Union.
I was astonished by the Leader of the Opposition’s sneering attitude over well-paid jobs moving to Darlington and money being invested in towns such as Kidsgrove. Instead of welcoming the investment, he showed how out of touch he is with the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke by suggesting that Kidsgrove is not entitled to the £16.9 million awarded in this Budget.
The Leader of the Opposition said that such announcements were “giving up”, not levelling up. Let us look at how, from 2012 to 2018, the Labour-led Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council gave up on the borough’s second town. During that period, the spend on infrastructure projects in Kidsgrove was: in 2012-13 nil, 2013-14 nil, 2015-16 nil, 2016-17 £15,000, 2017-18 nil. The local Labour party gave up so much on Kidsgrove that, when it was offered a chance to buy Kidsgrove sports centre for £1, it said no. Thankfully, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council is now Conservative-led, by Councillor Simon Tagg, who has worked tirelessly with the Kidsgrove sports centre community group and County Councillor Gill Burnett to develop plans for the sports centre’s big comeback—a comeback that would not be happening without the town deal money, demonstrating clearly to the people of Kidsgrove that, under this Chancellor and this Prime Minister, places such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are forgotten no longer.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Chancellor’s Budget has created a new cliff edge at the end of September. The furlough scheme stops at the end of September. It should be extended and be flexible. The 5% VAT reduction for food and drink in pubs and restaurants stops at the end of September. It should be extended and include the close contact service industry. The universal credit £20 uplift stops at the end of September. It should be made permanent and include legacy benefits. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts peak UK unemployment of 6.5% at the end of September. That is 2.2 million people without jobs at a time when coronavirus and flu may be overwhelming.
The Chancellor’s Budget is rhetoric over substance, playing down his £4 billion of cuts. Austerity is not over in Wales. While we wait for his rhetoric to turn into substance, the Welsh Labour Government have stepped in again to protect public services, build a greener future and create positive change for a more equal Wales, filling in the Chancellor’s gaps in support to move Wales forward. The Welsh Labour Government’s £2 billion economic resilience fund is the most generous coronavirus support package in the UK, securing 141,000 jobs in Wales.
Hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses in Wales that are affected by ongoing coronavirus restrictions will have an extra £30 million. If restrictions are extended in next week’s Welsh Government review, an extra £150 million will be available through the non-domestic rates scheme, with each business receiving up to £5,000. The business rates holiday for retail, leisure and hospitality in Wales will be extended for 12 months, with a targeted, responsible £380 million for businesses with rateable value up to £500,000, plus charities. Together with the small business rates relief scheme, that ensures that more than 70,000 businesses will not pay rates in 2021-22. Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality said:
“The Welsh Government has again listened directly to our constructive proposals for more vital support and the new money will play a leading part in continuing to save local jobs and local businesses”.
One potential investment for Neath is the Chancellor’s announcement of £30 billion for the global centre for rail excellence in Onllwyn. Since 2016, the Welsh Labour Government have partnered with current landowners Celtic Energy, the rail industry, academics and Neath Port Talbot and Powys local authorities, and had positive consultations with local communities. Let us hope that this announcement is substance, not rhetoric.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I broadly welcome the Budget. It comes at an unprecedentedly difficult time for the public finances as a result of the pandemic and the Chancellor is indeed wise largely to leave the economy alone in the coming year. This is not, as we had in the financial crisis, a fundamental problem with the workings of the economy itself, but an external shock, and the economy will self-right if we allow it to do so.
It is not a surprise that there is a bigger drop in GDP in the United Kingdom than in some other countries. We have a much larger service sector economy, and service sectors require people to move for them to work, therefore it is not a surprise that, if people cannot move, we get a bigger shock than an economy that is largely manufacturing based.
However, I question some of the attitudes to the financial years ahead. We tend to get much of the same old, same old on tax and spend; that the way to balance the books is either to raise taxes or to reduce spending. No one looks at what a business would do, which is to ask how it can earn more money. This country could earn a lot more money.
British exports now count for under 30% of our GDP. That needs to improve—the figure for Germany, for example, is nearly 49%. We have identified 400,000 businesses that we know could be exporters because they have counterparts and peers that already export. Governments need to help companies into markets. The market will do the same.
The Government can also help by setting a wider and better international framework for business. We can liberalise global services post Brexit, with our freedom in world trade policy. We should do so. Britain, the United States and Japan, the world’s three biggest service economies, would benefit enormously from trade liberalisation.
We need more wealth creation in the country. Wealth creation is not the same as growth. Any idiot Government can spend tomorrow’s money today and call the result growth. Labour Governments have made careers of doing that since the first Labour Government. Wealth creation is taking someone’s unique intellectual property and turning it into a good or a service that does not exist today, or a better good or service than exists today. That is why I would like to see more creativity in what we do in the time ahead.
Are we really saying with a £39 billion tax rise that we can find no major efficiency savings in the years ahead? Are we really saying there are no supply-side changes in our economy that could make it work more effectively? Do we really have to be saddled in perpetuity with the balance of spending and the patterns that we see today? I hope not. I hope that, in the Budgets ahead, once we put the covid pandemic behind us, we can return to a Conservative tradition of not just tax reform, but tax simplification, because those are the things that will make a market economy work better. We cannot fund the public services we want to see unless we have an efficient capitalist economy working at its maximum level, and that is the duty of any Conservative Government.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor’s announcement last week about an extension to the universal credit uplift is of course welcome. However, by not committing to a permanent extension or offering tapered support, too many families are facing a cliff edge in six months’ time. Furthermore, by not providing a corresponding uplift for those on legacy benefits, more than 2 million people have been left to face increased costs, with many of our most vulnerable having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families.
It is evident that the enhanced conditionality of our hostile benefits system results only in a framework that is difficult to navigate, uncompassionate and penalises the most disadvantaged. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ director Paul Johnson recently stated that the cliff edge reduction in universal credit will result in the income of some families in our communities falling by £80 from one month to the next. This drop in income will come at the same time as unemployment is expected to peak. The deepening impact of the austerity measures enacted by this UK Government will clearly result in a system that is unworkable and cruel.
Does the Chancellor really think it is acceptable to leave the millions receiving legacy benefits facing real hardship, just because they happen to be claiming the wrong kind of benefit? Does he really think it is acceptable to increase the income of these same individuals by a lousy 37p a week, while continuing to refuse them the vital £20 uplift? Why is their need any different?
With no immediate return to normality in sight, it is only fair and reasonable to provide the same level of support to those on legacy benefits as to those claiming universal credit. Many of my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill have faced the full force of this incompetent system, yet it is not the UK Government who are stepping in to provide support, but our grassroots organisations acting once again as the lifeblood of our communities. Tannochside Information and Advice Centre supports more than 200 of my constituents every month with benefit-related issues. Surely, given the circumstances, the Government should have extended existing benefit claim forms, instead of powering ahead with a system of inherent prejudice. This is just another abject failure in an already unsecure social security system.
The Budget should have been a chance for the Government to think more ambitiously about the welfare system. Given this failure and many fundamental issues around payment levels, the system will continue to leave people struggling. This was the time to give people dignity. Instead the Government have offered nothing but further deprivation, desperation and destitution.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome this Budget, which addresses current issues while also planning sensibly for future economic stability. The Government have put in place unprecedented support measures during a pandemic, which have provided a bridge to allow jobs and businesses to be there on the other side. I welcome that the Government are continuing the support with the extension of the furlough scheme and other support measures. I am so pleased that the Government have listened to our calls from both sides of the House for the uplift in universal credit to be extended, which will benefit around 635,000 households in the north-west of England alone. I hope it will be kept under review in case a further extension is required.
I am grateful to Treasury colleagues for responding positively to our calls for other additional support, and the inclusion of some of the newly self-employed in the self-employment income support scheme is very welcome indeed. However, I reiterate my calls for that to be expanded further to provide support for those who, sadly, are still missing out, including directors of companies and freelancers.
The tourism and hospitality sectors have been hit particularly hard during the crisis. Those sectors are vital in Penrith and The Border and across Cumbria, and they may be slower to recover than some other sectors. I am therefore delighted that the Chancellor has announced continued targeted support for those sectors, such as the extension of business rates relief, the extension of the VAT cut and additional recovery grants and loans being made available. The sector is there ready and waiting to welcome visitors back to beautiful Cumbria when it is safe to do so. This targeted support will make that wide welcome all the more possible.
The support for training and upskilling communities in the Budget will make a huge difference. The doubling of the financial incentive to take on new apprentices will allow more workplace training for folk of many ages. In Penrith, we have had the turmoil over the future of Newton Rigg College, and we now have a lifeline of land-based education provision through an innovative partnership between Myerscough College and Penrith’s Ullswater Community College. Investment in apprenticeships and further education training will bolster this lifeline as we work with local stakeholders to secure a future vision for a new Newton Rigg to re-emerge. I look forward to working with Government and local stakeholders in realising this vision.
Finally, I was saddened that Cumbria’s freeport application, involving Carlisle Airport, Barrow and Workington, was not chosen in the first round of freeports. I hope the Government will recognise the importance of Carlisle Lake District airport to our region’s economy and as a key part of the United Kingdom’s connectivity. I hope, therefore, that they will continue to look to support the airport with financial and policy interventions.
This is a Budget with strategic importance, both now and in the future, as we come through the pandemic. I am happy to give it my support.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) [V]
It is delightful to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I look forward to visiting his beautiful bit of the north-west as soon as we are able to do so.
This Budget is probably the most critical of my time in this place. The crisis has pushed millions into financial difficulty. Following a decade of austerity combined with the economic shock of Brexit, this emergency has thoroughly gutted parts of my communities in Wythenshawe and Sale East. The Budget was an opportunity to heal our economy and help those worst affected by the pandemic. I welcome the extra measures announced last week aimed at filling in the gaps of support. However, many of my constituents have shouldered an unfair share of the pain in the last 12 months. The Budget does not go far enough.
I have seen the huge impact the pandemic has had on Manchester Airport in my constituency and the surrounding community. For example, Naeem Ahmed, the secretary of the airport taxi association, shared with me the tragic news that several of his members had died of covid, unable to stop working due to the lack of financial assistance. These self-employed drivers and their families need proper financial support. Teresa McGeough, a self-employed children’s dyslexic assessor, was unable to work for much of last year. Teresa has only had access to a small amount of financial support that is not meeting her family’s outgoings. The Government cannot leave those like Teresa without the help they need.
The restrictions on hospitality in the past 12 months have had an unequal effect on wet-led pubs, unfairly affecting those in working class communities like mine. In addition, my constituent Paul Naylor, landlord at the much-loved Legh Arms in Sale Moor, is left with less than £100 a month due to the complex retail partnership between landlords and breweries.
This should have been a Budget to put the country back on the road to recovery and right the wrongs of the last decade by rebuilding our economic foundations. Instead, it just papers over the cracks. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the Conservative Government’s mismanagement has left Britain with the worst economic crisis of any major economy. We need to learn the lessons of the pandemic, not go back to the insecurities of the past. The Chancellor has the wrong priorities and is out of touch with what the country needs today.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Budget, not only for its record levels of support in the present due to the pandemic, but for having an eye on the future. However, if we do not own our future, the future will own us. Although this Budget was delivered in a period of extreme economic uncertainty and gloom, the one shining shaft of light has been the UK’s leading role in the covid vaccination programme, which has been delivered solely due to the impact of research and development. Clearly, research and development not only changes lives, as we have always known, but saves them too. As the covid R number begins to fall rapidly due to vaccination, we need now to turn our attention to the other vital R number: the figure that we spend on R&D in the United Kingdom. We have set ourselves a target of spending 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027, yet we currently spend only 1.8%. Compared with other countries—China spends 2.1% of GDP, the US spends 2.8%, Germany spends 3.1%, South Korea spends 4.5% and Israel spends 4.9%—we are falling behind in the global race when it comes to R&D. There are now just 2,135 days until we reach that 2027 target date. If we are not careful, we will miss the target altogether.
The Government have already committed to increase the public spend on R&D from £12 billion a year to £24 billion by 2024-25, which is incredibly welcome, but we must now focus on leveraging in private R&D spend, which is currently around £30 billion a year and needs to rise to £70 billion by 2027. How are we going to achieve that? I was delighted that the Budget includes a consultation on R&D tax reliefs. Although tax reliefs follow the Frascati manual, they are currently limited to staffing costs, materials and software. We urgently need to include data, education and skills in that package.
The reliefs are part of a wider picture that must be addressed in the spending review. We need to look at our R&D commitment for the future—for 2027—and be bold, establishing new international research schemes to bring in the leverage and get private companies to come to this country and commit to R&D. After all, research and development is about to get us out of this pandemic. If we wish to invest in research and development now, it can point us in a fantastic direction for the future.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) [V]
This Budget was a pivotal opportunity to deliver a stronger and fairer economic future, but instead the Chancellor has doubled down on the same economic illiteracy that left us so vulnerable to this crisis. The extension of wage and business support schemes was the right decision but was, as ever, taken needlessly late and came at the cost of businesses and jobs.
More needs to be done to tackle the looming cliff edge on rent and evictions, which puts hospitality businesses, including pubs, at risk. Many of those excluded remain without support and have received nothing during this pandemic. The impact will be felt disproportionately among the self-employed, freelancers and limited company directors who are the lifeblood of local economies such as Portsmouth’s. They will remember the Chancellor’s hollow promise to do “whatever it takes” to support them. The cultural and events sector, which is so vibrant in Portsmouth, will see the lack of Government-backed insurance schemes as a missed opportunity to help festivals such as Victorious to go ahead this summer.
This was a Budget that did not learn the hard lessons that the pandemic has taught us. There was nothing for schools, which are in dire need of investment if our children are to catch up and thrive. The Chancellor announced no support for job creation, yet the number of those under 25 and claiming out-of-work support in Portsmouth has increased by 135% in the past year. There was nothing for social care, which bore the brunt of the crisis and is in dire need of a sustainable funding settlement.
Most insultingly, the Budget confirmed a pay freeze for the public sector workers who have got us through this crisis, and concealed a cut in NHS spending in the fine print. Since then, we have heard that our NHS heroes have been offered a pay increase of just 1%, which is equivalent to a real-terms cuts. More than 11,000 public sector workers in my constituency will be worse off, as will more than 15,000 police officers and almost 40,000 members of our armed forces across the region. The Government cannot cynically clap our key workers one minute and then cut their pay the next.
Finally, the Budget confirmed that Brexit will leave us worse off, with a permanent 4% hit to productivity. We will feel that acutely in Portsmouth: this short-change Government continue to withhold funds that the port needs to build vital post-Brexit infrastructure. The Budget showed us that the Government are intent on the same economic insecurity and inequality that the OBR has confirmed caused the worst recession of the major economies. The Chancellor has put his signature all over a Budget that fails Portsmouth’s families, young people and key workers. It lacks the ambition that my city and this country need for the future.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
My constituents are most grateful for all the support that has been provided through the pandemic and towards the bounce back as we look forward, and for the success with the long-term project funding that has begun to come through. We are very grateful for the furlough and all the grant and support schemes. In particular, the business rates and VAT exemptions and the increase in capital allowances in this Budget will, I think, set us in very good stead to grow our way back into being able to have the revenue that we all want for our public services and to repair the public finances.
We have had some really big wins that are worth celebrating in Yeovil and district. In particular, there was £10 million in the Budget for the Octagon theatre, which is so important to creative industries locally. There was also some money for the Westlands Entertainment Venue to keep that going with revenue support. We have had, through the pandemic, support for the national league, which has been of great benefit to Yeovil Town and clubs like it. Outside the Budget, we also had some brilliant recent news with the final go-ahead—the final decision—on dualling the A303 section at Podimore, which kicks off a signature project that we as a Government have wanted to institute for the whole of the south-west. That will be of huge benefit to my constituents and everybody throughout the south-west peninsula.
However, huge challenges do remain. For example, our high street in Yeovil is definitely struggling. We have had success in being allocated £9.5 million from the future high streets fund, which is brilliant, but it is fair to say that the private sector involvement in that does need the high streets to be back on their feet, so it is a great credit to the Government that the vaccination programme has been going so well. I encourage everybody to get their vaccination as soon as they are offered it, because that gives us the best prospect of being able to stay open as an economy, stay open on our high streets, get our economy firing again and give people the jobs and opportunities that they need. Rapid tests are a fantastic thing that we have brought in. I think that that really gives us hope that we can get the economy back on track, repair the public finances and have a great future.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
I am grateful that I can make some remarks in the proceedings this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Budget was obviously in the worst and most hellish possible circumstances, but I am afraid that the Chancellor and, indeed, the wider Government have failed to meet the moment and really go big on the economic recovery and stimulus that so many people need and had hoped for.
There are two egregious elements that many people, including many of my constituents, have commented on. One is, of course, the fact that even still, a year into the pandemic, so many people who are self-employed are left behind. The other is the utterly egregious way in which the Government are using the levelling-up fund as some kind of party political slush fund aimed at their own constituencies. This is deeply egregious and needs to be fixed.
I want to raise two quick issues in the short time that I have. I have raised one previously, and it concerns hospitality staff in Glasgow at two venues, Blue Dog and AdLib. We are talking about a lot of people here. Because of a dispute between their employer and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, all those members of staff have had no furlough since November last year—none, not a single penny. I raised this two weeks ago and, in fairness, the Paymaster General’s office contacted me and offered to set up some kind of meeting to try to resolve the fact that those members of staff are not only not getting furlough but not getting universal credit because their real-time information is being updated as though they were still being paid. However, I am afraid to say that I am still sat here waiting, and almost 200 people, many of whom are my constituents, are still without any support. I plead with those on the Treasury Bench tonight to get this resolved and to do so swiftly.
The last thing I will raise in the few seconds left to me is that it is three years ago this month—indeed, you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—when I introduced a Bill to ban unpaid work trials, on that fateful Friday in March 2018. The then Minister talked the Bill out. Unpaid work trials are exploitative, they cost us around £3 billion per year and they unfairly target young people. As we go into the recovery, let us do something good, decent and right for people as they try to find work: let us ban the egregious use of unpaid work trials as we move into the recovery phase.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Government are delivering the biggest economic intervention in our country’s history, protecting the jobs, businesses and livelihoods of millions of people. It is one of the most comprehensive support schemes anywhere in the world, and of course I warmly welcome the help that it has given to so many of my constituents, but all this comes at a very high cost. The Budget confirms that the Government are due to spend £1,140 billion in this financial year. Borrowing will be £355 billion—some £300 billion more than was forecast in the March 2012 Budget. The perilous state of the economy means that it is not viable or sensible to start the task of repairing the public finances now, but inevitably there will be a day of reckoning—thankfully not today, but it will come. Right now, borrowing costs are at record low levels, but it is not sustainable just to continue to rely on an ever-expanding Bank of England balance sheet. As the economist Liam Halligan put it, this kind of funding is a stop-gap, not a “miracle cure”. We need strong economic growth to fix the nation’s finances and get us back on our feet, and that means supply-side reform and higher productivity as well as improving skills and infrastructure that requires smarter regulation.
Now that we have taken back control over making our laws in this country, we must do more to ensure that our rules and regulations are pro-competition. That does not mean a race to the bottom—of course we must maintain our high standards—but it does mean crafting our regulation so that it treats businesses equally, including start-ups and innovative disrupters, rather than entrenching advantage for market incumbents. We need a regulatory climate that encourages new entrants to markets rather than placing unnecessary barriers in their way. Regulatory rules are a core part of our economic ecosystem, and the OECD is clear that reforming them in a way that encourages innovation and competition can boost GDP and give consumers more choice and lower prices. Finally, if we are to have a truly roaring ’20s with the strong growth that we need, our regulatory system must keep up with new technology, enabling us to turn the scientific genius to which this country is home into the successful cutting-edge high-growth sectors of the future.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
Treasury data shows that transport infrastructure spending in London is 2.5 times more per person than in the whole of the north of England. If the Chancellor is serious about levelling up, we need to see spending on our vital infrastructure in all parts of the north-east too. That is why, on Wednesday last week, I presented a petition to Parliament calling for the Leamside line to be reopened in full, and the Restoring Your Railway Fund bid calling for that was submitted on Friday. Reopening the line in full would bring rail back to Washington, which is the largest town in England without a rail link, but the line would also bring remarkable economic and connectivity benefits to the entire region. After more than a decade of neglect from Conservative Governments, with the added impact of the pandemic on top, the north-east needs that.
Some businesses in my constituency have had to close due to the coronavirus restrictions, without any access to financial support. They include driving instructors, mobile hairdressers and other businesses that do not have premises. The Government should not be putting local authorities on the line and making them the fall guys for a conscious decision that the national Government made. It is this Government who are hitting an estimated 6,500 key workers across my constituency with a real-terms pay cut. They include the NHS heroes we all clapped for, but clapping does not put food on their tables. This also hits our teachers, police officers and all public sector workers, who we all rely on day in, day out. After working on the frontline throughout the pandemic, our key workers really do deserve better.
My constituents all need assurances and certainty, but the Government have failed to do that in this Budget. The Government have made it clear that they are happy to stick to the status quo of the same unfair economy and unequal country that has been so cruelly exposed by this deadly virus.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
Listening to some Opposition Members in this particular debate, I am reminded of when my daughter was a teenager and one of her telling phrases was, “Get real.” This is a “get real” Budget. The fact that the Government have been spending approximately 17% of GDP to protect lives and livelihoods at the same time as the biggest economic contraction since the early 1700s brings home the phrase, “Get real.”
This Budget recognises that we need to continue to protect lives and livelihoods for some time to come. In my constituency, it is particularly welcomed by the hospitality, leisure and events industry. For them, it is in addition to the most welcome news that they are going to be able to open their doors.
The other side of the “get real” approach is the need to face the debt. The two tax changes about which I anticipate my constituents could be negative are the freezing of tax thresholds from next year and the large but delayed increase in corporation tax. I have talked about this to many of my constituents, big businesses and the man in the street. Their reaction has generally been positive, with an understanding of the Chancellor’s difficult situation, and a pleased acceptance of the continuing help, but a reluctant acceptance that debt payment must commence.
In the debate over the past few days, there has been little mention of the new 95% mortgage guarantee scheme, which will enable lenders to provide mortgages to buyers with a deposit of just 5% to purchase properties worth up to £600,000. I believe that this is a new opportunity, parochially, to rebalance the age spectrum of my constituency. Some 22% of the population are under 20, and 60% are aged 40 and over, which leaves about 18% who are in the 20 to 40-year-old bracket. Quite simply, many people in that bracket who have left and would like to come back cannot do so. Commonly, they are young, single, young couples or young families, but they cannot afford to move to Mole Valley.
The two main towns of Leatherhead and Dorking need boosting: they need shops; shops need shoppers; and shoppers need homes. Those two towns have suitable brownfield sites that could be developed to provide homes costing less than £600,000. Unfortunately, Mole Valley has the dead hand of an incompetent Liberal Democrat group in power. They are doing nothing to help, but I am hopeful that after May there will be a new Conservative council that can move on the brownfield sites, sort out the planning, bring investment and homes, and enable the 20 to 40-year-old age group to use the mortgage opportunity and revive the two towns of Leatherhead and Dorking.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
A very good evening to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Members are aware, I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in support. I want to talk about two issues that have arisen from my work on that front.
The first—ironically, almost, given that today is International Women’s Day, as others have pointed out—is maternity. Our APPG suggested certain policies to the Government that could be based on maternity, parental and adoption rights. I am not going to be churlish about this; there were some gives by the Government. They recognised some of our suggestions and have taken action as a result. I acknowledge that and give credit where it is due. Alas, what we suggested on the maternity front in particular, where a lot of people have lost out rather badly, was sadly not taken up by the Government.
It is only right that I should express my thanks at this stage to a number of organisations, including Maternity Action, Pregnant Then Screwed and ExcludedUK, as well as the campaigner Bethany Power, who did a great deal of work. But you know me well enough, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am ever an optimist. I therefore hope that perhaps, as the weeks and months go by, we can still fine-tune the package to try to recognise the sort of people I am talking about.
As the House is aware, I talk a great deal about the highlands. Therefore, I will go very local on my second point arising out of gaps in support. As has been said, the offer on the VAT front is welcome. However, while I recognise that that is helpful to hospitality and cultural businesses, I want to mention our highland games. I speak as a past chieftain of the Tain highland games, which is one of my proudest achievements and really puts being a Member of the House of Commons into the shade. The 5% help is of no use to highland games, because of course no tickets have been sold at all. These games are simply not happening, and this year we are already facing 13 highland games being cancelled. It is obvious to all that highlands games and events of this sort underpin the very fragile economy of parts of the UK such as the highlands of Scotland.
Finally, I say to those on the Treasury Bench that we really need a more finely tuned package to make these events happen in the future. If the Government could look at extending the VAT cut beyond September, that would be very helpful indeed.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Chancellor for having listened to the repeated calls made over the last 12 months to do something to help the female entrepreneurs and businesswomen working in what we now call the personal care sector but 12 months ago was just known as hair and beauty.
We have to recognise this is a significant sector that contributes a great deal to the Exchequer and employs in the region of 300,000 employees, most of whom are women. Hon. Members might expect me, as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, to wish to focus on women and what was done for them in this Budget. I thank the Chancellor for the additional grant funding for the sector. However, I very carefully say to him that there was some consternation at the choice of words used, because some in the sector suddenly became very alarmed that they would not be opening at the same time as non-essential retail. I need some reassurance, and I hope that the Minister on the Treasury Bench will be able to provide absolute clarity that the sector will be in that step.
However, there was a measure of disappointment in the personal care sector that the VAT reduction, which we have seen so fantastically extended to hospitality, was not also extended to that sector. I think it only fair that I voice those concerns today, because that could have been a significant contribution to maintaining the viability of some of these important businesses. However, it is not just about jobs and the economy, because these are businesses that help to combat loneliness and help people to feel more confident in themselves, in turn giving them the enthusiasm and confidence to go and face those job interviews, which we know that many, many women will be facing.
I recognise that the retail sector may be changed irrevocably and would ask the Chancellor to consider how we can ensure that those women in the prime of their lives who may have worked in the retail sector for 20 years or so get access to the retraining opportunities that they will meet, because if the retail sector is changed forever, we will need them to move into new, sustainable sectors. Those jobs cannot simply be held for men. I am very conscious that, when we talk about “Build, build, build”, while construction is important, we also need to think about how we will move more women into that sector, and into STEM jobs and jobs in the green economy. It is so important that we make sure that none of them are left behind.
I would like to follow a Member who spoke previously and comment on the events sector. It is such an important part of our economy, but of course those businesses have not had the business rates break, because they might not have the premises that we see elsewhere in hospitality and in retail. It is a sector, particularly when it comes to weddings, that is crying out for assistance and, again, employs many women.
The Budget was a delicate balancing act, and I commend the Chancellor on his hard work, but I urge him never to forget that 51% of the population are women.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is having technical trouble, so we will come back to him.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate in support of a good Budget that recognised the consequences of the huge amount of borrowing that has had to happen during this unprecedented time. Debt must be paid back and can never be ignored, and this Budget helps to ensure that that will happen.
After every Budget, whoever delivers it, that person is always criticised by the Opposition, but surprisingly with this Budget the Chancellor was criticised for a lack of openness, yet the converse is true. I recall Gordon Brown raising national insurance in one of his Budgets, and not even mentioning it in his speech. That is an example of a lack of openness, not what we heard last week from the current Chancellor.
This Chancellor delivered a Budget that will enable businesses to play their part in the bounce back the economy needs. A crucial part of that was the creation of eight freeports, the potential of which to boost our economy is huge. It is unsurprising that more than 40 ports applied for freeport status, such is their popularity in the sector, so the idea that freeports are not wanted just does not stand up to scrutiny. I am pleased that the freeport of Thames, covering Tilbury and London Gateway, is to be created adjacent to my Dartford constituency. It will create many local jobs and play its part in a global post-Brexit Britain.
However, freeports must be approached in the right way to ensure that we get them right. They are not without their challenges, but their potential is enormous. Freeports are at their best when they incorporate an element of manufacturing within the perimeter, rather than simply being an import/export location. If raw goods can be brought to the freeport, assembled and exported, that offers the best opportunity for job creation and for the port itself. The Thames freeport is expected to create up 25,000 new jobs, and it will help to keep freight off our roads and fully utilise our links to the sea.
Freeports are exactly what is needed to encourage international investment in the UK and to facilitate companies wishing to increase their UK operations. The Thames freeport alone is expected to attract over £400 million-worth of investment, which is why nearby Labour-run London Borough of Barking and Dagenham supports the creation of a freeport on the Thames. We should back the opportunities that freeports can bring to this country. Creating them is a bold, forward-looking step that will bring opportunities not just to my Dartford constituency, but around the whole of the UK and, indeed, the world.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
In the 12 months since the previous Budget, we have had three difficult lockdowns, we have lost over 120,000 lives, with one of the worst death rates in the world, and our economy has been one of the hardest hit as a result, with difficult times for families, small businesses and people across the country. We look wistfully at some of the health decisions made in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea where so many fewer lives have been lost and where they have been able to keep their economy and schools open. We should recognise what went wrong last year, but also focus on what we need to get right as the vaccine is rolled out.
We need to rebuild our economy and services. However, the Budget fails to do that. The extension of short-term measures that many of us called for is right, but it is not a growth plan. Capital investment is being cut just when we need to be investing in sustainable growth. Skills and employment support is too weak, especially for the young, who need guarantees of jobs or training places to get them back on track. Kickstart is still too small and too slow, and key sectors such as pubs and the travel industry need more support. On International Women’s Day, we need urgent action on childcare and support for the often working mums who were more likely to end up giving up work while schools were out.
We need growth plans for all the towns that have been heavily hit by 10 years of austerity. We have worked very hard here in Castleford where I am sitting to get our fair share of investment from the towns fund, but after £200 million has been cut from Wakefield Council budgets over the past 10 years, too many other towns are not included. Across the north, we are still not getting our fair share of transport investment in our infrastructure for the future.
Crucially, we need to keep supporting our NHS. After the year that our NHS has had it is incomprehensible that the Government are proposing a real-terms cut in staff pay. Nurses have told me about the traumas they faced working on the covid wards, the long shifts and extra hours, how difficult it was nursing friends and colleagues who got sick, how fearful they were, and how burnt out they now feel, and yet they keep going. We need them to keep going, because it is our NHS staff who are rolling out the vaccine to get us through and it is our NHS staff who we need to catch up on all those lost operations and that vital cancer treatment. We already have 10% vacancies among nursing staff and the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has struggled to get staff. Local health managers have told us already how worried they are that people are leaving nursing because they are burnt out. The Government have no idea what a kick in the teeth this 1%—below inflation—rise is to them. Health and the economy go hand in hand. Our NHS staff have been there for us this year; we need to be there for them and get them a proper pay rise now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will now go back to Derek Twigg.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Let me first pay tribute to the NHS staff, especially the nurses and doctors, and also our carers who have worked so tirelessly and sacrificed so much in the past year. They have gone above and beyond what was asked of them. They are exhausted and stressed. Some have been traumatised by their experiences. It left a real sour taste when it became clear that, despite his claims of honesty, the Chancellor had not mentioned in his Budget speech the 1% that the Government are now proposing. Effectively, it is a pay cut. I want to see a pay rise that fully recognises the hard work and sacrifices of those who served the country on the frontline in its hour of need. I also do not believe the Chancellor’s self-proclaimed honesty when it comes to the resources that the NHS will need to deal with the huge backlog of non-covid patients waiting for treatment for things such as cancer. The Government have shown their lack of foresight throughout this pandemic, so it is time that they ensure that mental health support is there for frontline NHS and care staff who have served throughout this time.
Despite Halton being ranked the 13th most deprived area, it is not in the priority 1 group for the levelling-up fund and the UK community renewal fund. It beggars belief that Halton is not a priority 1 area. The list of areas included by the Chancellor suggests that ranking is more about who has a Tory MP than real need. His claims of honesty did not stretch to how the areas were chosen. The Chancellor must correct the situation so that the priority groups are based on areas in most need.
The Runcorn town deal will be an outstanding bid, with some fantastic projects such as the Unlock Runcorn project to restore the locks and links to the Manchester ship canal and provide much-needed jobs. I hope the fact that the town of Runcorn has a Labour MP will not count against it. I asked the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in November if Runcorn would be treated less favourably than other towns because it has a Labour MP. He said that it would not be and that it would be treated fairly. I hope that he keeps to his word. This is against a background of cuts to Halton Borough Council’s budget of £52 million since 2010. Halton expects to spend £2.2 million more on tackling the covid pandemic, despite promises by the Chancellor that that would be fully funded. The Chancellor must fully fund it.
