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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
People who are instructed to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace and are on a qualifying means-tested benefit, unable to work from home and losing income as a result may be entitled to a payment of £500 from their local authority.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
We need people to self-isolate to control transmission and ease restrictions, yet many are continuing to work as they cannot survive on £95.85 statutory sick pay per week. The Chancellor has been asked about this on numerous occasions, and it was disappointing that nothing new was announced in his Budget. Does the Minister agree that those who do not have access to occupational sick pay and cannot work from home should be eligible for the Test and Trace support payments?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is right that many people —indeed, the majority of workers—will have support from employers above statutory sick pay, but it is for the reason she outlines that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that there will be a payment of £500 for those not qualifying for the means-tested benefit, paid through the discretionary scheme that was funded at the Budget and to be administered by local authorities.
Judith Cummins [V]
Bradford Council has the highest demand for self-isolation payments in the country, reflecting the fact that most people in our city are unable to work from home. The standard scheme for people in receipt of certain benefits is fully funded, but the discretionary scheme, which the council must use for everyone else, is not. In fact, the funding for Bradford falls far short of demand, so will the Minister urgently look into this so that councils with a high demand can support all workers who need to self-isolate?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is that there was a pressure on the scheme for local authorities. It is for exactly that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that there will be an increase to £20 million per month for the discretionary scheme. He also listened to representations from the hon. Lady and others about widening the scope of eligibility under that scheme.
Kate Hollern [V]
The Government have now made available £20 million a month in discretionary self-isolation funding for local authorities, despite only making £15 million available for four months when the scheme first started, and because of this, hundreds of people in Blackburn have been denied support to self-isolate. Does the Minister now accept that initial allocations fell well below what was needed and contributed to the rise in cases, and does he think that that is fair on my constituents?
Steve Barclay
It is right that there was support in place, but it is also right that my right hon Friend the Chancellor has listened to points made by Members across the House, which is why the discretionary support has been increased and also why it has been extended to cover parents who are unable to work because they are caring for a child who is self-isolating and a number of other factors. I think that shows once again the willingness of this Government to respond to the path of the virus and to adapt our schemes to what is needed with, in particular, the extensive support that is now being offered and has throughout the pandemic been offered to local authorities.
Mrs Hodgson [V]
In November, a constituent of mine was told to isolate via the NHS covid-19 app. She would have been eligible for the isolation payment, but as she was told to isolate via the app, she was never given an NHS Test and Trace account ID, and therefore her application could go no further. My constituent was affected financially as she could not work, and she has been going round in circles, even with my help, trying to access the payment. Can the Minister advise if my constituent can still access this payment retrospectively?
Steve Barclay
It is always difficult to comment without seeing the full facts of an individual case, and I know the hon. Lady is always an incredibly assiduous constituency Member and will ensure that the case is looked at. On the specifics, I would also point to the fact that there is a wider package of support as well. For example, in addition to the self-isolation payments, there is often eligibility for self-employed workers through the self-employed income support scheme. There is a wide range of measures, but obviously it will depend on the individual case.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Test and Trace has now been allocated £37 billion, but its head, Baroness Dido Harding, has told both the Public Accounts Committee and the Science and Technology Committee that the big struggle is to get people to isolate. So, although the Government have provided support for people to self-isolate, surely the Chief Secretary can go back and look again to ensure that what the Treasury is providing enables test, trace and isolate to be truly effective, or we are really not going to beat this pandemic?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of Test and Trace; it is key to our unlocking the economy and to addressing the much more substantive costs in terms of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. As she will know as Chair of the PAC, while I as Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will always look at the cost of Test and Trace, the bigger prize is getting our economy opened. On the substantive point the hon. Lady raises on the self-isolation payments, again I point to the fact that at the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the funding for discretionary support; that sits alongside the £500 itself, and is in addition to the wider support that the majority of employers provide.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government’s road map out lockdown says that self-isolation is critically important to halting the spread of disease, yet Baroness Harding has recently admitted that financial difficulties prevent people from self-isolating and a year ago the Health Secretary admitted he could not live on statutory sick pay of £94.25 a week. It is now £95.85 a week, so can the Minister explain why the Chancellor refuses simply to guarantee that anyone who has to rely on statutory sick pay or is unable to access even that should be eligible for the £500 payment?
Steve Barclay
I do not think the hon. Gentleman has actually read the Budget announcement made last week, because the discretionary element of the Test and Trace support payments applies even if people are not in receipt of means-tested benefits. So it does recognise the point raised by Members that it is important that there is an incentive for people to be tested; that is what the £500 payment through the Test and Trace system addresses. But in addition Members raised cases which were just outside the means-tested element of Test and Trace; that is the issue that the discretionary fund addresses, and it was dealt with in the Budget last week.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government have provided an unprecedented multibillion- pound package of support for Britain’s charities, including £750 million of dedicated funding that has helped more than 15,000 organisations across the country respond to the impacts of covid-19 and relieve the pressure on our NHS.
Craig Whittaker [V]
As we all know, yesterday marked International Women’s Day, a day when we celebrate and recognise the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. However, this pandemic has also shone a light on domestic abuse and the struggles of many women across the country, so will my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking to support charities in this field so we can ensure that victims and their children can access the support they need?
Steve Barclay
I join my hon. Friend in marking International Women’s Day yesterday, and he raises a very important issue. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Budget last week committed a further £90 million of funding; that, of course, builds on the £125 million announced at the spending review and indeed the earlier £25 million that had also been provided, recognising the 65% increase in calls to the national domestic abuse hotline and the renewed focus within Government on this important issue.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Charities across these islands have done amazing work through the pandemic, so with the Finance Bill coming up will the Treasury reward the efforts of these charities and encourage the public to donate by temporarily increasing the rate of gift aid from 20% to 25% and expanding the small donations scheme to make gift aid much easier to claim?
Steve Barclay
I join the hon. Lady in recognising the huge contribution that charities have made. In respect of specific tax measures, obviously they were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget last week, but I remind the hon. Lady of the £750 million of dedicated funding that has been provided to date in recognition of that important work.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Once in every Parliament, the National Infrastructure Commission publishes a national infrastructure assessment. The first assessment was launched in July 2018, and the commission operates UK-wide.
Geraint Davies [V]
Wales has 5% of the population but it has had only 2% of the railway enhancement investment over decades, and it has the lowest household income. Given that HS2 will not pass through Wales, will the Minister and the Treasury look very carefully at providing a high-speed rail link between Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea and beyond—over 3 million people live there—in line with the Burns review, to help the agenda for levelling up and connecting the Union, and to give us our fair share of rail investment based on need?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, he will be aware that the benefits of HS2 are not, by any means, just restricted to the cities that are on its route; it is a national project of significance. More widely, Wales has done very well in the last Budget, if I might remind him more generally, with accelerated funding for the Swansea bay, north Wales and mid-Wales city growth deals, money for the hydrogen hub and, of course, £30 million towards the global centre of rail excellence in Neath Port Talbot. What I would say, though, is that of course we do now have a UK infrastructure bank, which will be looking at issues of infrastructure across the country, including in the devolved Administrations.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government are providing over £407 billion-worth of support for the UK economy over this year and next. Contained within that is considerable support for business, through discounted loans, cash grants, VAT reductions and tax deferrals, all designed to help business get through this crisis and protect as many jobs as possible.
Tom Hunt
I very much welcome the £25 million that Ipswich will be getting through a town deal, and the creation of Freeport East. Some 6,000 of my constituents are employed, directly or indirectly, through the port of Felixstowe. The town deal will create a new tech campus and a maritime skills academy to feed jobs—high-skilled jobs—in the area. Therefore, does the Chancellor agree that both the town deal money and the new freeport, together, will be vital to the creation of new local skills in Ipswich and therefore crucial to supporting local business at this difficult time?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I congratulate him; he has long campaigned on the importance of a town deal for his local community and, indeed, a freeport. I am delighted that this Budget could deliver both of those for his constituents and I agree with him that it will deliver growth, jobs and prosperity to his local area.
Laura Trott [V]
I thank the Chancellor for his earlier response. The measures in the Budget provided a lifeline to high streets in my constituency, from Westerham to Swanley. In particular, the restart grants are much anticipated. Can the Chancellor confirm when local authorities will be able to begin distributing these vital grants?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must get support to businesses as quickly as possible. I am pleased to confirm to her that guidance will be published, hopefully by the end of this week, for local authorities, and that the restart grants, which are designed to take the place of our grant scheme that runs out at the end of April, will be distributed to local authorities in the first full week—the week commencing 5 April. I hope that is a reassurance to her and her businesses, and that local authorities can get the cash to them at this vital time.
Greg Smith
The scale of support for businesses has been truly outstanding, but may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the coach industry? Pre-pandemic, it already found itself heavily indebted because of requirements that the state put on it, such as the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 and Euro 6 requirements, so will he look again at how the coach industry can be supported, given the level of debt it is already in?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on this important industry; he is right to do so. I know that he will be talking to the Department for Transport about regulations for the industry, but I can tell him that we will be providing local authorities with discretionary funding of around £425 million to sit alongside the restart grants. That money, at the discretion of local areas, can be used to support businesses such as coach businesses in their areas.
Mark Menzies [V]
I just want to take this opportunity to thank the Chancellor for the way in which he has engaged with me and other Members representing coastal communities throughout the lifetime of the pandemic. I know the extensive measures he has put in place, particularly for the hospitality sector, will make a huge difference to those businesses surviving. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to monitor and work with me to ensure that local businesses get all the support they need for their continued recovery?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend has been instrumental in providing on-the-ground information to me and my team about the particular situation facing hospitality businesses in coastal communities like his. He is an absolute champion for them and rightly so. They are an important part of his local economy and I am glad that this Budget supported them. He has my assurance that we will continue to work with him and them to get them the support that they deserve.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that £27 billion-worth of loans made under coronavirus loan schemes will never be repaid. Why is the Chancellor insisting that banks pursue that as conventional business debt, when the circumstances that gave rise to those loans are anything but conventional? Would lifting the debt burden on businesses and turning it into a contingent tax liability not help to fire up the economy, set business free and really get Britain moving again?
Rishi Sunak
What we have done is provide a scheme called Pay as You Grow to give businesses incredible flexibility and generosity in how they repay bounce back loans. Those loans at an instant can be turned automatically into 10-year loans, which reduces the monthly cash payment by almost 50%. Beyond that, there are opportunities for interest-only periods and payment holidays, all of which will support the cash flow of businesses. We also have to get a balance with the taxpayer in all of this, which is why we have taken the approach we have. I am sad that the right hon. Gentleman did not also welcome the £25 million of investment in his local community through a town deal in this Budget, which will help local businesses there as well.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The Save our Salons campaign presented to the gaps in support all-party group this morning. It remains hugely frustrated that the hair, beauty and holistic service industry has had no sector-specific support from the Chancellor, despite contributing £9.2 billion to the economy. Can the Chancellor explain why he has decided to ignore the calls from this largely female industry to chop VAT to 5%?
Rishi Sunak
With regard to VAT, I am sure the hon. Lady knows that the majority of businesses in the personal care sector are below the VAT threshold, so they do not actually pay any VAT. What we did do is include that sector in the more generous restart grants, so, depending on their rateable value, businesses in that sector, like those in hospitality, will be able to receive grants of up to £18,000.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement in the Budget of the super deduction, which will definitely have a very positive impact on investment. Of course, it will primarily do that by pulling forward what would have been future investment into a more recent time period. What measures is my right hon. Friend looking to, to ensure that that increase in corporate investment in the shorter term is continued into the medium and longer term?
Rishi Sunak
I am glad my right hon. Friend recognises the importance of the super deduction. He is right that it will bring forward investment, but I believe it will also increase the amount of investment as well, given the attractiveness of doing so. What I would point him to are a couple of other announcements in the Budget. One is a consultation to reform our research and development tax credits regime, which we hope to conduct over the course of this year to make sure of support for investment in R&D in a way that reflects current R&D practices. Secondly, our freeports agenda contains enhanced capital allowances, and structures and building allowances, which last well beyond the period of the super deduction and will serve as an incentive for capital investment in those areas for years to come.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
In July last year, the OBR forecast unemployment to peak at around just under 12%. Now, because of policy development, it has forecast a much lower peak of 6.5%. That means 1.8 million fewer people who are expected to lose their jobs. Whether it is through interventions such as the furlough scheme, we remain committed to protecting, supporting and creating jobs.
Gary Sambrook
The furlough scheme has helped to protect 11.2 million jobs across the UK, including nearly 6,000 jobs in my Birmingham, Northfield constituency, so I take this opportunity to thank the Chancellor for the extension until September. Does he agree that this will give businesses the vital breathing space needed to be able to plan as we go along the Prime Minister’s road map?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of protecting jobs. The extension of the furlough scheme on generous terms beyond the end of the road map is designed to give his local businesses and others the reassurance that they need to reopen safely and confidently. I know he will be keen to protect as many of those jobs as possible in his local area and I am delighted that this Government can support him in doing so.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
A SAGE—Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies —adviser is reported to have said:
“I thought the chancellor was in charge. He was the main person who was responsible for the second wave.”
Does the Chancellor accept that his refusal to follow the science by pitting public health against the economy led to worse outcomes for both?
Rishi Sunak
I urge the hon. Lady to be a little bit careful about what she reads in the newspaper. At all steps in this crisis, we have indeed taken the advice of our scientific advisers. Let us go back to September, which I think is what she is referring to. At that time—as she knows from the SAGE minutes herself, which are published, rather than unsourced quotes in newspapers—the evidence was finely balanced and there were many things for Ministers to consider. The consideration at that point was that the tiered system was working and deserved to be given a chance.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I have frequent discussions with the Scottish Government Finance Secretary and spoke to her ahead of the Budget last week.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
Despite furlough, high streets face devastation—first shops and now pubs, an even harder space to fill. Was the Budget not an opportunity to support what are community assets in urban as well as rural areas and where alcohol consumption is supervised and not unchecked? With supermarkets having made huge profits during lockdown, much of that through alcohol sales, is it not time to support the Social Market Foundation’s call to increase alcohol duty on off-trade to sustain the on-trade in our communities?
Steve Barclay
Many businesses across Scotland argued for the alcohol freeze, not least the Scottish whisky industry. They also argued for the fuel freeze, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered. I am also surprised, when the hon. Gentleman talks of community, that he does not even recognise the extra capacity funding that his community received in the Budget. With all these things that impact the community, clearly, the additional £1.2 billion of funding received by the Scottish Government through Barnett consequentials at the Budget will again enable the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to deliver better services in his community.
Marion Fellows [V]
The poverty Chancellor has refused to make permanent the £20 universal credit increase and apply it to legacy benefits, with 75% of those affected being disabled. If he refuses to change course, 60,000 Scots, including 20,000 children, will be left in poverty and forced to decide between heating and eating. If the Minister was in their position, what would he choose: heating or eating?
Steve Barclay
First, as was set out in analysis published with the Budget, the measures that the Government have taken have supported the poorest working households the most. Secondly, the hon. Lady also failed to mention the additional capacity funding for her community that was announced at the Budget. Thirdly, the Scottish Government requested specific powers in respect of benefits and tax, and, of course, they have the option to use those powers that they said that they wanted.
Amy Callaghan [V]
As the Minister will be aware, the £20 uplift to universal credit has been a lifeline during the pandemic. Many families in my constituency are devastated that the uplift is set to end in September. With the Scottish Government committed to tackling child poverty, including through the game-changer Scottish child payment, the UK Government-imposed cliff edge could pose a significant setback. Does the Minister agree that plunging children and families into poverty, whether it is now or in September, is a callous act, and will he commit to a permanent uplift to universal credit?
Steve Barclay
We have managed to get a hat trick, because the hon. Lady also received capacity funding for her own area at the Budget but chose not to mention that funding, which will help the families she referred to. It is also slightly odd for her to talk about plunging into something when the Chancellor has announced an extension. Coupled with that, and the UK-wide measures that were set out at the Budget—including measures such as freezing fuel duty, which will help many families in her own constituency—there was an additional £1.2 billion of funding for the Scottish Government and the powers to which I referred in my previous answer. Therefore, many families have been helped, including 480,000 existing claimants in Scotland as well as new claimants, and the families helped through the £500 one- off payment that was announced at the Budget. There was a strong package of support for Scotland, none of which she chose to mention in her question.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Improving transport connectivity across the UK is central to the Government’s levelling up agenda, and local residents across the UK will benefit from upgrades to infrastructure that improve everyday life as a result of the launch of the £4.8 billion levelling up fund. The Government have also maintained their commitment to already announced transport investment through the transforming cities fund and the roads investment strategy, and Budget 2021 confirmed capacity funding allocations for the £4.2 billion of intra-city transport settlements, so that the city regions receiving settlements can develop investment-ready transport plans to deliver on local priorities.
Robert Largan [V]
Politicians of all parties have been promising to build the Mottram bypass for more than 50 years. I am really pleased that Highways England and Balfour Beatty recently signed a contract to build the bypass, and a formal consultation has now been carried out on the detailed proposals, meaning that we are closer than we have ever been before to finally getting it built. Can the Minister assure me that the Government remain committed to building the bypass as soon as possible? The people of Glossop and Hadfield have waited long enough.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has been a vociferous supporter of this scheme and I can happily confirm that the Government remain committed to upgrading the A57 so as to improve connectivity between Manchester and Sheffield. The development consent order is on track to be submitted shortly and construction is expected to start in early 2023.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
Investing in improved transport infrastructure is well recognised by this Government as a necessity for turbocharging our economy and levelling up. Beautiful Hastings and Rye has some of the most antiquated road and rail infrastructure in the country, which discourages new businesses from locating there and inhibits economic growth. Network Rail is currently finalising a strategic business case for HS1. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that funding will be available to finance such a vital project?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend will be aware that the strategic outline business case for the Kent and East Sussex coastal connectivity scheme includes proposals to extend HS1 services from Ashford International to Hastings and Rye. It is currently being taken forward by Network Rail and is due to be submitted to the Department for Transport in April 2021. It will then be reviewed by the Department and by stakeholders in Kent and East Sussex County Councils.
Simon Jupp [V]
Improving road and rail connections across all four nations of the UK will improve the quality of life for our communities and I am really looking forward to seeing the Hendy review this summer. However, there is no doubt that it will take the aviation sector longer than most to recover from the crisis. Taxes, including air passenger duty, need urgent reform to help the industry to get back on its feet. What plans does the Treasury have to remove the double charging of domestic air passenger duty, a call backed by regional airports including Exeter in my constituency and Newquay, which particularly rely on domestic flights to all corners of the United Kingdom?
Jesse Norman
The Treasury is committed to consulting on aviation tax reform. As part of that, we will consider the APD treatment of domestic flights. Unfortunately, the consultation has been delayed in recognition of the rather challenging circumstances that the aviation industry is currently facing, but we will update the House on this in due course.
Alexander Stafford [V]
Car ownership in Maltby in Rother Valley is lower than the national average and buses provide a vital lifeline. However, our services are severely lacking. You cannot get a direct bus between Maltby, my largest town, and Dinnington, my second largest town and, if you do take public transport, that five-mile journey takes almost an hour. What fiscal steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that communities in Rother Valley are linked up, so that those without cars have the same opportunities to be economically active, to get to and from jobs and even to go shopping as those with cars?
Jesse Norman
It is no secret that bus services are close to the Prime Minister’s heart. The Government have committed to improving bus services and since the start of the pandemic have supported operators with more than £1 billion of funding, as well as with £120 million at the spending review for the delivery of new zero emission buses. The national bus strategy is due to be published soon and will start to set out this wider ambition. I am also pleased to note that Budget 2020 allocated £166 million to the Sheffield city region from the transforming cities fund to support local transport investment, including bus infrastructure.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
To deliver transport connectivity in every part of the United Kingdom, we need long-term investment in infrastructure but, staggeringly, the OBR analysis reveals that the Chancellor has cut capital investment plans by half a billion pounds since last March. The Budget also made no mention of Northern Powerhouse Rail and slashed the Transport for the North budget by 40%. Can the Minister explain why the reality of the Budget on infrastructure investment is so far from this Government’s rhetoric?
Jesse Norman
I do not recognise the figures the hon. Lady has used at all. The facts are that this Government published the “National Infrastructure Strategy” in November, which set out plans for £300 billion-worth of public investment over the next few years, as well as supporting £300 billion of private investment. Since then, the Chancellor has announced the new UK infrastructure bank, which will further support the development of infrastructure and levelling up, and the development of our green infrastructure across the UK.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Chancellor regularly engages with his international partners in the G7, G20 and the Paris Club on debt issues, including private sector participation in debt restructurings, and Treasury officials are also engaging with the private sector on this issue.
Mary Kelly Foy [V]
As the Government slash international aid, covid-19 could push up to 150 million people globally into extreme poverty, yet many banks and asset managers operating in the UK, including HSBC, BlackRock and J.P. Morgan, continue to demand debt repayments from developing countries, leaving them with less money to respond to covid-19. Will the Government urgently introduce new legislation to prevent developing countries from being sued in UK courts by banks, asset managers and vulture funds if they are unable to pay their debts as a result of the pandemic?
John Glen
I note the hon. Lady’s long-standing interest in this subject, but I want to state clearly that the Government support the role of the low-income developing countries to be supported by the UK’s G7 presidency. We have made clear our expectation that the private sector and the firms she mentioned will offer debt treatment on at least as favourable terms as the official sector, under the common framework, as agreed by the G20 last November.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
In order to support people through the next stages of the pandemic, the Government have extended both the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme through to September, which will help millions of people up and down the country.
Stephen Doughty [V]
I thank the Chancellor for his answer. The Welsh Labour Government this week announced a further £30 million to support hospitality and tourism, and freelancers working in our creative sectors are going to get a further round of support worth £8.9 million—this is targeting support to fill gaps left by the Chancellor. I accept that many people have had welcome support, but huge numbers of people are coming up to a year of little or no support because they have been excluded from UK Government support over the past year. What will the Chancellor do for all those excluded, left out and left behind the curve over the past year?
Rishi Sunak
I am glad the Welsh Government will receive more than £740 million in Barnett consequentials as a result of this Budget, which works for the whole United Kingdom. With regard to the self-employment scheme, what I can say is that we are now able to bring in those people who filed tax returns for the first time in the tax year 2019-20. That was something that many colleagues asked for. I am pleased that we were able to deliver that now that the tax deadline has passed, and it means that more than 600,000 more people will be able to benefit from this world-leading support for the self-employed.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government have announced that the self-employment income support scheme will continue until September, with a fourth and a fifth grant. This provides certainty to business as the economy reopens and it means that the self-employment income support scheme continues to be one of the most generous covid-19 support schemes for self-employment income around the world.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
That is welcome for those who qualify for it, but a year ago it was the Chancellor who said that he would do “whatever it takes” to protect people. There are still millions of self-employed people without any support since this crisis started and they will not forget that either. It is untenable. Why will Ministers not finally act and do whatever it takes to ensure that this important sector of the economy also has the chance to succeed post the pandemic?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, we have put in place £407 billion-worth of support across the whole of the pandemic, which is an astonishing level of support for a very wide range of businesses and people across the country. In relation to the self-employed, he may not be aware, but I have bent over backwards to engage with different groups of the self-employed. Repeatedly, across different meetings, we have looked with the greatest care at the proposals that they have put forward to bring in people who may not be able to qualify at the moment. As the Chancellor mentioned, 600,000 people previously ineligible may now be eligible, including those newly self-employed in 2019-20.
Yasmin Qureshi [V]
The Government may well throw these figures about, but we know that 3.8 million self-employed people have had no financial support throughout this whole pandemic. Freelancers, small companies and other people across Bolton and this country want the Chancellor to recognise the fact that his continued silence is just not good enough.
Jesse Norman
In mentioning Bolton, the hon. Lady somehow neglected to mention the £22.9 million-worth of towns funding that Bolton has recently received. I thought that she might kick off with that. The answer that I gave was perfectly clear about the matter: we are bending over backwards to support people. We have leant into this issue as hard as we can and we will continue to do so.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
As the Chancellor reaffirmed at the Budget, the Government are increasing the national living wage by 2.2% from £8.72 to £8.91, an above-inflation pay rise. The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024 provided that economic conditions allow. The Treasury will continue to work closely with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we reach this target.
Mr Baron [V]
In welcoming the Government’s generous economic support packages and the increase in the national living wage, may I just ask the Minister to consider further increasing it ahead of inflation in the years ahead to help achieve our one nation agenda and ensure that work pays? I suggest that, combined with an effective and controlled immigration policy, that will also encourage businesses to invest in their workforce and in research and development generally, which will help to improve productivity.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He should know that the Government remain committed to ensuring that work pays and to helping to end low pay. As he knows, investment to raise productivity is vital for long-term sustainable growth in wages. I am sure that his request is one that we will consider, as always, in future Budgets. Taxes and minimum wages are always under review, but this Government are absolutely focused on levelling up. We have set out our plan to build back better, which will drive economic growth that levels up the whole of the UK through significant investment in infrastructure as well as skills and innovation.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Taking into account all the measures announced since last March, this Government are providing more than £400 billion of direct fiscal support to the economy over this year and next. That will rank as one of the most comprehensive and generous responses of any country anywhere in the world.
David Simmonds [V]
[Inaudible]—and the further support announced for businesses. The extension of the VAT and the business rates holiday, alongside the restart grants, are particularly welcome for businesses in my constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, especially on our high streets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these steps will support our short-term economic recovery, and ensure that businesses have the breathing space to protect jobs as they begin to bounce back?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our priority economically is to protect, support and create as many jobs as possible, and the support that we have provided to businesses will help to do that. My hon. Friend talks about breathing space; he is right to say that measures to improve businesses’ cash flow in the short term will help give them the breathing space they need to drive our recovery as they begin to reopen in the coming months.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Last week I presented to the House a Budget to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people, confirming more than £400 billion of support over this year and next, ranking as one of the most comprehensive responses of any country anywhere in the world. We also set out a fair and honest plan to begin fixing our public finances while also starting the work of building our future economy.
Stephen Timms [V]
How are the crucial EU negotiations on the memorandum of understanding on financial services progressing? Given its importance to the UK economy—by comparison, for example, with fishing—why was it not included in the overall deal?
Rishi Sunak
I cannot comment on ongoing negotiations; we remain committed to a constructive dialogue with our European partners regarding the memorandum of understanding, and I can confirm that those discussions are under way. With regard to financial services, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman saw the announcement of our listings review. I thank Jonathan Hill for his excellent work. We will take forward those reforms together with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that the UK remains one of the most attractive places anywhere in the world for companies to raise the finance they need to empower their future growth.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend has raised this industry with me multiple times, and he is right to do so. Although some food and drink wholesalers have been significantly impacted, others—for example, those that predominately serve the public sector—have not been, so I do not think it would be fair to provide blanket support. He talked about a postcode lottery. The other side of that coin is empowering local government and local decision making, and I believe that is the right approach. We have announced £425 million of additional discretionary support to local authorities, but I am sure that his raising the issue in the House in this way will give his local council and others the steer they need to direct support to this important industry.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2017 the Chancellor asked a Member of this House whether Labour’s proposed increase in corporation tax
“would make it more or less likely that international investors would want to invest here in the UK?”—[Official Report, 12 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 218WH.]
What’s the answer, Chancellor?
Rishi Sunak
I am delighted that the hon. Lady is raising the topic of corporation tax at this Budget. I feel that we have had various different versions of the Labour party policy on this topic over the past couple of weeks. What I can say is that we are honest with the British people about the challenges facing our public finances, and we have set out a fair and honest way to address those challenges. This will remain one of the most internationally competitive places anywhere in the world to invest, to grow a business and to create jobs, and this Government will always deliver on that promise.
Anneliese Dodds
Last week, the Chancellor said he wanted to “level with” the public. He mentioned a moment ago that he wanted to take an honest approach. Well, the head of the NHS just confirmed that he budgeted for the 2.1% pay rise that nurses expected, so we need a straight answer now from the Chancellor: why do the Conservatives believe that our nurses are worth less now than they were before the pandemic?
Rishi Sunak
I pay tribute to all those working on the frontline of our NHS and other public services. They are doing a fantastic job, and that is why this Government have supported the NHS with tens of billions of pounds of extra funding through this pandemic and will continue to do so. With regard to public sector pay, we set out a policy in November, but, given the situation, we were taking a more targeted approach to public sector pay to balance fairness and to protect as many jobs as possible. The hon. Lady will know that the NHS was exempted from that policy and NHS workers will receive a pay rise next year.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue, as he has done with me several times on behalf of his local businesses. He is right that we are reviewing business rates. We are in the midst of that process. The next stage will be to publish all the consultation responses that we have received, which will happen shortly, and we will take forward the policy process over the course of this year. We outlined many options for potential reforms in the paper. I look forward to receiving from him some ideas on what the reforms might be. In the short term, we are providing a £6 billion tax cut in business rates, delivering a 75% discount on business rates for the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses as they emerge from this pandemic.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Rishi Sunak
This Government are committed to record amounts of investment in infrastructure, both road and rail, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary earlier. The Budget announced upgrades for several stations in and around the midlands after representations that we heard from the fantastic Mayor, Andy Street, about the needs of his area. We remain committed to publishing the integrated rail plan in due course.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
What a fantastically niche question from my hon. Friend, and how delighted I am to be able to answer it. He will know that scoring is a matter for the OBR. As the Budget policy costings in the Budget 2021 document set out, the costing for corporation tax has been adjusted to reflect behavioural responses to an increase in the rate of corporation tax. It is important to be clear that dynamic scoring can include a number of potential behavioural responses, such as adjustments to reflect the impact on the incentive to incorporate, on profit shifting, and on investment. If he is so minded, he can find further detail on page 196 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss that matter in more detail. As he will recognise, one of the features of the Budget was the number of UK-wide measures, but at the same time he is quite right to point to the additional £2.4 billion of Barnett consequential funding that was allocated to the devolved Administrations, which has enabled them to apply further support as a result of the fiscal strength that is offered by the UK Treasury. I am of course happy to discuss the specific point with him in more detail.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Foreign Secretary is continuing to look very carefully at the legislative requirements and will set out further detail in due course on how the Government intend to proceed.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The hon. Gentleman will know we are carrying out an alcohol duty review that will look at all these decisions in the round, and I am very happy to speak to him in more detail specifically about any particular schemes or requests that he has.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) [V]
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are supporting these businesses through new restart grants—a one-off cash grant of up to £6,000 per business premises for non-essential retailers in England—and up to £18,000 for hospitality and leisure businesses. They will also benefit from a five-month extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme, a further 12 months’ relief from business rates and a new UK-wide recovery loan scheme. Tony’s Deli, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and other businesses serving hot food can also enjoy a 12-month VAT cut at 5% until the end of September, and at 12.5% until the end of March.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
Rishi Sunak
A majority of those working in the public sector will see an increase in their pay this forthcoming year as a result of our pay policy. Importantly, those earning less than the median UK salary will receive a £250 increase in their pay, because we want to protect those on the lowest incomes. Even at a difficult time, that is what this Government are committed to doing.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
We are committed to improving skills in the economy and levelling up productivity across England. That will be achieved through our lifetime skills guarantee and further reforms, which will create jobs and opportunity across the country, supporting us to build back better from the coronavirus pandemic. We will provide further detail and a full conclusion to the review of post-18 education and funding at the next comprehensive spending review. I thank my hon. Friend and the Open University for their engagement on this so far.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
Steve Barclay
With respect, the hon. Lady is simply wrong on the facts with her question. Under the Agenda for Change three-year award, the average increase this year was 2.5%, not the figure she alluded to. But of course, the Government have asked the pay review body to consider a number of factors and, as is normal practice, the Department of Health and Social Care has set out what is affordable within its budgets.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
Freeports will be national hubs for international trade, innovation and commerce and they will regenerate communities across the UK. The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government led a fair, open and transparent selection process to determine successful freeport locations in England. Unfortunately, as with any competitive process, there will always be those that are unsuccessful, and I am afraid there are no plans to designate other freeports in England. Freeports are part of a wider package of UK Government support, which invests in skills, infrastructure and innovation at local, regional and national levels. As part of that package, Blyth was awarded £11 million through the future high streets fund in December and is also one of 101 towns eligible for up to £25 million funding from the towns fund.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
John Glen
The Government are committed to encouraging business investment in Doncaster and its surrounding area, and at the Budget we confirmed £23 million funding for Goldthorpe’s town deal—just due west of the town—and that will boost economic growth and encourage business investment in the area. MHCLG is currently assessing the remaining 49 towns fund bids, including those from Doncaster and Stainforth; we will make further announcements on those in due course.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Covid-19: Government’s Publication of Contracts
(3 years, 1 month 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
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will make a statement on the recent court order regarding the Government’s publication of contracts during the covid-19 pandemic.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Although I am not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I hope the hon. Lady will none the less allow me to respond to her urgent question.
The first duty of any Government in a crisis is protecting their citizens, so our work to provide personal protective equipment was a critical part of our response. It was a herculean effort that involved setting up a new logistics network from scratch and expanding our PPE supply chain from 226 NHS trusts in England to more than 58,000 different settings. Our team has been working night and day on this vital national effort, and I can update the House that we have now delivered more than 8.8 billion items of PPE to those who need it. That work was taking place at a time when global demand was greater than ever before and rapid action was required, so we had to work at an unprecedented pace to get supplies to our frontline and the public.
Two weeks ago, in response to an urgent question from the hon. Lady, I updated the House on the initial High Court ruling. I will not set out that judgment at length once again, save to say that the case looked not at the awarding of the contracts, but rather at the delays in publishing the details of them as we responded to one of the greatest threats to public health that this country has ever seen. The hon. Lady’s question refers to a short declaratory judgment handed down subsequent to the original judgment in this matter, which makes a formal order as to the Government’s compliance with the relevant regulatory rules.
As before, I reiterate that we of course take the judgment of the Court very seriously and respect it. We have always been clear that transparency is vital, and the Court itself has found that there was no deliberate policy to delay publication. The fight against covid-19 is ongoing. As would be expected, we are agreeing new contracts as part of that fight all the time, and we will keep publishing details of them as we move forward.
I care passionately about transparency, and so does everyone in my Department. We will of course continue to look at how we can improve our response while we tackle one of the greatest threats to our public health that this nation has ever seen.
Rachel Reeves
This question and the answers to it really matter because our frontline workers were not adequately protected with the high-quality PPE that they needed during the pandemic. They matter because it is essential that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and fairly, not handed out to those who happen to have close links with the party of government.
The Government ran down the PPE stockpile ahead of the pandemic, and that came back to haunt us when we needed it most. Contracts were handed out—many to friends of and donors linked to the Conservative party —without any transparency. The Good Law Project took the Government to court, and on 19 February the High Court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully, saying:
“The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the…contracts were awarded.”
Three days later, in this House, the Prime Minister said that
“the contracts are there on the record for everybody to see”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]
But they are not. A judge confirmed through a court order last Friday that 100 contracts are still to be published. Will the Minister now take this opportunity to apologise for that statement and to put the record straight? Will the Government now finally agree to publish all 100 outstanding contracts by the end of this week?
For contracts that have failed, will the Minister tell us how much money has been and will be clawed back for taxpayers? Can he tell us which businesses were in the VIP fast lane for getting Government contracts and how they got there? Finally, can he honestly tell our brilliant NHS nurses, now facing a pay cut, that the Government have not wasted a single penny of their money on this curious incident of the missing contracts?
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Lady once again at the Dispatch Box—two weeks after we were last here. I will do my best to answer the questions she raised, not just for my own Department, but more broadly across Government.
The hon. Lady raised a number of points. She is absolutely right to say that transparency matters, because transparency of procurement and transparency in Government is one of the foundations of the trust that is so vital to our democracy. That is why we are working flat out to ensure that, as new contracts are awarded, the contract award notices and other relevant pieces of information are published in line with the requirements of regulations.
What is most important, though, is to recognise the situation that we faced last year, with rising infection rates, rising hospitalisation rates and the need to do everything we could—to “strain every sinew”, to quote one of the hon. Lady’s letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time—to make sure we got those working flat out on the frontline what they needed to keep them safe. I pay tribute to the officials in my Department, who did exactly that: they focused on getting what was needed in bulk in an incredibly challenging global market, to make sure that PPE did not run out.
The hon. Lady quite rightly quoted the judgment, and I will quote paragraph 149 of the judgment—the original judgment, not the supplementary judgment. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, stated that
“the overall picture shows the Secretary of State moving close to complete compliance. The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”
I think that recognises the efforts that have been put in place to ensure that we meet our transparency requirements. One hundred per cent. of the Department’s CANs—contract aware notices—have been published.
The hon. Member asked a particular question in referring to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s comments on 22 February—I hope I am correct in surmising that. My right hon. Friend was responding to a question around the failure to publish the details of specific contracts that are subject to judicial reviews. I am advised that, at the time of his statement, the details for all the contracts under scrutiny were published.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I think that the Government’s following robust procurement measures is absolutely critical, but clearly a year ago we were not in normal circumstances; most reasonable people would accept that desperate times called for desperate measures. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now following all normal, standard procurement processes? Will he confirm what percentage of the contracts from a year ago have been fully published and when the remainder will be published?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend highlights the situation we faced at the time. He also, quite rightly, highlights the importance of transparency and complying with all transparency processes. The Government invoked regulation 32, which recognised the exceptional circumstances that allowed for procurement without the usual tendering process. I believe that the usual tendering process could take, at a minimum, 25 days. My hon. Friend recalls the situation at the time. The Government did what we felt was right to ensure that we got the PPE that our frontline needed. The court case also found that there was no policy to deprioritise compliance with transparency regulations. I give him the assurance he seeks: the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that we fully comply with those regulations going forward.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
Some 94% of contracts awarded before 7 October were, unlawfully, not published in time and, as of late last week, 100 are still not published. Some 58% were awarded without a competitive tendering process. There are conflicts of interest, inadequate documentation, a high-priority crony lane and then the Prime Minister announcing that all of the contracts were,
“on the record for everybody to see”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 631.]
When he said that, it was simply not correct. Is the Minister not concerned that this failure in transparency, the potential conflicts of interest and a Prime Minister who does not even appear to know what is going on, simply feeds a perception of a Government doing profitable deals with friends and cronies, rather than delivering meaningful transparency that will drive value for money for the taxpayer?
Edward Argar
The right hon. Gentleman highlights quite accurately the 94%, which was cited in the subsequent judgment and the order that flowed from it, of the contracts that were late in publication. We accept that that is a statement of fact. The Department has published 100% of the CANs that it is obliged to publish that are related to this matter. He talked about a percentage that were procured without following a normal competitive tendering process—I think he referred to 58% as the percentage that were procured. That is entirely appropriate under regulation 32, recognising the situation we faced at the time and the priority of this Government to make sure that, at pace, we got the PPE that our frontline needed to keep it safe.
On his final two points, I do not see in the judgments in this case or in any of the other scrutiny of this issue by Committees of this House or other organisations anything that asserts or finds that inappropriate conflicts of interest influenced how these contracts were awarded. I am proud to serve in a Government led by a Prime Minister who leads from the front and has done whatever is necessary to make sure this country gets through this pandemic.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
This time last year, there was a desperate need to secure PPE urgently when, almost overnight, it became one of the most hotly sought-after commodities globally. I congratulate the Department on its Herculean efforts to keep my residents safe and get them the PPE they needed when the shortage hit. Of course, delays to publication are not ideal, and I am glad that the Department is urgently trying to resolve that. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the review into the pandemic, we need to look at how procurement procedures can be improved when responding to a national crisis or, indeed, future pandemics?
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue; he is a strong and vocal champion for the NHS and those who work in it. The context he sets is absolutely right. I will quote from the summary of the NAO report without making a value judgment on it. It highlighted in paragraph 2:
“Demand for PPE rocketed in England from March…There was also a surge in demand in other countries. At the same time, the global supply of PPE declined as a result of a fall in exports from China (the country that manufactures the most PPE) in February.”
That is a statement of fact, and it highlights the context in which we were operating.
My hon. Friend is right: all Governments should rightly look at what they have done and what lessons they can learn, to ensure that they are well prepared for future events.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
On 22 February, the Prime Minister answered my question about unpublished covid contracts by claiming:
“As for the contracts…all the details are on the record”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 634.]
Two days later, when the Minister was dragged to the Chamber, he did not tell us about the 100 contracts that were still not on the record. We had to wait for the High Court to reveal that last Friday. Are we expected to believe that the Prime Minister had not sought any briefing after the High Court found that his Secretary of State had acted unlawfully? If he sought no facts, why did he give such a categorical yet wildly inaccurate reply, and why was that inaccurate reply not corrected two days later by the Minister?
Edward Argar
At the point in time to which the hon. Lady is referring—22 February, when she asked the Prime Minister her question—I understand that we had published 100% of our contract award notices for contracts of the Department that were subject to the Court case, and I believe the Prime Minister spoke accurately.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), does he agree with my constituents and I that, during a national emergency, the British people want a Government who focus resources on saving lives over prioritising red tape?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes on behalf of his constituents. The overwhelming priority was to ensure that we got the PPE in the quantities we needed to our frontline, and we procured that in an incredibly challenging environment. I pay tribute to all the officials who worked flat out to do that. The Court judgment found that there was no policy of deprioritisation of meeting transparency requirements, but it also found as a matter of fact, which is clear in the judgment, that that bar was not met. That is something we have worked very hard on subsequently and continue to do so, to ensure that transparency requirements are met.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It feels a bit like groundhog day. Once again, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has overall responsibility for procurement, is missing in action, and the Health Minister has come to the House to talk about how breathlessly urgent it all was at the beginning of the pandemic—I do not disagree with that, but it is not an excuse for not publishing these contracts in time. With contracts worth more than £10 billion awarded without tendering action between the beginning of the pandemic and July, seeing that paperwork urgently is more important, not less. If the paperwork is still not being published in time—and this goes back to the problems we discussed two weeks ago—can the Minister not just apologise and give a firm commitment that from now on, every contract will be published in time? It is either insouciance or incompetence that they were not published in the first place.
Edward Argar
I have known the hon. Lady since I came to this House, so I will not take it personally if she suggests that, as I am not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the import of my answers is in some way diminished. I will endeavour to answer her specific questions. As I made clear, we have published 100% of the CANs that give the information on the contracts awarded—in the context of this case, the contracts awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care.
However, the hon. Lady asked a very fair question at the end about the future, and I can give her the reassurance that this Department is doing everything possible to ensure that it meets those transparency requirements. Officials are aware of them and officials are reminded of them. I recognise the vital importance of transparency, not least for building trust, which she mentioned last time in her question, but in allowing her, the NAO and other Members of this House to do their job, quite rightly, in scrutinising and challenging those contracts and Government decisions, where appropriate.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am quite sure that Ministers want these contracts published, and I look forward to the remaining publications. Will the Minister confirm that in the emergency phase, when it was just desperate to get hold of PPE, all those contracts were negotiated and vetted by independent professional civil servants, and it was not a case of friends of Ministers?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am happy to say he is absolutely right. He has a lot of experience in government and in this space. All those contracts and all assessments of contracts, whichever route they came via, went through the eight-stage process of assessment by independent civil servants who know commerce and know procurement. I would not for a moment cast aspersions on their judgment, and Ministers did not determine which contracts were or were not awarded in that context.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
Given the number of fast-track VIP covid contracts that have resulted in unusable protective equipment, will the Minister commit to recovering public money from the companies that did not meet their contractual obligations? Does he agree that those hundreds of millions of pounds might have been better spent on a decent pay rise for the NHS workforce?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes an important point about contracts that either failed to deliver or where PPE, for example, did not meet the required standards. I can reassure her that we are undertaking a stocktake—an audit—of exactly that, and we are already pursuing a number of cases where, if PPE was either not to the required standard or was not delivered, we will recoup the money from that.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
The Court’s judgment focused solely on the publication of contract notices. It did not make any judgment on the contracting process or on any of the individual processes in any way. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are wrong to play politics and to misrepresent the Court’s opinion in this way?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend highlights something important, which is what the Court actually did and did not consider. It considered, quite rightly, whether the Government met the simple binary of publishing the notices within the required timeframe, and found that they did not. It did, however, find against the claimants and in favour of the Government that there was no policy of deprioritising transparency and publication requirements. As he says, the Court did not make any judgment on the appropriateness of the awards or the process followed for those awards.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know the Minister to be a person of integrity and openness; indeed, this is an opportunity for the Government to show that.. Would the Minister once again outline the intention for timely competition in line with the comprehensive judicial review judgment? Does the Minister have any update on any moneys that the Government have been able to recoup from contracts for things that were unusable or incorrect?
Edward Argar
I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance I have given to other hon. Members. We recognise entirely the importance of transparency. We will comply fully with the Court judgment—the Court order—and, going forward, we will comply with the requirements on transparency. To his specific point, I have alluded to the stocktake—the audit—that we are doing to make sure that if anything was not delivered or was faulty, we can recoup the money for it. I would say more broadly that the Department has cancelled or curtailed contracts up to the value of around £400 million so far—I believe that was in the evidence given by the second permanent secretary at the Department to the Public Accounts Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—and I hasten to add that cancellation of those contracts has occurred for a multitude of reasons not necessarily representative of faulty or inadequate PPE. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) an indication of the work the Government are doing to ensure value for money.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
Is it not important to remember that over the course of this pandemic we have created the largest diagnostic network in British history, delivering around 90 million tests and contacting over 9 million people who would otherwise have spread the virus? Does my hon. Friend agree that our ability to set up this network is a testament to the hard work and dedication of our frontline health and care workers?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this amazing achievement. It reflects on the phenomenal effort of our frontline health and care workers, but also more broadly on the partnership we have seen at work in this country over the past year between the public sector, the private sector, the voluntary and charitable sector and ordinary members of the public all working together in a joint effort to beat this disease. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
As much as I have a high personal regard for the Minister, he is incorrect in his remarks. The High Court ruling last Friday made it absolutely clear that at the time of the Prime Minister’s response to hon. and right hon. Members in this House last month 100 contracts had not been published; they were outstanding. Whether intentional or not, the Prime Minister—[Inaudible]—was factually untrue; he needs to come to this place with a full apology, as warranted by the ministerial code.
Edward Argar
I lost a few words of the hon. Lady’s question, but I think I know what she was asking about in respect of the Prime Minister’s remarks on 22 February. May I start by saying that her kind words at the start of her contribution are reciprocated? I have known her since I came to this House and I have the highest regard for her as well; so I am grateful for her kind words.
In terms of the specifics the hon. Lady asked about in respect of the Court judgment and the Prime Minister, as I understand it on the date the Prime Minister spoke 100% of the contract awards notices—the details of the contracts are contained within them—were published, and that, I believe, is what my right hon. Friend was referring to.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Our NHS staff have made huge sacrifices during this pandemic and done all they can to support patients and their families, and now they are delivering a successful roll-out of the vaccine. Does the Minister think it is fair for millions, in some cases billions, of pounds to be spent on contracts that do not deliver but to deny those same NHS staff the decent pay rise they need and deserve?
Edward Argar
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She is right to highlight the amazing work being done in the roll-out of the vaccine by our frontline health and social care workers, and indeed many others, and I join her in paying tribute to them. What is important is that we worked flat out, as did senior officials, to make sure that the NHS and the frontline got what they needed last year: PPE to help keep them safe. I have to say to the hon. Lady that I hear the point she makes, but I make no apology for the efforts made by the Government to get the PPE in the quantities needed to keep our front- line safe.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
The British people want us to focus on fighting this virus so we can protect our NHS as we roll out the vaccine and save lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the political sniping the Opposition are engaging in is the exact opposite of what people expect and want to see politicians doing?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who alludes to the fact that our constituents and the wider public want to see all of us in this House and in Government doing everything we can to ensure, as in the context of last year’s procurement of PPE at the height of the pandemic, that the frontline gets what it needs to keep it safe. Transparency is of course hugely important, but this is not an either/or, and the focus had to be on getting that PPE to frontline. My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely right.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
I believe in restorative justice, which requires the offender—that is the Government—to accept responsibility for the harm it has caused to the principles of contractual openness and transparency. Can the Minister therefore advise the House whether the Government—the offender in this case—accept responsibility for the judgment handed down by a court of law?
Edward Argar
I have been clear, both today and, indeed, when I came to the House two weeks ago, that the Government fully accept and respect the judgment of the court.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I recognise that the Government have had to take urgent decisions when it comes to some of these contracts, especially when securing PPE at the height of the pandemic, but will the Minister ensure that any new UK health contracts are not agreed or signed unless the business concerned employs a significant amount of apprentices—preferably higher than the public sector target of 2.3%—as part of its workforce?
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for that question. I started out in Government as his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was the apprenticeships Minister, and that is something that he has taken a huge and passionate interest in throughout his time in the House. I am sure that colleagues in the Cabinet Office responsible for Government procurement across the piece will be very happy to have a conversation with him about the point that he has just made as to how greater use of apprenticeships can be baked into procurement decisions.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Initially, the Welsh Government anticipated a UK-wide approach to buying PPE; they then took responsibility for their own procurement, but they have still worked with this Government when the opportunity has arisen. Therefore, did the Secretary of State seek the agreement of the Welsh Labour Government before awarding any relevant contracts without competitive tendering or transparency, and did the Welsh Government themselves raise any concerns about the lack of competition on their own initiative?
Edward Argar
My understanding is that the procurement process for PPE, as the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights, was a UK procurement process. As he will have seen, we invoked regulation 32, recognising the speed needed to meet the demand for PPE in the frontline, and throughout this process we worked at pace to ensure that the focus was on the procurement of the PPE required. Throughout this process—throughout this pandemic—we have worked closely with the Welsh Government.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the middle of an emergency, value for money goes out of the window, and I am sure that terrible mistakes were made in the tendering process, but on the central charge that contracts were awarded to cronies, I am mystified why that should have taken place if civil servants and not Ministers took the decision. Does my hon. Friend accept that the best way to resolve these issues is to take them out of party politics and let the National Audit Office get on with its job? No doubt in time, the Public Accounts Committee will issue coruscating reports that are very wise with the benefit of hindsight.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that the decisions, as I touched on and as the PAC was told, were made following an eight-stage process run by civil servants and not Ministers. He is also right that there has been no evidence found, either by Committees of this House or the NAO, or indeed in any court cases, of any inappropriate involvement in terms of conflict of interest by Ministers. On his final point, he is absolutely right, and I know that going forward, as we always do, the Government will look to co-operate fully with the NAO in seeking to supply all and any information that it seeks, so that it can form its judgments and inform the PAC and the House of them.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Back in December, in the public interest, not just playing politics or sniping, I and other MPs highlighted cronyism and waste in the Government’s pandemic procurement. Three months on from that Westminster Hall debate, does the Minister agree that responding then, by increasing transparency reporting on those companies that won £1.7 billion-worth of contracts via the Government’s VIP fast lane and were 10 times more likely to receive a contract, would have been better than waiting to be taken to court?
Edward Argar
In respect of the appropriateness of contract awards and whether there are any conflicts of interest, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I just gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The hon. Lady talked about last December and the debate, I think, in Westminster Hall—although I could be wrong on that—where this was discussed, and I point her to the lines used by the judge in his judgment:
“The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”
At the time that she was speaking of—in December—the judge acknowledged that the Department and the Government were working at pace to meet their transparency requirements, so that was already being done.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
In the teeth of the global pandemic and facing unprecedented global demand for vital supplies, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ability to secure over 32 billion items of PPE— including many items supplied from businesses in the Calder Valley and Leeds West, all stepping up to the plate—is a testament to the hard work and ingenuity of British businesses and should be celebrated?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. He is right to highlight the amazing effort by British business and by businesses that stepped up in this country’s hour of need to repurpose their production lines and to source PPE. Indeed, I would include in that the work of my officials and officials in the Cabinet Office to make sure that it was bought and procured and that it got to the frontline. To cite one statistic that alludes to exactly what he is saying, we have moved from 1% of this country’s needed PPE being produced in this country to 70%, and that is testament to the amazing ingenuity and hard work of British business.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Minister’s Department answered a named day question that I tabled on 1 December 2020 about some of its multimillion- pound contracts with management consultants. The Government either have something to hide or they are staggeringly incompetent, so will the Minister see that I get answers to the further questions on consultants tabled on 19 January? And will the Government now support my Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, which they blocked back in 2017 and which would make private companies winning public contracts subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman made two points. On the latter, the Government will always look very carefully at anything he suggests to them. On the former, very serious point, if he is able to let me know, after this session in the House, the written parliamentary question numbers, I will endeavour to have them looked at and a response expedited for him.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Crisis situations such as the present pandemic often require action, not paper, and the ends can justify the means. Does the Minister agree that sending PPE out to users was the Government’s top priority and getting right the supporting paperwork, which can be filed later, should not jeopardise that speed of delivery?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for his question. He is absolutely right to highlight that our No. 1 priority, as I think the people of this country and Members of this House would expect, was, in the face of an unprecedented demand for PPE, that this Government did everything that they could to massively ramp up the supplies of PPE that were available and to get them to the frontline. Of course, transparency is hugely important and the court did find that there was no policy to deprioritise compliance with transparency regulations and requirements. However, he is absolutely right to highlight that the absolute priority must be to get the kit to save lives.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
It has been revealed that almost £2 billion has been handed to Conservative party friends and donors in dodgy covid contracts. That includes the likes of Steve Parkin, who has donated over £500,000 to the Conservatives. He is the chairman of Clipper Logistics, which was awarded a £1.3 million PPE contract. Another Tory donor, David Meller, has given £65,000 to the Tories over the past decade. His company, Meller Designs, was awarded PPE contracts worth over £150 million. Those people did not get rich giving their money away for nothing, so does the Minister believe that it is appropriate for the Conservative Government to hand out fortunes—public money—to Conservative party donors?
Edward Argar
I refer the hon. Lady, once again, to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I also highlight that, to the best of my recollection, no court and no Committee of this House has found any evidence of inappropriate conflicts of interest or inappropriate involvement by Ministers in the award of contracts. What I would say to her in conclusion is that what matters here is whether companies supply what is needed to standard. I pay tribute to all companies who came on board, stepped up and did what was necessary to help us get the kit we needed to protect those on the frontline.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The vast majority of people in Blackpool can understand the exceptional circumstances which led to this paperwork being submitted slightly late. How many people does my hon. Friend estimate came to direct harm because of a late submission of that paperwork, as opposed to those people who would have come to direct harm had PPE and medical supplies been delivered late?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual very forthright and clear way. The priority for this Government and for those working for them was to get the PPE needed in the quantities needed to be able to get it to the frontline to save lives. Transparency is important, of course it is. I recognise that and that is why we have worked since that time to get everything up to date in terms of transparency. But I make no apologies for the amazing effort that the Government and, most importantly, those working for them—the civil servants who did this work—put in to get the PPE in the quantities we needed.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Despite the Minister’s protestations and despite the huge amount of money that was spent, the fact is that for those working in the social care part of health and social care, the equipment did not get anywhere near the frontline anywhere like on time. I think the Minister is maybe glossing over the fact that, although supplies to the health service seemed to have been okay, supplies to the social care sector were desperately inadequate. A Public Accounts Committee report, endorsed by its members, a majority of whom are Government supporters, found that the Department had wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on equipment that was of poor quality and could not be used. We were also told by the Cabinet Office that it did not know how many contracts had essentially been approved after the work had started and how many contractors were only checked out for suitability after they had been given their contracts. Does the Minister not understand that all of that taken together creates a bad smell? Does he agree that the best way to get rid of that bad smell is to have everything published, including assessments of conflicts of interest and information that in normal circumstances might be termed or deemed to be commercially confidential? Does he not understand that confidence in public procurement by the British Government—
Edward Argar
I will endeavour to give a short answer to a long question. Two key points there. The hon. Gentleman mentions social care and he is right to do that. The focus of some of the questioning has been around the frontline in the NHS, but he is absolutely right to talk about social care. That is why we went from a supply chain where we were supplying PPE to 226 NHS trusts in England to 58,000 organisations. Historically, social care settings had procured their own PPE on the open market. We recognised the pressures on that market—price pressures and demand pressures—which was why we expanded the supply chain to ensure that 58,000 settings ended up being able to access it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, very briefly, he talks about money spent on contracts where they were either not fulfilled or did not meet the relevant quality criteria. I have already set out to the House the steps the Government are taking to review and audit those, and we will recoup money where appropriate to do so.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) [V]
Mr Speaker, do you recall photographs, back in the dark days of March, April and May last year, of nurses wearing bin liners, photographs taken in Spain, Italy and the United States? In fact, if I had not been banned from having a backdrop of Lichfield cathedral on Zoom, I could actually pop up those photographs from The New York Times. Does my hon. Friend the Minister not agree with me that the priority must be for the delivery of the PPE, and that these rather unpleasant Labour slurs actually do no good at all?
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend, and I hope it will not be too long before we see him in person in the House again. He is absolutely right to highlight the overall priority as being to get the PPE to the frontline. He highlights clearly the situation we were seeing on our televisions every day—for example, the real challenges at hospitals in Bergamo and elsewhere. That was the context at that time in Europe, and we moved heaven and earth to try to get the PPE needed in time. We did not run out of PPE in this country, but it would be fair to say that there were shortages in particular situations. These were met by the Government through the national shortage response. It was in that context that we had to do everything we possibly could, and I pay tribute to the officials who did it to procure PPE in bulk in an incredibly overheated and challenging global market.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister rightly said that transparency mattered, so when will the Government publish the full details and criteria of how businesses got into the fast lane?