The cladding scandal in this country has had a devastating effect, not least on my constituents in the Decks flats in Runcorn. Despite repeated representations, the Government are still ignoring those buildings that are under 18 metres tall. They must put this right.
Today we celebrate International Women’s Day. Again, we heard nothing about the pensions injustice faced by women born in the 1950s. The Government appear to be completely indifferent to their financial suffering. These women must be properly compensated, and I again call on the Government to right this injustice. This Budget failed to meet the scale of the task.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak in support of this Budget and to wish you a happy International Women’s Day and the whole House a happy Commonwealth Day.
Before I explain why I very much support the Chancellor’s Budget, I want to address some of the comments made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). He spoke about economic certainty and stability being key to economic growth and recovery from the current situation. Sadly, he was addressing us virtually, so I could not ask him whether putting the case for another independence referendum would add to certainty or add to instability and uncertainty, and whether that would be good for jobs and economic growth across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about schemes lasting until September and said that he would like to see them carried through, because otherwise that would add uncertainty and instability to the jobs market and business, and yet the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the SNP in this place, claimed just as recently as the weekend that an independence referendum could happen by the end of this year. I wonder how many people in the business community feel that that would add to certainty and stability through the rest of this year.
The hon. Member for Gordon also poured cold water on the £33 million being invested in north-east Scotland, which we both represent, to support the oil and gas industry as we transition from fossil fuels to renewables. He says that it does not match the ambition of the Scottish Government. He did not mention the fact that since 2014, the UK Government have supported the industry to the value of £2.2 billion and have made the North sea the most attractive and fiscally stable basin in which to invest in the world, supporting thousands of jobs in my constituency, in his and across Scotland.
This was a very good Budget—a pro-business Budget; a Budget building the foundations to prepare to build back better and build back greener; and a Budget that delivered for the entire United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, not that we would know it from listening to the Scottish Government last week. The furlough scheme, which protected nearly 1 million Scottish jobs at its height, was extended. The business interruption loan scheme, which supported 90,000 Scottish businesses to a value of £3.5 billion over the past year, is being followed up with the recovery loan scheme. The super deduction will foster innovation and investment across Scotland.
This was an upbeat, positive Budget that was required by the country to take us forward into the next steps as we recover from coronavirus. It was a Budget that spoke about building back better and investment in the future, not separation, division and distraction, which is all the SNP ever offers Scotland.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
The Office for Budget Responsibility was unequivocal in its analysis of our financial situation: it is the Government’s failure to control the spread of the virus that has dragged us into the worst recession of any major economy. Across the country, businesses are closing, unemployment is rising, jobs are insecure, food bank usage has soared and millions have fallen into poverty.
A recent survey of my constituents revealed a shocking threefold increase in people’s feeling of financial insecurity during the pandemic. At the most acute end of this insecurity, more than a quarter of constituents said that they were struggling to meet basic living costs. It is clear from speaking to my constituents that the distress and anxiety generated by this new financial insecurity is having a profound impact on their wellbeing and mental health. It is vital that we recognise the emotional toll of the last year and look to rebuild the country’s mental health alongside our economic recovery. With this in mind, it is unfathomable for the Chancellor to push ahead with the £30 billion cut in day-to-day health spending. If the last decade of austerity has taught us anything it is that public sector spending cuts disproportionately hurt those on low incomes.
Given that today marks International Women’s Day, it would be remiss of me not to touch on the particularly acute economic impact of the last year on women. Last month the Women and Equalities Committee concluded that the Government’s passive approach to gender equality was no longer good enough. It specifically called on the Government to undertake equality impact assessments, so the fact that not one of the many supporting documents to last week’s Budget statement was an equality impact assessment is utterly inexcusable. Continuing to ignore the fact that the economic impact of the crisis has not been felt equally risks turning the clock back on gender equality.
Missing from last week’s Budget was the ambition needed to tackle the deep crisis we are in. We needed a strong foundation to support businesses, to give security to families and households, and better economic resilience, and to ensure that no one and no community was left behind. Sadly, that is far from what we were offered.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic require exceptional budgetary and financial responses, and I congratulate the Chancellor on having broadly got a balanced and very valuable package together to get the economy back on track. Of course, the best way to get the economy back on track will be to work swiftly to reopen businesses as soon as it is safely possible to do so. Meanwhile the support being given is welcome and necessary.
I particularly want to welcome the support given to the cultural sector, both in previous rounds and in the current round in the Budget. That has helped theatres like the Churchill in Bromley in my constituency and many of our other key arts organisations. But if there is one thing I would urge the Chancellor and the Secretary of State to look at doing further it is to give support not just to institutions but to individuals, and that has already been referred to.
The vast bulk of performers in theatre and the creative sector are freelancers; most of them are self-employed, mainly through limited companies, and I endorse the comments made by other Members about the need to look again at the treatment they receive. Also, the continuation of self-employed support is welcome. Round 4 is very necessary, but I hope that Ministers can look at one practical issue. While it is good that new entrants will now be able to get involved with the 2019-20 tax return and get support, there is real concern that some applicants will have to wait until mid to late April before they can apply for the next, fourth, self-employment income support scheme round. Given that the last payment from round 3 was in December, people will have gone for some four months in effect without any income. I hope we can address that. This is particularly important for young performers and artists at the beginning of their careers; we need to nurture them and keep them in the sector so that we have the stars of the future.
The other area that needs continual attention is financial services. It is the jewel in the crown of our economy, and it did not get enough attention in the deal with the European Union. I hope we can return to that. We should address three areas in particular. First, we must stress the centrality of financial services to future trade deals and liberalisation in that sector. Secondly, we must make sure that our regulatory system is updated and fleet of foot to deal with emerging sectors and developments. I hope the Government will move swiftly to implement, for example, the recommendations of Lord Hill’s report on UK listings to capture firms in those emerging sectors on UK markets. And, finally, the Government must also consider the Kalifa review on FinTech. Both of those are important, indeed critical, for our long-term economic wellbeing.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
The Office for National Statistics ranks St Helens and Knowsley as two of the top 10 unhealthiest places to live. Well, I have the honour of representing the people of these two historic towns. For our people, the past decade has been tough, with the decade of austerity still felt. The pandemic could not have come at a worse time. The existing deprivation caused even more suffering. Essential services that had been cut to the bare bones have been tested like never before. As we plan our economic recovery, the people of St Helens and Knowsley will live with the impact of the decisions taken, which will be felt for decades.
The Government have promised to take the levelling-up agenda seriously, but I am afraid that the evidence is to the contrary. My constituency is ranked as the 62nd most deprived, with the Chancellor’s being 450th. The child poverty rate in my constituency is close to double that in the Chancellor’s. The schools in my constituency have lost more funding per pupil than the Chancellor’s. Yet despite all this, the Chancellor’s constituency was given more money from the towns fund and St Helens was not. I understand why the Chancellor has done this—having the support of 39 Conservative MPs may come in handy for his brand—but this is not the time for political favours. The country agrees that this is the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. If the Chancellor intends to honour the Government’s promise to level up, why has the support not been provided based on needs? Towns like ours are looking for fairness and want the Government to provide a helping hand—to give towns the recovery funding they need to revitalise the town centres and rebuild public services. The Chancellor has a rare opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of millions. I hope he thinks again and decides to take it rather than trading it in for political favours.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I welcome the Budget. The Treasury has had a particularly difficult time trying to do what it can to assist in this crisis, and I think it, and the British system of government, has done extremely well. Universal credit has worked well. Furlough has worked well. The self-employment income support scheme has worked well. There is some argument about where the boundaries are drawn, but from the point of view of the IT and getting the cheques out to people, it has worked pretty well. It is amazing that we have got through the crisis without the levels of unemployment that were once feared. One of the most pleasing things about the OBR forecast is that it looks as though although unemployment will go up in the next few months, it will peak at a lower rate and, towards the end of this Parliament, start to get back to where we were in the first place.
I am an optimist, and I am rather more optimistic than the OBR. I do not think we will have a budget deficit this year of £355 billion, which would require about £70 billion in the last two months. I do not think we will have a deficit of 10.4% next year and spend £250 billion. I think the economy, when the restrictions are lifted, will grow very rapidly indeed, because there is an awful lot of money sloshing around the economy. A lot of people I know want to go out to spend—to go to restaurants, buy a car or go on holiday. Once the restrictions are lifted and the degree of confidence from the vaccine goes through our country, things will move very rapidly. If there is a problem, it may be that there is so much money flowing through the system that it is chasing too few goods and we start to have inflation. Inflation has not been banished and we have to keep our eye on it. I think the deficits will be a little lower and the growth rates will be a little higher, and business will get back to growing rapidly when we lift all the restrictions.
My main plea to the Government is this: the data is going in the right direction more rapidly than people expected, and we have a pathway out of lockdown, so do not be afraid to bring it forward, as well as put it back if the data starts to turn bad. A lot of this debate has been about bailing people out, but what most people want is to get back to business, get back to work and get things running again. That has to be the key. We need to get back to normal as soon as possible, and vaccines and Government policy should do that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
This Budget is taking place at a key time for the economy of this country. It is an economy coming out of a crisis that has caused businesses to shut and jobs to be lost, and that has harmed the prospects and potential of so many people across this country. The Budget was a chance to conduct a transformative change as we emerge from the crisis, to make the country fairer for all, to reward our key workers and to build a secure and prosperous future that ensures that any economic recovery from the pandemic is felt right across the country. It is clear, though, that the Budget failed to do that.
The Chancellor talks about support for the north-east, but travel any further north than Teesside and it is clear that the Government have forgotten us. The council in Sunderland, like many across the country, has done a brilliant job throughout the pandemic, working tirelessly to support businesses and providing vital services on a shoestring budget, but the Budget falls well short in helping it to do its job. Across the country, there are people who have had lifelong jobs suddenly finding themselves unemployed, and millions of children in this country are still living in poverty. What does this Budget do for them, and what does it do for the millions already excluded?
Then it emerged that our NHS workers, who have been working harder than ever over the last year, saving lives and taking care of our loved ones, will be given at best only a 1% pay rise, coming out of this year with a real-terms pay cut. Then there is our social care system, which was not mentioned once by the Chancellor—no funding lifeline for a system on its knees; no support for care homes or those who devote their lives to working in them. Our NHS and social care staff deserve much better.
Let me move on to the digital skills agenda and the proposals that the Chancellor outlined last week. I wrote to him on this subject, and while any investment in digital skills is welcome—from the boot camps announced last year to the announcement of help to fund software upgrades and training for SMEs—it seems that he is looking at sticking plasters rather than at solving the issue of digital inequality. That seems like the theme of this Budget.
Thanks to charities such as Laptops for Kids in the north-east and Rebuyer UK based in Sunderland, many more children and young people have had access to technology and connectivity. That is great for education—those new devices can be used both at home and in school—but it causes new issues too. It widens the gap. The Government need a comprehensive strategy for upskilling those who are out of work to provide support and devices to those who need them. The Budget was underwhelming, unequal and unsurprising.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
Just two weeks ago, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published its report “The impact of Coronavirus on businesses and workers”, which acknowledges the pace and unprecedented scale of the measures that the Government have introduced and how
“this support has kept vast numbers of businesses and workers afloat during this exceptionally challenging time.”
Last week’s Budget continues that work.
The Chancellor has recognised the need for businesses to continue to have certainty and for jobs to continue to be protected. I welcome the decision to extend the furlough scheme for an additional six months. It has already protected 6,500 jobs in my Rugby and Bulkington constituency. I also welcome the further round of grants to help businesses as they reopen, and the extra support targeted at the leisure, hospitality, arts and culture sectors.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to Coventry city of culture, which starts in May, and the rugby league world cup, with matches at the Ricoh stadium in Coventry—events close to my constituency that indicate that we are getting back to normal times. It is not just those sectors themselves that have gone through a tough time; the suppliers to them have, too. Those events coming forward will enable them to re-establish themselves and get the economy moving.
I want to focus on one key measure for business—Help to Grow, which will make a huge difference to the performance of small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country. The BEIS Committee in the last Parliament looked at this issue, and we concluded that the myriad sources of support for SMEs made it difficult to navigate. In particular, we were concerned that business owners and managers did not know where to go to improve their own skills. We noted that businesses grew faster when managers took time out to work on their business as well as in their business. Help to Grow will offer 30,000 leaders and managers a training programme over 12 weeks at a cost to attend of just £750 after Government support. As someone who ran a small business before arriving here and did not know where to go for personal development training, I can see immediately how valuable this scheme will be.
I hope that the scheme will cover the business skill of sales. It is not the most obvious issue to raise, but on a day when we learn that export sales fell last year by 14.7%, equivalent to £54 billion, we will need to make certain that, as a country, we get every single sale we can. The all-party parliamentary group for professional sales is launching a report tomorrow, which calls for a selling revolution to make sales a career aspiration for the brightest and best, and to ensure that first-class training in sales skills is available for both before and throughout a salesperson’s working life. Effective sales negotiations, with the measures that the Chancellor has given, will enable businesses to trade our way back to prosperity.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
I want to focus on just one thing: what the Budget says about levelling up. The Government promised transformation, but amid all the announcements and reannouncements, the reality is a reduction in the key regional development funds this year, and probably for years to come. Even if we include the national infrastructure strategy spending, much of which is not levelling up, we are well short of the transformative investment that levelling up implies. The comparison is made harder by the Government’s unfortunate habit of shuffling money from one fund to let them announce another.
Levelling up demands detailed plans, patient investment and, above all, local leadership. Combined authorities, such as the one I lead, understand our regions, both the challenges and opportunities, much better than anyone in Whitehall ever could. We are doing amazing things. In South Yorkshire, we are investing in everything from skills to active travel. We must plan, not just to recover from covid, but to comprehensively renew our region. The Prime Minister said that he wants to work with us, but the Government’s default preference is to force local governments to compete among themselves for modest, restricted, short-term funding pots, with Whitehall picking the winners. It is the model chosen if the priority is maximising photo ops, not actual progress.
The clearest test is to follow the money. As the Government repeat the mantra of ending regional inequality, their levelling-up fund puts the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency, ranked 251 out of 317 in England’s deprivation index, in a higher category of need than Barnsley, ranked 38. Richmondshire has had 141 covid deaths per 100,000 people; Barnsley has had 311. The Government claim that they are following impartial criteria, but the Chancellor must publish the full data and the decision-making process for those funds.
In one sense, the answer is irrelevant. Whatever formula was used, it was the one the Government chose. If their formula gives a result that systematically favours areas that are already doing well over those that need levelling up, they have the wrong formula. They should not pretend that it is some unalterable truth, they should just change it. If they do not, we can be sure that it represents exactly who they are and what values they represent.
We need to level up every part of the United Kingdom. Across the country, families and businesses are desperate for support to recover from the covid pandemic and to end finally the squandered potential of our regions. I stand ready to work with the Government because, in this hour of need, there is so much that we can do together, but we must work not for political gain, but for a much greater good.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I welcome the chance to speak in this debate in support of a Budget that is a delicate act to get the balance just right between not choking off the economic recovery fundamental to recouping our covid expenditure over the medium to long term, and ensuring that we live within our means for day-to-day spending from now on and future-proofing our debt repayments against the potential for interest rate rises.
To be a truly Conservative Government, we must go further by championing growth, promoting free enterprise —a concept rarely mentioned these days—but also improving financial resilience. We know that the economic harm done at an individual and family level during the pandemic has been aggravated by a lack of financial resilience. We should be accelerating the Government’s response to the Woolard review, tackling with vigour the disproportionate costs faced by those living in poverty and turbocharging schemes such as Help to Save.
Nowhere should that be more important right now than protecting access to cash. Important as it is to celebrate International Women’s Day, I note that the Fawcett Society is once more highlighting the lack of women on our banknotes. I do not disagree with that analysis, but what we should be debating is whether we will even have banknotes soon if we fast forward to a cashless economy without taking stock of how we get there. That is the debate we should be having. I declare an interest as a member of LINK’s Consumer Council, which seeks to safeguard access to cash machines.
As the Economic Secretary well knows, I am a little disappointed there is no commitment right now to an access to cash Bill, but I am in no way downhearted. I believe there is much that can still be done that is either regulatory or non-legislative. Any Bill would merely put in place a regulatory framework that would require steps that can be taken now without legislation to facilitate continued access to cash. Chief among those would be the rapid renewal of PSD2 regulations, which enable cashback without purchase. A number of pilot projects have demonstrated that it works well as an idea, but the commercial providers of the system will not invest without the confidence that the Government will renew the regulations. I urge the Minister to make it clear that the regulations are forthcoming soon.
All told, the hidden wiring that underpins our cash system costs some £5 billion per annum. The less cash in circulation, the higher the fixed costs for everyone who processes cash, right down to the smallest trader or shop owner. No wonder some have opted out of cash and might never return. There is much organisations, such as the Bank of England or the Financial Conduct Authority, can do in advance of legislation to consolidate and reduce those fixed costs. The Government should be not just pushing them in that direction, but shoving them forcefully towards the right agenda.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Chancellor said that this was an honest Budget which meets the moment. Well, the Chancellor certainly met the moment for his mounting leadership bid, but it was nowhere near what was required to meet the tough realities of my constituents.
This Budget was a lost opportunity to provide security for those in hard-hit and precarious sectors, to provide economic justice to the excluded millions who have gone a year without support and to provide recognition for our protectors or stability for our businesses. There was no recognition for our public sector workers who are at the forefront of the crisis and who we depend on to get us through. It was a Budget with a thin green veneer, not one that will properly finance climate action to protect the health of people and planet, or demonstrate to the world the power of the UK’s example as a climate leader in the year of COP.
The Chancellor said this was a Budget to provide certainty. Well, he should tell that to my constituents who have already lost jobs because businesses had to make tough decisions because they were kept in the dark. The Chancellor chose to time the extension of furlough and business support when it was politically convenient, kicking the can down the road to this autumn for when the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts unemployment to hit a peak and when the universal credit uplift will be stripped away along with the furlough scheme—a frightening cliff edge looming this autumn, one of the Chancellor’s own making.
Today, on International Women’s Day, let us not forget that this pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, who are more likely to work in low pay and insecure positions. Unpaid carers hit 13 million last year, predominantly women. There was nothing in the Budget for them either. Thank God in Wales for a Welsh Labour Government, who have weaved a stronger safety net throughout the crisis. When the UK Government failed or dithered, they stood up.
This Chancellor is also slashing life-saving support around the world: the aid that builds resilience to the climate crisis and future health challenges. During a pandemic, the Government are pulling back our first response to future crises and hitting the vulnerable hardest, the consequences of which we will feel here at home. The Government are turning their backs. Overseas and here at home, the Government are recklessly playing with people’s lives, pushing people to the brink only to pull them back just a bit. That is not how responsible Governments behave. It is time to do the right thing.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
This is a Budget of which I am proud. I think that the Chancellor has done an astoundingly good job. It is a responsible Budget. It has found that balance between helping businesses, helping people and giving them some certainty that, while we have this road map out of our current lockdown, the support will be there, and that is incredibly valuable.
I had one of my regular fortnightly meetings with my local businesses this morning, and I was interested to gauge their reaction. I have to say that it was overwhelmingly one of relief. They were delighted with what the Budget delivered, and they were particularly pleased with the extension of the business rates relief and, indeed, the extension of the VAT relief. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Teignbridge, my district council, and my local businesses for making the most of the opportunities to keep going and to survive—and that is what they have done.
However, there do remain some concerns. The first, which has already been rehearsed by a number of colleagues, is about those who have been excluded. For example, directors who have paid themselves historically by dividends have been totally left out of any support during the totality of this pandemic. It is not their fault—there was nothing wrong with being paid by that mechanism—and I would urge the Chancellor to look at that again.
My second concern is that the very smallest of businesses on the edge may or may not, by the time we come out this, just fall over that edge. For them, it seems to me that we need to look to the future. We need to look at how we can help them start again. We have a history of being very concerned about phoenix businesses, because too often unscrupulous businessmen or women have established businesses, made money on the back of others, and then folded them and taken away the profit. But going forward there will be some phoenixes, and we have to find a way of distinguishing good from bad. I would urge the Chancellor to look again at the credit record framework to find a mechanism to fairly support the truly deserving, but not those that are not.
A good Budget—well done to the Chancellor.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor is by instinct a small state idealogue who slashes the public realm, but he prefers to claim to be a Keynesian spender who dispenses largesse to those affected by the covid crisis. But his treatment of the NHS shows us the true nature of the Chancellor’s Budget: it is sneaky. He said he wants to be honest with the public, but he substituted his previously promised 2.1% pay rise with a real-terms pay cut for our NHS heroes. He sneaked it out in the small print after he got his favourable headlines on Budget day—not exactly up front and honest.
The Chancellor said he would pay the NHS the extra costs of dealing with covid, but we read in The Times today that he is looking at ways of forcing them to pay those costs from existing budgets. NHS managers say they will have to start cutting services from 1 April to meet the £8 billion gap. There was nothing in his Budget to enable the NHS to start to treat the 4.5 million people now on waiting lists for treatment of non-covid illness; nothing to deal with the exhaustion and trauma that NHS staff, who have fought on the frontline of this pandemic, are dealing with, except a real-terms pay cut; and nothing to sort out the scandal of underfunded and unreformed social care. All this is part of the extra £4 billion in cuts in the Budget for public spending on vital services, over and above the £12 billion he had already pencilled in last November. Austerity is back for public services, not that it ever went away.
What about poorer households and low-paid workers, who are much more likely to be furloughed and much more likely to have lost their jobs or some of their income? There is not much in this Budget for them. This £30 billion fiscal tightening and the huge tax increases in this Budget hit the lower paid and poorest most. With incomes forecast to fall by 4.5% by 2025, the Chancellor has slashed help to those struggling. He is cutting the income of unemployed people by £20 a week—a 7% cut overnight, just as unemployment is forecast to reach 2.2 million when he ends furlough in September. It is a double whammy for those losing their jobs. He is forcing council tax up, hitting the poorest hardest. Many of my constituents are already finding it hard to feed themselves and their families. This Budget will make that even worse and it will remove support just when things are forecast to get even worse.
This Budget most certainly does not meet the moment. There is no plan for NHS recovery, just a plan for NHS cuts. There is no plan for helping poorer households, just a plan to impoverish them further. The covid crisis has exacerbated poverty and inequality. Far from setting the UK on a path to fix the damage, the Chancellor seems intent on making things worse.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
During this moment of crisis and uncertainty, I believe this Budget strikes the right balance. It ensures that vital support continues for families and businesses, while being honest and fair about how we fix the public finances. Crucially, the Budget also sets out the next steps for levelling up. Getting back to normal must not mean failing to address the deep-rooted economic and political imbalances in our country, especially the north-south divide.
Last month, my colleagues and I in the levelling up taskforce joined the excellent think tank Onward to launch a report on levelling up the tax system. The analysis showed how capital allowance reform would overwhelmingly benefit the north and midlands, especially in places such as Derbyshire. So I was delighted to see the Chancellor announce the proposed super deduction, which will help businesses to expand and create new jobs. It is exactly what we need right now and it is a potential game changer for rebalancing the economy.
The Budget marks a real turning point for the north as a whole. For decades, Governments of all parties have focused far too much on London and the south-east, to the detriment of places such as High Peak. The Leader of the Opposition chose to pour scorn on the decision to relocate large parts of the Treasury to Darlington, which was announced alongside the establishment of the first infrastructure bank in Leeds. What the Labour leader fails to understand is that these moves represent an important shift in both power and the culture of the civil service. If senior civil servants all live in London and all commute into Whitehall, is it any surprise that the capital has done disproportionately well when it comes to Government investment? If senior civil servants were commuting into Manchester from, say, New Mills, I reckon that railway line would have been upgraded decades ago. I appreciate that that concept might be difficult to comprehend for a Labour party that seems to think that new leadership entails moving from one north London borough to another.
The Budget is a real statement of intent that this Government are going to invest in the north. The £4.8 billion levelling up fund is a key part of this. I was really pleased that High Peak has been identified as one of the top priority areas for the fund and will receive more than £100,000 to help develop a local bid—and with good reason. High Peak badly needs investment in our local infrastructure. On some measures, Gamesley is ranked among the top 1% most deprived areas in the country, which is largely down to very poor transport links. Gamesley has been waiting for more than 50 years for a railway station to properly connect it to both Glossop and Manchester. Politicians of all parties have been promising a bypass to the people of Glossop and Hadfield for well over 50 years as well, and in the second half of 2019 the Hope Valley line had some of the worst train punctuality figures anywhere in the country. The capacity on that line desperately needs to be upgraded. Our digital infrastructure also leaves much to be desired. Given our unique geography in the Peak district, we have some of the worst broadband blackspots anywhere.
However, there are reasons to be optimistic. Highways England and Balfour Beatty have signed a contract to build the Mottram bypass and Glossop spur road. Punctuality on the Hope Valley line has improved markedly since the Government stepped in to take over the Northern franchise and the ancient Pacers have finally been replaced with modern trains. And Openreach has recruited an additional 15 engineers to speed up the roll-out—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech, but we need to move on now.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Missing from this Budget is any real effort towards addressing climate change and the environmental problems the world faces. This Government like to talk about climate change but they do not act on that chat. So we get a token commitment to a green economic recovery while they continue to crank up the pressure to carry on regardless. When France was creating the Paris agreement, it invested huge amounts of money, time and effort into global diplomacy to deliver it. We are months away from COP26 and the UK effort is nowhere near what is needed, with a delivery team that fails to inspire and with this Budget serving to remind us and the rest of the world that action on climate change is not a priority for the UK.
One could be forgiven for thinking that Brexiters would want to show that they can perform like a world Government, but instead we get announcements, 10-point plans, targets and wizard wheezes that lead to no action and that the Government seem to think are an end in themselves. The world will be watching while COP26 fails.
This Budget could have seen funding allocated to retrofit high-quality insulation and efficient heating or to get district heating systems up and running to help address the UK’s greenhouse emissions, but there is nothing practical, not even a bump for the existing green homes grants. There is nothing for a transition deal and a miserly £27 million for energy transition. There is nothing about recovery spending for nature and no mainstreaming of natural capital costs.
The Government have plenty to say about shiny competitions—there is a new one on energy storage—ignoring already successful and operational schemes such as Cruachan. There are competitions to create showcases, but no cash on offer to get on and deliver. There is net zero by 2050, but no practical strategy about how to get there. Should the VAT system not be altered to encourage green home upgrades? What about incentives for more efficient white goods or drivers of behavioural change to encourage action towards environmental sustainability?
The Chancellor has said his freeports will support green fast-growing industries, which is not something that anyone else thinks, but it is indicative of this Government’s attitude that someone else will sort things out. We need forward planning and anticipatory spend to upgrade the grid for the extra juice as we switch to electric vehicles and for domestic heating and cooking. That failure lays down problems for the future. In the same vein, we need to see the transmission charging scheme changed to ensure that renewable energy can be pumped into the grid wherever it is produced.
From an environmental and climate point of view, this UK Budget is empty, showing the lack of concern and ambition that the Government have for the issue. Perhaps it would better serve us all if they turned over responsibility and resources to the devolved Governments and Administrations, who are at least attempting to address these issues. The Government could even learn from their examples.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his Budget, which was strong on enterprise, innovation and recovery. The help announced last week for businesses has been particularly welcomed in the Cotswolds, where the local economy is built on small businesses, notably in hospitality, leisure and the tourism sectors. I have been calling for extra support for those businesses, as they are the backbone of our economy and deserve protection after being compelled to stop trading by the pandemic. The restart grant of up to £18,000 for hospitality and leisure businesses, including personal care, hairdressers and gyms, will help to reinvigorate them as we begin to open up the economy, in addition to the local council discretionary fund of another £425 million.
The road map has brought a great deal of reassurance for many business owners, with hospitality, leisure and personal care businesses starting to reopen on 12 April. They want to be able to reopen sooner and I have been making extensive representations to the Government on that point. Sadly, some are not scheduled to reopen until 21 June. I will continue to raise their plight. As the whole route map is driven by data, if it is safe to do so, we should accelerate the reopening of certain sectors, such as outdoor events.
Around 60,000 businesses in the UK are in the weddings sector. They usually thrive in the Cotswolds, but have been pushed to the brink by lockdown. I hope that many of those businesses will be supported by the restart grant, but they were not specifically mentioned in the Budget speech.
Debt and borrowing are at a peacetime high, so the fiscal challenge to reduce them is particularly challenging. No one wants to see taxes rise, but in these difficult circumstances it is right to even up the burden between individual and corporation tax.
Finally, it is important that G7 agreement is sought so that the digital tax is made effective. It would be totally unfair for those businesses on the high street that have suffered considerably due to the lockdown—and will have to start paying rates in June—if companies online that have made substantial windfall profits are not efficiently taxed.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
Last week’s Budget was the Government’s golden opportunity to step up and fix the endemic inequality that they have created throughout the country and in my own constituency of Enfield North. They failed in that task on every conceivable level. They failed nurses, who deserve better than the pitiful 1% pay increase they have been offered. They failed teachers, who have been given little support to plan a safe return to school for their students. They failed businesses and the self-employed, including White Photographic Ltd in my constituency, which is one of the 3 million businesses that have been excluded from the Government’s support over the past 12 months.
There are currently more than 19,000 people registered unemployed in Enfield and 28,000 on furlough who still do not know what the future holds for them. There are nearly 14,000 people who were punished by the Chancellor with a £500 cut to universal credit, which will see nearly £7 million taken out of our local economy this year. The Budget was bad for families, for small business, for frontline workers and for our communities.
Who was the Budget for? It turns out that it was a Budget to support the Government’s local campaigns for re-election, with more than £1 billon funnelled into their constituencies. This Government believe that they can help to level up the UK—[Inaudible.] London has some of the most deprived communities in the country—even more so after this pandemic. Analysis by the London Mayor shows that 14 boroughs should have been given the highest priority for funding, yet only two have. The politics are so obvious that I nearly took a drive to Barnard Castle to check whether my eyes were deceiving me.
Last week, the Mayor of London announced his vision for a 1945-style recovery for London, with “Jobs, jobs, jobs” as his mantra. The Chancellor must work with the Mayor to deliver this ambitious plan, instead of standing in his way, and to deliver a post-furlough jobs guarantee. Instead of a Budget to get our country working after covid, we saw the spectre of austerity return to the Dispatch Box. The Chancellor is more interested in his social media than in social justice. He found money for well-lit videos but nothing for NHS nurses. Tin-eared and cold-hearted, this Budget was a litany of opportunities missed and chances squandered. The Chancellor failed to meet the moment and his Budget failed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I have given the Chancellor an enormous amount of praise during this crisis and for this Budget, but I offer him a few words of caution. He and I have crossed swords only once, and that was three years ago, when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government with the task of forcing through a law to abolish my local council in West Somerset and create a new, bigger council with Taunton, which was a financial disaster. The idea was conceived by local Conservatives and sold to the Government even though it was widely unpopular. The public never got a proper say or a referendum.
I warned my right hon. Friend that the issue would rebound, and it jolly well did. As soon as the ballot boxes came out, people picked the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives were punished. I warn him that this could happen again, with a huge financial cost throughout Somerset. He must remember the summer of 2018, when the leader of the county council came to London with a pet plan to form a local government. He did not bother to consult party colleagues in Somerset first. I warned my right hon. Friend then to tread very carefully, because he had seen it once already. I think he listened, but the leader of the county council returned and attempted to talk to his counterparts. The district council was invited to look at all the options and produce a report, but when it reached no definite conclusion the leader of Somerset County Council branched out on his own again and, again, we had a financial mess.
That brings us to 2020 and the start of this frightful pandemic, when every single council faced a huge crisis, and not just financially. Surely it is a lousy time to chase dreams when you are meant to be looking after people, but our county council insisted, and here we are. The Chancellor’s old Department is behaving in the same way—the people’s voice is not being heard. Instead of another tacky online questionnaire that can be tweaked, leaked and interfered with by anybody anywhere in the world, let us have proper consultation.