Edward Argar
As I alluded to on the previous occasion I came to this House to answer questions on this matter, we set out that some contracts were put forward by Members of this House and by Members of the other place and were assessed through the fast-track priority lane, but there was no difference in the approach taken—the eight stages that all those contracts had to pass through to be awarded. They were all assessed independently by civil servants, so they all went through the same process, and those contracts that were awarded and that met the rules for the contract award notices publication will be published, and have been published, under the CAN regulations and on the website.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
At the start of the pandemic, just 1% of PPE in the UK was made here in this country. Now, 70% of it is made in the UK, which is a huge achievement. Does my hon. Friend agree that our rapid response to procuring and delivering PPE to frontline workers has been essential in keeping them and others safe? Will he work even harder to increase the percentage so that even more PPE is made in the UK, perhaps by focusing on areas with a textile heritage such as Thurcroft and Dinnington here in Rother Valley?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For our businesses to go from a capacity to produce this country’s PPE of 1% to 70% is an incredible achievement, but we must not rest on our laurels. We must continue to work with British business to allow it to continue to innovate and develop its ability to meet UK need. I pay tribute to the businesses in his constituency of Rother Valley for the work they did in helping out this country when it needed it most.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The simple truth is that businesses up and down the country feel as though they were misled by the Government. They were encouraged to get behind the PPE challenge, and they made capital investments to expand their capacity to manufacture, yet we know that Government middlemen mates were 10 times more likely than they were to win contracts. So can the Minister set out when he will publish the details of all the contracts, including when the principal businesses were established and what the duration of the contracts are?
Edward Argar
The Government will meet their legal obligations to publish contracts under regulation 50 and the requirements that that places on us for the information that needs to be published. Those that meet the criteria for a CAN—a contract award notice—under that, and that have been awarded by the Department of Health and Social Care directly, have been published. All contracts will be published—all details under CANs will be published—where that is required by the regulation, and the information specified as to what is published in a CAN notice is of a standard format. We will continue to meet that obligation.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend accept the finding of the independent National Audit Office that no health trust in the UK went without the PPE it needed, in contrast with many other countries? My constituents rightly expect transparency in procurement, but most would never want pursuing paperwork to be prioritised over providing proper protective equipment.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people of this country would expect the Government’s No. 1 priority in March, April and May of last year to have been, as it was, to move heaven and earth to get the PPE that was needed in a very challenging environment to the frontline. I think that what he was alluding to in the NAO report was paragraph 18 of the summary, which said:
“The NHS provider organisations we spoke to told us that, while they were concerned about the low stocks of PPE, they were always able to get what they needed in time.”
That is not necessarily an NAO conclusion, but it is a reflection of what it was told and cited in this report, so he is right to highlight it.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), which would require Ministers to answer questions in Parliament about any personal, political or financial connections they have to companies given government contracts, will now go forward to a Second Reading. I hope the Government will support it, as this Bill should help with the Government’s present court and publication difficulties. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that we get greater scrutiny and have stringent regulations in order to increase transparency on the issuing of Government contracts and to ensure that the right people or companies are getting those contracts during these difficult times?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have highlighted just how important I consider transparency to be. This is the second time in two weeks, rightly, that I have been answering at the Dispatch Box, so I would argue that there is scrutiny there. On her final point about that private Member’s Bill, I know that the Government will look at that Bill as they would look at any private Member’s Bill, in the usual way.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
Nurses have seen us through this crisis and they have been putting their lives on the line every day, yet the Prime Minister has offered them only a derogatory 1% pay rise but handed out billions to private companies that did not provide what was needed and to standard—I remind Members of the 400,000 substandard gowns from Turkey. Does the Minister agree that it is a kick in the teeth that this Govt have chosen to waste £37 billion by giving it to Serco for a failed track and trace system while denying our incredible nurses the pay rise they deserve?
Edward Argar
What this Government have done, and did in the context of the issues under discussion in this specific question, is recognise the huge need for PPE during the pandemic last year and take every step they could to meet that need. They secured a large number of contracts, which delivered 8.8 billion pieces of PPE to date. I think that is called delivering.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
More than 70% of PPE is now made in the UK, whereas it was less than 1% before the pandemic. When that is coupled with the expansion of more than 22,000 ventilators, we see that this Government have done an incredible job. Does my hon. Friend agree that the petty point-scoring of the Labour party is not what we need at this time of national emergency?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have set out in my answers that what I think is most important for this country is that we work together— the public, private and voluntary sectors, and the Great British public—as we did, in this context. We have pulled together and done everything we can, including, as he alludes to, building that capacity for UK businesses to meet more of our need for PPE. That is a great success for those businesses and I pay tribute to them.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister is adorable, but I am not falling for that old trick. The truth of the matter is that the Government did not even get PPE out fast enough to people who really needed it, especially in our care homes, which is why so many people died and we have the highest excess death rate of any country in the world. So I am not taking any of this nonsense about how, “We had to focus on that, which meant we could not deal with transparency.” The truth is that they set up a VIP track for some people to be able to get massive contracts, and some people enriched themselves phenomenally during this pandemic, many of whom, surprise, surprise, happen to be Conservative party donors. I have to say that it looks like corruption, and the only way the Government can wipe that slate clean is if they come clean with all the contracts. Otherwise, it just looks like a cover-up.
Edward Argar
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s first comment as a compliment, I think, from a colleague I know well. Having said that, I do not recognise his characterisation of what happened. He is right that challenges were faced not just in frontline NHS situations, but in social care. He is absolutely right to highlight that, and I alluded to it earlier, and that is why we increased the number of organisations that we were able to supply centrally from 226 to 58,000. That is why we massively ramped up the purchases of PPE and the stocks of PPE that were available to get to the frontline to ensure that staff could access what they needed to keep them safe. He mentions the assessments of the contracts and how they were awarded. I merely take him back, very gently, to the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), which is that these contracts, as set out to the Public Accounts Committee, went through an eight-stage assessment process undertaken by civil servants. I know the hon. Gentleman well, that he would not be impugning the integrity of those civil servants and that he has great respect for them. But I say very gently that there has been no evidence cited and no findings in court of any Minister in terms of conflicts of interest or having behaved inappropriately.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Throughout the pandemic, the Government, the NHS and the armed forces have focused on saving as many lives as possible, while the Labour party has focused on this sort of hindsight and political games. Saving lives meant securing as much PPE as possible as fast as possible, so can my hon. Friend confirm that all those PPE contract notices that faced a short delay in publication are now in the public domain?
Edward Argar
I can confirm that the contract award notices for the contracts here, the PPE contracts, awarded directly by the Department are now in the public domain.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Will the Minister tell us: how much was paid out under the contracts in advance of delivery; how much has actually been clawed back for services or products not delivered; and how much are the Government still to pursue in repayments?
Edward Argar
As part of the answer to her question, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In response to the rest of her question, the honest answer is that we are undertaking a stocktake and an audit. It is that which is required to assess whether any stockpiles are not fit for purpose or do not meet requirements, or to check what was and was not delivered and make sure that every order was fully fulfilled. We have been very clear that, as part of that audit, that stocktake, we will pursue with any who did not meet the requirements or did not supply the goods the recouping of that money for the public purse.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Last year, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote:
“We need Government to strain every sinew and utilise untapped resources in UK manufacturing, to deliver essential equipment to frontline workers. This must be a national effort which leaves no stone unturned.”
Can my hon. Friend say that the Government have done what she wanted and have delivered for the people of this country?
Edward Argar
I would argue that that is exactly what the Government have done. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and I do not always agree, but I agreed with her then and I agree with what she wrote then now.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Landfill Sites (Odorous Emissions)
Tuesday 9th March 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Landfill Sites (Odorous Emissions) Bill 2019-21 View all Landfill Sites (Odorous Emissions) 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
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a presumption against planning applications for new landfill sites liable to cause odorous emissions in built-up areas; to set limits for odorous emissions from landfill sites; to make provision for the payment of compensation by site operators to local residents when emissions exceed those limits; and for connected purposes.
Perhaps it would have been simpler for me to say, “That leave be given to bring in a Bill to stop the stink”, because this Bill is being introduced against the backdrop of a major ongoing environmental incident in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme that is affecting thousands of residents. It has been really bad for months, but on 26 February it became intolerable. The problem, in essence, is that the landfill in my constituency—Walley’s quarry—is once again, frankly, stinking. I am told that the Environment Agency’s hotline for reporting was completely overwhelmed by complaints, with residents unable to get through. Extra staff were brought in to deal with the number of calls. The EA logged 1,300 odour complaints in that one weekend. For context, in a typical month, it would log 1,600 such complaints across the whole country.
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council received more than 2,000 individual reports of odour over the same weekend. There were reports from Keele University and, most upsettingly, from the Royal Stoke University Hospital, which has many coronavirus and cancer patients, and a substantial maternity unit. The hospital complained to the borough council that the odour from the landfill had got into its ventilation systems, affecting hundreds of staff and patients. Residents also stated on social media that they had broken covid rules to get away from the smell and stay with relatives.
The weekend just past was nearly as bad. I went out and about conducting live odour reports in Newcastle on Saturday night, and I can tell everyone here that it was appalling. On that occasion, it was particularly to the south-east of the site on the Poolfields estate, but at other times it is communities such as Silverdale, Knutton, Cross Heath, Keele, Thistleberry, Clayton and the Westlands that bear the brunt of the odour. This landfill causes a great deal of anxiety and distress for those affected. It goes well beyond simple annoyance; it has a significant impact on people’s quality of life and, I fear, on their mental health.
Yesterday morning, I visited St Giles’ and St George’s Church of England Academy Primary School on Orme Road. Children had written to me, and the headteacher, Mrs Pointon, had written to the local paper. She has often arrived at school to an overwhelming odour in the building, and has had to empty the building of it before she can let the children in. I have had similar reports from many other schools, pre-schools and nurseries in the area. One resident reported on social media that their house sale fell through on 27 February as a result of the odour scaring away their buyers; another, whom I spoke to on Saturday night, had to cut their asking price by £30,000.
Problems arising from this site have been reported on and off for many years, since it began operating in 2007, but it has been striking how much worse the odour has been—in terms of intensity and the distance from the site from which it can be smelled—in the last 12 months, with a particular change since Christmas. Local campaigners have been raising this issue over a number of years, including Derrick Huckfield, who asked me about it at my selection meeting, and who has convened many meetings with affected parties, residents and the Environment Agency. More recently, local residents Graham Eagles and Steve Meakin established a local “Stop the Stink” group and Facebook page. We have seen protests outside the site instigated by local residents. Recently, another very active Facebook group calling for the landfill to be capped off has reached more than 6,000 local members in the three months since it was set up. There have also been more than 11,000 signatures on an online petition calling for the landfill site to be closed.
All that is representative of the strength of feeling that I have encountered as the MP. It is also comfortably the biggest issue that I receive correspondence about in my mailbox. Since Christmas, the number of emails I have been receiving has nearly overwhelmed my team of staff, such is the strength of feeling and the number of incidents.
The local council, under the leadership of Simon Tagg and Stephen Sweeney, is doing everything it can within the constraints of the law, but the responsible body for the landfill is the Environment Agency. I believe it needs to step up, win back the trust of my residents and start forcing a solution to this issue.
This crisis is tragic in the context of what should be a time of great optimism in Newcastle-under-Lyme. We will be doing a huge amount of good in Newcastle through more than £30 million of Government funds from the future high streets fund and the towns fund, but our odour catastrophe is threatening to overshadow all that—it is literally casting a cloud. Who would want to eat out on the high street when we get our hospitality reopened if there is an almighty stink in the air? We are getting levelling up in Newcastle, but we need capping off too.
Walley’s quarry landfill quite simply should never have been permitted to exist. It is a former quarry that was obviously converted to landfill use. At all local levels, the application for the landfill site was opposed due to the inappropriate nature of its location. It is in a built-up area surrounded by housing in several directions, but the councils were overruled by the Secretary of State at the time, John Prescott.
The Environment Agency agrees that the site is in a particularly unusual location, close to a number of long-established properties that surround the landfill, belonging to people who have lived in their villages and communities all their lives. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from consulting with other right hon. and hon. Members that there are plenty of other landfills in inappropriate locations around the country causing similar distress—indeed, outrage—to their communities. I have spoken to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for High Peak (Robert Largan), for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), and, on the other side of the House, the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—I see he is in his place—and for Blaydon (Liz Twist). The right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle) has also had a major issue with his landfill. He seems to have got it capped off a bit earlier, so perhaps I need to take some tips about tips from Mr Speaker.
Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs acknowledged that landfill should not routinely be causing annoyance, that is essentially impossible to avoid when a landfill is 100 metres from your home. That is a problem that my Bill attempts to tackle. My Bill would introduce a presumption against planning permission for a landfill within 500 metres of a built-up area to prevent the problems that we have seen in Newcastle-under-Lyme from happening elsewhere. Of course, I am aware that odour reaches far further than 500 metres. At the weekend, there were reports from Red Street, Bradwell and Halmer End in my constituency, which are more like 5,000 metres away, but a 500-metre presumption would rule out a lot of unsuitable sites, such as Walley’s.
Difficult decisions need to be made because clearly placing landfill sites in beauty spots or national parks will not be acceptable either. A major part of the national solution is for us to continue to use more sustainable materials and recycle more. The Government’s landmark Environment Bill has an ambitious resources and waste strategy, which can be summed up by an eco-friendly version of the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. The planning laws permitting new housing to be built in the vicinity of landfills also need to be looked at. We need houses for the future, but it seems counter- productive to be building them in areas with known air-quality issues.
The second major aspect of my Bill would be to introduce new tougher limits for odorous emissions from landfill sites, going beyond the current guidance. The Environment Agency, as the regulator for the site, is aware of the problem in my constituency and how it affects my constituents because it receives their complaints, but to date it has been unable to act much beyond air quality monitoring exercises in the area, despite the misery of thousands of surrounding residents, at times across my borough and into Stoke-on-Trent. That is because the Environment Agency uses the World Health Organisation’s limits for hydrogen sulphide as its criteria for enforcement action. That utterly fails to take account of the severe annoyance of odour at levels not considered harmful to physical health.
The WHO’s guidelines for human health are averaged over 24 hours and refer to 150 micrograms per cubic metre. Happily, nothing that high has been recorded in Newcastle-under-Lyme—in the last exercise, we reached a peak of 44.5—but the annoyance measure, which is averaged over 30 minutes, is only 7 micrograms per cubic metre. My Bill would reduce the annoyance test for hydrogen sulphide emissions to half that level, equipping the Environment Agency to take earlier action against sites causing that level of disturbance in their communities.
In a nation such as the UK, we should be aspiring to higher, better limits on odour than the bare minimum prescribed by the WHO. That change would go hand in hand with a new framework for compensation where the limit is exceeded. The point of this aspect of my Bill is not that residents want to be paid off. In my experience, most residents do not want compensation—they just want the stink to stop. This aspect of my Bill is intended to provide a clear incentive to operators to take all practical measures to reduce odour and to be good and responsible neighbours.
We also need to get into the 21st century and stop relying on a human sniff test, conducted on a nought to six scale, which always has an attendant delay while an EA operative gets to the site in question. Because the odour can be quite transient, they often miss the true scale of the problem. Odorous landfill sites should be ringed by a network of permanent hydrogen sulphide monitors that should be capable of providing real-time data to a web feed, a bit like a weather report, so that residents can feel confident that their experience is being recorded in real time against a standardised measure.
It seems clear to me that our communities need to have their voices heard much more loudly where landfills are causing persistent problems. My Bill would strengthen their rights and give the EA a much stronger hand in dealing with problems when they arise. Although the Bill, if passed, would not necessarily solve my constituents’ problem with Walley’s Quarry once and for all, it would prevent similar problems from occurring for other communities, a goal that I hope we can all agree is well worth pursuing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have had no indication that anyone intends to oppose this ten-minute rule Bill motion, and I see no one, so I intend to put the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Aaron Bell, Simon Baynes, Jack Brereton, Sir William Cash, Jo Gideon, James Gray, Jonathan Gullis, Robert Halfon, Darren Jones, Marco Longhi, Alexander Stafford and Liz Twist present the Bill.
Aaron Bell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 269).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 360 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have not selected the amendments in the names of the Leader of the Opposition or John McDonnell.
Before I call the Minister to open the debate, I have had notice of a point of order. I call Mr David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Budgets and Finance Bills were the first reason for having a Parliament —to approve the expenditures of the Executive. For more than a century, the first resolution for a Finance Bill has been what is known as the general amendment of the law resolution. The resolution allows Members to table amendments that deal with tax administration and relief provisions not otherwise provided for by the specific Ways and Means resolution.
However, since Philip Hammond’s Finance Bill 2017, the Government have not included such a resolution. The effect is that any amendments tabled by Members to the Finance Bill must be tied to one of the specific resolutions already agreed by the House. In effect, by not including the amendment of the law resolution, the Government have shut down the rights that the House has enjoyed for more than 100 years. The result is that Members’ hands are tied when it comes to effectively amending the Finance Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you give guidance as to how the House can recover those fundamental rights, which have been arrogated by the Government?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. There is no matter of order for the Chair arising from the absence of an amendment of the law motion. There was no such motion after the last three Budgets and I think I remember, during the last Budget, a very similar if not identical point of order from the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of tradition around Budgets, and it may well be that the David Davis point of order becomes part of that tradition. Anyway, it has no effect on the scope of debate—the reasons for and implications of the absence of an amendment of the law resolution are themselves a proper matter for debate. The right hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Before I call the Minister, I point out that up until and including No. 6, Darren Jones, on the call list, Back-Bench contributions will have a five-minute time limit. Thereafter—No. 7 onwards—the limit will be reduced to three minutes. For those who are contributing remotely, please look at the timer on the bottom right-hand corner of the device that you are using. If, for whatever reason, you do not have sight of that, please use an alternative way of ensuring that you keep within the time limit that has been set. Please do not be tempted to try to extend it, because we have 101 contributions to this debate. For those who are taking part in the Chamber, the timer will be displayed as usual on the monitors in the Chamber.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
It is a real pleasure for me to open today’s debate on the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer brought before the House last week. It is a Budget that meets the needs of the moment. It delivers support to all corners of our United Kingdom. It shores up our defences against the ravaging impact of the pandemic while laying a clear path for our journey out of the crisis and into a brighter future. As the Chancellor himself acknowledged last week, it is a path that we are only able to take because of the incredible efforts of our frontline health workers who have vaccinated more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom, and the researchers and manufacturers who have managed to produce effective vaccines in such a short space of time. I am sure I speak on behalf of the entire House when I express the deepest gratitude to everyone involved in this heroic national effort.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes some very important points about our health staff and the vaccination programme, which has been absolutely superb in this country. Does he recognise that the creation of a new vaccine centre and medicines manufacturing centre were part of the life sciences deals that were enabled by the modern industrial strategy? Will he welcome the modern industrial strategy?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have not come here to defend or rebut any of the wonderful measures that we took under my right hon. Friend’s leadership. I am very conscious of the fact that many people want to take part in this debate, and I am afraid that I have to press on.
The researchers and manufacturers have done an extremely good job, as my right hon. Friend says, in shoring up our response to the crisis. The Budget provides an additional £65 billion of measures in response to covid, designed to support the economy this year. It covers an extension of the furlough scheme, which has already supported 1.3 million employers and more than 11 million jobs, providing vital funds to households and communities throughout our country. It has added to the near £20 billion of support that the Treasury has paid out to support 2.7 million self-employed people.
The Budget presents a dynamic and generous plan to help businesses to get up to speed. We are providing restart grants of up to £18,000 to more than 680,000 business premises. We are also providing further support for hospitality and retail businesses who may be more affected by restrictions when they reopen. While our plan for jobs has been given a £126 million boost supporting 40,000 more traineeships and doubling the cash incentive for firms taking on new apprentices, the Budget ensures that more people are able to access secure, skilled work.
Of course, there can be no denial that the jobs market has changed profoundly over the past year.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very conscious, as I am sure my right hon. Friend I, that many, many Back Benchers want to take part in the debate. I understand that he is on the call list, so I am afraid I am going to have to make more progress.
It is no secret that over the years, and even in years of strong growth, prosperity has not been spread fairly between the regions and nations that make up our United Kingdom. That is an imbalance that this Budget seeks to correct, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leading the charge. Where regions have been left behind by the decline of old industries, we will create new industries and support sectors as they transition to a low-carbon, sustainable and competitive future.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I must press on. Lots of Back Benchers want to speak. However eminent and distinguished my right hon. Friend is, there are lots of other people who want to speak.
We are backing the development of hydrogen hubs in the Tees Valley and Holyhead, to breathe new life into coastal and post-industrial communities while we drive a new clean energy transition. We are establishing four carbon capture and storage clusters across the next two decades, and we hope that they will play their part in decarbonising our industrial processes. We are investing tens of millions of pounds in the Aberdeen energy transition zone and the global underwater hub.
We are providing a support package of more than £2 billion to Britain’s incredible auto industry, with £500 million going towards the growth of our electric vehicle supply chain. That package will help to support and safeguard nearly 170,000 jobs in the UK auto sector, including in the north of England, the west midlands and Wales. We intend fully to deliver a boost to the ambition to build at least one UK gigafactory before the end of this Parliament, and we hope to secure investment for others in the longer term.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and successor for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the battery manufacturing innovation centre and the Faraday challenge, which galvanised the move to providing batteries for electric vehicles, were part of the industrial strategy, as was vaccine manufacturing? Can he explain why it is thought appropriate to abolish that strategy? Is it not better to have a plan, rather than no plan?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I hear my right hon. Friend’s passionate defence of his own work, and I commend a lot of his work. I have read the industrial strategy comprehensively, and it was a pudding without a theme, in my view. I feel very strongly that the conditions of 2017 do not apply to 2021, and I am very pleased to announce to the House that we are morphing and changing the industrial strategy into the plan for growth. I am happy to take further interventions on that, should they arise.
What we have announced in these packages is levelling up in action. There will be new investment in new industries, creating new jobs and driving real change in communities across the UK. With these examples, we are talking about a vision for the future of the kind of country we want to be: a country that hosts good-quality, high-skilled, long-term jobs in every community and that takes its commitment to net zero extremely seriously. I would like to commend the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in passing the net zero legislation in 2019. That was a signal piece of legislation for which I commend them heartily. As Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—which is still the name of the Department—I am very pleased that we are committed to net zero in the way that we are.
Because of all the profound changes that we have seen over the last three or four years, as well as our departure from the EU, our legislation to end our contribution to climate change by 2050 and the unprecedented impact of the coronavirus, I believe that we must take a fresh look at our plans for industrial policy and long-term economic growth. As a consequence of all this, alongside the Budget, we have published “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”. Our cross-government plan for growth signals a departure from the industrial strategy brand and details a renewed focus on infrastructure, skills and innovation. It reflects new opportunities available to us following our exit from the European Union, which was successfully achieved as a consequence of the deal that we struck at the end of last year. This opens up new ways to drive growth, build on our competitive advantage and support a vision for a truly global Britain. We will draw on the valuable lessons we have learnt from the 2017 industrial strategy as we transition to this new, more focused and more ambitious plan for growth.
I want to reassure the House that the energy of my Department is entirely focused on building back better after the coronavirus pandemic. It is leading the Government’s work on supporting British industry and priority sectors, and I am happy to acknowledge that we are building on the incredibly dynamic and good work that was pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. We will publish our innovation strategy in the summer. We will set out details of our approach to supporting sectors, places and technologies in the innovation strategy. Those will give a clear indication and sense of purpose as we seek to shape the UK’s future. My Department is already leading on strategies with respect to net zero, hydrogen and, of course, innovation itself, as well as the space strategy. We are engaging on a comprehensive programme of work to protect and create jobs as we transition to net zero.
The principle underlying all this effort is, of course, the green recovery. We fully intend to end, and we will end, our contribution to climate change by 2050, and we will do so through investments and innovations such as the ones I have just mentioned. Last week’s Budget builds on the framework set out by the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, as well as on the support announced at the spending review and in the national infrastructure strategy.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke fulsomely about the UK infrastructure bank. The bank will target investment in green projects, which will help us meet our net zero targets in the public and private sectors throughout the country. It will provide a global centre of excellence and advisory support for net zero projects across the country.
We have committed an initial £12 billion of capital and £10 billion of guarantees. By crowding in— attracting—private investment, we fully expect the bank to support at least £40 billion of investment in our precious infrastructure. This investment will help us to amplify success in decreasing emissions, which we have already reduced by 44% against 1990 levels. That is by far the best performance in the G7.
With our strengths in many sectors, from offshore wind to hydrogen, carbon capture technologies and zero-emission vehicles, we are well placed to seize the opportunity of the green transition and lead a global green industrial revolution. The 10-point plan, which the Budget expands on, puts us in a very good position to achieve that goal.
Backed by £12 billion of public investment, the 10-point plan will reinvigorate our industrial heartlands in the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire, the Humber, the midlands, Scotland, Wales and elsewhere. It will support the creation of hundreds of thousands of green jobs across the UK by 2030. It represents a really exciting and dynamic vision for the development of economic opportunity throughout this country.
This is a Budget that is timely in its interventions, entirely realistic in its ambitions and, above all, remorselessly and unapologetically optimistic about the future of the United Kingdom. It outlines an investment-led recovery, with a targeted, laser-like approach to levelling up every nation and region.
Thanks to the actions of the Government, we will emerge from this virus sooner and stronger than many would have anticipated. Thanks to the Budget, we have the means and the tools necessary to continue our trajectory towards recovery in the next year. We will be embracing innovation, we will be creating green jobs and we will be rejuvenating our industrial heartlands and spreading opportunities. We look forward to building back better throughout the entirety of the United Kingdom.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I want to start by quoting a speech given in this Chamber 77 years ago, in June 1944, by Ernest Bevin, who was then the Minister of Labour. He said:
“With my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I had an opportunity of visiting one of our ports and seeing the men, of the 50th Division among others, going aboard ship…The one question they put to me when I went through their ranks was, ‘Ernie, when we have done this job for you, are we going back to the dole?’…Both the Prime Minister and I answered, ‘No, you are not.’”—[Official Report, 21 June 1944; Vol. 401, c. 212-13.]
The circumstances of this Budget are, of course, very different, but the sentiment is just as relevant. As we come through a very different national crisis, how do we in our generation do right by the British people? Some 120,000 people have died from covid. Our way of life has been dramatically restricted. Our key workers have stepped up and put themselves in harm’s way for all of us. Businesses have shuttered to protect our health and have faced incredible strain. The British people have been nothing short of heroic.
While the crisis has revealed the best of our country, it has also laid bare the deep flaws in the way our institutions and economy are run. In the words of the OBR,
“the UK has experienced higher rates of infection, hospitalisations, and deaths from the virus than other countries.”
We know that is partly because of higher deprivation, inequality and poverty. We know we are deeply unequal, both within and between our regions. Even before this crisis, 2 million of our fellow citizens faced destitution. That means they lacked at least two of the following basic essentials: shelter, food, heating, lighting, clothing or basic toiletries. That should shame us all in one of the richest countries in the world. We know our public services are deeply underfunded, from health to social care. We know, too, that the world of work is characterised by deep divisions of power, which meant some workers were safe and some were not.
This chasm between the spirit of the British people and the reality of how our country works demands from us that we face the Bevin question once again, of how we transform our country not just on jobs, but on public services and on inequality, too. This challenges us all, whatever party, to think bigger and more boldly. Of course that is hard, in the dire circumstances we face coming out of this pandemic—the public finances are under strain and the economy will take time to recover—but they are far less dire than those Bevin and his colleagues faced after 1945, and they thought big about the kind of country we could be. They raised their sights in the face of adversity.
While I would praise some of the measures taken by the Chancellor, I do not believe that a fair-minded observer would say that the Budget passes the Bevin test. On jobs, according to the OBR, even by 2025 unemployment never even gets back to pre-crisis levels. On welfare, the Budget tells people on universal credit that they need to go back to living on £74 a week from September, just as unemployment starts to peak. On the next crisis—the climate emergency—the Budget rejects a green stimulus and cuts green spending, as I will explain.
On public services—I do not think the Business Secretary talked about public services—the Budget appears to draw the extraordinary lesson from the crisis that public services need less resources, not more. In total, £17 billion has been taken out of departmental spending since Budget 2020, which was before the crisis, despite the greater needs and despite all that has been revealed in the pandemic.
What does building back better mean when unemployment is higher as far as the eye can see, the welfare state goes back to the way it was, the green revolution is ducked and public service spending is cut? This Budget fails the Bevin test and the build back better test. Why? I think it is because the Government have not truly learned the lessons of the past decade.
To be fair, the Government have been remarkably open about the failure of the last decade. The Business Secretary referred to the “Build Back Better” document that they published. It is a very interesting document, perhaps not for the reasons intended. There is a striking chart that shows the long-standing productivity gap between ourselves and our competitors, but it shows something else. In the past decade, we have not addressed our long-standing weaknesses, but fallen further behind. The productivity gap has doubled with Germany and is up by three quarters with France and one quarter with the US. Government getting out of the way did not work. Markets left to their own devices did not work and austerity did not work, so the question for the Government is: what are they going to do differently in the coming years from the last 10?
We needed first of all—the right hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) have made reference to it—an industrial policy that intervenes at scale to help growth sectors and industries to succeed. There is one pre-eminent test on that, which is the green stimulus. To give some context, President Biden has pledged a $1.7 trillion green plan over 10 years. Germany has committed €40 billion over two years and France €30 billion over two years. Even what the Business Secretary claims—I will come to that shortly—is a fraction of that amount over the decade.
Let us take the infrastructure bank, as the Secretary of State talked about that. The OBR is highly revealing on the infrastructure bank: the annual spending of the bank is going to be just a third of the amount of its predecessor, the European Investment Bank—£1.5 billion a year versus £5 billion a year. So, not more investment, but less. What is the OBR’s verdict on the infrastructure bank? It says that
“given the scale of its operations (at around 0.1 per cent of GDP a year) and the fact that it replaces only some European Investment Bank activity, we have not adjusted our economy forecast.”
In other words, the bank has absolutely zero effect on growth, from all of those green measures that the Business Secretary talked about.
One of the most interesting things about the Budget—but which has perhaps been less remarked on—is that the growth returns to trend is up just an anaemic 1.7%. That is incredibly low by historical standards. This is low growth and low ambition.
A green stimulus could have helped our crucial manufacturing sectors, but instead they were left out in the cold. On steel, where is the £250 million clean steel fund, which was promised two years ago? There is no mention of steel in this 110-page document. On offshore wind, we are way off the Government’s target of 60% domestic content, and the negligible resources in the Budget simply do not measure up. On the automotive sector, I want to say something positive: it is good that the Government have brought forward the date of the petrol and diesel phase-out to 2030, which is what we called for. But I say to the Business Secretary that the rhetoric of ambition is not matched by financial support for this crucial sector. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said in reaction to the Budget:
“This is an opportunity lost”.
Germany is investing a total of €7 billion for transformation; we are way off that. The Government seem almost allergic to support for these sectors.
Let us take another area that everybody agreed could create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and I do not think the Business Secretary mentioned this either. It could help people in every community in our country: home insulation and retrofitting. We need a transformation of our housing stock. People may forget that the flagship policy of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan was the green homes grant. The Business Secretary was given personal responsibility, as the Minister of State, for the green homes grant. He told us the Government would learn the lessons of the green deal, which had been a complete disaster:
“We’re completely focused on trying to make this a much better roll-out, and we’ve learned our lessons…We need to make sure that the right projects are identified, and that we can get the money out”.
It would “pave the way”, he said,
“for the UK’s green homes revolution.”
What has happened? The project has been a complete fiasco on his watch: contractors not paid; installers forced to make lay-offs; homeowners unable to get the grants—not a long-term comprehensive plan, but a piecemeal, privatised approach characterised by shambolic delivery on his watch, and he said not a word about it. He would be welcome to come in and say something about it now; he obviously does not want to. And no wonder: now the Government are cutting more than £1 billion from the green homes grant scheme as it has been such a disaster.
Is this just an accident? No, it is not. The failure on the green homes grant and on green manufacturing is all part of the same problem. The Government are good at talking about a green revolution; they will the ends, but not the means—a proper, thought-through industrial strategy. Indeed, tragically, we now have a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who does not believe in industrial strategy. If I can put it this way, he is half the Secretary of State he once was. Any self-respecting organisation would have asked him in the interview when he was applying for the post of Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—although Secretaries of State do not exactly apply, they are offered the job—“Do you believe in industrial strategy?”
We got suspicious when in one of his first acts he tore up plans for the industrial strategy White Paper, and we thought, “How curious.” Then on Thursday we found out he had abolished the Industrial Strategy Council set up by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead. I hope the right hon. Lady will not take it amiss if I say that I admired some of her work, and this is one of the things I admired. I pay tribute to her and the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells; they learned the lessons of our history and said, “We need Government, business and unions working together on this joint enterprise, coming together to address the challenges our country faces.” And, goodness me, do we need this now as we seek to recover from coronavirus.
I have to say to the Business Secretary, who is new to his job, that this decision has caused consternation—I do not think that is too strong a word for it—in businesses up and down the country. Make UK said that it causes
“significant concern and frustration within manufacturers of all sizes across the UK.”
The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said that the strategy’s demise was a
“short-sighted step that ministers will come to regret”.
All around the country, thanks to the work that was done, local chambers of commerce and local enterprise partnerships have spent years working on local industrial strategies. Now they are wondering what they are supposed to do with them, because the strategy seems to have fallen out of favour.
People might think that is just an accident. It is not an accident. I know that the Business Secretary dismisses his past pamphlets as the work of a maverick Back Bencher, but it is not a coincidence, because this—it is very interesting—is what he wrote:
“The draining of effort from our psyche has been replaced by a sense of entitlement.”
I do not know quite what that means. He continued:
“It has also led to a false belief in the value of industrial policy.”
I thought he had put all that behind him, but clearly not. He is so ideological—so dogmatic—about the free market that he had to get rid of the industrial strategy, and therefore he cannot deliver the partnership between Government and business that the country needs.
Let us turn more generally to business support. Businesses have made huge sacrifices in this crisis, as I said, and they face huge challenges in recovering from the pandemic, added to which are the billions of pounds of red tape as a result of the implementation of the Brexit deal. Even when the health crisis is over, businesses will take a long time to recover. We welcome some of the measures talked about by the Business Secretary, but there are still important groups that I believe are left out: two thirds of the excluded self-employed are not helped by this Budget, including limited companies, many freelancers and others; supply chain businesses are still left out; and whole sectors, such as the wedding industry, are ignored. Their plight will hold back the recovery.
We know that business debt is one of the biggest threats not just to individual businesses but to the recovery as a whole. Some £70 billion of business debt has built up during the crisis. In December, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that the proportion of those businesses describing their debt as “unmanageable” was 40%. The OBR says that, on current plans, the Chancellor will have to write off £27 billion of those loans.
In these circumstances, a sensible Chancellor would have been creative, yet he still refuses to budge. We have a scheme from the Chancellor with no links to profits, no ability to restructure and no ability for management or workers to develop creative solutions. He is just leaving it to the banks. Well, even the banks are telling him that that is very risky. If we face a wave of insolvencies, it will be at the Chancellor’s door. The danger is that this holds back the recovery, and it certainly fails the Bevin test.
Many of the businesses facing those debts are on our high streets, in retail. What is the single biggest long-term change that those businesses require? It is to address the deep unfairness that high street shops face against online retailers. I am sure that the Business Secretary is familiar with that problem. The Government launched a review of business rates not in the last Budget, not in the Budget before, not in the one before that, but six years ago. In fact, they launched the review so long ago that I was Leader of the Opposition when they did so—it is that long ago! A long-term Budget would have finally taken action in this area, but instead we got more delay.
I turn to the measures that were taken. On the so-called super deduction, we will welcome any measure to help business, but I point out, as we think about our capital stock and investment, that the OBR says that that measure
“does not affect the long-run level of the…capital stock”.
In other words, it will make a difference to the timing of business investment, but in fact, according to the OBR, business investment is expected to fall significantly in 2023 and 2024, and there are real questions about why this measure is targeted just at plant and machinery, which is only one fifth of business investment. Then we have freeports, which have been tried for 30 years. I am afraid that all the evidence is that, at best, they may displace economic activity from one area left out of prosperity to another a few miles away.
The problem is that the Government simply do not get that we cannot build private sector success on the back of public sector austerity. The cuts of the last decade have made local services worse, squeezed demand and undermined the crucial infrastructure of business success. People might wonder, “Well maybe they’ve learned their lesson.” I fear they have not. Again, this was not very clear from the Budget on the day, six days ago, but in a year’s time, for many of our public services, it will be austerity all over again. Next year, for current services in transport, housing and local government, and other so-called unprotected areas, public spending will be cut in real terms by £2.6 billion. Let us be clear: growth is anaemic, because their measures are so weak, so they turn to a strategy they tried from 2010 of cutting current spending and raising taxes on ordinary families. I fear they have not learned the lessons. They cannot grow the economy if they are giving tax cuts with one hand, but cutting the services that communities and businesses rely on with the other.
The issue is not just about resources, but about who spends them and where they are spent. We are the most regionally unequal country of any major developed economy and the most centralised. The levelling-up fund is a centralised pot of money to be determined by Ministers, and we are starting to discover where the money is actually going.
Salford is the 18th most deprived area in the country, but it is placed not in the category of most need—category 1 —but in category 2. Barnsley is the 38th most deprived area and is also in category 2. Richmond is 256th out of 317 for deprivation, but it happens to cover the Chancellor’s constituency, so it has found its way into category 1. The Government have said this is based on objective criteria, so what are they? Again, I am very happy to give way to the Business Secretary if he wants to explain what these objective criteria are. If it is all above board, why have they not published the criteria? Of course, they have form on this—the towns fund, the crony outsourcing of contracts to donors. The British people have a right to expect that the money meant for the most deprived areas is spent in the most deprived areas.
Ministers do not get the role for Government, they leave it to the market; they cannot tackle the inequalities we face; and, far from leaving austerity behind, for many it will look like austerity, feel like austerity and it will be austerity.
Of course, we have the most egregious example of all in the decision to cut the pay of nurses and NHS staff. They more than anyone have been the heroes of this crisis: they have put themselves in harm’s way for all of us. The Government promised a pay rise in the NHS plan. They did not just promise it; they legislated for it and they walked through the Lobby a year ago to vote for it. The Business Secretary was put up on “Question Time” on Thursday, as this decision was breaking, to try to justify this broken promise, and this is what he said:
“When I look at people in the hospitality sector, in aviation, in retail, many of them are very…worried they won’t…be in a job in two or three months.”
Edward Miliband
He nods. As if that is somehow a justification for cutting the pay of nurses. What is the world in which their plight justifies cutting the pay of our nurses? I have never heard anyone, in a year of discussions, in any of those sectors say to me, “I’m finding it hard, so Government should cut nurses’ pay.” People would only say that if they believe in a race to the bottom or they believe in levelling down.
Before the Minister says everybody needs to tighten their belts, he should be careful, because it turns out there is plenty of cash to spend millions on a Downing Street makeover for a media briefing room that has not been used; to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to pay off the man the Home Secretary was accused of bullying; and to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise. The truth is it is one rule for them and another rule for everyone else. Let them not ever try again to tell people in this country that we are in this together.
Beneath the rhetoric, the Government cannot be the answer to the problems of the country. They may have produced a document charting 10 years of failure on productivity, but they have not changed their view. The answer to 10 years of failure cannot be more of the same. This should have been a Budget with a plan to respond to the climate emergency by creating the jobs of the future; and a Budget with a plan to help business through the crisis and beyond with debt restructuring, providing a decent pay rise for our key workers and dignity in the social security system, rather than plunging the most vulnerable into deeper poverty. This is a Budget of low ambition for Britain. The post-war generation would never have accepted such a meagre vision as that presented by the Chancellor and the Government. They never would have, and neither should we, and that is why we will vote against the Budget tonight.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In unprecedented times, I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for recognising the need to combine continued support for people in jobs, even as we see the light at the end of the tunnel of this pandemic, with the need to restore our public finances and to set us on the path of growth for recovery in the future. I will not dwell on the first of those, but I welcome specifically the funding for tackling domestic abuse, focused as it will be on the perpetrator programmes often overlooked in the past. However, I continue to fail to understand why the Treasury, and, I fear, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, seem institutionally incapable of understanding the significance of the aviation sector for jobs and for our economy.
On other specific issues, I wish to refer to one group who are badly affected by the impact of dealing with the pandemic: women. There is evidence to show that lockdown measures have been particularly difficult for women, and that there are women who have abandoned their careers because they have found it impossible to juggle the requirements of lockdown, with home schooling and so forth, with their careers. We need those women in the workplace. We need those female entrepreneurs for our future. I urge the Government to look actively at what they can do to deal with that issue and to encourage women entrepreneurs.
Another group badly affected by the pandemic is young people, with the hospitality sector being a case in point. The intergenerational divide between young and old has been exacerbated by the measures taken to deal with the pandemic, so it is absolutely right that we take measures to restore our public finances and do not simply land the bill on young people and future generations. I know there are those, including some of my colleagues, who will say, “You don’t need to do anything to taxes. You just need to have growth”, but one worry from this Budget must be the OBR forecast for growth. It is forecast in the medium term not to return to the pre-financial crisis level of an average annual rate of 2.5%, but to be around the pre-covid rate of 1.5%. There is no doubt that the pandemic has had an impact, but pre-covid the uncertainty around Brexit was also having an impact on our economy. Of course there is every prospect that Brexit will have a continued impact in reducing the size of our economy into the future. So we need to focus on growth, and I will say a little more specifically about that in a moment.
I am concerned that the Government have simply adopted the Treasury orthodoxy that if we wish to encourage investment by business, all we do are capital allowances. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary that year after year that is the answer the Treasury comes up with. If we want an innovation economy, we need to invest and support investment in areas that encourage growth and innovation, and that means research and development. We are to see another consultation on R&D tax credits—I believe it is the third in three years. I have to say to him: stop consulting, just get on and do something. We could extend the definition of R&D expenditure or increase the rate, but we must act. We need investment in innovation, not in chief executives’ Jacuzzis.
Another area I want to emphasise for my right hon. Friend is that there is a lot of talk from Government—we all do it and we have done it in the past—about capital spending, and infrastructure is always what we reach for. We must never forget, however, that human capital is increasingly what we must be investing in. We should be ensuring that there is effort and funding available for the skills White Paper and for the response to the Augar review. What we need to build back better is a plan that transforms the economy: ideas and an innovation economy; people investing in skills; upgrading infrastructure; and making this the best place to grow and start a business. That was the modern industrial strategy.
The Government say they need a new framework. My right hon. Friend has said that that framework builds on the industrial strategy, but it does not. There are two reasons this is the wrong approach. First, we need a long-term strategy. We cannot just magic a plan out of thin air and expect it to work in a year or so—we need something that will work longer term. We should make changes where necessary, not just for the sake of making a change.
Secondly, a huge amount of effort went in, with Government working with the private sector, to develop that modern industrial strategy. The private sector welcomed it, because it was not about picking winners. This is where I depart from the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), because Labour’s answer was always to pick winners; we agreed with business the sectors that needed to be strengthened and in which we were strong, and let the market decide the companies that were going to be the winners. We need to continue with that effort. The industrial strategy was welcomed by the private sector and it was recognised internationally. Do not abandon it. Build on it, for the sake of all our futures.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It was like a blast from the past there, momentarily.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
It is always a privilege to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party in a debate such as this. I say to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), that I do not think I have ever agreed so much with anything that she has said in her life, but I assure her that it is not a habit that I intend to continue for too long.
I commend the Minister on at least having the courage to mention Brexit in his opening remarks, because the Chancellor did not mention it once in his entire speech, despite the fact that the economic damage of Brexit is likely to be worse than that of the covid pandemic. I am puzzled as to how the Minister was able to describe that as a successful Brexit. If 4% off GDP was a successful result, I shudder to think what a bad Brexit would have been like in the Government’s eyes.
The Chancellor’s Budget speech contained all the usual words, all the usual platitudes and all the usual elements. There was a lot of bluster about how wonderful the Government are and obligatory name drops for some hand-picked Tory MPs, interspersed here and there with bits of substance, most of which we had already read in the previous weekend’s newspapers.
Perhaps unusually, I would not take immediate issue with a great deal of what the Chancellor announced. I want to see the details, obviously, because I know from experience that the reality can be very different from what is announced at the Dispatch Box, but in principle I would support a lot of what was announced. The problem is what was not announced and what the Chancellor did not say. He did not say nearly enough about permanent support for the millions of families who are living in poverty. He did not say enough about supporting millions of small businesses and self-employed people who continue to be excluded. He did not say enough about several key sectors of the economy that still face an existential threat as a result of the covid pandemic, in some cases combined with other factors. He certainly did not say enough about investing in our public services and in the people who have served them with such dedication and professionalism during the last dreadful 12 months.
The former Prime Minister, who just finished speaking, mentioned the importance of our aviation industry. Even without the pandemic, we knew that that industry needed to change radically because of climate change. Even a year ago, none of us would have predicted the almost total closure of an entire industry, so what is the Chancellor’s vision for how the aviation industry will look five to 10 years from now? How big will it be? Will air traffic be back to pre-pandemic numbers? Will aviation still directly provide 470,000 jobs and still support around 650,000 other jobs in the UK, as it did before the pandemic? If it does not, what will happen to all the people whose jobs disappear? If the Chancellor’s speech is anything to go by, the answer to all those questions is that he does not know and probably has not even thought about it, because he never mentioned aviation during his speech. In almost 6,500 words, the industry that has perhaps been the worst affected of all industries during covid was literally never mentioned.
When we look at the crisis facing our retail industry, we see, again, that changes were happening anyway because of the growth in online shopping. There were around 143,000 job losses in retail the year before the pandemic and there are likely to be a further 380,000 between 2020 and 2021. Where is the recovery plan? Do the Government even have a vision of what the recovered retail industry will look like? Yes, there is a partial continuation of short-term survival rations and, of course, there is always the towns fund if someone happens to live in a marginal constituency, but otherwise, there is no indication that the Government have any clue how they intend to help our local shops and shopping centres to recover, or even if they care whether or not they recover.
Retail, aviation and, I could mention, oil and gas are all industries where the effects of wholesale change have been greatly accelerated and magnified by the covid pandemic. While those changes may have been inevitable, the Government’s continued failure to support the people who will be affected is anything but inevitable. We cannot allow this Tory Government to turn their back on hundreds of thousands of retail workers and aviation workers in the same way that they abandoned hundreds of thousands of miners in my constituency and others across these islands.
In addition to the lack of any clear vision for key sectors in the economy, there is a continued refusal to acknowledge the desperate plight of millions of self-employed people and small business owners. Of course, I welcome the fact that the Chancellor was eventually dragged kicking and screaming to announce an overdue and humiliating U-turn on support for about 600,000 self-employed people, but we in the SNP are not going to forget the 2.4 million others—the creators, freelancers and small business owner-director—who are still being deliberately abandoned. Last year, I warned that many of these people stand to lose their houses and everything they own if their businesses go under. Last week, the Chancellor had a choice: give them the support they need and deserve, or ignore them. He chose to ignore them yet again. Before the Budget, the Prospect trade union found that 46% of all self-employed people are less likely to stay in self-employment as a result of their experiences during the pandemic and 18% are unsure. That means barely a third of people in self-employment were sure they intended to stay there, and that was before the non-support that most of them got in last week’s Budget. These are the people we rely on to drive the recovery as we come out of the covid emergency. They are not asking for charity; they are asking for a fair deal. They deserve that. It is all they want.
As well as those 3 million people, perhaps falling to 2.4 million this year, there are now millions who have had to fall back on a benefit system that was never designed to support so many people for so long and was never fit for the purpose for which it was supposed to have been designed in the first place. The continuation of the £20 uplift is welcome, but it should be continued permanently. The cliff edge the Government are talking about threatens to plunge 60,000 people, including 20,000 children, into poverty in Scotland alone. The Government claimed that the response to covid would be driven by data not dates, so why is the universal credit cliff edge being set by a date regardless of what the data might say? I submit that an economic recovery in which the poorest get left behind is no economic recovery at all. We can judge how much this Chancellor and this Government care about the eradication of poverty from the fact that the Chancellor did not mention the word “poverty” even once in his entire speech.
The Budget fails to address the economic challenges that will impact on all our living standards for decades to come. It fails adequately to support the businesses on which our economic recovery depends. It fails to provide a decent income for millions of our citizens. The people of Scotland can have no confidence in this Budget. For the last 60 years, the people of Scotland have declared they have no confidence in the Government behind the present Budget. It is now clear that most people in Scotland no longer have any confidence in a constitutional Union that allows such a Government to continue to ride roughshod over the ancient rights of the people of Scotland.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
No Chancellor has faced this kind of crisis in living memory and, by and large, I think the Chancellor has navigated through it with some skill over the last year, supporting those who need support as much as he can. The Bill, as a result, underpins all of this particular Budget: some £407 billion will be spent by the end of next year, with an eye-watering deficit of over £250 billion, as set out in the Budget he has just produced. That clouds every single judgment.
The key point I want to make, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), is that we must not lose sight of the reality of the need for growth. If we forget that, then we fall back on the idea that we will somehow get through this. The OBR’s forecasts for growth should make us sit up and look very carefully at that. I worry that the level of growth beyond the year after next is really very low in relation to where we start from now. If we cannot grow faster than that, it says a huge amount about some of our policies. I therefore remind my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that growth is the No. 1 reality for us now.
That is why I was somewhat concerned about some issues, and I want to come back to them, but one thing I did like, which feeds towards the idea of growth, is the super deduction tax relief to kickstart business investment. That is the right kind of thing to do: encourage businesses to bring their money back in to invest in the UK. The news about freeports is also very good indeed. I hope the Government will have time to review the corporation tax rate and be very careful about the effect of that further down the road. I note that the Chancellor has given himself some time to look at that very carefully.
The issue here is that sometimes we compare productivity across countries. I give a warning about that. I do not know why the Treasury has not done more work on this. No two countries compile productivity rates at the same level. For example, France does not have the public sector in its productivity rates; it has only the private sector. That means that comparisons are often between apples and pears. Our problem in the UK is not productivity, because the London and the south-east have the highest productivity in the whole of Europe. Our problem is regional productivity. No other region of the UK meets the average for the UK in productivity. That single fact should tell us more than anything else why it is critical to put stuff and build things in the north, the midlands and places such as Wales. Our productivity around the country does not match that average level of productivity, as we are far too concentrated in London and the south-east.
I agree with those who have said that R&D tax credits are really important. I would stress that that is a good idea and a policy that the Government have to push forward on, because it encourages greater growth. We must remember that many of our technology advancements are made in universities these days, and we have to maximise that. On deregulation, I am going to come forward with plans shortly; there is huge scope for us to release some businesses through deregulation.
I want to draw to a close by making a couple of points. First, I want to make the case for the Government to review the universal credit money. The reason for that is that universal credit is not a flat payment; it is a dynamic process, and it is aimed at helping people back to work. So in truth, even if we invest the £6 billion in universal credit, as we get more people back to work, the cost of that falls because they are back at work and paying taxes. This is the critical bit: I do not want it to be compared with the furlough scheme, which is a very different item. Universal credit is about getting people back to work, and therefore they pay more. I recommend that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), and his colleagues think carefully about that, because money was taken out of it some years before, and it needs that investment back in it. That was how it was intended.
My last point relates to the 0.7% on overseas aid. I understand the Government’s issue on this and I recognise their problem, but I hope they will keep this under review. As we move away from certain countries, places such as China will move in, and their money will come with serious problems. They will demand more dictatorial government. We need only to look at Burma to see what is going on when China supports countries. I just raise that as a policy point that the Government may want to think about.
Overall, I say to the Government that this has been a good Budget, but it is a Budget that needs to buy a bit of time, and we must think carefully: growth, growth, growth is the most important thing in front of us now.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The reality of this Budget is that the Government have no credible plan for long-term economic growth that will meet the required scale of ambition for the net zero transition, that will mean real change for workers in every community across the country or that will really help businesses to grow and make a profit. There is no denying that the extension of covid support was welcome, and I am pleased that the Chancellor agreed with my Committee’s assessment that premature end dates had caused unnecessary redundancies and harm to business, but that was the least that we could have expected. On a longer-term vision for our country, I cannot find very much at all. The OBR has concluded that Brexit will shrink our economy by 4% and covid by an additional 3%. After the initial year of reopening post-lockdown, our expectations for growth still hover around only 1.5% a year, and in the face of a decade of failed austerity, the Chancellor has still cut billions from day-to-day spending.
There is a reason that Labour in government was able to invest in our nurses and teachers—something this Government are not willing to do. There is a reason that Labour in government was able to take millions of pensioners and children out of poverty. This Government did not mention child poverty once in the Budget. That reason was sustainable, long-term economic growth. The one major piece of Government policy that attempted to take a longer-term view of the economy was the industrial strategy—a strategy that after only four years was cancelled via a footnote in the Budget and a leaked letter sacking the national Industrial Strategy Council. That is not how you announce major changes to Britain’s industrial policy. The Secretary of State said today that the industrial strategy was a “pudding without a theme”. With respect, he has not just withdrawn the pudding; he has failed to serve the starters and the main course as well.
The so-called plan for growth generates more questions than answers; it is essentially of no use to business. The national infrastructure bank was also supposed to be about long-term growth, but it has been given public funding of only £12 billion, which is £8 billion less than the amount recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission and a whopping £23 billion less than the European Investment Bank used to invest in the UK alone, when the UK was a member of the European Union.
The Budget also fell short of the required ambition to deliver on our net zero commitments, with no real increase in infrastructure spending and the Chancellor sticking to his previous position of only 3% of GDP. That is, I am afraid, a continuation of Ministers announcing targets with no plan or finance to allow them to happen. The Government cannot just announce a green industrial revolution and hope for the best. A failure to stimulate the growth of the green economy is just part of their failure in the Budget to meet the scale of the unemployment challenge. According to HMRC data, 782,000 fewer people are on company payrolls since October 2020, yet does the Government’s job and skills programme meet the scale of the challenge? No, it does not.
For all the failures by the Government in the Budget, I want to end on a positive note. Throughout the pandemic, both as a constituency MP and Chair of the Business Committee, I have seen the remarkable abilities of the British people to adapt to the challenges that we face: the researchers and innovators that led the world in genomic sequencing in vaccine development; the engineers who pivoted from aircraft wings to ventilators; and the small businesses that transformed themselves by moving online. Our key workers—carers, nurses, shopworkers, truck drivers, teachers, police officers and many more—kept our country moving when we all had to stop, reminding us of our sense of national duty, and the volunteers, churches, food banks and resident groups renewed our sense of community. Behind every business and public service is a worker, a business owner, a leader, an innovator, a public servant, a citizen of our United Kingdom. Brexit, technology, climate change and the legacy of covid are all like tectonic plates, slowly reshaping the British economy.
We need every person who can to roll up their sleeves and contribute to the national effort of recovery and change, where each country in our Union depends on each of the others for our collective national success. However, we also need a Prime Minister who has a bolder vision for modernising Britain in the post-covid world—a vision of a modern Britain that not only meets our ambitions as a country, but recognises and rewards the enormous potential of the British people.
Last week’s Budget could have been something special. It could have been the start of a new chapter for a more sustainable, inclusive and successful Britain, meeting the challenges of reshaping the British economy and providing work for people in every community; a Budget that showed the British people that we could be excited by the future and proud of our country once again. Instead, it had no credible long-term plan for growth and no credible long-term plan for the future. It was, unfortunately, a return to the failures of the past.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
Greetings from Lancashire, Mr Deputy Speaker.
May I begin by welcoming the Budget delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week? I also particularly thank him for the support that he has given to the tourism and leisure sector throughout the pandemic.
In the three minutes that I have I shall first acknowledge the importance of infrastructure and the considerable investment that this Government and, indeed, the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), have made in the north-west of England, and my constituency in particular. The M55 link road, the A585 Singleton bypass, the Preston western distributor road, the South Fylde line passing loop, £10 million for Kirkham town centre, a new school at Lytham St Annes High School—and the list goes on. So, to pretend that the Government and their predecessor did not invest in the north-west, were not committed to levelling up and did not have a plan for the future is, I am afraid, the result of reading Labour party press releases.
I shall focus attention on three things, briefly—first, the importance of enterprise zones in generating jobs and investment locally. Blackpool enterprise zone has been a huge success and we have about 1,200 jobs in the process of being created in what was an area of incredibly high unemployment and some of the most deprived communities anywhere in the United Kingdom; so those jobs are incredibly welcome. However, I would just encourage the Minister on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who I believe also has responsibility for Lancashire, to make sure that enterprise zones do not, as a consequence of the development of freeports and some of the other strategies unveiled in the Budget, become the poor relation.
I would like to make sure, as the UK Government host COP 26, that nuclear fuel is front and centre, because in order for the United Kingdom to develop a radical decarbonisation strategy, it is very important not only that we are investing in small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors—documents for which are currently sat with the Treasury—but that we have the means to manufacture all the aspects within that, and in my constituency nuclear fuel is responsible for 900 jobs.
Finally, when it comes to aerospace, I have the head- quarters of BAE Systems in my constituency, employing just over 6,000 people. Team Tempest and the integrated review are incredibly important to us. They are the jobs of the future. It is the technology that has been referred to today. I encourage the Treasury to look to the future, invest in technology and continue to support the Fylde and the north-west.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
This Budget fails millions of people across the UK. It fails tens of thousands of small businesses and millions of self-employed people. It fails millions of NHS staff and carers, and it fails future generations with its lack of ambition for action on climate change. The Liberal Democrats argued for a Budget for small businesses, which would protect shops, restaurants, pubs, cafés, beauticians and barbers, all of which make up our local high streets, and create jobs in our communities. The Liberal Democrats wanted a Budget to make our country fairer, greener and more caring. We got the reverse.
There is no doubt that our economy and our national finances are both in a terrible state, so I welcome the sharp U-turn that the Chancellor has made on corporation tax. Large and profitable businesses must pay their fair share, but other choices that the Chancellor has made are clearly wrong. By freezing the personal income tax allowance for years, the Conservatives are targeting tax rises on the lowest paid. In Government, the Liberal Democrats championed and won the case for higher income tax allowance because it meant lower taxes for the lowest paid. By contrast, what the Chancellor has announced will hit the lowest paid with higher taxes. We will oppose this deeply unfair move.
Tax hikes are not the only way that this Government will punish hard-working families. Given that the NHS has performed so brilliantly during the pandemic, why are Ministers offering nurses, doctors and health workers an insulting 1% pay rise? What world does the Prime Minister live in if he thinks that a 1% pay rise is acceptable for Britain’s NHS heroes? When this Government doled out billions of pounds in contracts to private companies, many of which had close links with the Conservative party, how can Ministers say that they cannot afford a better pay deal for our nurses and doctors? Conservative MPs who back this shameful decision on NHS pay will have to answer for it.
Finally, I want to come to the other disastrous move that this Government have made: the EU trade deal, the albatross around the neck of British businesses. Whether it is the Office for Budget Responsibility report of this Budget or other analysis, the evidence so far shows that the UK’s recovery will be weaker than that of other countries, because this Government chose to erect new barriers to trade and hit our exporters with the biggest rise in red tape ever, just as British businesses are struggling with the deepest recession for 300 years.
This Budget does nothing to make our country fairer, greener, or more caring. It fails those who most need our support right now—those who have been working tirelessly to keep us safe during the coronavirus crisis and the businesses fighting desperately to stay afloat. The country deserves so much better. The Liberal Democrats will oppose this Budget.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Today, I want to talk about the Budget and social care, or rather the lack of anything in the Budget on social care. The case that I want to make is not that the Government should have brought forward their long-promised reforms because the pandemic has exposed fundamental flaws that we must address if we want dignity and security for elderly and disabled people; it is not that these reforms are desperately needed because families have been pushed to their limits helping to care for loved ones; it is not even that our frontline care workers deserve a decent pay rise after everything that they have been through—although all these points are clearly true. The argument that I want to make today is not the moral case for social care reform, but the economic case. The Government’s failure to grasp the role that social care plays in our wider economy is undermining growth, productivity and the need to get value for taxpayers’ money, all of which are essential with both family finances and the public finances under such strain.
Much of the debate about how we build back better or level up has focused on investing in our physical infrastructure, but investing in our social infrastructure is equally important. Put simply, in today’s world childcare and social care are as much a part of our economic infrastructure as the roads and railways. First, that is because of the basics of demographic change; our population is ageing, and we need more than half a million more care workers just to keep pace with the growing demand. The Resolution Foundation has rightly argued that if the Government prioritised investment in social care, that would quickly boost jobs in every part of the country. The Women’s Budget Group has shown that investing in care would ultimately generate even more employment, because of the multiplier effects.
The second argument for investing in social care is to help improve our low productivity rates. Too many workers—predominantly women—have to take jobs below their true skill level, reduce their hours or leave the labour market because they cannot get the help they need to balance work and family life. With our ageing population, that is as much about the lack of social care as it is about the availability of affordable childcare. We have to change this. Finally, we need to invest in prioritising social care to stop costs being shifted to other more expensive parts of the public sector. Just look at delayed discharges from hospital; it makes no sense to have elderly people stuck in more expensive, acute care, when they could be cared for at home.
We have to do more to boost jobs and growth. Reform of social care is vital to achieving those goals. It is a matter of social justice and an economic necessity. The Government must bring forward their plans for reform; there is not a moment to waste.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Chancellor’s Budget last week comes against the backdrop of the country facing the biggest peacetime crisis in modern times—not just a health crisis, but a financial one as well. Throughout the pandemic, the Chancellor, under this Conservative Government, has ensured that most people have been provided for in a variety of different ways, balancing support for individuals and the businesses to which they hope to return with the overall health of our public finances. We would not be able to supercharge our economy after this Budget without the support we have received through the pandemic.
My constituency of Southport has already seen much support from this Government; 13,000 local jobs have been protected through furlough and other support schemes, and around 1,600 businesses have been supported with grants and business loans totalling £7.8 million. There has been a huge impact on our retailers. In addition, a third of businesses in my constituency are in the hospitality and tourism sector, so the support has been vital, and the Budget for after lockdown will provide for more.
In the Budget, the Chancellor extended the business rates holiday, which has been widely welcomed. Tapering the support will mean that businesses face no cliff edge, and, as we unlock, footfall and revenue will rise, allowing for a more gradual move back to normality. The 100% rates relief until June, which moves to two thirds for the rest of the year, provides not only support, but certainty. I hope that this will continue into the future, until we reform business rates in line with the challenges faced by online competition.
I also welcome the extension of the VAT cut, which will help to protect almost 7,000 jobs in hospitality and tourism in my constituency—an industry that has been the hardest hit. Extending the 5% reduced rate of VAT for a further six months until the end of September and then tapering from October, will not only mean that there is also no cliff edge here; it will allow the sector rapidly to recover. Of course, the most important point about the reduced rate of VAT is that if people pay for their hotel room in Southport before October, they will get the 5% rate, not the rate when it goes back up; that is something to remember.
The most important announcement by far for my constituency was the town deal worth £37.5 million. It is the biggest direct investment in a generation, and will be transformational. We have already had £1 million of accelerated funding, which has seen the main street in my town, Lord Street—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker—become a boulevard of light. We have also seen some revitalisation of our market. Our existing tourism and hospitality sectors will be enhanced with a range of projects, including a theatre and convention centre; this will be truly spectacular, bringing an extra £25 million to the local economy. We believe that further business and innovation projects will bring another £400 million of private sector investment.
In short, after hearing his Budget, I think that my constituents are protected, our town is supported and our future is more secure.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this vital Budget debate. This Government are endangering our NHS through their lacklustre approach to the coronavirus pandemic, hospital services and the social care crisis. Last Wednesday, it was clear that there is no plan for a recovery in NHS finances. In fact, the NHS was only mentioned once during the Chancellor’s entire speech.
During the pandemic, nurses and NHS workers have gone above and beyond to contain this hideous disease. Their sacrifice has been immense, which makes the 1% pay increase offered by the Chancellor all the more insulting.
Like the PM, I suffered and was saved by brave frontline staff. Having received world-class care himself, the PM and his Government cannot be so miserly and must reward our NHS heroes with a substantial pay rise.
In my own constituency, after years of dedicated campaigning by local Members of Parliament such as myself, we saw off the “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme. However, its toxic legacy lives on. Ealing Hospital has lost full A&E services, which we badly need. We have lost our maternity ward and we have lost in-patient paediatric care. The closure of the maternity unit in particular—where my own grandchildren were born—has been very harmful to my community. The Government must put their money where their mouth is and properly fund our NHS, and level up areas such as mine, with a densely populated and fast-growing population.
Finally, I want to speak about social care services, which at present are in the midst of a severe crisis. Some 40,000 older people have tragically died in care homes since the beginning of the pandemic, yet, in the Chancellor’s speech last week, there was no mention of social care. The Government have nothing to say to the hundreds of thousands of older people, neglected by a broken system that denies them the care that they so desperately need.
Instead of papering over the cracks, as this Budget does, I urge the Government to tackle these inequalities head on, properly fund social care and give NHS staff the pay rise they truly deserve. Only then will the Government be able to say that they are truly committed to levelling up our society, ensuring that no one, regardless of their wealth and background, is left behind.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Balancing people’s health, saving lives and supporting the economy is an unenviable and complex task. While there are certainly a few areas that still need attention, I believe the Chancellor produced a Budget that supports people, begins to fix the public finances and looks to the future.
I am regularly told in Stroud that furlough has saved businesses. In the first lockdown, Stroud District Council gave out £26 million of Government money in grants. There are more than 4,000 businesses in Stroud. Additional funds have been paid out since.
Skills, reskilling, further education and colleges are going to be integral to the future of our country—I am pleased to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber today. I would like to see green apprenticeships and green-collared work and all of that worked through. We have a White Paper and I am so pleased that the Budget recognised the importance of this area.
I have already been speaking to community groups about the £150 million community ownership fund. I hope we can use funds such as that to support Rush skate park and other sports clubs, and really think about how to use those Government funds and the Government desire for communities to thrive. I know that Stroud communities will be there with their hands up.
The investment in our future through the environment cannot be understated. Stroud will be putting a bid into the fusion STEP programme—the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production programme. There is a chance to be the world’s first fusion power plant; Berkeley and Oldbury and the south-west want to be first in line.
We also need to look to the wetlands—Slimbridge wetlands. We have put together a blue recovery plan for carbon storage and for wellbeing and for everything that we already have on our shores. I say again: please, green investment and private investment for the green stimulus.
It is important to learn from the devastating impact of covid. Businesses have come to me and said that they did not feel heard and understood. They feel that they were shouting into the vacuum. We have to learn from that. I will give a few headlines. The leisure, gyms and heath sector has skilled experts who are going to look after our health, mental health and wellbeing, yet there was no VAT reduction for them and grants were refused. Classes were banned. Some of the road map does not allow them to thrive. These people can help our minds and our health.
I have met many businesses in the wedding sector that have struggled. They are predominantly female-led. Again, the road map does not allow them to step up and work, and there are arbitrary figures for guests—five, six, 15 and 30 people. They can actually go back to work. Let them work. Let them pay back into the economy.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
I am in no doubt that the Chancellor’s Budget will result in the continuation of Tory austerity for those on the lowest incomes, especially disabled people and children. During the global pandemic and health crisis, people have been denied vital support to ensure a dignified standard of living. Like successive Tory Governments, this Tory Government are entrenching class inequalities, which weigh heavily on people’s lives.
I welcome the extension of the universal credit £20 uplift. However, those receiving it face a sudden £1,000 cut to their incomes in six months’ time. The Chancellor must provide people with certainty and agree to make the uplift permanent. People claiming legacy benefits will not even see the £20 uplift; 60,000 Scots, including 20,000 children, will be left in poverty and forced to choose between heating and eating in a cynical attempt to force people on to universal credit, which could leave many worse off and facing a gruelling wait of weeks for their first payment. That means that 2.5 million people across the UK, 1.9 million of whom are disabled, are being denied that support.
Being disabled incurs ongoing costs. The disability price tag means that disabled people already pay a premium for normal living, but the UK Government have opted to deny them support to protect their standard of living and health at the time they need it most. Yesterday, I asked the Work and Pensions Secretary whether she had asked the Chancellor to consider extending the £20 uplift. Her answer was no. Refusing even to consider the £20 lifeline for those on legacy benefits is a complete dereliction of duty by this UK Government to the very people they are supposed to protect, particularly after anti-poverty organisations have been asking for the extension for 11 months. Instead, people claiming legacy benefits are being given a pathetic 37p a week extra. When the UK Government have stuffed billions into the pockets of their cronies for bungled contracts, it is clear whose side they are on.
The UK Budget was an all-round kick in the teeth for disabled people. There was no commitment to increasing statutory sick pay, no commitment to the real living wage and making it available for 52 weeks, no commitment to increasing funding for the Access to Work scheme to keep disabled people in work, and no commitment to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work with a real living wage. Whether people are working or seeking work, the UK Government have yet again failed to support them.
Coronavirus has exposed the deep inequalities that exist under this Westminster Government. People in Scotland—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Marion, you are going to have to leave it there. I am terribly sorry, but we are out of time.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Chancellor on passing the first test of a successful Budget: it is now the last day of the Budget debate and the Budget is still intact. I have seen Budgets hailed on Wednesday, doubted on Thursday, excoriated on Sunday and reversed by Tuesday, so the Chancellor has passed his first important test.
Longer term, what will make this Budget a success is a rise in productivity, so the most important of the Budget documents published alongside the statement is the plan for growth. That is starkly revealed by the GDP forecasts from the OBR. The forecast is 7.3% next year, which sounds extremely encouraging, but after that we go back to a procession of 1.6% or 1.7%. Straight- forwardly, if we do not improve productivity, we will not improve those figures to 2-point-something or even higher, which is what we need to achieve, because if we do not, we will permanently suffer from pressure on public finances and public services. We know that it is not impossible to achieve that because, in some parts of the UK, we do. Some areas in the UK are 9% more productive than Germany at the moment. Other parts, sadly, are less productive than some other former communist economies of eastern and central Europe.
Levelling up—the central purpose of this Government —is not just a political slogan; it is an economic necessity. We need to do what we already achieve in some places in all places in the UK. Some of that will involve traditional infrastructure spending, and at this point I welcome the continuing support for the lower Thames crossing, which is essential for not only spreading growth but spreading traffic heading towards the channel into both Kent’s motorways, not just one.
Apart from physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges and broadband, equally important is human capital. For 70 years, the biggest weakness in our education system has been the relative neglect of vocational and practical skills. I am delighted that the ministerial team at the Department for Education are trying to rectify that, but that much used phrase about “parity of esteem” between academic and vocational qualifications will just be lip service if we carry on making more careers graduate-only for entrants. Why on earth have we done that for the police?
We also need to level up on health because the disparity between healthy life expectancy is not just bad for those involved; it is a drag on our economic growth. Also, we need innovation, particularly in green products and sectors, which we will need to lead the world on. Overall, I congratulate the Chancellor on a balanced Budget that meets one nation ideals and purposes by aiming to bring the whole UK on to a higher growth path.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
In 2019, this Government were elected to deliver on their promises to level up towns like Scunthorpe. We could not have imagined then the challenges that would befall the country. As we move towards what we all hope will be better days ahead, alongside that recovery and support, it is still the job of this Government to keep the promises they made to towns like Scunthorpe, where local people put their faith in MPs like me, knowing that we have a shared stake in our town’s future.
That is why last week’s Budget was so important to Scunthorpe. It is one thing to tell local people that we will keep our promises and that we will invest, improve and truly level up places like Scunthorpe; it is another to show them. In addition to over £10 million of Government investment in our high street, I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget announcement committing a further £21 million of proper new money to Scunthorpe via the towns fund. I worked on our bid with our excellent board and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). We were ambitious to bring forward projects that would benefit local people in both Scunthorpe and surrounding towns and villages—projects that would raise our whole area, not just the town centre.
In addition, the Budget announced the exciting approval of our bid for a new Humber freeport, which will make a huge difference to North Lincolnshire and the whole Humber region. Along with Members on both sides of the House, I have seen the potential benefits of freeports and supported the project, which will create jobs and investment. The freeport will include a customs site at British Steel—further evidence of the Government’s support for the industry.
This Budget also recognises the many businesses in Scunthorpe and the incredibly tough time that they have had over the last year. I want to thank those businesses in my constituency that have worked with me and taken the time to talk to me about their views and give me their insights, which we have been able to feed back to Government. In these tough times, the Budget will give those businesses more certainty and not only protect jobs but create new jobs in our area. The excellent kickstart scheme has already attracted interest from over 100 local employers.
With the towns fund, the investments we have seen over the last year and a freeport agreed, the Government have finally aligned the stars and recognised Scunthorpe for what it actually is: the ideal place for businesses to invest and grow, a great place to live and an area of our country with fantastic potential. I look forward to seeing those promises for Scunthorpe delivered.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
You are on mute, Giles. If you don’t mind, we will take Andrea Leadsom straightaway. We hope we will get back sequentially. We will be back with you, Giles, I promise.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am full of praise for the Chancellor’s work to protect jobs and businesses as we emerge from lockdown, and I support the measures he announced in the Budget, but I also urge him to give even greater focus than he has done to the prospects for our green economy.
In my stint as Business Secretary, I rewrote the Department’s objectives, so that its top priority was for the UK to lead the world in tackling global climate change. On the one hand, there is no doubt that that is the right thing to do—the future of our planet keeps far too many people awake at night. However, on the other hand, building a green economy also makes superb business sense for the UK.
First, the UK is at the forefront of developing green technologies: from offshore wind to nuclear fusion and green hydrogen, we are leading the way. Secondly, the UK has more than 450,000 people in the green collar workforce already. In my time at BEIS, I was confident that a target of 2 million green jobs by 2030 was possible. The particular beauty of the green economy is the breadth of employment opportunities—from apprenticeships in solar power to decarbonisation of heavy industry to cutting- edge scientific discoveries, there is something for all talents. The UK’s green economy could become a bigger jewel in our crown than UK financial services is today, and I urge the Chancellor to share that vision.
COP26 is a great platform, and we need radical action with world-changing initiatives, so I want to put forward three specific ideas. The first is to announce at COP26 a yearbook in which the Paris agreement signatories can record their Government, state and business-level achievements—transparency so that all can see and challenge, while the discussion continues over the more formal measurements.
The second idea is to announce at COP26 three ambitious bilateral commitments to decarbonisation by 2030. The UK can be a key role model, and those pledges could include, for example, working with India on delivering 100 GW of battery storage around the world, with China to deliver 200 GW of offshore wind, and with Brazil, say, to deliver 0.5 billion hectares of new woodland around the world.
The third idea is to announce at COP26 a global green investment bank. Our former rock star central banker, Mark Carney, is now the Prime Minister’s green adviser, and he should be pulling together the global pensions industry, project financing and green investment expertise to work together on financing the decarbonisation of our planet.
As one of the great heroes, Sir David Attenborough, has said,
“real success can only come if there is a change in our societies and in our economics and in our politics.”
The UK has the chance post Brexit to lead that change.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Very professionally done, as we expected, Andrea. Thank you for helping us out. I think our comms are now back. Let us see if we have Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am, I think, unmuted.
First, I thank my constituents, not only for sending me back to Parliament yet again, but for being so forthright in what they want me to do when there is a Budget speech. I have been present at many Budgets and spoken in most of the Budget debates; I am a bit of permanent feature. I have seen a lot of aspirant merchant banker types—the George Osbornes who come and do their bit on the Front Bench and then go on their way to the next stage in their career. I just hope that this time, this merchant banker, who is the wealthiest Member of Parliament we have ever had, will stay the course. I do not usually trust merchant bankers because I trade as an economist and I would prefer an economist’s view of our country’s future.
My folk in Huddersfield tell me that what they want is pretty simple: good jobs on good pay, a good health service, a good education service, a clean environment, and a modernised welfare state that is up to date. One of the things this country can be proudest of is a welfare state that really looks after people when they are sick or out of work. The covid crisis has pointed out to us that there are some severe deficiencies in our welfare state. If someone is thrown out of a job and has no employment, the support and the income they get are dramatically lower than in most of our competing nations. This Budget should have addressed that, bringing the NHS up to date—I will not even go into the shameful 1% pay rise that is in fact not a pay rise—and looking thoroughly at equipping it for the future after it has been systematically cut and cut again since 2010, but also looking at the welfare state in its entirety.
Many people have talked about the green economy. Our good science, good technology and good manufacturing have meant that we have sorted covid and we are winning against this global pandemic. Now we have the science, the technology, the partnerships and the manufacturing capacity to set about saving our planet from climate change and global warming, so let us do that. This Budget should have taken a lead. It should have shown passion, partnership and a real ability to build relationships that work. I only hope that this Chancellor will stay on and do a proper job for a change.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now see if the technology and science are going to bring us Kate Osamor.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this really important debate.
The consequences of covid-19 have been disastrous for us, causing the worst recession of any major developed economy. The Budget was a missed opportunity to help to repair the damage caused by covid-19. This Government have used covid-19 and the Budget to hand out contracts to large corporations, funnel funds via the so-called towns fund towards the constituencies of Conservative Members, and cut public sector pay, universal credit and NHS funding. Meanwhile, in Edmonton, 5,000 of my constituents have lost their jobs in the past year alone, and the unemployment rate is now double the national average. Almost half the children in Edmonton live in poverty. Yet the Chancellor will cut the £20 universal credit uplift in September and continues to ignore the millions of disabled and sick people on legacy benefits who never received the so-called uplift. The UK welfare benefits system is one of the least generous in the developed world. This Government have torn holes in our welfare safety net. Sadly, too often, losing your job or falling ill means going hungry and losing your home.
Many leaseholders like those in Prowse Court in Edmonton listened to the Chancellor hoping that the Government would finally offer them the help they need to make their homes safe. There was not a single mention of cladding or building safety from the Chancellor last week. Instead, they are being left to foot bills they cannot afford while the property developers who profited from the Government’s unsafe cuts to building safety regulations walk away without paying a penny.
After more than a decade of austerity, my constituents in Edmonton needed a transformative Budget that would tackle inequality, rebuild the local economy, recover jobs, retrain unemployed workers and rebuild businesses to reflect a fairer society. We cannot go back to business as usual. This country and my constituents deserve better.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Budget, not least because of the Chancellor’s extension of the support packages to assist businesses as we begin the transition out of lockdown. The extended furlough scheme and self-employment income support scheme will continue to be a vital crutch for businesses in my constituency, and the restart grant and recovery loans will ensure that businesses are supported well beyond the current road map timetable, helping to smooth the shift back to normal trading.
Another measure that my constituents and I were pleased to hear will continue was the extension of the freeze in fuel duty. Many of my Back-Bench colleagues and I stressed the importance of that to the Chancellor earlier this year. It will prevent increased costs for struggling commuters and businesses in Leigh during this crucial time.
Ahead of the Budget, local businesses in the hospitality sector contacted me to express the need for further financial support. While there are many existing schemes in place for them, I know that they were concerned about the potential rise in beer duty. Working alongside the Long Live The Local campaign and local pubs in my constituency, I heard at first hand just how important it is for pubs and the wider hospitality sector to be able to offer a cheaper pint and get customers back through the door. That is why I know the Chancellor’s decision to extend the beer duty freeze will be strongly welcomed.
While I welcome the extension of the business rates holiday until June and the fact that the vast majority of local businesses will see a temporary 75% cut in their business rates, my constituents are concerned that those measures will provide only a temporary fix to a more deeply rooted problem. In some of the more deprived communities in the north, business rates are so high as a proportion of earnings that businesses pay an effective tax rate of up to 70%, compared with 20% for those in the south. Businesses in Leigh are some of the worst affected in the whole of England, paying twice the national average. If we are going to keep our promise to level up those areas most affected by the pandemic and in need of financial support to thrive, we must reform business rates and create a system fit for the future.
As we move out of this crisis, we have an opportunity to ensure that, through our national recovery programme, we build back better. Again, I welcome this Budget. Although there is more to do, it will benefit businesses, families and the high street in communities such as Leigh as we exit this crisis.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A decade ago, we were told that austerity was a necessary response to borrowing £158 billion, and we have spent 10 years arguing about the damage done as a result: cost-cutting measures that cost us more than they saved—the bedroom tax springs to mind—the sluggish productivity that we have not dealt with, and the inequality that has grown worse as a result of focusing not on investing in people and their potential but on trying to pick winners and losers.
Now we are in a position where we are borrowing a figure double that and then some. The Chancellor tells us that he is being honest, but he is not being honest, and he is about to repeat the mistakes that were made in 2010. Austerity did not move our economy forward and it did not improve the lives of our local communities. We have the fourth highest death rate from covid-19 out of 132 countries. As Sir Michael Marmot has said, that is at least in part down to the pre-existing poor health in poorer sections of our local communities. What a damning indictment of austerity indeed.
Coming out of the pandemic, we cannot afford to make the same mistakes again, but that is exactly what is about to happen. The universal credit cut will see 500,000 children dragged into poverty. It is a 7% cut in incomes. Some people might say that 7% is not very much, but if that is the difference between waving and drowning, that is the impact this Chancellor is going to have.
The Government promised that nobody would lose their home as a result of covid, yet we know that half a million people are already in rent arrears, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said nothing about that issue. We know that they plan to clobber nurses with a pay cut—because it is a pay cut when inflation is predicted to be 1.5%. It is going to cost us more, just as the bedroom tax did, because nurses are not daft. In London alone, we are paying £6 billion a year for agency staff, because we have NHS staff shortages. Nurses are going to work for agencies when they are not being paid properly. There is money there to be had.
It is right that we look at corporation tax rates. It is right that we do more on capital gains tax—after all, there are people trading shares in UK companies through tax havens who are not paying it. However, there is no point raising money if we are not going to invest in people, and the mums of this country know that most of all. Those who became a mum in the past year are one and a half times more likely to have lost their job than a dad. Our childcare sector is crumbling, with 58% of nurseries saying they cannot make it to the end of the term, but the Chancellor said nothing. We have spent the last 10 years dealing with the outcome of not investing in the people of this country. I urge the Chancellor to rethink and not do that again.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
Erdington is rich in talent, but is one of the poorest constituencies in England. Levelling up matters, but it is not happening in Erdington. Our high streets fund bid was rejected. Services that have already been badly hit, from social care to street cleaning, are facing fresh austerity cuts. Twenty-seven nursery schools in the most deprived areas of the city now face closure.
We now have the proposed closure of the GKN factory in my constituency. GKN is one of the oldest engineering companies in Britain. It is 262 years old. It manufactured the cannonballs for the battle of Waterloo and helped build the Spitfires during the war. It was taken over three years ago by Melrose and now faces closure. There are 519 highly skilled workers who work in that plant.
What happened was utterly outrageous. Crucial now is what happens. If the company goes to the wall, 519 jobs go, but what also goes are many more jobs in the supply chain. That would be bad news for British workers and bad news for British manufacturing, because we would lose the capacity to make high-value components. Those jobs will be exported to continental Europe. That is why I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place with the Secretary of State, and I say to him that the test of the Government in the next stages will be what they say and what they do, because the solution could be positive: avoiding the closure of that great historic marque with 50 years of manufacturing for the automotive industry.
In conclusion, on manufacturing more generally, we have 300,000 manufacturing jobs in the west midlands, which is the heart of England. There were some welcome moves in the Budget—of that there was no doubt—but they went nowhere near far enough, because if one looks at our continental competitors, their Governments are investing on a grand scale, far in excess of what is happening in our country. For example, the French Government are putting £15 billion of investment in aviation and automotive. That is four times more than what is happening in this country. Sixteen gigafactories are being established in continental Europe, but there is just one in our country, and we hope the second one will be at Coventry airport.
Much more needs to be done, because manufacturing is key to the recovery of our economy. It is key to the recovery of Britain. The Government have gone nowhere near far enough. What they need to do at the next stages is to back British manufacturing.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). In what are extremely challenging circumstances, I commend this Budget for meeting so many of the immediate and longer-term needs of north Wales. The extension of furlough for the employed and self-employed, the continued VAT reduction for hospitality, holiday accommodation and attractions, and the freezing of alcohol duty are all welcome measures that provide security, particularly for the hospitality and tourism sectors during what we hope are the final stages of the pandemic.
Those sectors are extremely important in a constituency such as the Vale of Clwyd. In addition to the Chancellor’s Budget measures, there is a desperate need for the Welsh Government to publish a road map out of lockdown to align with the clear measures set out by the Prime Minister. The medium to long-term commitments that the Chancellor has made will provide the boost that is needed to address local pockets of deprivation and to ensure levelling up in more general regional economic performance.
The Budget included funding that will provide tangible benefits to my constituents. Denbighshire County Council is a direct beneficiary of the Budget, receiving £125,000 of capacity funding from the levelling up fund and an additional £20,000 for similar purposes from the community renewal fund. These programmes open up the possibility of many millions of pounds of support for the county within the next year or so to promote local regeneration. I look forward to working with the council to secure a turnaround in the fortunes of Rhyl high street, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), to see investment in other town centres in the area. I also welcome the community ownership fund, which has the potential to be a major boost for all those who desperately want the Belle Vue ground to remain the home of football in Rhyl.
It was announced at the Budget that the north Wales growth deal will be reprofiled, with funding being brought forward from 15 years to 10 years. This will mean an extra £4.4 million per year from this April for nine years. It is hoped that this investment will create 3,800 new jobs and deliver a £2.2 billion boost to the local economy. This deal alone is set to help redevelop the former North Wales Hospital in Denbigh, support high-value manufacturing in St Asaph, and boost digital connectivity and green energy projects.
As we bounce back from the coronavirus, this transformation of our local communities and economy will be very welcome. I sincerely hope that, in the months ahead, these measures will be matched with further commitments to boost regional rail infrastructure, and I very much look forward to the findings of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review. I am confident that this Budget puts north Wales and the whole of Britain in a strong position to recover and grow following a particularly challenging year for us all.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Freezing alcohol duty rates is fine for alcohol producers, but not so good for Scottish publicans. Before covid, there was a drift from on-sale to off-sale consumption both north and south of the border. Something like 75% of sales were for the latter, predominantly in supermarkets, and now it will be even more.
Even once lockdown eases, will people return to their old local or to their pub, or will attitudes change further? Some might say it does not matter, but I actually think it does, and not just for publicans but for communities. It is a difficult time for the licensed trade, but it is also a difficult time for others in our communities. Pubs are community assets in towns as well as in rural parts. We have seen the demise of the country pub, but we now face that on the high street. Dealing with closed shops and what to do with them is difficult enough in towns and villages, but dealing with a pub that is even larger will be much harder, yet that is what we face unless action is taken.
Pubs are also places of supervised consumption. It is much better to have people drinking alcohol where there are ways of ensuring that their behaviour is monitored. Likewise, people’s measures are much more liberal when they are pouring for themselves, rather than having a publican pour them. Indeed, alcohol consumption health-wise, as well as justice-wise, is probably better done in supervised premises. That is why the failure to take any action in the Budget is rather shameful and will harm communities as well as the trade.
We have seen a proposal from the Social Market Foundation that would have allowed for a variation in alcohol duty rates, loading a modest increase on to the off-sale trade to ensure that there could be a reduction for the on-sale trade. That would help keep pubs alive, but it would not reduce the burden required for the Exchequer. Indeed, as I say, given the profits made by many supermarkets, it would probably be seen by most as legitimate and entirely acceptable.
Similarly, there are other attitudes that can be taken on VAT. Italy has reduced VAT on alcohol in pubs and restaurants. Again, that could be revenue-neutral by encouraging increased consumption, but consumption that is better done in a supervised manner, keeps a local asset and maintains a viable business, rather than having people buy tranches of alcohol from supermarkets at discounted prices. That is why, as I say, this has been a missed opportunity.
Pubs are vital for our communities. They are assets, and we have to take steps to support them with either a reduction in VAT, as in Italy, or indeed the more radical steps of the Social Market Foundation, which I would support, to try to secure alcohol being taken in supervised premises, as opposed to simply sold en masse by super- markets at discounted prices. Actions have to change, and this has been a missed opportunity for the pub trade.
Giles Watling [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for stepping in as my understudy earlier. Unsurprisingly, this Budget is all about holding the line and keeping things alive so that when we do emerge, blinking, into the sunshine of a bright new future, this nation is prepared to take its rightful place at the centre of the world’s stage. It is about keeping working people going so that we do not bleed talent away. It is about maintaining our structural heritage so that everything from the mightiest theatre to the smallest village hall is ready to throw open its doors to re-engage with our communities. It is about supporting businesses, large and small. It is also about delivering all this in a cost-effective way so that our children, and our children’s children’s children, are not lumbered with a totally unmanageable debt.
It is also worth remembering that it was only in 2015 that George Osborne announced that we were to make the final payment on the loans for the first world war. With the coronavirus outbreak, we have now entered similar unpleasant territory. With well over a third of a trillion pounds already thrown at the management of this terrible pandemic, we must tread cautiously. We must keep things going until our economy can stand on its own two feet once more. Then we must build that economy so that through the efforts of the people of these islands, this massive debt is reduced rapidly and is manageable for future generations.
With all that in mind, I am happy to support the Budget, as it delivers significant value to my constituents and helps our businesses through the end of lockdown. Importantly, to my mind, this Budget extends and ends the furlough scheme in a very sensible way. Many residents in Clacton will be dependent on furlough. The scheme currently supports 880,000 jobs in the east of England. The scheme is also protecting jobs: only 10% of local businesses have been forced to lay off someone because of the pandemic, according to the results of a covid recovery survey that I ran recently. That is why I have always believed that furlough needs to be in place until restrictions are fully lifted, and the tapered ending is the right approach, which will help businesses to manage costs after reopening. Alongside furlough, I am pleased that 600,000 new claimants are now eligible for self-employment income support schemes. It is right that we deliver these two new grants in this financial year.
One of my major concerns is the fate of the freelancers who have so far fallen through the cracks of the support schemes, unable to access them, so I hope that these changes will be of benefit to them. Many of those freelancers are of course involved in the arts, and I am sure that they will appreciate the additional £408 million to help that sector recover, but as I warned in my speech last week, we must ensure that that support remains in place even after restrictions are lifted. One note of warning: if we do not support the creative sector—the fastest-growing sector—we will have a hard job indeed getting out of this economic nightmare.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
During the run-up to any Budget, there is much chatter about the rate at which Government set taxes—too high and we run the risk of choking off growth; too low and the national debt will rise to unmanageable levels. What is very rarely asked, however, is how taxpayers’ money is spent. A taxpayer has a right, when they hand over a proportion of their hard-earned wages, for that money to be spent in a wise and prudent manner by the Government. However, the facts and evidence, as presented by the independent National Audit Office, show that this is simply not the case.
From April 2017 until the end of 2020, central Government Departments have recorded at least £5 billion in accounting losses. This is an incredibly high figure of wastage. For example, HMRC racked up over £470 million in departmental losses from 2017 to 2020. It gets worse: according to HMRC’s own planning assumption, total fraud and error arising from the coronavirus job retention scheme cost anything in the region of £2 billion to £3.9 billion. So far, only £10 million has been recovered and any more is unlikely to be claimed back.
To put that into perspective, Saffron Cordery, the NHS Providers deputy chief executive, said that building a new, average, mid-sized hospital costs around £500 million. This means that the £5 billion in accounting losses over three years could have built 10 new hospitals. Given the strain that we have seen on NHS resources this year, I am sure that an extra 10 hospitals would have been appreciated by many communities across the country.
The new Grange University Hospital has just been built near my constituency by a Welsh Labour Government. The hospital has a specialist critical care centre, a top-range cardiac suite and 30 individual intensive therapy unit rooms. It was even able to open four months early to relieve pressure on the NHS during the pandemic. All of that cost £350 million.
Let me tell the House what else was over £300 million: the total losses for the Department for Work and Pensions departmental group. That was in one year alone. I cannot speak for other Members in this House, but I certainly know what I would rather have taxpayers’ money spent on and it is certainly not fraud and error. All that money should be spent helping the people of the UK to recover from the effects of the pandemic and not wasted on departmental error. We owe that to the British people. It is their money. Let us spend it wisely.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to respond to last week’s Budget. I certainly do not envy the Chancellor having to set the Budget during a global pandemic which has had such a devastating effect on our economy. This is a pragmatic, responsible Budget that maintains the commitment to levelling up and aims to speed up our economic recovery. There were undoubtedly some difficult choices to make, but they must be measured against the whole economic picture rather than as single issues. Small pay rises for some must be viewed against more than 1 million new jobseekers, those who have lost their businesses, and those surviving on reduced furlough wages.
Helping people back into work must be our first priority. That is why I applaud several measures in the Budget that highlight the Chancellor’s ongoing commitment to protecting and creating jobs: schemes like Help to Grow, which will offer MBA-style management training and also help businesses to develop digital skills; the creation of freeports, including two that will help to fire up our midlands engine; the extension of furlough; the VAT cut to the hospitality industry; and more money for apprenticeships.
There are many measures, but I especially want to mention something that will benefit my home city. This is where we see real change and a real plan. Without resorting to the school assembly stalwart of giving a man a fish or a fishing rod, the Government’s investment in Wolverhampton has given our city a clear plan to a better economic future. The Budget announced not only a successful £25 million towns fund bid, but we will benefit from £10 million of investment for a taskforce into modern methods of construction. This will be based at a new Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government headquarters in Wolverhampton. This all links to the £15 million the Government invested in our National Brownfield Institute, which sits next to our School of Architecture at Springfield brewery. The Government’s investment means Wolverhampton will be the home of the green home building industry and all the jobs and opportunities that that will bring in over the coming decades.
This vision for Wolverhampton is worth so much more than just the funds the Government have provided. Moving a Ministry away from London proves the commitment to levelling up. I would like to say this to the Leader of the Opposition: I know today’s Labour party is more Wandsworth than Wolverhampton, more Balham than Bilston and more Willesden than Wednesfield, but moving Government Departments away from London is not giving up, it is giving hope: hope to our local economy and hope to the thousands of people looking for work in my constituency.
I commend the Budget, and I commend the Chancellor and the Government, who are committed to changing life chances and giving better opportunities to people around the United Kingdom and in my wonderful home city of Wolverhampton.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
For that last 10 years, we have been told that austerity was the only way: local governments operating on a shoestring budget, services cut to the bone, councils managing on the bare minimum, charities closing, no money available for specialist women’s refuges, and mental health provision at crisis point, with children waiting up to two years for even the most basic initial assessments. During that decade, child poverty soared, homelessness stopped being noticed, widening gaps just kept on widening, and public sector workers suffered from a pay freeze that never seemed to start to thaw.
We know that the majority of people using food banks are actually in work—the working poor. Many of those are the nurses who, by this Budget, have once again been insulted. When our frontline NHS workers urgently needed protective equipment, did the Government respond by quickly securing it from tried and tested suppliers, or did they award contracts to those with absolutely no previous experience, wasting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money and leaving those frontline workers without adequate protection? When hundreds of nurses and doctors lost their lives, and many thousands of lives had been saved by their colleagues, the Government made sure they were clapping. They said some nice words and thanked them, but as our nursing force start to emerge from the real trauma they have faced this year, where is the Government’s respect? The insulting offer of a 1% pay rise, said to be the equivalent of £3.50 per week, does not even honour the basic starting point, which is legislated for, of 2.1%. So those nurses, who are literally making the difference between life and death for so many people, will be going back to food banks in between their gruelling shifts.
Those of us with many local hospitality businesses welcome any help available, and those of us able to bid for the levelling-up funds urgently to support our high streets, creative sector and tourism industry will gladly do so. However, we also note the opportunities lost to level up for the self-employed, the millions excluded and the public sector workers, and, yet again, the social care sector and our unpaid carers are left out. Women are also, yet again, at the bottom of the pile. The Women’s Budget Group can advise the Chancellor on how to change that with its expert knowledge. Those glossy photos of swish new Downing Street makeovers are a kick in the teeth to those excluded—the wedding industry, unpaid carers, and the very people who put their lives at risk to save ours. I urge the Chancellor to listen to the public outrage and think again about the insulting 1% pay rise for nurses.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) [V]
This Budget delivers for all parts of the UK and it is the most important Budget for my constituency in years. The Secretary of State outlined the importance of levelling up and creating new industries, and that will certainly happen here in the Solent region, because levelling up is just not a tagline for one part of the country; as this Budget shows, it is for all parts of the UK. Levelling up and infrastructure improvements are about not just physical manifestations of infrastructure, but preparing the economy, and communities and industries that will prepare and propel Britain’s future.
The Solent region has pockets of deprivation left over by the old industries of the railways in Eastleigh town centre and the post-industrial past of Southampton’s docks. The announcement of the Solent freeport, which was opposed by the Lib Dem leader and pooh-poohed by the Labour party, will prepare our workforce for the future. We are talking about 52,000 jobs, the creation of decarbonisation industries, such as green maritime, green transport jobs and a world-leading sector in green energy. This will mean that £2 billion-worth of investment will be attracted to the Solent region and it will add £3.7 billion of gross value added uplift to the UK. This Budget is a shot in the arm for my region, which is often seen as economically developed, to ensure that the Solent region, my constituency and Southampton as a whole will have the world-leading recovery that we need.
The Government have recognised that need for my constituents, my region and the country, because not only does this Budget deliver the infrastructure needed to propel that future, but it puts in place some of the solutions to the problems that my region has had for decades. Such problems include three-generation unemployment, whereby people have not been able to get back into the workplace because the industrial heritage of areas such as Southampton and Eastleigh has not been worked on. This Budget does that, all delivered by a Conservative Government. The people of the Solent region have been given ambition and opportunity, and the Business Secretary, the Treasury and the Prime Minister should know that my constituents and I will grab that opportunity with relish.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Page 41 of the Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto in Wales guaranteed that Wales would
“receive at least the same level of financial support”—
from the UK—
“as it currently receives from the EU.”
That was a cast-iron, copper-bottomed manifesto promise. We also had endless levelling-up rhetoric and the UK Government singing the praises of the Union. What could possibly go wrong?
Fifteen months later, this Budget announced an array of competing, competitive and opaque Westminster-controlled funds, which undermine rather than enhance Wales’s economic strategy, and fail to honour this Government’s promises to Wales. The shared prosperity fund’s pilot, disingenuously named the community renewal fund, was allocated a mere £220 million to boost the entire UK, yet Wales alone received around £370 million a year in needs-based funding—I emphasis that it was needs-based funding—from Europe. This is not only a broken manifesto promise, but a broken promise to Wales.
Equally flawed is the levelling-up fund, which is being applied in the devolved nations in a way that is deliberately set out to undermine devolution. Both schemes entail UK-wide competition, rather than a needs-based system, which effectively and disinterestedly tackles the UK’s vast regional inequalities without fear or favour.
Welsh local authorities will now bid for funding from a smaller pot in direct competition with the entire UK. The consequences for economic planning are enormous. Instead of a Wales-wide economic development agenda, the UK Government have divided and, they hope, conquered Wales, by breaking our economy into 22 competing units. What makes that worse, of course, is that the UK Government have linked the success of these funds to representation by MPs. The Chancellor is therefore obviously not discomfited by whether Wales receives our fair share, since the Government are also cutting the number of Welsh MPs by a fifth.
It seems that this Conservative Government, not content with breaking promises and scorning need, are rigging the system to favour their own political interests, as both funds disproportionately benefit Conservative seats, including, appallingly, the Chancellor’s.
The Chancellor failed to present a coherent long-term strategy that complements Wales’s existing development agenda to improve the lives of Welsh people. Instead, he withdrew support, undermined our autonomy and prioritised his party’s interest. Wales does have a choice, though, and Plaid Cymru has a better plan—a strategic £6 billion recovery stimulus to make our economy fairer and greener. I urge the Chancellor to give us the tools to help ourselves and deliver a recovery that works for Wales.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I wish the Chancellor had sat down and asked himself when he was writing his Budget what he needed to do to reduce the social and economic divide in the UK and how he would stop those who have done well during the epidemic doing even better in the recovery, while millions more are on a downward slope—the K-shaped recovery that we all want to avoid. The K-shaped recovery will not be avoided by a Budget that increases poverty.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicts that the cut in universal credit and tax credit will plunge a further 500,000 people into poverty, including 200,000 children. What we needed was a revision of the welfare state that will fit the needs of the gig economy and lift people out of poverty, not trap them in it.
During the recovery from the global banking crash, the Tories imposed 10 years of austerity on this country, cutting public services to the point where we struggled to respond to the covid crisis. The 120,000 deaths have not happened just by bad luck. The Tories changed, but their actions prove that their words are not what they intend to do. They claim to have found a Keynesian mojo, but if there is anything that exposes their façade and the same old Tory thinking, we need look no further than a derisory 1% pay increase offered to NHS staff.
A Government who were committed to renewing our NHS after the covid crisis would have made sure that we permanently filled the 100,000 vacancies that existed at its start. They would have made sure that we were recruiting the highest quality recruits into jobs in the NHS and retaining its highly qualified, dedicated staff. A 1% pay offer does none of those things. Instead, what we got from the Government were choreographed pledges for money to go to Tory seats and some rehashed policies on housing that will repeat the errors of austerity, fuelling another housing bubble, forcing first-time buyers out of the market.
The level of home ownership has gone down under the Tories at a time when borrowing is at an all-time consistent low. There are now 800,000 fewer people under the age of 45 who own their homes than in 2010. What we needed was a plan to decarbonise the existing housing stock. That would create jobs in every region. What we needed was a plan to build council housing and to upskill local workforces. Sadly, that requires thinking of which the Tories are simply not capable.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) [V]
May I welcome the Chancellor’s long-overdue announcement of an extension to the furlough scheme? This will help to avoid an economic cliff edge this spring. However, much more is needed, and our alternative Labour Budget would address the deep inequalities and injustices in the UK and take us forward to a stronger, more prosperous future. After covid, we need to rebuild the foundations of our economy for the long term by supporting new jobs across the whole UK; backing businesses as they recover, and protecting family finances.
We need new jobs in emerging industries, and we need them quickly. Yet the Government’s flagship policy, the kickstart scheme, is proving to be a failure. A business in my constituency applied to the scheme last September. It was keen to start giving opportunities to young people, but, months later, the application is stalled. That is not good enough. The process needs to work much more efficiently. Kickstart also needs to be paired with extra investment for places such as Blaenau Gwent.
The hospitality sector in particular has suffered and many have lost their livelihoods. Our Tradeteam logistics depot took a hammering last summer and 50 jobs were lost, with 50 families left in the lurch. They were well-paid, unionised jobs and they will be missed. To build a new economy and support business, we need investment, yet we are still waiting for a well-funded shared prosperity fund. We need jobs, but we also need to help people get to jobs. I have written to the Chancellor previously about funding improvements to the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff trainline. Accessing the employment market, higher education and leisure is crucial to our valleys communities. Improvements such as this would be hugely beneficial to our economy. New train infrastructure and more frequent services need to be delivered in better time.
On protecting family finances, I will end on an issue that I have raised before in the House. In recent years, thousands of British Steel pensioners were ripped off by pension sharks and denied justice. I urge the Chancellor to look at the Financial Conduct Authority’s role in this crisis and to review its effectiveness in protecting consumers. After constant prodding, I think that it is time to reform this regulator so that it faces towards the whole of the UK, not just the City of London.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
This virus has dealt our economy its worst blow in 300 years, but I am confident that we will rise phoenix-like from the ashes. I am confident because our support has already protected more than 11 million jobs. I am confident because our economy is now expected to recover to pre-crisis levels six months sooner than predicted. I am confident because of the speed of our vaccine roll-out and, above all, I am confident because I believe in the ingenuity and hard work of the British people. That is not to say that there has not been a great cost. On a tour of a local business last year, the scale of the harm was brought home to me. The silence of its almost empty offices spoke louder than any words. That is why I am so relieved that the Chancellor has put jobs, both protecting and creating them, at the heart of this Budget: extending furlough and support for the self-employed and providing restart grants and recovery loans, but also setting the stage for our future economy through investment in towns and communities across our country, helping businesses to invest through the new super-deduction, and turbo-charging whole regions through a new network of freeports.
I want to highlight what the East Midlands freeport based at East Midlands airport, the intermodal rail park in Derbyshire and the Ratcliffe on Soar power station site in my constituency will do for people in the east midlands and for my constituents in Rushcliffe, because I believe that in debates such as this about big infrastructure projects, the very real benefits they will have for local communities are often lost in the noise.
At its heart, a freeport attracts more businesses, and more businesses mean more jobs—60,000 more jobs, in the case of the East Midlands freeport. The site at Ratcliffe on Soar in Rushcliffe will be the heart of our shift to a green economy, encouraging employers in green energy generation to locate on the site. Proposals for a new zero carbon research centre there, backed by six universities across the region, will be accelerated. Creating attractive career paths in growing industries will encourage more university graduates to stay in the region; currently only 17% do so. It is also good news for local businesses, which will form part of the supply chain for the building and infrastructure associated with it.
Successive Governments of all political colours have underinvested in the east midlands. Today marks a change. The Budget represents the biggest Government investment in the east midlands for a generation, so I will be proud to vote for it tonight.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
After 10 years of Government cuts, Blackburn is one of the most deprived towns in the country. We have been under additional restrictions for longer than almost anywhere else. Our high street has been decimated, and going into the pandemic, Blackburn’s health outcomes were some of the worst in the country. So it is right that Blackburn has been identified as a high priority for the Government’s levelling up fund, and I look forward to working with the council on the further development of the exciting plans for the borough to recover and grow.
Having read the fine print of the Government’s self-styled levelling-up agenda, though, I must say I am disappointed. I am concerned that the money is not going to all the right places. Some is going to the Chancellor’s constituency, where multimillion-pound houses are on sale, yet deprived areas like Halton and Salford—both identified as being in the top 20 local authorities—are not so fortunate. There is clearly something wrong with that, so I ask the Minister what level of involvement Ministers have in choosing winners and losers, and whether the Department will share with the House the formula that the Government use to allocate funding.
My next issue is with the Government forcing regions to compete with one another. If the Government really want the regions to recover, all regions should get their fair share of investment. It must mean that the Government accept that places like Blackburn are starting from a lower base and will recover more slowly, and therefore the Government must put more into the most deprived regions to unleash their potential. The Government also need to recognise that the funding announced in the Budget does not come anywhere near the £15 billion that has been cut from council budgets over the past decade.
The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) boasted about what successive Tory Governments had done for Lancashire. He failed to mention that Lancashire councils have faced, on average, 45% cuts in the last decade. That is not levelling up Lancashire—it is levelling down, particularly in public services.
Briefly, for the sake of time, my final issue is with the Government’s double counting and the smoke and mirrors strategy they deploy. Half of the £6 million being handed out to councils this coming financial year as part of the levelling-up fund has been reshuffled from towns fund funding. The £150 million budget of the pinch point fund announced in 2018 has now been assumed into the levelling-up fund, and £175 million for freeports has also been redistributed. So when the Government talk about a £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and a £3.6 billion towns fund, they need to be honest about the fact that they are playing musical chairs with old money in many cases.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
This Budget puts in place the framework for a steady economic revival, and provides a strong package for my constituents in Dover and Deal. The recent pandemic has seen thousands of jobs at risk in the ferry, port, retail, hospitality and tourism businesses on which my area depends, so I strongly welcome the range of continued support, including the extension of the self-employed income support scheme and the £5 billion in restart grants, which will help hard-hit businesses to get back on their feet.
The levelling-up fund provides an opportunity to strengthen and diversify. We are an area rich in advanced manufacturing and biotechnology, and we are ambitious to be strong in digital skills and the green economy. Priority 1 status and a £150,000 award in the levelling-up fund will ensure that we can put together the best bid possible for a further £20 million investment in our area. That is on top of the millions of pounds already earmarked for our future high streets fund bid and our proposed White Cliffs border control facility. These important investments will attract further opportunities for new jobs, businesses and prosperity.
As we look forward to making the most of these opportunities, there are also emerging economic risks that will fall hardest on less affluent areas, so we also need to look at a better deal for households and consumers. For example, Dover has the advantage of a high-speed rail train that connects to central London in an hour, but a season ticket costs over £7,000; that is around 25% of average earnings. To unleash the railway opportunity—whether that is high-speed Dover or the new HS2—rail tickets must be affordable within the context of the area and linked to average income. We should also introduce flexible tickets that are affordable for people who travel once, twice or three times a week. As we meet today, oil prices have surged recently and inflationary risks loom on the horizon. This risks consequent rises in energy, rents and other household and consumer bills. The Government’s commitment on fuel freezes is welcome, yet the transition to new fuel such as the electric car also needs to take place in rural and coastal areas.
In conclusion, this is a Budget that supports the areas hardest hit by the pandemic, and ensures a fairer share of investment and opportunity in the years to come.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Ten harsh years of austerity have had a huge impact on areas like mine. Barnsley Council has faced some of the worst Government cuts in the country, losing 40% of its income since 2010, so the concept of levelling up could be a very welcome one. The Government have described levelling up as their intention to address inequality and “level up” underperforming and left-behind parts of the UK, but this is simply not what we have seen; it is six days after the Budget, and the Government are yet to publish the criteria for the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. The Chancellor has previously stated that the fund would be allocated
“based on an index of economic need.”
That is curious when we consider that the Chancellor’s own constituency of Richmond in North Yorkshire is among the top fifth of the most prosperous places in the country, and currently the 251st most deprived place in Britain, and yet it is placed in the uppermost level for funding. Compare that to Barnsley, which is the 38th most deprived area in the country, but has been placed in level 2—behind Richmond—in the queue for funding.
Given that the Government are yet to publish the criteria, I would like to consider for a moment what those criteria could be. Let us begin with child poverty. In Barnsley East, 25% of nought to 15-year-olds live in poverty; that is double the figure of 12% in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Let us move on to free school meals. There are over 3,000 eligible children in Barnsley East—double the figure of 1,500 in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Let us look at unemployment, which in Barnsley is 6.6%; again, that is double the figure of 3.3% in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Child poverty, free school meals, unemployment claimants—the list goes on. The statistics will continue to prove that Barnsley is clearly in greater need than the Chancellor’s constituency, yet Richmond is in line to receive funding ahead of Barnsley.
The fact is that, despite the slogan “levelling up” and whatever the criteria the Government eventually publish, they have chosen to allocate funding in a way that favours affluent areas over those of greater need. That is the simple reality, and it is not the first time. The towns fund was the same: 60 out of 61 areas picked by Ministers for the new funds were Conservative-held or Tory election target seats. The Government are pretending to give money to the communities that need it most when they are actually doing the opposite.
Areas such as mine have suffered greatly through this pandemic. An increase in unemployment and in-work poverty has led to a sharp rise in food bank use. The Government should admit that levelling up is no more than an empty slogan, or change the criteria and put the money where the need is greatest.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
The 2021 Budget is a Budget befitting a Government leading the way in building back better post-Brexit and post-covid. On behalf of my constituents on Ynys Môn, I particularly thank the Chancellor for the funding he announced for the Holyhead hydrogen hub. The investment of £4.8 million will have a significant impact on Ynys Môn and will provide a major stepping stone in the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero.
The hydrogen hub is a pioneering project based on a hub-and-spoke model. It will kickstart a local sustainable hydrogen supply chain, and will form part of a connected network all across the UK. It will help to decrease carbon emissions, air pollution and noise pollution, and will set the scene for growth and green regeneration on Anglesey. It will initially create between 20 and 30 jobs, help to support more than 500 jobs in local businesses, and offer valuable local training and skills development opportunities. It makes use of existing electricity and gas infrastructure, with a capacity to scale up to diversify into a range of hydrogen markets, including heat, power and agriculture. It brings with it opportunities for cutting-edge innovation, which will in turn elevate the research and development work already being undertaken by Bangor University.
The project is the culmination of work by a number of important local and national employers, including Menter Môn, Stena, M-SParc, the Isle of Anglesey County Council and Coleg Menai. They should be saluted for their initiative and drive. It is that type of project that will form the heart of Anglesey as the energy island, turning our local natural assets into green energy and once again crowning Anglesey as Môn Mam Cymru.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
I listened to the Chancellor’s polished rhetoric last week and heard a man who knows nothing of and has never faced the dire circumstances that millions of people face in our nation today. This Budget offers nothing by way of a solution to the increasing levels of poverty and inequality in our communities.
The Independent Food Bank Network reported an increase of 88% in emergency food parcels between February and October 2020. Action for Children reported that 40% of families were struggling to feed their children. A Kellogg’s survey last week said that one in five schools now run food banks. In Liverpool, West Derby, we have seen a 100% increase in youth unemployment. Those are desperate, desperate statistics.
To combat that, we have a Government with a perverse interpretation of levelling up, and a Budget that shamefully denies a pay rise to public sector workers, cuts the pay in real terms of NHS staff, who are putting their lives on the line to protect ours, takes away the £20 uplift to universal credit from 6.5 million families in September, continues to deny an uplift in legacy benefits, and continues to deny justice to 4,889 of my constituents who have missed out on that vital extra support for the past year. It brings 1.3 million people into paying income tax for the first time, hits families with council tax rises of about 5%, and continues to exclude many from any Government support at all, including constituents of mine who have now gone without pay for 13 months. It also provides no support for the 700,000 households in rent arrears and those who face the threat of eviction.
Liverpool, West Derby and the nation need solutions to these grave issues. The images of hundreds of people queuing for food banks are now commonplace and they shame this Government. We need root-and-branch systemic change, but instead we have a Government tinkering round the edges of inequality with a garden strimmer.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. My main reason for wanting to take part is to celebrate and praise the Government for this Budget. It has done a great deal to contribute to the levelling-up agenda and to overcome the north-south divide, which was a major plank of our 2019 election manifesto. In the past, cities and city regions have had much of the Government’s resources, and that policy was not necessarily wrong, but provincial towns such as Cleethorpes, neighbouring Grimsby and others in northern Lincolnshire could not benefit in the slightest from it because they have no immediate cities from which there could be a trickle-down effect. So it was right that we moved to focus on provincial towns.
I am delighted that the town deal, which has so far generated more than £100 million of investment into the area, has received another £21 million in the Budget. The town deal for greater Grimsby was actually the first; it was established in 2014 and involved a relationship between North East Lincolnshire Council and the private sector, led by local entrepreneur David Ross. That has moved forward, and it was acknowledged in the Government’s industrial strategy when it was published in, I think, 2017, when the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), used the greater Grimsby deal as a platform for others that have followed.
I am delighted that the Humber ports have been given freeport status. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published his report some years ago advocating freeports, I spoke to local businesses and to the port operator, Associated British Ports. I foresaw the advantages of freeports, so this is splendid. It is also important to acknowledge that the area is a major centre for the renewables sector, and I am delighted that the Government have invested more than £70 million in the Able marine energy park—something that the chairman of Able said would not have gone ahead without Government support. There has been criticism from the Opposition that the money is going to the wrong places. Take the Humber: I do not think there were any complaints from this side of the House when Hull got the Siemens investment. Now there has been an evening up. These are major moves forward, all of which I welcome. My thanks to the Chancellor.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the headlines were screaming about levelling up, but nothing in this Budget helps my constituents. In the last 10 years, we have seen severe cuts that have caused child poverty of 40%, total unemployment of 10.5% and youth unemployment in parts of my constituency that stands at 30%. The recent cut of £20 in universal credit has caused more people to go into poverty. I think we all remember when the bus said £350 million for the NHS, but in reality its staff will get £3.50, which is an absolute insult. But it seems that the money tree has now been found, because £29 billion has just been given to test and trace, the discredited private scheme with links to Tory donors, and PPE contracts have been given by the Tory party to its friends. This Budget has done nothing to address what my constituency needs.