The Chancellor has been extraordinarily generous to Somerset County Council, providing it with £80 million. The emergency funding runs into many millions. My right hon. Friend may be shocked to learn that, believe it or not, £13,550 has been squandered on a local TV love-in and regional treasure, with a glowing video to promote the council leader using covid money. That is the monthly equivalent of a Cabinet Minister’s salary for a couple of days’ work. It is a tacky saga that could all end in tears for our party.
I warn the Chancellor that this will be a financial disaster. The council has used the money that was meant for covid in the Budget to balance its books and put money into roads and car parks, and unfortunately, that continues. I hope that the Chancellor is listening before we have another problem on our hands.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I welcome some of the measures that the Chancellor has brought forward in the Budget. I am delighted that he listened to the concerns of the Showmen’s Guild in my constituency and across the UK by identifying that sector as having exceptional reasons to maintain entitlement to use red diesel beyond April 2022.
However, a sector that feels let down by this year’s Budget is the one represented by the Federation of Wholesale Distributors, having been excluded from business rates relief while hospitality, retail and leisure have all been included since the beginning of the policy. I urge the Chancellor to consider the merits of including this long-struggling sector in his plans for an extension of the business rates holiday. If the wholesale sector continues to suffer the stress it has under this pandemic, with minimal Government support, the disastrous knock-on effects on the hospitality and retail sectors will be dramatic and unparalleled.
It is vital to acknowledge the lack of clarity given to another essential sector, many of whose employees live in my constituency: the aviation sector. As John Holland-Kaye, CEO of Heathrow airport, recently noted,
“The Chancellor talks about protecting jobs and livelihoods, fixing the public finances and laying the foundations for the future economy, and yet he continues to ignore the UK’s aviation sector.”
The extension of the airport and ground operations support scheme for a further six months is welcome, but the failure to guarantee a full business rates holiday for airports across the UK will have dramatic repercussions for the aviation industry.
UK airports have had high fixed costs throughout this period to keep their operations running 24/7. The impact on the sector has been unprecedented, with passenger volumes down significantly and virtually no revenue for the past year. The industry is at a standstill. It is imperative that a clear road map out of the crisis is provided by Government, so that the industry has time to prepare, plan and open up the market safely. That cannot be done overnight. As Robert Sinclair, CEO of London City airport, recently said, this is not just an industry in its own right; it underpins the rest of the UK economy and is an enabler of trade, tourism, import, export, retail and hospitality, so getting aviation open sooner rather than later will aid recovery.
I share the Chancellor’s expressed belief that we must give every business an opportunity to grow, innovate and succeed in the post-pandemic world and play their part in the economic recovery, but the reality is that this Budget continues to fail many businesses in my constituency, in Scotland and across the other nations of the UK. I hope that the Chancellor is listening and will address these valid concerns.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic has been immediate and severe. While it is welcome that the Government have taken some steps to protect jobs in the short term, the reality for many is that they face losing jobs that were stable and secure prior to this crisis.
Sadly, that process has already begun in Rotherham. In my constituency, 75 workers at Rolls-Royce face imminent redundancy. Those are well-paid, highly-skilled jobs, and their loss will have a devastating impact on the town. Rolls-Royce’s Rotherham facility is based at the Advanced Manufacturing Park, which I know will be familiar to the Minister. The park is a world-class base for innovation, research and manufacturing and the jewel in the crown of our local economy. The Government are more than happy to use it as a backdrop for policy announcements. What they must do now, however, is defend its long-term future. The aerospace sector has been hit especially hard by the pandemic, and I appreciate the profound challenges that Rolls-Royce faces. The need for the Government to support this strategically important industry is self-evident. They must recognise the inextricable link between aerospace and the wider aviation sector. That is particularly true for businesses such as Rolls-Royce, which derives revenue from the flying hours of the engines it produces. The global travel taskforce is an important step, but the aviation and aerospace sectors need a clear exit strategy, and one that works internationally. These businesses are global and do not work just to a UK boundary.
The UK should use its chairing of the G7 this year to create a global plan to get aviation flying again. Aerospace and aviation are industries that may take considerably longer than others to recover once restrictions are lifted. The Government need to acknowledge that additional, long-term business support will be needed. This means also accepting that measures such as furlough may need to continue beyond September in certain sectors. The Government should view this as an investment for future prosperity. As the Chancellor himself acknowledged in the Budget:
“Business investment creates jobs, lifts growth, spurs innovation and drives productivity.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 527.]
I agree, but the Government’s rhetoric on levelling up the north will ring hollow if they stand idly by while dedicated, highly skilled workers lose their jobs.
While I am sympathetic to the challenges that the industry faces, Rolls-Royce is not without fault. I am concerned that despite the furlough scheme, it is pressing ahead with substantial job losses. Furlough’s very purpose is to prevent that from happening, so why is it not using it? These are skilled employees who will not easily be replaced as the industry recovers. To show them the door now is deeply short-sighted and will have wider implications for the supply chain and Rotherham’s economy. Taxpayer support for business to survive the current crisis must aim to protect jobs and not the bottom line of shareholders.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Budget and the continued support for families and jobs in North West Norfolk. The scale of the package is vast, and I particularly welcome extending the universal credit uplift, continuing the furlough scheme and widening access to self-employment support.
The Chancellor once again recognised the very challenging situation faced by tourism and hospitality businesses. This is a vital part of west Norfolk’s economy, worth about £500 million and making up one in every five jobs, so it is great news that the business rates holiday and the 5% VAT rate, which I campaigned for, have been extended. There is also a strong case to consider extending the lower 12.5% VAT rate, which applies from October, on an ongoing basis.
Longer term, we need further action to build a more resilient visitor economy. The 2019 sector deal pledged to create five tourism zones, increase visitor numbers, extend the season and invest in skills. Visit East of England and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership are developing a bid for Norfolk and Suffolk, focused on heritage, culture, sustainability, skills and accessibility. Digital is also an important part of that bid, through skills for small and medium-sized enterprises and access to full fibre. I would be grateful if the Minister could ensure that the tourism recovery strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport mentioned will kick off that process. While some delay has been understandable, it is now important to get on with this initiative.
The Budget also shows the Government’s commitment to growth across the country. I am pleased that King’s Lynn and west Norfolk is in the priority group for the new levelling-up fund. After a very disappointing result in the Future High Streets bid, I know that Ministers will look closely at our town investment plan, which includes projects to maximise our historic riverfront and town centre, the creative hub and guildhall complex at the oldest working theatre in England, with strong Shakespeare links, the innovation incubator community hub and the sustainably connected town centre.
It is business investment that will help drive the recovery, so the super deduction is very welcome, but I urge the Treasury to look at the concerns of the National Farmers Union that many firms will not be able to benefit from investment in new farm technology. Measures to encourage apprentices and trainees are the right priorities, and, like businesses, I look forward to the interim business rates review. It is important that the timetable for creating a level playing field for our high streets does not slip.
In the face of an unprecedented pandemic, unprecedented economic support has been provided. The Budget was honest about the challenges, but it makes the right call to continue short-term support while setting out a path to fix the finances. While corporation taxes are unwelcome, they are necessary because as Conservatives we know, from clearing up the mess left by Labour Governments, that you cannot keep spending without one day having to settle the bill. I back the Budget to support the recovery as well as to lay the foundations for a strong economy.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
Time does not permit me to cover all the issues that I would like to, but I shall start with the vital extension of the £20 universal credit uplift to September, which is, of course, welcome and is something that I and many other Opposition Members have been calling for. However, it does not go far enough.
Last Wednesday, the Chancellor had the opportunity to do the right thing and make the uplift permanent. It was disappointing, albeit not surprising, to see that he still intends to go ahead with cutting the uplift in September. This will mean a cut of £7.8 million to the local economy just in my Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency, leaving as many as 6,750 vulnerable families £1,000 a year worse off. We all know that the economic impact of the pandemic will be felt far beyond September this year, with some of the most vulnerable families in our communities set to be hit the hardest as a result of the measures confirmed by the Chancellor last week. Therefore, the Government’s decision to end this vital extra support in September is all the more callous.
Turning to Wales, the Budget provides additional revenue funding for Wales of £735 million, almost entirely as a result of covid measures in England. On a like-for-like basis, the Welsh Government’s core budget for day-to-day spending in 2021-22 is still 4% lower per head in real terms than it was in 2010-11—11 years on and it is still lower in real terms. In addition, despite the Chancellor’s intentions for an investment-led recovery, he failed to provide the additional capital stimulus needed to lay the foundations, with not a single extra penny for capital spend in Wales.
That leads me to the lack of support for those affected by flooding in my area. Just over a year ago, I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions for his commitment on this issue and, at the Dispatch Box, he promised, in his words, to passport the money through to Wales to help to deal with the floods. Only after 10 months was there a sign of the support, but it commits only to the current financial year and provides only a fraction of what is needed. In this Budget, there is no provision to meet this urgent need.
Finally, the approach to replacing EU structural funds by directly allocating funding in Wales on devolved matters through the UK community renewal fund and the levelling-up fund is just not acceptable. Clearly, the people of Wales will benefit from only a fraction of the funding that they would have received from EU funding, demonstrating again the Government’s failure to invest adequately in Wales. This is despite the promise made to deliver not a penny less for the people of Wales.
The community renewal fund is £220 million across the whole UK, so a population share for Wales would be only around £11 million. The levelling-up fund is £4.8 billion over four years, with £600 million in the Budget for 2021-22, so our population share is £30 million. Based on the very limited information that the Government have provided, a reasonable assumption of what Wales might get from these two funds next year is around £40 million to £45 million, compared with, on average, the £375 million each year that Wales received in recent years from European structural funds. Clearly this is just not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will provide some clarity on these issues as he closes today’s debate.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
The Chancellor has delivered a fair and bold Budget in extremely difficult circumstances. He has rightly continued to provide support to those businesses and individuals that have been affected by the economic side-effects of the pandemic. At the same time, he has taken prudent decisions to ensure the health of the public finances and to incentivise investment.
I welcome the proactive engagement from Treasury colleagues ahead of this crucial Budget, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to concerns raised by myself and colleagues on a range of issues. I put my signature to a letter from the Northern Research Group urging the Chancellor to continue providing business rates relief to retail, hospitality and leisure venues. In continuing to give that support to high street businesses at 100% relief and then tapering it to 66%, the Chancellor is putting out a lifeline to affected businesses in our towns. The survival of these businesses will be important to the levelling-up agenda and in bringing new life to our high streets, which are the long-term goals of policies such as the towns fund, for which Dewsbury has submitted a bid. Similarly, I was pleased to see the retention of the stamp duty cut for the time being, before it tapers off over the course of the year. The furniture industry is a major employer in my constituency, and the cut was well received. I wrote to the Chancellor in my capacity as vice-chair of the all-party furniture industry group, laying out the link between house sales and furniture sales and the importance of a phased withdrawal.
Finally, it was encouraging to see that, despite the pandemic, this Budget recognised the importance of sports and culture. Our grassroots football facilities have long needed investment, and more than 150,000 games a year are cancelled due to poor pitch quality. There is a strong link between taking part in grassroots football and obesity reduction, meaning that, alongside funding for the World cup bid, this is a long-term investment that will pay dividends.
I hope that the Government will continue to engage on issues that did not fall under this Budget, which I commend to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Tees valley needed a Budget to help replace the extra 12,500 jobs lost in the past 11 months. What we got was politically opportunistic short-termism with more promises of jobs for our area, but without the investment and detail needed to actually deliver them. I wholeheartedly welcome the 750 Treasury jobs for Darlington, but we cannot ignore the fact that Stockton lost 400 HMRC jobs six months ago and that the north-east has lost 6,680 civil service jobs since 2010.
The freeport presents an interesting opportunity, and it could play a part in our recovery, although many economists question what, if any, real benefit freeports bring. We urgently need to see the detail and an end to all the secrecy and announcements without substance. That is more important tonight, when we hear that jobs at LIBERTY Steel on Teesside and hundreds elsewhere could be in jeopardy as its lender has gone bust, and I understand that LIBERTY is part of the freeport bid. The Tories have let us down in steel on Teesside many a time; I do not want them to do it again.
If we are going to achieve the Chancellor’s vision for Teesside, he will have to address some of the fundamental issues driving regional inequality. The most recent figures from the North East Child Poverty Commission reveal that the north-east has experienced the steepest increase in child poverty levels of anywhere in the country, rising from 26% in 2014 to 35% in 2019. In my constituency of Stockton North, the rate is over 34%, with other areas in the Tees valley higher still. For under-fives, the rate is a heartbreaking 42%. Those figures should shock the Tory Government; they certainly shame them.
In Stockton North, more than 3,000 families with children are in receipt of universal credit, so I am pleased that the Chancellor finally agreed to extend the £20 uplift. However, he will now cut it at the same time bringing the furlough scheme to an end and when unemployment is expected to rocket again—the exact moment at which the OBR has expected that unemployment will peak at 2.2 million. A fortnight ago I asked the Prime Minister what action his Government would take to
“free our children from poverty”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 913.]
He said that that was about jobs, and I agree, but he needs a reality check about the north-east of England. The region now finds itself with the highest unemployment rate, the lowest employment rate and the lowest average hours worked of all British regions. Workers in the north-east also have the lowest average full-time wages. We need bold action on jobs.
Stockton is often used as a case study to highlight health inequalities in the UK. Men in the town centre live 18 years less than people down the road. I have said time and again in this Chamber, and in every single Budget debate, that we need a new hospital in Stockton if we are to address the health inequalities in our area. It is time that the Government delivered it.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
Nobody has been immune to the impact of covid, so nobody should be left out when it comes to recovery support. Unfortunately, however, so many have been, and last week’s Budget suggests that that is set to continue.
The Chancellor may think that he can roll out the big numbers and the sensational headlines and that the small print will go unnoticed, but that small print is people’s livelihoods, and one industry that has been overlooked yet again is the personal care sector. On average, these businesses were closed for 140 days in 2020 and will be closed for at least 101 days in 2021. We are talking about 50,000 businesses that employ around 560,000 people—mostly women. Despite the unnecessary and insulting snickering that a number of colleagues on the Government Benches, including the Prime Minister, previously felt that this industry warranted, it is an industry worth £30 billion to our economy, not something to be laughed at. I am pleased that the hair, beauty and wellbeing sector can think about reopening on 12 April, but while other industries have been granted a third VAT cut, this sector has, yet again, been left to fend for itself. These businesses are facing, on average, £40,000 in lost revenue, so even with business restart grants and, hopefully, a guaranteed date for reopening, their future survival is by no means certain. To recoup their losses, they need a VAT reduction to match that of other sectors. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking to be included in those arms that the Prime Minister is so keen to tell everyone that he is wrapping around the whole country.
Closely linked to the hair and beauty sector is the wedding industry, with each relying on the other for a proportion of their income. Both are worth multi-billions of pounds to our economy, both support hundreds of thousands of jobs, both employ women, and both are at risk of collapse due to sustained lockdowns and insufficient Government support.
We all want our route out of lockdown to be safe and restrictions lifted cautiously, but permitting sporting events to go ahead with 1,000 people indoors or 10,000 people outdoors six weeks before allowing 30 people to attend a wedding is an incredible decision. It feels as though this Budget has a disproportionate impact on women. On this day of all days, International Women’s Day, it saddens me to say that this Government have let women down throughout the pandemic. They continue to do so, and yet it is women who have carried the heaviest burden.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
There is much to welcome in this Budget, particularly the help that has been given to business. We have heard that this includes an extension to the furlough scheme, new grants and loans, as well as additional support to hospitality, cultural activities and leisure. There are two things that I want to concentrate on in particular. As the MP who helped to introduce the concept of assets of community value, which helped stop pubs being sold off and allowed them to become available to communities, I commend the £150 million community ownership fund, which provides grants of £250,000 to allow communities to have the money to buy them. The original scheme has saved many a pub and I have a number in my own constituency. They are doing rather well, providing good food and drink, and are owned widely by the community.
The second issue I wish to raise is the culture funds which are there to help in the cultural sphere. I hope that the funds will be adequate to support national museums—not just the British Museum, but museums throughout the land, which provide a valuable window on the history and culture of an individual area.
I also want to draw attention to the support for elite sports, as, of course, I have rowing in my constituency. The Henley regatta is intended, hopefully, to be run in August, but it is a sport that is much wider than the elite label that is often given to it. Along the banks of Henley itself, there is great support for rowing for children.
I also hope that the culture recovery fund will support the sector, but it is very sad that room was not found in the Budget to help out the courtyard societies in Burlington House, which are fighting to be allowed to stay, often after maintaining a presence there for several hundred years. I declare an interest in this as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, which is one of the learned societies there. They contribute so much to society, and the work that they do for society, teaching people about their cultural place in the world, is of enormous value. I hope that the Government will still do something positive for the antiquaries and the other learned societies.
Finally, I echo the comment that was made at the beginning of this debate about the directors of companies who take their income in dividends. We must do something for them. As an inspector of taxes, I fail to understand the arguments put forward by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on this issue. It really is a question of fairness that we do something to help them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a Budget that sounds half-reasonable when we first hear it, and then even that half quickly unwinds as we delve deeper. The latest blow, of course, will in my view be to social care, one of the hardest-hit sectors in this pandemic and the one that desperately needs funding. I went to my local hospice—on a Zoom call, of course—straight after the Budget, and I can tell hon. Members that many of us were deeply disappointed. Social care costs Brighton—quite rightly—£30 million a year. We only get £40 million in council tax, and unfortunately it is unsustainable. We could have both addressed the council tax bombshell that the Chancellor is putting on home owners and residents, and solved the social care problem, whereby hundreds of people have died because of an ill-equipped, ill-prepared and under-resourced sector. Instead, the opportunity has again been missed, the buck has been passed and we do not know when, if ever, funding for our older and vulnerable people will come forward. It is such a shame.
And then, of course, there is the kick in the teeth for nurses. Ministers gave them the clap in the summer, and now they have given them only a 1% pay rise. What do they have to be thankful for? Nothing, really, from the Government this time round. While the Government have quite rightly taken on my suggestion that returns for the past tax year be taken into account, and those people can be included, many more are still excluded.
Brighton is a hospitality town, but many in our hospitality sector still say that they are vulnerable. The VAT rate has not been extended to all businesses that need it, including bowling alleys and some beauty salons, and it is still not right that too many of the loans will cripple businesses going forward.
Climate change was almost untouched in the Budget. We know that the warm homes grant is completely useless. We need a street-by-street strategy, but the Budget did nothing whatsoever on that. In terms of home building and home buying, it will help those with the money but push up house prices and make things worse for many millions; and, with the local housing allowance matching only the 30th percentile, not the 50th as it did in 2010, many renters are still worse off.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
This is a welcome Budget statement and offers much for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. For example, I welcome the commitments to apprenticeships. I have personally employed three apprentices under a Conservative Government. Getting the right match between apprentices and jobs will mean a great and much needed route to skilled, well-paid jobs in construction of new homes, which we badly need, in retrofitting existing homes, which will lead to healthier, greener, warmer and cheaper homes for many, in renewable energy and nature recovery—massive areas of growth, not just here in west Cornwall but across the country—and in engineering, food and farming: all areas that are essential to this green, resilient recovery from covid.
There are also welcome measures in the Budget for our high streets. The grants to get pubs, restaurants and tourism going again, business rate holidays, the tapered return and the 5% VAT rate—for which I have argued for many years, and which I hope the Treasury will see as critical and agree should remain for hospitality and tourism—are all critical for west Cornwall and Scilly and our recovery, as well as home buyers. I am personally sure that the stamp duty cut will have helped in many parts of the UK. However, will the Treasury consider the impact on areas such as Cornwall and Scilly, where the housing market was already strong, but where house prices have not helped many local families, despite the stamp duty cuts? The 95% mortgage guarantee is very helpful for these families, but it relies on house building to get closer to the demand for it to be a true success. Will the Government ensure that all unnecessary barriers to homes built for local needs housing are removed so that local families can benefit from a home and from the 95% mortgage guarantee?
The support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the Budget is also welcome, and it is critical for west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Here across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, SMEs are where most of the jobs are—about 85% of people are employed in such businesses—and they are where the recovery will be if it is to be sustainable and lasting.
I welcome this Budget. There are many helpful things in it, and there are certainly areas that will help us to deliver a green, resilient recovery in a low-carbon economy. That is absolutely what our constituents want, and this Budget really gives us the tools and the springboard to allow that to happen. I will watch with close interest how effective it is on the ground in providing the well-paid jobs that all our constituents need.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate. We have heard a lot from the Government and their Back Benchers about their concerns regarding the Budget—concerning facts and figures relating to the nation’s finances, in particular the financial obligations that we have built up over the last year. I believe that they are looking in the wrong place.
What we should be focusing on in debating this Budget is what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said. The good news is that the economy will bounce back quickly—of course it will; there is so much latent demand ready to be released—but the bad news is that, after that rebound, growth will bump along at around 1.7% for the following three years. That is the sort of anaemic growth that we saw during the historically slow recovery from the 2008 crash, particularly in the last decade. It is a damning indictment that the Government’s spending plans are likely just to generate the same impact as the failed austerity model that we were promised was over.
That is particularly the case because the Government have not learned the lessons of repeated years of real-terms cuts to the pay of public sector workers. As we saw from Ministers trying to justify the miserly real-terms pay cut to staff in the NHS, they simply do not grasp the collective impact on our economy of such pay cuts. That cut is wrong because we ought to recognise those workers’ sacrifice over the last year beyond a hand clap, but it also wrong because it starves our economy. Where does the healthcare assistant or the porter spend their money? It is in the local economy.
Taking that further, freezing wages for council staff is wrong. They have done incredible work over the last year and should not be expected to keep going for less pay. And where does the care worker or the leisure centre cleaner spend their money? It is in our local economy. These wage cuts are wrong for the individual and devastating for our economy.
The Conservative party profits by pitting public sector worker against private sector worker, but the reality is that the private sector—and wages in the private sector—benefits massively from having public sector workers with money in their pocket and the confidence to spend it, just as public services benefit massively from having a thriving private sector and all that comes with it.
You do not have to take my word for that, Madam Deputy Speaker; just look at the lessons of the last decade. Squeezing the public sector did not help the private sector, but instead caused the slowest recovery from a recession in our nation’s history, which in turn meant that we could not invest in our public services, leaving us so weak when this pandemic came. I cannot quite believe that the Government are choosing to do the same thing again.
Finally, regarding our councils, Nottingham has lost £270 million of Government investment over the last decade. Vital services that affect our daily life have all been diminished in some way or removed entirely. Our council stepped up during covid; it is simply wrong that the promise even to meet its basic covid costs, never mind to fund it properly, has not been met. We needed a Budget for growth; instead, we have just got more of the same, and it will not do.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
In December 2019, the Prime Minister pledged to repay the trust placed in us by the people of Teesside. Despite fears that the economic pressures of the pandemic could blow that plan off course, they have not. This Budget delivered for Teesside. It was Teesside’s Budget—not only because we left more money in people’s pockets, freezing national insurance contributions, income tax, VAT, fuel duty and beer duty, but because we increased the national living wage and maintained the personal allowance so that those on the lowest incomes pay less tax. Not only are we backing individuals, we are backing business—extending the furlough, extending the business rates holiday, and introducing a super deduction to incentivise business investment and growth.
This Budget delivered amazing, life-changing investment specifically for Tees Valley. Since being elected, I have worked alongside the amazing Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, and my Tees Tory colleagues on a campaign to land a freeport for Teesside. It was incredible, therefore, to hear the news that Teesside would be home to the country’s biggest freeport, bringing £3.2 billion into our regional economy and creating 18,000 great jobs for local people. But the good news did not stop there. Our campaign to move the Treasury to Tees Valley has also won through, with incredible jobs that could be taken up by young people from my constituency. We will be moving decision makers up north to see what it means to live, work and play in Teesside—and, more importantly, how their policies impact on my constituents.
Then there was the incredible news that Thornaby was to benefit from a £23.9 million bucket of town deal funding. Thornaby is an incredible town, full of amazing people with bags and bags of untapped potential, skills and energy. They do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want their fair share of opportunities that so many other towns have had—and with this money, they will get it. I have had the pleasure of sitting on a town deal board alongside local people, great independent councillors, business people, educational institutions, housing providers and others to look at how we can ensure that this money is spent to best effect and on the priorities of local people: tidying up our town centre, restoring pride in the heart of our community by getting rid of dilapidated and disused buildings like the Golden Eagle hotel and the old Npower office block; eliminating and improving substandard housing to make sure that every family can have a proper home; and developing a skills hub giving opportunities to people young and old to gain the skills they need to secure great jobs, and helping the people of Thornaby to unleash their full potential.
So yes, Wednesday’s Budget was Teesside’s Budget, and we are determined to make the most of the opportunities that this Government have presented us with.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This Budget may come to be remembered for what it did not mention rather than for what it did contain. The health and care world was reported to be stunned that the NHS was mentioned only once and social care not at all in the Chancellor’s speech, and this despite the fact that we are still in the grip of a deep crisis in health and social care due to this Government’s failure to get covid-19 under control. The UK has experienced higher rates of infections, hospitalisations and deaths from the virus than other countries. The care sector was rocked by more than 30,000 deaths, and a fragile sector has now become even more fragile. Turnover in care staff is at 40% and there are still 100,000 care staff vacancies. The president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has warned that the care system risks “catastrophic failure” without urgent changes. During the pandemic, the number of people with unmet need is likely to have risen to 1.9 million. The £1 billion extra to councils for social care and the reliance on councils raising the social care precept by 3% are both inadequate sticking plasters. We need a recovery plan that gets social care functioning properly by putting it on a par with the NHS.
After a year of incredibly hard work spent fighting this virus, there was no mention of a recovery plan for the NHS, and we learned just a few days ago of the proposal for only a 1% pay rise for NHS staff who have sacrificed so much during this pandemic. My constituents are angry and upset at this derisory pay proposal, because last year Conservative MPs promised, budgeted for and voted into law a 2.1% pay rise for NHS staff.
Many people around the country were excluded from support in this Budget. The 2.4 million people who have been excluded from financial support are not helped by Budget measures that apply to only some of the self-employed. The Chancellor failed again to put in the financial support needed to help people to self-isolate, meaning that they still have to choose between their job and their health. Our schools are left with nothing for additional spending related to covid. Our local councils are being forced into a 5% council tax increase after a decade of cuts that have seen £211 million cut from budgets in my local area of Salford.
To add insult to injury, the Chancellor and the Communities Secretary have come up with a priority list for the levelling-up fund that puts their constituencies into priority 1 for investment but leaves Salford and other more deprived areas lower down the queue. This was not the Budget the country needed, with its triple blow of tax rises, a pay freeze and a cut to universal credit later. Worst of all, while Government Ministers are happy to waste billions on test and trace that fails to deliver and to give contracts to their cronies, they are failing the key worker heroes of the NHS and social care.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate this evening. This Budget was produced after a year of extraordinary economic challenges and an extraordinary economic response to give support to families and businesses. No Chancellor would want to raise taxes or increase Government borrowing to the current record levels, but in this Budget the Chancellor has rightly recognised the need to continue to support families and companies in the face of this extraordinary unforeseen economic shock.
Equally, the Chancellor is right to be honest. Modern monetary theory does not mean that a magic money tree has been found, and we cannot expand the Bank of England’s balance sheet forever, so rightly and probably unwelcomely, the plan to restore public finances understandably includes raising taxes.
A key imperative last week, alongside the need to restore the public finances in the medium term, was to encourage investment and enterprise and to embed recovery. So, alongside the planned corporate tax rises was a more generous treatment of tax losses and the announcement of the super deduction, which will inevitably help many companies to invest in exactly the capital formation that they will need for the future.
The Chancellor is also right to focus on infrastructure spending and investment. Infrastructure is not an end in itself; it is the driver of growth and productivity in economies. The policies announced last week will allow growth and investment in both physical and social infrastructure. I welcome the increase in departmental spending limits and the increase in transport spending. I also welcome the increase in skills investment, in kickstart and in the digital skills scheme. The establishment of the UK infrastructure bank is welcome, but it is the private sector that will drive investment. A green gilt is welcome, but I urge the Government to think about an infrastructure bond, which would open up the potential for private capital—individuals and pension funds—to invest in infrastructure. Equally, the announcement of the consultation on changes to the capital cap for pension funds will drive some of that investment.
Financial services are the jewel in the UK’s economic crown, so there is good news for many and I welcome some of the other measures, but I urge the Government to think about a review of the regulation of financial services, to ensure that we have competitiveness and also appropriateness in regard to capital and conduct. Financial services will allow the necessary investment to happen in the infrastructure of the United Kingdom. I welcome this Budget. It was the right Budget at this time, and the Chancellor is to be congratulated on it.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Austerity is back, not that it ever went away, and despite a chameleon-like effort to convince us otherwise, it did not take long for us to see through the Chancellor’s Budget, which is a continuation of the austerity that is now in its 11th year. We have the insulting 1% pay increase for nurses, which, when we factor in inflation at 1.7%, will actually be a pay cut. There is no increase in the pay of other public sector workers. There is a £30 billion cut to NHS funding, nothing for social care and nothing for local authorities, some of which are on the brink of collapse. This is the true face of the Chancellor’s Budget for 2021.
We clapped for the NHS throughout the pandemic and we felt devastated when we heard of the NHS staff who had lost their lives while caring for others. We still do not know the full extent of the trauma and emotional scars our NHS staff carry from performing their daily work caring for many thousands of covid patients in the most extremely challenging conditions in our hospitals. The nurses, the porters, the cleaners, the healthcare assistants, the theatre staff and the hospital pharmacists—if ever there was a time to reward them for their selfless work during the pandemic, that time is now. I urge the Chancellor to give the NHS workers the proper pay rise they deserve.
The challenges for the NHS are not over yet. There is a huge backlog of delayed operations, appointments and treatments in the pipeline. The very same staff, who are battleworn and weary from the fight against covid, will now be expected to tackle the tsunami of the backlog, with substantially less funding in the NHS. That is scandalous and will cost lives.
In the Conservative 2019 manifesto, the first item in “Boris Johnson’s Guarantee” was:
“Extra funding for the NHS”.
What happened to that manifesto pledge? What about social care? Where is the elusive plan for social care that we were promised? Social care is in crisis, and unless we develop a properly funded social care system, older and vulnerable people will be put at risk.
That leads me to local authorities, which have a statutory duty to fund social care, but council budgets have taken a huge hit while supporting local communities during the pandemic crisis. It is no surprise that some local authorities are on the brink of bankruptcy, having to go cap in hand to be bailed out just weeks before the Budget. That is what happens after 10 years of austerity.
The Chancellor is always bragging about the huge amounts he has borrowed and seems ideologically wedded to austerity and the demise of the public sector. When reflecting on the way NHS staff, social care workers and the public sector stepped up to the mark and went beyond the call of duty during the coronavirus crisis, protecting the most vulnerable, I think most rational people will agree that the Government not only owe them praise and support, but the fair funding they deserve.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget as a clear path, a demonstration of continued support in difficult times, and a way to rebuild from the challenges we are experiencing. There is the honesty of levelling with people about some of the challenges, which has been absent from parts of the debate, but also the fantastic news that we are laying the foundations for some extremely important successes, which we can plan for now and benefit from in the coming years, with, for example, the town deals.
I was pleased that two town deals were awarded to towns in my constituency, Clay Cross and Staveley. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Support said in his opening remarks that in a few weeks, businesses will reopen and hopefully not have to close again. In North East Derbyshire, when we reopen in a few weeks in Clay Cross and Staveley, we will do so with a spring in our step and the huge confidence that we have the tools to make things even better and the real opportunity to build on our successes in the coming years.
First, I thank the Government for supporting Clay Cross and Staveley in the past few months. I also thank everyone in both those towns who has worked so hard to put the town deals together. I thank Gary Golden, chairman of Clay Cross town board, on which I have the privilege to serve, and North East Derbyshire District Councillors Alex Dale, Carolyn Renwick and Charlotte Cupit. From the Staveley perspective, I thank Ivan Fomin from the Staveley town board, on which I also have the opportunity and privilege to sit. That collaboration and coming together has been successful for towns that have had challenges over many years.
Coming from North East Derbyshire and seeing how the industrial base changed in Clay Cross and Staveley over many years and the difficulties we had in the 1980s and 1990s, I know it is a huge vote of confidence that we now have the opportunity to make things better, and not just because money is coming. Money is important, but it is not about what you put in, but what is done with the money and how it is built on. We now have the opportunity to do that. That demonstrates that when we are constructive and work with and are in partnership with central Government, we can achieve so much more.