I want to talk specifically about housing. There was no real mention of housing in the Budget, apart from stamp duty and Help to Buy. My constituents need a house to live in. We need proper social housing. There are 9,000 people registered on the housing list to be accommodated, and everybody knows that decent homes help towards eliminating poverty and deprivation. Bolton at Home in my constituency does a tremendous job, but it needs support and assistance to be able to build more homes. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that this is a Beveridgean moment—a “fork in the road”. We face similar challenges to the ones we faced in the second world war, and we need a stimulus package similar to President Biden’s in the USA.
I welcome the extension of the furlough scheme to September. That is great, but there are 3.8 million self-employed people who have received no help at all through the pandemic. This Budget has failed to address the deep-rooted problems in our society such as deprivation and bad health indicators. My constituency is the 38th most deprived in the country. My constituency has been neglected over the last 10 years. I want proper funding to help the people of Bolton South East.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
This is a very strong Budget for the Union. We are stronger as one United Kingdom. As a Welsh MP, I am particularly pleased to see the extra £740 million for Wales in the Budget, and I only hope that the Welsh Government will spend that money in a timely fashion, rather than continuing their habit over the last year of holding back hundreds of millions of pounds of the UK Government’s support from those who need it most in Wales. This means that overall, the Welsh Government are receiving an additional £2.1 billion in the next financial year through the Barnett formula, on top of the baseline of £15 billion. There is also £300 million of funding outside the Barnett formula, in particular for farm support and fisheries.
Businesses in Clwyd South are very appreciative of the continued financial support outlined in the Budget, such as the extension of furlough and support for the self-employed, the recovery loan scheme and the extension of the reduced VAT rate of 5%. I am delighted that the Government are accelerating the three city and growth deals in Wales—in Swansea bay, mid-Wales and north Wales—by bringing £58.7 million forward in the investment programme. This means that the north Wales growth deal will get an extra £4.4 million per year from April for the remaining nine years of the deal, which will create up to 3,800 new jobs and support an uplift of £2.2 billion for the economy, as well as local regeneration projects—in the Wrexham area, for instance—amounting to £9.1 million.
That boost to the economy will be further strengthened by the newly announced levelling-up fund, which will be UK-wide and will bring at least £800 million for infrastructure projects in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and by the newly announced community renewal fund, which will provide £220 million of extra funding over and above the old EU structural funds to pilot programmes and new approaches in Wales and across the rest of the UK.
This Budget helps to cement the UK as a world leader in offshore wind, which is of great importance to north Wales. Following the measures included in the 10-point plan and the energy White Paper, the Government have shown that they are determined to deliver a green and cleaner economy. Many constituents in Clwyd South contacted me before the Budget about universal credit, so I was particularly pleased by the extension of the £20 per week uplift for a further six months. In conclusion, I strongly support this Budget, which shows that the UK Government have north Wales at the heart of their agenda and are leading the way in Wales on delivering for local communities.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Chancellor spoke a lot about fairness and levelling with the British public, but does the Budget actually pass the fairness test? Even before the challenges of covid and Brexit, Hull had been hit hard by a decade of austerity after the global banking crisis, and that is why it was disappointing to see no real green industrial strategy, where the Humber could be central, and that the universal credit uplift was not made permanent to help hard-pressed families as council tax and other bills soar. There was also another real-terms pay cut for NHS staff, a £30 billion cut in day-to-day NHS spending from April, and still no sign of the Prime Minister’s talked-about clear plan for social care.
Hull is the fourth-most deprived local authority area in the UK, always high in social and economic indices measuring disadvantage, so how is it fair, consistent or logical that Hull is excluded from the list of 100 priority places for the community renewal fund while it achieves priority 1 status for the levelling-up fund? The Government say that they look at measuring unemployment, household income, productivity, skills and population density, but the criteria have not been published, and perhaps are still being cobbled together in Whitehall.
This unfairness runs riot again with the towns fund. Of 45 towns and some cities chosen for funding, a disproportionate number—40—have a Tory MP. Hull was told that we are not eligible as we are a city. However, the city of Wolverhampton was awarded £25 million after electing two Conservative MPs, and last Thursday the Leader of the House confirmed that Hull, with three Labour MPs, will not be considered by Whitehall decision-makers even if we make a bid. That is not fairness. However, the winners from this gerrymandering should not celebrate too much as the towns fund is worth less than half the £2.4 billion that the Government had cut since 2010 from the funding of the 45 local authorities receiving it.
Even for the north’s favoured areas these pots of levelling-up funding will not be transformational. The infrastructure bank in Leeds will only provide loans and finance on a scale two-thirds smaller than the £5 billion per year from the European Investment Bank that it replaces, and there is growing doubt about whether Transport for the North will have the finance and clout to deliver on its promises.
There is just not enough pork in the barrel, and nothing like the sustained public and private investment that is needed for the real regeneration that we have seen over the last 40 years in places such as London docklands—all achieved without Whitehall insisting on permanent local government reorganisation. This was not a fair Budget for my constituents. Real investment in the Humber docklands seems no nearer.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and to talk about a Budget that works for everyone and that will bring real investment in every part of the United Kingdom and begin to build our future economy. However, from the poor picture the Opposition have painted we would not believe that that was the case. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Chancellor was raising taxes based on the electoral cycle rather than an economic cycle and that raising taxes now means he will just cut them before the next election. Speaking of electoral cycles, the cynic in me might point towards the Welsh Labour Government sitting on about £1.3 billion in unallocated funds and wonder when they might actually get around to using them to provide the support that businesses in Delyn and across north Wales are so desperately asking for. Far from being politically churlish, the Chancellor has based his decisions on sound economics and has left playing games with the electorate to the Leader of the Opposition and his party.
Personal tax allowance has been frozen over the remainder of this Parliament and until 2026, hardly a populist move. Corporation tax only rises in 2023, a whole year before the next general election. Delaying the corporation tax rise and implementing the excellent super deduction plan allows businesses to invest with confidence now, helping us build back better sooner and ensuring that we pay back the cost of the support schemes at a point when we have higher employment and a more stable economy.
A number of Opposition contributors have talked about the Chancellor’s brand, and I say to them that if they spent more time emulating the Chancellor’s brand, they might make for a more credible Opposition, because the only brand the Chancellor is cultivating is one of fiscal responsibility, backing business and supporting those most in need in our society.
Looking a little further along the shadow Front Bench, the shadow Chancellor claimed that only a Labour Budget would hand power to local communities. Again, I wonder whether she has read the Budget at all, as this is a programme that is clear on its commitment to levelling up every community, every town and every region, whether through the community ownership fund, which gives power to communities to buy much-loved local assets, or through the levelling-up fund, which will invest in vital local infrastructure projects. Every corner of the United Kingdom benefits, leaving no one behind.
This is a Budget that delivers for the whole Union, with Wales receiving an additional £740 million, and the north Wales growth deal being brought forward from 15 to 10 years, supporting that deal to create over 3,500 new jobs, with an uplift of 2.2 billion for the local economy in north Wales. It is a Budget that rightly has one eye on the present and one eye firmly on the future as we build back better.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
There are three aspects of this Budget that I want to address. The first is the short-term emergency measures to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic, bearing in mind that the persistence of the virus is itself the fault of Government policy. Today Australia celebrates 10 straight days without a single domestic case of covid-19. All across the world, billions of people are living, effectively, without the virus. Cases and deaths have been reduced to a handful, or even zero, because they took effective measures to suppress it. This Government did not. So we have a public health disaster and an economic disaster. Countries that suppressed the virus have seen a relative hiccup in their economy and are now on their way to recovery. We, on the other hand, will suffer surging unemployment of up to 5.9%, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This Government deserve no plaudits for being obliged to spend hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on measures to address a crisis they caused. We do not praise an arsonist because they called the fire brigade. This Government were even worse. For example, the second wave is widely seen as being the impact of the misconceived and reckless Eat Out to Help Out policy.
The second aspect is the long-term or structural elements beyond the emergency payments. These structural elements can be summed up in two words: vicious austerity, from every angle, that reduces the living standards of ordinary people, deepens existing inequalities, and provides unnecessary subsidies to big business. It is Robin Hood in reverse. Consider these elements of the Budget: a £4 billion cut to public spending on services, following a 5.7% cut in last year’s Budget; a £2 billion hike in council tax payments; a freeze on income tax thresholds, which makes poor people pay more tax; and a public sector pay freeze, not to mention the exception of nurses’ pay—the insult of just 1%. Ministers tell nurses that there is no money left, but that is false. In the Budget there is a £27 billion tax giveaway to businesses, which the OBR says will have no lasting effect, and £37 billion spent on a useless private test and trace system.
The third and final insult is a Treasury Red Book that barely mentions inequality—in fact, just once. Yet again, no equality impact assessment was published alongside the resolutions, because even though equality is our law, to this Government it is expendable—an add-on—and policy after policy adversely impacts the most disadvantaged in our society. This Government are responsible for the scope of both the public health and the economic disasters, and this Budget widens both even further.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the measures taken in this Budget. I particularly welcome the super deduction, especially as last month I wrote for The Times Red Box calling on the Government to break down barriers to a green industrial revolution through the tax system, including by cutting investment taxes to help businesses to buy new cleaner technologies. The super deduction, by reducing a tax bill by 130% for businesses that are investing, will indeed boost investment and help businesses to make the transition to cleaner technology. I thank the Chancellor for listening to those calls.
I want briefly to touch on the support for families and businesses in Carshalton and Wallington. Throughout this pandemic, I have had many discussions and roundtables with individuals and businesses in my constituency, including dealing with well over 12,000 pieces of casework. The immediate and short-term financial support measures have been welcome, but what I especially welcome in this Budget is the recognition that reopening and bouncing back will not happen overnight for many. Measures such as extending furlough to September, extending the 5% VAT cut for six months, extending universal credit and working tax credit for six months, two further grants for the self-employed, ongoing support for food and holiday activity programmes, providing food, essential goods and laptops to those in need, and new recovery loans, will help families and businesses through the final months of the pandemic and on the road to recovery.
I want to briefly mention three support measures. After leading a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I warmly welcome the extension of the stamp duty relief, and I thank the Chancellor for listing to my calls to taper off the relief rather than stopping it overnight.
I also welcome the £700 million for arts, culture and sport. I hope that organisations in Carshalton and Wallington, such as CryerArts, Mitcham & Carshalton rugby club and Carshalton Athletic, will benefit.
Finally, I welcome the restart grants for hospitality, retail, leisure and personal care. Having held many meetings in Carshalton and Wallington with our independent stores, cafés, pubs, restaurants, hairdressers, salons and others, I knew the concerns they had about surviving to the point that they could reopen properly. I hope that this goes some way to alleviating those concerns. I would just add that I hope we can find a way of extending that support to the wedding sector—and I do not just say that as I am due to get married in July myself.
I thank the Chancellor for listening to many of the concerns that I have raised with him, and I welcome this Budget. I will continue to engage with families and businesses across Carshalton and Wallington to do whatever I can to help them through these last few months.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is always good to be constructive, and there are certainly things to welcome in this Budget. The ongoing support for business and furlough is absolutely essential until the crisis is completely over. We heard this morning from the chief medical officer that we may face another surge, despite the amazing progress on vaccination. It is clear that we cannot take anything for granted, so it is right that that support is not ended prematurely.
I also welcome the fact that more people are now eligible for the self-employment income support scheme, but as I raised earlier today at Treasury questions, that still leaves millions without anything. That is an inconvenient truth that the Treasury has repeatedly failed to address, including through this Budget.
As with previous Budgets, a lot of the most significant bits are the parts that the Chancellor did not announce last week. He is forcing through a council tax hike—devolving blame seems to be the only devolution that the Government are interested in—and the decision on income tax allowances will hit the poorest hardest. That is a huge mistake, particularly as we emerge from the crisis.
There was also a missed opportunity to address the tax imbalance between online and high street retail. This is an accelerating trend that is destroying our town centres, and the pandemic has supercharged it. We may not have more opportunities to save the high street, so it is disappointing to see another one missed.
The Government talk a lot about building back better and meeting the productivity challenge, but I am not convinced at all that this Budget meets that challenge. Key to doing that will be rebalancing our economy, as imbalances between and inside regions are directly linked to productivity gaps. That is why tackling regional inequalities is so important. In theory, that is what levelling up is intended to do, but if this Budget is anything to go by, it is not clear that the Government have any real idea what they are doing with levelling up. Pork barrel politics, tokenistic moves and asking local areas to go to central Government cap in hand, rather than devolving power and decision making to regions and communities, is not levelling up.
Finally, our NHS staff deserve more than warm words and applause. The Government should put their money where their mouth is and give our fantastic NHS workers the kind of pay rise they deserve. The 1% on offer, a real-terms cut after the work that they have done throughout the pandemic, is an absolute insult. What the country needed was a bold Budget based on a credible strategy for economic recovery from the covid crisis, but unfortunately there does not seem to be a plan.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
I start by thanking the Chancellor and the Treasury team for the support they have provided throughout the pandemic, which is rightly continuing this year as we look to recover from the pandemic. In particular, I am grateful for the new self-employment grant scheme, which will allow more than 600,000 people who became newly self-employed last year to access support, because they have really struggled. I have heard from hairdressers, driving instructors and tutors in my constituency who will benefit directly from that grant money. I also strongly welcome the restart grants of up to £18,000, which will help businesses to get going again, along with the 100% business rates holiday and the extension of the VAT cut to 5%. Cutting these taxes and providing cash boosts will help the many tourism and hospitality businesses, including hotels, pubs, caravan parks and wedding venues across my constituency, to recover.
In addition, I want to thank the Chancellor and the Work and Pensions Secretary for extending the universal credit uplift by six months. Although we have done so much to protect jobs throughout the crisis, there are still millions who will be relying on universal credit this year. We need to make sure we continue to properly support the vulnerable in our society. This pandemic has caused a lot of financial hardship too, and it is right that we reduce and spread the financial burden as much as possible.
As we build back better from the coronavirus, I, like the Prime Minister, want to see a green industrial revolution so that we use this opportunity to make positive changes to our economy. The new super deduction will allow companies to cut their tax bills by up to 25p for every £1 they invest in new machinery over the next two years, bringing forward capital investment and replacing older, dirtier machines with newer, more efficient ones. This is worth around £25 billion to UK companies and will kickstart an investment-led recovery.
I would be grateful, however, if the Minister on the Front Bench today could put forward my suggestion that new fishing boats qualify for that tax cut. Many of our fishing boats in the south-west are built in the north of England, so reducing taxation on new boats would help to create more jobs across the country, improving our fleets, saving on emissions and improving the safety of our fishermen at sea. This policy would be a win-win for our economy, much like the green homes grant that I believe will be extended and fully funded on a multiannual basis. If done properly, the green homes grant will deliver insulated homes, create skilled jobs, reduce heating emissions and save on household bills. So I urge the Minister to take that policy forward and create a green revolution not just for this year because we are hosting COP26, but for the next decade as we recover from covid-19 and work towards net zero.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Chancellor spoke of being fair and honest with the public, yet 24 hours later it became very clear that he was doing neither. The worst example of that was the cowardly omission of the real-terms pay cut for our NHS heroes, people who have put their lives on the line day in and day out, who diligently turned up to save lives knowing that the Government had not provided them with PPE, and who have been the only comfort for strangers as they took their final breaths. They have been told that the public finances are under strain. This pitiful excuse might wash if they had not seen £37 billion wasted on failing test and trace, if they had not heard the Conservative head of that failed programme defending wasting tens of thousands of pounds per day on consultants to help run this shambles, if they had not seen nearly £2 billion given to Tory friends and donors for covid-related contracts, or the half a billion spent on the Nightingales that did little more than provide some good PR for a poorly performing Health Secretary.
The fact is that the Government do not value our NHS. Their Benches are filled with those who vote time and again to cut the NHS and its workforce to the bone, forcing local hospitals to downgrade and promoting a privatised system of health and social care. It is not just the NHS they show disdain for, however. It is also whole communities who do not vote for them or share their ethos. It was noticed by people in South Shields and our surrounding areas that last week’s Budget offered zero investment in our infrastructure, jobs, schools or high streets. Levelling up is already proving itself to be as vacuous as the northern powerhouse was.
We are smart enough to see through the soundbites, the slogans and the rhetoric. When it comes to the levelling up fund, typically there is a lack of clarity regarding the formula and criteria for making the awards. What is clear, however, is that these funds will pit communities and regions against each other. At a time when we should be coming together, the Tories are again sowing division and fostering competition for small pots of money that will see a piecemeal and unequal recovery across our country.
For our local economies to survive they need local people with money to spend, yet just as unemployment is due to peak later this year, the universal credit uplift will be scrapped. Legacy benefits remain static, the benefit cap and the two-child limit remain, council tax is rising and key worker pay is frozen.
Our communities will never forget that, in the middle of a pandemic, this Government presided over one of the highest death tolls in the world, led us to the worst economic crisis of any major economy and used it as an opportunity to make money for them, their friends and donors. We will all have to live with the scars of this Government’s recklessness for decades to come and I will never give them a minute’s peace over it.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate today. This is a Budget that I believe will deliver security for my constituents in the short term, with the gradual lifting of restrictions, and in the long term, as our economy continues the steady growth and development it was experiencing before the outbreak began. I welcome the announcement of the Solent freeport, which will benefit constituents in the south of Meon Valley, many of whom work and live around Portsmouth and Southampton.
The Solent region, including parts of my constituency, contains some pockets of deprivation. While I accept the need to level up areas in the north and the midlands, there are definitely parts in the south that we must not leave behind. One of those areas is Waterlooville in my constituency, which is a good example of the hollowing out of town centres through changes in the way we live and shop creating a need for investment and redevelopment.
Waterlooville is a town that has vibrant growth around it, with new housing and more jobs coming. However, it has a struggling high street and the town centre is in need of redevelopment. That is not the fault of the businesses, which are trying their best, but the empty units now outnumber those that are occupied. The levelling up fund is exactly the sort of support many towns need, so I hope that Havant Borough Council will look at accessing national funds like the levelling up fund with me, so that we can drive real change. I also welcome the input by the Solent local enterprise partnership and Hampshire County Council, whose strategic view and input on transport will be important, since travel into and from the town centre is something that needs a rethink.
Reshaping the town centre can achieve a number of aims at the same time—economic development, of course, and a strong return on investment, alongside strengthening social cohesion and promoting green development in all aspects of urban design from transport to affordable housing. We can make Waterlooville in its totality a showcase for how a modern town centre can be redeveloped to meet the needs of people, where they can live, work and play without having to travel.
I will be asking all local stakeholders to contribute to this work and, as the MP, will do everything I can to support them. I will be asking the community what they want to see in their town centre and for ideas for regeneration. That includes our local schools, because projects like this take time and regeneration will shape the place where children grow up and live. They should have their say as well.
This is an excellent Budget, which offers potential for growth and regeneration. I hope it will bring greater prosperity to Waterlooville and all the communities that make up my Meon Valley constituency.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Can I say at the outset that I was very disappointed that the Secretary of State could not bring himself to mention Northern Ireland in any detail at all during his opening comments? Yet the economy and recovery of Northern Ireland as a Province have kept pace with the rest of the United Kingdom during the entirety of the last 10 years.
Covid has had an impact and we welcome the measures that have been introduced by the Chancellor. Some 250,000 jobs have been protected through the jobs retention scheme here in Northern Ireland, 210,000 people have been assisted through the self-employment income grant and 39,000 businesses have been helped by the loan guarantee scheme. That is a practical outworking of being part of the Union and part of the fifth largest economy of the world. Northern Ireland wants to play its part and it is right that we should therefore be mentioned.
Northern Ireland has had the added nightmare, of course, of coping with the Northern Ireland protocol, which poses more of a long-term, systemic threat to the Northern Ireland economy than the short shock caused by the covid crisis. The protocol must go and we welcome the steps in that direction that are being taken.
However, the Budget will be measured on how it delivers on the economic promises that it makes, especially the green revolution promises. For me, the measurement will be investment in the green economy of hydrogen. The Prime Minister has set a target of 5 GW of hydrogen by 2030. I want to pose this question to the Front Bench: does the Secretary of State agree that the hydrogen strategy must marry supply with demand? The Government can kickstart this supply and demand approach by turbocharging their investment in 4,000 zero-emission buses and making at least half of these hydrogen buses. Combined with this, we must reform two things—the renewable transport fuel obligation and the bus service operators grant. These reforms will support bus operators to buy hydrogen buses made across the United Kingdom, and therefore unlock major investment and job creation schemes in green hydrogen production across all four parts of the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland, we would also of course welcome a cut in corporation tax, which would help us to outpace the tax haven that is the Republic of Ireland.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In the most difficult economic circumstances we have faced for generations, the Chancellor has struck a careful balance between the difficult and necessary measures to recover our public finances from covid-19 and the need to protect the most vulnerable and the lowest-paid in society. From the support for businesses, the freezing of alcohol duty, the super deduction—my brilliant business of Emerson and Renwick told me this week that it was welcome news—to the continuation of the universal credit uplift, this Budget truly is a road map to recovery. This comes just after Hyndburn received £2.3 million from the Government from the public sector de- carbonisation scheme, which I called for very early on in my term, when we looked at our economic recovery and a green one to give Hyndburn and Haslingden the incentive to be at the heart of it—secured.
There is one aspect of the Budget I would particularly like to place a focus on today, and that is the levelling up fund. As many hon. and right hon. Members may know, my area has historically struggled to attract investment and has not been given the opportunities it has deserved. I was elected to change that. That is why the levelling up fund is so transformative for my area. I have spent a long time campaigning for the regeneration of my local high streets and for significant investment to be made in our town centres. The Prime Minister has supported my campaign and on a recent visit he reaffirmed that. The Budget begins to truly deliver on this not in the form of some temporary handout, as we have seen from previous Labour Governments, who have failed to invest in my area, but as an important part of building prosperity in our region.
With the whole of Hyndburn and Haslingden in the highest category for accessing the levelling up fund, we are now near the front of the queue for accessing this money. That means our chance to transform our area has now come. We need to work together to develop the bid and to ensure that the £125,000 is used most effectively. On top of this, Rossendale has been given extra funding from the community renewal fund. When I speak to residents in Haslingden, the same message is repeated, which is that they have been forgotten about and left behind. I want to change that and I urge Rossendale council to make sure that this is not the case any more.
I was sent to Westminster in December 2019 to make sure that our local voices were heard in Government. By lobbying the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, I have done all that I can to get our area into the priority group for investment and to get money to support it in putting forward a bid to the Government, which is what has been secured. Now it is time for our local councils to make sure that they truly take up this opportunity and develop a successful bid, so that we can make sure that our once forgotten towns truly are forgotten no more. I can certainly assure my residents that, while I am here, that certainly will not be done by me.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Healthcare for everyone, rich or poor, paid by us all through our taxes, not charity: 73 years on from Nye Bevan’s vision, our NHS workers are still breaking the mould and smashing records with the vaccine roll-out. The joy as people receive their vaccine—a step closer to hugging loved ones—should be a reminder of just how special our NHS is, but it was forgotten by the Chancellor. The NHS was missing from this Budget. It was a missed opportunity to rebuild our country into one that is not just wealthier, but healthier as we recover from this crisis.
If the last year has taught us anything, it is that levelling up our country cannot stop at Tory MPs in marginal seats pointing at a new train station platform or a motorway bypass. We need to wake up and realise that no country where life expectancy is eight years longer in parts of the Chancellor’s constituency than in parts of mine is one that is being levelled up.
The crisis has exposed yawning inequalities and the virus has exploited them, while 11 years of cuts to the NHS and the public sector have left us defending ourselves in a health war with shields made of bin bags. We all know that having a secure job makes someone less likely to get seriously ill, but while Luton has seen some of the highest job losses, we have thousands of businesses, self-employed people and entire industries, such as aviation and events, that have been completely forgotten by this Government.
Tory Chancellors tell us at every Budget, dewy-eyed, that these are tough and difficult decisions, but for over a decade their decisions have ended up costing our country so much more in the long run, not just financially but in terms of people’s health and wellbeing. These decisions have led to people in Luton enduring increased levels of in-work poverty and child poverty, to the extent that in this country one in five schools now needs its own food bank.
This Budget was missing so much, and it had all the depth of the Chancellor’s Instagram and all the sincerity of clapping nurses all the way to the food bank. This was the moment to finally invest in communities that had been forgotten—in our schools, in our NHS and in ending the inequalities that are holding our country back. It is time to prove that levelling up goes beyond posing in a high-vis jacket. After a year of sacrifice by people in Luton North, let us invest in areas based on need. Let us support businesses and high streets to recover. Let us bring more skilled jobs to Luton. Let us invest in making people healthier, and let us start by giving health and social care staff the pay they deserve. Our healthcare heroes deserved better than this Budget. The people of Luton North deserved better than this Budget.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I want to focus on the importance of our delivering on the Prime Minister’s ambition to build back better. If levelling up relates to anywhere, it is Stoke-on-Trent. For decades we were ignored, but no longer. We now have a Government who, through this Budget, are focused on investing in areas that have seen little.
Whitehall is starting to wake up to the huge potential in places like Stoke-on-Trent, just waiting to be unleashed. With my Stoke-on-Trent colleagues and our fantastic council leader, Councillor Abi Brown, I was pleased to launch our “Powering Up Stoke-on-Trent” prospectus just over a week ago. It outlines our ambition for Stoke- on-Trent, an area that before covid had had been one of the fastest growing economically. As the 12th most deprived local authority area in the country, we must focus on addressing our challenges, but they will not hold us back. We are determined to overcome them for the benefit of everybody.
Our prospectus identifies four key high-growth sectors: digital, advanced manufacturing, especially in ceramics, green energy and creatives—decent jobs, proper skills and rewarding pay. Our prospectus outlines a range of projects we hope to deliver based around four priority areas: transport, economic development, education and skills, and health and productivity.
The Prime Minister and the Government are refocusing attention on areas like Stoke-on-Trent. Changes to the Treasury Green Book are especially welcome and will be vital to ensure a good slice of the levelling-up fund announced alongside the Budget. I am delighted that Stoke-on-Trent is identified as a top priority and will receive capacity funding.
In my constituency, the top priority must be securing additional investment for our main town of Longton. The town centre was struggling before covid, with double the national average of empty retail space, but the town still has huge potential. The focus for further investment should be supporting the conversion of empty space, improving public spaces, better stitching together the town and redeveloping key sites such as the former Tams works.
Clearly, levelling up is more than just one fund—it is for the entirety of Government—but the fund can stimulate wider change. With three wards in my constituency alone identified as left behind by the local trust and the all-party parliamentary group for left behind neighbourhoods, there is much to do to improve skills and opportunities. The kickstart scheme and the lifetime skills guarantee are vital parts of that, empowering people to access skilled and better-paid work.
We must also improve local public transport. In some wards in my constituency, more than 40% of households do not own a car, which severely limits life chances. I am delighted that my campaigns on transport are bearing fruit. We secured £36.4 million to improve local bus and rail through the transforming cities fund. Meir station is progressing well as part of the Government’s fantastic Restoring your Railway programme. Alongside my north Staffordshire colleagues, I was delighted to resubmit our bid last week for the reopening of the Stoke to Leek line, including a station at Fenton Manor in my constituency. I thank the Chief Secretary for all the support he has been giving so far, and I hope he will back our exciting opportunities to power up Stoke-on-Trent.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
We have many important sectors in our country that will hopefully be the engine of growth in the future, but which need support in the short and medium term—not least public transport. Sadly, there was very little in this Budget on transport. What we did see were mostly drastic cuts, with transport funding slashed from £13 billion to just £2.1 billion for the current financial year at a time when ridership levels are at record lows and operators are struggling to balance the books. Furthermore, funding for transport capital projects was cut from a meagre £600 million to zero, while intra-city funding has been delayed until at least 2022.
The lack of pandemic support has already had a profound impact on those who work in the transport sector, with over 1,000 jobs lost in both the bus and coach manufacturing industries—mostly, unfortunately, again in the north of England. And all this is at a time when the fuel duty freeze is costing the Government the best part of £1 billion, sending a clear message about where their priorities lie in terms of their decarbonisation agenda.
What hope is there for the ordinary worker who wants to return to work but is faced with a rise in rail fares and cuts to bus routes, which, in recent years, have seen 134 million miles lost? Where is the Government’s much heralded bus strategy, which was supposed to have been published last year? There was not a word of this in the Chancellor’s statement or, indeed, any update on the commitment to unveil 4,000 zero-emission buses, which can only lead us to conclude that their decarbonisation agenda has missed the bus. As the MP for Ilford South, I watch in dismay as the Government continue to level down London’s transport network rather than truly levelling up the midlands and the north.
The Budget was a pivotal moment for the climate emergency and jobs crisis, but next to nothing was announced for a new economic green recovery. There is no new investment for green recoveries in key industries, including automotive, aerospace and steel. Just £20 million was announced for floating offshore wind technology. Labour has called for a £30 billion green economic recovery, which would create 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries.
Earlier this week, the Chancellor boasted about kick-starting a green industrial revolution, but in reality the Government have slashed climate spending in this Budget, including a devastating £1.1 billion reduction in the green homes grant. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, we are lagging far behind our European and global partners, with the US’s recent $1.7 trillion green plan over the next decade, while Germany and France have pledged a combined total of €70 billion over the next two years. Mass unemployment should not be inevitable in this pandemic, but the way that the Government are carrying on, it unfortunately could be.
At a time of acute and prolonged national crisis, there is an opportunity for the Budget to be more than one that drives a new political economy—one of investment to create well-paid jobs, the renewal and expansion of infrastructure projects to fit out our country for the century ahead, and a world-leading acceleration of a green industrial revolution to lift our nation up through an active industrial strategy, not buzzwords, tax-evading freeports and pork barrel projects to shore up Tory ambitions.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to make my first contribution to a Budget debate. Almost a year ago today, I made my maiden speech just as the pandemic was beginning to grip the globe. The year that has followed has been tragic in every sense of the word, yet it could have been much worse. In July, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that unemployment would peak at 11.9%. That figure now stands at 6.5%, yet this is not a meaningless statistic. It has made a real difference. Close to 2 million jobs have been saved through the furlough scheme, business loans and the plethora of Government initiatives that I have been proud to support, but, as I have said repeatedly in this Chamber, we must now focus our energies on making sure that we have a sufficient economic recovery that ensures that people get back into work and start reaping the rewards provided by our dynamic economy.
Although it comes as no surprise that I was disappointed that Doncaster Sheffield airport was not awarded freeport status, this innovative policy will help to unlock the enterprising spirit of British businesses. I am pleased that a freeport will soon open in the Humber, benefiting the entire region and furthering this Government’s levelling-up agenda—an agenda that we should turn our attention to right now. The promise of levelling up is, after all, the reason why many in Don Valley voted for me and for Conservative party candidates across the north of England, yet to truly level up a region, business needs to thrive. The extension of the business rates holiday, the introduction of the restart grants and the continued reduction in VAT for the hospitality sector provide the foundation for economic recovery. Furthermore, the renewal of the airport and ground operations support scheme for a further six months will ensure that our regional airports, such as Doncaster Sheffield airport, can continue to facilitate economic growth in all four corners of the UK. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and the super deductions for businesses will supercharge our recovery. For families, the freezing of fuel duty and the extension of the universal credit uplift will provide security for those who need it most. The Budget will make a long-lasting difference in the next couple of years.
For many people, politics can seem remote and irrelevant to their everyday lives, yet I know that people and businesses across Don Valley have been reassured and energised by the measures announced by the Chancellor last week. They know it will make a difference to their lives.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
Having heard the Chancellor’s speech last week and having listened to the Prime Minister since the start of the pandemic, I can understand how some people in this country have been fooled into believing that the Government have their best interests at heart. Today I heard colleagues on the Government Benches acknowledge the need to address the vast economic inequality in the UK—but that was caused by a decade of Conservative financial mismanagement, so I welcome their comments.
I am concerned that the rhetoric of levelling up is just that. We know that the devil is always in the detail. For all the fanfare around the Budget, the money pledged is a drop in the ocean next to the billions cut from local authorities and local services over the past decade. For all the talk of moving Government jobs out of London, 750 jobs on an economic campus do not make up for the loss of over 30,000 civil service jobs across the United Kingdom—civil servants with experience and institutional knowledge, leaving in droves as they are increasingly undervalued. How can we hope to fix regional inequality when the opaque, centralised approach employed by the Government to distribute those funds pits region against region? If levelling up means the Chancellor picking out his favourite blue pen and colouring in just Conservative-held areas, it smacks of the timocracy that has come to define this Government’s attitude. We are told that the Government are driven by a desire to level up, but their actions are led not by evidence, but by ideology.
We see that too with the freeports. English freeports are receiving £26 million each, whereas Wales has been offered only £8 million. That glaring disparity exposes the fact that levelling up is more of a slogan than a true ambition. On top of that, if Liverpool and Bristol become freeports, that will have a major impact on Holyhead and ports across south Wales. This myopic approach to spending, which seems to target positive headlines, not economic prosperity, puts jobs and industry at risk.
Will the Minister ensure that funding is distributed in a way that grows the economy, creating and preserving jobs throughout the United Kingdom, not just England, and ensure that freeports are not introduced at the expense of existing and successful places? It is a failing of this Tory Government not to understand and respect devolution. To move our countries forward, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor need to understand that and work collaboratively with our devolved Governments, not against them. We need the levelling up of the entire United Kingdom.
To conclude, will the Government rise above their petty, power-grab, bully-boy tactics and provide parity in their levelling-up agenda for the whole United Kingdom?
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).
There is much to say about the Budget—unfortunately, very little of it good. It fails on every count to address the fundamental weaknesses and unfairness in our economy and offers no coherent plan to rebuild our country, invest in our communities and allow our citizens to prosper. That is felt acutely in my community by my friends, neighbours and constituents, who faced huge challenges before the pandemic. When I talk about health, educational, social and economic inequalities in St Helens North, I am not talking about a place on a map or about statistics; I am talking about our people and their lives. We know privilege grants to its inheritors a head start—that has always been the way—but should it not be the job of Government to help the rest of us catch up? Why then does it feel as though communities such as mine are not only starting behind, but deliberately being hampered?
In the next two years, the Government are forcing cuts to our local health and social care services of more than £6 million and to our children and young people’s services of almost £8 million. This is happening in a borough where people die younger, leave school with fewer qualifications, are poorer and have worse health. That is not levelling up—it is doubling down. But we are used to it, and, despite it, the past year has shown again what a resilient, caring, innovative and determined community we are. We are ambitious too, for our families and our future.
Sometimes we are even optimistic. Our Labour-run council, under the leadership of David Baines, and alongside partners in business and in the community, has already started to deliver on ambitious plans to quite simply make St Helens borough the best place to live, work and visit in the north-west of England. We do not want the Government to do it for us; we know they cannot, but they can help us to do it for ourselves. We want to do it for ourselves, which is why we needed this Budget to give us a fighting chance to succeed and why it is so frustrating and disappointing that all it has done is give us an even harder race to run.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Budget, which is pragmatic and fair, and clearly responds to the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in. But it is much, much more than just short-term crisis management. In its ambitions for growth, it is an extraordinary Budget. It is a Budget that says to the world that this Government mean business when it comes to business. It announces that this Government want the UK to lead the world in innovative, high-potential, high-growth sectors of the future. I have been advocating something similar to the new “future fund: breakthrough” scheme for some time. It is a smart policy that helps to root innovation companies to the UK by getting more money into the venture capital ecosystem at early stages. With better access to capital at an early stage we will encourage cutting-edge businesses to grow and eventually list here. I also commend Ron Kalifa and Lord Hill’s work in this space.
I also welcome the review of the charge cap announced by the Chancellor and look forward to seeing more ideas in the coming months from the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority’s industry working group. We have nearly £10 trillion-worth of assets under management in the UK, but only a tiny amount of that is ever directed at UK venture. Just 0.5% of UK defined-contribution pension investments were invested in unlisted equities in 2020. Too much capital is locked away in pension funds and hidden by a culture of avoiding any risk. In 2019, a mere 2% of the £48 billion raised by UK-based venture capital and private equity funds came from UK pension funds. I am delighted that this Government are beginning to grasp this nettle, and are prepared both to review the regulatory landscape and provide incentives.
Now is the time for a truly radical approach to this undertaking, and to lift the venture sector as an asset class, to be part of mainstream investing in its own right. That will be transformational. Venture capital has the power to propel us into the green and technology-led future to which we aspire. It has the power to lift our economy up, pay our debt down and provide skills, wealth and opportunities to our people and communities. We need to unleash the power of venture capital. This Budget sets us on that path, and I look forward to supporting the Government and being a part of this exciting journey.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor has boasted that this Budget will create jobs, revive high streets, reinvigorate the economy and level up the regions and nations of the UK, but as the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles, has said,
“this UK Government has an appalling record on providing Wales with even a fair share of UK spending, let alone the kind of funding needed to ‘level up’.”
Rhondda Cynon Taf, the local authority within which my constituency of Cynon Valley is located, has the third-highest covid death rate in the UK. Poverty and ever-widening inequality are the root cause of the high death toll, and they have been made worse by the past 11 years of Tory Government austerity.
I am angry that the levelling-up fund will be centrally managed. That goes against the express position of the Welsh Government and is contrary to previous announcements by the UK Government. It is not new money, it is not ring-fenced to Wales, and it represents a fraction of the funding that we need. It bypasses the democratically elected structures in Wales, which are best placed to understand the issues facing our country.
I am pleased that the furlough scheme has been extended, even though it was a last-minute announcement. The Prime Minister said last week that 3,400 people in my constituency are reliant on the scheme, but due to the Government’s short-sightedness, they are now facing a cliff edge in six months’ time.
I have just returned from a meeting with the aerospace industry in my constituency. Those jobs should be supported by the Government, but instead the industry is on the brink of collapse. Since the pandemic started, GE Aviation has cut almost 500 jobs, and there is fear for the future. As Ross Williams, a constituent of mine and a senior shop steward, states,
“if the sector isn’t protected and a sector specific deal provided the impact will be devastating. These are one of the last highly skilled and well paid jobs in the south Wales valleys. There’ll be nothing left for my son and future generations if these jobs go”.
The Chancellor’s decisions surrounding benefit payments are damaging all round. The much-needed uplift to universal credit will only be a temporary measure. For thousands of my constituents, that uplift is the difference between feeding their families and going hungry. One of my constituents, Emma, told me:
“I didn’t ever expect to get sick but you know, I have. And I’m suffering. I’m living on the breadline, and my mental health is suffering. I feel like I’m being punished.”
If the Chancellor understood the hardship that so many endure, he would have made the uplift permanent and extended it to those on legacy benefits. How does he see my constituents managing in six months’ time when furlough ends and he proposes to end the £20 uplift to universal credit? How will that help to create demand in the economies of Mountain Ash or Aberdare in my constituency?
It does not have to be this way. We are the fifth richest nation in the world. There is a different way: introduce a wealth tax and a windfall tax, adopt a jobs guarantee scheme, properly invest in a green industrial revolution, increase statutory sick pay in line with the living wage and introduce a universal basic income. The new normal must incorporate a tax system that ensures that the wealthy pay their fair share and a welfare system that ensures that no one is left behind, but to level up in communities such as mine, Westminster must respect the democratic structures in Wales and ensure we get our fair share of funding. Diolch yn fawr.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
I welcome this pragmatic Budget, which recognises that flexibility, not ideology, is what is needed in responding to a global pandemic. It addresses the current needs that we have as a country by extending the furlough scheme to September and giving further grants to the self-employed, bringing an additional 600,000 taxpayers into one of the most generous schemes in the world. The measures not just in this Budget but over the past year are rightly lauded. They ensure that businesses can bring back as many employees as possible, and provide security for millions.
Guildford, Cranleigh and our villages are home to wonderful high streets. We are proud of them, and they draw visitors from near and far. I know that local businesses will join me in welcoming the restart grants package of £5 billion, which equates to up to £6,000 or £18,000, depending on when the business reopens. That measure, along with continuing the business rates holiday and extending the cut in VAT so that it remains at 5% for a further six months, is a genuine springboard.
It has been fantastic to see new businesses open in Guildford and Cranleigh, and existing businesses take up locations with a larger square footage, over the past year. That fantastic sign of confidence can be attributed to the Government’s commitment to business.
I want to take this opportunity to recognise the value of our local arts and culture to the economy in Guildford, which is often underestimated. The University of Surrey, in conjunction with the Yvonne Arnaud theatre and the Watts gallery in my constituency, and The Lightbox gallery and museum in nearby Woking, conducted a study last year on the economic and social impacts of the arts. It found that for every £10 spent at a venue, there was an additional spend of up to £13.28, the majority of which stays in the local economy. Over the course of a normal year, the Yvonne Arnaud theatre is calculated to bring an additional £1.5 million into the area simply with theatre attendances. Some 70% of visitors to the area would not have come had the venues been located elsewhere. It therefore strikes me as incredibly short-sighted of Guildford Borough Council to propose cutting funding to the Yvonne Arnaud, and, thankfully, sensible of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the culture recovery fund by an additional £300 million, recognising not only the fiscal value of these institutions, but their value to the social fabric of our communities.
There is a clear plan of investment by this Government in business, high streets and our communities, supporting jobs and providing training and apprenticeships to help enable those who have sadly lost their jobs to get back into work. I will be voting for this Budget tonight.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is now one year since the first tragic deaths in the UK from covid-19 were reported, and the true scale of this crisis became clear. Thousands have lost their lives to this terrible virus, and, sadly, we now have the worst death toll in Europe. Our economy has been convulsed by a collapse in GDP, a spike in unemployment, and a crisis for businesses, especially in arts, aviation and hospitality, which have been made worse by Government inaction and blunders and billions being wasted on Tory crony covid contracts.
Shamefully, we are now facing the worst economic crisis of any major economy. Therefore we might have hoped for a bold Budget that recognised the scale of the challenge, equipping our economy for the future, but all the Chancellor has shown is that he is completely out of touch with what this country needs. What did this Budget promise? The centrepiece for long-term investment is a national infrastructure bank. It is almost 10 years since David Cameron launched the green investment bank, with all the same promises and rhetoric, and it is four years since the Conservatives privatised it. What we need is an investment bank capitalised at £20 billion over five years at least, with regional investment banks in every region to invest in green businesses throughout our country. We need an institutional champion for green businesses and jobs. Instead, we got a get-rich-quick scheme for investors. This Budget could have provided the platform for a green recovery, just as Slough is attempting to do in Berkshire.
We could have had a major national rail electrification programme to help decarbonise our transport, but, no. I welcome the £20 million for floating offshore wind technology, but that is paltry compared with the scale of the challenge. In reality, we need a £30 billion green economic recovery package to create 400,000 green secure jobs. That is how we would get a proper investment-led recovery to help us meet our carbon targets and help tackle the climate crisis.
This could have been a Budget for the next generation, creating jobs and housing, investing in education and safeguarding the climate for younger people, but they have all been overlooked yet again. A Budget is a statement of values and priorities, and the Chancellor’s priorities are transparent: no extra funding to fix fire-hazard cladding, but a tax break for second home owners; a mere 1% rise for the NHS workers who have given their all for us during the past year; no mention at all of the Government’s trade deal with the EU and the 4% reduction in GDP over 15 years caused by the thin, terrible, burned oven-ready Brexit deal. This is a Budget that stores up trouble for places such as Slough and hits the poorest hardest.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I welcome this Budget, as it will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the people living in Runnymede and Weybridge, but it does so much more. In particular, I want to talk today about some of the core provisions that will benefit my constituents over the short, medium and long term. This is a Budget that meets our short-term and emergency needs while we still face the pandemic and restrictions remain in place, providing vital support for businesses and families to enable them to weather the covid storm.
Over the course of the past year, I have had many discussions with residents and I know what a lifeline the self-employment income support scheme and furlough have been, along with direct business support. My local businesses often tell me that they need certainty, and this Budget, and the extension of provisions alongside the road map for the lifting of restrictions, will give them the certainty they need to plan for the months ahead.
For the medium term, I welcome the support for investment and innovation, the incredible super deduction, Help to Grow and further support for enterprise management incentives. Those will all help companies in my constituency, particularly the many small and medium-sized enterprises that, I am sure all Members will agree, set up in Runnymede and Weybridge because of the excellent logistics benefits it offers. Those businesses are champing at the bit to get moving as restrictions lift and to grow and flourish, providing jobs and investment locally.
Finally, but most importantly, this is a Budget that tackles the long-term challenges we face. First, on sustainability and climate change, I particularly want to draw attention to energy innovation and support for the UK biomass feedstocks programme. That will be essential for the development of domestic biofuel supplies to support the sustainability of our aviation sector and jet zero, benefiting my constituents by securing the future of the aviation sector and those employed in it and reducing aircraft pollution and the harms that it causes.
Secondly, on national finances, we are in a hugely challenging economic situation as a result of the pandemic. While it is right to spend now, invest in infrastructure and projects that will drive growth and tackle the perennial regional inequalities that have plagued our country, we need to tackle the deficit. The tax policies set out in the Budget begin to address that without undermining the plan for economic growth. The Budget protects jobs and livelihoods now and lays the foundation for both the economic recovery ahead and a return to strong public finances. It is not us here who will be paying off our debt but our children, and we owe it to them to balance the books today, so that they inherit a flourishing economy unburdened by the debts of their parents.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
When it comes to the Government’s levelling-up agenda, this Budget leaves a great deal to be desired. I welcome the move to send Treasury North to the Tees Valley and the exploration of Teesside and locations in my constituency for the siting of a freeport, but I believe the Government could offer more for our communities.
While the exploration of potential new large-scale infrastructure projects is very welcome, there is already one large employer in my constituency in the form of Hartlepool nuclear power station, which is integral to our nation’s energy supply and needs guarantees about its future. The Budget was the perfect opportunity to cement the future of nuclear energy in Hartlepool, which contributes to the Government’s green energy commitments and our zero carbon future. The omission of the nuclear sector from the Budget is deeply concerning to the workers in that power station, as the clock ticks down to the decommissioning of the site without a renewal firmly on the table. Sites such as Hartlepool already have the infrastructure, the professional and skilled workforce and the desire to keep those generators spinning. We just need the Treasury to show that it is willing to support us, and I hope the Minister will respond to that. The Government must be serious about the future of the sector, as thousands of jobs nationwide and our national energy security depend on it.
On the same note, towns such as Hartlepool do not feel they got the recognition they deserve from this Budget. After a decade of cuts to funding for some of the poorest and smallest local authorities, including Hartlepool, we need funding available to kickstart our local economies and get money back into the community, where it can stimulate local business and revitalise our communities. As the towns fund makes its way to mostly Conservative seats, my constituents are right to wonder in whose interests this Budget is being made.
The Government will be aware that nothing comes from nothing, and after a decade of cuts and the biggest peacetime crisis in our history, they will also be aware that we cannot expect to bounce back without sufficient support. This Budget certainly has potential benefits to Hartlepool—no doubt—but until the gaps in the safety net are closed, our public services are properly funded and existing key industries such as Liberty Steel are supported with the means to survive long term, our recovery and the Government’s flagship levelling-up agenda will only ever fall short of what we need in a community that needs it more than most.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
Over the past 12 months, this country has faced its biggest challenge for a generation. Our constituents, our economy and our health service have all been tested. We have been asked to make enormous sacrifices of all different kinds: friends and family cut off from each other; some people not seeing loved ones at the end of their lives; hard-grown businesses ground to a halt; and young people missing out on their education at a key time in their lives and their growth. We have all, as taxpayers, paid an enormous financial price, and this comes on the back of a decade of everybody making sacrifices to help get the deficit under control. We can all be very glad that we achieved that, as it allowed us to spend quickly and to spend big at this crucial time.
We are now faced again with a difficult journey to get our economy back on track. I want to talk about three of the Government’s approaches that are vital, not just for driving our recovery now, but for ensuring that we continue to be a country that gives its citizens opportunities: first, the lifetime skills guarantee; secondly, the commitment to apprenticeships; and thirdly, the targeted approach to corporation tax and incentives for capital investment.
We know that there are employers out there who are growing their workforces and expanding their operations. We also know that, for years now, hundreds of thousands of jobs have gone unfilled. Whenever a skilled job goes unfilled or whenever an employer needs to look abroad to fill it, that is a missed opportunity for one of our constituents—an opportunity to get a better paid job, to earn enough to support their own families and to get on the housing ladder.
During National Apprenticeship Week, I had the opportunity to talk to apprentices working at Bentley and at Alstom in Crewe. Those young people were incredibly ambitious and determined, and were very clear about the course they wanted to chart in their lives. They knew that their future was going to be more secure in skilled work, using their hands and minds to apply themselves.
What we are doing with apprenticeships can be built on with the lifetime skills guarantee. Now more than ever, our workforce need to be able to gain new skills and be flexible. The challenge is not just about whether a course is available and free; it is about changing how we think and feel about our careers throughout our adult lives. Too many people will feel that they have failed or done something wrong if they need to change skills and careers. We have to change that mindset. I encourage the Government to ensure that we shout loudly about the lifetime skills offer, and keep shouting about it until everybody has heard the message loud and clear.
Our approach to tax will encourage businesses to keep creating jobs for our constituents to take up. Recovery is not going to be pain-free. I am a member of the Conservative party because we know that the Government cannot wipe out the pain and difficulty with a click of our fingers, or fix it all on the back of wealthy people. We are starting to get to grips with what this recovery needs to look like. I welcome the Government’s aims and ambitions as laid out in this Budget, and will be supporting it this evening.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
The shadow Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), spoke earlier about the post-war years, Ernie Bevin and the need to build back better, then and now. In Bristol—where Bevin started work on the docks at the age of 11 and fought for workers’ rights as a trade unionist, before becoming one of the giants of the post-war Labour Government—we are hugely disappointed at the lack of any funding in the Budget for our biggest project, Temple quarter. The regeneration of the area around Brunel’s historic Temple Meads station would mean 22,000 new jobs, 10,000 new homes and an economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum for the city. That is exactly the sort of “shovel-ready” project that the Government were asking for. We have to ask why places such as Bristol are being overlooked for levelling-up funds in favour of far more affluent areas.
The Chancellor’s offer to extend support to the 600,000 newly self-employed is welcome, but that still leaves more than 2 million freelancers and limited company directors excluded—and that is a conscious decision by the Chancellor. People on legacy benefits are being treated as second-class citizens, and the freezing of income tax bands will hit those on modest incomes the hardest. Events supply chain companies in my constituency are desperate for targeted support. When I raised this issue recently with the Prime Minister, he assured me that we would be hearing more on this from the Chancellor in the Budget; we listened, but we heard very little.
We also heard nothing new on support for our failing social care system and nothing on child poverty. What was meant to be a 2.1% pay rise for nurses has been whittled down to 1%—a real-terms pay cut—in the interests of austerity; and we know how well austerity worked last time.
Finally, we were promised a green Budget, yet we got nothing of the sort. We needed to see measures that would kick-start a transformative green recovery, but what we got was a pitiful lack of ambition from the Chancellor. Although I welcome the £4.1 million allocated to reducing car usage in the west of England, this kind of piecemeal funding is no substitute for a national strategy for decarbonising transport and encouraging take-up of active travel. Ahead of hosting COP26, we should be leading the way on tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, yet the Chancellor is more concerned with boosting his own leadership prospects and “brand Rishi” than with showing the international leadership that we need from our senior politicians on this issue.
The UK is being eclipsed in green recovery spending at an international level. For instance, France and Germany have both delivered substantial green spending packages to decarbonise their economies. Labour has already set out its plan for a £30 billion green stimulus to support 400,000 new green jobs. I urge the Chancellor to read those plans, which might just help him to think bigger when it comes to protecting our planet.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Covid-19 has had a catastrophic impact on our economy, but I truly believe that, despite that, it will provide the architecture for change and fertile ground for innovation. We have already seen the homeworking revolution, the pace of digitalisation ramping up, the incredible speed of vaccination—from creation to roll-out—and the seeds of transformation in our NHS, with new ways of working and the largest diagnostic network in British history. While we have had big collapses in sectors such as retail and hospitality, we have evolution and growth in others, including construction and social care. This is the fastest changing jobs market for a generation.
To ensure that this pandemic does not define a generation, we should look forward and look for new economic opportunities with confidence and optimism. This Budget helps us do just that. It sends a strong message of recovery, unveiling major tax incentives for businesses to invest. This is the Budget with the biggest business tax cut in modern British history, with the introduction of a super reduction in tax bills, which is particularly welcome in the manufacturing heartlands of the urban west midlands. This is a Budget that is investing in public and private projects to finance the green industrial revolution. I also loudly applaud the eight freeports, which will encourage free trade and bring investment to all regions of the country through lower taxes and cheaper customs.
We should not treat this Budget in isolation from other important investments. The Government had the foresight to invest in innovation, with the £800 million investment in the advanced research and innovation agency. The agency will be tasked with empowering some of the world’s most exceptional scientists and researchers to turn incredible ideas into new technologies, discoveries, products and services, and it is welcome to put its roots in my constituency. I also welcome the £500 million being pumped into the electric car revolution, which will benefit the west midlands enormously.
This Budget is the largest economic peacetime support package on record, and it fits with my agenda of jobs and investment in my constituency. As a result of the Government’s interventions, unemployment is now estimated to peak at far lower levels than previously expected. This Budget is providing a lifeline for my businesses in Stourbridge.
I welcome this Budget, which stands by the workers and businesses in my constituency and which stands by to protect people’s livelihoods. It is a Budget that encourages investment and innovation and that recognises the need for transformation. We have seen human tragedy in 2020. We must not let that be the prelude to an economic tragedy. This is a bold Budget, providing the architecture for a better future—a Budget that is taking unprecedented action to drive our economic recovery.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Budget represents interim measures, which may be understandable, given the economic climate, but it also represents missed opportunities, which are much less excusable—missed opportunities to have a genuine and meaningful green recovery, to invest in a resilient health service and the NHS workforce, or to support those who have lost jobs and income over the last year. It appears that the Government have not learned much from the last decade. Rather than injecting stimulus through people to tackle inequality, such as through a meaningful living wage or investing in child care, infrastructure or skills, they are choosing to leave it to the market to encourage growth and recovery.
Not only have businesses been dealing with pandemic, but many are seeking to survive and recover from the shock of Brexit, on which the Chancellor was suspiciously quiet. Northern Ireland finds itself in a unique position due to the Northern Ireland protocol, because we have access to both the UK and EU markets. This is not the best of both worlds—that was the EU or, at a push, the backstop. That is because both worlds—the EU and the UK—have been diminished by Brexit. Northern Ireland and its people opposed Brexit, but it has been imposed on us, so responsible political parties such as the Social Democratic and Labour party are working to make the best of the hand we have been dealt. I wish that those Northern Ireland MPs who campaigned relentlessly for Brexit would find it in themselves to be constructive now.
Making lemonade with the lemons we have been handed requires the Government to work with Northern Ireland Executive partners to develop an investment plan for Northern Ireland, based on promoting the business advantages of investing at this crossroads, including big opportunities in agrifoods, advanced manufacturing and green and low-carbon technology. There is now a chance for Northern Ireland to have its first ever unique selling point and to move towards climate-friendly production and a gear change in our historically poor productivity.
Overall, despite the Government’s chat on green recovery, this Budget does not do much to convince us of genuine ambition in this regard. The SDLP has spoken in the past 12 months about the opportunity for a generational rethink and a turning point, including on the climate. The year that we have had to reflect on what is really important in life, work and society has been a perfect opportunity to transition from obsessing exclusively about economic growth to a Budget that mainstreams the enhancement of the health and wellbeing of individuals, communities and the environment.
There has been insufficient focus on the environment and on those who are already living economically precarious and marginal lives. Yes, the Chancellor was dragged kicking and screaming to extend furlough and universal credit, but the poorest households will still see their income drop by 7% while unemployment benefits are at their lowest real level since the early 1990s. This is not levelling up; rather, it favours those who have been able to build up savings. This Budget does not allow the whole of society to recover. Finally, the lack of ambition and investment for the NHS workforce is bitterly disappointing, given what they have just gone through on our behalf, and the U-turn away from the derisory 1% pay increase needs to come fast.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
From a Waveney and East Anglian perspective, the two main features of the Budget were the towns fund deal announcement for Lowestoft and the successful freeport bid for Felixstowe and Harwich. These two announcements are welcome and can play a key role in the covid recovery. Locally, the cornerstone of the Waveney recovery will be the £220 million public investment in the centre of Lowestoft in the next five years—not just for the towns fund deal but for the Gull Wing bridge and the Lowestoft flood defence scheme. We must ensure that these projects are built on time and on budget and that they act as catalysts for private sector investment and provide local people with the opportunity to work on them.
East Anglia has enormous potential to play a lead role in the emerging green economy. We can be a global leader and exemplar, and we must ensure that local people benefit from this. There are great opportunities in a wide variety of sectors: low carbon energy production, including offshore wind, nuclear and hydrogen; the storage of carbon in the gas fields of the southern North sea; sustainable, responsible custodianship of our marine and fishing resources, building on the work of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which has been in Lowestoft for over a century; low-carbon shipping and maritime activities, not just in Felixstowe and Harwich but in Ipswich, Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn; and, finally, the emergence of net zero agriculture.
The policy framework that will enable us to make the most of these opportunities is emerging. The announcements in the Budget follow on from the publication in December of the energy White Paper and last month of the further education White Paper. Moving forward, we now need to put into practice the proposals in the further education White Paper so as to provide young and local people with the skills and expertise to take advantage of these exciting opportunities. We must move away from the low-wage economy that has been prevalent in East Anglia for too long.
The North sea transition deal that will be published in the next few weeks must properly recognise the full potential in the southern North sea. A lot of work is required, as well as investment, to rebuild a sustainable fishing industry on the East Anglian coast. The fishing aspect of the free trade agreement with the EU is not helpful and has set us back a few years, but with the right investment and responsible management, progress can be made. Finally, the arrangements and support provided for the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone should be reviewed and properly aligned with these emerging and exciting opportunities.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor’s Budget was a disappointment, because it failed to grasp the enormity of the challenges facing our country: the challenges of poverty, inequality, low pay and unemployment; the erosion of our vital public services over the past 11 years; and the urgency of addressing the climate crisis. It also failed to take the opportunity to reward the public sector workers who have kept the country going throughout the pandemic. Instead, the Chancellor has shamefully decided to cut the pay of NHS staff and other public sector workers when he should be giving them a pay rise.
There were already 14 million people living in poverty in the UK before the pandemic and over 4 million of them were children. Despite all the evidence of the extreme hardship of those on low pay and those out of work, last week the Chancellor merely deferred his £20 a week cut to universal credit for another six months. We on these Benches have been calling on the Government to extend statutory sick pay to all workers and to increase it; instead, the Chancellor is cutting statutory sick pay in real terms, despite the fact that it was already at one of the lowest levels in Europe. He waited too long to extend furlough, causing uncertainty for businesses and workers, and newly announced support for the self-employed has been described by ExcludedUK as “too little too late” for the 3 million workers so far excluded from financial help during the pandemic.
There has been a large increase in the numbers of people who are unemployed during the pandemic, and young people have been particularly badly hit, with youth unemployment increasing by 13%. The Government response has been inadequate. Last July the Chancellor announced his kickstart scheme to get young people into work, saying that it was aimed at preventing an entire generation from being “left behind”, yet only about 4,000 young people have started new jobs through it.
The Chancellor has also failed to show ambition to tackle the climate emergency. Labour has repeatedly called for a £30 billion green economic recovery to secure 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries, but the Chancellor has failed to deliver. He announced just £20 million for floating offshore wind and has actually cut the green homes grant by more than £1 billion. The new national infrastructure bank offers a fraction of the funding recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission.
To conclude, the Government should cancel their plans to cut the pay of public sector workers and cancel once and for all the cut to UC; reinvest in our public services, which have been damaged by years of austerity; and heed Labour’s call for a £30 billion green economic recovery to create 400,000 secure jobs in clean industries to tackle the climate emergency.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Who would want to be the Chancellor putting forward a Budget during a global pandemic? But this is where we are and this is what has to be done.
This Budget walks a tightrope: it stimulates businesses; it provides certainty to markets and investors; it provides the foundations for rebooting our economy while supporting people, jobs, livelihoods and businesses as we look to climb down the mountain of covid; and it puts in place the opportunity to build back better. It is the Budget where we levelled with the people, but we level up next. This will turbocharge our levelling up.
The first job, however, is to get through the pandemic. A total of £407 billion has been put aside in support for this year and next; that is equivalent to 19% of GDP. Furlough has been extended again through until September, and it is to be hoped that that is it and that is all we need to save those jobs—11.2 million jobs secured. A further two self-employment grants have been brought in, bringing total support of £33 billion, and there are 100% business rate holidays in retail, hospitality and leisure, worth £10 billion. This is a Budget that looks after jobs, but that also looks to the future.
I am particularly pleased with the £22.7 million of investment in Milton Keynes through the towns fund. That will kickstart the development of a new tech campus at Milton Keynes College. It is a vote of confidence by this Government in the ambition and the skills of the next generation of pioneers who will take the ideas born in Milton Keynes and make them global.
Councillors in Milton Keynes have put forward a global MK idea, and I am right behind that; global MK should be at the heart of global Britain with all these trade deals we are doing around the world. MK is home to Bletchley—the codebreakers—and is home to robots that deliver our groceries, and high-tech businesses with data and space technology. We can be the centre of the recovery, and the inward investment we will get as a result of measures taken in this Budget will turbocharge that.
Only the United States ranks higher than the UK for foreign direct investment. The UK is open for business and this Budget will make sure that we are the most competitive, nimble and attractive destination for business in the world. This is a Budget that works for Britain and for Milton Keynes.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
The idea that the Tories can level up broken Britain just defies logic. They have been the party of government for two thirds of the past century, they have been in power since 2010, and it was them who brought in austerity aligned with tax cuts for the richest. The PPE contracts awarded to friends and cronies say it all: the Tories create inequality.
The Tories’ concept of levelling up is that Westminster knows best, as demonstrated by the UK shared prosperity fund, which bypasses Scottish devolution. We know that the stronger towns fund was manipulated for political gain, so why will this agenda be any different? Even the handling of the furlough scheme and support measures showed the opposite of levelling up, with the refusal to listen to the devolved Administrations and regional Mayors about the need to extend the furlough and business support schemes; they were roundly ignored until London had covid spikes again. The Budget measures demonstrate the Tories’ view of levelling up too— £1.6 billion allocated for maintaining the stamp duty freeze, and the introduction of a mortgage guarantee scheme to the value of £600,000. That shows they are out of touch with reality.
When we have 3,000 people per year dying from fuel poverty, levelling up should involve cutting VAT on energy- efficiency measures and direct Government investment in them. As we transition to net zero, we must not create further fuel poverty. The contracts for difference process has been successful in bringing down the cost of renewables, but the overall project costs go on our electricity bills. It is unsustainable for the costs of decarbonising our heating systems to go directly on to energy bills. When will the Government address that?
The 10-point plan itself is useless without policies to back it up. For example, a target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year is useless without a credible, funded programme. That needs to go hand in hand with energy installation measures, starting with off-grid homes—a proper levelling-up opportunity that has been missed.
We need a pricing mechanism to be put in place to allow pumped-storage hydro in Scotland, in order to progress in rural areas that need economic stimulus. We must move quickly on carbon capture and storage schemes or we can forget the 2025 target. We need real investment in marine and tidal, reform of the CfD process to create further green jobs and a hydrogen strategy that matches the lead of the Scottish Government—and we really need to repurpose investment from the nuclear folly.
I welcome the Government’s plans to raise corporation tax, but they show that we have been fed lies that previous cuts in corporation tax increased revenue. About £50 billion has been lost in recent years that the Government could now be using for reinvestment. We needed additional investment, but worse, the Scottish Government’s capital budget was cut. That shows more than ever that Scotland needs the full powers of independence to implement its own green recovery and level up.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
This year’s Budget is like no other, not only coming at the height of a global economic crash brought on by covid but setting the terms of our recovery as we embark on the road map to freedom. This is all made possible by the amazing vaccine roll-out programme, which so far has delivered over 22 million vaccines across the UK.
The Budget delivered many of the changes that I have been lobbying for on behalf of the residents of Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich. The cancellation of the planned increases in both alcohol and fuel duty means that an average driver in Bury will save £1,600 against Labour’s fuel duty escalator. For the brewing and distilling sectors, the freeze on alcohol duty is also very welcome news, as it is for those who, like me, are looking forward to visiting pubs such as the Sparking Clog when they reopen shortly.
For homebuyers in Bury, there was the heartening announcement that the stamp duty holiday will be extended by a further three months to ensure that those who are in the process of buying will get the benefit of the reduction. Young people trying to get on the property ladder will be freed from Generation Rent, with Government- backed 95% mortgages to ensure that everyone can have the security of owning their own home.
For businesses in Whitefield, Prestwich and Radcliffe, help continues; the business rates holiday has been extended to the end of June, with a reduced payment for the remainder of the financial year, while the VAT reduction holiday for hospitality and tourism businesses has also been extended, until October. We are helping businesses build back as they reopen following lockdown by offering business restart grants to allow them to hit the ground running.
It would be remiss of me to talk about investing in businesses without talking about the super deduction. For many people, super deduction sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it is really not just a huge tax cut, but a tax stimulus to invest in our own economy, our own research and development, our own learning and our own people. It is truly to be recommended.
The Chancellor announced that the levelling up fund is now open for applications for all areas of the UK. Over the next few weeks and months that will be my focus, working with Bury Council to put in the best bid possible to regenerate our town centres and high streets, such as Radcliffe and Prestwich. Securing that funding will be central to my ambition to improve our towns, so that we can have an even better place to live, work and go to school, even more so on the back of delivering the new high school for Radcliffe, which we secured just a few weeks’ ago.
I conclude by saying that this Budget will ensure that we can recover from coronavirus by delivering for jobs, apprentices, business and homebuyers, and will help boost world-leading investment programmes. In driving forward these spending plans, we can really build back better for a stronger Bury.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I have only got three minutes, so I have ditched most of my speech. I am going to talk about how this Budget frankly ain’t going to work for the children or people of West Ham.
Newham Council surveyed schools a month ago and found that 5,000 Newham children still do not have a laptop and around 2,000 are still without broadband. The Government have got through a whole year without delivering the basic resources needed by the children in Newham in this pandemic. Lack of access is a consequence of poverty and inequality, and it has increased terribly over the past 10 years. In Newham, more than half our children are living in poverty.
Most children lost 5% of their normal lifetime in school during the pandemic and they could not learn properly without digital resources. We need to recognise that inequality is not going away simply because schools have reopened. These children still need IT and access to broadband just to ensure a more level playing field for the rest of their education. In Newham, our schools do an amazing job seeking to ensure that all our children achieve their potential, but these children and teachers must have the resources they need to repair the damage of inequality and this pandemic. There must surely be a true guarantee, finally, that every young person who needs digital access to their education will actually get it.
Let me quickly talk about the damage that is being done to families. Unemployment in Newham has increased 240% since the start of the pandemic. There are an estimated 19,500 people furloughed in West Ham alone. I am afraid that huge numbers of those excluded from support over the past year are still going to be left without the income they deserve. The Government seem determined to cut vital social security support in October in one of the most expensive cities in the world just when many more constituents may be forced into unemployment and as furlough and other support schemes end. It is unreasonable, it is unfair.
This pandemic has not gone away, yet the Budget has not fixed statutory sick pay. We cannot ensure that no one will lose out from doing the right thing and self-isolating when sick. Instead of fixing it, sick pay is going to be cut in real terms from next month. We need to ensure our economic recovery can take place as safely, as fairly and as quickly as possible, but I just do not think this Budget is going to do that for the people Newham—and I don’t think it was intended to.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
There is so much to welcome in this Budget that will benefit the businesses and individuals across the Cities of London and Westminster: the extension of the furlough until the end of September; a host of restart grants worth an extra £5 billion and the new recovery loans to replace our existing loan scheme; £700 million for arts, culture and sports to reopen safely; a further 600,000 self-employed people eligible for covid-related financial support; the extension of the 5% VAT cut for the hospitality industry for a further six months; and the extension of the 100% business rates holiday for a further three months until June. I would like to take this opportunity also to congratulate the Corporation of London on announcing its own £50 million covid business recovery fund, which will be made available to City-based small and independent businesses in certain sectors to support a return to work.
Central London is likely to see a very slow recovery that takes several years to reach pre-pandemic levels. Its economy depends on workers and international visitors, both of whom will be slow to be return to the capital. I hope the Government will consider launching a marketing campaign to encourage workers to return to their offices in the spring. From the conversations I have had with local employers, it seems that most do not expect to see their staff back until the autumn. This could be difficult for the hospitality and retail sectors as they begin to pay rates and rent from July. We also need a robust transport system that commuters are confident to use again, and I hope the Mayor of London will work constructively with the Government to ensure that this is the case.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement to amend UK listing rules, making the UK a more attractive location for initial public offerings and introducing improvements to tech visas to attract global talent and boost the fintech workforce. Both of those were recommendations from the Kalifa review on the FinTech sector, which is worth £110 billion to the UK economy and is set to grow to £380 billion by 2030. We currently have 10% global market share, and with Government support we can build our technology talent. Covid has been a game changer for FinTech. Six million people— 10% of the population—downloaded a banking app for the first time last April, the first month of lockdown. We have seen digital transactions and interactions for both business and individuals grow hugely. I hope we will see more of Kalifa’s recommendations introduced, including a centre for finance, innovation and technology to strengthen our national FinTech co-ordination.
I thank the Chancellor for a long list of progressive and sensible policies announced in this investment recovery Budget, making the UK the best place in the world for high-growth, innovative companies bringing strong job growth across the country.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to be called in this debate.
I fear that the investment-led recovery and the levelling-up agenda referred to by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is set to fall at the first hurdle. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the plans by the notorious venture capitalists Melrose Industries to close the GKN Automotive factory in Birmingham. Indeed, hon. Members may remember the controversy that surrounded the hostile takeover of GKN by Melrose in 2018. Serious concerns were raised at the time by Unite the union and hon. and right hon. Members in this House about the implications of that takeover for national security and for the future of the GKN brand. In an attempt to allay these fears, Melrose promised to rebuild GKN into a British manufacturing powerhouse. It was a horrible promise. Five hundred highly skilled workers at the Chester Road site are now facing the sack.
The news of the planned closure has come as a shock to the workforce and to their union, which until recently had been in discussions with management about boosting investment into the site. Melrose maintains that the plant is unviable owing to the transition to vehicle electrification. Unite the union disputes this and is developing a rescue plan that will secure a bright future for the site. I want to place on record my concern that Melrose’s chief executive officer, Simon Peckham, misled MPs on the BEIS Committee last month about the kind of work that takes place on-site. With the Government bringing forward their ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 to 2030, the shift to battery electric vehicle production is more urgent than ever, but it is vital that that transition to electric vehicles is investment-led and sustainable.
GKN can trace its origins back to the birth of the industrial revolution. It has more than 250 years of history. The Government owe it to British manufacturing and to this prestigious company, one of the largest UK industrial companies, to defend its future as we make a shift from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles. I urge the Government to join Unite the union in urging Melrose to examine alternatives to the closure of the GKN automotive plant, and to prevent Melrose from asset-stripping and then disposing of this important British company.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
There are a lot of things missing from this Budget that I could comment on, but I will try to highlight some of the really important ones.
First, local government went into the covid crisis having had the biggest cuts of any part of the public sector since 2010. Some of the costs of covid and some of the loss of income have been covered by the Government, but local government went in with a £5 billion shortfall, and £2.6 billion of those extra costs and lost income have not been covered, so the crisis in funding for local government is all the greater. Croydon has put in a section 114 notice post covid, four other councils have had to have capitalisation plans accepted and we know that many others are on a financial lifeline. In the Budget, there was no mention of extra funding for local government, no mention of financial reform and no mention of reform to the business rates system, which has been promised over and over again.
The Chancellor could not even get the words “social care” out of his mouth when he spoke to the House about the Budget. There was no mention of social care at all, but we know that reform to social care funding is key to the whole reform of local authority funding. Indeed, two Select Committees—the Health and Social Care Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—did a joint report three years ago and gave the Chancellor an oven-ready scheme, to coin a phrase, which would have reformed social care funding with a social care premium. We are still waiting for a response to that report three years later.
There was no mention of the public health grant, despite the incredible work that public health inspectors and directors have done during the covid crisis. If only they had had a fraction of the money that has gone to the private contractors doing track and trace, I think we would all be in a much better position today. And, of course, what is the reward for all those people who have worked so hard in local government services—the social care workers, the public health workers, the environmental health workers and people like the refuse collectors who have kept our important regular services going during this crisis? What is their reward? A pay freeze. That is what their reward is. It is completely unacceptable that these hard-working people should be asked to bear a disproportionate share of trying to get the budget deficit back under control.
If we are going to build back better, then of course we need more social housing. The Select Committee did a report saying that to get to 300,000 homes in this country, 90,000 need to be in the social housing sector, built by councils and housing associations. There was not a penny in the Budget to enable that programme to be got under way, and we estimated that it would cost about £10 billion a year.
What we are seeing, unfortunately, is that for all these important public services and important public servants, the pre-covid austerity has now been translated into—guess what?—post-covid austerity, which is something we should all oppose.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The past decade has seen successive Conservative Governments fail every economic task they have set themselves. The Cameron Government came in, in 2010, claiming that our economy was under threat. They promptly lost our triple A rating, and have never got it back. They said we should have fixed the roof while the sun shone, and then underfunded our public services to already dangerous levels when the pandemic struck. They said they would address the deficit and the debt, and we are now forecast to borrow £355 billion this year, with a debt of over 100% of GDP. This simply cannot be due to covid because they rejected the circumstances of the last Labour Government spending to rescue us from a global recession. They said they wanted to make a bonfire of red tape, but they have made trade ever-more difficult for our businesses not just across the channel, but even over the Irish sea, and this low-tax Conservative Chancellor has raised taxes back to 1960s levels.
What have all these failures meant for this Budget? There are several sector-specific elements that I want to mention and a longer-term systemic issue. We have not yet seen the consequences of the neglect of the pub industry, but when we are free to a socialise again, we will mourn the carcases of what were once thriving businesses that were given expensive obligations and unscientific restrictions and had their custom eliminated. The industry welcomes the grants that are available, but they will not be enough to save many pubs, especially because they will not be able to open to full trade indoors for some time. I welcome financial support for rugby league and urge Ministers to continue to talk to the sport’s authorities to ensure the success of the world cup, women’s world cup and physical disability rugby league world cup in Warrington this year.
Offering our NHS and social care staff a below-inflation pay deal is an insult, but it is revealing of a hostility this Government have to the frontline heroes who have sacrificed and led us through this ghastly year. The Conservatives’ talk of thanks is now the definition of empty claptrap. The continued neglect of a comprehensive social care system guarantees our inequalities and vulnerabilities for years to come, with the proposed cuts to Transport for the North guaranteeing that regional inequality will be entrenched.
At a systemic level, and as a member of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I am alarmed that the Chancellor has scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council without even consulting us. We require an industrial strategy now more than ever to rebuild our economy and take advantage of the green industrial revolution that we need, including new nuclear. That is a truly retrograde step and disturbing short-sightedness when we desperately need an ambitious and broader plan.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). It seems like only yesterday that she and I went on a tour with the Doorkeepers when we first arrived here.
It is a brilliant Budget by the Chancellor, but I know that my constituents will want to know exactly what’s in it for them, so let’s get quickly to the point there: furlough has been extended—it has supported more than 10,000 people in Newcastle-under-Lyme; the self-employed will have more grants and the net has been cast wider; there is a universal credit extension for a further six months and equivalent support of £500 for working tax credits; there are business restart grants and recovery loans; and, importantly for a red wall town such as mine, there are freezes to alcohol duty and fuel duty. The latter is particularly important as we lack public transport in Newcastle-under-Lyme; that is a very welcome thing for a town.
I want to talk about towns because there has been a lot of talk about them recently and I feel that the Labour party has missed the boat on towns. I wish to quote at some length:
“For far too long the ambitions, needs and values of nine million people in towns across Britain have not been heard.
Our economic model treats cities as engines of growth, which at best drag surrounding towns along in their wake, causing life to become harder, less secure and less hopeful for too many people in towns in recent decades.
Our political system is blind to the values and experiences of people who live in our towns, wrongly treating cities as a proxy for the national opinion.
After the EU Referendum starkly exposed the growing gulf between towns and cities, it is clear that this is no longer sustainable.”
Those are brilliant words. They are the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), when she launched the Centre For Towns in December 2017. I have read all that it had to say. It is a centre-left think tank, but I agree with an awful lot of what it said. I am really proud that the previous Government took that agenda into the general election and started thinking about how we can deliver for left-behind towns—communities such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and others in north Staffordshire.
Locally we have seen so much investment. We have had £11 million already through the future high streets fund, and we have a £25 million towns fund bid in with the Ministry at the moment. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on the £16.9 million success of Kidsgrove’s town deal bid, which will have knock-on effects for those living in the north of my constituency. I am pleased that even after all his largesse the Chancellor found that Newcastle-under-Lyme could also be a priority area for the UK community renewal fund, which will enable us to bid for a further £3 million, supporting skills, local businesses, communities and place—that is so important—and supporting people into employment. So I make no apology for what the Chancellor has done for the towns agenda. It is an agenda that has been neglected for far too long. The Labour party recognised that, through the hon. Member for Wigan, a few years ago. It is a shame it did not act on it, and that is why what happened in the 2019 election happened.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
We have had the worst economic hit of any major economy and it is easy to see why. On 2 March 2020, the first death from covid—the death of a woman living in a care home—was recorded in the UK. On the same day, the Prime Minister finally attended a Cobra meeting, having skipped the first five. On 3 March 2020, the Prime Minister boasted about visiting a hospital and shaking hands with every covid patient. By contrast, on that day, the New Zealand Prime Minister brought in tough restrictions on inbound flights and told people not to go around shaking hands. On 10 March, the Cheltenham festival went ahead, with 250,000 people attending. One month later, 1,122 people had died from covid. These are not the actions of a Government doing everything they can; they are the actions of a Government slow to act, who allowed a crisis to become a catastrophe, not just for health but for our economy. The price paid by people in Hull West and Hessle has been high, partly caused by the repeated lockdowns and an inability to keep the virus under control: businesses struggling, people excluded from support and unemployment rising.
We needed a Budget to match the difficulties we are facing and we have been badly let down. Freezing of the personal allowance against inflation is a stealth tax increase that will hit workers on the lowest incomes the hardest. The increase in statutory sick pay by 50p is pathetic and shows that the Government have learned nothing from last year. If we want people to self-isolate to bring down the number of cases, we must make it affordable for them to do so.
This Budget just forces poorer councils such as Hull to increase local tax. That is a trick that Conservative Governments have repeated time and again. Hull has the third lowest average council tax income in the country: 67% of housing stock is in band A and only 4% in band D. Compare that with neighbouring East Riding, which has 26% in band A and 15% in band D. That means that a 1% rise in council tax would provide double the amount to East Riding as to Hull. So people with lower incomes are facing higher taxes to fund the services they need. That is not levelling up; that is failing families.
You can see why I become angry when I read of those with links to the Conservatives having won £2 billion of Government contracts. But I should not be surprised because, even when the NHS saves the Prime Minister’s life, its staff are only rewarded with a 1% pay increase. We need a fairer system, not a Budget that hits struggling families the hardest. As it stands right now this is not a Budget that I can support.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]
It would be impossible not to recognise that the Chancellor, as he sat down to consider what was in his Budget, would have had the start of some very grey hairs in that carefully coiffured mop of his. It would be understood that the reason he was nervous doing that Budget was that he knew not only that he had presided over the worst recession of any major country, but that it had coincided with the period when we had entered the worst death rate of any major nation. He also knew that he was the Chancellor of a party that, after a previous global incident—the global banking crisis of 2008—blamed the Government for not cutting at a time of economic crisis, which everyone recognised to be entirely economically illiterate. So he was going to have to ignore the advice that his own party had been providing.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), a few moments ago—maybe accidentally —hit upon the point. She said that our economy would take many years possibly to recover to its previous position. Then she highlighted and welcomed a series of measures that were just a few months long. What we needed from the Budget was a long-term plan—a sense that the country had a plan for how we were going to make our economy work in future.
The right hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke powerfully about the apparent end of the industrial strategy, because more than ever before, what we needed from the Budget was a long-term plan. The Secretary of State for Education keeps looking at Germany and saying that we will have a skills environment that could match Germany, but in Germany not only do they have an engrained industrial strategy that all of the Government work collectively on— they also have individual Government Departments that work collectively together. Here, we have a skills approach that pays no attention to the economy or the industrial approach that the Treasury is taking and a confused picture for employers as to what is expected from them. We have a kickstart scheme that only 2,000 people have got jobs from, when we were promised 100,000. We have had a refusal to adopt the apprentice wage subsidy that the Labour party called for, which would have made a massive difference. We have an apprenticeship levy that is sending £330 million back every year. It is no wonder that the Government are painting such a gloomy economic picture.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
The key challenge the Government have is to use public money to help rebuild the economy. I want to use my time to discuss public sector pay, and in particular pay for civil servants.
The civil service has risen to the challenge, whether that is employees in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs who have processed furlough payments to ensure that money goes into workers’ pockets, or those in the Department for Work and Pensions who have processed millions of universal credit claims to ensure that the vulnerable and those who need help the most get it. It is frankly baffling, therefore, that the Chancellor intends a pay freeze in this Budget. This means that the Cabinet Office advice is for a 0% pay remit that will contain for the first time ever no additional funding to support the lowest paid. The House should be aware that 19 MPs from six political parties, representing constituencies across the whole United Kingdom, wrote to the Chancellor twice asking him to reconsider. It beggars belief that he has not responded to either of those letters.
Yesterday was International Women’s Day—a chance to highlight the lack of pay coherence across the civil service, which creates huge inequality. The average pay for women in the civil service in 2020 was £28,650, whereas for men it was £30,880. That gap increases with part-time work, with women working part time at higher rates in all age bands. Delegated bargaining has been a disaster. It is wholly unacceptable that workers doing the same job at broadly the same grade suffer huge disparities in pay. The delegated system is costly, time-consuming and inefficient. It is simply unacceptable that there are 200 separate pay negotiations across UK Government Departments; that is a ludicrous situation.
There is a clear economic illiteracy to a public sector pay freeze. Public sector workers and civil servants spend their wages in the private sector economy. They do not hide their wages in a shoebox under the bed. They spend that money in the retail sector, the hospitality sector and the like. Civil servants should be given a proper reward, and we should end the pay disparities and reduce the number of pay negotiations. Public sector workers deserve better than this Budget from this Chancellor.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Before the pandemic, a decade of austerity left far too many trapped in low-paid, insecure work, consistently failed by the social security system. The brutality of this failing economic regime has been further exposed throughout the coronavirus pandemic, with at least 3 million people being left without economic support. The post-covid economic recovery needs to be built upon equitable distribution of income and wealth and new jobs. But beyond the rhetoric of levelling up, a redistributive economic vision that can deliver the future that people across the UK deserve was wholly missing from the Budget.
Despite finally listening to trade unions and campaigners with regard to the furlough scheme, there was not nearly enough to secure a recovery that puts people in a better position than when they entered the pandemic, never mind laying the foundations for the economy to meet the challenges of the future, including tackling climate change and mass unemployment. Yes, the main rate of corporation tax will increase from the present 19% to 25%, but not until 2023. At the same time, the rich and big business are being treated to mouth-watering tax giveaways and reliefs, despite unclear evidence about whether that will actually create the investment needed.
Beyond the limited extensions of job and business support schemes, there is very little about providing support for public services and public investment and a lasting boost to welfare for those hit hardest by the crisis. Not only was this Budget a missed opportunity for a care-led green recovery that creates decent, well-paid, unionised jobs and addresses our care crisis. It will create widespread inequality and precarity. It actually laid out significant cuts to public spending.
The lockdowns and an inadequate social security system have caused widespread financial hardship, unemployment and debt, and yet the Budget fell far short in tackling poverty, low pay and the deepening divisions in our society. It risks plunging more people into poverty and forcing them to queue outside food banks. The £20-per-week top-up of universal credit, which was introduced at the start of the pandemic, will be temporarily retained and will help some 6.5 million families, but only until September. At the same time, there is no increase in the statutory sick pay of £95.85 per week. Despite the ongoing performed gratitude towards those working on the frontline, the Government did not end the wage freeze for public sector workers. That is an absolute insult.
In the long run, we need an inclusive, intersectional recovery to rebuild our economy and recover from the pandemic and entrenched inequality. I am sick of looking around me and seeing the hard work and creativity of my local people often go unrewarded.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I have listened with great interest to the many contributions to the debate so far, but it is clear to me that the economy is still fundamentally unfair, and that is made worse by a Government intent on giving favours to their friends, not providing fairness to those we have all relied on during the past 12 months. The Government are working hard for crony billionaires, but hardly working at all for those who have healed our sick and kept us safe during the pandemic. None of the measures that the Chancellor announced last week seeks to remedy the inherent injustice in our economy.
There are many in this House who believe that charity begins at home—none more so than the Prime Minister, who wants to establish a charitable fund for his own home decoration. A freedom of information request shows that £2.6 million has been spent in the past year refurbishing Downing Street to include a new media centre. That has drawn anger from a famous Jeremy—not the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that well-known socialist Jeremy Clarkson.
We have all been working from home this year, but it is reasonable to ask why, if the Prime Minister can draw from the public funds to improve his place of work, has there been no public grant system to ease the pressures of working from home for my constituents in Newport West and millions of others around the UK? I am sure many others around the country share my frustration that that is where the Prime Minister’s focus has been in the past 12 months, instead of on saving lives and spending public funds wisely. There has been no public fund to allow people to make reasonable adjustments to their homes to make them safe, and no help to provide equipment that could have kept workers safe at home, rather than commuting to the office, but a scheme has been announced that will see businesses paid by the Government to buy swimming pools and jacuzzis.
The Government intend to increase the tax liabilities of ordinary working people before they ask the same of businesses. With the Government’s super deduction, they are in fact cutting taxes for businesses with no safeguards to ensure that corporation tax is still paid, but the state-sponsored saunas will be developed. Rather than austerity for Amazon, it is welfare for Walmart.
The real budget cuts are in the homes of our constituents. The Government can always guarantee contracts for Conservative party donors, but they refuse to guarantee support to thousands of self-employed contractors around the country. For a Government who purport to be run by the party of businesses, they have left many small and independent businesses to fight for themselves. For millions around this country, the Budget guarantees that it is not a fair fight at all. It is most definitely not about levelling up; rather, it is a divide-and-rule Budget.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
I want to use my three minutes to touch briefly on the aspects of the Budget that most directly affect many of my constituents. First, I want to speak about all those constituents who have been excluded from help throughout the coronavirus pandemic—people who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves without income, work and the means to keep their homes and businesses together. I want to speak particularly about those people who do not qualify for the various business support schemes or the self-employed schemes—the hairdressers, the beauty salons, the home-based businesses such as driving instructors, and those working in the arts and entertainment industries whose work has completely fallen away. I know how desperate those people are. They are making their voices heard, and so they should. It was heartbreaking for them to hear nothing in this Budget to help them. They are an essential part of our local and national economy and need help. Too many of them have found out how hard it is to obtain universal credit and just how low the level of support is. I ask the Chancellor again to help these people, even now.
I want to talk about poverty among children and their families in my constituency. This issue is of particular concern in the north-east, where, according to the North East Child Poverty Commission, we were seeing the sharpest increase in child poverty even before the pandemic. The pandemic has only worsened what was an already unacceptable situation. I have spoken about this many times. Although I am happy to see the £20 uplift to universal credit being extended for the coming six months, this is not enough by any means, when more than half of the children living in poverty in the north-east are living in a home with at least one working adult. This is not a pandemic-only problem, and, despite what the Chancellor might want people to think, it is not a problem of worklessness either. Rather, it is an issue of insecure work and regional inequality of opportunity.
These problems will not go away in September, no matter how much the Chancellor may wish it so. For any talk about levelling up to be more than just talk, the Government must commit to tackling the underlying causes of child poverty in this country. We know that growing up in poverty can have lifelong consequences for children. Much more needs to be done to protect children and their future.
Finally, and briefly, I want to talk about the things that were left out. We face a huge climate change issue. We know this—we have declared a climate emergency. It is really disappointing to see no real significant measures to address that. Then there is social care. We all know there is a problem and that we need to improve the quality and availability of social care. The people doing it do a great job and we should pay them for it.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented and it is true that none of us could have predicted what was going to happen, but the reality is that some areas of the country were merely surviving even before the pandemic. For those areas, the consequences have been more severe.
Work by the Office for National Statistics shows that those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods have been more than twice as likely to die from covid as those in the least deprived. We know that data on infections shows the same picture. Therefore, if we come out of this pandemic without truly levelling up and supporting the most deprived neighbourhoods, what we are really doing is putting those communities at further risk of deaths with future waves.
I am a Labour Member of Parliament, but I am here to represent my entire constituency of Bradford West, and, although party politics matter, nothing is more important than protecting our communities and our nation. When the risk is so severe, I say to the Government that this is not the time to be handing out contracts to their friends and funding towns based on party lines. Let us stop playing party politics and start supporting the poorest in society, who have already suffered enough.
The current unemployment rate in my constituency is 12.2%, which is ranked eighth highest in the entire country. Alongside years of austerity, job losses, economic uncertainty and long-term covid restrictions have had a significant impact in Bradford. While I state the hard facts about the challenges that Bradford is facing, I am not here to complain but to make the argument to the Government that, together, we can change this. To take a line from the recent Bradford Council economic recovery plan, we do not want to go back to normal, because normal was not ever good enough. That is why I ask the Minister to meet me and hear the case that Bradford has to make.
Bradford was at the heart of the industrial revolution and is now at the heart of the northern powerhouse. We have one of the youngest populations not just in the UK, but in Europe. We have been ranked as the second most entrepreneurial city in Britain, and the University of Bradford was recently ranked, in a new study, No. 1 for impact on social mobility. Bradford is aiming to become the UK’s leading growth city. I am really grateful for the £50 million that we have already got from central Government for air quality. That contributes to the wider ambition, but this is about more than net zero. It is about incorporating sustainable development goals, one of which is our ambition to be the city of culture in 2025.
Bradford can be the catalyst, not just for unlocking the potential of the northern powerhouse, but for defining what levelling up can be. Bradford has an ambitious plan to provide people with the skills and jobs to transform Bradford into the fastest growing economy. We are aiming to become the UK’s leading growth city. Now is not the time for the red wall politics; now is the time to boost Britain and cities such as Bradford. Let us work together to level up Britain, and not just our friends.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Not a day goes by without the utterance of the phrase “levelling up”, whether it be here in the Chamber, in Committee Rooms or in virtual conference after conference. In the Prime Minister’s first speech some two years ago, he referred to “forgotten people” in “left-behind towns”. The very same Prime Minister has been part of a Tory Government who have inflicted the most horrendous ideologically driven cuts for our public services and our most vulnerable citizens over the past decade.
It now becomes apparent that when the Prime Minister talked about left-behind towns and forgotten people struggling to make ends meet, he was not talking about those who live in Halton Lea or the Windmill Hill area of Runcorn in my constituency. Is he talking about the affluent citizens of Richmond, which the Chancellor just so happens to represent? Or is he talking about Newark, where the constituency of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is located? Both are placed in the highest priority category for levelling-up funding. Both are among the 40 out of 45 areas that just so happen to have Conservative MPs.
Let us do a quick comparison between Richmondshire and Halton. Halton is the 39th most deprived area in the UK, out of a total of 384. Richmondshire is 251st. The percentage of children living in low income families in Richmondshire was 11% in 2018-19. In Halton, it was more than double that. Unemployment is another comparison we could make. We could look at the proportion of the local population claiming universal credit. In Richmondshire, it is 2.9%. In Halton, it is nearly 7% and rising. A baby girl born in Richmondshire can expect to live three years longer than one born in Halton. A baby boy can expect to live four and a half years longer, simply because of their postcode.
Of course, there is one final difference between our two areas. Richmond has a Conservative MP. Halton has two Labour MPs and a Labour council.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Last week’s Budget should have been the moment when our country was put back on the path to growth. It was an opportunity to put in place the building blocks of a recovery that benefits every part of our country. It was the chance to give people hope that, despite the challenges we faced over this last year, a better future lies ahead—a future in which all parts of the country share in our prosperity, where our economy is resilient so that everyone, no matter where they are and no matter where they live, can expect a good job, a reliable wage and a roof over their head.
We have heard from a great number of Members this afternoon and this evening—sadly too many for me to mention them all individually, and I hope they will forgive me— but the contributions from those on these Benches made it clear that we needed a Budget that not only addressed the devastating impact of the pandemic, but tackled the burning injustices that have built up over the past decade under successive Conservative Governments.
The sad reality is that the Budget does not even come close to resolving the problems our country faced going into the pandemic. There is no plan for jobs, no plan to rebuild our economy and no industrial strategy. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) observed, we have a Secretary of State for industrial strategy who does not even believe in industrial strategy. That does not bode well for our recovery as we come out of the pandemic.
The Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), was right to emphasise that we need to see a focus on growth as part of a transition to net zero. We should have seen that joined-up approach to support growth in every part of our country, with decisions based on genuine need, not narrow, partisan advantage.
It is not even the simple cynicism of saying, “Vote Tory, see local investment.” It is starting to feel a lot like, “Vote Tory, see your money go to richer areas.” Let us take the levelling-up fund, which pits regions and nations against each other for vital funding. We want to see proper funding for every region, but it is crucial that it is done transparently, fairly and with a say for local communities, and this fund fails on all those counts.
In the powerful contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), they exposed the reality of this. Although a new economic campus for the Treasury in Darlington will bring 750 jobs, we should be clear that almost 7,000 civil service jobs have been lost in the north-east alone since 2010. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that, as a north-east MP, I will always welcome jobs coming to our region, but how will it help with the much-needed task of delivering an investment-led recovery? How will it drive wider private sector growth? How will it rebalance our economy as we emerge from this crisis?
Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, you will have now listened to many Budget speeches from many different Chancellors, and we all know the structure of these things. We sit here expectantly, wondering what the centrepiece will be, wondering what the final flourish will be, waiting for the moment when the Chancellor makes it clear what he thinks is the biggest announcement of the day. Some of us were hoping that perhaps, at long last, the Chancellor would grasp the enormous challenge of social care, which touches on so many lives up and down the country, but, no, once again it was passed over in silence. The Chancellor could not even bring himself to say the words, and in so doing he ignored the economic as well as the moral case for social care reform, as was so eloquently set out this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall).
That sense of disappointment was compounded when the Chancellor revealed that he has not had a new big idea in five years, and that he still believes that freeports will solve all our problems. I know that this is a hobby-horse of his; it has been for a while. In 2016, he claimed that they would deliver 80,000 new jobs in the UK. Those of us who have followed closely his approach to the pandemic have been unsurprised to learn of the rather simplistic economic modelling underpinning these claims, simply taking the total number of existing jobs in free zones in the US and scaling it down for our smaller population and for our smaller labour force.
The truth is that there is little evidence that freeports create new jobs. Instead, they simply risk moving them around, with the additional risk that deprivation is intensified in the areas just beyond the immediate vicinity of the freeport. They do not make companies more productive. They do not increase demand for the goods in the wider economy or increase the tax take for the Treasury. On the contrary, we know that there are real concerns about tax evasion and the risk of smuggling associated with freeports. With Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs left increasingly overstretched over the past 10 years, I fear that our country is not well-placed to manage these new risks.
We can only build a strong economy if we secure the recovery, and that means action now to secure jobs and to support job creation in the future, and it means clear steps to help businesses through the worst of this crisis. It means ambitious measures that would help build a greener, fairer and more dynamic economy, and on every one of these measures, the Budget falls short.
For the half a million unemployed young people who desperately need hope for a better tomorrow, there is still nothing on offer but the Chancellor’s kickstart scheme, which has only created enough opportunities for just one in 49 eligible young people. Likewise, his much vaunted restart scheme has not even begun and will not begin to meet demand until March 2022, months after unemployment is estimated to peak at 2.2 million. It beggars belief that, in the grips of the worst economic crisis for a generation where our economy has taken the biggest hit of any major economy, this is the best that the Government can muster.
But it is worse than that. At the point at which the furlough scheme is due to end and joblessness peaks, what do the Government plan to do? They plan to cut social security at a time when families will need it the most, sucking demand out of our economy in the process. We can only support job creation if we ensure that businesses remain viable now and into the future. That means helping as many as possible survive through these incredibly challenging circumstances in which they find themselves, not looking on while many good businesses teeter on the edge, unable to deal with the mountain of debt that they have built up over the past year.
The incredible work of our NHS staff and volunteers gives us all hope that soon we will see a semblance of normality return, which is why businesses are so frustrated. They feel that the Government are simply not listening to the immediate pressures they face. While of course Labour wants to see business investing and driving job creation, we also want to see Government playing their full and proper role. That means providing much-needed investment to support our recovery and bringing forward £30 billion of capital spending, not cutting capital spending by £500 million in the next financial year and cutting the green homes grant by £1 billion.
The pattern is clear: on every measure, the Government have fallen short, with no coherent strategy to rebuild and rebalance our economy. Indeed, the only obvious factor linking these policies is a complete lack of ambition, other than to take us back to the failed policies of the last decade—the same approach that weakened the foundations of our economy and left us so exposed when the virus hit. We simply cannot afford another lost decade.
Our country should take a different path: a future in which Government forge a new partnership with businesses and trade unions to get Britain back to work and support the creation of good, secure, clean jobs; a future in which Government take a strategic and fair approach to ensuring opportunity and prosperity in every region and nation of the UK; a future in which our economy is strong and resilient, making our country the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in. This is the future that our country deserves, and it is the future for which Labour will fight.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. In recent days, the House has debated the Budget through the lens of the Government’s response to the pandemic, including the comprehensive efforts we have made to protect jobs and businesses. Today, the focus of the debate has been on looking forward and discussing the ways in which last week’s Budget prepares the country for an investment-led recovery. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the very constructive contributions that we have had throughout the debate.
This is a Budget in three parts: first, it protects jobs and livelihoods and provides additional support to get the British people and businesses through the crisis; secondly, it is clear and honest about the need to fix the public finances once we are on the way to recovery; and thirdly, it begins the essential work of building our future economy, including by providing the opportunity to level up across the country.
The Budget announced an additional £65 billion of measures over this year and next to support the economy in response to coronavirus. Taking into account the support in last November’s spending review, that figure for this year and next is £352 billion. Add in measures from the spring Budget last year and the figure rises to £407 billion. In other words, a comprehensive and sustained economic shock has been met with a comprehensive and sustained response.
In fact, thanks to the actions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Office for Budget Responsibility now expects the UK economy to recover to its pre-crisis level six months earlier than originally expected. That means the second rather than the fourth quarter of 2022. Unemployment, meanwhile, is expected to peak at around 6.5% instead of the nearly 12% that was feared last summer. As the Resolution Foundation has observed, this would be by far the lowest unemployment peak in any recent recession, despite this being the deepest downturn for 300 years.
The Budget maintains a number of essential further support measures, including the furlough scheme, which has been extended until the end of September, and support for the self-employed, which will also continue until September. Indeed, anyone who had filled in a tax return before last Wednesday will now be able to claim the fourth and fifth grants that have been made available for the self-employed, supporting more than 600,000 people on top of those already helped.
The Budget also maintains the universal credit uplift of £20 a week for a further six months, provides working tax credit claimants with equivalent support over the same timeframe and reaffirms our commitment to increase the national living wage to £8.91 from April. We announced a restart grant from April to help businesses to reopen and get going again and a new recovery loan scheme to replace our earlier bounce back loans and coronavirus interruption loans. We will continue to deliver a package that is unprecedented in its scope and scale and which reflects the wider strategy for cautiously reopening the economy, as set out in the Government’s road map. Above all, the distribution analysis shows that this is a package of measures that has supported those on the lowest incomes the most.
Over the course of the debate today, we have heard powerful contributions from a wide range of Members, and I want to draw attention to a number in particular. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke of the importance of skills, innovation and investing in human capital, which a number of Budget measures set out. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) recognised the importance of additional economic support, particularly in the hospitality, leisure and tourism industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) reinforced the Government’s commitment to a green recovery and reskilling to take advantage of the investment set out in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) also highlighted the importance of green innovation, which is reflected in the commitment to double the spending on energy innovation, with a new £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) highlighted the key opportunity provided by our leadership of COP26. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) highlighted the value of the super deduction policy. In answer to his question on fishing, I can confirm that fishing boats are within scope either for the super deduction or the related 50% first-year allowance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) praised my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the vital support that businesses in his constituency, particularly in the hospitality sector, have received throughout the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) praised the Budget as one that looks after jobs and looks after the future, including the new tech campus that will help the next generation in his area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) praised the additional funding for the Welsh Government and the investment through the accelerated city deals. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) praised the successful freeport bid for Felixstowe and the value of the towns fund, which will make such a difference to the regeneration of his local community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) praised the expansion of the self-employment income support scheme, which will support a further 600,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and many other Members praised the super deduction and the great benefits it will have for investment, as UK business leads that investment in our recovery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) welcomed the skills package, which will help to support our economic recovery from the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) welcomed the 5% VAT cut extension and rightly drew the House’s attention to the importance of Lord Hill’s listing review and the wider opportunities of the FinTech industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) praised the Budget’s focus on levelling up and the towns agenda, and we make no apology for the frequency with which we will talk about our commitment to levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) recognised the package of business support and the stimulus for jobs in his constituency that is offered by the super deduction.
Given the time, I will not run through the wide range of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out or how, in addressing some of the issues raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench, he will boost productivity through schemes such as Help to Grow and Help to Grow: Digital, the plans to ensure that the UK is a scientific superpower, the £400 million annual uplift in science spending, the “future fund: breakthrough” scheme, the lifetime skills guarantee, the kickstart scheme, the restart scheme, the £3,000 for apprenticeships, the tripling of traineeships and the Government’s commitment to skills and investment.
Over the last year, this country has experienced a 10% fall in GDP—the largest fall in 300 years. In response, the Chancellor has presented a plan that will continue to protect jobs and livelihoods, that supports the British people and businesses through this moment of crisis, and that begins to fix the public finances and build our future economy. This is a Budget that, as the Chancellor rightly said, “meets the moment”; I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2021-22.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am now required under Standing Order No. 51(3) to put successively, without further debate, the Question on each of the Ways and Means motions numbered 2 to 80, on which the Bill is to be brought in. These motions are set out in a separate paper distributed with today’s Order Paper.
2. Income tax (main rates)
Resolved,
That for the tax year 2021-22 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
3. Income tax (default and savings rates)
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2021-22 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2021-22 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 20%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
4. Income tax (starting rate limit for savings)
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2021-22, the amount specified in section 12(3) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (the starting rate limit for savings) is “£5,000”.
(2) Accordingly, section 21 of that Act (indexation) does not apply in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for that tax year.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
5. Basic rate limit and personal allowance (future years)
Question put,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year for each of the following amounts to remain at the amount specified for the tax year 2021-22—
(a) the amount specified in section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (basic rate limit), and
(b) the amount specified in section 35(1) of that Act (personal allowance).
Part of relevant consideration | Percentage |
|---|---|
So much as does not exceed £250,000 | 0% |
So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000 | 5% |
So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000 | 10% |
The remainder (if any) | 12%”. |
Part of relevant consideration | Percentage |
|---|---|
So much as does not exceed £250,000 | 3% |
So much as exceeds £250,000 but does not exceed £925,000 | 8% |
So much as exceeds £925,000 but does not exceed £1,500,000 | 13% |
The remainder (if any) | 15%”. |
Rate bands | Percentage |
|---|---|
£0 to £250,000 | 0% |
Over £250,000 | 1% |
“non-resident transaction | Schedule 9A, paragraph 2” |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Reduced rate | Standard rate |
g/km | g/km | £ | £ |
100 | 110 | 10 | 20 |
110 | 120 | 20 | 30 |
120 | 130 | 120 | 130 |
130 | 140 | 145 | 155 |
140 | 150 | 160 | 170 |
150 | 165 | 200 | 210 |
165 | 175 | 240 | 250 |
175 | 185 | 265 | 275 |
185 | 200 | 305 | 315 |
200 | 225 | 330 | 340 |
225 | 255 | 575 | 585 |
255 | — | 590 | 600”. |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Reduced rate | Standard rate |
g/km | g/km | £ | £ |
0 | 50 | 0 | 10 |
50 | 75 | 15 | 25 |
75 | 90 | 105 | 115 |
90 | 100 | 130 | 140 |
100 | 110 | 150 | 160 |
110 | 130 | 170 | 180 |
130 | 150 | 210 | 220 |
150 | 170 | 545 | 555 |
170 | 190 | 885 | 895 |
190 | 225 | 1335 | 1345 |
225 | 255 | 1900 | 1910 |
255 | — | 2235 | 2245” |
(1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|
Exceeding | Not exceeding | Rate |
g/km | g/km | £ |
0 | 50 | 25 |
50 | 75 | 115 |
75 | 90 | 140 |
90 | 100 | 160 |
100 | 110 | 180 |
110 | 130 | 220 |
130 | 150 | 555 |
150 | 170 | 895 |
170 | 190 | 1345 |
190 | 225 | 1910 |
225 | 255 | 2245 |
255 | — | 2245”. |
Part of gross gaming yield | Rate |
|---|---|
The first £2,548,500 | 15% |
The next £1,757,000 | 20% |
The next £3,077,000 | 30% |
The next £6,494,500 | 40% |
The remainder | 50%”. |
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The House has just agreed that amendments and new clauses may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table. In the present circumstances, Members are asked to send their amendments by email to the Public Bill Office—pbohoc@parliament.uk—to arrive before the rise of the House.
Delegated Legislation (Electoral Commission)
Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Covid-19: Workplace Protection
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The last year has seen extraordinary changes in the way we live our lives, with enormous hardship, enormous heartache and enormous sacrifice for many. As has been demonstrated in this place, the way that many people work has changed. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House staff and Mr Speaker for everything they have done to ensure that Members can still do their jobs remotely and safely.
But not everyone has had that choice. For many, their jobs have not only continued as before, but the dangers and pressures associated with them have increased tenfold. Those working in health and social care are the most obvious example of that, with over 800 people sadly losing their lives so far after contracting covid, but many others have also had to face new pressures and dangers as a result of the pandemic. The Government have been too slow to recognise those challenges, so I want to use tonight’s debate to highlight those issues.
The matters that I intend to raise are a combination of issues drawn to my attention by individual constituents and by trade unions, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not all the issues raised with me are new deficiencies in workplace protection. In fact, they all follow a familiar pattern that has been given an extra dimension by covid. What they add up to is a difficult environment for workers where legitimate concerns are not addressed or, worse, are met with detrimental treatment.
I will start with self-isolation. This time last year, the Opposition identified a real issue with any strategy to deal with the pandemic that involved requiring those who tested positive to self-isolate. For many, the financial consequences of not going into work are significant. Many people do not get company sick pay, and statutory sick pay is not enough for people to live on, but perhaps more relevant to the debate is the fact that many people are working in jobs where they do not even qualify for SSP. It was not until six months into the pandemic that the Government finally recognised that by introducing the self-isolation payment. However, seven out of eight people do not qualify for it. That remains a huge hole in our defences.
I would like to focus on some of the issues that people have experienced with their employers when they have had to self-isolate. They do not have any protection from their employer for detrimental treatment. That detriment could be refusal to pay sick pay if they are entitled to it, or it could even be dismissal. I have heard from constituents of cases where a period of self-isolation was used by an employer to trigger a sickness absence review or was used as part of a process that was already under way. I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties that people might have if they have to tell their employer that they need to self-isolate—even more so if it is for a second or third time—so why do they have no protection for doing the right thing?
The Government could, either through guidance or regulations, state clearly that a period of self-isolation should be classed as “other leave” that cannot be called unauthorised leave, sickness absence or annual leave and cannot be used as part of any disciplinary or capability process. What of those suffering with long covid? Will the Government add that to the list of conditions classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, or will they expect people to prove that they are protected by the Act every time they want to raise an issue?
In terms of those with long-term medical conditions, we know that people with diabetes are at increased risk. Many with diabetes have been able to shield, but what workplace protections will be in place to support people who are clinically extremely vulnerable when shielding ends on 31 March? Are the Government confident that workplace risk will have significantly reduced after that date? Diabetes UK’s research shows that 69% of people with diabetes working outside the home felt unsafe in their workplace. Covid-19 is not going to go away, and neither are those concerns.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
A half-hour debate is probably not enough for the issues that could be raised. I know that the hon. Member has been contacted on numerous occasions by people who feel that their health has not been properly protected since the outbreak of covid-19. Does he agree that the information provided by public health agencies was slow in surfacing and that lessons need to be learnt even at this stage about the guidance given to small and medium-sized businesses on workplace protection, which is very important?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he makes an important point. In the early stages of the pandemic, it was difficult for everyone to know exactly what the right thing to do was, but there is no excuse for that now. We have a lot more detail on how covid operates, and we know that it will be with us for some considerable time.
I turn to fire and rehire. This is not a new development—it has been around for as long as people have had jobs—but that does not make it acceptable. In fact, it shows that our employment protections are as antiquated as they are inadequate. GMB and Unite in particular have been involved in a number of high-profile examples of fire and rehire, and there is no doubt that the pandemic has seen the number of examples of this increase dramatically. The current crisis has shone a light on the imbalance of power in the employment relationship and how many people feel totally exposed to the whims of their employer. Their powerlessness does not just manifest itself in people losing their jobs. The imbalance is endemic across many workplaces. Look at everyone on zero-hours contracts, in the gig economy or in agency work—they are literally at their company’s beck and call.
Insecurity is baked into the workplace. It is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness. When ruthless employers use the cover of the pandemic to push home their advantage, it is time for the Government to step in. That people have job security in this country is an illusion for many. Even for those who are in what we might consider stable employment, any pretence of job security has been cruelly exposed by fire and rehire, which, I am sorry to say, has become almost as widespread as the virus in the last 12 months. People who face a dismissal and re-engagement, to give it its proper legal terminology, are often concerned that they are in this situation at all. Yes, they might have been employed by the same company for many years. Yes, their terms and conditions have remained largely unchanged. They may even have had them collectively agreed by their trade union. The job itself has not changed. It still needs to be done. They perform well and the company is still making good profits, so why are they suddenly being asked to come in and do the job for 20% less pay?
The answer to that lies in the destructive combination of weak employment laws, an indifferent Government and an opportunistic employer who is seizing the moment to chip away at hard-won rights. What then follows is a consultation period that amounts to nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, followed by an impossible dilemma of losing your job altogether or coming back into work the following week on less money. It is a race to the bottom that coronavirus has accelerated. It is time that race was stopped.
Of course, plenty of employers have struggled this year. We know that. That is why the furlough scheme was created, but there are some employers out there who, despite taking advantage of furlough, have still pushed ahead with fire and rehire tactics because they saw an opportunity to make a few more quid for their shareholders. I personally do not think that employers should be taking taxpayers’ cash with one hand only to be giving out dismissal notices with the other. I would like to see the Government saying to those companies that they take the money on the basis that they will support and protect people in their existing jobs, not chip away at them.
The law on unfair dismissal and “some other substantial reason” needs to be fundamentally strengthened so that the onus is on the employer to show that any such changes were essential to secure the survival of the business. That would raise the threshold for employers seeking to justify dismissal from the current test of “sound or good reason”, which we know tribunals do not examine in detail. It adds insult to injury that those who choose not to succumb to the financial blackmail of fire and rehire do not even get a redundancy payment. The Government should be looking to enhance job protection. The furlough scheme is the start of a recognition by the state that it has a role to keep people in work and keep them secure. Let us not abandon that principle now. Let us build on it.
One of the main problems has been people being asked to go into work despite being able to work from home, which is, of course, contrary to the Government’s “stay at home” message that has been in place for much of the past year. Thanks to the marvels of technology, many more people have been able to work from home, but some employers seem to have a very old fashioned attitude that unless they can see the person in front of them, even if they are just sat in front of a computer screen, they cannot be sure that they are working.
Many people have been forced to go into work unnecessarily, including people with underlying health conditions. I even had a constituent who had to go into work when they were supposed to be shielding; what was particularly of note was that the individual had been shielding from home during the previous two lockdowns and had performed their duties from home without any problem. In the third lockdown, however, that was suddenly not acceptable. That is a pattern we have seen with a number of other employers. Their willingness to support those shielding seems to have dropped off a little bit this year. It is almost as if their patience has worn thin. That has also manifested itself in the number of complaints I have had about staff without any health issues who have also been asked to go back into work contrary to the work at home instruction.
Sadly, we have come across someone who was made redundant after complaining about being required to go to work when they could have easily carried out those duties at home. They did not have two years’ service, so they could not claim unfair dismissal. It was difficult to see how they could use other health and safety-related protections, given the difficulties with that law. It is to be welcomed that the Government have just published new regulations which will extend protection to those classed as workers when raising health and safety issues, but it is disappointing that that is not due to come into force until 31 May. People need that protection now; they needed it 12 months ago. It is good that it is being extended to workers, but there are still too many people who are not classed as workers, or, in the case of Uber drivers, who had to fight a five-year court battle just to get that recognition. The Government really need to clean up and strengthen the rules in this area so that everyone in work has basic protections and we do not have the unfair, uneven and exploitative lottery that it is at the moment.
We are also getting more complaints about businesses that are not adhering to covid-19 measures and, sadly, some constituents are too afraid to tell us where they work because they are fearful of reprisals. They have raised concerns about their employer not applying social distancing, not allowing people to stay at home when they display symptoms, asking staff to come in while waiting for test results and telling staff not to disclose close contacts when they test positive. These are all real examples, and they completely undermine the Government’s attempts to restrict transmission of the virus. People need better support, and they need greater reassurance that when they raise concerns they will be addressed and, critically, that there will be no reprisals for them as individuals.
I spent 15 years before I came here representing people who had been victims of workplace injustice, and very often the reason they had been on the receiving end of that treatment was that they had raised a legitimate concern with their employer. Sadly, it seems that things have got worse rather than better in the past few years. In the past year, those concerns have increased tenfold because the number of issues an employee might reasonably raise with their employer about the inadequate level of protection they get when they go into work has increased considerably.
This is not just about workplace protections now. It is in all our interests that people can go about their business and go to work safely. Those who are in a trade union are able to raise concerns collectively, and one such example is from the GMB. It has raised concerns about the guidance on working in other people’s homes, which has changed during this lockdown. The union believes this is creating greater risk. The guidance now mentions meter reading specifically as being a permitted reason for someone to enter a home. The concern is that those meter readers could become super-spreaders and that they are putting themselves and the householders at unnecessary risk just to get a meter reading, which could be done in a number of ways. Unlike a plumber or an electrician, who might enter a handful of properties each day, meter readers can enter hundreds of homes each day, putting themselves and the public at risk. That really needs looking at again.