I thank the Government again. They are saying clearly to us that they believe in Clay Cross and Staveley and that we can succeed and get on. We will pay them back by doing so in the coming years.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is the greatest crisis that this country has faced since the second world war, and the Chancellor offers us a partisan and peripatetic Budget—partisan because it seeks to shore up the majorities of Conservative MPs, regardless of need or national benefit, and peripatetic as it jumps from area to area and sector to sector, giving and taking with no vision and little ambition, with nothing on social care, nothing for our key industries, nothing for Newcastle and almost nothing on climate change.
There is an infrastructure bank with one 20th of the funding for the failing test and trace system. This should have been the moment to light up the road to recovery; instead, it is a mean and limited mates’ rates economic sticking plaster. There is the super deduction capital allowance, which treats jacuzzis the same as manufacturing lines and rewards Amazon for investing in surveillance technology but not companies for investing in people.
After a decade of the Tories religiously repeating that cutting corporation tax increases the revenues brought in, apparently raising corporation tax now increases the revenues brought in. It really is the Tory magic money tree, is it not? It shows that all the years of austerity were driven by Tory ideological fantasy, even though they were a horror story for the communities that suffered, the public services that were cut and the jobs that were lost.
What about small businesses? For a year now I have heard from the wonderful, vibrant businesses in Newcastle Central that are trying so hard to keep going in this pandemic. They have shown amazing resilience and dedication to the protection of customers and jobs. They have invested thousands of pounds in making their premises covid-secure, in the technology to move online if they can, or in diversifying the services that they offer. Some are paying the costs of staff furlough from their own pockets and borrowing against their homes to do so. One pub owner told me that if he gets through this pandemic, he will be working for the bank for the rest of his life.
I wrote to the Chancellor about the town hall that I held last month for Newcastle Central businesses that have been excluded from covid-19 support because they were started a week too late, earned a few pounds too much or do not have business premises. There are thousands of them in Newcastle Central—what did the Budget do for them? There was the continuation of existing schemes, but nothing for those who fall through the existing gaps.
The Government say that local authorities have funds for discretionary grants—which is true, and Newcastle City Council has worked incredibly hard to distribute them—but it is a cowardly and base attempt to dodge responsibility. The Government know that they have not offered anything like the funding necessary to fill the gaps in support which they have created. If the Government allow our small businesses to go bankrupt, the demand we will see after this pandemic ends will be met by big national or international chains and fire-sale venture capitalists, not the local businesses that our economy and communities need.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Budget, which is a trifold balancing act in respect of continuing covid support, stimulus for recovery and fixing the public finances.
Faced with £335 billion in borrowing from the covid support schemes, the Chancellor has a difficult task, but I can help him immediately with in excess of £100 billion of that: I would not be true to myself or my constituents if I did not urge him once more to cancel HS2, a project that had a flimsy business case to start with that has now been blown apart by projections that rail demand is down for the long term.
Critically, we need stimulus for growth. The capital gains tax increases are uncomfortable, but I very much trust that the Treasury modelling will show the new rates to be on the right side of the Laffer curve. Fundamentally, the Budget has many measures that will stimulate growth. I particularly welcome the super deduction measures to unlock investments; fuel duty freezes for families and businesses alike; the restart grants, along with the extension of the 5% VAT rate, to give retail, hospitality and others a fighting chance; frozen alcohol duties; freeports and Help to Grow; and the extension of furlough and the self-employment grants, to give businesses, particularly those with long lead times for new contracts, certainty as they plan ahead.
It remains a mystery to me why some of those who are self-employed and earn more than £50,000 and owner-directors of limited companies who pay themselves through dividends have not enjoyed the same support as those on furlough or the SEISS. Such micro and small businesses, many in the creative, cultural, tourism, events and hospitality sectors—entrepreneurs to the core—are essential to our recovery. We must find a fiscal way to get them to the other side of this crisis. I am proud that my local council, Buckinghamshire Council, has been able to support many such businesses through the additional restrictions grants, but I have heard, with enormous sadness, of far too many businesses in my constituency simply giving up.
I particularly urge the Treasury to look once more at a sector I have spoken about before: the coach industry. One firm in my constituency is shouldering over £30,000 a month in losses, serving debts that have been caused because the state has asked it to meet PSVAR and Euro 6 standards. More debt simply cannot be the answer for such firms.
To conclude, this is a very strong Budget, a Budget that is honest about the level of national borrowing, but which understands that the path to recovery must come from growth. If we can close the gaps and open up as soon as possible, this Budget will stand us in good stead for growth and prosperity.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
At this moment, nearly a year on since the first lockdown was brought about, I am reminded of the words of Lord Tennyson:
“Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”
Over the last year, we have all grown tired of the slow passing of time as the covid pandemic has brought to a halt our lives as we once knew them. The daily confirmation of lives lost and loved ones around the country in mourning—the pandemic really has taken a toll on us all. But now is the time, as this Budget has sought to do, to strive for a better future: seeking to improve the life chances for all and finding solutions to turbocharge our economy, and not yielding to the cynicism and pessimism of some.
This is a good Budget and the Chancellor has got the balance right between supporting our economy and jobs right now as we continue through this pandemic, and laying out the necessary and proportionate measures to pay for that support in the future. Global Britain in a post-covid-19 world can be a beacon around the globe, a shining example of how to transform an economy into a high-skilled, high-waged green economy, offering opportunities for many and levelling up our left-behind communities. This Budget sets us on course for that.
First, as vice-chair of the all-party group on hospitality and tourism, I welcome the extensions of the VAT cut and the business rates holiday. Those measures have really helped the hospitality sector through the pandemic. It is welcome that they will be in place as they fully open this summer. I would have liked to see them extended for a further full year to really give our hospitality and tourism sectors a turbo-boost to their recovery, so I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will review that when the schemes are due to come to an end.
Secondly, I welcome the levelling-up fund and the inclusion of both Hastings and Rother local authorities in priority group 1. This fund will really help areas that have been left behind for too long to get the vital investment in local projects that matter to local people. I welcome the funding support that both the local authorities I represent will get in putting their bids together. I look forward to working with them on that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
Finally, I cannot conclude without raising the case for a High Speed 1 rail extension from Ashford International through to Hastings, Bexhill and Eastbourne. I know I have been banging on about it for a long time and it has been talked about for nearly 10 years, but we really need it to come through and get that train through there.
We may have grown tired and weakened by the pandemic in recent months, but now is the time to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield as we move our economy into a post-covid world, as this Budget does.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
On International Women’s Day, I would like to start by paying tribute to the achievements of women throughout history and put it on record that I stand in solidarity with all those who continue to champion equality. In my own constituency, I am proud that so many members of my community have put on events to mark the day and celebrate the role that women have played in our history, in particular Heaton Norris community centre for its work in creating an International Women’s Week activity workbook. I was delighted to receive a copy last week and I would like to say a special thanks to Nadia Ali and the youth group at the centre for all their hard work.
The 1% pay rise for NHS workers is shameful. It is insulting for more than 1 million staff who have put themselves in harm’s way on the frontline of the covid pandemic over the past 12 months to keep our population safe. We owe them a debt of gratitude and should be rewarding them for their efforts, not insulting them with a measly pay rise for staff who are already underpaid and overworked.
Statutory sick pay also remains shamefully low with a Unison North West survey revealing that 80% of care workers will continue to receive £95 per week statutory sick pay if they are ill or following the Government’s advice to self-isolate or shield themselves or loved ones. The right thing to do is give them full pay.
Furthermore, this should have been a Budget about investing in services given the record low borrowing costs for the Government and the chronic underfunding of the NHS over the past decade, which so cruelly exposed our country to this pandemic and resulted in the highest covid death toll in Europe. We need capital funding for urgently needed upgrades to my local hospital, Stepping Hill, which I raised with the Health Secretary directly in January, as well as additional funding in areas such as cancer services right across Greater Manchester. Furthermore, specific funding for areas such as dementia are incredibly important to my constituents. Indeed, according to the Alzheimer’s Society there are almost 4,500 people aged over 65 with dementia living in the local authority of Stockport. Despite that, services to tackle this degenerative condition remain significantly underfunded.
The Budget also fails yet again to go far enough for the 3 million people who are self-employed and have been excluded from financial help during the pandemic. ExcludedUK branded the Chancellor’s announcement “too little too late.”
There was also almost nothing in this Budget for maintained nursery schools such as Hollywood Park, Lark Hill and Freshfield in my constituency. This in an unsustainable position for these schools, with the National Education Union warning that many will struggle to survive year on year without a long-term funding settlement.
It is also high time that the national minimum wage be lifted to £10 per hour to reduce the level of in-work poverty. May I therefore ask the Minister when the Government will present their long overdue employment Bill to the House?
Recently, the House has been informed about civil service jobs moving to the north. I welcome that, but so much more needs to be done to level up this area of the country. My constituency has excellent transport links, the availability of high-quality workspaces and a thriving community; I therefore strongly encourage the Government to move their Departments to Stockport and other parts of the north-west.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I read in the newspapers this morning that millions of people are going to sit in front of their television sets this evening, and as I cannot imagine they will be watching anything other than the Parliament channel I would like to take this opportunity to say that this is a good Budget that will help the economy in its long recovery from the strains of the last year.
The theme of this evening’s debate is supporting businesses through the crisis, and the scale of that support can be seen in the assistance given to businesses in Gedling over the last year: over £12 million in business interruption loans; over £44 million in bounce back loans; nearly £9.5 million under the self-employed income scheme; and 88,000 meals under eat out to help out. But Government support cannot be reduced to a list of statistics on a spreadsheet; behind every loan or grant there is a business and a family struggling to get by. That was brought home to me when a constituent, a small businessman, stopped me in the street and said, with tears in his eyes, “If you see Rishi, tell him thank you for the self-employed support scheme; it’s been a life saver.” The Chancellor’s interventions have helped to save jobs, and he and the Treasury should be commended on their work.
The Government schemes are among the most generous in Europe, but not all have benefited. I welcome the major improvement in access to the self-employed scheme now that the tax return deadline for this year has passed, enabling over 600,000 more people to claim the fourth and fifth grants. The all-party group on gaps in support has produced a report with further proposals, which I will read with interest.
No Government can create jobs, but they can create the conditions that encourage job creation, and I therefore welcome the creation of a new wave of freeports in the UK, particularly the fantastic news that one of them will be in the east midlands. Centred around East Midlands airport, the freeport will focus on innovation, low carbon and trade. I was disappointed to hear that the Leader of the Opposition disparaged this scheme by saying that the creation of freeports “isn’t levelling up” but is “giving up.” The east midlands freeport has the potential to create up to 60,000 new jobs in the region, and as I already have constituents who work in and around the East Midlands airport site, some of those jobs will go to Gedling residents. That is to be applauded, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will reflect on his comments. I further applaud the launch of the levelling-up fund and look forward to working with colleagues in Gedling to put in what I hope will be an extremely successful bid.
These are difficult times and I appreciate that they will not get easier in the very short term, but I congratulate the Treasury and the Chancellor on setting us on the course to future prosperity.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In three minutes, I can touch on only a handful of my serious concerns about this Budget. For NHS staff this year has been the toughest ever, yet the only reward and recognition in this Budget is a 1% pay rise, which is, in effect, a pay cut when inflation is accounted for. We now know that the Government are to cut health and social care by £30 billion, with yet another year of no plans to fix our social care crisis. There was nothing to help a couple in my constituency after she was discharged from hospital and they both now face astronomical costs to ensure she gets the care she deserves. What does this Budget offer them? It offers them nothing.
With the UK hosting COP26, we would have thought the Government would have a bold, ambitious and sustainable plan that both tackles the climate crisis and creates high-paid, secure green jobs, with the associated economic stimulus the UK economy so desperately needs, but they do not. They have just a green-focused investment bank, and the Chancellor did not mention that it fails even to plug the gap left behind by leaving the European Investment Bank, nor does it replace the green investment bank that the Conservative Government sold off. There was a £1 billion cut to the green homes grant, which was justified on that grounds that “too few applied”; it was not reformed so that it actually worked for homeowners needing to make their homes energy secure and efficient, while also ensuring there is work for small and local businesses in my constituency and across the country.
Again, there was nothing for aviation communities, which have been so badly hit and are dominated by a sector that will be the last to recover from the pandemic. This could have been an opportunity to make aviation more sustainable and more environmentally friendly, while sustaining jobs, skills and businesses, for example, in the areas around Heathrow and other airports. Unlike Governments in France, Germany, Spain and the US, our Government have chosen to do neither. Where is the promised sector-specific support for aviation? It should be led by a tripartite body of government, the unions and industry that could help shape the sector’s recovery. It is not there.
This is a Budget where the rhetoric simply does not match the reality. It fails to support the NHS staff and further extends the social care crisis. It is a Budget that bakes in the already huge inequalities in our society. It is a Budget that fails to invest in covid pandemic recovery and fails to address the economic hit we know our economy faces after Brexit. It is a Budget that neither meets the challenge of the moment we are in nor plans for the future, but it is a Budget that rewards political friends. This Budget is yet another missed opportunity.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a delight to be here physically in the Chamber once again, rather than speaking to a screen. There is no doubt that the hospitality and tourism sector has been one of the most severely impacted through this pandemic. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as a former tourism Minister, will know how important this is to Cornwall and to my constituency. A recent report highlighted that one in three households in Cornwall rely on tourism and hospitality for some of their income, and that my constituency is the most reliant on these businesses in the whole country. Therefore, it was vital that the Chancellor delivered further support for businesses in the sector so that they can not only survive through the coming weeks, but be ready to reopen and bounce back quickly, and the Chancellor did deliver on those things.
I am chairman of the all-party group on hospitality and tourism, and there were five things we were particularly asking the Chancellor. It is not often we get everything we ask for in a Budget, but this time the hospitality and tourism sector just about got everything we asked for. We asked for an extension of the VAT cut, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for a continuation of the business rate holiday, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for a continuation of the furlough scheme, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for further grants to give businesses the cash they need to be ready to reopen, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for a freeze in beer duty, and the Chancellor delivered it. So this was a Budget that delivered for businesses in my constituency and across Cornwall, and therefore it is very welcome.
There were, however, just two things I was particularly disappointed with in the Budget. Another sector that has been severely impacted by this pandemic is the aviation sector. While the further business rate grants to support airports through the coming months were very welcome, we were hoping for some good news on a cut on air passenger duty, and we did not quite get that. So I would encourage the Treasury to look further at what we could do to support aviation through cutting air passenger duty in the near future.
I was also disappointed about the removal of the relief on red diesel. This is particularly going to hit very hard the quarrying and mining sector, which is another very important sector for Cornwall. I understand what the Treasury is trying to do—to move people on to clean energy—but the fact is that for some of the heavy gear needed, particularly in mining and quarrying, there just are not alternative clean bits of machinery available on the market yet. So it will be relying on diesel, and this extra duty is going to hit that sector very hard. That is another thing I would ask the Treasury to look at once again: what can we do to help businesses in this sector while new technologies come on board?
Overall, however, it was a good Budget, and one I am happy to wholeheartedly support.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wrap up this debate for the Opposition. Whatever is happening elsewhere on our television screens, I want to begin by thanking all the hon. and right hon. Members for contributing to this debate, whether they did so physically or virtually. We have had a very wide range of contributions over the past few hours, and hon. Members have raised a whole number of issues in relation to the Budget. These included the Government’s business support schemes, the importance of technology, the creative industries, tourism, International Women’s Day and the differential impact of the pandemic on women, green finance, the universal credit uplift and its impending cut-off, unemployment and youth unemployment, the 1% NHS pay offer, the levelling up funding and those still excluded from Government support.
The backdrop is of course one of the most difficult we have known. There is a pandemic that has killed over 120,000 people and given us a huge hit to our economy. I want to focus on the taxation aspects of the Budget, because on this particular issue this was no ordinary Budget. The Budget announced by the Chancellor last week marked a watershed in taxation policy on the part of the Conservative party. For years, we have heard the mantra that lower taxation rates would lead to increased revenue by stimulating more economic activity.
Indeed, that was the previous Chancellor’s justification for cutting corporation tax in the first place back in 2010. He partly funded it by cutting investment allowances for manufacturing businesses, and he continued to stick to that justification for years afterwards. In 2016, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, said:
“Not only have our corporation tax cuts given us the lowest corporation tax rate of all the advanced economies of the world, but we have seen a 20% increase in receipts from corporation tax”.—[Official Report, 4 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 625.]
This was not just a single policy and not just a political argument; it was an article of faith. It was the core of the taxation ideology of the Conservative party. It goes way beyond the Osborne-Cameron years and right back to Thatcherism itself. This is a stance that has lasted not years, but decades. Its believers include the current Prime Minister himself who, when campaigning to be leader of his party, said that
“every time corporation tax has been cut in this country it has produced more revenue”.
With the changes announced in this Budget and the increase in rates, we do not just have a different policy; we have a different philosophy. It is all there in the Red Book, set out in table 2.1 on page 42, under the heading “Strengthening the public finances”. By raising corporation tax rates, the Government hope to bring in an extra £17.2 billion in a few years’ time. That is the claim; that is the estimate of the increased revenue that the increased rate will bring.
If there was any lingering doubt about the sea change that this represents in the thinking of the Conservative party, it was swept away by the Chancellor the day after the Budget. He used his post-Budget interview on the “Today” programme to bury the argument of his predecessors. He said:
“the vast majority, if not all, of that increase in corporate tax receipts is probably more likely due to the cyclical recovery in corporate profits, which took a real hammering in the last crisis”.
He went on to say:
“There was an idea that they”—
cuts in corporation tax—
“could help spur business investment. And what we’ve seen over the past few years is that we haven’t seen a step change in the level of capital investment that businesses are doing as a result of those corporation tax decreases.”
So there it is: Thatchernomics and Osbornenomics buried in full public view by Rishinomics—no more Laffer curves; no more pretending that tax cuts always magically lead to more revenues; no more tax bombshell posters; “Singapore-on-Sea” laid to rest by Budget 2021.
With a Budget set to bring the overall tax take back to levels not seen since the 1960s, the Conservatives have surrendered the mantle of claiming to be the party of low taxation. The old Conservative slogan was that it was the party of low taxation. The new slogan could be, “Tax on families up, tax on businesses up, but nurses’ pay down.” Let the Chancellor put his signature on that. This is the platform to which he has now signed up the whole Conservative party. This is the change that the Budget represents.
When we look at what the Budget predicts further ahead, UK economic growth after this year and next is projected to be just 1.6% or 1.7%. The Budget papers predict a long-term hit to growth of 3% from covid, on top of the 4% hit to growth as a result of the Prime Minister’s agreement with the European Union. The more that we can mitigate this damage to growth, the better it will be for prosperity, family finances and the public finances. That is the heart of the country’s challenge—how to get economic growth going. After the long, hard year that business has had, we need to let companies grow, breathe and get back on their feet, not weigh them down with ever growing debts, so why have the Government set their face so firmly against the proposals that came from business groups themselves to turn the covid debt burden into a contingent tax liability in the future, dependent on future performance?
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on the Black Country economy heard alarming reports from manufacturing companies about the forest of red tape, cost increases and delays that they have faced in trying to export goods since the beginning of January. Those businesses represent the finest Black Country tradition of making things and selling them all over the world. There is an old saying in the Black Country: “If you can draw it, we can make it.” But those businesses now find themselves hobbled and hamstrung by the mountain of red tape involved in the Government’s Brexit arrangements.
I appreciate that some Government Members may not regret that—in fact, some of them may welcome it—but the hard-working businesses of this country deserve more than to be used as components in the Government’s ongoing grievance factory against the European Union. They deserve more than to be used as pawns in a battle of ill feeling that will not create a single job or export a single product. We know that the Prime Minister has dismissed business, but that attitude is no good to hard-working exporters and manufacturing companies. They deserve support for their efforts.
Covid has exposed deep inequalities in our country, from the pattern of those killed by it to the frontline workers who have kept the country going. It has imposed on us all a responsibility to build a better economy out of this: one that combines prosperity and security; and one that combines the wealth creation we need with a commitment to heal the divisions exposed by what we have been through. Under new leadership, that is exactly the approach that my party will support.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Over the past four and a half hours we have had contributions from well over 75 right hon. and hon. Members from across the United Kingdom—from Blackpool to Buckingham, and from Stockton North and South to Somerset. There may be many geographical differences between us and differences of opinion, but I think all of us, no matter our political allegiance or the location of our constituencies, are united in our desire to safeguard businesses from the impact of covid-19. On this International Women’s Day, I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to those businesses’ female employees, whose work helps to drive this country’s economic success.
Indeed, the desire to safeguard businesses has been this Government’s guiding mission since the first days of the pandemic. That is why, over the past year, we have rolled out a series of extraordinary, unprecedented interventions, including the furlough and self-employment income support schemes, billions of pounds of grants and loans, as well as VAT cuts and rate holidays for eligible firms. Those steps have worked. According to official statistics, insolvencies last year were ranked 25% below 2019 levels. However, while the pandemic continues, it is only morally right that we do all we can to support the hardest-hit firms. That is why in last week’s Budget the Chancellor built on our existing help for businesses as part of a total covid support package worth £352 billion this year and next.
Let me remind hon. and right hon. Members of the headline measures: extending the furlough scheme to the end of September, with firms required to make only a small contribution to wages as the economy reopens; more help for the self-employed with a fourth income support grant worth 80% of three months’ average trading profits and capped at £7,500; and a fifth grant, with its value determined by a turnover test, to target support at those who need it most. In addition, more than 600,000 extra people, many of whom became self-employed in 2019-20, will now be able to claim for the scheme. The CBI praised those steps and said it was right that businesses start to contribute a little more as revenues recover, while the Federation of Small Businesses declared that the Government’s interventions were the building blocks of a pro-business Budget.
We are also providing targeted support to the sectors that have found themselves at the sharp end of the pandemic. As my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary outlined this afternoon when he opened this debate, that includes hundreds of millions of pounds to support our arts, culture and sporting institutions as they reopen and an extension of our hugely successful film and TV production restart scheme.
We are giving eligible properties in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors a £6 billion tax cut by continuing the 100% business rates holiday for three months. We are extending the 5% reduced VAT rate for eligible hospitality and tourism businesses until the end of September. I listened carefully to the representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild). We will continue to think carefully about what is required to support all aspects of our economy.
As we start to emerge from the pandemic, our new restart grants will help get shops bustling, hairdressers snipping and fitness centres buzzing again. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that personal care businesses will be included in stage 2, which will open from 12 April.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, the Government continue to take their world-leading environmental commitment seriously. They remain dedicated to meeting climate change and wider environmental targets, including improving the UK’s air quality.
The billions of pounds that we spend on such interventions are necessary and affordable in the short term but, as the Chancellor also said last week, we cannot allow debt to rise indefinitely, so let me touch on the role of businesses in rebuilding our nation’s finances, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). We are providing over £100 billion of support to firms throughout the pandemic, and it is only right that we ask businesses to help as they return to profit and the economy rebounds. That is why, in 2023, we are increasing the corporation tax rate to 25%. Even at that level, I say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the UK will still have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7. Before that increase kicks in, we are making the tax treatment of losses more generous by allowing businesses to carry back losses of up to £2 million for three years, and we are reviewing the 8% surcharge levied on bank profits to ensure that the sector remains globally competitive.
However, that is far from the sum of business’s contribution to our economic renewal. Companies small and large have another important role: driving growth and spreading opportunity around the country. I strongly support the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on the role of changing regulations in growing growth and competition opportunities.
In our Budget plans, we are building an investment-led recovery and we have set out how to support the firms that are going to do it. First, we are increasing opportunities for young people while ensuring that firms benefit from a steady pipeline of talent, with £126 million to fund up to 43,000 high-quality traineeships. In addition, employers who hire a new apprentice will receive a £3,000 payment. We are also rolling out a new unsponsored points-based visa, so that high-growth firms in science, research and tech can attract the best global talent.
Secondly, we are helping firms turbocharge their growth by providing greater access to capital through a range of new schemes, as acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). They include giving the pension industry more flexibility to release investment into innovative ventures and helping firms scale up through a new £375 million “future fund: breakthrough” programme. The FCA will also consult on the IPO listings regime following Lord Hill’s excellent review, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will watch that with great interest.
Thirdly, we are closing the UK’s productivity gap. Our super deduction—the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history—will mean our business investment tax regime leads the world. As the Culture Secretary outlined earlier, our £520 million Help to Grow scheme will offer small businesses MBA-style management training, as well as help to embrace digital technology. I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who gave some begrudging support for Help to Grow and digital investment, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whose enthusiasm demonstrates his understanding of the sector.
I end my remarks by saying that UK businesses and the men and women at their helm are the backbone of our economy. We are committed to doing whatever it takes to support them through this crisis and to unleash their potential to drive our national recovery and renewal. This extraordinary Budget in extraordinary times sets out how we will achieve that and, in so doing, secure a stronger economy and a better future for the people of this country as we emerge from this pandemic.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Disused Mineworks in Skewen: Flooding
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On 21 January, residents living in Skewen in my Aberavon constituency had their lives turned upside down. Unbeknown to them, a blockage in a disused mineworks was preventing water from draining away. Thousands of gallons of water therefore accumulated underground, creating the liquid equivalent of a ticking time bomb, which finally exploded on the 21st, causing a blow-out from the mine shaft.
The force of the water was so great that not only did it punch through the cap that had sealed the mine for over 100 years, but it erupted through the road above. The torrent of water and sludge then cascaded through Goshen Park, down Drummau Road and The Highlands, through Sunnyland Crescent before settling in Sunnyland, Jubilee Crescent, Dynevor Road and the bottom of Cwrt-Y-Clafdy. Residents, including at a nearby care home, were evacuated as the mine waters continued to rise. The sheer terrifying force of the water was breaking down walls, displacing cookers, fridges and furniture, shattering glass and destroying belongings. It left a trail of destruction in its wake. Miraculously, nobody was physically injured, but make no mistake: the traumatic emotional aftershocks of this will be felt forever in this tight-knit community.
Before I make any further comment about the impact of this horrific incident and how the UK Government and the Coal Authority must respond, I would like to place on record my thanks to the emergency services and all the agencies that responded to the incident and helped residents. The local councillor, Mike Harvey, has also been a rock for his residents, standing by them from the outset. Neath Port Talbot Council’s response has also been rapid and effective. It has continued to support residents, helping them to find temporary accommodation, administering the Welsh Government’s financial assistance, facilitating council tax exemptions, providing support for pursuing insurance claims and organising generators and dehumidifiers for residents without insurance to dry out their homes.
I would also like to thank those at Skewen Salvation Army for the wonderful work that they have done to support and help the victims. They were on site with their emergency vehicle within hours. They opened their hall for donations, and they have set up a fundraising page and raised thousands of pounds to help residents. Residents are particularly grateful to Briony Powell, the volunteer co-ordinator, Emma Jones, the local area co-ordinator, and Captain Jo Walters, who so quickly mobilised the relief effort. We are fiercely proud of our legendary community spirit in Aberavon. We have certainly seen it in Skewen, and it has certainly been needed.
Of the 144 properties affected, 59 were flooded internally and 17 were flooded externally. Over 50 households have needed to find temporary accommodation. For each one of these properties, their owners are facing every homeowner’s worst nightmare, and they are facing it in the midst of a global pandemic. Having visited the site a number of times, I have seen for myself the sheer scale of the destruction that has been caused, and I can tell the House that the residents’ stories have not got any less heartbreaking.
Mr Godden and his son work in the ambulance service, and Mrs Godden is a nurse. The last 12 months on the frontline in the battle against this pandemic have been hugely challenging for them, and now this has happened. Their home is devastated. There is not much left. Their caravan and the vehicle they were unable to move have both been written off, but they still have to pay off the lease on the car. To add insult to injury, they have been told by their insurance company that because they cannot make a claim against the Coal Authority, they are considered to be at fault for the damage the water has caused to their caravan. This is nothing short of a scandal.
Emma Jones was at work when it happened. Her 15-year-old twins were at home studying when the water engulfed their home. They were rescued though waist-deep water by firefighters. The ordeal of what unfolded that day has left her daughter suffering from nightmares, seeing images in her mind’s eye of her family and friends face down in water.
Ria Evans grew up in her home on Dynevor Road. Her mother lived there and so did her grandmother. The home holds great sentimental value to her. It was full of loving memories and treasured belongings, but they have all been destroyed. Ria has yet to find long-term accommodation. She is desperate to find somewhere to settle so she can get a bit of stability and stop living out of a suitcase. Every day is a constant battle for her. She is struggling to sleep, she is struggling emotionally, and she is struggling to focus, which is affecting her work.
Every time I speak with residents, I am profoundly impressed by the dignity with which they are conducting themselves. However, I have to tell the Minister that there is a growing feeling of anger and betrayal about the way in which they are being treated by the Coal Authority and the UK Government.
The Coal Industry Act 1994 transferred responsibility for mines, including the one in Skewen, to the UK Government. At that time, the Coal Authority was established and given the responsibility for managing the effects of past coalmining and dealing with the myriad environmental and safety related issues that are the legacy of the coalmining industry. The Skewen mine was inspected in 2011 and deemed a low risk, but it has since transpired that the map was incorrect and the wrong location had been inspected. Lessons must be learned from this sorry tale, but the bottom line is that the responsibility for the botched 2011 inspection lies squarely at the door of the Coal Authority and the UK Government.
Why on earth should residents be expected to pay a single penny for damage that has been caused through no fault of their own? Residents simply cannot fathom why the Coal Authority is not accepting liability for the damage that the mine water, ochre, debris and sludge from the mine has cause to their homes. I have to say that I am equally baffled.
Residents are continually being told that the UK Government and the Coal Authority do not have liability for flooding and that water is water—it is not owned by anyone. These arguments are both insensitive and nonsensical. The blow-out was not an act of God, like a river bursting its banks or a storm surge; the mine workings are man-made. They are the responsibility of the Coal Authority and, by extension, of the UK Government.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is a moral responsibility that each property should be returned to the condition it was in on 20 January, and that no resident should be burdened with the cost. What has been offered so far by the Coal Authority is, frankly, an insult: £500 does not begin to scratch the surface when the cost of the damage caused by the mine water is running to tens of thousands of pounds for each property. One resident has been quoted £50,000.
The Coal Authority and the UK Government are sticking dogmatically to their mantra that residents need to go through their insurance companies, but what about those who do not have insurance? There are about 20 properties with no insurance, and the intransigence of the Coal Authority and the UK Government means that people are expected to find substantial amounts of money to make their homes fit to live in again. This is an appalling way to treat people who have had their homes destroyed through no fault of their own. Even those with insurance are finding that it does not cover everything. Gardens, garden furniture, driveways, fences and outbuildings that have been damaged are not included. In some cases, residents have buildings insurance but not contents insurance.
Rhian David, her husband and two young children were evacuated from their family home and have been told that they will not be able to return for another year. Despite taking out a large sum of insurance, it is not enough to cover the extensive damage. The initial damage came to £18,000, but the secondary damage such as damp has added a further £5,000 to the costs.
By the Coal Authority’s own admission, this was a unique incident and the work to remediate the mineshaft and install a water management system should prevent any future recurrence. A compensation fund must therefore be set up to cover all uninsured losses and other unforeseen costs. The unique circumstances and the work of the Coal Authority would mean that that was a one-off payment in exceptional circumstances. It would not be setting a precedent; it would simply be doing the decent thing in response to an exceptional and unprecedented incident. This is a question of doing what is morally right, and the UK Government must respond accordingly.
The Minister has stated from the Dispatch Box that she will visit Skewen to see for herself the damage and destruction that the water has caused and to hear directly from residents, but we still do not know when she is coming. Only by visiting the site can she appreciate what has happened and truly comprehend the devastation. It is vital that she comes to Skewen before too much remediation work is carried out. Only by speaking directly with the residents can she fully understand the enormous emotional toll that this is taking. She needs to grasp the traumatic impact that the intransigence of the Coal Authority and the UK Government is having.
The saying goes that actions speak louder than words. The Coal Authority and the UK Government have offered the victims plenty of warm words, but statements of sympathy rapidly curdle into empty platitudes if they are not backed up by tangible deeds. The longer the Minister stays away, the clearer it becomes to my residents how little the UK Government care about what has happened to them.
Residents are equally worried about the impact of the incident on house prices. The Coal Authority and the UK Government must engage with estate agents and mortgage providers to ensure that their valuations and advice are based on a clear and comprehensive understanding of the uniqueness of what has happened.