I want to say a few words on retail. Those working in supermarkets and other essential retail have been working throughout the crisis and have at times faced incredible pressure. They have played a critical role in keeping the country going and I pay tribute to them, but unfortunately not everyone appreciates the work they do. The shop workers’ trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, surveyed its members and found that 76% of them said that abuse had been worse than normal during the pandemic, that 57% had been threatened by a customer and that 9% had been assaulted. We should not be surprised that abuse has increased, given that enforcing social distancing and face coverings were reported in the survey as being two of the biggest triggers for abuse from customers, and these were not issues before the pandemic started.
This highlights a disconnect between what has been decided in this place—regarding face coverings, for example—and the reality on the ground as to how those rules, which were introduced for a very good reason, are enforced. The police cannot be everywhere, and after a cut of 20,000 officers in the last decade, handing them a plethora of new laws to enforce was never going to be realistic. This is placing those who work in retail and hospitality, to name but two, in a difficult and potentially dangerous position.
When we pass laws in this place about important safety measures to stop the spread of the virus, we also need to look at ourselves and ask whether we are setting the right example. I am sorry to say that there have been a few recent high-profile examples of Government bodies not taking the lead. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea has been in the headlines a lot recently due to the number of cases contracted in the workplace there. I understand that work was commissioned in June 2020 to look at home working at the DVLA, but that the recognised trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has not been granted sight of that report and has instead been told to go through the freedom of information route to see it.
I appreciate that this does not involve the Minister’s Department, but as the Minister responsible for the workplace, can he please have a word with the Department for Transport and point out that discussions about safe workplaces are not a matter to be pursued through FOI requests? This should involve both parties sitting down and engaging in constructive dialogue. I understand that 300-plus desks have recently been removed by the DVLA to ensure that social distancing is possible, but if that is right, how can it also be right that staff had been working in those conditions since last August? Is this lack of distancing the reason that there have been more than 550 positive cases at the DVLA since September last year? The Government and their agencies should be setting an example to other employers on how to operate safely and responsibly.
On that note, perhaps the Minister could also speak to his colleagues in the Department for Justice about the fact that court staff in London and Liverpool have balloted for industrial action because their union, PCS, says that its safety concerns have not been taken seriously, with not even a risk assessment process having been agreed between the employer and union. We really need to be doing better than this.
It is not an understatement to say that workplace health and safety, far from being a regulatory burden, is now a fundamental part of our return to normality and, indeed, key to wider economic success. That means that we need stronger regulatory interventions, and in this regard the decision to recognise covid as a “significant” rather than a “serious” workplace issue limits the options open to inspectors. I hope that that is something the Minister can look at again. A safe workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and the economy. If this pandemic has taught us anything about the workplace, it is that it is too often characterised by insecurity, imbalance and indifference to basic protections. It is time we changed that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing a debate on this important topic. I echo his thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the staff of the House, who have allowed us to continue our business to the best of our abilities. I add my condolences to all the friends and families of the people who have lost their lives and suffered throughout this pandemic.
There is no doubt that the pandemic is one of the greatest challenges that the UK has faced, and as Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, I see daily the difficult choices that individuals and businesses have had to make as we manage the threat to public health. One of my priorities has been to support businesses in making their workplaces covid-secure to ensure that they are able to operate as safely as possible, to keep our economy going and to protect workers and customers.
Before I speak in greater depth about the practical steps we have taken, I would like to pay tribute to the businesses we have worked with to make workplace protection a reality. As we have heard, a number of businesses have remained open for the duration of the pandemic, providing us with the essential goods and infrastructure that we need in the short and longer term. I am hugely grateful to them and their incredible staff. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that safe workplaces and safe staff make a productive workforce. Those businesses have made significant efforts over the past year.
I recognise that many sectors have not been permitted to operate as usual, including, as we have heard, hospitality, personal care, tourism and the performing arts. I commend their perseverance and adaptability in transforming into covid-secure businesses at such speed. Not all those sectors fall under my Department, but I am acutely aware that they continue to face significant pressure, and some businesses have been unable to reopen at all. The road map provides a route out of the current lockdown in England, but I recognise the tremendous difficulties that businesses have been experiencing and continue to endure in the face of the pandemic. We will continue to do all we can to support the British people and businesses through this moment of crisis.
As announced last week in the Budget, and as we heard earlier today, the Budget continues to provide unprecedented levels of support for the economy, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the UK. The Chancellor announced an additional £65 billion of further measures to support the economy in 2021-22. That will take the total support for the economy to £407 billion—the largest peacetime support package on record.
Following the Prime Minister’s announcement of the nationwide lockdown measures almost a year ago, the Government have worked tirelessly to develop clear guidance on how to work safely across a range of workplace settings. We consulted numerous businesses, industry leaders, trade unions and local and central Government organisations to develop the covid-secure guidance. We did that in close collaboration with Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to reflect the latest expert advice at each stage of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The guidance gives practical considerations for how to adapt a workplace to make it covid-secure, including simple but vital measures such as completing a workplace risk assessment that factors in covid-19, cleaning more often—both hands and surfaces—maintaining social distancing and putting in place mitigations where social distancing is not possible.
The guidance also raises other practical considerations, such as considering ventilation in line with HSE guidance—something that will continue to be very important—adapting a workplace layout to facilitate social distancing, and reducing the need for face-to-face meetings, including working from home where possible. It also reminds businesses of the need to support NHS Test and Trace, and to comply with face covering and self-isolation rules and others.
Justin Madders
The Minister is talking about risk assessments. Will he look at the concern that I have raised about court staff, and the Ministry of Justice and the Courts and Tribunals Service not agreeing on the process for a risk assessment in their working environment?
Paul Scully
I noted the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave of the DVLA and the court system, and I will certainly reflect on those and take them back.
The key thing is that the guidance also reminds employers of their duty to consider those with protected characteristics, as the hon. Gentleman says—those shielding or those with other vulnerabilities—and take particular care to factor their needs into workplace risk assessments. Every organisation is different and employers must translate the guidance into specific actions to take, depending on the nature of their organisation, such as its size and type and how it is organised, operated and managed. The duty is on employers to ensure that the risk assessment for their business addresses the risk of covid-19 to anyone affected by the business. The Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and health and safety representatives within businesses—and, of course, trade unions—ensure that support is available to help businesses to implement the right control measures. So we urge businesses to continue to keep their risk assessments up to date and maintain dialogue with their workers over the measures put in place for their safety. As we have heard, it is not always the case, but we must make sure that we press that home to all businesses.
The guidance does remain robust in the light of the new virus strains, although that is continuously reviewed as new data emerges. To continue to protect the most vulnerable in our society, businesses should continue to follow the guidance, even if employees have received a negative test result or have been vaccinated.
Following the publication of the road map, at this key point in the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Government have taken the opportunity to build on the collective input and insights shared by businesses, unions and representative organisations. Almost a year from its initial publication, the message we hear most frequently is that continuity is key for businesses, and that the guidance is embedded and well understood. That does not mean that there is nothing left to learn about how well the guidance has been working in practice, and we have consulted widely to consider any improvements that we can make ahead of the reopening. The Government will provide further advice on how businesses can improve fresh air flow in indoor workplaces and introduce regular testing, as set out in the road map. User feedback is good and levels of compliance are high, but we must not be complacent. The covid-secure guidelines are underpinned by the health and safety legislation as regards the need to conduct a risk assessment, as well as certain requirements set out in new regulations brought forward by the House under the public health legislative framework. Enforcing authorities have been given the powers they need to enforce covid rules where necessary, for the purposes of controlling the spread of infection. Those powers are robust and proportionate, ranging from issuing fixed penalty notices to closing down a business in extremis. We continue to work closely with businesses and across Government to ensure that we maintain these high levels of compliance. If someone has a concern about the measures in a workplace, they should consult their health and safety representatives in the first instance.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. In terms of the enforcement powers that are at the disposal of inspectors, is the Minister able to say how many improvement notices or fixed penalty notices have been issued?
Paul Scully
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer at the moment, but I will find that out for him.
We have given more resource to the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that it can do its job to the best of its ability. We do look to people to come forward with evidence, and that includes not just employees but trade unions and other representatives as well. We make sure that we encourage all businesses, especially if they are considering reopening after a period of closure, to take the time to review and refresh their risk assessments in line with the latest advice.
Although there is much cause for hope and optimism with the vaccine roll-out, we must be mindful not to prematurely relax the social distancing and other safety measures that have been put in place to protect workers and the most vulnerable in society. As set out in the road map, covid-secure guidance will remain applicable throughout steps 1 to 3. At step 4, subject to review, we hope to relax legal limits on social contact and open the remaining closed settings, including clubs and large events, and including weddings. But the Government have been clear that some safety measures must still be required from summer onwards.
To cover a couple of areas that we have talked about, I have been working with the retail sector, including USDAW, to help as regards the violence shown to retail staff, who have done amazing work during the pandemic.
Fire and rehire, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has been raised a number of times in this place. It is important that, yes, we retain our flexible employment practice, but it should not be used as a bullyboy tactic by large companies against their workers. He said correctly that any reasonable, sensible and forward-thinking employer would understand that treating their employees well gets the best out of them, makes it a productive business, and, ultimately, gets the best for the shareholder in the long term. We have charged ACAS with looking at the evidence to see how systematically the practice is being used. It has reported back, and I will be examining what it says.
On self-isolation, we have put in £110 million of funding for the test and trace support payment. A further £20 million per month will go to local authorities from March 2021. That will ensure that local authorities can continue to make payments and support people on low incomes to stay at home and self-isolate when required.
On zero-hour contracts, we must get the balance right to make sure that people who work on such contracts enjoy the flexibility of such work—the vast majority of students and young parents involved in such contracts do appreciate that flexibility. We have banned exclusive contracts, and we want to make sure that, in having that flexibility, people are not being exploited. I look forward to the Employment Bill coming forward so that we can look further at a number of issues around the gig economy, including making sure that our flexible working is a fair way of working. I can confirm that we will continue to work with all sectors of the economy as we forge a successful, long-term recovery from this pandemic. I remain grateful to businesses for everything that they currently do, and will do in the future, to help us to build back better.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge- Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are already clearly marked, and unmarked spaces must not be occupied. I see Members have taken their appropriate seats, but the usual convention of a Government side and an Opposition side is waived on this occasion, so Members may sit anywhere. Hansard colleagues would be very grateful if Members sent any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2021.
The draft order, which was laid before the House on 3 February 2021, relates to the renewables obligation and the renewable electricity support scheme. The renewables obligation was introduced in 2002 to provide subsidy for electricity generation from renewable sources. It covers onshore and offshore wind, solar, hydro, biomass and so on. The scheme is closed to new applications, though support for existing stations continues. The scheme will finally close in 2037.
The scheme was part of a programme of measures aimed at stimulating the renewables industry to enable ambitious climate change targets to be met. Without subsidy, the nascent renewables sector would have struggled to make headway in a market dominated by the established heavyweights of coal, gas and nuclear. The renewables obligation had an initial target of 10% renewable electricity by 2010, but today about 30% of electricity supplied in the UK is supported under the scheme. Of course, the scheme needs to be paid for, and that falls on electricity suppliers, who currently provide almost £6.5 billion of subsidy a year to renewable generators. Those costs are passed on to customers via their bills, adding about £70 a year to the average domestic electricity bill. Costs will fall from 2027 as generators start reaching the end of their period of support and exit the scheme.
The draft statutory instrument deals with a technical matter that relates to supplier payment default. More specifically, it aims to prevent electricity suppliers from being unduly exposed to the unpaid bills of competitors who fail to meet their obligations. The renewables obligation comprises three separate but interlinked schemes: the renewables obligation, covering England and Wales; the renewables obligation Scotland; and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation. The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments are responsible for their own schemes; the UK Government cover the England and Wales scheme. The matter under debate relates to the England and Wales scheme only.
The renewables obligation is a traded scheme that places an obligation on electricity suppliers to obtain a number of green renewables obligation certificates in proportion to the amount of electricity they supply to their customers. Certificates are issued to renewable generators for free by Ofgem in relation to the amount of renewable electricity they generate. Suppliers typically buy those certificates, providing generators with an income stream over and above electricity sales revenues. Certificates are usually in short supply, so suppliers may make a cash payment, called a buy-out payment, in lieu of each certificate. The buy-out price is about £50 per certificate for the current renewables obligation year, and about 10% of the scheme is met in that way. At the end of the scheme year, the cash fund is recycled back to those suppliers who met their obligations with certificates, which gives certificates additional value over and above the buy-out price.
In recent years, an increasing number of suppliers have defaulted on their obligation under the scheme. Payment default leaves a shortfall in the cash fund, meaning recycle payments are lower than they would otherwise have been. That lowers the value of certificates, which ultimately impacts generators’ returns. The scheme therefore features a mutualisation mechanism that offers protection against payment default. Under the mechanism, shortfalls in the cash fund are recovered from all other suppliers and recycled back to those suppliers who met their obligation with certificates. The mechanism is triggered when the shortfall exceeds a £15.4 million threshold.
Mutualisation has been triggered in each of the past three years. In total, £173 million has been mutualised across suppliers in England and Wales. Electricity suppliers and their customers are understandably unhappy about the situation, so in December 2020 the Government consulted on a proposal to amend the mutualisation threshold so that it would be less easily triggered. It was proposed that the £15.4 million threshold should be replaced with a new threshold calculated annually as 1% of the cost of the scheme, which is broadly equivalent to the arrangements that were in place when mutualisation was first introduced into the scheme in 2005. Since then, the threshold has been gradually eroded in relative terms and is now equivalent to just 0.25% of scheme costs. Mutualisation can therefore now be more easily triggered. In other words, the risk associated with supplier payment default has become increasingly tilted away from generators and towards other suppliers.
Our proposal and the draft statutory instrument seek to redress the balance of risk. In the first year, the threshold will rise to about £62 million. That will ensure that suppliers and their customers are not unduly exposed to the unmet renewables obligation bills of other suppliers. Generators will face an increased risk that unmet obligations will remain uncovered. That will have a small impact on the value of certificates, but the new level of risk is broadly equivalent to what it was in 2005. In that respect the SI can be considered to be restorative.
The draft instrument makes minor technical changes to the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 so that a fixed £15.4 million threshold is replaced with a threshold that is calculated on an annual basis. The new threshold is determined as 1% of the forecast scheme cost for the year ahead. It also places a new requirement on the scheme’s administrator, Ofgem, to calculate and publish the threshold ahead of each obligation year.
The emergence of payment default and cost mutualisation under the renewables obligation has become of increasing concern to electricity suppliers. Through no fault of their own, those suppliers have become increasingly exposed to the unmet obligations of their competitors, whereas renewable generators have seen their returns increasingly protected.
The draft instrument will restore the original balance of risk between generators and suppliers. It will make it harder for mutualisation to be triggered, so suppliers will be less likely to be exposed to the unmet obligations of other suppliers. That is good news for consumers; they should benefit because the likelihood of mutualisation costs being passed on to them will be lower.
The legislative changes need to be effective on 1 April to enable them to take effect in respect of the next renewables obligation year, which runs from April 2021 to March 2022. Consequently, and subject to the will of Parliament, the draft instrument will enter into force on 31 March 2021. I commend the order to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The SI is, frankly, three years too late. It could be described as more of a disaster relief fund arrangement than anything else because there is a significant alternative history behind the measure in terms of the changes to mutualisation and the ROCs market.
The explanatory notes that were kindly sent out with the SI state:
“The mutualisation threshold has failed to keep pace with the growth in the scheme. When the threshold was introduced in 2005, it was equivalent to about 1% of the cost of the scheme.”
The Minister mentioned that when the scheme was first introduced in 2005 it was equivalent to 1% of the cost of the scheme, but that now it is equivalent to about 0.25%. All that is true, but those figures conceal an alarming story.
When the threshold was first introduced, it was never considered that it would be breached; it was regarded as a very, very long backstop for RO payments and repayments. The Minister has set out how the RO works, and how it distributes fund back to suppliers after putting money in the fund in the first place. Until about 2015, the issue of shortfalls was pretty much an academic issue and the mutualisation levels had not been breached. There were occasions on which generators received a slight shortfall on what they might have received, but that was nothing serious in terms of what they expected to receive as their reward for creating renewables obligation certificates in the first place which were then presented by a supplier for a scheme to proceed. I am not sure that we need to debate the complications of the renewables obligation scheme, but it is quite complicated in terms of how it works.
The point we ought to focus on is the period 2015 to 2016, when new licence arrangements were put in place by Government for entrants to the electricity supply markets. Those arrangements have been described thus:
“Energy suppliers could get a licence with little or no capital and no relevant industry experience.”
Licences were literally given away to people who turned up and said that they would like to set up an electricity supply company. That meant an explosion of supplier companies. Indeed, by the end of 2017, there were 73 supplier companies in the market—an increase from just 32 in December 2015. In the course of two years, the number of supplier companies in the market doubled. It was fairly inevitable that because of the lax licensing procedure arrangements, a number of those companies then proceeded to go bust—22 companies have gone bust in the last three years or so. Just this year, two further companies covering some 400,000 customers have gone bust. A total of 1.8 million customers have switched their accounts, not because they wanted to but because they had to. The supplier of last resort—another interestingly complicated device—has come in and customers have been transferred to companies that have not gone bust.
Over the past three years, supplier companies that have done their job properly, have ensured their customers are properly protected and, most importantly, paid their renewables obligation requirements have, quite naturally and not surprisingly, increasingly voiced their concerns. They have observed that companies were coming into the market, undercutting those companies that had acted responsibly, and hoovering up customers but then were unable to sustain the momentum of those efforts and were going bust. The people who paid the money were those energy supply companies that actually did their job properly. That was an extremely unjust outcome and one should have great sympathy for those suppliers that found themselves in that situation having done their job properly. For that reason I am in complete agreement with the thrust of the motion, but the problem has not just arisen. In the last three years, there has been an exceptional new development; not only has the mutualisation threshold of £15.4 million, which the Minister mentioned, been breached but it has been breached at an astonishing level. There was a short- fall of £53.4 million in 2018; £88 million in 2019; and £31.4 million in 2020. Those sums are way over the theoretical and academic mutualisation threshold originally set in 2005.
Of course, something has to be done about it. The measure will ensure that the mutualisation threshold increases substantially, as the Minister has mentioned. That does mean that generators will bear some of the results of any shortfall and suppliers to a much lesser extent. The level of mutualisation means that, probably, it will not be breached in the near future but, as we can see from the figures, even that new level was breached in two of the past three years.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge that what I have recounted is not just an alternative history, but, substantially, the history behind this particular SI. It is a measure to retrieve the disastrous situation that the Government have got themselves into by allowing the market to go in a wild west way, underpinned by the changes to the licensing arrangements in 2015 to 2016.
The Opposition will certainly not oppose this measure today, because it is the right thing to do given the situation we now find ourselves in, but I would like the Minister to reflect for a moment on the history of how we got here and to indicate to the Committee whether she has confidence that the new thresholds in place will take us back to that semi-academic position of theoretical mutualisation arrangements—mutualisation arrangements that would not be breached. I must say, however, that the signals that came out at the beginning of this year were not good: 400,000 further customers forcibly switching and confidence going down.
As we all know, last year Ofgem introduced tougher entry tests for energy suppliers, and I would be grateful were the Minister to reflect briefly on whether she thinks those new tougher tests will substantially ameliorate the problem that we saw between 2018 and 2020. If those tougher tests do not work and we have continuing large-scale failure of companies, as we have seen in the past three years, this measure will simply not work.
I hope that the Minister will give us a brief thought on what confidence she has that the measure will work and that the number of failures we have seen in recent years will be reduced. Will the market return to some semblance of balance in the relationship between what generators have to bear—insofar as far as shortfalls in ROs are concerned—and what suppliers have to bear in mutualisation?
For the past three years, in effect, every September a stern note has been put out by Ofgem to say, “The following companies are on notice because they have not paid their ROs by now.” Indeed, we got to the point where, regularly, that was the canary in the coalmine, when energy companies started to signal, “We’re in trouble.” Some got out of that by paying their ROs and coming to arrangements with Ofgem, but for others—regrettably in very large numbers of cases—that notice was followed shortly by the company going bust and abdicating its responsibility for the RO payments.
That has been happening for three years now. I would have thought that the Government might have spotted that and taken action to deal with the issue rather earlier. I therefore welcome the change—although it is really two years too late and a lot of damage has been done in the process—but it is incumbent on the Minister to assure us that she thinks that the measures in the draft order will really work and will put us into a new era for RO payments, restoring that balance between the concerns of the suppliers, customers and generators, which has been given as the purpose of this SI. We want to get back to a stable environment in which all such concerns are properly met.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his valued contribution and for his depth of knowledge—this is an opportunity to put that on the record. It is always a pleasure to discuss such issues, albeit across the Floor, because he has an extraordinary depth of understanding and a commitment to the consumer and to those who are generating our electricity.
I welcome the support of Members, who recognise that the draft SI will ensure that electricity suppliers and, by association, their customers will no longer be unduly exposed to the onerous obligations of other suppliers. I hope that my responses have provided the necessary assurances for the Committee to approve this statutory instrument.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I am confident that the new Ofgem tests will rebalance and therefore reduce the risk of supplier failure. The SI, alongside those changes, will therefore strike the right balance between the needs of renewable generators on the one hand and of electricity suppliers and their customers on the other. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 164).
The statutory instrument before us extends the existing prohibition on enforcement agents—bailiffs—from attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. It applies to enforcement action in England and will be in force until the end of March 2021. The House has debated this restriction on two previous occasions, so I will take the matter in short.
This statutory instrument is a public health rather than an economic measure. It extends the restrictions on enforcement agents carrying out evictions that have been in place since 17 November until 31 March. It prevents enforcement agents from giving tenants notices of eviction or from attending residential premises to enforce a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. That ensures we continue to protect public health during the national lockdown, at a time when the risk of virus transmission is high, and to avoid placing additional burden on the NHS and local authorities.
We have continued to provide for limited exemptions from the ban in cases where the Government feel that the competing public interests in ensuring access to justice, preventing harm to third parties, taking action against egregious behaviour and upholding the integrity of the rental market sufficiently outweigh the public health risks.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I do not oppose the regulations, but I am interested in what will happen after 31 March. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be fresh regulations to renew the constraints, or will 31 March be the end date, after which people will be able to recover their properties under normal common law?
Alex Chalk
May I say that the Government are acutely aware of the point that my hon. Friend properly makes? There is a balance to strike here, not least to consider article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights—in other words, the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. As to when the decision will be made, it will be made shortly.
Let me return to the exemptions. They are as follows: first, where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown; and, secondly, where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies, or substantial rent arrears equivalent to six months’ rent, or where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of a tenant and the enforcement agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied.
I pause there to make the point—picking up on the representations made a few moments ago—that those cases where the arrears are particularly egregious are capable of leading to an eviction order. It is important to recognise that.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Minister mentioned the arrears being for more than six months but £1,500 a month in rent in arrears for five months is still £7,500. Is that not a big sum?
Alex Chalk
It certainly is a big sum. My hon. Friend, with laser-like focus, highlights the very balance that has to be struck. That is the issue and concern here: at the time of a pandemic, what is the correct balance to strike between the interests of tenants and of landlords? The Government are acutely conscious of the need to strike that delicate balance, and will continue to give active consideration to where it lies.
The statutory instrument contains a requirement for the court to be satisfied that the exemption applies on a case-by-case basis. That will ensure a clear, uniform and transparent process for establishing whether an exemption to the ban applies. In cases in which a court has decided that an exemption to the ban applies, bailiffs need to give tenants at least 14 days’ notice of an eviction and have been asked not to enforce evictions where a tenant is self-isolating.
The instrument permits writs and warrants of restitution to be enforced. Those orders are issued in cases in which a person who has been evicted from premises re-enters those premises illegally. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are excluded from the ban.
These regulations will be in place until 31 March. We continue to keep the need for this measure under review, as I have indicated already, and will make an announcement shortly. In addition to the regulations, the Government have introduced a requirement in the Coronavirus Act 2020 to require landlords, in all but the most serious circumstances, to provide tenants with six months’ notice before beginning formal possession proceedings in the courts. That is an important protection for tenants, because we know that most tenants leave before the end of the landlord’s notice period. That protection will stay in place until at least the end of March 2021 and means that most renters now served notice by the landlord that they want them to leave the property can stay in their homes until September and have time to find alternative support or accommodation. The Government are also considering whether it is necessary to extend that measure.
As I have alluded to, the Government are continuing to take action to prevent people from getting into financial hardship by helping businesses to pay salaries—the most important measure to ensure that people can pay their rent—through the furlough scheme, which has been extended to the end of September, as the Committee is well aware. In addition, the self-employment income support scheme allows eligible individuals to claim a taxable grant worth up to 80% of their average monthly trading profits. That scheme will also remain in place until September.
We have also boosted the welfare safety net by billions of pounds. In the Budget, we announced that the universal credit top-up of £20 a week will continue for a further six months and that we will provide a one-off payment of £500 to eligible working tax credit claimants. We have, in addition, provided an extra £1 billion to increase local housing allowance rates so that they cover the lowest 30% of market rents. In 2021-22, local housing allowance rates will be maintained at their increased level, meaning that claimants renting in the private rented sector will continue to benefit from the significant increase in the rates applied in April 2020.
The Government have also made available for local authorities £180 million for discretionary housing payments to help renters with their housing costs. From 2021-22, the Government will make available an additional £140 million in DHP funding, which takes account of the increased LHA rates.
In addition, temporary court arrangements and rules remain in place to ensure appropriate support for all parties until the end of July. That includes the introduction of a new review stage at least 28 days before the substantive hearing, so that tenants can access legal advice; a requirement for any cases that were started prior to August 2020 to be reactivated by the landlords until 30 April; and a requirement for landlords to provide the courts and judges with information on how tenants have been affected by the pandemic.
In addition, the Government are piloting a new mediation service, as part of the possession action process, to support landlords and tenants to resolve disputes before a formal court hearing takes place. The new service is free for tenants and landlords that agree to use it. The aim is to help more tenants at an early stage of the formal possession process in order to help sustain tenancies where possible, thus reducing the risk of tenants becoming homeless. That pilot will run until August 2021.
The Government continue to think that it is proportionate to provide for an exemption in cases in which a landlord has brought a claim on the ground of rent arrears and where a full six months’ rent is owed. It is important to balance the impact of the ongoing restrictions on landlords, many of whom rely on rental income, with the need to continue to protect tenants. Given the significant level of financial support that has been available to renters through furlough, welfare and the other measures that I have referred to, it is unlikely—indeed, this is borne out by the statistics—that a full six months of arrears would have been accumulated solely due to covid-19.
Let me conclude by referring to some points that the right hon. Member for Tottenham made on the previous occasion we considered the matter. He talked about the level of financial support available to tenants to help them to pay their rent. As I have set out, the Budget has extended much of the support—I hope he will welcome this—that has been made available to help tenants to pay their rent. That includes extension of the furlough scheme, widening of access to grants in order to make a further 600,000 self-employed people eligible for help, and continuation of the universal credit top-up of £20 a week for a further six months.
The instrument provides tenants with protection from eviction up to 31 March, ensuring that vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes during the current national lockdown restrictions. It is intended to protect public health during the national lockdown, at a time when the virus transmission is high, and to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
It is self-evident that a ban on evictions should stop evictions, but that is not what the Government’s so-called ban is achieving. Eviction attempts by landlords doubled during the winter coronavirus lockdown and more than 500 households were forced out by county court bailiffs. However, the problem is even bigger than that. In 2020, between the start of April and the end of November, 207,543 households approached their council for help with homelessness. A combination of illegal evictions, tenants being put under pressure to leave before eviction, and lodgers never having had protection, has meant that hundreds of thousands have faced the indignity and threat of homelessness.
We all remember the words of the Housing Secretary last March, that
“no one should lose their home as a result of the coronavirus epidemic”.
How do the Government square their promises with the misery that they delivered? In the middle of the lockdown they created loopholes in the eviction ban that meant that hundreds of evictions continued to go ahead. No wonder the London Renters Union branded it a fake eviction ban. The Government promised to put their arms around the British people; but instead they pushed them out into the cold in the depths of the winter lockdown. Everyone deserves security in their home, but throughout the covid crisis the Government consistently made last-minute decisions that put renters at risk. Why does the Minister think it is right to allow arrears that have built up since the start of the pandemic to lead to evictions?
The Government should give people security in their homes by strengthening the ban so that it means what it should. Why does the Minister think it is right to extend the ban only to 31 March when we know that restrictions on our liberty, lives and work will go on much longer? It is becoming a farce that every couple of weeks we end up here debating yet another extension to the evictions ban. In a few weeks we will inevitably be back here again, debating the same problems, without any solutions.
Labour has the solution for renters and homeowners. I shall repeat what I said the last time and perhaps the Minister will listen. We need to strengthen and extend the ban on evictions and repossessions until restrictions are over, extend the mortgage holiday, raise the local housing allowance to cover median market rents, reform housing law to end automatic evictions through the courts, reduce the waiting period to receive support for mortgage interest payments, retain the £20 uplift to universal credit beyond six months, end the five-week wait and suspend the benefits cap.
People face the threat of losing their homes, and the biggest intervention that the Government will make is to extend the stamp duty holiday to help the owners of second homes, and buy-to-let landlords. Get your priorities straight. Stand up for those who need help. Do not turn this health crisis into a homelessness crisis as well.
Sir Christopher Chope
It is a pleasure to contribute to this short debate. If I had been selected as a member of the Committee it would have been quorate at the outset, instead of having to rely on Whips. It is desirable that on an issue as controversial as this one, which affects so many small businesses, ordinary Back Benchers should be able to articulate, on behalf of their constituents—
The Chair
Order. Sir Christopher, you will know, as a senior Member of this House, that when addressing the Chair in a debate we are talking about the matters before us. It is not a matter for this Committee to consider what the Whips may or may not be doing, and who is attending the Committee. You are here. You are free to speak, but can we please stick to the matter before us.
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely, Mr Pritchard. I shall stick to the matters in front of us. All I am pointing out is that I am the only Government Back Bencher present in the Committee and I therefore feel a heavy onus and responsibility on my shoulders. How that came about is of no interest to anyone on the Committee, I know.
I must say that the Opposition spokesman has really made me feel that I am sat on the right side of this Committee. His approach seems to be very much anti-landlord, “property is theft” and old-fashioned hard Labour. However, my approach is that we need to have a balance—and I think that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts this—between the needs of tenants in this crisis and the needs of small-scale landlords in particular, many of whom do not have any income other than from letting one or two properties.
Most private tenants are responsible and take the view that their first obligation is to pay their rent, and we must not damn all tenants by suggesting that they are irresponsible. The vast majority of tenants are being very responsible and, although they may be facing financial hardship, they recognise that paying their rent to their landlord is an essential part of what they do.
However, I am concerned about that small minority of tenants who are taking advantage of the indulgence of the Government and are making life a nightmare for their landlords. I have attended this afternoon because I have received a number of representations from constituents who are on their uppers, absolutely tearing their hair out, because of their frustration at not being able to recover possession of a premises. In some cases, the premises have probably been abandoned, but it is impossible to prove that under the present circumstances—no rent is being paid, there is a threat of squatters moving in, and there is sometimes active vandalism of the property.
I am concerned that my hon. Friend the Minister says he is still weighing up the options as to what will happen after 31 March, because here we are today, on 9 March, and this House rises in just over two weeks for the recess. There seems to be no urgency to bring regulations forward, which then justifies no advance notices and no consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I would have expected that, if the Government were going to bring forward regulations extending this protection from eviction beyond 31 March, they would have done so now, so that there would be a proper opportunity to debate those regulations before the Easter recess.
Am I right to interpret the fact that those regulations have not been laid as meaning that the Government have decided—and I would certainly support this—that the moment has now passed when this protection against eviction, in these stark terms, is needed, and that the time is now right to rebalance the interests? Unfortunately, in answering my own question, my hon. Friend the Minister said “No, this is still under consideration; it is still being balanced,” but when is it going to reach a conclusion?
I am not expecting to get an answer, but I think this is symptomatic of the hand-to-mouth existence that we seem to be living in this Parliament, in terms of legislating, without taking into account the burden that we are placing upon people who we are regulating. Those landlords—and, for that matter, the tenants—wish to know where they stand with this.
My plea to the Government is to ensure that these regulations are not renewed beyond 31 March, but, if they are renewed, to issue the draft regulations now, give a proper opportunity for people to discuss those and to debate their merits, ensure that they can be debated in this House before they come into effect—which would be a novel innovation—and I would also suggest that they have a proper regulatory impact assessment attached to them.
These regulations, like so many others, do not have an impact assessment because it is said that it is not necessary to have one, but the Minister himself has said that a careful balancing act must to be conducted, taking into account competing interests. Therefore, we owe it to Parliament and to the process of scrutiny to be able to see the Government’s workings. If the Government are going to proceed and extend the regulations beyond 31 March, I hope we have a proper impact assessment, early production of those regulations and a full opportunity to debate them before the Easter recess.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those powerful representations, and speaking up for those individuals for whom their rental income is often their only source of income. We in this House must avoid falling into the trap of assuming that those in that situation are somehow vastly wealthy and have numerous other sources of income to draw on. I have constituents, as my hon. Friend evidently does as well, for whom nothing could be further than the truth.
I gently push back on the suggestion of legislation being hand to mouth. It is not that; it is about being agile and responsive to the fact that this is a fluid situation. Notwithstanding the remarkable roll-out of the vaccine and the positive direction of travel in respect of covid infection numbers, the Government properly have to consider matters day by day. Striking that balance, to which my hon. Friend properly referred, must take account of that prevailing epidemiological context.
On the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), respectfully I think he offered an unfair mischaracterisation of the Government’s position. He took no proper account of the fact that in normal circumstances, if someone was two months late with their rent that would trigger eviction proceedings. Under these proposals the trigger is six months—three times more—and again, it is about striking that proper balance.
My bigger concern was the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the exemptions listed in this statutory instrument are loopholes—his word. That prompts the question, which of the “loopholes” would he close? The first exemption only exists where the claim is against trespassers, who are persons unknown. Is he saying that no eviction proceedings should be taken in those circumstances?
The second exemption applies where the order for the possession is made wholly or partly on the basis of antisocial behaviour or nuisance. Again, should the landlord not be able to evict then, or if false statements have been made or if there is domestic abuse in social tenancies? Where someone is battering the other person in that flat, is it really being suggested by the Labour party that the courts ought not to be able to intervene, or where the possession is made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant? It would be a ridiculous situation if the landlord could not intervene in circumstances where the tenant had sadly died.
For those reasons, we respectfully contend that the regulations strike the right balance and we have considered them with care. They are appropriate measures that ensure that the needs of tenants are properly safeguarded, while recognising that in those exceptional circumstances where it would make a nonsense of the law for courts not to be able to intervene, such circumstances are catered for. In those circumstances, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Covid-19 Vaccine: Take-up Rates in London
(3 years, 1 month 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
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Welcome to this version of Westminster Hall. May I thank all the people involved in facilitating this important development in our democracy? There have been some changes, which I will set out briefly. One is that we start five minutes earlier, so that we can finish this debate at five minutes to 11. I remind hon. Members participating, both physically and virtually, that they must arrive at the start of the debate and they are expected, under the instructions of the Deputy Speaker, to remain for the duration of the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. We ask that Members attending physically clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room, so that those spaces can be used by others later. Without further ado, I call Andy Slaughter to move the motion.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19 vaccine take-up rates in London.
It is a great pleasure to be here in what I think is, from a Back-Bench point of view, the first of these virtual sessions in Westminster Hall, although it is also very good to be here physically, in the flesh, and to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), here in the flesh as well. On the screen I can see, I think, nine Labour colleagues and even one Conservative who will take part in this debate, so that is a very good start, and what better subject than this to start the process off with?
There is a reason, which the Minister will be familiar with, why this issue has aroused a lot of interest among my colleagues. I need to say first that the Minister has been making himself available on a regular basis—sometimes almost daily—to answer our questions, which are often the same questions. That is a rather barbed compliment, because it implies, perhaps, that he has not answered them the first time they were asked. One thing that I would like to do today is to try to pin him down on just a few very important issues. I do thank him for his candour, his availability and, of course, for being here today—as I have pointed out to him, he is the only Vaccines Minister, so it would be difficult for him to delegate this one.
The second thanks that I would like to express is to everybody who is making vaccination work in London, and indeed across the country. Obviously I especially appreciate the work done in my own area of Hammersmith and Fulham by NHS staff, council staff and volunteers. It has been an absolutely exemplary effort, and I can testify to that personally, because I had my first jab two weeks ago and I cannot imagine a smoother, more reassuring and more professional service than the one I experienced at the time. I am told by the many constituents with whom I have been in contact that that is the experience across the board, so I can express nothing other than praise for the way in which the system is being rolled out.
Indeed, the success of the programme nationally, whereby I think we are at 22 million first doses and about 1 million second doses, is, again, an achievement. Obviously—I do not wish to state this in any adverse way—we are going to talk about the problems today. We are going to take for granted the successes and talk about the problems, because that is our job.
About one third of the population has had a first dose, and a very small percentage—less than 2%—has had a second dose. That is a matter of political and scientific choice, which most people would agree with, although it is not how some other countries have dealt with it. Nevertheless, it shows the size of the achievement and also the task ahead. If we have done a third, which might include some young people who are not getting the vaccine in the near future, there are two thirds to go—even my maths tells me that—and then there is the second dose as well. There is still a mountain to climb, but what gives me confidence is the fact that the NHS’s data and operation are better placed than perhaps any health service could be to deal with the problem. However, let us not gloss over the fact that this is taking the individual effort of millions of people across the country.
I shall go through some problems, but on another positive note, I had a very uplifting conversation with my local director of covid-19 response and recovery last night. She told me that the expectation, which I hope the Minister will be able to confirm, is that, first, from next week there will be a substantial increase in the amount of vaccine available nationally and locally. I think we are going from some 2 million doses a week to 4 million. I do not know whether that is true, so perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that.
Secondly, that will allow the centres that are dispensing the vaccine to expand. One problem so far has been a lack of vaccine at some of the GP-run primary care network centres, with major centres in many places not opening at all. I hope that the Minister, if his information is this granular, will be able to confirm that the Hammersmith mass vaccination centre based at the Novotel hotel in the centre of Hammersmith, which was due to open on 8 February, will open next week and that other centres will open this month in north-west London.
My third point, which relates to a local initiative, is on the issue of vaccine hesitancy. Next Monday we start a local programme to contact every person who we know has either declined or not been contacted and is in one of the priority groups. We will go through the process of contact, persuasion or whatever else is necessary to ensure that we catch up on what are not terribly good figures at the moment. I will come back to that at the end, because one thing we are looking for there is perhaps support from the Government in carrying out that programme, which is a really good programme. I have been told all about it, and I compliment the local council on setting that up and using the Hammersmith and Fulham community aid network—H&F CAN—which has been helping people shield and helping people in need over the past year.
We have been asking for data for many weeks. I can see the Minister’s dilemma, because if he gives us national data, we ask for regional; if he gives us regional, we ask for integrated care systems; if we get ICS, we ask for clinical commissioning group; if we get CCG, we ask for Medical Science Liaison Association; if he gives us medical support officer, we ask for postcode—so he might think it is a slippery slope. In a darker moment, he might have concluded that it is better to give us nothing at all. I will contradict that view by saying that it is better to say, “There is a story to tell here.” I do not think that anybody will take a view other than one that will help the process go ahead. It is important to have more granular data, at least down to ward level, so that we can see what is happening in our constituencies and we can take action to deal with it.
On the issue of supply, it appears that—I say “appears” because I spend a lot of time on this and it is difficult to do the sleuthing work—in the initial roll-out at the beginning of the year, London was being left behind, and then there was a correction and more vaccines came into London, and in the past few weeks we have had something of a dearth—a drought—of vaccines nationally. If one looks at the daily figures, one sees that by the end of last year they were at around 600,000 doses a day. For the past week or so they have been between 200,000 to 400,000 a day, which is a significant change. I hope that we will see the figures go up again.
In a way, there is a bit of “bald men arguing over a comb” here, because colleagues in other regions will say, “Hang on, you are not taking our vaccines to London, are you?” I do not know whether they are saying that in your part of the world, Sir Christopher, but I have heard it said. The reality is that we all need to vaccinate all our populations. The question is one of overall supply. It would have helped had we known the situation more clearly at an earlier stage.
There is also the push and pull factor. Some privileged institutions, such as the hospital hubs, are able to order from what supplies there are and obtain those. There may be some logic to that, in the sense that they are principally—not exclusively—vaccinating NHS staff, who clearly are a priority, but it does mean that the local GP-run PCN hubs are reliant simply on what is delivered to them; they have very little control over that. They may have very little notice of what is being delivered. It got to the state last week where, between Monday and Friday, not one of the five dispensing outlets in my constituency had any vaccine delivered. Unless there was some left over still within its shelf life, no vaccination was going on.
That was an extreme example, but if I look at those GP hubs, during the course of this year, the best of them—where I had my jab—has operated for about 25 days, so less than half the time. When I say “operated”, I mean at a significant level of, say, more than 400 vaccinations a day, and that was for only 25 days. But for the other two hubs in the borough, including the one at White City, which is the most deprived area in my constituency and the one where vaccination rates are giving us most concern, the number of days has been in single figures since the beginning of the year. In that area, significant vaccination has been going on for fewer than 10 days. That is of great concern.
That may be corrected by the sheer volume that is coming through. It is essential that we get enough vaccine for the PCNs, the major centres, and for the pharmacy and hospital centres if they are to continue to operate. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm what I think is the strategy now, which is that the major centres—in my case, say, 1,500 doses a day, which is very significant—will be dealing with the new cohorts, so the younger people coming into the system now and also possibly some second doses. That is what we think is going to happen.
There is a certain sense in that, because the process of going to a major centre involves getting a letter and making an appointment, and it may involve some travel. It is more suitable for people who are more mobile and may have a car or something of that nature to get them where they are going.
The PCNs are going to give some of the second doses, but I suspect they are going to scale down a little, because GPs obviously have other work to do—I am going to ask the Minister about this. The problem is that we are neglecting an important group of people in groups 1 to 4 who missed out on the vaccine and who now need to be the target for ensuring that we get our vaccination rates up. It is pretty clear that the PCNs are the best vehicle for delivering that.
I do not want to go on for too long as I know many colleagues want to get in, but the last and most important point for us at the moment is how we deal with the issue that is variously called vaccine resistance or vaccine hesitancy, but is simply a problem for the NHS, the Government and all of us working to resolve it. We need local solutions as well as national resources. There has been a lack of data in relation to these matters. The evidence for that is the reliance that so many colleagues have placed on Sky News’s analysis of the data on the NHS website. I am not sure that is where we should be going as our first port of call, although they did a good job, because for the first time, over a week ago, we were able to see figures by ward. Knowing the different characteristics of our wards, we were able to see how things were going within the constituency.
In my constituency—I feel the pattern is true across the rest of London—the more prosperous areas, the less ethnically diverse areas and the less deprived areas were already at 100% for the older cohort of the population. Poorer areas, such as those in Shepherd’s Bush, White City and West Kensington, were below 75%. That is a very significant difference. It is replicated across London, and north-west London is one of the most difficult areas. As of last Friday, it was the only integrated care system area in England that was below 80% for those over the age of 65. All the London ICSs are down at the bottom, but north-west London is slightly further down.
We talk about 80% and 75% as worrying and significant, but when one adds in deprivation, by looking at the most deprived 10% of the population, and ethnicity, because certain ethnic groups are being vaccinated at a much lower rate, often below 50%, then that should be ringing alarm bells in Whitehall. It is certainly ringing them locally. We have not cracked this nut. I seek a response from the Minister on that point.
We know what is needed: time, money and personnel to ensure that those contacts are made. The problem is that phone calls are made that are not answered once, twice or three times, or someone may express a reservation about the question, and either there is not time to deal with it, as that is not the way the system is set up, or the caller is not expert enough to deal with it. A lot of it is about trusted people—that is very important— and places, and places that are accessible.
All of those are important, but so is having people who can answer the questions that are asked. If they cannot answer questions such as, “How do you know that the vaccine will be safe in 5 years’ time?” or, “How will it protect someone with my medical condition?”, or dispel fears and rumours such as, “I have heard this about the vaccine from somebody I trust,” it is almost worse than not having made the approach at all, because they end up reinforcing the problem.
We think we have cracked that. I have been looking at the hesitancy programme that Hammersmith has set up, and I think it is good. I pay tribute to the staff doing it. It will be labour intensive and will cost money. The Minister knows my beef on that. When the £23 million of so-called community champions money was made available at the end of January, quite rightly, and handed out to some 60 local authority areas across the country, those that had the lowest take-up rates at that time essentially did not get any money—Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith, and Newham. Some did, but it seemed to be a bit of a lottery. I think seven London boroughs got sums ranging between £40,000 and £750,000. I do not think we need help in knowing what to do, but we do need some resource of that kind. I understand that there is a little resource coming in through the NHS: £100,000 per ICS. However, that really only goes down to £10,000 per CCG. Looking at areas we have the most data on, where there are particular problems, it would be useful to add to that resource now.
I think I have gone on long enough—you are probably not the man to ask, Sir Christopher—but I think I have had enough questions for the Minister to be able to remember and answer them all. This is special pleading for London, in a way, because London has suffered. We can conjecture the reasons for that. They are complicated. We have talked about deprivation, we have talked about ethnicity, but there are other factors in London we all know about. We know about them through canvassing and elections; we know about them through electoral registration; we will know about them this month through trying to fill in census forms.
London has a disproportionate number of people who are isolated, for all sorts of reasons. They may not have financial resources, or they may not have a mobile phone, or have credit on their mobile phone. They may live in a room in a multi-occupancy house which has no doorbell or other means of reaching them. They may have mental health problems. They may simply live alone and have become isolated from the community around them.
We are actually very good at contacting those people if we have the time and the money to do so; we do it through electoral registration, and we are also doing it with the census. However, we do need that prioritisation and I hope that the Minister will understand that, and will be able to respond in kind.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on introducing this very welcome and extremely timely debate. He has set out the arguments very comprehensively and I shall endeavour not to repeat too many of the key points.
I will repeat, and I am sure that everyone speaking this morning will also repeat, our grateful thanks to NHS and public health staff who are working so hard to deliver this vaccine. It has been a national success story; there is no doubt of that whatever. It is an extraordinary logistical achievement, of which the NHS can be extremely proud. I had my vaccine on Saturday at St Charles’ Hospital and it was an extraordinary, professional operation; swift and effective. I think everyone should be very proud of what they have done.
Of course, that does not mean that that we should not be able to focus on some of the outstanding questions that arise regarding the delivery of the vaccine in London. As has been stated, London as a city, as a region, is not achieving the same figures as other parts of the country, which should be a cause for concern. My particular concern is my own borough, my own constituency area, Westminster North. It is apparently the second-worst performing borough in the country with just 69% coverage of 65-plus. City of London and Westminster South are also performing very poorly.
This does matter very greatly, for reasons we all understand. It matters in terms of individuals and in terms of the public health of the borough, but I would also suggest to the Minister that it is a particular concern because the central London economy is so critical to our national economic revival. Therefore, being confident that we have good coverage in central London seems, to me, to have a significance even over and above the pure public health considerations.
I want to focus on two particular themes, the first of which I am afraid is going back to the question of data. For the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has outlined, inner London generally has a highly complex set of population characteristics. We need to understand the particularity of those circumstances to be effective in delivering to those populations. While it is useful, indeed, to have the national and regional—north-west London, in my instance—and some of the borough data, we need to be able to look at local data, understand it and know that it is accurate.
I have yet to see the information that is provided to the directors of public health. As of this point, the middle of March, nearly three months into the vaccination programme, it has not yet been shared with me. The fact that it has not been shared with me by my local authority reflects its concerns that the data is not accurate. The Minister will have heard, no doubt, from many other people, that there is a concern that building up from the basis of the local data to a larger picture and then expanding it out to a national picture will give different results, and people will start looking at variations in that data and asking questions about it. I understand that point and can see that it is indeed difficult to get those statistics all squared off. On the other hand, I am absolutely clear that unless we understand the difference between what is in happening in, for example, the Mozart estate area in the Queens Park ward, and in Belgravia and Knightsbridge, we will not get a proper understanding of where the priorities should be.
My local authority has told me that part of its anxiety is that there is a variance between the use of the Office for National Statistics data and the national immunisation management system data, which has led to a significant national population variant of, I believe, as high as 5 million. As my hon. Friend outlined, there is good reason to believe that the percentage variance will be greater in central London than anywhere else in the country. We have seen that in terms of the census and the population figures. I had a debate on the 2001 census because of my concerns about accurate recording of population. However, it is unclear to me, from discussions with people working in the local health service, what population denominators are being used locally. It is unclear who is using what data, and as a consequence it is unclear whether such local data as exists is even remotely accurate.
The question is: does that matter? I would say that it does, because if we are spending time trying to find people who are simply not present, to raise the vaccination rate, for good reasons, we are wasting time and effort on them, whereas at the same time—both phenomena are, I think, true simultaneously—there are wards, estates and communities in my constituency, as there will be in others, where we are failing to make contact with people who need to be contacted, because they are extremely hard-to-reach populations. My hon. Friend outlined some of the reasons for that. There is a high relative proportion of single people who will not necessarily have ties to communities, and links so that we can use the normal channels of communication. There is a high proportion of people with mental health problems, again, often living singly. There is the largest private rented sector in the country, with a high degree of population churn, which means that when talking to someone it is often unclear whether they are the same person who was living there six months before. Unless and until we can be sure of the granular data and understand the baseline population statistics on which it is based, we have a problem.
A secondary data problem concerns ethnicity and understanding some of the issues around both the take-up of the vaccine and vaccine reluctance, which are different components. The issue is that, in central London, we have the largest Arabic-speaking populations, a very diverse set of communities, but these are being recorded under “ethnic—other”, and therefore it is difficult for us to be able to focus in on those communities, which are important, in terms of delivery.
I have written to the Minister with some of these questions, but even since I wrote to him there has been new information from the local authority and from the clinical commissioning groups that raise questions for me about the data. We need to know whether the population that we are chasing is there, whether we are chasing hard-to-reach people or whether we need to focus in on people who have vaccine reluctance. I was told last week—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but if the hon. Lady were participating physically, I would by now have been staring her down, because a lot more people wish to participate in the debate. I hope that she will bring her remarks to a swift close so that I can call the next speaker.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher, albeit for the first time virtually. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing the debate, which is important for all Londoners. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).
In the London Borough of Harrow, we have had an outstanding performance on vaccination rates. We received congratulations from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on that performance, and I put on the record my appreciation and thanks to the fantastic team—both from the NHS and the volunteers—who made this possible. To set it in context, more than 70,000 people in Harrow have had their first vaccination, out of an adult population of just under 200,000, which is a remarkable performance, at the Hive centre, which opened in December, and at Byron Hall and Tithe Farm, which opened in January. To get to this stage so quickly has been remarkably good.
That has to be set against the fact that Harrow is the most ethnically diverse borough in London. Others have a higher number of different sections of population, but we literally have someone from every country on the planet and various different communities, so it is a direct challenge to reach all those different communities and to encourage them to come forward to get their vaccinations. This fantastic effort also has to be set against the position that, at the beginning of the pandemic, Northwick Park Hospital came very close to being overwhelmed by the number of covid cases. Sadly, we have had a very high death rate, and at one stage Harrow had the highest covid transmission rate in London, so achieving this vaccination rate has been vital.
More than 35,000 people have had their first vaccination at the Hive since the middle of December, and the Prime Minister visited the site to see at first hand the excellent work that is being done. However, we are experiencing problems, and I will relay some of those for the Minister. There is reluctance among the Afro-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, who are hard to reach. There have been real difficulties in getting them to come forward; there is a reluctance to have the vaccine. Among the white British, Irish and Indian population, there have been no such problems—they have come forward in their droves to receive their vaccinations, which is good news.
The supply problems are really serious. To give the Minister an example—I hope he will be able to answer this—the capacity at each of our vaccination centres is roughly 860 doses a day, yet this week, our centres will only receive 400 doses. That is less than half a day’s work, so the lack of supply is holding us back from achieving even faster vaccination rates.
The real problem that emanates from that is that we are having particular difficulties in contacting younger people who have underlying health conditions. They are among the most reluctant to come forward, because of the myths and legends about what the vaccine does to people’s bodies. I am pleased that we now have a myth-buster to combat this unfortunate propaganda, which is spreading very widely among different communities. An excellent video has also been put together by different community leaders, coming together irrespective of race, religion, colour or creed to say why it is important that people have the vaccination, to encourage people to do so, and to try to combat some of this insidious propaganda.
Also on the issue of vaccine supply, my centres complain that they get notified only a day in advance of the vaccine arriving, which of course means that it is very difficult to schedule people in to get their vaccinations. Can we have a better plan for supply of vaccine, which is vitally important? Equally, allowing flexibility to GPs undertaking vaccinations at GP surgeries would help considerably. It would reach those harder-to-reach groups, because people trust their GPs in the way that they do not necessarily trust going to a large vaccination centre.
I will end my remarks by saying that in Harrow, certainly, we have achieved remarkably well, but we can do better provided that we get the supply, that we have better notice, and that the facilities continue to arrive. At the end of April, two of our mass vaccination centres will close, and there will be the potential for complete chaos when we come to the second doses, because everyone will be invited to attend one centre in Harrow to get their second dose. I predict that is going to be quite chaotic, so I would ask that we look at potentially keeping those centres open for a further period to ensure that every adult gets their opportunity for at least the first dose by the end of July, as per the plan that the Minister has.
Thank you, Sir Christopher, and I look forward to listening to what other colleagues have to say.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
As there are still eight more speakers and we start the wind-ups at 10.33, I am afraid that I now have to impose a four-minute maximum time limit.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]
We are now in the second year of coronavirus, and we have all experienced highs and lows throughout this period. At the beginning, we were told that this is a great leveller, given that Prince Charles and the Prime Minister had it. Rather than the “we are all in it together” narrative, it is maybe more fair to say that we are all in the same storm, but in different boats. Nowhere have we seen that differential impact more clearly than in the vaccine roll-out in London.
We all remember the pictures of the memorably named William Shakespeare having his jab early in December, but it took a good 10 days for the vaccine to reach the magnificent gothic splendour of Ealing town hall, and sadly the supply in London has lagged behind other parts of the country. It has been a magnificent effort. We have all seen the brilliant statistic that a third of the population have been done, but again, there is room for improvement here. We remember the highs and lows—the 50,000 fatalities figure came just before the miracle of the vaccine at Christmas that has given everyone hope—but that maxim of differential impact is one we have to look at.
There are two things that will take us to the other side of this: vaccine uptake among the population and the hesitancy that people talk about, and supply. London has nudging 10 million people—some 12% of the population. My own borough has 360,000 people. Initially, we had the town hall, then we had a second venue in Southall— in the west of the borough. Both those were closed last week. The latter did a record 1,200, I think, before shutting its doors until further notice. There has been a magnificent effort from volunteers and NHS staff, and everyone was poised. I have heard nothing but praise about the efficiency of the operation, but then they were all stood down.
There are old divides between the inner city and the leafy suburbs, but my seat has both: Ealing is known as “queen of the suburbs”, but there are wards of deprivation in Acton, where there has been no vaccination centre; it is a bit of a vaccination black spot. I hope the Minister will help me to address that issue. Acton is big enough to have a tube or rail station with every compass point on several different lines—Central, District, and Piccadilly—but there is no vaccination centre. Given the characteristics of its population, the Acton-shaped hole makes the issue even more urgent.
As a whole, London—our nation’s capital—sometimes seems to have experienced this over-promising, and this moonshot rhetoric. Not that long ago, we were promised 24-hour vaccinations in the capital. That was being said in January. The experience of our centres last week was far from that.
We are waiting for the second dose and hopefully there will be a big surge, but it concerns me that there seems to be a bit of anti-London rhetoric from the Government at times. That stretches to the fact that we have a towns fund with new bungs bringing in prosperity and opportunity—but not in London, which has been completely excluded in favour of red wall locations. I would caution the Government not to let that apply to vaccination supply. London is not immune from deprivation, poor housing and overcrowding: I have those in my wards in Acton. Localised need should drive allocation, not centralised supply.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but you have gone beyond your time limit. I do not know whether it is because you cannot see the clock. My job is to try to ensure that everybody is able to speak. I call Feryal Clark.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing the debate. I start by paying tribute to the amazing NHS workers at North Middlesex University Hospital and at Chase Farm Hospital, as well as all the NHS workers in Enfield and the public health team at Enfield Council, who are working day and night to make the vaccine roll-out a success.
The vaccine roll-out programme that began in early January across the nation is nothing short of amazing, thanks to the great work by our NHS. I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done. Right from the start, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith set out, there have been concerns with the roll-out in London, and those concerns have been raised by London MPs from day one.
It transpired initially that the vaccine supply to London was inadequate in comparison with other regions, and that the set-up of delivery centres across London was limited and done too slowly to come on board. We knew that the pandemic had highlighted the inequality in our communities and we knew about the pockets of deprivation—the areas with high covid rates and poor healthcare provision: we have been raising those issues over the past twelve months of the pandemic.
It took a very long time for the NHS to be allowed to share the vaccine update data with us MPs. When the Government finally gave clinical commissioning groups permission to share that data, it became abundantly clear that those areas and communities that we had been raising—in Enfield, the communities that had suffered the worst of the pandemic—were also those with the lowest vaccine uptake.
I have raised this matter at many meetings with NHS colleagues and with the Minister. There are many barriers. The issue is not just about vaccine hesitancy, as is constantly repeated; there is an expectation that an 80-year-old Kurdish woman will book an appointment over the internet, but that is just not going to happen. The digital divide in the eastern part of Enfield North constituency, where the uptake of the vaccine by over-65s is just above 50%, is a real issue. There needs to be an easier booking mechanism for areas with a digital divide, as well as for the elderly, who are not very tech-savvy.
The wards in my constituency with the highest covid rates and poor primary care provision do not have vaccine centres nearby. The nearest vaccine centre for constituents in those wards is two bus rides away, which is just not acceptable. Where the need is greatest, the provision is low. In the most affluent areas of my constituency, where there is good primary care provision and many vaccine centres, the uptake is more than 80%, and 40-year-olds are now being called for their vaccines.
Finally, 16,000 people across Enfield—predominantly in the eastern part—are not registered with a GP. There is no clarity on how those constituents will access vaccines. I would be really grateful if the Minister set out the plan for people who are not registered with a GP. Will the Minister also clarify what is meant by the term “hesitancy”, as there is real confusion on that? Does it mean people who reject the vaccine outright, saying, “I do not want this,” or does it mean people with whom no contact has been made after three contact attempts? It is really important that we get some clarity on that.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing this debate. What we are seeing is a tale of two cities, but within one constituency in my case. We know from the excellent work of Professor Marmot that the decade of neglecting to address health inequalities, which are writ large under the covid pandemic, is really showing itself in the vaccination strategy.
I thank Dr Maimaris from Haringey Council, who is the head of public health, and Dr Peter Christian of Dukes Avenue practice, who is leading on the GP side. He told me last Friday that one of his colleagues in Wood Green made 30 phone calls, and that of those only one person was keen to take up the vaccine offer. That is the kind of hesitancy that we are seeing. In my constituency, someone who catches the 41 bus from Wood Green to Hornsey Rise sees their life expectancy rise by years and years, so that by the time they get to Highgate, they will be living 15 to 20 years longer than the average person in Wood Green—that is common across many of our London constituencies.
We have been working hard with Christian churches, with Rabbi David Mason in Muswell Hill, and with the Imam in Wightman Road mosque, where I will be at the weekend to push for many more people to take up the vaccine. We really need to understand the granular detail of the levelling-up debate in the national context. It is not just about levelling-up between the north and south of England, but levelling-up within our constituencies. North Middlesex University Hospital and Whittington Hospital have done a wonderful job during the pandemic. I pay tribute to their staff, and call for them to be correctly remunerated. I hope that the Government will review their position on the 1% pay offer, which is just a disgrace.
This is not just about the level of vaccine on offer. We know, for example, that in the Fortis Green and Crouch End wards in my constituency, 99% of eligible people have had the vaccine. That number falls to 74% in Wood Green. Office for National Statistics data up to February 2021 showed that fewer than 50%—some 49%—of black or black British adults said that they were likely to have the jab. We must have high-quality conversations between GPs and their patients to tackle that. We also know from the OpenSAFELY analysis that 60% of black people aged 70 or over had been vaccinated, compared with 75% of south Asians and 90% of white people. Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency.
What we need to do is to address health inequalities in the wider sense. We need to consider the impact of overcrowded housing, educational attainment, the high incidence of violent crime and all the indicators of inequality, and address them. We cannot have another decade of neglect and unequal distribution. We are a wealthy country; we are simply not spending public funds in the right way to address long-term health inequalities. If anything has shown that, it is this vaccination strategy, which shows it in all its detail.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to join this very important debate, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing it.
The speed of the roll-out of the vaccination programme is a great source of hope for all of us. Those of us who have lost loved ones are particularly grateful to the NHS, to the scientists and to so many people who have come together to produce this vaccine, because we all know how important it is to protect our constituents, and our friends and family.
Locally, I pay tribute to my local authority, which has set up a helpline that is proactively contacting people who have not been vaccinated, and addressing and answering their questions. Government resources will make a big difference to other local authorities to help support that effort, and we need that back-up from Ministers.
I also thank the Royal London Hospital, Queen Mary University, GPs’ surgeries, the London Muslim Centre and other partners who have been helping with the vaccination effort in my constituency. Many people will be aware that in the first wave Tower Hamlets had the fourth-highest age-standardised death rate in the country. Although we are a young population, relatively speaking, there are huge health inequalities and huge issues with deprivation, severe overcrowding, intergenerational households and many other factors that, as other colleagues have said, make inner London extremely vulnerable to this pandemic.
In the second wave, we saw that the spread of the virus caused more deaths, which is why it is vital that we get to those who have not yet been vaccinated and those who have underlying health conditions by increasing the supply of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and that we get to those who did not take up the vaccine when they were offered it, for a number of complicated reasons, as other colleagues have mentioned. In some cases, it is about reticence, but it is also about practicalities and about deprivation. It is not just ethnic minority communities who are affected, although we have seen big differentials; it is also those from white disadvantaged backgrounds and from working-class backgrounds who have been disproportionately affected, both in terms of death rates and in lower take-up of vaccines.
What we need to do now is make sure that the vaccines are in the right places. The centralised hubs are, of course, useful and important, but it is also vital that we get vaccines to local GP surgeries. As I have said to the Minister time and again, it is vital that we get more vaccines to pharmacies and that pop-up clinics get up and running. The ones that we have are very good and very helpful, but the unpredictability of supply, the inability to plan and the lack of local flexibility are all leading to sub-optimal outcomes, when we could have better outcomes.
So today I call on the Minister, once again, to get the vaccines to the local providers and to provide local authorities with additional support, so that they can do the chasing, as is the case in my local authority. What we have seen is that when GPs are responsible for getting vulnerable patients, including homebound patients, vaccinated in my borough, 95% of those patients have been vaccinated. So this is not rocket science; we can address the gaps.
I am grateful to the Minister for the work that he has done so far and I appreciate that in him we have a listening ear. I hope that he listens to the arguments that have been made—not just by Members in my party, but by Members in his own: we have to get the supplies in. Going forward, as other colleagues have pointed out, we also need to address some of the deeper underlying conditions and to make sure that people’s vulnerabilities are addressed.
There is one final issue. Ramadan is coming, so we are in a race against time to vaccinate vulnerable constituents from the Muslim community in our city, because if we do not vaccinate them there will be even greater risks. So I hope the Minister will address that point, as well as the importance of getting more supplies into London—
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this very important debate, to enable us, as London MPs, to speak about the situation now, which can be rectified. I add my thanks to all the scientists, NHS managers and fixers, vaccinators and volunteers who have made the roll-out of the vaccine programme so far so swift and such a success.
To defeat this pandemic in the UK, we have to defeat it in London—there is no getting away from that—but the vaccination rate is lower here, as colleagues have said. In my area of south-west London, the CCG has provided the first dose to 389,000 people, which is 26% of the population, but some local authorities around England have a rate of over 50%. Areas such as Rother, West Devon and North Norfolk have much higher vaccination rates, so it is not just an issue of supply, although supply is an issue in my area. We have two vaccination centres and they are not open today. We do hope to see that surge.
In January, a promise was made to open a vaccination centre in Queen Mary’s hospital in Roehampton. It will not surprise the Minister that I am going to talk about Roehampton today, as I have raised the subject many times. The vaccination centre there has been built but not opened. There is no vaccination centre in Roehampton, but there have been spikes of covid infection there. It is an area of high deprivation; as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, this is a tale of two cities.
There are not good transport links from Roehampton. The primary care network is keen to support vaccination but there is no vaccination centre. The rates at the moment are because a huge amount of transport has been organised, relying on voluntary organisations, to make minibus trips to Putney. That cannot go on for the long term; we need a long-term solution for Roehampton, which is an area of highest need.
The Minister knows Roehampton well because he was a Putney councillor for many years. I know that last week he met Dr Hasan from the Alton Practice, who is a shining example of someone passionate about the health inequalities in Roehampton and the need to address them. She is very concerned about vaccine hesitancy in young people. As the vaccine roll-out goes on, the vaccine hesitancy we see will only increase.
In Roehampton there are higher levels of black and ethnic minority populations, isolation and overcrowding. All those mean that having a trusted vaccination centre nearby that can be attended around shifts—for a care worker, for example—is so important. Otherwise, we risk baking in those existing health inequalities for the long term, which will go alongside all the other inequalities felt by the population in Roehampton. They are throwing up their arms and saying, “We don’t get other things, so we are not getting a vaccination centre.” That is not acceptable.
We are not arguing for more in London; we are arguing for our fair share. We are not arguing for more in particular areas; we are just arguing for every area to have its fair share. We must anticipate, see the problems that are already developing and nip them in the bud right now and address them. I hope I will hear from the Minister that we will have a vaccination centre in Roehampton and that those areas being left behind will be identified and addressed.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
May I begin by making it clear that I am not here to raise criticism for criticism’s sake? I am here because I understand how imperative it is that the vaccine programme is successful. Although I welcome the scale of the programme and the number of vaccinations delivered, I am extremely concerned about the vaccination take-up in my constituency, and the inconceivable decision to open the two new vaccination centres miles away from the NHS declared low take-up wards of concern.
Let me briefly explain the geography. The borough of Merton is split in two: Mitcham and Morden, and Wimbledon. Merton’s inequalities in health are stark, with an eight-year difference in life expectancy between parts of Mitcham and parts of Wimbledon. The Minister will be aware of Tudor Hart’s inverse care law—that the areas in the greatest health are then statistically more likely to receive better health services.
Look no further than Merton. When the state-of-the-art Nelson health centre was opened in one of the wealthiest, richest wards of Wimbledon, Mitcham received the “Wilson portacabin”. When lateral flow testing was introduced at community pharmacies, they were opened everywhere but Mitcham. When a decision was made to relocate acute hospital services—guess what? The proposals moved them miles further away from the most deprived areas, with the statistically worst health. While many of these decisions are baked into decades of inequality, the location of a vaccination centre is a decision for here and now.
Here is the state of play: there are two centres in Merton; one in Wimbledon and one in Mitcham. However, take-up of the vaccine across the borough has varied significantly and, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Merton has 25 middle and lower layer super output areas. Of the 12 with the highest vaccination take-up rates, 11 are in Wimbledon. In all 12 Wimbledon areas, over 93% of over-70s have received their first dose. Compare that with Mitcham and Morden, where seven of the 13 areas are still below 90%, and Mitcham West, where the vaccination take-up was just 81%. That means that one in five residents have been offered, but not accepted, the vaccine.
I recognise the breadth of factors as to why this could be, and that accessibility of the vaccination centre is only one. However, it is a significant one, particularly given that, of the two new large-scale vaccination centres that are set to open in Merton, both are in Wimbledon—two centres, miles away from the wards with the lowest take-up areas, which also have statistically lower levels of car ownership. Are we not supposed to be breaking down barriers, rather than throwing up even more?
I am not calling for Wimbledon to lose their services, but the Minister must surely see the absurdity of this decision.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I will have to limit the last two speakers to three minutes each. If they have not seen it, there should be a countdown clock at the top of their screens to help them keep to the time limit.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this important debate.
I put on record my thanks to everyone who is working to deliver the vaccination roll-out in Dulwich and West Norwood, from the scientists who have worked to deliver safe and effective vaccines at such a rapid speed, the nurses, doctors and public health teams who have organised the delivery to the volunteers who have made vaccination centres such welcoming, joyful places.
The vaccination programme is our great hope at the end of this difficult year of coronavirus, but it is as true locally as it is globally that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. Coronavirus has already shown itself to be a disease of inequality, thriving on pre-existing ill health, low paid occupations and overcrowded housing, and affecting people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities much more severely.
Previous studies of flu vaccination uptakes have identified ethnicity and deprivation as factors correlating negatively with take-up. It was entirely predictable that the inequalities of covid-19 could be further exacerbated by vaccine hesitancy within communities and occupations that were already at a high risk of serious illness and death. That is what we now see. Last week, more than a quarter of over-80s in Lambeth and Southwark had still not received their first jab, and while 80% of white residents over 65 have now been vaccinated, the rate among African and Caribbean residents was below 45%.
The reasons for hesitancy are complex, but they are not mysterious: well-documented examples of appalling, unethical medical experimentation have led to understandable fear and mistrust in some communities; mild side effects of a jab, which might require a day off work, are a deterrent if there is no guaranteed sick pay; the structural racism that some communities have encountered has eroded their trust in institutions, including the NHS, and peer-to-peer communication of anti-vax misinformation on WhatsApp and Facebook is very potent. All those factors and more may lead people to be hesitant to come forward to take the vaccine.
Addressing people’s deep-seated fears and concerns requires time and resources. I pay tribute to some of the very effective work being done at a local level in Lambeth and Southwark to address vaccine hesitancy, including the leadership being shown by black and Asian councillors. Those efforts are driving up vaccination rates week by week, but our councils urgently need more resources to deliver that work. When the Government recently invited a select list of councils to bid for additional funding to address vaccine hesitancy, Lambeth and Southwark were not on the list. This is, frankly, inexplicable.
The vaccination programme is rightly being celebrated across the country, but it will not have been a complete success as long as disparities remain in the vaccination rate between different communities according to race, income or occupation. If that is allowed to persist, covid-19 will become a disease of inequality to an even greater extent, with some communities enjoying protection, while those in others still fall ill and die. That is not a reality that we can possibly accept, so I urge the Government to take this issue much more seriously and fund our councils properly to combat vaccine hesitancy.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
The truth is that the vaccine roll-out has not worked as well as it might for the vulnerable of London. In West Ham, it has been about age. We are one of the youngest areas in Europe and we have had the highest excess deaths. The numbers in the highest-priority groups, especially the over-70s and 80s, are low; consequently, our areas were allocated vaccine supplies at a level far below what could have been delivered. We have had disproportionately large numbers with clinical vulnerabilities—illness linked to higher levels of deprivation—but they were in the top four priority groups, so clinicians have only just started to vaccinate them.
Sky News found that Newham had the highest excess deaths in the UK between March and mid-January. Some 15 of the top 20 areas for excess deaths are in London. Local clinicians have constantly called for the flexibility to vaccinate younger people with clinical vulnerabilities, and I know that Ministers will remember that I have echoed those calls. However, I am not here just to complain, because I am very grateful that Ministers and officials have listened, and I am hopeful that London CCGs will be given greater flexibility to deliver second jabs. More than anything, we have to focus on the role of deprivation, because it is the major barrier to speedy vaccinations.
GP data is limited in areas such as mine because people move, from one short private rental to another, over and again, and so many are in temporary accommodation. Those in poverty and insecure work are less likely to be able to keep their phone contracts and hang on to the same number, which makes it hard when so many vaccine appointments are organised by text. People do not have access to broadband or mobile data, and the consequences are clear.
For the affluent group in DQ5, uptake has been 60%. For the most deprived group, DQ1, it has been just 37%, and it drops at each step, from DQ5 to DQ1. We must find better ways to address this, because we are letting down the vulnerable and it is hindering our collective ability to fight this virus. I would therefore like to hear more from the Minister today about how we will tackle this.
But I do not want to finish without heaping massive praise on our NHS locally—our fantastic local GPs, our local public health teams and all our volunteers. I genuinely cannot thank them enough. They are working together with such tenacity and extraordinary commitment, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and it is a pleasure, too, to be back doing Westminster Hall. These debates are a crucial way of airing important topics. I am grateful to the staff for the clearly extraordinary efforts they have made to make this happen. Facing a wall of pictures of one’s colleagues in this way is possibly the closest I will get to being on “Saturday Night Takeaway”, so I am grateful for that, too.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this debate and his leadership of it. His argument was very much based around three themes: data, supply and the impact on take-up in diverse and poorer communities. It is remarkable that all the contributions that followed basically fitted within that framework. It is clear that this is a strongly held view and a commonly shared experience in London, so I hope the Minister will address the points raised. I was particularly interested in what my hon. Friend said about the catch-up point and using local authorities to contact those who have chosen not to take up their vaccine yet, or who have been unable to do so, and encourage them to do so. I know that, as a former leader of a council, he shares my enthusiasm for the ability of local authorities to cut through and connect with their constituents. That is a very good model and is certainly one that has succeeded for us in Nottingham.
Just to pick up briefly on some of the things colleagues have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) made the point about granular data, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith says, we always want more data, but it is for a purpose. I think it is really clear that we need granular data about the vaccine because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said, we started off thinking this would be a great leveller, but actually in terms of both covid deaths and vaccine take-up, we know that it is not a great leveller and the experiences are not common to everyone.
That chimes very much with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made about the tale of two cities, which is a very elegant way of explaining it. Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for West Ham (Ms Brown) all talked about the inequalities that exist within London, and that difference between inner and outer London. We have to match our policy response to that. In that spirit, the point that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made about different ethnic minorities and not grouping them collectively, which I will talk about in a second, was very interesting, too.
The critical point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made about access was so well put. It can be easy to say, “Hang on a minute, we just know that in certain groups of the population take-up is lower and that is kind of how it is.” But, as the care law she mentioned says, if that is then overlaid with access and where facilities are, we are baking in and causing that conclusion ourselves. Again, I hope that is something that can be addressed.
All colleagues were at pains to talk about good news, and I think that is right. It is wonderful that over 22 million people have now had at least one dose. That is about one in three of all of us in the UK, and about 40% of the adult population. People are getting those first doses at a rate of about 300,000 a day, which is a real success and an extraordinary effort by all involved. I am grateful to the Minister for his leadership and for his constant availability to me and to all colleagues, and, of course, to the staff who have delivered this. It is working; we are seeing a decline in hospitalisations and cases. Of course, lockdown is a significant part of that, but the vaccination effect is a major part. It is wonderful news and provides that light at the end of the tunnel.
Today’s spotlight on London reveals a challenge for our capital, but also other similar communities. While the regional data is a little bit older—about 10 days’ old—in London just over 2 million doses have been delivered, which is about 29% of the adult population, so a significant drop from the 40% nationwide. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith made it very clear that he did not want this to be special pleading. It is not special pleading; there is something different going on and therefore we must react in a different manner. That is true among boroughs, too. In Tower Hamlets, with the highest poverty rate in the capital, by my maths 16%—the BBC have it at 14%—of the adult population have had their first dose. In Newham it is 20% and this is the same across the capital. With Bromley, where there are some of the lowest rates of poverty, the percentage is close to 40% and in Richmond upon Thames the figure is about one in three.
London is not alone. Vaccination rates are lowest in urban areas in general, with Birmingham and Manchester also reporting lower take-up than the rest of England. These regional variations really matter and have a significant impact on local health systems. In London, the rate of decline in covid hospital patients is now the slowest in the country, with a weekly rate of decline of just 15% compared with twice that in the midlands, where I live, and nearly 40% in the south-west. That means more people in hospital suffering from covid but also less capacity for other treatments. I noted that in January, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust had to cancel all priority cancer operations—that is all those that need to be carried out within 28 days. I am keen to know what assessment Ministers have made of the impacts of such decisions and what plans there are to try to catch up.
Yesterday, YouGov released polling that might help pick away at some of the disparities. In the study, 19% of people who categorised themselves as black said they would not take a vaccine and 18% who said they were Pakistani said the same. That is compared with 6% of people who look like me or 5% who said they were Asian. Again, as the hon. Member for Harrow East demonstrated, that is a reminder of the limits of the term BAME as a collective, and that we should not lose the individual experiences of different communities by using that term. It should give us all cause for concern, because those groups who have said they are less likely to take the vaccine are also the groups who are most likely to have died from covid. That is a sobering paradox.
I know there is a lot of interest in this issue, so I would say for people who are watching, of course it is okay and it is natural to be hesitant about what you put into your body. However, we see all the misinformation that is circulated, whether on WhatsApp or online, and it is frustrating because much, if not all of it, has simple explanations. If someone watching today is unsure, I hope they will ask their doctor, their pharmacist, their Member of Parliament, or their faith leader—whoever they trust, please will they ask those questions?
With supplies set to double and, hopefully, able to tackle many of the supply issues that colleagues raised, we are at a crossroads. Will the inequalities widen or can we to use this moment to close them? I have a few questions that I hope the Minister will address this morning. What different steps are being taken to mop up segments of cohorts that the roll-out has moved past? What is being done to provide more local vaccination sites in communities that are being left behind? I am conscious that often, in politics—we all know this—sometimes we cannot change the message, but we can change the messenger. A community pharmacy, for example, is a trusted alternative in the heart of every community, on every high street, which can help reach a different group of people. How can we use those to try to close this gap? On a similar note, in Nottingham, we are using mosques as vaccination sites now. Are similar approaches being supported in the capital?
Before I conclude, I want to make a point about the staff delivering this tremendous vaccination programme. Their efforts have been incredible and are inching us out of this awful period, a day at a time. It is shameful that their reward for this is a real-terms pay cut and then to be told, as they were over the weekend by a Minister, that they are lucky to be getting anything at all.
Similarly, local authorities are playing a pivotal role in the logistics of the roll-out, as they did in resurrecting test and trace. Their reward is an even greater real-terms pay cut. As well as being a shoddy way to treat these people, this is also bad for the collective, as we seek to rebound from the impact of covid. Where do these healthcare assistants or leisure centre cleaners spend their money? It is in our local economies.
We have just finished a decade of disaster economics and all it did was lead to anaemic growth and an erosion of living standards that has weakened our communities, which has meant that the poorest communities were most vulnerable to covid. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that we have the same ahead of us again. It is crucial that we do not keep making the same mistakes. Simply put, those who clapped on their doorstep should not be voting to cut NHS pay this evening.
There is much to be pleased about with the vaccine roll-out, and it is giving the nation hope. However, we are seeing widening inequalities among already unequal groups. We must act now to tackle that.
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. It is truly wonderful to be back with Westminster Hall debates.
Before I respond to the various points made by hon. Members, I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for his collegiate way in highlighting some of the concerns and working together to address them, as well as for raising the issue of covid vaccinations in London, which is at the forefront of many Londoners’ minds.
It is worth reminding ourselves of where we were at the turn of the year, before the vaccine roll-out really gathered pace. In early January, we were seeing more than 50,000 new cases of covid and around 4,500 people admitted to hospital every day. Sadly, we were seeing more than 1,000 deaths every day. In London alone, there were more than 1,100 deaths a week. Each one of those deaths was of a grandmother or grandfather, mother or father, daughter or son, or in my case an uncle; each of them desperately missed by their families. We cannot prevent every death, but we are on the road to making sure that such tragedies are less commonplace.
Recent Public Health England data shows that levels of antibodies against covid-19 are highest in the over-80s, the first group to be vaccinated. It also tells us that a single dose of either the Oxford or the Pfizer vaccine delivers protection against severe infection in the over-70s, with a more than 80% reduction in hospitalisation. The vaccine is working and having a real impact, protecting the NHS, protecting individuals and putting us on the right track out of the pandemic.
I am pleased that enthusiasm for vaccination is still incredibly high and rising, in fact, week on week. When I took on this job, the percentage was in the late-70s in the adult population; now 94% say they would be willing to have the jab. I have read glowing words from people who have received the vaccine. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, there is Doris Sargeant, a 90-year-old former hairdresser, who was determined to get the vaccine to make sure she can see her family once lockdown is eased, or Jan Keith, for whom the vaccine means hope for reintegration into a better quality of life after almost a year of shielding alone. These stories are replicated many times across London and the rest of the country. I am determined that we will continue to hear more of these personal triumphs over the coming weeks and months of the roll-out.
On 22 February, the Prime Minister set out the new targets for the acceleration of the programme. We set an ambitious aim to offer all adults over 50 a first dose by mid-April and the rest of the adult population by the end of July. I reassure hon. Members that we are on track to meet those targets. Although day-to-day figures for vaccine supply vary and a few days are better than others, overall we are working towards accelerating the pace of the roll-out, as many hon. Members have indicated. We have some bumper weeks ahead, from the middle of this month, allowing us to ramp up vaccination during March.
I know that hon. Members have raised the issue of uptake rates in London and vaccine hesitancy. I am concerned about uptake in the BAME communities, which is why I spend a great deal of my time talking to community leaders about how we can reassure people about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. On 13 February, we published our covid-19 vaccine uptake strategy, which aims to improve uptake across all communities. This was very much a strategy developed by our NHS, backed by the Department and local government.
The plan takes a local community-led approach, with support from the Government, NHS England and local authorities to co-ordinate and enable action. It includes engagement at local level, using trusted voices, sharing examples of what is known to work well in nearby areas and encouraging community-led efforts to address vaccine disinformation. We are absolutely committed to providing advice and information at every possible opportunity to support those getting the vaccine and anyone who might have questions about the vaccination process.
The community champions scheme, which was mentioned earlier, councils and voluntary organisations will deliver a wide range of measures to protect those most at risk. They are building trust, communicating accurate health information and ultimately helping to save lives. This will include developing new networks of trusted local champions where they do not already exist.
The funding is specifically targeted at areas with plans to reach groups such as older people, disabled people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. According to the latest evidence, these individuals are more likely to suffer long-term impacts, as we have heard from colleagues, and poor outcomes from covid-19. We have put £23 million to work on this in 16 local areas.
Hon. Members have raised the issue of how vaccine supplies are managed in London at a local level. I want to reassure hon. Members that our supply and scheduled deliveries of vaccine will fully support the vaccination of priority groups 1 to 9, which the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation set, by mid-April. The UK has secured access to eight different possible vaccines across four different vaccine types, reflecting our strategy to ensure that we not only deliver the vaccines now but future-proof any vaccination programme—a booster or annual vaccination programme—in years to come.
Parts of the country have made significant progress, as we have heard, and gone faster than the average. We are putting more supply into areas, and I reassure colleagues that we will do more. The NHS is doing brilliantly to deliver the amount of supply we have. London vaccine allocations are now managed at a London regional level. Prioritisation is based on the uptake data; where the vaccine is most needed and which delivery methods are used are decided at a system level. We have heard about pop-up sites. Roving models are also used to take the vaccine to the under-served communities that we have heard so much about. Colleagues have been very supportive. We have an MPs’ toolkit to support the vaccination effort in their areas, which has done incredibly well.
Before I finish, I want to address some of the more specific points raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and others. The hon. Member raised the issue of the Novotel opening next week. I can confirm that it will open next week as a vaccination centre. There are 200 sites across London now vaccinating. I know that some people have issues about travel, but I know also that Age UK, for example, and some other brilliant charities have come forward to offer free travel for the over-50s to get them to vaccination sites.
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) raised a specific point about confusion between ONS data and NIMS data. I will just point out to her that, on occasion, there is double counting. ONS data is purely age based, and at-risk people or the workforce in care homes will be double counted in that data. The NIMS data is more accurate, but, for the sake of full transparency, the NHS has made both datasets available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised the specific issue of vaccine supply. I can reassure him that we are about to see a massive step change in vaccine supply to his constituency. Of course, we need to make sure that we do not make a mistake, as he quite rightly warned us, with second doses. I can assure him of that, and I will take another look at his point about the mass vax centre closures.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) raised a number of specific issues about Acton town, which I will take up with her.
The hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about unregistered people. They can actually register at any GP practice, because we have amended the contracts to allow GPs to take on more people who are unregistered, including those who are undocumented, who have the ability to be vaccinated, because we want everyone to be protected.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), again, raised a number of issues about health inequalities. A standing agenda item in our daily ops meetings in the deployment programme is about health inequalities, and the strategy that I mentioned earlier, which we launched on 13 February, is very much part of that.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) raised a very important issue about Ramadan and the use of mosques. I was at the Brent mosque last week to see how brilliantly it was doing by really getting into the community. I remind colleagues that Dr Habib Naqvi has said that the contents of the vaccines are halal and it would not invalidate a person’s fast if they were to be vaccinated in Ramadan.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith needs to close the debate, so I will end with a quotation from the director of public health for Newham Council that sums up the collaboration and partnership. He last week said:
“Over 50000 in Newham now vaccinated! Long way to go but real progress. All 60+ can book online + this week popup clinics at
Sri Murugan Temple
Minhaj Ul Quran
Ramgarhia Centre
Redeemed Christian Church of God
East Ham leisure centre
& homeless clinic - real partnership”.
That is what we are doing; that is what I am determined to deliver for those communities; no one will be left behind. I am grateful to colleagues for this very important debate.
Andy Slaughter
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for your stewardship of our proceedings this morning. I am grateful to colleagues from north, south, east and west London for speaking on behalf of their unique constituencies but also identifying some common problems; to the shadow Minister, who has shown, as always, the support and solidarity that London MPs can expect from northern colleagues; and to the Minister himself. The Minister will be able to judge whether he has satisfied us on every point raised today by how many people turn up to his Friday briefing this week.
If there is one takeaway for the Minister from this debate, it is the need, in the laudable rush to hit overall targets, not to forget those left behind. That could be people of certain ethnicities. I draw his attention to the Royal College of Nursing’s work on this issue, which shows that even among nursing staff there is a disparity between different ethnicities. There are also those who fall through the net. I have a 68-year-old constituent who, because of her good health for 20 years, lost her NHS number and now is told that she has to wait eight weeks before she can get the vaccine. There are people who simply fall through the net, and it is partly our job to ensure that that does not happen.
On the hesitancy issue, I ask the Minister to look at the work that we are doing in Hammersmith and in north-west London. It is really good stuff. It is good practice that perhaps can be reflected elsewhere. He might even, after having seen it, want to go away and fund it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19 vaccine take-up rates in London.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
The sitting will be suspended until 11 o’clock. May I ask those who have participated in this excellent debate to leave as quickly as possible?
UK Video Games Industry: Contribution of Leamington Spa
(3 years, 1 month 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
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of Leamington Spa to the creation of the UK video games industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher. If I were to say “Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster”, those of a particular vintage might recall that headline in a certain newspaper, but if I were to mention the title “Rock Star Ate My Hamster”, they might be forgiven for not knowing what I referred to. However, that was one of the first video games produced in the area of Leamington Spa. It is perhaps one of the least known games that emanated from a particular business that I want to talk about, along with the wider sector.
I do not know, Sir Christopher, if you are a seasoned video games player, but even if you are not, you may have heard of some of our global success stories, such as “Forza Horizon”, “Dirt Rally”, “Sonic Dash” or “The Division 2”. The UK games industry contributes a huge £2.8 billion to the UK economy. It comprises 50,000 full-time equivalent jobs, generating over £900 million in tax revenue. It comprises eight major hubs across the UK, as well as a huge number of cottage businesses around the country.
Those hubs include London, Birmingham, Manchester, Dundee, Slough and Leamington Spa—or should I say Leamington Spa, Slough, Dundee, Manchester, Birmingham and London? Because while the UK is one of the global centres for the video games industry, it is Leamington Spa—or should I say Silicon Spa?—that is the motor of the sector here in the UK. A simple glance at the gross valued added of the industry across those towns and cities, and a look at their relative populations, will show that it is Leamington Spa and its immediate environs where the per capita contribution is at its greatest and most intense.
Silicon Spa, as it is known, happened by happy chance, thanks to the vision of two young brothers, the Darling brothers, who started up a business back in the 1980s that would ultimately be called Codemasters, and who had the good sense to locate themselves just outside Leamington, rather than in Banbury, Oxford or London. They then had the foresight to hire the hugely talented Philip and Nicholas Oliver. From that silicon spring, some 40 years ago, would gush Silicon Spa.
That led naturally to other developers being attracted to the area, Leamington being an obvious choice due to its reputation for great bars and good nightlife, establishing a hotbed of talent. Today, the Silicon Spa cluster employs over 2,000 highly-skilled people in 32 studios, equating to over 10% of the UK total games development sector. Per capita, that is the highest in the country, which is some sector clout. The businesses and talent are well recognised by the big players, with Electronic Arts’ acquisition of Codemasters in recent weeks for £1 billion, making it the latest big name to invest in the Warwick and Leamington area.
Back in 2008, a long time before I became the Member of Parliament or indeed was drawn to politics, I was talking to the local council about putting Warwick and Leamington on the map, because I could see the diversity and richness of talent, the breadth and opportunity of business, and the phenomenal skills pool we had in the community. At the time, I was talking to Sir James Dyson’s foundation to try to get him to invest in our towns, but unfortunately the global financial crash put paid to that.
I have long held that we have the businesses, the people and the educational resource to lead the way. That is because we also have the traditional automotive industry based in the area, which allows a fusion of skills and talent from the likes of Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin, just down the road. The steady stream of engineers and specialists working at their Gaydon hubs has had a knock-on effect on the games industry, with talent-switching between the industries.
This is something we are seeing with the emergence of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in particular, which were developed in the games industry, and how they can be applied to other sectors as well. We have talked about the automotive sector, but there are a great many others. We are starting to see the AR and VR genres spreading into all other aspects of audio-visual media. It will no doubt be at least a £100 billion industry very shortly, within the next few years. Those who were lucky enough to see the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of “The Tempest” in Stratford will realise how these skills and emerging technologies can be used in theatrical production, as well as so many other areas.
What makes the area unique is that 75% of the digital media companies there are gaming companies, whereas the figure might more typically be 5% to 10%. With a turnover of £101 million, the Leamington area’s economic contribution is the largest outside of London, or the Slough-Heathrow area, as an aggregate figure. The area has the highest percentage of games employees in the working-age population, so you are more likely to meet someone in the Leamington Spa area who works in the games industry than perhaps anywhere else, Sir Christopher. The area benefits not just the cluster, but from soft-landing opportunities, the skills and talent, the crossover, and the fusion between different sectors. It also has a relatively low cost profile, with excellent networks across the industry and world-class research on its doorstep.
When it comes to skills and education, we have Warwickshire College Group, which offers a foundation degree in games art, with the opportunity to add a further year and receive a BA (Hons) through the University of Gloucestershire on its interactive games art programme. Across the west midlands higher education institutions, there are 2,045 on games courses, 12,800 in design studies and almost 17,000 on creative courses. A huge talent coming through, perpetually, to support this industry and many others.
In 2019, Coventry University was ranked the UK’s modern university for the 7th year running, and produces internationally recognised research. Some 2,000 students study the creative art and design courses that it offers, and 1,700 computer science students also attend. As well as that, the university offers its Q-interactive digital studio. Down the road, at the University if Warwick, there is a school of creative arts, performance and visual cultures, and it is home to the largest university art centre outside of London.
Elsewhere, it is clear that the entire creative sector of our area will benefit from the redevelopment of Leamington’s creative quarter through the regeneration of its old town. We can build upon and reinforce the importance of the creative and digital industries in the town and attract inward investment to the cultural and creative sectors. With costs so significantly lower than in London or the south-east, there are good, simple financial reasons for businesses to locate there. This is recognised by the Department for International Trade, which presents the area as a centre of high potential for video games both inside and outside the entertainment sector.
I can honestly say that Leamington is absolutely the place to be, and not just in terms of investment, but in terms of skills and opportunities, and also the support. It is also the happiest town in the UK.
I am nothing if not ambitious for our area, and slightly green with envy about the work being done by the games industry veteran Ian Livingston, who is spearheading a project to open a brand-new UK academy dedicated to science, technology and digital skills. This is something I very much want to see replicated in the towns of Warwick and Leamington, as it is something that I was envisioning back in 2008. I very much hope we can see that on the horizon.
In terms of challenges, it would be remiss of me not to talk about the economic, political and legal landscape, because it is so crucial to the future of the sector. The news the other day regarding a draft decision for a data adequacy agreement with the EU is of considerable importance to the sector, and clearly to Leamington as a result. It is positive that Brussels is set to allow data to continue to flow freely from the EU to the UK after all, although the arrangement will be reviewed every four years, underlining just how fluid the landscape is right now.
The UK is and remains a major international player, particularly when we consider the number of companies that we have here relative to our GDP and population. The US has twice as many businesses, but it has a domestic market far larger than the UK’s. It is only when we look at countries such as Japan and Germany that we can understand the scale of our sector here in relative terms, which helps explain why so many nations envy greatly the commercial success that we enjoy globally. Those countries are eager to grab market share, and many, such as Canada, Sweden and eastern European nations, are making a determined effort to attract UK companies and our talent to relocate to their shores through fiscal incentives and easy visas. These are themes among many that business sector representatives such as the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment and The Independent Game Developers’ Association are working very hard on. That is also why the sector-specific video games tax relief is so important.
In August last year the Government revealed that £355 million had been spent on making more than 150 video games in the previous year. In fact, since the relief’s introduction in 2014, just under £4 billion has been spent on making 1,400 games, which shows what can be done with support. We need not only to maintain that relief, but to deepen the UK games development fund with an increase in Government investment in intellectual property while providing greater support for trade and investment activity.
When it comes to skills, it would be good to see the Government match fund an industry-led skills programme as well as ensuring UK businesses can continue to attract the best of global talent through sensible business-friendly immigration policies. All this is good, but other nations are throwing serious money at the industry to lure our businesses away. It is vital not only that these businesses remain here, but we must ensure that they continue to invest here in Warwick and Leamington, in Silicon Spa and elsewhere across the country.
No speech these days would be complete without a review of the challenges we presently face. It is clear that for many businesses the pandemic has been incredibly hard, but for the games sector it has, I am glad to say, been relatively buoyant. Of course, many people have been turning to video games in this period to stay socially connected, to maintain their mental wellbeing and to keep entertained, especially given that so much traditional support has been closed down for long periods and has suffered so greatly. That is why I am particularly thankful for the initiative shown by the sector and by my local businesses during the crisis, and for the recognition of the sector’s responsibility by taking various actions to help support players, people and public health. The “Games for Carers” campaign donated tens of thousands of free games from across the games industry to frontline NHS heroes.
Elsewhere, there was the establishment of the partnership between leading games companies and the UK Government to place central public health messaging in games, which enabled millions to be reached. That was a very good initiative. Then there were local games companies such as Playground Games in Leamington partnering with local food providers to give away free lunches to children eligible for free school meals.
It is once in a generation that a few individuals step forward—inventors and innovators—and it is particularly rare when those innovators or inventors also have the enterprise to match. Of course, it is easy to think of those on the west coast of the US in Silicon Valley and the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and the sorts of businesses that they founded, but I would suggest that the Darling brothers and the Oliver twins were our equivalents in the establishment of Silicon Spa. Thanks to them, 40 years on, Leamington and the wider region boast our own Silicon Spa, which has become a world-renowned area and sector for a hugely successful global industry, and it is very much the motor of the UK games sector. If businesses out there across the UK, or indeed elsewhere in the world, are looking for the best location, the best talent, the best skills, and maybe the happiest town in which to locate themselves, could I suggest they look no further than Leamington Spa—Silicon Spa—and that they get in touch with me?
May I just say one final thing? When this pandemic eases and we are able to return to workplaces, I look forward to visiting many of these businesses, and I very much look forward to seeing David Darling—I just have to have a demonstration of “Rock Star Ate My Hamster.”
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for bringing this debate to the House today, and I am so chuffed to have the opportunity to congratulate Leamington Spa and highlight its incredible contribution to the creation and development of the UK video games sector. That sector is such a key element of our world-leading creative industries.
Only a few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to speak about the importance of Leamington Spa as a games hub. I was very disappointed that, given covid, I was not able to be there in person, and had to do it virtually. I would very much rather have been there in person, but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought Leamington Spa to me today by bringing it to life in such a vibrant and exciting fashion. He is a great advert for the town, and I very much hope, one day, that I will be able to visit some of his local companies. I was delighted to be able to provide that keynote speech, because Leamington Spa is so vibrant and such an important part of our video games sector. Its very own “Interactive Futures” virtual event showcased the incredible careers and exciting career paths in the video games sector to younger generations and their parents. That is so important: what an exciting, vibrant and interesting career it would be to be in the video games industry!
Leamington Spa—or Silicon Spa, as I think we should now refer to it—and the whole surrounding area has played such a key part in the development and growth of our UK games industry. The games hub has its origins way back in the late 1980s—which, of course, I do not remember at all—with the emergence of Codemasters and then Blitz Games. Their founders, the Darling brothers and the Oliver twins, were pioneers of the British games industry, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted so eloquently. Over the years, we have seen Leamington Spa flourish as a games development cluster, experiencing superb growth and creating major economic value, not only in the west midlands but for the whole of the UK.
The games hub is now home to such a diverse mixture of games companies and smaller start-ups. Of course, Codemasters remains today one of our biggest and most successful games companies, but the area’s world-famous studios also include Playground Games, Ubisoft Leamington, and Sega’s HARDlight studio. Some of our most recognised game titles have been developed there, including internationally acclaimed racing games such as “Forza” and “F1” and—a particular favourite of mine—“Sonic the Hedgehog”. My parents always thought that I was wasting my time with all the years of my youth I spent playing video games, but it was clearly preparing me for life as the Minister responsible for video games, so it all worked out very well.
That blend of experienced games businesses and innovative start-ups has produced an organic system of inter-business mentoring and support, which has enabled the area to flourish so successfully. That mixture of business size and professional experience encourages an impressive rate of intellectual property development, and it is therefore no surprise at all that Leamington Spa has become one of the UK’s largest hubs for indie games studios. Of course, that is why the area is referred to as Silicon Spa, given its incredibly attractive mixture of innovation, artistic design, digital growth and skilled creative professionals.
Leamington Spa, though, is just one example of the UK’s many excellent games hubs. I do not know if you know this, Sir Christopher, but video games hubs have sprung up all across the UK, from Sheffield to Guildford, from Newcastle to Bristol, from Belfast to Cardiff, and from London to Edinburgh and, of course, Dundee—one of our oldest games clusters and the birthplace of the groundbreaking, iconic games that I am sure you are well aware of, “Lemmings” and “Grand Theft Auto”. Those are just some of the concentrations of games companies that are contributing to a huge drive in economic growth, innovation and creativity. Indeed, the industry is one that I am proud to say is truly British in its geographic representation.
According to recent figures from the trade association TIGA, 80% of games development jobs are located outside London, which is something many industries would, I think, aspire to. We recognise the benefits that that can bring to local economies, and, of course, the Government are committed to levelling up across the country. Is not the games industry a fine example of how that can be achieved? It plays such an important part in helping us to achieve shared prosperity across the UK.
As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, the industry is flourishing and promises more growth and success in the years to come. The sector contributed an estimated £2.9 billion to the UK economy in 2019. That is up £0.4 billion from 2010, which is huge growth. We understand that the sector has huge potential to continue to grow, and can make an enormous contribution to the UK’s future prosperity. That is why the Government are so committed to supporting its continued growth and why we introduced the video games tax relief in 2014. That growth has supported £3.7 billion of additional investment in UK games production, helping to strengthen the UK’s reputation as one of the leading destinations in the world for making video games.
I am also delighted to say that my Department will continue to fund the UK games fund into the next financial year, to support early-phase games development and talent. That includes the games fund Transfuzer programme, which has helped 400 graduates so far. I am thrilled that the 2021 competition is now open for applications, supporting another cohort of games talent, based in a range of regional hubs. Transfuzer helps graduates to go on to great jobs in games development, which is increasingly important as the industry has such demand for incredibly talented and ambitious individuals. That demand will only continue to grow.
The sector already employed some 27,000 people in 2019—a 42% increase on 2013. That is exactly why events such as the one at which I recently spoke, Leamington Spa’s “Interactive Futures”, and Games Careers Week, which will happen later this month, are vital. We must continue to inspire people to look for roles in our incredibly rewarding creative industries. In recent times another great success story has been the emergence of the UK’s e-sports industry, which presents another huge set of opportunities to explore, to drive growth and investment. We are excited to see how we can build on that, to see the UK established as a major e-sports destination.
However, while we can celebrate the games industry’s fantastic growth and opportunities, there are some challenges for the creative industries. The video games sector remained relatively resilient against covid-19 but, of course, the pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on some organisations and individuals across the economy, and some other sectors in DDCMS have been particularly badly hit. That is why the £65 billion three-point plan that the Chancellor set out last week, to provide support for jobs and businesses as we emerge out of the pandemic and forge a path to recovery, is vital.
The Budget announcement coincides with the publication of “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”, which sets out the Government’s plan to support economic growth through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation. That highlights more than anything, I think, the digital and creative industry as a major success story in the UK’s potential future growth, and as a driver of innovation.
It is important to acknowledge some of the themes that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington brought out in his speech today. The industry really is an incubator for some high-end technology. He also highlighted the fantastic opportunities to gain really high-quality skills, well-paid jobs and exciting future careers.
However, we must also recognise that there is still a little bit of work to be done to ensure that video games are enjoyed safely by everybody. We know that our evolving digital technologies, such as video games, present some new responsibilities as well. There are social responsibilities to make sure that anybody using them is not exposed to harm. That is why we take seriously public concerns about loot boxes, for example, and why we launched a bespoke call for evidence last September. This sort of process will inform what we can do as a Government and as an industry to ensure that all consumers are well protected. We will announce the next steps in that process in the months ahead.
However, I want to end with a key positive message from the Government. We fully appreciate the amazing potential—indeed, the amazing achievement up to now—and the future growth potential of the video games industry. We want to exploit fully the UK games sector’s potential for growth and to cement its position as a world leader. We fully recognise the games industry’s importance and its future potential, and the contribution that the sector, which is exemplified in areas such as Leamington Spa, makes to British prosperity.
Finally, of course, something that I had forgotten to mention until now is the sheer joy and entertainment that video games bring to millions of players in the UK, not least a few in my own household. I am excited to see what opportunities the UK games sector will present in the future. It is an industry with an extremely bright future.
Question put and agreed to.
Support for Women Leaving Prison
(3 years, 1 month 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
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. If Members attending virtually have any 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.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for women leaving prison.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. When you look at the female prison population, you are faced with the stark reality that, for the most part, it is nurture, not nature, that has led these women down the path they are following: a path of destruction; a path that embodies a lack of self-worth; a path that has been created for them by life experiences and subsequent complex needs.
Nearly 60% of women who come into contact with the criminal justice system are survivors of domestic violence, and more than half report having received emotional, physical or sexual abuse during childhood. Both of these figures are likely to be underestimates. If we add issues such as poverty and addiction to that, we can start to see the full picture of how past trauma leads to crime, conviction and imprisonment.
I could talk—and I have talked—at great length about the need for alternatives to prison for many women in the first place. The female offender strategy gave me a sense of real hope that more would be done to advocate for women’s centres, with the emphasis on supporting and rehabilitating women in a more constructive setting. In the strategy, the Government signalled a commitment to a new programme of work for female offenders, driven by three priorities: early intervention, an emphasis on community-based solutions, and an aim to make custody as effective and decent as possible for those women who have to be there.
I was therefore shocked and disappointed by the Ministry of Justice’s announcement earlier this year of 500 new prison places for women, at a cost of £150 million, particularly when co-funding for women’s centres, which are proven to reduce offending, is being cut.
Today, I want to look at what happens to women when they finish their sentence. What support is available to them to help them rebuild their lives? What more needs to be done to reduce the number of women whose initial conviction becomes a catalyst for a lifetime in the criminal justice system?
I recently met representatives from the Safe Homes for Women Leaving Prison initiative. Shockingly, they told me that over half of all women leaving prison have nowhere safe to go. They walk through the gate with three things: the paltry £46 prison discharge grant, a plastic bag full of belongings, and the threat of recall if they miss their probation appointment. For some, the simple fact that they have been in prison a long way from home means that they have no local connections when they are released. For others, who are victims of abuse, returning to their homes, and consequently the perpetrators, comes at a huge personal risk. Yet what other options are there?
A lack of secure housing is a significant barrier to rehabilitation. According to a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, between 2019 and 2020, 65% of men and women who were released from prison without settled accommodation reoffended. Without somewhere to live, the chances of finding employment are minimal and the impact on mental health is devastating. A return to familiar surroundings, harmful behaviour, substance abuse and crime is almost inevitable.
The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is failing vulnerable women leaving prison. The Government must take urgent action to change this and improve the Act’s effectiveness. Although the announcement of dedicated staff to act as brokers for prisoners in order to give them faster access to accommodation on release is welcome, having this resource in only 11 prisons around the country will not come close to solving the problem. These staff need to be placed in every women’s prison in the country and be fully trained to address the challenges faced by women when they leave prison.
Likewise, the new pilot announced by the Government of temporary basic accommodation for prison leavers at risk of homelessness does not go far enough. It has been launched in only five of the 12 probation regions in England and Wales. It is limited to a maximum of 12 weeks’ accommodation and does not address the particular needs of women at all. This needs to be a national scheme that takes into account the specific issues faced by vulnerable women with complex needs and offers safe and secure permanent accommodation to enable them to achieve resettlement and rehabilitation.
Leaving prison should be the chance for a new beginning, but the way things stand, it is just the start of another battle for many women—a battle to find somewhere safe to live, to get a job, to stay clean and to not reoffend. It is a battle to avoid being recalled, because that £46 was just not enough for a fresh start.
Will the Minister look again at the Government’s commitments in the female offender strategy? Will they make commitments to take an approach that addresses vulnerability, follows the evidence about what works in supporting them to turn their lives around and treats them as individuals of value? Will he consider what could be done to improve women’s life chances on release, be it an uplift in the prison discharge grant; a pledge to look again at additional prison places, given that it is clear that women’s centres provide better outcomes; extending dedicated support across the whole female justice estate to help with accommodation before release; making available guaranteed accommodation for all those leaving who are at risk of homelessness; or perhaps all these things?
We know that the majority of women with convictions have experienced trauma. We have all heard the harrowing stories of abuse, addiction, coercion, and self-deprivation that have led these women to commit crimes in the first place. We need a system that supports their rehabilitation and offers them freedom from the past, to help them avoid recall and allow them to choose a different path; not a system that is set up for failure from the very start.
If we are to see an end to this injustice, so much more needs to be done to offer women the support and tools they need to build themselves a better future. I talk to very many women who started on this vicious journey because of the environment in which they lived. I have met women whose original crime was not having a TV licence. Unable to pay the associated fine, they ended up in prison. I have met women whose children refused to go to school. Again, unable to pay the fine, their punishment was prison. When they are released they have lost their family, their home and their dignity. They now live on the streets, and too many are working the streets and financing the pimps and the drug dealers. We have to break this cycle. The Government must act now to prevent this cycle of inevitability.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I agree with every word she said. There are some people who, when they come to this place, like to play to the gallery, and there are some who come to do the right thing. The substance of this debate is one where we need to make sure we do the right thing, because the measure of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable people.
Many colleagues on my side of the House have a very “Hang ’em and flog ’em” approach to criminal justice—locking people up and throwing away the key. There is a place for that. However, many people who end up in our criminal justice system or in custody are themselves some of the most vulnerable people, and they are symptoms of state failure. That is particularly true of women prisoners. As we all know, quite often people who have been in the care system are over-represented on the prison estate, as are people with addiction problems, and people with literacy and numeracy issues, and that is the state failing those people.
How we deal with people once they enter that cycle of offending and reoffending is how we should judge our success in rehabilitation and making sure that we give people a second chance. We should not be writing people off forever. We know that if we do not give them the support to be rehabilitated, they will continue a cycle of reoffending. That is not good for society at all, or indeed for the taxpayer, because putting people in prison is quite an expensive solution. We need to grasp this debate head-on. We should not be letting our criminal justice system pick up the price of state failure.
Women who have been let down by the state are particularly over-represented in the prisons system. As the hon. Member for Swansea East has alluded, many are victims of abuse, whether domestic abuse or sexual violence, and trauma is symptomatic. In fact, for some of those women, prison is probably as safe and secure an environment as they have ever been in. What a travesty for our society that we let that happen.
We know that there have been many moves in recent years to recognise that prison is not the right place for people who are vulnerable and suffering the consequences of trauma. For a long time, we had a move towards different, more community-based solutions. In particular, talking about women who are also parents, what good is there to be done by putting women in prison and putting their children into care? What is going to be the positive outcome for society of that? Other solutions can be pursued, such as treatment orders combined with community payback schemes. I think we should look at that.
The direction of travel was very much in favour of this more enlightened way of treating women in the criminal justice system, but we seem to have had a change in emphasis. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the announcement of 500 new prison places comes at a time when the women’s prison population has gone down by 600. We are talking about an increase in capacity of 1,100. We ask ourselves: what signal are we showing about how we are going to deal with people who, frankly, need support to not reoffend?
In not too recent a time, the then Cameron Government had very big ambitions for prison reform and emphasis on rehabilitation, but they seem to have died with that Government. It is easy to be populist and easy to play to a gallery that wants to lock people up and throw away the key, but we need to think about what the best outcome for society is. Surely the best outcome for society is to make sure we do everything in our power to support people to get out of that cycle of reoffending.
I often say in this place that there is no public policy issue that cannot be solved by a housing solution, and that is also true of this. It is clear that some kind of security in accommodation when people leave prison is fundamental to making sure that people do not reoffend. As the hon. Lady mentioned, there are pilots in place to give that support in housing, but I helpfully suggest to the Minister that perhaps we should have more focus on those kinds of step-down solutions for housing for people who leave prison, and that perhaps that might be a better value-for-money investment of taxpayers’ money than simply expanding the prison estate.
As I say, the more we can do to divert women away from simply being incarcerated, the better it will be for society. It will prevent some children from going into the care system, and prevent that generational flow of history repeating itself in families. We also know that, as the hon. Lady mentioned, some of the offences committed by women for which they end up with a custodial sentence are not ones that justify such a sentence. In particular, they can often be with reference to debt, and again, I think we can find much better solutions for supporting people out of that.
I have little more to add, other than to reaffirm my support for everything the hon. Lady has said. We as political leaders perhaps need to give more leadership to our communities, and to be more understanding and more forgiving of why people end up the way they are. It is when people feel excluded from society—when they feel that society is not giving them a chance—that they end up in this cycle of crime and reoffending, in and out of prison. As I say, that is our failing. We need to make sure that when we pick people up for the first time, we do what we can to help them address their problems, whether that is debt, poor literacy, or all the other traumas that they may have suffered. As we know, mental health difficulties are a big characteristic of this prison population too. Let us do our bit and not simply rely on more prison places.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. First of all, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this incredibly important debate today; it is particularly timely, given that yesterday was International Women’s Day. It is important to see from the first two contributions that women from both sides of the House can find common ground on this really important issue. I for one am grateful that there are these issues that, as women, we can potentially work together on.
It is important to remember that as many as 70% of women in prison are survivors of domestic abuse, and that women in prison are also five times more likely to have mental health difficulties than those in the general population. However, sadly, in many cases they are simply not receiving the support they need on being released from prison. According to the Ministry of Justice, in the year ending March 2020, one in 25 women were sleeping rough on release from custody, and nearly half of women left without settled accommodation. Data from the independent monitoring boards for women’s prisons and the prisons themselves suggest that the figure is actually as high as 60%. This is a huge problem, not least because 65% of women released from prison to no fixed abode go on to reoffend. Failure to provide safe and secure accommodation is therefore preventing rehabilitation and fuelling reoffending.
The Ministry of Justice has recently announced £70 million of funding to support former offenders at risk of homelessness, including a pilot to provide prison leavers with temporary accommodation for up to 12 weeks. However, that pilot is limited in scope, as it covers only five of the 12 probation regions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East pointed out, does nothing for women in the other seven probation regions. There is also uncertainty about whether those vulnerable women leaving prison will be supported beyond the 12 weeks’ temporary accommodation to find long-term, safe and secure accommodation. That is the type of accommodation that is desperately needed, not a 12-week temporary fix.
That funding is also incredibly low, compared with the £150 million recently pledged to build 500 new prison cells for women. While Ministry of Justice figures published in November last year show that the female prison population is projected to rise by around two fifths by 2026, it is important to remember that, in the main, we need to focus on community sentences and the use of women’s centres instead of prison, especially given that 80% of women are in prison for non-violent offences. Indeed, a series of inquiries and reports in recent decades have all concluded that prison is rarely a necessary, appropriate or proportionate response to women who offend. The Government’s own female offender strategy promises a focus on early intervention and community-based solutions. Why are the Government not following that female offender strategy? Why are they investing in prisons, when actually the money is needed in women’s centres?
Specialist women’s services are best placed to address women’s complex needs, to divert women from the criminal justice system, and to prevent reoffending. The Women’s Budget Group further found that a place at a women’s centre costs between £1,223 and £4,125 per woman, depending on needs, while a place in a women’s prison costs £52,000 per year. Better investment in and use of women’s centres would therefore yield huge savings on the costs incurred directly by the criminal justice system, and on those incurred indirectly by the health, mental health, housing, welfare services that would otherwise be used by a previous offender. Instead, these specialist providers face a £10 million core funding gap from this March. The Government should provide proper ring-fenced core funding to ensure the long-term sustainability of those services.
We also seriously need to look at the presumption against short sentences. Fifty-eight per cent. of women are reconvicted within one year of leaving prison. That figure rises to 73% for sentences of less than 12 months. Meanwhile, the proportion of women sent to prison to serve very short sentences has risen sharply. In 1993, only a third of custodial sentences given to women were for less than six months. In 2019, the figure had nearly doubled to 62%. The problem with short sentences is that there is no time for any form of rehabilitation, and it often means that during that time women lose their family ties, any job they may have, and their housing. Statistics show that women are more likely to reoffend when they are given a short sentence. A review of the purpose and use of short sentences for women offenders, and their value to victims, offenders and the taxpayer is needed.
We know that women are more likely to reoffend if they are released from prison to no fixed abode. We know that women released from prison are more likely to reoffend than those serving community sentences, and that women are more likely to reoffend if they are given a short sentence in prison rather than a community sentence. Despite that, the Government are not seriously looking into a presumption against short sentences, are leaving women’s centres at the risk of closure through underfunding, and are not investing enough in measures to prevent homelessness. Instead, they are investing more in prison places, which is the one thing that has been shown to not be of use for the majority of female offenders.