Residents’ treatment by insurance companies has been a lottery. Some have acted reasonably well, but others have not. Residents have had real problems with insurance companies increasing premiums, with quotes that have seen premiums double after the incident; in one case, the annual payment jumped from £341 to £1,389 and a £10,000 excess. Others have been told that they cannot claim off the Coal Authority so they cannot make a no-fault claim.
This is a scandalous way to treat people. Residents should not be punished financially as a direct result of a blow-out happening through no fault of their own. The Coal Authority has promised to provide an information pack, which will provide estate agents with reassuring details about the unusual nature of what has happened and the new water management system, but that is taking far too long. Residents need that information pack urgently. The longer it takes for them to receive it, the more stress is caused and the more cost incurred.
The UK Government and the Coal Authority must also step up their efforts with insurers. They cannot be allowed to get away with this behaviour. It is imperative that the UK Government make it clear to all relevant insurance companies that they must not add a single penny to the premiums of those who have been impacted by this incident, and that all claims should be treated as no-fault.
The people of Skewen are strong and resilient. They will not take this lying down and, to quote Dylan Thomas, they will not go gentle into that good night. I am therefore giving the Minister fair warning this evening that the Coal Authority and the UK Government have awoken a sleeping dragon. She needs to know that she is in for a fight if she continues to stick rigidly to her stance.
I have great respect for the Minister. I know her to be a reasonable person and a credit to the important position that she holds. I therefore call on her to recognise that this is about doing what is morally right. It is time for the UK Government to step up and create a compensation fund to cover uninsured losses and to help those who have lost so much through absolutely no fault of their own.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his campaigning on this issue, which I recognise is a very serious one indeed for the residents of Skewen. I would also like to add my respectful gratitude to all those he mentioned who have helped residents through this incredibly difficult and stressful time. Some years ago now when Morpeth, just outside my constituency, was flooded, it was extraordinary to see the commitment—the continued commitment—of those among the affected who just quietly continued to support people and make sure that families got back on their feet, so I absolutely understand that. I just wanted to put on the record my thanks to them too, because I know just how difficult that can be.
I would like to provide the House with a little background on the important work that the Coal Authority undertakes, which I feel is relevant to the hon. Member’s very important constituency situation. The coalfield areas of Wales, England and Scotland cover some 26,000 sq km, or 11% of our country’s surface area. Since the start of the industrial revolution, human settlement has followed natural resource availability, industry and employment. The coalfields are consequently some of the most densely populated parts of the UK. Some 7 million properties lie within the coalfields, with 1.5 million properties lying above workings where coal has been mined at a depth of less than 30 metres, and more than 170,000 mine entries are known of. Alongside these, there are hundreds of miles of underground roadways, adits and drainage systems, which are often only partially mapped, especially in very historic coalmining areas.
In south Wales, 52% of the population live on the coalfield, and the vast majority will fortunately never experience any issues. Although there is little active coalmining today, centuries of underground and surface extraction have created a legacy of environmental issues and public safety hazards. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Coal Authority was created under the Coal Industry Act 1994, when the previously state-owned coal industry was privatised, to regulate the industry and manage these legacy issues. The authority helps to manage the UK’s energy legacy safely and responsibly.
A substantial legacy of mining hazards remain in many major conurbations, with one third of the documented coalmine entries being in urban areas. Surface collapses above abandoned workings and shafts present the most common risks to the public. The authority therefore has a 24/7 hazard line, enabling the public to report mining hazards around the clock, in order to ensure immediate responses. Approximately 1,000 surface and subsidence incidents are reported each year, about half of which are found to be coalmining related. The scale of the issues means that costly proactive remediation of the surface effects of mine workings and mining entries is carried out only when there is a higher risk to persons or property. In 2008, the authority began a risk-based mine entry inspection programme to identify such areas for proactive remediation. To date, some 149,000 shafts have been inspected, less than 1% of which have required remedial treatment.
The coalmine works in Skewen date back beyond 1830. There are 287 recorded mine entries in the immediate area of Skewen, which are part of the proactive inspection programme. The mineshaft involved in this awful flood and the area around it was inspected in 2011, as the hon. Member mentioned, and no concerns were identified at the time. It was mapped approximately 20 metres away from where the Coal Authority now know it to be. A mine drainage level in the vicinity has operated effectively for a very long time, but had become blocked, causing water and pressure to build up, eventually connecting with the nearby mineshaft, which allowed it to rise to the surface. The additional heavy rain from Storm Christoph caused the water to force its way out, leading to the flooding on 21 January. This is considered an extremely rare event and was unforeseeable.
Since then, the Coal Authority has worked fast with local partners and continues to provide a blended package of support to the community, which has included developing a solution to reduce the risk of this ever happening again, cleaning up in the aftermath of the flood and practical help for residents affected, including, to date, increasing the maximum payment for each household for outside restoration to £500. However, this is without doubt a deeply sad and very upsetting incident, and I heard absolutely what the hon. Member for Aberavon said about liability and, indeed, moral responsibility.
The Coal Authority’s work handling subsidence and safety issues associated with former coalmines is a statutory duty under the Coal Industry Act 1994 and the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The 1991 Act sets limits to the liability in terms of defining coal-mining subsidence damage. Flooding such as that at Skewen does not form part of these duties, because flooding, whether the water comes from a river, a stream, the sea, groundwater or a mine, is dealt with in the main through insurance. The Coal Authority is doing everything it can to support the community within the bounds of the legislation and the guidance it has to work within, but I am very pleased to note that, following a meeting last week, the Coal Authority is reviewing its package of support. I shall watch closely to see how that progresses.
The scale and complexity of our historic mining legacy mean that the authority will never be able to inspect all that is underground. I deeply sympathise with the hon. Member’s constituents and I realise that this is an incredibly frustrating and distressing time for them. However, it is neither affordable nor practical to underwrite flooding damage risk associated with former mining works for some 7 million properties, any more than it is for flooding from other sources. None the less, I will continue to monitor progress and hope to get to Skewen for myself as soon as lockdown restrictions allow, so that I can hear at first hand both from residents and those of the coal authority charged with the management of our coal mining legacy. I will watch very closely to see how this revised package under consideration rolls out. Once again, I hope very much that, when the lockdown restrictions hopefully lift in the weeks ahead, I can get on a train and head to south Wales as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We all know the rules about social distancing, and you are all sitting perfectly satisfactorily, so I will not bore you by repeating them.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is an ineffable pleasure to serve under your chairman-ship, Mr Gray. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 February, under paragraph 12(1) of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They will be debated and moved in the House of Lords as parliamentary time allows. Mirroring legislation is being prepared for data registered against properties in Northern Ireland, and that will be presented to the Assembly later in March. Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register, and is not covered by the draft regulations.
This is a straightforward statutory instrument relating to the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties in England and Wales. Fees are applied to two classes of data registration, covering domestic and non-domestic properties. The draft regulations propose to reduce fees from £1.86 to £1.64 when data is lodged for domestic properties, and from £9.84 to £1.89 for non-domestic properties.
The Committee may recall that the fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted three years ago. They were amended by statutory instruments on six occasions between 2012 and 2018. The Committee will also, I am sure, recall that the United Kingdom has set a target in law to bring its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 to help tackle climate change.
Heating and powering buildings accounts for some 40% of the United Kingdom’s total energy usage, so we must ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency. The energy performance of buildings registers are a key tool in promoting energy efficiency, providing valuable information about the energy performance of buildings and encouraging homeowners, and commercial building owners and occupiers, to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings.
An energy performance certificate is needed whenever a property is built, sold or let, and must be ordered before a property is marketed for sale or rent. At a glance, a consumer searching for a new home or commercial premises—as the cap fits—may determine how efficient a property might be, while an owner may consider the recommendations as to how they might improve the energy efficiency of their property.
Historically, energy performance of buildings regulations were part of the energy performance of buildings directive. We retained the regulations after we left the European Union, as they contribute to our target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. They set out the Secretary of State’s obligation to maintain a register of data so that energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports can be recorded in a readily accessible format and made available to the public.
Regulation 28 of those regulations sets out a power to levy fees to maintain registers. Officials in my Department calculate the appropriate level of fees each year and, on that basis, propose costs of service divided by a forecast number of data lodgements expected to provide the charge. A reduction in fees is possible now, because the Government have invested in new cloud-based digital platforms and moved away from the fixed hardware model that has been in place for the past 13 years. That will ensure that energy performance of buildings—and the register thereof—is user-centred and fit for the future.
The new fee rates set out in this draft instrument will allow the costs of operating the energy performance of buildings register service to continue to be met without profiteering or allowing lodgement fees to subsidise a loss. In other words, the charge will not cost the lodger more than it should, and it will not cost the taxpayer anything at all. Costs of the service have been calculated in line with Government policy and tested with the Treasury and stakeholders in the property energy profession.
The draft regulations serve a very specific purpose: to reduce the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. Over the two classes of fee, reducing domestic data registration fees represents a 12% saving, while reducing non-domestic data registration fees is an 81% saving. I hope that the Committee will agree that these are sensible measures, which will afford the lodger some saving and cost the taxpayer nothing, so I commend them to the Committee.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The measures under consideration are not controversial, and we will support them, but this is perhaps an opportunity to express some concern about the Government’s green homes agenda more widely—
Steve Reed
Absolutely, and in response to comments made by the Minister.
Homeowners, for example, would have had more encouragement to green their homes had the Government not cancelled the zero-carbon homes standard, which was due to come into force in 2016, only later to replace it with a future homes standard that will not come in before 2025. Every year of delay pumps millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and families spend years more in homes that are colder and more expensive to heat. Many people have commented on the failings of the green homes grants—
Steve Reed
It is connected with the issues of concern, and the Minister was speaking about encouraging home-owners to green their homes. Sorry, I was merely making comments in response to the Minister.
Steve Reed
Absolutely.
In a report last week, the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government have “no plans” to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law. The UK’s stock of 27 million houses includes some of the worst insulated and least energy-efficient homes in Europe. We hope that the Government will take the example of what is proposed in this SI to move further with that agenda and to deliver a big improvement in work to hit our climate change targets by making homes in the UK warm, dry and affordable to heat.
The provisions in the draft regulations are welcome, but we need the Government to get more serious about the green transition necessary to tackle the climate crisis. The green homes agenda should be a central plank of that.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged for your indulgence, Mr Gray, and to the shadow Minister for his support for this—as he rightly said—uncontroversial measure. The hon. Gentleman made a couple of comments about the Government’s policy on greening our economy and greening homes to meet our net zero carbon agenda, so I will spend one minute responding to those, Mr Gray.
Christopher Pincher
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises what the Government are doing. Perhaps I might point him with some advantage to the work that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is doing with the green homes grant, which will retrofit more than 600,000 properties in the country over the next several years to ensure that they are far more energy-efficient and therefore far less costly to the dwellers in them, because energy will be saved in houses and far less will have to be spent by the homeowners on their energy bills.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the future homes standard, which we are introducing in 2025. Homes built after that point will be at least 75% more carbon-efficient than present homes. That is a fine objective, which will be met, because by that time we will have ensured that the sector, with the skills to support it, will be ready to implement the changes necessary to meet the objectives.
In the meantime, we are uplifting the performance requirements of homes by 31%, which will go a significant way to preparing the industry for the future homes standard, while ensuring that we also reduce our carbon footprint as quickly as the economy allows. With that, Mr Gray, I am grateful for your indulgence.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gillian Keegan
We know there has been strong support for face-to-face education. East Kent College polled its learners just a couple of days ago and found that 97% wanted to return to onsite education.
[Official Report, 25 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 1174.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
We know there has been strong support for face-to-face education. East Kent College polled its learners recently and found that 97% wanted to return to onsite education.
Education Route Map: Covid-19
The following is an extract from the debate on education route map: covid 19 on 25 February 2021.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss the route map for schools and colleges in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We continue to be impressed by the resilience and positivity of everybody involved—parents, students and, of course, teachers—throughout these difficult times. I know that the whole country will be delighted that children are returning to schools and colleges, and will once again see their families and get the education that they deserve.
[Official Report, 25 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 1176.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss the route map for schools and colleges in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We continue to be impressed by the resilience and positivity of everybody involved—parents, students and, of course, teachers—throughout these difficult times. I know that the whole country will be delighted that children are returning to schools and colleges, and will once again see their friends and get the education that they deserve.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Welcome to the first hybrid meeting of Westminster Hall. I remind Members that there are changes to some of the rules in the new hybrid arrangements. Members present must stand when they are speaking. Interventions are allowed on Members present in the Room, but not by or on Members who are speaking virtually.
The timings of the debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between each debate. Members who have not arrived for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall will not be called, and those Members who are here are expected to remain for the entire debate.
If Members who are attending virtually have technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members may speak only from the horseshoe.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 563473 relating to press freedoms and safety of protestors in India.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this return to Westminster Hall debates, with virtual participation—something I know many Members are grateful for—which gives e-petitions awaiting a debate the public hearing that the petitioners deserve.
Farming protests in India may not seem to be the most obvious issue for a petitions debate, but the Petitions Committee has always accepted petitions calling on the UK Government to engage with other Governments on human rights issues. The petition focuses on the protests in Delhi and across India following the agricultural reforms agreed by the Indian Parliament. It calls on the UK Government to
“Urge the Indian Government to ensure safety of protestors & press freedom”.
It argues that
“democratic engagement and freedom of the press are fundamental rights and a positive step towards creating a India that works for all”,
and calls for “transparency & accountability” from the Indian Government.
The petition has already been signed by more than 115,000 people, and it has until 17 June to run—a fact that highlights the public interest in, and topicality of, the issue. The close ties, and many family connections, between these islands and India are another factor. The petition was created by Gurch Singh, whose family is from a farming background in the Punjab, after the distress he observed when he found his mother in tears watching the Indian news channels’ coverage of the protests. He then spoke with relatives in India about the distress they were in, and with members of his local community. It is testament to his efforts that his area is in the top 10 constituencies for signatories. Gilles Verniers, a political scientist at Ashoka University, has said:
“Every farmer community everywhere is discussing these farm laws. It is not just a local or regional matter.”
He is right. It has even found its way to being debated in these islands.
The farming protests are complex in their nature and origins. Indeed, even as a Member who takes a keen interest in India and has family connections there, I must admit that, prior to the scheduling of the debate, I had little knowledge of the subject, other than having seen some brief news footage of clashes between farmers and police in riot gear, from which I gleaned that it was something to do with farming laws, and that several high-profile celebrities such as Rihanna and Greta Thunberg had spoken out about it. I am grateful to those who have taken the time to speak with me over the last few days, and to those who have provided briefings. The House of Commons Library, the Indian high commission, the petitioner, and several political contacts with first-hand experience have all greatly assisted my understanding of the issue.
Today, we are not having a debate about the merits of the agricultural reform Bills passed by the Indian Parliament. The UK Government have repeatedly acknowledged that it is a sovereign matter for the Government and people of India. In their diplomatically worded response to the petition, the UK Government stated:
“We respect that agricultural reforms are a matter for India”.
That new-found support for self-determination and sovereignty from the UK Government is quite encouraging —those of us from Scotland are paying close attention.
The Indian Government’s right to enforce law and order is also not in dispute, and again that has been repeatedly acknowledged by the UK Government in their statements on the protests. In their response to the petition, the UK Government stated:
“We also recognise that governments have the power to enforce law and order if a protest crosses the line into illegality. We look to the Indian government to uphold all freedoms and rights guaranteed in India’s strong constitution.”
However, this debate is an opportunity to note concerns raised regarding the safety of protesters and press freedoms in reporting on the protests.
To help those who may be coming to the debate with a similar knowledge base to the one that I had a week ago, I believe the background to be as follows. It can be argued that the farmers have been ripped off for generations, that the sector requires reform, and that they have suffered a huge loss of income due to the covid lockdowns. Agriculture is controlled by the state in India, and three farm laws were passed by India’s Parliament last September, resulting in opposition from farming groups. There are arguments about the constitutionality of the laws, which is an issue for India’s own legislative and judicial process.
The farm laws allow, for the first time, farm gate sales to corporations. They put an end to warehouse capacity limits for processors, and they introduce tax-free, privately owned corporate yards, or mandis. We have heard reports of water cannons and tear gas being used against protesters in the early stages of the protests, repeated clashes between police and protesters, and the suspension of mobile internet access and social media accounts in late January and early February. There are good links to reputable sources on those events in the House of Commons Library debate pack.
Sadly, several farmers have suicided in protest, and others have died from exposure during the winter conditions of the protests. Indian farmers have been occupying roads around Delhi since 26 November, and on 26 January—Republic Day—they drove more than 120,000 tractors to the capital. The vast majority of those taking part, it should be stressed, did so peacefully. I believe it was inspired by an American farmers’ “tractorcade”, which brought Washington to a standstill in 1979. It is a small world.
Across India, some 750 million people are directly engaged in agriculture. That is around half of India’s population. Land has been described as sacred, and farming seen as a religious duty or way of life. It is a very significant issue for India, and has a resonance with the Indian diaspora around the globe, and for concerned environmental and political activists. While the protests been largely peaceful, they have on occasion involved the use of direct action such as strikes and blockades, which have disrupted road and rail traffic. The most significant clash between police and protesters so far came on 26 January, when one protester died and more than 80 police officers were injured after protesters deviated from an agreed protest route, including breaching security to enter the iconic Red Fort in Delhi.
The BBC cited local media reports of police using tear gas and batons, and of police officers being targeted by protesters driving tractors. The violence was condemned by farmers’ groups and union leaders. In response to the violence, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs put out a statement on 3 February arguing that the violence on 26 January had been the result of “vested interest groups” influencing the protests. It argued:
“Indian police forces have handled these protests with utmost restraint”,
despite hundreds of police officers being attacked. The statement also noted that the Government have held multiple rounds of dialogue with protesters’ representatives and farming unions, and had offered to suspend the implementation of the laws—an offer rejected by the farmers’ unions, who want to see the laws fully repealed.
Following the violence at the end of January, the Indian Government also temporarily suspended mobile internet access in three areas around Delhi where protesters had gathered. The Indian Government claimed that the suspension was in order to maintain public safety. The UK Government have since acknowledged and welcomed the removal of those restrictions in their answer to a House of Lords written question on 22 February. However, on 9 February, Amnesty International released a statement calling on the Indian Government to stop what it referred to as an “escalating crackdown” on protesters and farming leaders, citing reports of arrests, threats and harassment of peaceful protesters. The International Press Institute took the matter up in its communication directly with Prime Minister Modi, in which it urged him
“to take immediate steps to ensure that journalists can work without harassment and fear of reprisal”
from the Government,
“and to direct the state governments to drop all charges against journalists, including those under the draconian sedition laws, that have been imposed on them for their work”.
Press freedom and the right to peaceful protest is central to any democracy, so the images emerging from India over the past few months are deeply worrying. Some 67 journalists were arrested and detained last year alone. The escalation in violence and the press crackdown, including over social media accounts, cannot simply be ignored, especially at a time when the UK Government are keen to strengthen ties with the Indian Government.
As the world’s largest democracy and a key regional player, India has a pivotal role to play on the world stage. That is why it is vital that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary impress on our Indian partners our joint convictions on free speech and the right to protest. I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will advise whether these concerns will be raised by the Prime Minister on his trip later this year.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the Back-Bench speakers, I have two points to make. I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on speeches. I also announced at the beginning that hon. Members who were not present for the start of the debate would not be allowed to speak, but this is the first time we have had these arrangements so at the end I will call two hon. Members who were not here at the start—one of whom I think I went to Westminster Hall, as opposed to the Boothroyd Room, which is understandable. I do not expect there to be that flexibility after this sitting, but it makes sense to do it this way for this first meeting.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
Thank you for your stewardship of this first hybrid meeting of Westminster Hall, Mr Stringer. We are addressing a critical issue. This is the largest trade dispute in the world at the moment, and it is not just about people having a deal to be able to survive; it is about their livelihoods.
Huge numbers of farmers have committed suicide. Those with small shareholdings of up to five acres will suffer hugely under this law change, which is not about looking after the welfare of farmers in India, who are by and large one of the most downtrodden communities across the whole of Indian culture, because of the work that they do with their hands and the fact that the whole family has to be involved. When they have sought a peaceful change to the legislation, the Indian Government have abused them and delivered lathi charges—charges by the police with batons of wood. They hit elderly people and women, not seeing who was there. By and large, the farmers have been peaceful. Some individuals from outside the movement have tried to instigate violence, but that has been condemned by the farmers’ unions.
The dispute is about livelihoods. It should not be treated in a way that disregards all of the issues that the farmers wish to raise in Parliament. The dispute could have been finished quite easily. It did not need to go on for the 100 days that it has gone on for now. The Government must listen, but they have chosen not to. They should work with these poor farmers, but they have chosen not to. They have taken a belligerent attitude towards a community that provides crops for the whole of India, a community whose livelihoods support the people to eat. Some of the most impoverished people in India can get support from agriculture and the work that the farmers do. The Indian Government—
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Anywhere in the world, in whatever country and on whatever continent, agricultural reform is very, very difficult. It is always accompanied by division and controversy, and in some instances there are protests and even law breaking. For example, our nearest neighbour across the channel has a farming sector often prepared to embark on civil disobedience and direct action.
Many of the laws governing India’s system of farm support date back to the ’50s and ’60s, a time when the country was sometimes on the edge of famine. Thankfully, there has been massive change for the better in the intervening decades. Reform of farm subsidy and support has been under active and intensive discussion in India for 20 years, and international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund have welcomed Prime Minister Modi’s attempt to take action on this challenge, which many of his predecessors have backed away from.
I accept and understand that protesting farmers feel insecure about their future, but Prime Minister Modi’s Government have repeatedly said that a core purpose of the reforms is to make farming more profitable, raise the incomes of people who work in farming and promote investment in agriculture in order to increase yields. Food security is obviously a priority for every Government around the world.
Although the three items of legislation that have sparked so much controversy will mean change, they also leave many structures, principles and rules intact, and Mr Modi was emphatic in a speech on 8 February that the commitment to a minimum support price has been retained and will not be removed by any of the new laws. Moreover, his Government have offered to postpone the implementation of the new laws for 18 months to allow for more engagement, consultation and discussion with the farming sector.
I hear the concerns expressed about the response to the protests, but when thousands and thousands of people are involved in demonstrations and encampments lasting months and months, no policing response can altogether avoid controversial episodes. After all, complaints about police officers here in the UK are frequently made after mass protests, but that is not evidence that democratic values are under threat in this country, and nor is it in India.
India is a country where respect for the rule of law and human rights is constitutionally protected and embedded in society. The authorities’ approach to the protests should not shake our faith in that central truth. Rather than denigrating India with unjustified criticism, we should celebrate it as the democratic success story that it is.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing the debate, and on the excellent way in which he introduced the subject today.
The fact that over 100,000 people have signed a petition in support of Indian farmers shows the strength of feeling in the Indian diaspora, as well as in the rest of the communities all across this country. From clothing workers in Leicester to shopkeepers in London and elsewhere, many people in the diaspora have signed a petition to ensure that this debate takes place, because of the unprecedented nature of the demonstrations in Delhi and because of the unprecedented nature of the support for those taking part. For all those hundreds of thousands of protesters in Delhi, many more have joined in, and when a national call was made for a strike, 250 million people took part in it—the biggest ever industrial dispute in the history of this planet—so we should think about why those people are protesting.
They are protesting because they are predominantly small farmers on less than five acres, many of them very poor. Over 22,000 have committed suicide in the past few years as a result of the stress they are under. It is as if globalisation has been forced upon them, and they do not want it, so this debate is about the media reporting, and it is about the views that people take on this issue all over the world.
When a protest takes place, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) pointed out, there are often complaints. However, the nature of the way in which the protesters—the strikers—have been attacked in Delhi is unprecedented, as has been the reaction of the Indian Government to the way in which the media have responded: internet access has been closed down, media access has been prevented, and mobile phone access has been limited. The media have been prevented from getting their message out to the wider world.
Last week, a number of colleagues now participating in this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), had a meeting with representatives of the National Union of Journalists. On behalf of their colleagues in India, they told us how concerned they were about the way in which Indian journalists have been prevented from reporting on this issue. Indeed, most of the British media have barely reported on it.
In the few seconds I have left, I would like to quote Sabina Inderjit, the general secretary of the Indian Journalists Union, who concluded:
“Our brief view of the prevailing situation: Democracy in India is in danger. Its fourth estate is badly bruised and battered. Over the past five years, the country’s independent and free press, which has aided India to gloat of being a vibrant democracy, is being systematically and ruthlessly attacked like never before.”
We should listen to Sabina Inderjit.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. What happens abroad affects us here. This is evident in a pandemic but true in many other ways. Peterborough is a diverse, multicultural city: we have a large diaspora from the Kashmiri region of Pakistan, and we also have many families of Indian heritage. The events on the subcontinent are of daily personal concern and, quite rightly, my inbox and postbag fill when we witness the disturbances in New Delhi and elsewhere.
We can all have our views on the rights and wrongs of the changes to the Indian agricultural law. It is not necessary to rehearse those here today, nor for the UK Government to side with one view or another. Diplomatic norms should be observed, but those norms assume others. The actions of the Indian Government in response to the farmers’ protests break accepted norms; they cross a line. It is terribly sad that we have reached this point, because India is a great country and a proud democracy. As such, it should conduct itself like a democracy and uphold its own constitution. However challenging the situation becomes, this democratic value should not be suspended, even in the face of provocation.
Instead, the Indian Government have blocked the use of the internet on mobile phones and arrested journalists, and now we read the reports of new legislation to force social media platforms to censor posts and break into encrypted messages. These are illiberal measures. The strength of feeling of protesters does not make them acceptable, and the excuse of national security does not make them any less authoritarian.
Even supporters of the agricultural reforms must have concerns about freedom of speech. The fears of my constituents are evident. One regards the response as an attack on “the minorities of India”, particularly the Sikhs. He worries equally about
“the safety of the protestors and the censorship”.
Another says:
“All we are asking for is for our voice to be heard by constitutional and right means. If you think I am just in my demand as your constituent then please do something about it.”
They doubt some of the allegations levelled at the protesters, and they reiterate the heavy-handedness of the Indian Government’s response.
My constituents with family connections to India are right to be worried. It is right that concern is expressed in this House, and I hope the Minister will convey our Government’s concern. Upholding the law should never be allowed to slide into authoritarian oppression.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
I offer my absolute support for, and solidarity with, the farmers protesting in India. Their protests have brought the world’s attention on India, and particularly on the abuses of the extreme far-right Government led by Prime Minister Modi and the Bharatiya Janata party. The protests are for a just cause, as the farmers are fighting against significant privatisation of agriculture, which would negatively impact on their livelihoods. As we all know, however, the BJP and Modi have responded to the protests with repression. Political opponents of Modi in India are at risk of arbitrary arrest, and the civil liberties of all Indians are being eroded by an extremist, right-wing Government.
Therefore, I demand that the UK Government condemn Prime Minister Modi and the actions of his BJP Government. The Government’s history of abuses and criminality is well documented. They continue to abuse the human and civil rights not only of farmers, but of Kashmiri people through the military occupation of the region. They are cracking down on press freedom and political dissent, censoring critics and blocking access to the internet. A British man, Jagtar Singh Johal, remains imprisoned in India on spurious charges. Furthermore, both Modi and the BJP Government are linked to the rise in violent religious persecution within India, including attacks on Muslims, Sikhs and Christians.
Therefore, I am calling on the UK Government to consider the imposition of sanctions—diplomatic and otherwise—on Prime Minister Modi and his Government. Those sanctions should include banning Modi and other representatives of the BJP Government from entering the UK, and they should extend to the seizure of any UK-based assets belonging to Modi or BJP Government figures until such abuses stop. The UK should work alongside international organisations to protect human and civil rights in India and Kashmir, including the release of all political prisoners and an end to the crackdown on the freedoms of press and speech.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I know that numerous colleagues are keen to speak and that we do not have many minutes, so I will endeavour to be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) is unable to be present today, but he asked me to make the Minister aware of his concerns and the strength of feeling among his constituents who have been in touch with him. They are deeply concerned about the Indian authorities’ use of force, and are adamant that the farmers must be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest. I am pleased that the debate has been called on the issue of safety of protesters and the continuation of press freedoms. It can never be wrong to stand up for human rights and for the right to peaceful protest in safety. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy and a right that thousands of Indian farmers are using today, and which they have used for months now.
Both sides need to step back and recognise the need to come to an agreement. I hope that the Minister will commit to helping that cause by offering British skills in negotiation and compromise to help both sides bring the issue to a close. I know the farmers of India—I grew up in that same community. They worked hard to feed their families and the nation. I know that they would not be out there protesting if they could avoid it, so a solution must be within reach.
Until that is possible, I thank every constituent who signed this important petition. The continuation of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is important to everybody with a commitment to democracy. All those who are speaking today, all those who signed the petition and everybody who has written to me is part of that call. We are speaking to represent the more than 100,000 people who have signed the petition. They are British citizens, British Indians, and the Indian diaspora, who all care so very deeply about an equitable solution. I implore the Minister to use our skills in compromise to help find a solution that works for both sides.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I represent thousands of constituents with family roots in India. Many are Sikhs with family roots in Punjab. I have received a great deal of correspondence on this issue in recent months, and many of my Wolverhampton South East constituents have signed the petition on press freedom and the defence of the right to public protest. There is a great sense of solidarity with those who are protesting, and a sense that they are fighting for their livelihoods and the right to earn a living. Punjab has long been known as the breadbasket of India. The Punjabi community in the UK have deep family ties with many of the people who are protesting.
The roots of the issue are the three farm laws that were passed last year, which those protesting fear will expose them to huge multinational forces and remove the minimum price guarantees they currently enjoy. Of course India, as a sovereign nation, has a right to debate and legislate for its own laws on that, but—and this is also the case if we look at ourselves—how many countries operate a fully free-market system when it comes to agriculture? Systems of subsidy are very common.
There is a great deal of anguish at the sight of protesters being ill-treated, the internet and social media accounts being cut off, and the arrest of activists. I would always say that protest must be peaceful, but I note the dignity of the protesters, with the provision of langar—free food—not only for each other among protesters, but often for those policing them, too. There is also a rejection of the idea that those engaged in the protests are somehow not loyal to India, or that the response to people fighting for their livelihoods should be to suggest that they are somehow externally controlled, or to place a question mark over their motivations, saying that they are against the state in a broader sense.
What unites those signing the petition, and the hon. Members present, is a defence of the right of peaceful protest and a desire to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I ask the Minister to convey the concerns of the UK Parliament, to stand up for the right of peaceful protest, to defend press freedom, to explain why there are such concerns in the UK, and to urge a peaceful resolution to this long-running and very serious dispute.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Some supporters of the governing party in India have said that this is an internal matter—“Foreigners, keep your nose out of it.” I can tell them why everyone is so concerned. It is because human rights are universal, and a world in which they are upheld in all of our interests.
Hundreds of farmers have died already because of the freezing cold and because of ill health while protesting. Imagine the collective pain for those of us whose parents and grandparents have been tilling the land in the Punjab, who have a strong connection with the land and whose family and friends are involved in the protests, when we see scenes of tear gas, water cannon and brute force being used against them, and when we see them herded into the protest sites like animals, with metal barricades, barbed wire and deadly steel spikes installed in the road, as if it were some sort of international border and not the outskirts of the capital city. The irony is that many of the protesters have served on the border, or have children or grandchildren currently serving in the army. Mercilessly, their water supply, sanitation, electricity and internet have been intermittently cut. Trade unionists, human rights activists and journalists, including young women, have been arrested, with reports of sexual assault and torture while in custody.
The millions of protesters are from across India and different faiths, yet because a significant number of them are Sikhs, they have been singled out and branded separatists and terrorists by unscrupulous elements of the mainstream Indian media. It is part of a pattern where Muslim Indians are labelled as Pakistanis, Christians as being under foreign influence, and Sikhs as Khalistani separatists—but we see you, and so does the world. Let me let Members into a little secret about the Sikhs: they are taught to feed millions of those in need for free, year in and year out, regardless of background, colour or creed. They are brought up to stand up for the rights of others, so we can bet our bottom dollar that they will go to the nth degree to stand up for their own rights.
Those of us, like me, who dare to speak up for the farmers are faced with a deluge of hundreds of fake profiles from the Twitter troll factory, and are accused by some disingenuous elements of being, among other things, racist. I do not need lectures from them about the wonders of India. I have been fortunate enough to have lived and studied in India for over four years, learned to converse in Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu, travelled the length and breadth of that beautiful country, and experienced at first hand the warmth and welcome of its lovely people.
While I am at it, let me debunk another myth used to silence anyone in Britain who offers anything but praise: that they must apparently have a colonial hang up. To those people I say that while we spend most of our time discussing national issues, the beauty of being a British parliamentarian in the mother of Parliaments is that almost every day we conduct debates about what is happening around the world. It will not be lost on anybody that the UK Tory Government, in their desperation to get a trade deal, are failing spectacularly to stand up for the human rights of the protesters, so I call on the Government to request that the Indian Government speedily resolve the deadlock and ensure peace and justice for those farmers—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We move to Bradford West now, with Naz Shah.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing the debate. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who speaks very passionately about the subject.
The truth is that we should not need someone such as Rihanna to speak up on such issues as the farmers’ protests in India for the world to take notice, but that in some ways explains how the world now works. The powerful are heard with a single tweet, while the average person’s voice is often ignored. That is one of the central arguments that the Indian farmers are making.
The very argument made by the innocent farmers is that when the new laws take effect, taking away the regulated markets that allow for minimum prices for their crops and replacing them with deregulated markets that work in the favour of the big, powerful corporations, who then will listen to the average farmer? The Indian Government talk about how prices will be able to be negotiated, but as we all know, without the safety net of minimum prices, when the big, powerful corporations do the negotiating, it is the average farmer who is left worst off. That is what the debate is really about: ensuring that the voices of ordinary farmers can be heard.
Let me be clear: when we raise such issues because they are a very serious concern for our constituents, who often have families in India struggling in such circumstances, it is not about being anti-Indian. India is the fifth largest economy in the world. It is ranked second in the world in agricultural production and ninth in the world for agricultural exports. India has a rich history and culture, and is a rising economic power. However, with such increases in economic opportunity comes responsibility. It is important that we support the average farmer, especially when they are faced with large and powerful corporations.
This is not a debate between two equals. These farmers are already struggling. More than 52% of India’s farmers are living in debt, which is causing a shocking increase in the suicide rate. In 2019 alone, nearly 10,300 Indian farmers killed themselves. Such an alarming situation cannot be ignored.
In addition, because the protests have been dominated by Sikh protesters from Punjab, the Government have tried to silence their voices by marginalising the issue to one that affects a single community. The current Indian Government’s record on minority rights is not one to be proud of. I urge them to consider the issues of globalisation and capitalism in a serious way, and to avoid making this situation another case of nationalism and marginalising yet another minority community in India.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I speak today as the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson proudly to support Councillor Gurch Singh, the Liberal Democrat councillor who organised this important petition, amassing more than 115,000 signatures. I hope that all hon. Members and the Minister will join me in applauding him for his hard work to galvanise greater action on this issue.
It is right for British MPs to speak about this issue, not just because of our constituents who may have family ties with India, but because wherever democracy and human rights are under threat we cannot look the other way. We all know—in this virtual Zoom room or elsewhere—that democracy does not just happen at the ballot box. People must have freedom to protest, freedom of the press and freedom to debate, which are all cornerstones of a thriving democracy.
This is no small matter: more than 250 million farmers have been protesting since August last year. We are witnessing what could be the largest organised protest in human history, yet the police brutality and arrests against peaceful protesters and journalists covering the protests are of deep concern. Tens of thousands of police have been mobilised across India to quash the protests. Barricades and roadblocks have been set up to block protesters, and more than 248 farmers have died just outside New Delhi in camps. Some have died of health issues and others from suicide. These farmers are sacrificing so much and all they want is to be listened to.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to the Foreign Secretary, calling on him to work together with India to ensure that democratic values are upheld and that fundamental freedoms—such as the freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly and association —are respected. I am afraid to say that so far his response has been woeful.
Of course we welcome close relations between the UK and India, but they must be based on a mutual commitment to human rights, freedom of religious belief and the rule of law and democracy. The UK must work to ensure that these principles are consistently upheld. Can the Minister please update us on what steps the Department has taken, including at the Human Rights Council, since the Foreign Secretary met his counterpart in India 12 weeks ago? Can he tell us what assessment has been made of whether the new farmers laws in India are in breach of article 9 of the international treaty on plant genetic resources on food and agriculture? Will he speak to the Food and Agriculture Organisation about this matter? The UK has a prominent position on the world stage and in UN institutions. We need to take this responsibility seriously, and I urge the Government to act without delay.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) [V]
As the granddaughter of Punjabi farmers, I am proud to speak today in solidarity with the millions resisting Modi’s regime. Farmers from across India—of all faiths and none, of all genders and all castes—are protesting against laws that threaten livelihoods. In total, 250 million workers went on strike in solidarity. That is the largest strike in world history. In response, in order to stoke communal violence, the Indian Government-controlled media has demonised protesters as Sikh separatists. Protesters have been met with state repression and brutality.
It is timely that the debate is being held on International Women’s Day because women are leading this historic revolt. In January, the courts told women protesters to go home. They suggested that women farmers were not real farmers, but the women workers of India are refusing to be silenced, from farmers’ leaders, such as Jasbir Kaur Nat, to jailed climate activist Disha Ravi, to Dalit trade unionist Nodeep Kaur, who was wrongfully imprisoned, reportedly sexually assaulted and tortured by police.
These women could not contrast more sharply with their sexist Government and the misogynistic movement that supports it. When Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat, he was banned from entering the EU, Britain and the US for his part in instigating the 2012 riots that saw more than 1,000 Muslims killed, so it should concern everyone that this Conservative Government are a close ally of the far-right Hindutva regime in India. Modi spoke alongside David Cameron when he visited the UK, our Home Secretary is an active supporter of the BJP and there are billionaire donors who bankroll both parties.
In the 2019 election, Hindu nationalists mobilised for the Tories, and the Tories are responsive to their bigoted agenda, like their opposition to banning caste discrimination. Modi and Amit Shah decried the truth as propaganda and divisive, but it is not protesting farmers, Rihanna or Greta Thunberg who are dividing India; it is the BJP. This Conversative Government need to decide which side they are on: the side of farmers or the side of fascists.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
May I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Minister? I am also listed in the Budget debate and I might have to leave before the Minister responds. It is beyond my control; I am sorry.
I speak as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, but, like others, also as a friend of India, not just because of my constituents who originate from India but because of my own family ties. As a firm and true friend, we have to be honest with our friends in India.
As has been said, India is the largest democracy on the planet, and democracy needs the firm foundation of a free press and media. Tragically, democracy is being undermined because there are those that seek to prevent the operation of a free press and media. It is unfortunate that it is those in government who are part of the process of undermining that free press. Regrettably, as reported by the International Federation of Journalists and others, eight journalists have been killed over the last 12 months. The Government use false arrests and legal actions to deter and intimidate. Journalists are arrested on trumped up charges of sedition, incitement or illegal demonstration. We have even seen the tax authorities in India used against media operations. As has been mentioned, there has also been suppression of the internet and access to social media.
The farmers’ protests have excited the latest round of harassment of journalists, and now it seems that simply reporting the actions of the state and the police in violently attacking protesters is somehow an illegal act. Journalists are continuously being targeted by arrests and intimidation, and falsely accused of criminal charges. Tragically, the political leadership feels it can act with impunity.
We understand that Prime Minister is seeking to visit India in due course. May I suggest that before that the Government call out the actions of the Modi Administration and what they are doing to undermine press freedom? When the Prime Minister visits India, he should meet the National Union of Journalists (India), as well as the International Federation of Journalists, to find out the exact truth of what is happening there. Through the Prime Minister, the Government should demand that the intimidation ends and that the freedom of press and media is firmly guaranteed for the future. That is what a true friend advises.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has pointed out on many occasions, it is not anti-Indian to voice concerns about the policies of the Government of the day in India, whoever that may be. I want to make it clear that I stand in complete solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers, as do tens of thousands of my constituents in Ilford South who understand that the freedom to protest, wherever it takes place, and the ability to provide food and welfare for one’s family is clearly an international human right. The issue has so galvanised the Indian diaspora community, especially those from a Punjabi or Sikh background and others who have land links or familial links to farming in India, that tens of thousands have engaged in global protests, including hundreds and hundreds in streets, towns and cities across the UK.
Many of my constituents in Ilford South have been horrified to see how Sikh farmers, many of whom are their family members, have been treated by the Indian Government. They have had water cannons hitting them, and tear gas and brute force used against them repeatedly while peacefully protesting against the so-called farmers Bill. Everyone has a fundamental human right to protest peacefully, and the actions of the Indian Government cannot go unchecked. In Ilford, we have a hugely diverse community, and they are fully in support of the Indian farmers, with support extending way beyond our large and vocal Sikh community. There are posters up in mosques and churches across Ilford about how outraged people are about what is going on in India.
I speak regularly to the members of the Singh Sabha London East Gurdwara in my constituency, and, thankfully, they have been leading the campaign and globally co-ordinating the effort to shine a light on what is going on. Like many hon. Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, I have signed a letter to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, urging them to engage properly over this issue. It is important that the torch of truth is shone on what is happening.
India is one of the greatest democracies in the world, but using water cannons and police to crush dissent strikes me as highly undemocratic. There are reports of elderly protesters being beaten and police even vandalising tractors owned by poor farmers who are protesting. India’s leaders are not behaving in the traditions that have made India such a great democracy, and that is of great concern to thousands of people in my community in Ilford and to millions globally. Given the urgency of this matter, I call on the Minister to ask our Prime Minister to speak to Mr Modi and seek assurances that there can be a better way forward.
The situation is bringing such damage to the reputation of India globally. It is simply not acceptable that our Prime Minister is not prepared to raise this with Prime Minister Modi. Now is not the time for the British Government to look the other way. Trade deals and crucial business with India or any other nation should not come before standing up for human rights globally. The world is watching. “Bole so nihal, sat sri akal”, as my constituents would say at our local kabaddi club.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. A large number of my constituents have parents and grandparents from India—indeed, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was one of them. He will confirm, as he did in his speech, that very large numbers of them, and virtually every such family in my constituency, either have relatives working on farms or own land. This is really a huge concern and worry to many of those families. It affects not just Sikhs, but every geography and every creed in India.
I say to the Minister that I fully appreciate that we have limited leverage. The idea that the Prime Minister could tell the President of India what to do is clearly preposterous. However, I plead with the Minister and the Prime Minister to express their concern in the most powerful way possible. Looking at the TV images of some of the brutality, it really is quite extraordinary and utterly disproportionate. The other point I would urge the Minister to make is that India is a great democracy and should have the self-confidence to treat a free press properly.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and to speak in the debate. I thank the Petitions Committee and Gurcharn Singh, who organised the petition, which was signed by more than 3,400 people in Feltham and Heston. It is of great concern to many of my constituents and those of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who was unable to join the debate today. We have friends and family who are deeply affected by the situation, who understandably feel anxious that things could escalate further. Indeed, our local gurdwara in Hounslow has raised the issue with us. My family, two generations ago, worked in agriculture in Punjab. We are all friends of India, and that is another reason why the issue cuts very deep.
Men and women have been away from their families on a protest that has now gone on for more than 100 days, day after day, in incredibly tough conditions. Indeed, on the front of Time magazine this week, the week of International Women’s Day, are three generations of women, forming part of the protest. According to Oxfam India, 85% of rural women work in agriculture.
We know that the issue must be resolved through discussion and democratic means, in India alone, but in doing that, along with democracy there is a right to press freedom and safety for protesters. No one supports violence, and that has rightly been condemned. The laws in question have been suspended for 18 months by the Supreme Court, and a solution must be found. While the largest protests have been in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, there have been smaller ones across the country involving people of different faiths. It is not a religious dispute. The Indian Government have said that they will preserve the minimum support price, but there is not yet a legislative base for that. The laws have led to fear about income and livelihoods. Experience in other countries has suggested that, rather than improving farmers’ incomes, corporatisation has depressed them, and it needs to be debated.
Whatever assessment is made of the laws, today we are discussing concerns about press freedom and the safety of protesters. Those issues led to the Leader of the House saying:
“As India is our friend, it is only right that we make representations when we think that things are happening that are not in the interests of…the country of which we are a friend.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 495.]
The world saw the arrest of 25-year-old Nodeep Kaur, and then of climate activist Disha Ravi. The sessions judge said, in granting bail, that
“citizens are conscience keepers of government”
and that they cannot be jailed
“simply because they choose to disagree with the State policies”.
Medical support staff have been beaten at rallies. Concerns have been raised about journalists. The Sikh Human Rights Group, an NGO with special consultative status at the UN, has received highly credible evidence, in the form of 20-plus first instance reports from the senior advocate overseeing cases, about allegations of unsustainable charges being made by the police. Those who have made any comment against the abuses have been subject to a tirade of abuse from far-right forces. Indeed, also, an approach against gurdwaras in three cities a few weeks ago—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We now move on to Front-Bench speeches. There is time for no more than 10 minutes from each Front-Bench spokesperson, leaving a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up. We go to Scotland and the Scottish National party spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate, Mr Stringer. I am sure that I speak for everyone in thanking the House staff who have worked so hard to get Westminster Hall debates back up and running this afternoon. I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate, and I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of people from across the UK who have signed the e-petition, asking that we in this House take the time to consider the plight of Indian farmer protesters and the difficult situation of many journalists currently working in India.
I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and thank him for the thoughtful way he opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As he said in his opening remarks, the issues are complex. It is important that we reiterate, and make it clear, that in today’s debate in the UK Parliament we have no locus on the merits or otherwise of the agriculture reform Acts passed by the Indian Parliament last year. The future of Indian agriculture is a matter entirely for the people of India and their Government.
Likewise, it is right that the Indian Government appropriately enforce law and order, and should protests cross the line into illegality, it is not our place to say that they cannot police that appropriately. But what is undeniable is that in a democracy the Indian Government have an obligation to uphold and defend the rights and freedoms guaranteed to her citizens by the Indian constitution. That includes the right to protest and the right to a free press: one that is not subject to harassment, intimidation, violence or state censorship. Therefore, while the internal political matter of agricultural reform is not a matter for this House to discuss, I do believe that on matters concerning international human rights, people outside India can, and indeed should, make their voices heard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, since the start of the protests there have been numerous and widespread reports of violence being meted out against protesters by both the police and Government-supporting mobs. We have all read the reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, indeed, other human rights organisations about the beatings, harassment, intimidation and unjustified detention of farmer protesters that have sadly escalated in recent weeks. Since the tractor rally and the violent clashes on 26 January, protest leaders have claimed that more than 100 people have gone missing as the Indian Government resorted to using laws of sedition to clamp down on protest. That move prompted the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to call on the Government to
“stop threatening, demonising, and arresting peaceful protesters and stop treating them as ‘anti-nationals’ or ‘terrorists”.
Amnesty International called for the
“immediate and unconditional release of activists and others who have been arrested for simply exercising their right to peaceful protest and for the government to stop the harassment and demonisation of protesters.”
In many ways, I am glad that the UK Government have called out the Indian Government. They have made their position clear: they will continue to champion human rights, and they regard the rights to peaceful protest, freedom of speech and a free press to be a vital part of any democracy.
As we heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the crackdown against farmer protesters did not happen in isolation. It was coupled to a raft of draconian measures affecting the ability of the press to report freely what was happening. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) was right when he described the clashes on 26 January and how the Indian Government ordered mobile internet service to be suspended in the Delhi area where the farmer protests were ongoing, claiming that it was to maintain public safety. The move was quickly condemned by campaigners and trade unions, who pointed out that under international human rights law, Indian officials should not use broad, indiscriminate shutdowns to curtail the free flow of information or to harm people’s ability to assemble freely or express their political views. A few days after the suspension of those internet services, the Government actually ordered Twitter to suspend the accounts of hundreds of users, claiming that they were inciting violence. A report in The Guardian afterwards said that those accounts belonged to
“news websites, activists and actors”.
As we have heard, at about the same time, eight journalists covering the protests were arrested on what Human Rights Watch has described as utterly baseless criminal charges.
With eight journalists facing criminal charges including sedition, promoting communal disharmony and making statements prejudicial to national integration, it is right that we as an international community speak out in condemnation. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) pointed out, the arrest of the journalists came just before other detentions including that of the 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi, who was accused by the police of being a key conspirator, a formulator and a disseminator of a protest toolkit for farmers. Indeed, they also claimed that she shared that knowledge with Greta Thunberg.
I was struck when the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) suggested that what was happening was nothing unusual. I beg to differ. These draconian clampdowns on press freedom and individual freedom of expression have not just been condemned by international organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights watch; a whole raft of journalist groups in India have been unequivocal in their condemnation. The National Union of Journalists in India, the Editors Guild of India, the Press Club of India, the Indian Women’s Press Corps, the Kashmiri Journalists Association, the Delhi Union of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Boarders and the Indian Journalists Union have all released statements on the crackdown on press freedom and in support of the journalists covering it. As we heard, the International Press Institute has taken up the matter directly with the Prime Minister and has asked him to intervene.
As was said in the opening minutes of this debate, how India wants to organise its agricultural sector is entirely and exclusively a matter for the Indian Government and their people, but human rights abuses and the silencing of the press are a matter for us all. Rajat Khosla, senior director of research, advocacy and policy at Amnesty International, said:
“We have seen an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest the government’s repressive laws and policies…The crushing of dissent leaves little space for people to peacefully exercise their human rights including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly in the country.”
There has been an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest against them. We add our voice to those in the international community and domestic organisations calling for the Indian Government immediately to stop their crackdown on the protesters, the farmers’ leaders and journalists. We want to see the immediate and unconditional release of all those who have been arrested and detained solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The shutting down of the internet, the censoring of social media and the use of draconian laws against protesters and journalists who have been peacefully voicing opposition to the new laws and questioning the Government’s methods must immediately cease.
Freedom of speech, the right to protest and a free press are the hallmarks of a democratic society. A democracy cannot function if those fundamentals are under attack, suppressed or eroded. Right now, it appears that all is not well in the world’s largest democracy. It is up to the Indian Government to show their own people and the international community that they want to protect that democracy and create a country that works for all its citizens. I urge them to take heed of what has been said here this afternoon, and indeed across the world, look at their own actions and act for the benefit of all their citizens.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening this debate. I pay tribute to the many tens of thousands who secured the debate through the petition process—what a great example of democracy in action.
We have heard many memorable and passionate contributions. I look forward to the Minister setting out what actions the Government will be taking. I particularly thank the other contributors to the debate, not least my 11 hon. Friends who made some truly compelling arguments. The fact that the overwhelming majority of contributions to the debate have come from the Labour Benches shows how hugely important this issue is to our party.
The farmers’ protests taking place in Delhi relate to three new agricultural laws that affect farmers. Taken together, they loosen the rules relating to the sale, pricing and storage of farm produce, allow private buyers to stockpile essential commodities for future sale, and set out rules for contract farming. The legislation is deeply controversial, and Opposition figures and the protesting farmers have complained that there was insufficient consultation. The ongoing protests on the outskirts of Delhi illustrate the strength of feeling and the level of anger that so many members of the farming community feel. Prime Minister Modi will by now be acutely aware of the backlash against his policies, but India is a sovereign, democratic nation, and its agricultural laws are a domestic matter.
In a democracy, there will always be different views on the right course of action to take. We acknowledge and fully respect that those views are held passionately by many British Indians and those who retain close ties to India, but as it is a domestic issue it would not be appropriate for the UK Labour party to comment on the specifics of the legislation itself, so I will not do so today. However, since the first worrying evidence of escalating violence emerged, the Opposition have been urging the Indian authorities to protect and defend the universal human rights of all those protesting in India. I assure hon. Members present that we shall continue to do so without fear or favour.
The Labour party’s foreign policy puts the rule of law, democracy and universal human rights and freedoms at the very heart of our global agenda, and we call for those principles to be upheld consistently in every country across the world. Let me stress in absolute terms that the Labour Front Bench stands firmly behind the rights of Indian farmers to exercise their right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest.
That is why on 1 February I issued a statement in which I drew attention to the escalating violence and the clashes between the farmers and police, and the threat to essential democratic rights. I called on both sides to show restraint, but made it clear that the onus is on the Indian authorities to protect the farmers’ right to peaceful protest, to respect their right of freedom of assembly and expression, and to respond to any incidents of civil disobedience in a proportionate and appropriate manner. For instance, we are deeply concerned about reports of live ammunition being used by the police. We of course call on demonstrators to keep their protests peaceful and within the constraints of the law. The Red Fort incident on 26 January is an example of where both sides must understand the limits of what is acceptable, and that certain actions are likely to provoke outrage and escalation.
In recent weeks, campaigners have been particularly concerned about the Indian authorities’ disregard for freedom of expression, and specifically for media freedoms. Human Rights Watch has stated that during the protests the authorities have introduced politically motivated charges against activists, and charged journalists and Opposition politicians with sedition simply for reporting on claims made by the family of a dead protester.
Following the Red Fort clashes between protesters and police, the Indian Government shut off the internet as a way of curbing the protest, suspending 4G mobile internet services in three areas around Delhi, where tens of thousands of protesting farmers are camping. Services were restored, but it is clear that bans of that sort violate basic freedoms. The Labour party therefore calls on the Indian authorities to recognise the vital role that independent journalism plays within a democracy, and to protect its journalists from reprisals.
Mr Dhesi
In terms of independence, and the link between the Government and certain celebrities, the farcical manner in which some Indian actors and cricketers copy-pasted the official Government line simultaneously on to their social media accounts not only exposed to a global audience the 2019 Cobrapost cash for tweets sting operation, but severely dented their credibility of conscience. Does my hon. Friend agree that if our Government had issued such an edict, they would have been laughed out of our country, and subsequently celebrities with a conscience would have tweeted out the exact opposite in defiance?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree that the media and social media should never be manipulated for such political purposes, speaking through others in such a way that it is not clear where the originator of the message is coming from. It is important that the media is used as a neutral source of information rather than one that is loaded with a particular agenda.
Another universal human right is that of religious freedom. Prime Minister Modi will be aware of the deep concern about how protests by farmers on economic issues, which is what this is about, have resulted in a significant backlash against Sikhs. He will have seen Government supporters holding rallies outside Sikh places of worship and the fear that that will have engendered. Mr Modi must recognise his responsibility in line with international law to keep—
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware of the car rallies that targeted Southall, Leicester and Birmingham two weeks ago. They caused great concern, and I pay tribute to the Home Office and the police. Does he agree that this is why it is so important that inter-faith communities such as Southall Faiths Forum and Hounslow Friends of Faith come together, as they did at that time, to say that they stand firm against right-wing groups that want to harm our community? It is vital that across the world we defend our democracies and freedoms and protect our communities from attempts at division.
Stephen Kinnock
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Let us be clear that this issue must be seen be as an economic and political one. It must never be allowed to tip into prejudice around people’s faith or ethnicity. It is vital that we keep focused on the issue that the protesters are protesting about. Mr Modi needs to recognise that the world is watching and that what happens in India resonates here in our country. He must recognise his responsibility, in line with international law, to keep the Sikh community safe and confident in India’s law enforcement. Such recognition is important for the individuals and families affected, and also for those of us who are keen to see India flourish as the great, successful, multicultural nation that we know it to be.
The UK Government naturally and rightly value their trade relationship with India, which stands at more than £18 billion annually, but the UK-India relationship must be broader and deeper than just trade. It should be based on working in partnership on issues of security and climate change. Critically, it must be about the joint promotion of democracy, human rights and upholding international law.
On 1 February, I asked the Foreign Secretary to raise the issue of human rights with the Indian Government, and today I urge the UK Government to engage more actively and more urgently with New Delhi. What steps has the Minister taken to engage proactively with his counterparts in New Delhi to ensure that the right to peaceful protest is upheld? Secondly, what representations has he made to his Indian counterpart about the need to resolve the situation peacefully by working with all parts of Indian society, including trade unions, and the need to advance the negotiations that have stalled? Thirdly, will he publish a broader strategy to defend internet and media freedom, not only in India, but in other places such as Belarus, Hong Kong and Uganda? Fourthly, what steps have the UK Government taken to support the rights of Amnesty International, which was recently forced to discontinue its operations in India?
Finally, the invitation to join the G7 in Cornwall represents a significant development in India’s role as a leading nation in global politics. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister will take this opportunity to stress to Mr Modi the need for India to adhere to the high standards that are expected within the international community, particularly with regard to universal human rights and the rule of law?
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, under these new arrangements. So far, so good—the technology appears to have worked very well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing this debate in an excellent way. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Petitions Committee. I am also grateful for the contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members, many of whom have given passionate speeches this afternoon—under-standably so, given the interest in their constituencies and their own personal connections with India.
I also want to thank Councillor Gurcharn Singh, whom the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) rightly commended for initiating the petition and ultimately this debate. There are clearly very strong feelings, both inside and outside the House, about the farmers’ protest and about press freedoms in India, as indicated by the fact that more than 100,000 people have signed the petition. May I thank every single one of them for taking such a keen interest and for bringing the subject to the House? I will try to respond to many of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, but I am conscious that I need to give the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk a few minutes at the end of the debate—he says hurriedly, looking at the clock to see how long we have. Perhaps you might give me a pointer, Mr Stringer.
I will begin by saying that the officials in our network of high commissions in India have monitored and reported back on the protests in response to the agricultural reform laws ever since they first flared up in September. In January, the Indian Supreme Court suspended the reforms and established an expert committee to scrutinise the laws. We understand that the committee has completed its consultations with concerned parties and will give a final report to the Supreme Court at the end of the month. We are also aware that the Indian Government have met farmers’ unions on several occasions and that those talks remain inconclusive, but are ongoing.
Understandably, those events have caused alarm and uncertainty for many British people who have family ties to farming communities in India. The Government’s written response to the petition aimed to address those concerns while making clear that agricultural policy is a domestic matter for the Indian Government, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), confirmed. The UK Government firmly believe, however, that freedom of speech, internet freedom, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and many others, and the right to peaceful protest, are vital to any democracy.
We also accept that if a protest crosses the line into illegality, security forces in a democracy have the right to enforce law and order in a proportionate way. We encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws and the way in which they are enforced comply with international human rights standards. In that spirit, we look to the Indian Government to uphold the freedoms and rights guaranteed to the Indian people by the constitution and by the international instruments to which India is party.
Concerns about press freedom in India were raised by right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). Again, let me be clear that this Government believe that an independent media is essential to any robust democracy. That is why we are committed to championing media freedom around the world, as is evident from our ambitious media freedom campaign that we launched in November 2018.
India has a vibrant media scene that promotes lively debate across the political spectrum, and the UK Government have worked to support that democratic tradition. In 2019, for example, we awarded scholarships on our flagship Chevening programme to seven talented and aspiring young Indian journalists. Last year, we supported the Thomson Reuters Foundation to run workshops for Indian journalists to help them report on human rights issues.
My colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is the Minister responsible for both human rights and our relations with India. He regularly discusses media freedom, including the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK is a founding member, with India’s Minister of State for External Affairs. Right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that this is a time of great ambition for the UK’s relationship with India. Both Governments are working to advance shared priorities across trade and investment, health, sustainability, climate change, and defence and security. We are also working with India as a force for good on the UN Security Council, and it is one of the Prime Minister’s guest countries at the G7 summit later this year in June. This co-operation will help us to fix global problems and it will strengthen prosperity and wellbeing in India and the UK.
While this is an exciting time for the UK-India partnership, it does not hinder our raising difficult issues. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) spoke about the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to India. This will be an opportunity to discuss a range of bilateral issues with India. Where we have serious and specific concerns, we will raise them directly with the Indian Government, as would be expected of a friend and neighbour. Candid discussions are an important part of our mature and wide-ranging relationship with the Indian Government.
The hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon and for Aberavon wanted to know what further discussions the United Kingdom has had since the Foreign Secretary discussed the farmers’ protest with his counterpart during his visit to India in December. This month alone, senior Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have met with the Indian high commissioner and discussed this very thing—the UK parliamentary interest in the freedom of civil society groups, for example, to operate in India—and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon speaks regularly to his counterparts in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, as well as to the high commissioner here in the UK. Human rights issues are an essential part of these conversations.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon raised the issue of article 9. We have not made an assessment of India’s agricultural bills in relation to article 9 I will certainly consult officials on this, but I would stress again that these reforms are a domestic matter for India. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) raised the issue of sanctions. This sanctions regime, which we launched in July, enables the UK to impose sanctions on those who commit serious human rights violations or abuses. It is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the regime in future, as to do so could very well reduce their impact.
The Opposition spokesman also raised the issue of Amnesty International in India. We raised this case with the high commissioner on 1 December and with officials via Lord Ahmad, and our officials have raised our concerns most recently in November, as well as in December. We have requested that Amnesty’s accounts be unfrozen while the investigation is ongoing, and in our contacts with the Government of India we have noted the important role in a democracy of organisations such as Amnesty.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Can the Minister bring his remarks to a conclusion very quickly?
Nigel Adams
I can; thank you, Mr Stringer. Let me end by reassuring colleagues that the UK Government will continue to monitor developments relating to the protests incredibly closely. Where we have concerns, we will continue to raise them with the Indian Government, while respecting the fact that these agricultural reforms are an internal matter.
Martyn Day [V]
I thank all who took part in this debate. It is fantastic that these debates are taking place, so I also thank the House authorities for facilitating them, although we could clearly have done with a much longer debate. The spirit of today’s contributions was very much one of concern born out of friendship. The images and testimonies that we heard today are thoroughly depressing. We rightly regard India as a valuable friend and ally, which makes it imperative that we do not turn a blind eye to the events taking place. To do so would be a failure of both diplomacy and friendship.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the sitting. Please will Members participating physically leave the room promptly by the exit door on the left while observing social distancing. Thank you.
Sitting suspended.
LGBT Conversion Therapy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Gray (in the Chair)
We come now to the second of these hybrid debates in Westminster Hall, which are actually being held in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House. From my point of view, they are an extremely good innovation.
Before we start our debate on LGBT conversion therapy, perhaps I can remind Members of one or two matters. Social distancing must be maintained in this room, as it has been already. Those who are here are expected to be here for the beginning and the end of the debate, including those who are with us virtually; please stay until the end. And those who are here physically should use a wet wipe to clear up their space after they have spoken.
With that, I call Elliot Colburn, who is appearing virtually, to propose the motion.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 300976 relating to LGBT conversion therapy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The petition is entitled, “Make LGBT conversion therapy illegal in the UK”. The prayer of the petition states that
“I would like the Government to:
• make running conversion therapy in the UK a criminal offence
• forcing people to attend said conversion therapies a criminal offence
• sending people abroad in order to try to convert them a criminal offence
• protect individuals from conversion therapy
Despite all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies in the UK, including the NHS, condemning LGBT conversion therapy, it is still legal and LGBT individuals in the UK are still exposed to this psychological and emotional abuse to this day. The very thought of this sickens me, and I would like to see it stopped one day.”
When the petition closed, it had 256,392 signatures, including 487 from my own constituency of Carshalton and Wallington.
I can think of few moments so humbling as opening this important debate today. II is a testament to the importance of this issue that the debate was heavily over-subscribed, and I know that many colleagues who wanted to get in could not do so. Briefly, I want to thank and acknowledge from my side of the House the campaigning done by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Redcar (Jacob Young), for Watford (Dean Russell), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for High Peak (Robert Largan), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), and others.
In preparation for today’s debate and throughout my campaigning on this issue since being elected as an MP, it has been my absolute honour to speak to campaign and charitable organisations, to experts from the fields of health, religion, education, law and beyond, and to legislators from across the world, including Malta, Canada, Australia, Spain and New Zealand, where these practices have either already been banned or are in the process of being banned. Most importantly, I am grateful to the survivors for speaking out and sharing their stories. Their bravery in shining a light on these abhorrent practices will help to save countless lives in the future if we can secure this ban.
First, we must ask ourselves what conversion therapy is and why it needs to be banned. According to a May 2020 report by the UN Office for Human Rights, and indeed according to a definition from the Government Equalities Office, so-called conversion therapy is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. These so-called therapies can manifest in many forms, from pseudo-psychological treatments and aversion therapies to practices that are religiously based, such as purification or fasting. At the most extreme, there has been evidence that this practice can also involve physical and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape.
I will share just some of the stories of the survivors who have bravely shared their stories with me and the world, in an attempt to help campaign for the end of this practice in the UK. The first is Joe’s story. As a boy, Joe grappled with his hidden gay identity before leaving for his year in a yeshiva in Israel—a highly significant moment for many young Jews. He sought out conversion therapy and began weekly phone calls with a so-called therapist. After a year this clearly had not worked and instead he sought in-person therapies, where a group leader would force them to process moments of homosexual attraction, only for them to be scrutinised, judged and shamed, leaving Joe with an immense sense of depression. Thankfully, after hearing other gay Orthodox Jews speak out about their own experience, he stopped his conversion therapy, but the experience has left a scar to this day.
Next is Josh’s story. In 2017, Josh went undercover for the Liverpool Echo to a Liverpool church that offered a cure for homosexuality through a three-day starvation programme. The assistant pastor told Josh to starve himself and not drink any water before taking part in weekly prayer sessions, referring to being gay as “the deceit of Satan”. In the prayer groups the assistant pastor would shout phrases such as “kill it with fire” and “die in the fire,” while members of the congregation were seen crying, shaking, sweating and appearing to speak in tongues. It is shocking that the assistant pastor was an NHS doctor at that time, and I can find no evidence that he is no longer an NHS doctor.
Finally, I want to talk about Carolyn. At 17, Carolyn confided in her local vicar her feelings of self-hatred and depression, and her suicidal thoughts, because she did not feel like a boy. Her vicar took her to a doctor and a psychiatric hospital, where Carolyn was strapped to a wooden chair in a dark room. As images of women’s clothing were projected on to the wall in front of her, doctors would deliver painful electric shocks, hoping to associate the feelings of being a woman with memories of intense pain. As with Joe and Josh, that experience remains with Carolyn to this day.
Joe, Josh and Carolyn are just three survivors I have had the privilege of speaking to, and they experienced a wide range of so-called conversion therapies. I commend them for their bravery in speaking out, sharing their stories and campaigning to end these practices in the UK. Sadly, they are just three of many. In 2018, the Government’s first ever national survey of over 108,000 LGBT people in Britain found that 7% of respondents had either undergone or been offered conversion therapy. Some 13% of trans respondents had undergone or been offered conversion therapy. Of those who had been offered it, 51% said that it was conducted by faith groups and a further 19% said that it was done by healthcare providers or medical professionals. As the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition has outlined, though, given the clandestine and deceptive way these so-called conversion therapies are offered—giving them different names or dressing them up as alternative treatments—the real number is likely to be a lot higher. Tragically, we will never hear the testimonies of many who, grappling with their own identity while being told how wrong they were through these therapies, were left feeling that they had no other option than to take their own life.
It is important to point out that we are not talking about harmful practices that occurred some time ago; this is happening today, here in the UK, right now. A UN report into conversion therapy last year summed it up perfectly when it concluded that any and all forms of conversion therapy are
“inherently degrading and discriminatory. They are rooted in the belief that LGBT persons are somehow inferior, and that they must at any cost modify their orientation or identity to remedy that supposed inferiority.”
So strong was the report that it called for nothing less than
“a global ban on conversion therapy.”
Here in the UK, the practice has received almost universal condemnation. In 2017, a memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK was signed by NHS England and 12 other psychotherapy and health bodies, charities and organisations. I thank Igi Moon for their time speaking to me about the impact this has had. In another powerful intervention, in 2017 the Church of England also passed a motion condemning these practices and calling on the Government to ban them—a call that has now been echoed by over 370 global religious leaders and organisations. I pay particular tribute to Jayne Ozanne and her foundation for her leadership, her courage and her tireless efforts in campaigning on this issue.
Finally, in the national LGBT action plan of 2018, the UK Government committed to bring forward proposals to ban conversion therapy—a call that has been echoed many times in the House since that commitment was made. We have the agreement, the commitment and the coalition of voices from all parts of society urging a ban to be implemented. What we need now is the action. With every day that passes, another person is at risk of being subjected to this degrading treatment. We risk losing even more lives of people who feel there is no other way out.
I have two final points to make today. On what the ban must include, the Government do not need to start from scratch. Highly praised examples already exist in places such as Madrid, Malta and Victoria in Australia. Learning from those examples, and in line with the UN report’s recommendations, a ban must cover both the public and the private spheres and all forms of intervention, no matter what they might be, whether that be healthcare, religious, cultural or traditional, and so on. It must cover children and adults, those who have been coerced and indeed those who consented to such conversion practices. There must be an up-to-date definition of advertising to ensure that it encompasses public, private, community spaces and online advertising. The ban must include the sending, or the threatening to send someone, overseas to undergo so-called conversion therapies. As well as investigative frameworks, a punishment framework for non-compliance must be established, and mechanisms created for support and redress to victims. Finally, it must truly protect all LGBT+ people.
The ban cannot be just on gay conversion therapy. It must cover degrading and inhumane interventions aimed at changing anyone’s sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. We must remember that this is about the practice itself and about the fact that absolutely no one should be subject to such abhorrent interventions. To avoid confusion and to protect those delivering real and actual support to LGBT+ people, laws passed elsewhere in the world have introduced specific mention of what should not be considered as part of a ban, including safe and supportive therapies.
My final point is about the need for a timeline. We have the commitment, the evidence and the international working examples, so what we need now is a Bill. I appreciate that the Government have been gathering evidence, looking to understand this better and exploring options, but I hope that the Minister will deliver some good news and tell us when a Bill will be published, so that we may debate it on the Floor of the House.
To conclude, the evidence is clear. So-called conversion therapy does not work. There is no scientific basis for it whatever. Parts of every section of UK society have come together, united in their condemnation and calling for it to be banned. Since 2021 looks like a year of restarting, reopening and regrowing, let us add to that positivity by getting a conversion therapy ban on to the statute book this year. As a gay man and on behalf of LGBT+ people in the UK and around the world, I will end by saying, we are here—our existence is real, our lives are valid, and we cannot and do not need to be cured.
James Gray (in the Chair)
It may help the House to know that some 50 people originally put in to speak in this debate, of whom Mr Speaker has selected 20. If we are to achieve that number, as a courtesy to each other, I suggest a maximum speaking time of three minutes—two minutes would be even better.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
“Converting gays”—just wonder for a moment about how primitive that concept is. It is a cruel hangover from a darker time—a time when to be gay, lesbian or trans was to be flawed or inadequate.
I do not know why I am gay. I do not know why I have green eyes or curly hair, but I do know that no one made me gay; I was born gay. When I was younger, to borrow from Alfred Kinsey, I would have taken a magic pill to make myself straight, but I now know that that was not because I hated being gay, but because I did not want to be the victim of prejudice. Who does? We know that there is no magic pill, nor do we need one. We need love and acceptance.
LGBT conversion is the very antithesis of that. It promises a cure where none is available and none is needed. We look back in horror at the tortures endured by our LGBT brothers and sisters, even in recent history—electro-shock therapy, lobotomy and the chemical castration endured by Alan Turing at the hands of a vicious and ungrateful political class and legal system.
Changing people’s sexual orientation is, as we know, scientifically impossible, but that does not stop bigots from trying. “Pray away the gay,” cry some religious groups, who somehow see no contradiction with the command that thou shalt love thy neighbour. People who hold out the promise of conversion are cruelly targeting the most vulnerable. It is abuse.
Some hon. Members know I was a journalist before entering politics, and I once made a film for the BBC in which I interviewed a conversion therapist. It was one of the most chilling encounters of my career. The man in question, who was utterly untrained, advertised himself as offering the last chance at a normal life. He preyed on the young and the vulnerable: teenage boys and men in their early 20s who were terrified of who they were. He talked of weak fathers and overbearing mothers. I sat in on one session, and it was gibberish.
I asked the man what his motivation was, and he told me that his gay son committed suicide using the car exhaust pipe in their garage. The boy had written two suicide letters: one for his father, and one for his lover. The man showed me the letter that had been written to him. The handwriting tailed off as the boy lost consciousness. He was pleading with his father to understand his anguish. He could not reconcile his certainty that he had been born gay with the church’s teachings, and he implored his dad to befriend his boyfriend and learn acceptance. “So what did you do?” I said to the father. He said he redoubled his efforts to convert and confuse the young. We must protect society from men like him. I welcome the petition, and the Government must now act.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading the debate so well, and I congratulate his Committee on securing it. I have two key points for the Government. The first is that we must legislate. Deliver the promise to protect in law. Use the work done in the Government Equalities Office before 2019. Use the examples elsewhere, particularly in Spain and the Australian state of Victoria, which have already legislated. Our common law system enables the drafting challenge of defining conversion therapy to be met. There is no need to overcomplicate this issue. The police, prosecutors and jurors will know conversion therapy when they see it. Most critically, the victims will know it too, and they will have been equipped with a defence mechanism.
Such a law is an important step as a declaratory statement, as it is as a legal tool. If someone is LGBT, the law says that the state supports them. It supports how they want to live their life. When victims find themselves under pressure that is improperly applied to convert them to something they are not, they will know that it is against the law and that they can call it out. They can say to the person or people who are the source of this—[Interruption.]
Crispin Blunt
My apologies.
The law gives the victims the opportunity to go to the police and, therefore, to have a weapon in their hand against the source of a conversion therapy. The state is on the side of victims’ freedom—the freedom that that individual is trying to take away from them.
The second point I want to make is that such protection must include trans people. They are by far and away the most vulnerable group among the LGBT community. Identity around gender dysphoria is surely a much more challenging thing to meet than a minority sexuality, but all must be protected. The law must include trans people, and not only because they are the group who need it the most. In 2018, it appeared that trans people were on a trajectory to achieve their rights and protections to live their lives as they wished, supported by the Government’s comprehensive LGBT action plan, but all that now seems to have changed. Trans people are a community under siege. Organisations whose principle raison d’être is to attack and challenge the very legitimacy of trans people have come into being, and they appear to trans people to be firmly in the ascendant.
The lived experience of trans people reflects the awful paucity of services for them in the United Kingdom, as graphically illustrated by VICE News in January and November. They also see 250 articles a year attacking them in our newspaper of record, The Times. They see that groups such as the Conservative Women’s Pledge and LGB Alliance, whose purpose seems to be to protect cisgender women from trans women, have the ear of Ministers. They see reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 abandoned, and the principle of gender-neutral legislation was reversed only last week.
Gender is much more complicated than sexuality, and the drafting of the ban on conversion therapy will need to protect those giving informed, regulated and properly peer-reviewed advice to assist those on the path to reconciling their gender dysphoria. If the legislation does not include the protection of trans people, however, it will send to them the unmistakeable message that their Government do not want to protect them, do not value them and, at some level, do not really accept that trans is really a thing. That awful message would inadvertently make the Government themselves party to the practice of conversion therapy.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
I was proud to be a Minister in the last Labour Government, which did so much to ensure that LGBT+ people were finally afforded equal rights in law. There is a difference, however, between ending bigotry and prejudice in law, and making the right to equal treatment and respect a reality for every LGBT+ person in our country. The petition aims to move us further towards that point.
That would seem like an obvious, non-contentious step when considering the mistaken beliefs that underly the existence of the degrading and dehumanising practice of conversion therapy: that sexual orientation can be changed; that LGBT+ people are a threat to society, evil or disordered; that LGBT+ people are ill, sick or can be cured; and that LGBT+ people can be persuaded or forced to become heterosexual by undergoing treatment or counselling. If that approach sounds almost medieval, that is because it is, yet every day, people in our country have their lives and mental wellbeing put at serious risk by being subjected to attempts, by people who have power over them, to change their sexual orientation.
The extent of the prevalence of conversion therapy in the UK is shocking, as we heard in the excellent opening contribution by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). There is very strong evidence of the harm that conversion therapy inflicts: more than half of those who have gone through it report mental health issues, including breakdown, eating disorders, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Evidence also shows that it is being inflicted mainly, but not only, on vulnerable LGBT+ teenagers. That is horrific, but it is not surprising. Being told by faith leaders or your family that you are sinful, evil, and disordered for being yourself creates self-loathing and trauma that only the strongest can survive. Being told to pray harder to change and to question your innermost feelings and thoughts, and being taught to hate yourself—none of that should be legal.
Conversion therapy certainly causes untold damage and trauma for those who encounter it. Many survivors need specialist help because of the damage that that unethical and degrading process has caused. The Government must end the delay and bring the ban forward now. I welcome the petition, and I look forward to what I hope will be the Minister’s positive response and a timetable for legislation.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his thoughtful opening of the debate and his moving acknowledgment of survivors. I think it very important that we see the debate as an opportunity for a call for action from the Government.
The debate is obviously of moment, particularly for the quarter of a million people who signed the petition. It is an acknowledgment, as the national LGBT survey demonstrated, that this is going on in our country: 2% in the LGBT+ community had received such therapy and 5% had been offered it. We must treat the term “therapy” with the contempt it deserves, because we must be clear that this is not therapy; it is a pseudo-psychiatric 21st-century snake oil. There is nothing more pernicious than to deem someone sick and then to try to coerce them into treatment for something that is right at the core of who they are and who they love. We cannot tolerate it continuing.
There was a similar petition in the Scottish Parliament entitled “End Conversion Therapy”, which was dealt with last year by its Public Petitions Committee. Stonewall Scotland, Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance and LGBT Youth Scotland all supported the principles of that petition. In response, the Scottish Government—positively, from my perspective, because this is not always how they respond—said they wanted to work with the UK Government to bring about a ban. I want to encourage that working together on this issue so that we can deliver a ban that works across the United Kingdom and impacts on those in my own constituency in Scotland who might be put in this position. I also want to see the Scottish Government and the UK Government working on the GRA issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) mentioned in relation to trans issues, we need that to be dealt with—on a UK-wide basis, in my view.
While I am sure that the Government’s intentions are positive and the Prime Minister’s statement will be honoured, the Government have given the impression of being tardy, and now is the time to end that impression. As the chief executive of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, said:
“The UK government must stop dragging its feet and make good on its promise to bring in a full legal ban, and put a stop to conversion therapy in the UK for good.”
I hope that the Minister, in her summing up, will give us clarity that that will happen and set out the timescale.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my colleague the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his wonderful introduction to the debate. I have been contacted by many of my constituents about the petition, each of them as shocked as I am that the Government have still not acted to outlaw the practice of so-called conversion therapy inflicted on LGBT people.
The petitioners’ aims are not difficult to enact, nor are they asking too much. Their requests are clear and simple: they simply want LGBT people to live in dignity without having their sexuality or gender identity questioned. Every human being should have the right to express their own identity without the judgment of others. It is clear from the evidence surrounding this practice, compiled by the charity Stonewall, that that is not the case for everyone who identifies as LGBT in the UK. According to Stonewall’s figures, one in 20 LGBT people living in the UK has at some time been subject to or recommended for therapies that question their very identity. That number rises to almost one in 10 among young LGBT adults aged between 18 and 24 and almost one in five for trans people.
In a modern, supposedly decent society, that should not even be an option, and it certainly should not be legal. Many of the people subjected to such practices have them forced upon them by their families. In some cases, LGBT people are sent abroad for treatment by relatives who believe it will somehow cure them, when there is nothing—absolutely nothing—to be cured. The only result is severe distress and untold psychological trauma.
Every recognised medical and professional body in the UK has described the practice as dangerous. Many other public bodies have signed a common pledge against the practice. However, substantial evidence still shows that too many people continue to believe, despite the evidence, that sexuality and gender identity can be cured in some way. Enacting legislation to end these so-called therapies and ensure that no practitioner in the UK can consider them an option to which they can refer a patient would contribute greatly to preventing people from persisting in that belief.
I appreciate that the Government have previously made supportive statements on the issue. The Prime Minister himself described it as “abhorrent”, and as something that
“has no place in a civilised society”.
He made that statement last summer, but nine months on there has been no movement. There is clearly cross-party consensus in favour of legislating to outlaw this practice. Every day that the Government delay legislation, another LGBT person could be subject to this continued abuse. We have the power to act and the support to pass the legislation. All we need is the legislation to put our words into action. We can prevent further damage to the lives of LGBT people in this country, but only if we act quickly.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Physically speaking and back from her maternity leave, we have Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
When I was elected, I said that I would be a voice for those whom others seek to silence, and I stand here today to do exactly that. The need for this ban is quite simple: victims of conversion therapy currently have no legal recourse to justice and, without a legislative ban, lives are being destroyed.
Last year, I submitted to the Minister a proposed legislative framework, backed by more than 15 major LGBTQ advocacy groups and 10 representatives of all major faith groups in the UK. It sets out a framework that would enable prosecutions to stop this heinous practice and enable statutory bodies to give victims support and protection. It would enable us to identify serial perpetrators, stop the advertising of this fraudulent quackery, protect potential victims and prevent them from being taken abroad.
It is only through legislation that we will achieve the protection that those communities need and deserve. I thank the Prime Minister, the Women and Equalities Minister and the Health Secretary for their support for a ban. I want to focus today on the arguments made by those opposing the legislation. First, on the idea that people can consent to this so-called therapy, Parliament and our courts have long recognised that one cannot consent to bodily harm and torture, and conversion therapy is that. Victims of conversion therapy bear mental and physical scars for life, and for that reason consent cannot be freely given.
Secondly, it is said that a ban somehow infringes on the practice of religion. It does not. Religious liberty is fundamental, but so too is people’s liberty to live their lives free from identity-based violence and abuse. We must protect the conversations between religious leaders and members of their flock. This is not a fight between faith and unbelief; rather, it is about protecting the freedoms of the LGBTQ community and stopping those who abuse their authority. We must protect people from those who carry out practices that would never be accepted by any qualified mental health professional. For that reason, representatives of every major faith group, including the Church of England, have backed a ban. The legislation I propose does not prevent individuals from seeking guidance from faith leaders.
Thirdly, it is argued that a ban will not end the practice, and that the worst forms of conversion therapy are already illegal. A practice such as this can never truly be eradicated, but legislation gives victims legal recourse. We need specific legislation, like we have for female genital mutilation, rather than relying on existing general bodily harm laws.
Fourthly, it is argued that conversion therapy is not happening in our country, or that it is happening to very few people and is not that severe. How many lives have to be lost for it to be deemed to be worthy of tackling? In our country, people are being forced to eat purifying substances. They are beaten and whipped, forced to undergo exorcisms and corrective rape, forced into marriages and made to undergo genital mutilation. People in my party have been threatened with, and forced to go through, conversion therapy. Two thousand people in the country have had the courage to tell the Government that they have been subjected to it, but how many more suffer in silence?
Finally, some opponents claim that transgender individuals should be removed from the legislation. It is quite straightforward to introduce a safeguard for professionally accredited individuals who can assist persons considering undergoing a gender transition. Conversion therapy falls disproportionately on this community, and any ban that excludes trans people would make legislation self-defeating.
On my election, I came to Parliament with one legislative change I wanted to deliver, which was a ban on conversion therapy. I particularly pay tribute to the campaigning that took place before I came to this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), and all those LGBT groups and survivors who have worked so hard. To my fellow MPs I say that, as legislators, we have a duty to protect the vulnerable and deliver a ban. To the survivors of conversion therapy and all those hurting—to all those made to feel ashamed—I say today that love is not conditional. You do not need to change. Love is not a pathology, and it damn well does not need treating.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
Conversion therapy, in many ways, is a manipulation. It is a manipulation of emotions; it is a manipulation of the coming-out process; and it is a manipulation of people finding themselves and understanding themselves over many years. I came out when I was 22, nine years after I probably realised that I was slightly different from the rest of the lads at school. People go through emotional turmoil when they are going through that process. Even when I started school—I am only 31—it still was not legal to adopt, and marriage was a distant, far-away thought. Until recently, the NHS still did not want my blood.
We go through this process, and it is incredibly difficult for people to process it, because we put ourselves under so much strain and pressure. For me and so many other people, the emotions that we feel—the emotions that are being manipulated by this conversion therapy—are emotions of shame, of not belonging, and of being selfish. These are the things we put ourselves through. We talk ourselves down and we end up convincing ourselves that we are doing wrong—that we are deliberately trying to behave differently from other people. The reason it took me so long to come out of the closet is that I did not want to tell my mum that she would not be a granny, because I am an only child. We put ourselves through this for years and years. I was very lucky, because I plodded on and managed to get through that very difficult period in my life, but so many other people can have those emotions manipulated. By allowing these conversion therapies to continue, we are opening the door for this sort of practice to continue.
I talk about gay and lesbian people, because I am gay, but I also fully support many of the contributions today that have said that this conversion therapy also needs to end for trans people; I am 100% behind that battle too. I want to send a message to the Government that it has been three years since this promise to ban conversion therapy. We have got to get on with it and make sure that we deliver on it, because every day is a delay; another day in which somebody else has their emotions manipulated; another day in which someone else’s life could be ruined forever by going through these highly traumatic experiences.
That could be any one of a number of us. Looking through these stories, we can see similarities in what we read. We can point them out and think, “This was me at one point during my life” or, “This was a friend of mine at some point during their life.” I look at the apology that was given last year by the University of Birmingham, where electric shock treatment was given to gay people in the 1970s, and think, “That could have been me.”
We owe it to all those people to make sure that we ban conversion therapy as soon as possible, because if we allow that door to be open for much longer, I fear the consequences for so many young people—and not necessarily just young people; it could be middle-aged people; people who are later on in their life who find themselves hiding things and make daily lies a normal thing, as I did, to try to cover their tracks. This sort of stuff puts people through enormous emotional turmoil, which is why it is so important that we ban conversion therapy as soon as possible.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I apologise to the House. I inadvertently missed out the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is easily done, Mr Gray; please do not worry.
I am honoured to be able to take part in this incredibly important and powerful debate, which clearly has cross-party support. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for the way he introduced the debate and, in particular, for centring the survivors of conversion therapy in his remarks. It is incredibly important in a debate like this to remember those whose voices may not yet be heard in this place, but for whom we need to speak.
I also pay tribute to the journalist Patrick Strudwick and to Vicky Beeching, who have done amazing work uncovering and talking about their own personal experiences, bringing to the fore an understanding of how toxic this treatment is. To everyone who has spoken so far and given their personal experience: that is what Parliament at its best does.
Like previous speakers, I want to take on some of the arguments about why conversion therapy should be made illegal. There has been a lot of focus on whether it works, as if there are any conditions in which such a therapy would be acceptable if it could be shown to be ethical. Many of the major bodies for psychotherapy in the UK have outlawed the practice and said that there is no semblance of an evidence base behind it. However, I believe that we have to make it illegal, to send the clear message that it is not about whether homosexuality is a pathology, because it is not. It is not about whether being trans is a pathology, because it is not. It is a part of who someone is. We in this place need to send the clear message that we will not see the behaviour in question indulged. We will not see the question as one of medical ethics, but as about a progressive, inclusive society that bans practices that demean, belittle and discriminate against people.
Where young people who are gay, lesbian, transgender or bi grow up in communities where they are not supported, they are eight times more likely to have attempted suicide, six times more likely to report depression and three times more likely to use illegal drugs. There are consequences of living in a society where what I am talking about is even a debate, in many different communities, but we know it is a live debate. Right now there are websites where people can go to book conversion therapy, and it is talked about as a matter of free speech. Let us put the argument to bed today. It is not a matter of free speech to cause someone harm in the way that conversion therapy does.
It is also claimed that the matter is about a conflict with spirituality. There is no conflict with spirituality. I will not give a platform to the organisations that can be found, but I want to give a platform to the House of Rainbow and the Reverend Jide Macaulay, who is a proud member of the local community in Walthamstow and our local faith communities too. He teaches every single day that God loves you, not that God cares about who you love. Those are the organisations that we should be supporting. But we also need to send a clear message that it is not just about the medical side; it is simply about living in a better society. We want to outlaw the practice, to protect people from the harm and damage that it does.
We know that it is possible to do that. Frankly, when countries such as China, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Malta and even Samoa have a ban, we could have one in the UK, and quickly. As the debate shows, there is cross-party consensus for it, so I urge the Minister to use the energy from the debate and the support across civil society for action and not to delay further. Let us make Britain proud to be a world leader, for once, on some of those issues, rather than following the pack. Let us tell everyone in the community that we love them not for who they love but for who they are.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I can think of no better way to open my speech than where the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) finished, with a passage from Vicky Beeching, who gave me a lot of support before I came out publicly. In her book “Undivided: Coming out, becoming whole, and living free from shame”, she writes: “There was only one thing that had caused vast emotional shame in my life for years. I had known I was gay since I was 12 or 13. Keeping that hidden for two decades had been wrecking my heart and mind. Now, as I neared the age of 30, it seemed to be wrecking my body too. All these years I’d prayed and fasted, submitted myself to an exorcism, confessed to a Catholic priest, believed that conversion therapy could change a person’s orientation, read the Bible until my eyes were sore and never acted on my attractions even once. I’d done anything and everything to try and become straight or to shut down any desires for a life partner. My immune system, my adrenals and my sympathetic nervous system were all stretched to breaking point from years of living in fight or flight mode.”
If Members need any other first-hand accounts of how devastating conversion therapy is, a good friend of mine who wanted to remain anonymous shared this with me: “I had not known until today what they had endured. It’s only now, at almost 35 years old, that I even have some small level of strength to begin to deal with it. It cost me most of my teenage years and 20s. I still struggle with acceptance of my sexuality to this day, which has affected my ability to have any open and meaningful relationships. I went through years of really dark mental health battles because of this. The first time I tried to kill myself by suicide was at 12 years old, because I wasn’t who I was meant to be, and this was unfortunately the beginning of what was to become a very dark decade of self-hatred brought on because of these practices. It’s torture, and it has had lifelong debilitating effects that affect every part of my life. It has to stop.”
We should not have to choose between our religion and our sexuality, or between following the faith of our choice or the person we love. I might not be formally part of any faith, but I recognise what a huge part faith can play in many people’s lives and in our society. The national LGBT survey of 2018 showed that 51% of respondents who had undergone conversion therapy said that faith groups had conducted it, and 19% said it had been conducted by healthcare providers or medical professionals. As parliamentarians and legislators, we simply cannot allow such a practice to continue.
I was well into my 30s when I came out. Why I did not come out sooner will always be a mystery to me, but a big part of it was because I was from a single-parent family. I grew up in a loving family that I knew would accept me for whoever I was, but I did not grow up in a society that would accept me for whoever I was. I grew up in a society that said heteronormativity and having a parent of each gender was the ideal, and I could not face up to being a lesbian. Now, as the daughter of a single mother and as a proud out lesbian, I realise that they are my strengths, my superpowers, but that is not the case for so many in the LGBT community.
I know how hard it was to come out to a loving family and friendship group. I cannot imagine how difficult it is for people who are oppressed and subjected to conversion therapy, so we must draw a line in the sand. We must ask ourselves as parliamentarians, “What are we here for?” We are not here just to make grand speeches and gestures. We are here to bring about change, to change the law, and to outlaw that abhorrent practice.
James Gray (in the Chair)
We have 50 minutes to go and six speakers. I call Simon Baynes
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
It is a particular honour to follow that very moving speech by the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). Today I received an email from my constituent, Madeline Dhesi, to thank me for my card wishing her a happy 18th birthday, which she is celebrating today. She asked me to speak today in support of the campaign to ban conversion therapy, particularly as articulated by Stonewall Cymru to both her and me. I am honoured to speak in this debate on Madeline’s behalf and on behalf of many of my other constituents in Clwyd South who have written to me with views similar to those of Madeline.
The speakers who have come before me have articulated with passion, emotion and clarity the barbarity of conversion therapy, which is an alarmingly widespread practice that seeks to erase, repress, cure or change an individual’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. I hope very much that we can end soon the possibility that conversion therapy can currently legally take place in medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious and cultural communities in the UK.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has taken a clear position and has stated that conversion therapy has no place in a civilised society. Put simply, being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not an illness to be treated or cured. I am deeply concerned by the long-term impacts of this practice on victims, both mentally and physically. There are clear links between conversion therapy and an increased risk of suicide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said in his powerful opening speech, the issue has cross-party support, and the call to ban conversion therapy is backed by those in the health, counselling and psychotherapy industry.
Numerous countries have already banned conversion therapy and have taken action to tackle that abhorrent practice. The Government have been clear that such a practice has no place in our society, and that they will take action to prevent these activities from continuing. I know that Ministers are considering all legislative and non-legislative options in order to end conversion therapy practice for good, but I hope that the debate will accelerate the Government’s move to legislate for that ban, and therefore enable us to continue to progress towards a world where everyone can live without shame or fear of their sexuality and whom they love.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate, and all Members who have spoken so far for their powerful contributions.
The first thing to say is that conversion therapy is happening. It is happening in this country, and that should be a shame to us. We must act on it. It has no scientific basis. It is torture. It is a denial of basic human rights. It leads to violence. It can, in some cases, as we have heard, lead horrifically to corrective rape. It is abuse and, in tragic circumstances, it can lead to death. I thank the many constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth for writing to me and reaching out, and the friends who over many years have spoken to me of their own harrowing direct experiences.
I pay tribute to the group of organisations, the memorandum of understanding group and all the other individuals and organisations, some of whom I have met with this week, for all the work that they have been doing. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has been raising this issue for many years. In fact, he introduced Bills in this place to ban conversion therapy in 2013 and 2018. It is a shame that they were not taken up by the Government before now. This is not a party political issue; it is a human rights issues, as we have seen from the breadth and strength of feeling across the House.
I will speak predominantly about the religious context, because that is where I come from. I am gay. I am a Christian. God created me, God loves me, and I love God, but I have had some pretty unpleasant experiences in repressive environments when I was not able to be clear about my sexuality. I was very lucky that I saw a therapist once, and when I said, “I don’t want to have a sham heterosexual marriage,” she just said, “You don’t have to, Stephen. You don’t have to.” What if there were more therapists like that, instead of some of the horrors that we have been hearing about today?
Anybody who has watched such films as “Boy Erased”, or heard the powerful testimony from such groups as the Ozanne Foundation will know the reality that many people can go through in religious experiences. The 2018 faith and sexuality survey showed that, of the 468 people who had been through conversion therapy, 91 admitted attempting suicide and 193 had suicidal thoughts. Over 50% were advised to go through it by a religious leader.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) raised a point about consent. I do not think that someone can give consent to this, and I was alarmed to see, I am sorry to say, in the Secretary of State’s letter attached to the debate, what I fear could be a get-out clause. It talked about “seeking spiritual support”, but we need to be aware of what that can be used to cover up. I point to article 10 of the Evangelical Alliance’s biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality, which says:
“We encourage evangelical congregations to welcome…lesbians and gay men. However, they should do so in the expectation that they, like all of us who are living outside God’s purposes, will…see the need to be transformed”.
It also states that there is a need for
“pastoral care during this process and after a person renounces same-sex sexual relations.”
That could be used as a cover for some very dangerous practices.
I stand by all those who have stood by the trans and non-binary community. They must absolutely be included in this, and we must also protect the legitimate services that are there to support them through transition and the challenges that they face. We have to ban this, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what the definition is of “seeking spiritual support”, how trans and non-binary people will be protected, and when we will get on with this.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I declare a brief interest, in that my husband works for a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender charity that works in schools. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) touched on the fact that society has come a long way. Some of that has been law led and some of it has been developments over time. Ultimately, the discussions around conversion therapy are really about acknowledging who we are—not who we want to be, not who society wants us to be, not who our parents or friends want us to be, but who we are as individuals.
To be different is still difficult. So many things have changed and society has improved, but we still live with tremendous pressures upon individuals, who still feel the need to deny who they are. One of the difficulties that I have had in listening to an amazing array of speeches from people from all parties—this is a cross-party issue and debate—is that we want to solve everything, and to say to every person in this country, “You can be who you want to be, and you can be proud and happy.”
We cannot do that as lawmakers because only so many things are under our control. However, one thing that we can do, and there is clear consensus to do it within this room and among all the people on all these wonderful screens in front of us, is to take a step in the right direction and end this “abhorrent” practice—not my words but the words of the Prime Minister—for which there is no medical justification. The hon. Member for Wallasey said it is medieval, and that term is absolutely right.
I stand here as someone who is openly gay and who came out at a comprehensive school in Doncaster. I am not religious, but I did not have the best experience with coming out, which I am sure many people can relate to. I want to say to all the boys and girls who know that they are a little bit different, whether they are gay or whether they think that something is just not quite right, that we have your backs. We will continue to push for this ban and we will continue to try to make your lives a little bit better.
In my last 30 seconds, I will just say one thing to the online LBGT community who have looked today and said, “Why should there be a debate? We should just crack on and end conversion therapy.” I understand their argument, but I question that arrogance, because there is always a need to win the argument, and there is always a need to keep advancing and making sure that the things that we do here and elsewhere are led by the best arguments, and that we continue to fight that fight.
James Gray (in the Chair)
We have three more Back Benchers to speak and five minutes left.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
In my constituency of Arfon, 243 people signed this important petition. I add my support and that of Plaid Cymru to the calls for a legislative ban on conversion therapy across the UK and on minors being taken out of the UK for conversion therapy abroad. This must include a ban on the advertising and promotion of such practices, and proper support for victims.
In 2018, the Conservative Government acknowledged the issue and committed to ending conversion therapy in their LGBT action plan. Nearly 1,000 days later, this practice is still legal. Cranogwen, who was an important 19th-century figure in the history of LGBTQ+ people in Wales and a literary figure of national importance, said:
“It is a pretence in everybody…to try to be what they are not; and it is a loss for anybody not to be what they are.”
Despite progress since then, her words still ring true. In fact, Stonewall Cymru found that a third of LGBTQ+ employees in Wales hid or disguised their identity at work.
Banning conversion therapy is an important step towards creating a truly equal society, as is the Plaid Cymru policy of ensuring that trans people have legal recognition of their gender through a streamlined and de-medicalised process based on self-declaration.
Lastly, the action plan says that ending conversion therapy will require a UK-wide approach. What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government about this issue and have the Welsh Government requested legislative competence to introduce a comprehensive ban in Wales?
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading this very important debate and on making such a compelling and moving opening speech.
Conversion therapy is a damaging, degrading and discriminatory practice that seeks to correct something that does not need fixing—somebody’s sexual orientation, or their gender identity and/or expression. It causes severe physical and psychological suffering; it violates the human rights of the LGBT community; and it is considered by some to be a form of torture, and for good reason.
If we want to eradicate this insidious form of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse, we need a legislative ban to make conversion therapy illegal and we need one as soon as possible. It is vital that this Government lead the way for our LGBT+ community and make history with an effective legislative ban as quickly as possible.
The national LGBT survey found that 7% of people had been offered or undergone conversion therapy. I should echo comments made in support of trans people, because trans respondents to that survey suggested that they are almost twice as likely to have undergone or been offered such therapies.
It is important to echo the comment that this abhorrent practice is taking place across Britain right now. As it is, the law does not protect my constituents from conversion therapy, despite how harmful and damaging it is.
In the short time I have, I will finish by saying that the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition’s ask for support for victims and survivors—whether through charities, faith groups or mental health practitioners—to help them overcome the trauma that they have endured and rebuild their lives is very important. I ask that it be included in any future services that are offered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made some very good points about what an effective ban should include, and I echo his statements on that. A ban should prevent people from being threatened or sent abroad, it should protect people regardless of age, and it should support victims and survivors regardless of whether they were coerced into or consented to the practice. It must ban the advertising and promotion of said practices, both offline and online. These are the right things to do, and the sooner the Government take action, the sooner the UK can join the growing number of global leaders in LGBT rights who have taken such steps.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I can be brief.
I called for this debate back in September and am glad to see it tonight. I am also glad to see so many passionate and thoughtful contributions from all points of the compass across the House. This is an issue that we need to act on, and I praise the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his excellent speech. I have to say that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) made a very strong contribution—it is good the see her back, and she has demonstrated why it is good to see her back. She has done a power of work on this issue, and it is great that there is such a cross-party consensus on it.
I will confess that I am a gay man, but I am happy to say that I have no direct experience of this issue. Frankly, the scale of the problem was news to me. According to the UK Government’s 2018 LGBT survey, 5% of respondents had been offered conversion therapy and 2% had undergone it in one shape or another. In the trans community, the figures were even higher: 9% had been offered it and 4% had undergone it. There is much to agree with in the discussion tonight, but it boils down to one phrase: let’s get on with it. I say that as a challenge to the Minister while offering my support for her efforts.
There is a cross-party need for legislation. There is work to be done, of course, but work is well advanced on the proposals for a legislative framework. The NGOs are behind it, the equalities community is behind it and the faith groups are behind it. There is cross-party support. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and many people in Northern Ireland are supportive of this legislation, and we need to get it done. The only people who are speaking in defence of conversion therapy are quacks, bigots and bullies. They need to be called out for what they are, and their dreadful activities and consequences criminalised. If the UK Government are serious about bringing forward legislation, they will have my support, and I look forward to hearing some good news from the Minister tonight.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and it is a pleasure to have heard such impassioned and important speeches. The stories that people have told have highlighted the damage that has been done and the lasting consequences for lives. That is well understood, so it must be time for action.
When I looked into the background to the debate, I was struck by the number of signatures on the petition that closed in September last year, compared with two previous petitions on the same subject in 2017 and 2018. Across the UK, the number of signatures increased over sevenfold from 2017 to last year’s quarter of a million signatures. In my constituency of East Renfrewshire, the 2017 petition attracted 33 signatures, but almost 400 of my constituents signed last year’s petition, and I have heard from a great many of them by email. That upswing in signatures tells us two things. The first is that there is a growing and welcome recognition of the need to tackle the wholly unacceptable practice of conversion therapy, which we know is not only hugely discriminatory, but so very damaging to those directly affected. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) spoke very powerfully about that.
The second reason for the upswing in support for the petition could very well be a growing frustration that action is taking so long, which results in people who are potentially directly affected feeling that we are not listening to them. A similar frustration was expressed by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) when, over five years ago, he sponsored a debate on conversion therapies. In that debate, he wondered why we are struggling to get conversion therapy banned, when there is such significant agreement on the issue. Let us be clear: LGBT people do not need their identities debated nor do they need to be converted. That is fundamental. Nobody’s identity should be subject to debate or to change by other people.
When we get to the end of this debate and hear the Minister’s response, I hope that is what she will say. I hope she will accept these concerns about delay, and respond to them by telling us what is the hold-up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) has just said, let’s get on with it. Is there a reason for the delay? Are the Government experiencing some push-back on this? Who would be doing that? What has prevented action from being taken before now? It is difficult to comprehend. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) described in vivid detail why it matters and the horrific impact it has on many lives.
I accept that the UK Government have been clear that they are committed to banning conversion therapy. I welcome that, but it is nearly three years since they laid out the plan to ban it across the UK. Since then, it looks like inactivity and prevarication to me. It looks like they are kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) so eloquently described, more and more human tragedies occur.
In July 2017, the UK Government launched what would become, with over 108,000 respondents, the largest national survey of LGBT people undertaken anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has told us, almost a thousand days after publishing the results and an accompanying action plan informed by its findings, it seems that the Government are still at the research stage. What exactly are they researching?
In July last year, the Prime Minister said his Government would do a study on where conversion therapy was happening and its prevalence, and then bring forward plans to ban it, but that information is already there. It is contained within the survey that the Government already did, with over 7,000 people among the respondents who had either undergone conversion therapy or been offered it. That surely provides a clear picture of the geographic spread and the demography of conversion therapies across the UK. This determination to do more research, three years on, does not look like a process of implementing change; it looks more like an attempt to stave off change, and that is not okay.
The UK Government have also said they will take a UK-wide approach to this. The Scottish Government have expressed their support for action by the UK Government. There is already cross-border co-operation on the issue. For instance, NHS England and NHS Scotland both signed up to the 2017 memorandum of understanding, along with other stakeholders, to record their commitment to ending conversion therapy in the UK. Commitments like these, from health groups, counselling groups, psychotherapy groups and many religious groups, are welcome, but we need to do our bit now. We need action.
If we look at the July 2018 action plan, the UK Government said that they would bring froward these proposals, but their correspondence in May 2020 with the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) rights, of which I am a member, raises some serious questions about what progress we are going to see.
There are examples of attempts to implement a holistic ban on conversion therapies, starting with Brazil, which acted on the issue over 20 years ago; that is something we could ponder. Action has also been taken by Canadian cities and by Spanish cities and provinces, including Madrid and Andalusia, which adopted a broad definition of conversion therapies as
“all medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious or any other interventions that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person”.
Given these widespread examples, and the widespread understanding of good practice, it is concerning that in her response to the chair of the APPG, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), mentioned Germany and Albania as countries that she is reaching out to in order to gain an understanding of the way forward. What is proposed in Germany looks like it could be a prohibition on conversion therapies only on minors and on adults whose participation was secured by coercion or deception. That would absolutely not
“end the vile practice of so-called conversion therapy”
that she says is her intention in her letter. There is a real danger that going down a road like that would legitimise conversion therapy, and we are absolutely not prepared to support that. To be clear, and to echo the very sensible words of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), this is not therapy; it is very unfortunate that that is the phrase that people use to describe the practice.
I want to hear from the Minister a response that tells me whether the Government are actually thinking about introducing a more narrowly defined Bill. I certainly hope not, but if that is the intention, when did that change of policy take place and why? The Minister for Women and Equalities’ mention of Albania raises some serious questions about the Government’s commitment. In Albania, every therapist has to be a member of the Order of Psychologists, and it is that body, not the state legislature, that has banned conversion therapies. There seems to be little that we can learn from the Albanian approach that has not already been implemented in the 2017 memorandum of understanding, so why is it raised as an example?
When I look at all those things, I am concerned that the UK Government are potentially finding diversions along the way to avoid confronting the difficulties they now face due to changes on their Back Benches. I hope I am wrong about that. The LGBT community cannot be held hostage by right-wing politics or changes in political personnel. I say that, but I am mindful of the powerful speeches that we heard today from Members from across the House, including very powerful speeches by Conservative Members. I take some heart from those consistent and clear words.
In that context, and thinking about the people who are directly affected by this practice, I urge the Minister to do the right thing. We have a responsibility to take action to right wrongs. This practice needs to be made illegal. Nobody should be subjected to that kind of assault on their identity. It needs to stop, but it will not until we move this from being a debate to being a reality. It is time to make progress, and I really hope the Minister tells us that will happen.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this important debate.
So-called LGBT conversion therapies are disgusting, exploitative, damaging and a relic of bigotry. In 2021, we recognise better than ever what illness and disease look like. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans is not a sickness; it is a fundamental part of an individual’s very identity. So-called LGBT conversion therapies need to be banned.
I thank in particular the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for their powerful contributions. We are lucky in this place to have such assiduous campaigners on LGBT issues on both sides of the House, and I am pleased that there appears to be cross-party consensus on this issue.
Pedlars of these supposed treatments not only perpetuate a fraud on the public but cause genuine harm, psychological distress and lasting emotional damage. The 2018 national faith and sexuality survey found that 58.8% of people who had undergone such therapies had suffered mental health issues. Significant numbers cited anxiety, self-harm and eating disorders. More than two thirds had suicidal thoughts, and more than a third had actually attempted suicide. That is why all major UK therapy professional bodies and the NHS oppose treatments that try to change a person’s sexual orientation or supress a person’s gender identity.
All our major faith groups support a ban, as was reiterated at the interfaith conference held remotely in London in December 2020. As a religious Jew and a bi woman, I have been heartened by contributions from hon. Members in the debate who hold their faith close to their heart but know that there should be no dichotomy to reconcile between religious freedom and protecting the safety, wellbeing and dignity of the LGBT community. That cannot be a justification for continued delay, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for making that point so clearly.
A number of countries have fully banned conversion therapies, including Malta. In other federalised countries, various states and provinces have legislated for bans. I commend Instagram and Facebook for banning the promotion of conversion therapies on their sites, and hope that other social media companies will follow suit.
In 2018, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Conservatives announced in their LGBT action plan that they would ban conversion therapies. That was apparently still their policy at the last election. However, last year the Prime Minister said:
“What we are going to do is a study right now on, you know, where is this actually happening, how prevalent is it, and we will then bring forward plans to ban it”.
I am sure that colleagues on all sides, not to mention the LGBT+ community, will say that we have waited long enough. Last month, Labour supported the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 that rightly permitted the Attorney General to take maternity leave. That showed that the Government can take legislation through quickly when they want to—it did not require lengthy studies to consider the prevalence of Attorney Generals becoming pregnant.
There are LGBT+ people experiencing harms from these practices every day and the longer we wait for action, the longer they are denied legal redress. The most recent annual update on the implementation of the Government’s LGBT action plan was published in July 2019. Given that it is now 2021 and that February was LGBT+ History Month, when can we expect publication of the 2020 annual update? Labour has consistently urged the UK Government to live up to their promise and implement the 2018 proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, has continuously pressed the UK Government to deliver on their LGBT action plan.
Putting laws on the statute book such as protection orders for people who are vulnerable to cultural or religious pressure to suppress, deny or forcibly change their sexuality or gender identity is not merely a matter of virtue signalling; it would make concrete legal defences for people who need them and would make it simpler for statutory support services to work together to help people in need. I commend Galop, the LGBT+ anti-violence charity that I met on Friday ahead of the debate to hear not only the harrowing evidence it has collected about such abhorrent practices but how protection measures, including multi-agency risk assessment conferences, would have allowed individuals to have been safeguarded. The Labour party welcomes the action that the Government have taken in the past decade to legislate against female genital mutilation and to take further steps against honour-based violence and forced marriage where these protection order frameworks are in place. This is a further area where we must now see action.
This is an opportunity to show the world the face of global Britain, setting an example and doing what is right. Our values can be clearly put into law to be seen by other countries where these awful practices are more common. The time has come for the Government to act to ban these practices. If they do, the Opposition will support them.
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. May I start by thanking those who signed the petition for raising the important issue of conversion therapy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate? I also thank all colleagues for speaking so passionately about this issue. I know how important it is to so many parliamentarians, and it is right that we should have this time to debate it. I will endeavour to answer the various questions put this evening.
I am pleased to be able to respond not just to acknowledge the importance of the topic but to say more about the Government’s approach to ending conversion therapy. We have a proud record of championing equal opportunity, and it is of great importance to me and the Government that everyone has the freedom to live their life as they see fit without fear or intimidation.
I assure hon. Members that we are committed to ending conversion therapy in the UK and we take the issue very seriously. The Prime Minister reiterated recently that we want to end conversion therapy and underlined that the practice has
“no place in a civilised society”.
It is indeed shocking to think that conversion therapy practices still take place in modern Britain, yet the 2017 national LGBT survey found that 5% of respondents—people in the UK—had been offered conversion therapy and 2% had undergone it. The national LGBT survey was launched in 2017 and received more than 108,000 responses, making it the largest survey of its kind in the UK. The aim was to gather more information about the life experiences of LGBT people in the UK and the biggest difficulties they face, including conversion therapy.
Acknowledging that conversion therapy is wrong and should end is only the first step in tackling such behaviours. The Government want to ensure that we correctly identify and capture these harmful practices. To do that, we have been working hard to establish a clear view of what constitutes conversion therapy. “Conversion therapy” is often used as an umbrella term for a number of acts. On the most egregious end of the spectrum are acts of violence. Around the world, sexual violence, including rape, is used in sinister attempts supposedly to cure someone of an innate aspect of their person. People may also be beaten, or forced to fast or to take snake-oil medicines, all because of who they are and who they love. We are fortunate that in this country we have cultivated a robust criminal law framework for dealing with those types of conversion therapy.
I would like to take this opportunity to be clear that if someone commits an existing offence in the course of conversion therapy, they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, no matter what their reason for doing so is. At the extreme end of such practices, someone could face charges of rape or grievous bodily harm. At the other end of the spectrum are acts that are primarily delivered through the spoken word or through the guise of healthcare support, such as advertising and selling products, or charging a fee to undergo conversion therapy practices.
The Government have been clear that we do not intend to stop those who wish to seek spiritual counselling as they explore their sexual orientation, but there will be cases when a line is crossed, where someone is actively seeking to change another’s sexual orientation—an innate aspect of their personal identity—via coercion under the guise of spiritual support. The Government will exercise great care when considering what does and does not constitute conversion therapy, and how to intervene. Just because greater care is required, however, it does not mean that we should shy from protecting our most vulnerable from those practices.
It is clear that conversion therapy is associated with significant mental health problems and isolation from a support network. That, in turn, can lead to homelessness and abuse. We are also alive to the need to ensure that the action we take does not push those practices underground, which could ultimately cause more harm to those who are victim to them. Our response to the issue will ensure that we end those practices, not hide them.
It may help to explain the work that the Government are doing to tackle conversion therapy. Officials are undertaking a review of the current legislative framework to see how conversion therapy can be stopped by making use of existing laws and offences. As I have mentioned previously, many acts of conversion therapy are already illegal, including sexual violence and kidnapping, as well as inciting violence. People who engage in those criminal activities can and will be prosecuted for doing so. Where dangerous practices are not already unlawful, we are examining the best ways to stop them without sending them underground.
The Government believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to end the suffering that those practices inflict. We need to explore all measures to combat those abhorrent practices, ensuring that survivors have access to the help and care that they need. In addition to the work on legislative and non-legislative measures to end conversion therapy, we have commissioned research into the scope of practices and the experiences of those subjected to conversion therapy, so that we can fully consider the needs of all those whom it affects. That is important in our approach to establishing the most effective way to stop it happening. Once the findings have been reviewed, we will continue to engage with key stakeholders to ensure that we progress an effective approach as quickly as we can.
I know that there may be questions around what a legal ban could include, and we have heard a number of views on that. We are actively considering that issue, on which we have been consulting widely to seek a broad range of views. We will continue that engagement to ensure that any action that we take is proportionate and effective. As I said earlier, I want to make it absolutely clear that we do not want to prevent LGBT people from seeking support on their own terms. People will always have the right to seek support from anyone and have conversations to rationalise and understand their own identity. We will not restrict the right to seek counsel when needed, but that does not mean that we will tolerate the use of conversion therapy described in the debate. We are working to understand the impacts on wider rights and freedoms of any Government action to tackle conversion therapy. The legal landscape is complex, and we want to ensure that we get our proposals absolutely right.
We will continue to engage with religious organisations and groups to understand how best support to LGBT people of faith. It is not the place of Government to dictate what is legitimate spiritual guidance, but it is the Government’s place to protect all their citizens, and we will not tolerate the use of harmful coercive practices under the guise of spiritual support. I am also pleased that all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies in the UK have agreed to tackle conversion therapy in healthcare settings. We will engage with experts to understand the best way of ending conversion therapy in these contexts in a targeted and proportionate way.
It is also encouraging to see jurisdictions around the world starting to take notice of the issue, and join us with their own commitments to ending conversion therapy. We are in conversations with international counterparts, both those who have introduced a variety of legislative and non-legislative actions and those who plan to. Although it is important to figure out what will work in a UK context, we may also look to our friends around the world to understand the effectiveness of different approaches. Hon. Members have mentioned, for example, that Germany has implemented a ban on conversion therapy for minors only, or when an adult has been coerced, and I understand that other countries such as Malta have also taken this route. However, we understand that different countries will take different approaches that best suit their needs. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
The safety of LGBT people in the UK in every aspect of their life is of the utmost importance to me, including in our work on conversion therapy. However, this is only part of the work we are doing to promote equality for everyone. The Government understand that colleagues across the House who have taken the time to attend the debate are passionate about the work that my officials and I are doing, so I wish to update them on all the broader LGBT work we are undertaking. In April 2019, we appointed Dr Michael Brady of King’s College Hospital to be the first national adviser on LGBT healthcare. This appointment shows the Government’s commitment to improving healthcare for all. I am very proud that in December 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care announced that men who have sex with men in a long-term relationship will be able to donate blood in England, following changes to blood donation criteria that will be implemented in the summer.
I am also aware that waiting times for gender identity services are currently very long. We are taking meaningful actions to address the historical problems that have resulted in long waiting times, and I am pleased that we will establish at least three new gender identity clinics over 2021, with the first of these opened by the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust in July. This is the first service of its kind established in the NHS in England for around 20 years.[Official Report, 15 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 2MC.]
There is so much more that I would say about the work that the Government are doing, but I am afraid that we are out of time. Our goal now is to end these harmful practices, and we are going to engage widely and listen carefully so that we can develop measures that end them for good. I know that all Members are keen to know the timetable. We continue to work to ensure that the actions we take are proportionate and effective, and will set out our next steps soon. We have heard a range of views and voices, and it is imperative that we continue a constructive dialogue to ensure that we get our proposals right. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), officials from the Government Equalities Office have been in liaison with Welsh Government officials, and the Welsh Government have not requested devolved competence.
Put simply, being LGBT is not an illness to be treated or cured. This is an issue that has cross-party support, and the call to end conversion therapy is backed by those in the health, counselling and psychotherapy industry. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that LGBT people can be truly safe and free to live their life as they wish, and this will be the next important step in ending conversion therapy for good.
I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have spoken in today’s debate in support of ending conversion therapy. It is wonderful to see so many people united against this abhorrent practice, and I look forward to many more debates on the issue. I am happy to continue individual engagement, as I have already done, where there are further questions.
Elliot Colburn [V]
In my short summing up, I sadly do not have time to go through everyone’s contributions, but I do want to send my heartfelt thanks to every Member who has spoken today for their very powerful interventions. This has proven to be a truly cross-party moment, and I hope that it has proven that there is true consensus across the House that we want a ban on conversion therapy, and we want that sooner rather than later. I thank the Minister for replying, and I hope we can send her away today with the message that we want to see some proposals made very quickly indeed. I believe I speak for everyone who has spoken today when I say that we would like to see those proposals in the form of a Bill.
I thank you, Mr Gray, for being in the Chair, and for allowing the petitioners’ concerns to be raised this afternoon. I also thank the petitioners for signing the petition, and I will end by reiterating what so many people have said throughout this afternoon’s debate: being LGBT is not an illness, and we do not need to be cured.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 300976 relating to LGBT conversion therapy.
Written Statements
Unauthorised Encampments
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today, I am announcing the Government’s response to the November 2019 consultation entitled, “Strengthening Police Powers to Tackle Unauthorised Encampments”. The consultation sought views on how to address and prevent the harm and distress caused by some unauthorised encampments and followed a public consultation in 2018 which demonstrated support for more police action.
The vast majority of travellers are law-abiding citizens. As of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41% from January 2010. However, there continue to be unauthorised encampments that can create significant challenges for local authorities and cause distress and misery to many. Harmful or disruptive encampments can also perpetuate a negative image of travelling communities.
I will therefore introduce legislation to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. As we pledged in our manifesto, we will create a new criminal offence to tackle unauthorised encampments. In addition, we will give the police the power to seize vehicles, and we will strengthen existing powers.
The measures complement the ongoing work by MHCLG to strengthen councils’ powers to tackle unauthorised developments—building on land that an occupier owns without planning permission.
Introduce a criminal offence of residing on land with a vehicle, causing damage, disruption or distress
A person will commit an offence if they:
Are aged 18 or over and reside or intend to reside on land without the consent of the occupier of the land;
Have or intend to have at least one vehicle with them on the land;
Have caused or are likely to cause significant damage, disruption or distress; and
They:
Fail, without a reasonable excuse, to leave the land with their vehicle and/or property once asked to do so by the occupier, representatives of the occupier or a constable; or
They, without reasonable excuse, enter, or re-enter the land with an intention of residing there without the consent of the occupier, and they have or intend to have a vehicle with them, within 12 months of a request to leave and remove their property from an occupier, their representative or a constable.
Give police the power to seize any property including vehicles from those committing the new offence
The police will be empowered to seize any property including vehicles owned or in the possession of the individual on the land if they reasonably suspect that the person has committed the above offence.
Strengthen existing powers
Section 61(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (“CJPOA”) sets out the power of the police to direct trespassers away from land. We will amend this section to enable the police to direct trespassers away in a broader range of circumstances, including if there is damage to the environment, such as excessive noise, litter or deposits of waste, and if there is disruption to supplies of water, energy or fuel.
We also intend to increase the period in which persons directed away from the land under section 61 and 62A of the CJPOA must not return—without reasonable excuse—without committing an offence or being subject to powers of seizure from three months to 12 by amending section 61(4)(b) 62B(2) and section 62C(2)of the CJPOA.
We will in addition strengthen measures to tackle unauthorised encampments on roads by amending section 61(9)(b) to allow police to direct trespassers to leave land that forms part of a highway.
I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to the two consultations carried out by the Government on this issue. The views expressed in response have all been considered and have informed the decisions we have made.
The measures I intend to introduce are a proportionate increase in powers for the police. I hope they will deter unauthorised encampments from being set up in the first instance but, where that is not the case, they will allow the police to take more effective action in response to an encampment causing damage, disruption or distress, in support of those communities living with or near them.
I am confident that we have taken steps to ensure those wishing to exercise their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures.
The response to the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments.
[HCWS826]
Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Following my recent announcement of the Government responses on reforms to the judicial pension scheme and on proposals to address the unlawful age discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation, I am today publishing the Government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age consultation.
Running from 16 July to 16 October 2020, the consultation sought views on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders to 72 or 75, alongside a proposal to allow public interest-based extension of magistrates’ appointments beyond their existing mandatory retirement age of 70, as is currently available to other parts of the judiciary. The consultation attracted considerable interest with over one thousand responses received from across of the magistracy, the judiciary, the legal profession, and other key stakeholder groups.
It has been over 25 years since the mandatory retirement age for most judges was set at 70. A mandatory retirement age remains an important requirement of judicial office which protects judicial independence, preserves public confidence in the judiciary, and promotes opportunities within the judiciary for those who wish to apply and to progress. I believe, however, along with the majority of respondents, that it is now time the MRA is amended to reflect improvements in life expectancy and the changing demands on our courts and tribunals.
Following careful consideration, I have therefore decided to raise the mandatory retirement age to 75 to enable us to retain for longer the valuable expertise of experienced judicial office holders and to attract a wider range of applicants. I believe the new retirement age could also have a positive impact on diversity by attracting and promoting opportunities for individuals considering a judicial career later in life, such as those who may have had non-linear careers or taken career breaks to balance professional and family responsibilities. I will legislate for this change as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Magistrates currently are unable to sit beyond the existing mandatory retirement age unlike many judges who can apply to have their appointments extended or to sit in retirement on an ad hoc basis. To further boost capacity in the magistrates courts, I will include a transitional provision as part of the legislative change to allow recently retired magistrates who are below the age of 75 when the new MRA comes into force to be able to apply to return to the bench, where there is a business need.
As Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to ensure the courts and tribunals have the required resources to continue dispensing justice. I am grateful for the commitment and resilience of judges, magistrates and coroners across the country who have worked tirelessly throughout this challenging period. I know the changes I am announcing today will not immediately alleviate pressure on our justice system. However, this once in a generation change to the mandatory retirement age, alongside the important reforms we are making to the judicial pension scheme, will help to support and promote judicial recruitment and retention, ensuring we are able to continue resourcing our world-class judiciary for the future.
[HCWS828]
Covid-19 Road Map: Planning and Hospitality
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As set out in the Government’s road map for easing the lockdown restrictions, in step two, which will be no earlier than 12 April, hospitality venues will be allowed to serve people outdoors. I have written to local authority leaders to make clear the Government’s expectation that local authorities support hospitality businesses to safely reopen, once they are permitted to do so.
Last summer the Government introduced a series of measures to support hospitality businesses to open safely when lockdown restrictions were eased. These measures were a lifeline to many businesses, enabling them to continue to serve their local communities under the challenging circumstances.
I have confirmed to local authorities that these measures will remain in place to support businesses as they reopen this year. I am also pleased to confirm that we intend to extend pavement licences for a further 12 months, making it easier and cheaper for pubs, restaurants and cafes to continue to make al fresco dining a reality with outside seating, tables and street stalls to serve food and drinks.
Providing these flexibilities will support hospitality businesses to trade in these challenging times, helping to protect jobs and livelihoods. The measures that we introduced and will remain in place are:
Al fresco dining
As part of the Business and Planning Act 2020 the Government introduced a simplified process for businesses to obtain a licence to serve food and drinks from seating, tables and street stalls outside their premises. The process was previously long, costly and inconsistent across areas. We addressed this through a capped application fee of £100 and quicker consultation and determination periods (10 days with automatic deemed consent if the authority does not make a decision on the application before the end of the determination period). This enabled business to serve more customers safely outdoors last year and support them to do so again when they are permitted to reopen.
The Government have made clear in the pavement licence guidance that we expect local authorities to grant licences for 12 months or more unless there are good reasons for granting a licence for a shorter period, such as plans for future changes in use of road space. Therefore, unless there are very good reasons, the Government expect that licences granted under these provisions continue to apply into this summer so that businesses do not have to reapply for another licence or be charged a further application fee when they are able to reopen to serve customers outdoors. These temporary legislative provisions are currently due to expire on 30 September 2021, but to give further certainty to businesses I will introduce secondary legislation to extend these provisions for a further 12 months, subject to parliamentary approval.
Freedom to use land for community events and outdoor hospitality
Last year the Government provided greater flexibility for individuals and businesses to use their land for temporary events, such as markets and motorsports. We increased the number of days allowed for such events from 28 to 56 without needing to apply for planning permission. In November we extended this provision until 31 December 2021 so individuals and businesses, such as pubs, can set up moveable structures like marquees and hold outdoor events without making an application for planning permission. This will help businesses take forward outdoor activities such as markets, car boot sales, summer fairs and sporting events. We expect local authorities to support businesses using these additional freedoms as they reopen.
Outdoor markets
We have also introduced a new temporary right, extended to March 2022, that allows local authorities, either by themselves or by others on their behalf, to use land to hold a market and erect moveable structures on it.
Takeaways
Finally, we also introduced measures to support restaurants, pubs and cafes to serve takeaway food when they were otherwise closed due to coronavirus restrictions. These measures will continue to apply until March 2022.
We introduced these changes to support hard hit hospitality businesses to reopen last year. I have encouraged all local authorities to use these measures pragmatically to help support the high street, businesses and jobs, once restrictions allow them to do so.
[HCWS829]
Commercial Spaceflight
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
On Friday 5 March 2021, I published the Government’s response to the consultations which were held in the summer and autumn of 2020 on the secondary legislation which will implement the Space Industry Act 2018. We sought views on the operability and effectiveness of the draft space industry regulations and associated guidance and supporting documents (July); as well as the Government’s approach to liabilities, insurance and charging (October). We also asked respondents to provide evidence and test the assumptions in the consultation-stage impact assessment.
This Government are committed to growing the space industry in the UK and cementing our leading role in this sector by unlocking a new era in commercial spaceflight across the UK. The draft space industry regulations, together with draft instruments covering accident investigation and appeals, will pave the way for a new commercial licensing regime for spaceflight activities from the UK. It will support safe and sustainable activities that will drive research, innovation and entrepreneurship, exploiting the unique environment of space. This will feed into our emerging national space strategy as we develop our priorities for levelling up the UK and promote the growth of this thriving sector in the long term.
We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the environment is protected from the adverse effects of spaceflight activities. This is why the Space Industry Act 2018 requires applicants for a launch or spaceport licence to submit an assessment of environmental effects as part of their application. We also published a consultation on 10 February, setting specific environmental objectives for the spaceflight regulator to take account of when considering these assessments, reinforcing Government’s wider policies towards the environment and sustainability.
Our spaceflight legislation has been designed from the outset to support commercial operations. This, together with the technology safeguards agreement signed with the US in June 2020, means that the UK is well placed to attract new commercial opportunities in this rapidly growing sector. Together with industry we set a target to grow the UK’s share of the global space market to 10% by 2030. Today we are a step closer to reaching this goal.
The Government welcome the thoughtful and detailed responses received from across the four nations of the UK. Invaluable insights were provided by those who responded to the consultation and included enthusiastic responses from schoolchildren. We are pleased to report that our modern regulatory framework was supported by the vast majority of respondents, with many applauding the flexibility of our proposed approach, which fosters adaptability through an outcomes-based focus.
The response I am sharing today sets out the ways we have adjusted the draft space industry regulations and associated guidance material to reflect, and where possible accommodate, the suggestions and recommendations made through the consultation process. We believe that this collaborative approach will not only strengthen the licensing regime we are implementing, but demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to growing this exciting sector.
My Department has worked closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and Civil Aviation Authority to legislate for a wide range of new commercial spaceflight technologies, including traditional vertically launched vehicles, air-launched vehicles and sub-orbital spaceplanes and balloons. It is our intention to bring this legislation before the House later this year.
Next steps
Following the publication of the Government’s response I will update the House once we are ready to submit the secondary legislation for parliamentary scrutiny.
[HCWS827]