Without action on those issues, the Government simply condemn many women to a cycle of crime. To truly support women in the criminal justice system we need a much more holistic, understanding approach, which ultimately would cost less to both the taxpayer and to society.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is very nice to be in the new Westminster Hall and to make a contribution. It is certainly different and does not have the ambience of the original, but it is nice to have the debates back.
I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on setting the scene so well, and I thank those who have contributed. It has been good to hear all the valuable contributions.
Obviously, I am very pleased to make a contribution on this issue, because—like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—I have a passion to help those in society who are probably less well-off and need help. My heart’s desire and my position here is to help those who perhaps are not able to help themselves. The hon. Lady outlined the issues very clearly and I want to speak about them as well.
I thank the organisation Safe Homes for Women Leaving Prisons for its sterling work to highlight the problems that exist within the rehabilitation process for women leaving prison. When I read through the briefing notes, it was clear that we can and must do better to rehabilitate these women properly rather than their leaving prison with no support, which makes it much harder for them to make the change in their lives that they need. That is why we are here today. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place and I know that he will be able to answer the questions that we put to him.
The briefing highlighted that each year thousands of vulnerable women really need follow-on help from whenever they leave prison. The hon. Member for Swansea East said at the beginning of the debate that people leave prison with £46—my goodness—and a plastic bag with their clothes in and probably all their life’s possessions, and with nowhere to live, which, of all things, I really worry about. There is also the threat of recall if they miss a probationary appointment. Is that the level of preparedness that is needed for the outside world? I would say not; indeed, that is why this debate is happening. Instead, they are left at the mercy of those evil and wicked people out there who take advantage of others, and who the hon. Members for Swansea East and for Thurrock both referred to.
I believe that we should give these women the dignity that they want and need, and the confidence that comes from that, so that they can leave prison well. If someone gets out of prison and they do not have a house, the first thing that they need is a house, or accommodation. But that should not be provided just as a one-off, leaving all the other things to fall into place, or hoping that that happens. It is about the follow-on help.
Who addresses the mental health issues? We have lived through a year of coronavirus, and many people in my constituency and indeed in all our constituencies have experienced mental health and wellbeing at a lower level than ever before—at least, I cannot remember in my lifetime there being a lower level. Mental health issues are affecting lots of people. Multiply that by those who are stuck in prison for the sentence that they have been given for the crime that they have committed, and for those people the mental health issues are really overwhelming.
What we do to provide follow-on help matters. Housing is the No.1 priority, as the hon. Member for Swansea East said. The next stage is to provide follow-on help for any mental health issues. We can help with simple things, for example, managing budgets and the moneys people have. Even those small things matter.
I watched a TV programme with Simon Reeve, who I quite like; he does a trip to different places. On Sunday night, my wife and I watched it together. He was doing a trip around the Americas and he went to a place in Colorado; I hope that I am right on that. It was a prison town—there were nine prisons in that town. But what they were doing in that prison town was getting people prepared for whenever they left prison.
We all have our own opinion of the US justice system. It is quite a complicated system, where someone can start off with a fine for a broken tail-light but things can multiply and they can end up being in prison, because they do not have the money to repay a debt and get themselves back in credit. However, what they were doing in this prison town was get people prepared for the outside world. The prisoners were being taught simple things, such as going to a restaurant. These are people who perhaps do not have the educational standards that they need; they probably do not have the social skills, either. For them, the outside world is a scary place and they are vulnerable to being taken advantage of.
I believe that the practice that we are debating today is a devastating one, which places vulnerable women at risk and prevents them from rebuilding their lives after a prison sentence. Safe and secure accommodation is essential for rehabilitation, but 65% of prisoners are released to no fixed abode. Basically, they go out the door of the prison and they are on their own. If they have no family, the situation is even worse, because they really are singular and alone with what happens to them. And, yes, the potential for them to reoffend emerges very quickly. Let us consider that figure I just gave; it is an incredibly significant figure. It is 65%, and this figure alone prompts calls for action to be taken.
It is only right that we give the Government credit for recognising that women have a very different experience of the criminal justice system from men, but because of that, while the Government have done some things, they have perhaps not done enough. They have committed to improving outcomes for women in contact with the criminal justice system across England and Wales, but I just wish that we in Northern Ireland had the same pilot scheme that the Government have looked at. Has the Minister had the opportunity to speak to the Justice Minister in the Assembly in Northern Ireland, Naomi Long, to discuss these things and see what we can learn from the UK Parliament to make this thing happen in Northern Ireland as well?
I also highlight that, despite that recognition, the Government have not set out any gender-specific measures to address support for, in particular, the complex needs of vulnerable women prison leavers in their new pilot scheme to house prison leavers in temporary accommodation. I welcome the pilot scheme, which really gets us to the stage where we really want to be—the first stage of trying to rehabilitate and bring people into society with better opportunities and life potential. I would love to see that, and if that that is the intention of the Minister and the Government, it is to be welcomed. However, at this stage, the Government have missed that opportunity, so I ask again whether the Minister will set out how this pilot will cater for the specific and complex needs of vulnerable women prison leavers. I really want to make sure that, when the pilot scheme is in place, what comes forward after that gets people ready for the next stage of their lives. Further, there is a question to be asked about whether this will be extended across all probation regions in England and Wales.
I also asked whether the information will be shared with Northern Ireland to ensure that new designated prison officers acting as brokers for housing are appointed in every women’s prison—I think the hon. Member for Swansea East referred to this in her contribution at the very beginning—and receive specific training on the challenges facing women prison leavers.
Back in 2019, I read an incredibly interesting article that included excerpts from a study carried out by the criminology lecturer Gillian McNaull as part of research for Queen’s University Belfast. What she said sums up this issue very well:
“Many women are not remanded due to the severity of their crime, but instead due to their vulnerability.”
If society puts people away because they are vulnerable and not because of the severity of their crime, there is something wrong. If Gillian McNaull at Queen’s University Belfast can recognise that, I am absolutely sure that Members who speak in this debate and the Minister recognise it. She also says:
“I found that a significant number of women are being arrested and remanded to custody for issues relating to mental health crisis, suicidal ideation, alcohol use issues and homelessness.”
The hon. Member for Thurrock referred to that. We really need to know the reasons why people are in prison. If it is because they have committed a crime of such severity that warrants prison, that is okay, but it is not if they are in because they are vulnerable or have nobody to turn to or are really down on their ankles.
Gillian McNaull added:
“This sees an unacceptable use of prison as a place of ‘safety’ and ‘containment’ for women—an issue exacerbated by deficits in community resources, such as a lack of gender-appropriate hostel accommodation, adequate community mental health support and social care provision.”
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) made a similar reference. What can be done to help to achieve successful and secure hostel accommodation, community mental health support, which is really necessary, and that social care provision? If we get all those in place, I believe we can help in a more constructive way and give people hope for society for the future. That is really important.
At this time, the Justice Minister is committed to carrying out a review. I ask the Minister to ensure that all information, practices and pilots are shared UK-wide—we are very much part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and want to be, and we want those pilot schemes and practices shared in a way that we can take advantage of them as well—to inform what changes can be made to prevent offending and the improper use of facilities. More support is clearly needed and I believe that the effort will bring reward. I know it is the intention of everybody here, including the Minister, to lessen reoffending. It is vital that more women will be able to change their lives with the support that they are crying out for.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. This is an important debate, on which there is much agreement, and I will add to many of the things that have been said today.
If the Government are serious about reducing reoffending by women, they need to support specialist services, such as those offered by women’s centres, to help them stop offending in the first place and, if they have offended, to give them support afterwards. Providing accommodation is key because being homeless is one of the biggest factors in reoffending.
Many women who have committed crimes and are therefore in the criminal justice system are disproportionately victims of crime themselves. They also tend to be imprisoned for crimes less serious than those committed against them. Addiction or being in an abusive relationship are also factors for many of those women.
Short sentences are very disruptive for women, especially if they have children. Most women serving short prison sentences are back in prison within a year. Reoffending levels are staggeringly high, with 48% of women reconvicted within a year of leaving prison. That rises to 61% for sentences of under 12 months.
The Minister will know that women released from prison are more likely to reoffend, and reoffend earlier, than those serving community sentences. Women receiving short sentences often lose their accommodation, with many needing to be rehoused with children, as they are primary carers. As we know, such accommodation is very limited for local authorities and there are huge waiting lists.
If women are victims of domestic abuse, they cannot go back to the place where the abuse happened. There is already a chronic lack of suitable housing, including for women with complex needs. Many women imprisoned from previous addresses, to which they cannot return, lose that local connection and their ability to be rehoused.
I welcome the recent announcement from the Ministry of Justice of £70 million funding for a pilot scheme to house prison leavers in temporary accommodation for up to 12 weeks. That is in only five of the 12 probation regions. I understand that that is a pilot but I would very much welcome its extension much further. I am also concerned that the Government are spending £150 million to build 500 new prison cells for women. That clearly indicates that the problem will not be solved, that there will be more women going to prison. That addresses the symptom, not the cause.
We need to get to the heart of what will stop women offending. For me, that is support for women’s centres. We know that women’s centres are very effective in helping women who are vulnerable not to offend in the first place. A survey showed that for every £1 spent, £2.84 was saved in costs, if the money were invested in women’s centres.
When women leave prison they are given only the discharge grant of £46, which is clearly not enough. Having to survive the first week out of prison on less than £7 a day is not going to get anyone very far. We need to ensure support networks are there for women when they leave prison.
To conclude, we need to provide more accommodation for women leaving prison, increase the discharge grant and invest in women’s centres. I thank Women in Prison, Agenda and Safe Homes for Women Leaving Prison for the excellent work they do and for their briefings for today’s debate.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
It is a genuine pleasure to see you and serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for calling this important debate and for her stonking speech. There have been excellent contributions today from Members on both sides of the House.
This Government’s female offender strategy set out some very clear principles, and we agree totally that we need to address vulnerability, acknowledge the role of gender, treat women as individuals with the potential to make a positive contribution, and break the cycle of reoffending. To do this, the strategy made it clear that
“Short custodial sentences do not deliver the best results for female offenders”.
It acknowledged the essential role of women’s centres and made it clear that when women leave prison, the support they receive has to respond to their complex needs. Again, we agree. However, it has been almost three years since the strategy was published and, as we have heard, as many as six out of 10 women leaving prison are being released into homelessness—60%. The strategy is simply not being successfully implemented.
We know that without a home, it is so much harder to find work. Reuniting with children and family is even more difficult. Meeting probation commitments and accessing healthcare and substance misuse treatment is that much harder. Not having a stable home damages mental health. It destroys life chances and lives. It kills hope. This Government have acknowledged that the likelihood of reoffending can be as much as 50% higher for those released into homelessness. Between 23 March and 31 August last year, during the height of the first lockdown, more than 3,500 prisoners, including 275 women, were released into homelessness. During those first terrifying months of covid, 65 women were sent out to sleep rough on our streets on their very first night out of prison. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society were effectively sent by the Government to sleep on the streets, when the rest of us had been told to stay home, to stay safe and to protect the NHS. It beggars belief.
We have got to acknowledge that outcomes for women leaving prison are frankly terrible. One reason is clearly the lack of accommodation, but another significant reason is the lack of continuity of care for those in need of drug or alcohol abuse treatment when they leave prison. Last year, the national average of continuity in care in England was just 35%. When drug-related deaths are at an all-time high and when a third of people in prison are there for reasons related to drug use, surely to heavens continuing treatment outside of prison must be a priority? I am told there is an ambitious Government target to go from this derisory 35% to 75%, but there are simply no details of how that will happen. I am hoping that the Minister will tell us today how and when that 75% target will be met.
It cannot be a surprise to anyone listening to this extremely well informed debate that reoffending is rife. Of women who have served a sentence of under a year, 73% will be convicted of another offence within a year. If we are to tackle reoffending and if we want fewer victims of crime, we have to tackle the root causes of that crime. The Government’s own research tells us that often women in prison are dealing with enormous trauma caused by sometimes years of abuse.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East was absolutely right to highlight the need for women’s centres. The evidence is clear that they slash reoffending, they cut crime and they help many women to heal and create better lives—and, unlike short prison sentences for women, they are great value for money. Some women’s centres have managed to demonstrate that they save £2.80 for the public purse for every £1 invested, so why are the Government planning to spend £150 million on women’s prison expansion when they have committed just £2 million to women’s centres? That is 75 times more to be spent on something they have admitted does not than on something that does. Why?
Let me touch on one aspect we have not yet discussed: the specific needs of black, Asian, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller women and all of those from other minority ethnic communities. We know, and the Government know, that projects led by women from a community are best suited to develop effective resettlement within that community. There are excellent examples like the Khidmat centres in Bradford, but there are not nearly enough of them across the country. Why?
As we recover from covid, it is even more important to have additional support in place for women leaving prison. It is good to see that the Government plan to take some action on homelessness among prison leavers, but, as we have heard, only five of the 12 probation regions—less than half—are likely to receive some funding for temporary accommodation pilots, even though the value-for-money case for better accommodation is overwhelming. Why? May I gently point out that London and the south-east are two of the areas where the problems of prison-leaver homelessness are greatest, yet neither is included as a pilot?
I have been doing this job for less than a year and I have already worked out that the Ministry of Justice is, frankly, addicted to pilots, but there is no follow-through. Time and again, projects are proven successful but they are simply not rolled out. The truth is that, when it comes to women prison leavers, we need ambition and commitment. We need to provide accommodation, and that accommodation needs to be fit for purpose. Women domestic abuse survivors may need to relocate away from their area. Homes often need to be able to accommodate women’s children. If those needs are not met, women do not get a second chance, their families do not get a chance, and reoffending becomes even more likely.
Despite all those facts, in their announcement on temporary accommodation the Government went out of their way to trumpet just how basic and temporary the planned accommodation for prison leavers will be. I ask the Minister gently: how will the new accommodation address the specific needs of women leaving prison and the needs of their families? How will it stop the very expensive revolving door? I have to ask: is the priority cutting reoffending and cutting crime, or is it about dog-whistle politics and cutting costs? If it is about cutting costs, the Minister should know that that is a false economy. His own research shows that. The lack of approved premises for women around the country has been a huge problem. How many of the 200 new places planned will be in specialist women’s hostels? When will they delivered? Where will they be located? Perhaps the Minister can inform us today of the progress of the approved premises for women in the south-west.
Another public relations announcement was that of a paltry £6 million for through-the-gate support for prison leavers. Only one of the 16 prisons receiving that funding will be a women’s prison: New Hall in West Yorkshire. Why?
Frankly, when women are put into prison but are not supported to deal with the trauma and violence that they have experienced in their lives, or with the addiction that has put them there, and when they are released knowing that their only option is to sleep on the street, and they are condemned to the revolving door of reoffending because support services for drugs and alcohol just are not there, that is an injustice. It is Government failure. Women are not being given a fair chance to change their lives, or their children’s lives, for the better.
The Government must demonstrate that they truly understand their own research. They need to demonstrate real commitment to and ambition for their own strategy. They need to begin to create a criminal justice system that truly understands the root causes of women’s offending, and that starts to treat women fairly.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a joy to appear under your moderating hand once again, Sir Charles. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for this important debate in the aftermath of International Women’s Day. I ought to start by reassuring her and other hon. Members, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), of my long-standing commitment to smart justice over tough justice.
Just over 10 years ago, I became devotee of Mark Kleiman, a remarkable academic in the United States, who sadly died a couple of years ago. He wrote a seminal book, which I would recommend to hon. Members if they can get hold of it, called “When Brute Force Fails”. It is an examination of the American criminal justice system, where many years of locking up more and more prisoners for longer and longer in the hope that it would do something about crime actually produced the reverse. It proposed a series of smarter, more innovative approaches towards criminal justice, which were, a decade or so ago, showing some potential.
I am pleased to say that one of those proposals—sobriety tagging for those for whom alcohol is driving their criminal behaviour—is now rolling out across the country. It has started in Wales, where just the other day we managed to tag our 100th offender with a sobriety tag rather than sending them for a custodial sentence. Compliance in that particular project is running in the high 90th percentile. It will be rolled out in England at end of this month. I hope that for all kinds of offenders—male, female or other nomenclatures—it is the kind of smart approach that will have benefits beyond the positive and negative of incarceration.
I will start by reaffirming what the hon. Member for Swansea East referred to as our ambition and commitment to fully delivering the female offenders strategy, which was published, as she said, back in June 2018. I am pleased that she expressed real hope about that strategy. As she said, it has three main aims: fewer women coming into the criminal justice system and reoffending, fewer women serving short custodial sentences, with a greater proportion managed successfully in the community, and better conditions in custody to enable rehabilitation and improved outcomes.
The strategy clearly articulates why we need a different approach for female offenders. They make up less than 5% of the prison population, but are among the most vulnerable in society in terms of both the prevalence and the complexity of their needs. Many live chaotic lives, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, and have experience of abuse, as well as of mental health issues, substance misuse, accommodation needs, and debt and finance problems. Female prisoners are more likely than male prisoners to have been taken into care and to have witnessed violence in the home as a child. More than 60% of female prisoners reported having experienced domestic abuse, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, compared with 7% of male prisoners. Outcomes for women in custody are worse than for men, including high levels of self-harm.
Women are also more likely than men to be living with dependent children before imprisonment, and the consequent impact on families is therefore greater, increasing the risk of intergenerational offending. Each of the strategy’s aims is equally important, and each one is equally relevant to the subject of the present debate on support for women leaving prison. Clearly there will be fewer women leaving prison and requiring support if we can successfully reduce the number of women entering the criminal justice system and reoffending. Equally, if more women are managed effectively in the community, there will be fewer serving short prison sentences. For those women who must be sentenced to prison because of the severity of their crimes and to protect the public, providing better conditions in custody improves the chances of effective rehabilitation.
A number of Members mentioned the Government plans to build 500 more prison places in women’s prisons. Many Members argue that this proves the Government have abandoned their female offenders strategy, particularly the aims of having fewer women in custody serving shorter sentences, and more being managed successfully in the community, but I hope that my comments thus far make clear that that is not the case. However, the impact of the extra 20,000 police officers, with the likely increase in charge volumes, cannot be ignored and doing nothing is not an option. The long-term prison population is expected to increase over the six-year project horizon.
While custody should remain the last resort for most women, in line with the female offenders strategy in meeting projected demand, the expansion of the women’s estate will provide better conditions for those who do require custody. Our design principles include requirements around being trauma-informed and gender-specific, ensuring suitable visiting spaces are provided, greater in-cell communications options informed by the covid learning, and in open design the potential inclusion of rooms to support overnight visits for mothers and their children, currently available in only two women’s prisons. If we succeed in reducing demand for prison places, we will be able to close older, less suitable accommodation. Having reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to fully delivering the female offenders strategy, I would like to highlight our activity in two specific areas of support raised by Members this afternoon specifically for women leaving prison: accommodation and employment.
Offenders face significant barriers to securing suitable accommodation, often linked to their lack of access to the necessary funds, availability of local authority housing supply and affordability of or access to the private rented sector. A £70 million investment programme was announced in January to provide stable accommodation to these prison leavers. The investment will bring together the work on approved premises and the Bail Accommodation and Support Service with a new tier of provision for prison leavers at risk of homelessness.
To reduce reoffending and provide health and wellbeing support, we are launching a new accommodation service providing up to 12 weeks of basic temporary accommodation for prison leavers who would otherwise be homeless. This will launch in five of the 12 probation regions in England and Wales, and all individuals aged 18 and over released from prison and at risk of homelessness will be eligible, as will those moving on from approved premises who are also at the same risk. It is anticipated that the new intervention will begin in summer 2021 and provide support for approximately 3,000 service users, who will be subject to supervision by probation and have ongoing support from their community offender manager.
As part of its response to the covid-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Justice secured £11.5 million to support individuals at risk of homelessness on their release from prison and help them to move on to permanent accommodation. The scheme initially ran between 18 May and the end of August and provided up to 56 nights’ accommodation per individual, meaning some prison leavers were accommodated until 26 October. We reinstated the scheme on 22 October to run up to 31 March, meaning individuals may receive accommodation support up to 26 May this year.
While the scheme is an immediate response to support prison leavers at risk of homelessness, the Ministry of Justice is keen to utilise the learning gathered from the scheme to help develop longer term improvements. We have started to draw together learning with the intention of publishing a report in the autumn. To support the oversight of its covid-19 response, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service set up seven homelessness prevention taskforces to help find accommodation for offenders upon release. These teams have been very successful in securing improved accommodation outcomes and building new local partnerships with local authorities and housing partners. The service is considering how they might be a feature of the future landscape.
On employment, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s New Futures Network has a dedicated employment broker focused on partnering employers with prisons across the women’s estate. These partnerships result in work opportunities for serving prisoners that provide training skills, qualification and employment on release. Opportunities are available across a variety of industry sectors.
More recently, to mark International Women’s Day, Sodexo announced the launch of its SheWorks skills-building programme in three prisons. With the support of the New Futures Network, this will be extended to further prisons over the course of the year. Sodexo aims to fill 5% of its job vacancies with prison leavers and those with an offending background by 2023.
Additionally, from the end of April this year, the Clink charity’s kitchen training programme will be expanded to women’s prisons at Eastwood Park, Send and Downview, as part of a broader roll-out of the programme. The training scheme provides the opportunity to transform job prospects by delivering industry-recognised qualifications, training and work experience.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is setting out clearly some of the good things that can be done. Within those, in my contribution I mentioned social skills. It is important that people can leave prison and interact with people in a way that they can understand and feel the confidence that they need. Is this one of the measures that the Minister will introduce for those who are leaving prison?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In discussions in the Ministry of Justice I have made it clear that my view, which I think is shared broadly by Ministers in the Department, is that there are three foundations for success in life post-prison. They are a job, a house and a friend—effectively, someone to hold your hand. If someone leaving prison has those three pillars in their life, they are much more likely to succeed on the outside. Too often, people have one, or possibly two, but certainly not all three. In the role that I am trying to put in place around integrated offender management—the reboot of that effort—that is what we are going to try to achieve.
The New Futures Network continues to support businesses that are part of the employers’ forum for reducing reoffending, to deliver new, tailored employment for women. Initiatives to be trialled include mentoring and thematic virtual sessions covering the development of soft skills, as the hon. Gentleman said. These will be offered to women serving the last few months of their sentence. The framework of support will be tested in three prisons.
Given the ambition of the hon. Member for Swansea East for the Government to go further, she will be pleased to know that as part of the January announcement to tackle and reduce reoffending, we are seeking to introduce and test new approaches and roles across education, employment, accommodation and substance misuse. HMP New Hall, which was mentioned, has been selected to ensure the specific needs of women are captured, so that learning can be shared across the female estate more broadly.
To conclude, I hope I have removed any doubts about the Government’s ongoing commitment to deliver fully the female offender strategy and that, in the time available, I have been able to provide clear examples of how we are working to properly support women leaving prison. As far as the extra 500 places are concerned, I hope that the hon. Lady and others will understand that, while we have to plan for the worst, and the impact of 20,000 police officers on the prison estate cannot be ignored, we will work very hard between then and now for a much better outcome than an increase in the prison population.
Carolyn Harris
I thank all Members for their contributions—I am pleased to see so many people here. I came to this debate feeling really apprehensive about the subject—it is something I have sleepless nights about. I am leaving terrified at the prospect of 20,000 extra police on the streets spending a large proportion of their time filling 500 spaces for women in prisons in order to justify the money that the Government have spent on this. That is certainly not what we need to be doing. We need to provide a different service for women. We need to recognise the fact that women have specific needs. They are in large part victims, despite the fact that they have been labelled as criminals. Most of them are victims of society and, I am afraid to say, victims of this Government’s disinterest in providing anything for them.
We have to stop perpetuating the cycle of criminality and incarceration, criminality and incarceration. We have a moral duty to provide sustainable, productive, appropriate and holistic support and to encourage these women to be productive and to re-engage with society. That is a far better way of using taxpayers’ money than freeing up spaces in prisons. We have to be more humane in the way that we provide for these vulnerable and all too often exploited individuals. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts, not on putting them in prisons. I ask the Minister to please rethink the strategy. Too many women will lose their life, dignity, children, families and homes. We cannot perpetuate this any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for women leaving prison.
Teignmouth Hospital
(3 years, 1 month 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
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Teignmouth Hospital.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. This is the story of a hospital being closed by stealth. Teignmouth Hospital, which is in my constituency, was built in 1954. It was one of the first purpose-built NHS hospitals and offered a wide range of services. Even today, it has three community clinics, in audiology, physiotherapy and podiatry, which have largely been funded by the League of Friends. In addition, there are out-patient clinics dealing with abdominal aortic screening, anaesthetics, breast, cardiology, chronic fatigue—there are 23 of them in total, so I will not labour through all of them, in the interests of time and to allow a proper discussion of this issue. The hospital also has an operating theatre, which takes day cases relating to eye complaints and skin issues.
However, all of this was put into a quandary in 2014, when the local clinical commissioning group decided to look again at how health and care should be properly provided in Teignmouth and Dawlish. That is absolutely the right thing to do. However, my issue is with how it has been done, and with the evidence that has been collected and the way it has been evaluated.
The consultations took the following steps. First of all, they looked at removing two of the in-patient wards within Teignmouth Hospital. So, at a stroke in 2016 and after two consultations—one in 2014-15 and one in 2016—a decision was made to remove two whole wards. As anyone can imagine, the local community were not at all happy and the only thing that helped was the promise of 12 new rehabilitation beds to help in the community. That would have been very appropriate in a rural community with an ageing population, which mine is, and with a state-of-the-art physiotherapy unit paid for, as I have said, by the League of Friends. However, what was even worse was that those rehabilitation beds were never delivered. A unilateral decision was then taken in 2017 that there would be no rehabilitation beds. No evidence was produced and no consultation took place.
Then, in 2018 a further consultation looked at a reconfiguration of services. The creation of a new health hub, which was the core proposal, was and remains absolutely the right thing to do, and is in accordance with the NHS Long Term Plan. It would house the GPs in Teignmouth and an integrated care hub, with individuals from the voluntary sector, and the three community clinics. However, the out-patient clinics—all 23 of them—were to be relocated to another hospital in Dawlish. It is not that far away, but given our transport problems it is quite far enough away to be problematic for an ageing population.
The consequence suggested—but with no questions asked—because of the hub and the relocation of services to Dawlish, was that Teignmouth Hospital would necessarily close. There was no consultation. It seems to me that although there has been a consultation on reconfiguration, there has been no consultation on a hospital closure. It is my understanding that legally—never mind to ensure best care—such a consultation should take place.
I and a number of colleagues were very disquieted by all this. Indeed, the health scrutiny committee at Devon County Council was sufficiently concerned about the lack of evidence and the failure to consult that it went to the reconfiguration panel to take informal advice as to what it should do. It is only the health scrutiny committee, under current legislative provisions, that can, in effect, call in such a decision. It is my belief that, had it done that formally, the reconfiguration panel would have had to take a much more serious approach. Instead, its response to the request for advice was, frankly, a bit of a pat on the head: “Go and talk to the clinical commissioning group; I’m sure you can resolve your differences,” or words to that effect. I do not really think that is a responsible reply to a very urgent and well meant request for assistance, and my view would be, in the light of that response, that the county council, through its scrutiny committee, should now make a formal application.
The issue is that Teignmouth Hospital is to close, without any consultation at all. Why does that matter? It matters because there has been no assessment of the health and care outcomes for residents of Teignmouth. Without such a consultation, how can we be clear that health and care needs are being properly met? Worse, the consultation takes no account of what is happening in the landscape of social care. In Teignmouth there are no nursing care homes, so there is no fall-back; there are no other beds in the community that can be used.
Why are the health scrutiny committee and I so exercised about the flaws in the reconfiguration, which mean that closing Teignmouth Hospital without consultation is a real mistake? First, the decision is based on an assumption that all intermediary care can be undertaken at home, with the balance in nursing care homes. I contend that it is simply unrealistic to consider that all intermediate care can be undertaken in an individual’s home. There are lots of reasons for that. First, we do not have any nursing care homes in Teignmouth. Secondly, even if we did, rehabilitation is not what nursing homes are all about. Thirdly, some of these elderly people have to have help come to them from some distance, which makes it a challenge. We also have an acute lack of domiciliary care provision. That puts a very big question mark over the key assumption that underpins all the decision making.
The evidence that was presented is inadequate in quality and in quantity. There was a lot of data; I am drowning in data, but I have very little genuine information and very little genuine analysis. On that basis, I am very unhappy with what I have seen. It is fundamentally desk-based research by the clinical senate and the University of Plymouth—two outstanding institutions. However, the information that they have used is simply records of beds and their use, whether in a hospital setting or otherwise. It looks at discharge and delayed discharge, but because there are no beds at the moment in Teignmouth Hospital, there is nowhere for people to go other than home, or a care home outside Teignmouth, so is it surprising that we find an argument being made that those beds that were in Teignmouth Hospital are not needed? It seems to me that a negative cannot prove a positive.
Of more concern is the fact that there is no research whatever on the patient experience. Given the lack of domiciliary care provision, that is a crucial omission. People should bear it in mind that, at this point in time, the hospital’s beds have been closed for two years. Why has no evidence been gleaned as to the quality and quantity of the care provided to people in their homes? That seems to me a glaring error, which must be resolved.
It also seems to me that the evidence is definitely defective. It takes no account of this new, post-covid world. I accept that the consultation started before covid, but it has lasted through covid, and for me that has made one thing clear: the old system we had, which was very much just in time, is no longer the way forward. We must have a resilient care system. That means taking into account the impact of covid. We know long covid is following covid. We know that that specifically requires a lot of rehabilitation care. I raised that with the clinical commissioning group, who believed it was inappropriate to take account of the figures for 2020-21 because those covid figures were unrepresentative. I find that strange, because, if those are unrepresentative of the real need, surely the figures for 2019 are equally not representative. That causes me real concern.
I will turn to the proposal in relation to the other services, not beds in Teignmouth Hospital. That care is to continue to be provided in Dawlish Hospital. Dawlish is, effectively, to take double the number of referrals—23 out-patient clinic patients on top of its existing load of patients. The “building works”, which I would not really call building works, will simply reconfigure the maternity room into two consulting rooms. It is a bit like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. There is no evidence of any real effort to ensure that Dawlish is properly configured to meet what will be an increasing demand.
As for the hub itself, there is no evidence that it will have the capacity to take all the GPs, all the community service clinics, the integrated care hub and the voluntary sector representatives. Yes, planning permission has been put in for and, indeed, granted. It is clear how the rooms will be configured in the new hub, but not how they will be used, and until they are used we simply do not have evidence that they will be sufficient for the need.
What is the way forward? It seems to me—because we have two years during which the hub is to be built—that the first priority is to collect the missing data. Let us collect the data for 2020-21, and look properly at bed occupancy and why it is as it is. Let us look at discharge, readmissions and waiting lists. Let us look particularly at the impact that long covid will have in that period on rehabilitation care and growing need. Let us also undertake some research on the quality and quantity of home-based care. There is no evidence about either of those in anything that has been presented by the clinical commissioning group. Worse, there is nothing on the patient experience at all. When all the data has been gathered, let us have a separate consultation on Teignmouth Hospital—not only after the data has been gathered but after the hub has been opened and we can see whether it is adequate, and Dawlish has taken on its additional work.
To be clear about the impact of the reconfiguration on Teignmouth residents, all those things must be taken into account. That is right and responsible. If we get the decision wrong, we could well find that we are closing a facility only to spend money on reopening something else to meet the rehabilitation need that is not met. That is lose-lose. I would be the first to agree that it is an ageing hospital, but it could be improved—not to become state of the art, and I am not looking for that; but it would cost just over £600,000 to get it to a position where it could continue to provide the services that are needed.
My ask of the Minister and the Secretary of State is, first, to intervene to stop this automatic closure of Teignmouth Hospital, as the Secretary of State did to stop the closure of Chorley hospital accident and emergency department in Lancashire. I quote regional director Bill McCarthy:
“We have received instruction from both the secretary of state for health and the minister of state for health, to work with the integrated care system and local leadership to develop an option that provides safe, high quality care, that continues to include Chorley”
emergency department. That was reported in “North by Northwest” in February this year, not many weeks ago.
I do not have an opinion as to whether that was the right decision, but the Secretary of State said expressly in the very recent latest White Paper—which will lead to an NHS Bill—that he intends to enable power to be given to him to call in decisions such as the Teignmouth one and to remove the reconfiguration panel. From the experience I have had, that panel is not fit for purpose.
My second ask is that the Secretary of State and the Minister instruct the reconfiguration panel that no closure of any hospital or facility should be made going forward without the impacts of covid having been taken into account and a proper impact assessment having been made.
My third ask is for the Secretary of State and the Minister to instruct the clinical commissioning group to put in hand a separate consultation specifically on the closure of Teignmouth Hospital, after the data I referred to have been collected, and to mandate the CCG to collect the necessary evidence on patient experience, on the impact of Dawlish Hospital and on the adequacy of the new hub at Teignmouth. The group should then review the data collected and analyse it properly.
Teignmouth Hospital deserves better and the people of Teignmouth deserve the Secretary of State’s support. I ask the Minister in his place to grant that support and to do what he and the Secretary of State are more than capable of doing, so setting an example of how important health and care are to him and to us. That would set a marker that covid has changed the game and that covid, and long covid in particular, must influence and guide future decisions on hospital closures. I thank you for your indulgence, Sir Charles, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, in a sense for the second time. In my first Committee post in the House, when I was first elected, I served under your chairmanship on the Procedure Committee.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this debate on such an important subject, and one that I know she has taken a close and long-standing interest in on behalf of her constituents, for whom she is a very strong local voice. From the outset, I pay tribute—I suspect with her—to the amazing work during the pandemic that has been done by not only all those working in our NHS but those in her local trust and hospital. I hope I might prevail on her to pass on my thanks to her local team.
As my hon. Friend set out, Teignmouth Community Hospital is part of Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust and provides health and care services to patients across Teignmouth and Dawlish. She set out their work very clearly in her speech, alongside a very helpful exposition of the broader health and social care context in the area in which she serves as the Member of Parliament. She recognised it, quite rightly—I hear her plea—as a whole system, and the broader picture, rather than as individual siloed parts of a health system. In the past, she and I have had the pleasure of discussing what she cares deeply about, which is the future evolution of health and social care as a coherent single model. I hope that it will not be too long before we can have those conversations in person again in this place.
As part of its work on ensuring that services across Devon are, as the CCG sees it, fit for the future and fully address the aspirations of the NHS long-term plan, the CCG, as my hon. Friend says, has been reviewing how services are provided and how to best integrate services in order to make improvements for the most vulnerable people in the communities that it serves. Considerable progress has been made in this area, for which I highlight the work of the CCG.
However, the ongoing review process has highlighted that three main cases for change remain, in the view of the CCG: that the joined-up community care now provided means that, in the CCG’s view, the 12 rehabilitation beds previously promised for Teignmouth community hospital are no longer needed, and my hon. Friend made very clear her views on that on behalf of her constituents; that there is a pressing need to safeguard the future of primary care across the entirety of the area she represents; and that both the national local strategies to integrate care further make the best use of the NHS estate.
The CCG’s reviews of the need for rehabilitation beds at Teignmouth hospital led it to believe that the health and wellbeing team was successfully meeting the needs of local patients without them, but my hon. Friend set out clearly her concerns about that conclusion and the reasons why she has those concerns. I will mention at this point an important contextual point. While hopefully many things we have seen in the past year relating to covid will become things of the past soon, it is highly likely that covid has changed the nature of how we look at the provision of healthcare, and that there are lessons to learn there for the long term and for the future. I think I heard her clearly saying that we should not lose that by virtue of something that was begun before covid not being able to scoop up and learn those lessons for the future—i.e. future-proofing the services that her constituents rely on. I am sure that the CCG will have heard her message loud and clear on that particular point.
My hon. Friend talked about the consultation and the decision-making process in some detail. Clearly, as I gather from that and from a letter she has recently written to the Secretary of State, which I will turn to in a moment when I conclude, she has undertaken a lot of work in looking at these consultation processes, the history of them, the genesis of them and how over time they have changed what they have been looking at.
As my hon. Friend said, the CCG undertook a formal consultation from 1 September to 26 October 2020—I caveat that with the point that my hon. Friend and I made earlier, which is that that was mid covid and not after the covid pandemic—which proposed to move high-use community clinics from Teignmouth community hospital to a health and wellbeing centre in Teignmouth; to move specialist outpatient clinics from Teignmouth community hospital to Dawlish community hospital, four miles away; to move day-case procedures from Teignmouth community hospital to Dawlish community hospital, which she picked up on clearly in her speech at the opening of the debate; to continue with that model of community-based intermediate care; and to reverse the decision to establish 12 rehabilitation beds at Teignmouth community hospital, as advocated by the CCG and, it asserts, as supported by previous public engagement in 2018 on the success of the service provision without the beds.
I understand that NHS England’s position is that the consultation in 2020 set out that a likely consequence of the reconfiguration was that the requirement for those beds in Teignmouth would no longer be there for the local NHS. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says; she highlighted that, in her view and that of her constituents, that is worthy of a more discrete and focused consultation.
The consultation was overseen by the independent Healthwatch for Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, which analysed the just over 1,000 responses received, finding that 61.3% of respondents were in favour of the overall proposals. The equality impact assessment undertaken indicated that, overall, the impact on people using the services affected by this proposal was deemed by them to be of benefit, while the EIA indicated that, overall, the impact on people using the services affected by this proposal was neutral or of benefit.
Following a review of both consultation feedback and the quality and equality impact assessments, the steering group approved the consultation and agreed to make a recommendation to the CCG governing body that all four elements of the consultation proposal be approved. The Teignmouth steering group approved the consultation and the local NHS plans to continue to review the proposed model of care in light of potential changes in levels of need within the local area, as well as—they have related to my office—the impact of covid-19 on ways of working. I will turn to that in a minute, as well as an offer that I will make to my hon. Friend when I conclude.
I am aware that, as she has said, local councillors recently wrote to the independent reconfiguration panel to seek informal advice on this reconfiguration, and have been advised to continue to work co-operatively with the CCG to find a local resolution. My understanding is that the IRP is constrained in what it can or cannot do and how it can engage where it is not a formal referral, but I understand from what my hon. Friend said that that remains a possibility, so I will be a little cautious about prejudging whether that may or may not happen. She asked a number of specific questions—for example, about Chorley, and then her asks at the end of her speech. What I would say about Chorley is that we do not have the power to instruct in the context of reconfiguration at this point, hence the legislative proposals that she talked about. We requested that they look at this, which they accepted, but I add the slight caveat that, as I understand it, we do not have the legal power to instruct the local CCG to do x or y at this point in the reconfiguration.
However, what I can offer to her within that legal constraint, which may be of help to her, is that first, of course, I will endeavour to reply to her letter swiftly, with responses to the detailed points she has raised in it. Secondly, although the legal powers available to me in the name of the Secretary of State are limited until and unless an IRP referral is received and the advice is then given, I am always delighted to meet with my hon. Friend if she feels that would be helpful. It may be helpful to her if I arrange to meet with her outwith this debate, to discuss with her in more detail some of the process points and legal constraints, but also to listen in more detail than she is perhaps able to set out in a debate of this sort. I would expect her CCG to have heard her voice in the House today loud and clear, as I suspect it does in her capacity as the local Member of Parliament on the ground in Newton Abbot.
It is right that all reconfiguration decisions are taken in the best interests of patients and the local population following the due process, and it is that due process that slightly constrains what I can say or do in this context. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to the NHS in Devon to support patients, and to continue to provide the people of Devon and of her constituency with the best possible care, so the people affected by these changes need to be involved in making the key decisions—including my hon. Friend, of course, as their elected voice. I would hope and expect that the CCG will set out a clear plan to engage proactively with her and with the local population, and would encourage all of her constituents to be involved in that process.
I will reiterate two things on the record. First, I will of course reply to my hon. Friend’s letter. Secondly, I repeat my offer to meet with her separately to discuss in more detail what is and is not possible within the legal constraints around the reconfiguration process, and also to learn more about Teignmouth Hospital. I hope that in more normal times, when such things are possible, I might be able to come down and see my hon. Friend in sunny Devon, to visit that hospital with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Cyber-troop Activity: UK
(3 years, 1 month 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
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cyber troop activity in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I secured this debate because I feel that we cannot go into another round of elections in May with our heads in the sand about a very real threat to our democracy: industrialised disinformation by state and political actors. Across political divides we must stand against the forces that seek to smear, manipulate, speak untruths and undermine the legitimacy of Governments or political opponents, through underhand and under-regulated techniques.
Politics, by its nature, will always host opposing and differing views, and that is absolutely right, as is the opportunity to debate the points around these views, but it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the public can have confidence in the information that they see presented from politicians and those who report on political events. The old adage that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on certainly applies here, but at a whole new industrialised level, with mass distribution only ever a mouse click away.
Social media has been both a blessing and a curse. It is, in theory, a great leveller, providing an open platform for the discussion of ideas and helping the disadvantaged to organise groups to get their voices heard. It opens up publishing to citizen journalists, speaking without gatekeepers. However, in many ways, instead of widening the debate, it has become increasingly polarised and dominated by echo chambers, with information provision ruled by mysterious algorithms. The lack of editorial content control has created a nightmare for fact checking and fairness, and increasing numbers of nefarious actors have learned how to manipulate the system, fuel conspiracy theories and sow division. The waters have become murky and it is a pool in which many people no longer want to swim.
It cannot be dismissed simply as modern-day political spin. The new technologies create far more poisonous possibilities for the most Machiavellian practitioners of the dark arts, and there is plenty of evidence that they are taking advantage of these new superpowers. Those who want to see standards and integrity in public life maintained cannot simply stand by and ignore it.
Millions are being spent on orchestrated disinformation in what the Electoral Reform Society described as the unregulated “wild west” of online political campaigning. Organised cyber-troop operations use an increasingly sophisticated armoury to alter the nature and course of legitimate political debate, to smear and discredit opponents, to interfere in foreign affairs and generally to create distrust in the very processes on which democracy relies. Facts get confused, opposing points of view are tainted and people are turned off by an onslaught of hate, misleading propaganda and deliberately divisive content.
Techniques used by these cyber-troops include armies of trolls or political bots amplifying particular opinions or hate speech, harassment, doxxing, smearing, doctoring images and videos, mass reporting of content and illegally harvesting data to micro-target with misleading information. They do it because it works.
Fergus Bell, the co-founder of London-based media consultancy Fathm, has worked on many elections and believes that false information shared online has been “very successful” at swaying voters. It does not have to be direct in its influence but, as he says,
“if you cause division between people, or if you can change someone’s mind on one tiny thing that might make them vote differently, you can push an election”.
The cyber-troops have precise, data-driven strategies to home in on the soft spots, and they know exactly where those are.
People who are targeted by these tactics may be disenfranchised by the processes, become disillusioned with everyone involved in politics and no longer bother to participate in democracy. In some cases, this appears to be the purpose of cyber-troop activities, as Channel 4 reported in the US elections, where they found evidence of micro-targeting by the Trump campaign to deter 3.5 million black Americans from voting at all. That type of voter suppression should alarm us all.
The rapid rise of disinformation industries is evidenced in the Oxford Internet Institute’s report, “Industrialized Disinformation: 2020 Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation”. It is quite a wake-up call for those who think that these things could not happen or do not happen here. The report found that 81 countries are now using social media to spread computational propaganda and disinformation about politics, including the UK, which is a jump from 70 countries in the previous year.
The report found evidence of Chinese, Russian and Iranian-backed disinformation campaigns about covid-19 to amplify anti-democratic narratives and undermine trust in health officials. Microsoft has also warned that hackers operating out of Russia, China and Iran were targeting the staff and associates of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden ahead of the US election last year. In Argentina, a “deepfake” video was used to manipulate the Minister of Security to make her appear drunk.
As for China, a 2017 Harvard paper estimated that the Chinese Government employ 2 million people to write 448 million social media posts a year. The primary purpose of this activity is to keep online discussions away from sensitive political topics. Closer to home, the long-delayed Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee confirmed that there was “credible open source commentary” suggesting that Russia tried to influence the Scottish independence referendum and subsequent elections. Yet astonishingly it seems that the Government have not yet sought to find evidence of interference in the EU referendum and instead took an ostrich-like approach to defending our democratic process. At the very least, I would hope that the Government could be looking to implement the recommendations of the ISC report.
It is not just foreign interference that is at stake here; the UK has to get its own house in order. There are questions about data-driven profiling and Facebook advertising by political actors in the UK. In the 2019 general election, 90% of the Conservative party’s Facebook advertisements in early December were labelled as misleading by Full Fact. The real danger of this kind of misleading content is that cyber-troop tactics can then be used to amplify it to the extent that, by the time it is rebutted, it has already reached thousands of feeds. The Conservatives even tried to rebrand their Twitter output during a debate as coming from “factcheckUK”, changed its logo to hide its political origins and pushed pro-Conservative material in a way that deliberately confused it with independent fact-checking sites.
Another question is why Topham Guerin, one of the communications companies behind the 2019 campaign, was awarded a £3 million covid-19 contract by the Government. It is yet more evidence of the need for my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which aims to hold the Government to account, to be supported in all quarters of the House—but that matter is for another day.
Although it is not always clear who is behind these actions, there is always clear evidence of bots being used to swell numbers artificially and drive political positions. A study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue identified that almost all of the 10 most active accounts on Twitter discussing the Brexit party appeared to be automated bots, while prior to the 2019 general election a report found that a third of the Prime Minister’s own Twitter followers were bots.
Tackling this issue is not about silencing voices; it is about getting back some semblance of a level playing field, recognising the range of genuine voices and turning down the noise from the fakes. The UK is one of 48 countries identified in the Oxford report where cyber-troop manipulation campaigns are being run by private firms on behalf of Government or political actors. The report found that almost $60 million had been spent on hiring these firms since 2009, but I suspect that this figure is only the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be greater transparency and a tightening of the links between the public sector and private contractors.
Cyber-troops sometimes work in conjunction with civil society organisations, internet subcultures, youth groups and fringe movements; groups who may be motivated by genuinely held beliefs but whose causes may ultimately be damaged by those who strategically spread disinformation or computational propaganda. Take, for example, Turning Point, a right-wing youth pressure group. A US Senate report found that its social media activity was regularly co-opted and reposted by the Internet Research Agency, which is known in Russian slang as the “trolls from Olgino”.
The use of third-party campaigning organisations can also be a way to rig the system—to channel illegal levels of funds and campaigns, or at the very least to exploit gaps in our outdated electoral laws in order to press political agendas. Many questions have rightly been asked about the official Vote Leave campaign’s techniques, their links to other groups, the “dark money” spent and their micro-targeting techniques, used in breach of privacy laws.
As the Vote Leave campaign demonstrated, tougher rules are needed in the conduct of future referenda, as well as elections. The Scottish Government introduced the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 to better regulate the conduct of any future referendum, where they have the power to do so, including on campaign spending and donations. I would like to see further action to tighten the rules in this place too.
Fighting cyber-troops is complex and has to be tackled on several fronts, with governments, civil society, academia and technology businesses all having a role to play. The social media giants must certainly be better regulated and take greater responsibility for what is published. I therefore welcome the moves to improve regulation through the online safety Bill.
However, the misinformation and disinformation being propagated by cyber-troops is clearly an ongoing and growing aspect of online harms, so it is disappointing that this aspect has not been robustly tackled through these proposals. There are half-hearted plans from the Government for digital imprints, which is a move in the right direction, towards greater transparency, but it does not go far enough or fast enough. The get-out clause, which is that the imprint can be located in an
“accessible alternative location linked to the material”,
is not good enough.
Online political advertising remains largely unregulated, and there is nothing from the Government so far that shows a determination to better regulate against indecent and dishonest material, dark ads or data targeting. At the very least, we need to see who is using citizens’ data and why, as well as why people see particular ads. I believe that, on this front, the European regulatory plans go further than those of the UK.
I am aware of the challenges with regulating and fact-checking political content, but it is not impossible to overcome these, and it is essential that this is looked at urgently. It is no longer enough simply to rely on a sense of fair play and “a fair crack of the whip for all sides” to manage the truth amidst the overwhelming barrage of information being dumped upon us. There is no chance for rebuttals from opponents when so much content can spread so widely and maliciously, without any clarity or transparency on the sources.
It is not enough to treat the threat of cyber-troops as solely an electoral phenomenon. The Government’s counter-disinformation unit is usually only operational during periods of heightened vulnerability, when we know that cyber-troops are working to sow division and discord every minute of every day.
Much needs to be done to reform the rules, strengthen democracy and restore faith in our democratic processes, yet there has been disappointingly slow progress so far. Many organisations, such as Reset and the Fair Vote Project, are working on this alongside the all- party parliamentary groups on electoral campaigning transparency and digital regulation and responsibility. They are doing the research and taking forward proposals on a cross-party basis, so a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done on the Government’s behalf.
However, the Government have given no indication that they collect data on cyber-troop activity, despite the important role that they should be playing in analysing and assessing this threat. When I have raised questions about cyber-troops, I have been advised, in response, that the Government’s fine-sounding “defending democracy programme” is tackling this. However, from what I have found so far, it does not seem to be doing very much. Perhaps the Minister can point me to something other than that when she responds today.
We need to stop kicking this into the long grass. There is plenty of evidence of the threats from both within and outwith the UK. I have previously called for a debate, in Government time, on the need for electoral reforms to protect free and fair elections. However, if I cannot have that, we need to have it moving forward on another basis.
This is not a party political issue; it is about integrity in public life. Political differences are healthy, as is debate, but the tactics of division and disinformation from cyber-troops are a cancer on all political discourse, and it is spreading too fast to ignore. We all have a moral imperative to take action, and I call on this Government to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for setting the scene so well. He knows that we do not agree on everything—far from it—but there are many things that we do agree on, and I echo his concerns. This is not about hearing a point of view that we may disagree with; it is about whether something is right; whether it is true.
I was looking through The Times today, and one of the stories refers to fake news and also a fake review, where facts are disputed and questioned. Fake news, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, can suddenly become the perceived truth when quite clearly it is not. I remember many years ago, when I was a young boy, some people at school telling me that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. Whether that is true or not, I suspect that sometimes it is true. People tell a story or a so-called fact over and over, and suddenly somebody will say it is true. That worries me greatly.
The hon. Member for Midlothian referred to voter suppression, and he mentioned the United States of America as an example. What happens in America very often ends up happening here—it is said that when America sneezes, we catch a cold. If that is right, then we need to be really on top of what is happening. The hon. Gentleman referred to three countries, but I will refer to four. Other countries that are very much involved in voter suppression, fake news and telling the truth in a way that suits their political ambitions are Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. In the press a few months ago they were talking about the ability that North Korea now has to do this as well.
I think the Government really need to be on top of this and know what has been put out as wrong and untruthful, and respond to it in a really positive fashion. I have done the armed forces parliamentary scheme over the years. The last time we did it was with the Royal Air Force and the first couple of times was with the Army. Last time, even with those few years of difference between when I did it way back in 2012 and 2013 and again in 2018, I could see how the role of the Ministry of Defence and the RAF was changing, even compared with just four or five years ago. I just wanted to highlight that. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response—I say that nicely, but she knows I mean it—which I hope will give us the important reassurance that we seek.
I do not want to say much more but I will refer to a couple more things if I may. Misinformation can be a danger. A comment deliberately taken out of context can and has caused irreparable harm. The good book—the Bible—says that the word is mightier than the sword. It certainly is. It can hurt more. Surgically, the sword can bleed you, but words spoken out of tune, out of place and hurtfully can strike deeper to the heart than anything else. I am always very aware of that as well.
I support the notion of combating this at Governmental level, which is why I look to the Minister for a positive and helpful response. However—I know the hon. Member for Midlothian will understand my point—neither can we be in the position of becoming the guardian of speech. Sir Charles, you are one of those who believes in free speech, and I believe that we must remain free; we must possess the ability to have opposing views, and a way that we can agree to differ and still be friends at the end of it. That is always what I look to do in the comments that I make. We must possess the ability to have opposing views and state them in a non-threatening factual way, with the truth very much in place.
I watched the polarisation that took place in the United States over the last election, and in this nation in reference to Brexit. I am a Brexiteer, and I am glad that we are out of the EU—as a Northern Ireland MP, I know there are obviously issues with the deal, but I am glad that we are out—but how much of that was due to the influences of a variety of forms of social media?
The hon. Member for Midlothian referred to social media, which we all know can be a plus, but it can also be an absolute curse that can destroy people and carry all the wrong things. We all know friends, including colleagues in my party, who have been trolled, as I have been. Some of the comments are absolutely despicable My staff probably try to protect me from it, which, by the way, is not a bad thing, because an ill spoken word can be mightier than the sword.
We need to watch our words and ensure that our truth does not eclipse the truth. When I say, “our truth”, I do not mean my truth or the hon. Gentleman’s truth; I mean someone putting out what they refer to as “the truth” when it is not. The balance will be hard to find, but I believe that he, like me, wants to find that balance. That is the thrust of what he said, and I support that. I encourage the Government to use publications such as the “Industrialized Disinformation: 2020 Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation” report, published by the University of Oxford, along with other evidence to find an informed and balanced way forward.
The hon. Gentleman referred to integrity and said that debate is healthy. So it is. I am always happy to speak to anyone who has a different point of view from me because there is no threat in that, but we should be able to debate in a healthy and constructive way and, at the end of it, still be able to go our different ways, perhaps still with our own points of view.
I finish with a biblical quote as I sometimes like to do in debates, and I hold strongly to this. I was sat here, thinking:
“the truth will set you free”.
I knew that from an early age as a young boy in the children’s meetings in my village and back home in Ballywalter. It is true in political life, it is true in social life and it is true in everything. The truth will set you free. We need to hold to the truth. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We now go to the Front-Bench speakers, who have five minutes each, until the Minister, who has 10 minutes.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Sir Charles, and to serve under your chairmanship for this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson).
Disinformation, and state-sponsored disinformation campaigns in particular, is an issue close to my heart, and I know it is close to my hon. Friend’s heart. Disinformation represents a growing threat, as was adumbrated in the Oxford Internet Institute’s report he referenced in his opening remarks. It is not just that there are now more so-called cyber-troops working on disinformation campaigns but that they are growing in sophistication, the amount of money being spent on that around the globe has grown into the many millions, and the threat is going only in one direction.
As we know from the events in Capitol Hill in January, disinformation has to radicalise only a relatively small percentage of the population to be a serious and violent threat not just to others in society but to democracy itself. Of course, there are countless examples of that in history throughout the world. We can even look—if anyone cares to—at the example of the bronze soldier of Tallinn in Estonia in 2007.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right to highlight that this is not about regulating people’s opinions and views. He is a staunch Unionist who I have a lot of respect for, and I am a staunch supporter of Scottish independence. It is an idea that has been around since around 843 AD and is a perfectly mainstream view to hold, albeit that I accept it is not held by a majority of those appearing in the debate this evening. However, the Scottish National party recognises how we in particular can be targeted, to be used as a means to sow division, through hostile actors weaponising a mainstream, legitimate idea. We do not want that to happen. We want our debates to be conducted entirely properly.
I want to call for a couple of things. Members of Parliament need a greater understanding of the threat picture. When we talk about the sophisticated network of cyber-troops, exactly what does that mean? I ask the Government to facilitate briefings on the threat picture. I also want us to have a national strategy to counter disinformation. It should build information resilience, and not just among young people in schools—important though that is. The strategy should reach every part of the population. The pandemic has surely shown us why that is important.
Lastly—we could go on much longer, I am sure—I plead with the Government, while accepting that it is not the departmental responsibility of the Minister: the ISC recommendations in the Russia report must be implemented. There is agreement across all the parties in the House on that, and the Government must implement those recommendations, disinformation being one of the many areas where not just the UK but many open societies are vulnerable. There is a good discussion that we could have, that would be free of party political heat, to ensure that we do that, and build a resilient democracy that allows ideas to be debated and to flourish as they should in any free, open society. I think we can all agree on that.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
In these one-hour debates the two Opposition Front Benchers get five minutes each, but, since we have a bit of time, if the Labour shadow Minister would like to take a little longer, she can. I hope that all Ministers’ and shadow Ministers’ offices make them aware of the rules on Westminster Hall debates and timings; but please, shadow Minister, have a little longer. It is not as if we are short of time at the moment.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Charles. I greatly appreciate that, but in any case I would like to start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, and what appropriate discretion you show.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who called today’s debate. The internet plays an ever-increasing role in our lives, as the pandemic has shown. Our work, social and family lives, and our Parliament, are all largely online, and we get our news from online sources and develop our politics digitally. Research by Ofcom shows that Facebook now rivals ITV as the second most popular news source for UK adults. That is reflected at party level. In 2018 the UK’s three largest parties spent £3.7 million on Facebook advertising alone, which, as Members have observed, is largely unregulated.
We live in a digital age and there are, unsurprisingly, perhaps, emerging digital threats to our democracy, so today’s debate is overdue and I am concerned that the Government are weak on online protections, and are presiding over continuing delays to the online safety Bill as well as failing to decisively oversee the impact of Huawei on our telecoms networks.
As we have heard, cyber-troops are Government military or political party teams, committed to manipulating public opinion over social media. I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian again. I was the first Member of Parliament to mention the internet of things in the House. As I understand it, he is the first Member of Parliament to mention cyber-troops in a debate, and in congratulating him—it is, as we have heard, a very important subject—I wonder why the Government are not bringing forward or raising issues of this importance. It has been 11 years since the earliest reports of organised social media manipulation in 2010, which coincided with the first Conservative Government after Labour.
Members have mentioned the research by the University of Oxford that found that cyber-troop teams use a variety of strategies, tools and techniques, but they often have an overarching communications strategy that involves creating official Government applications, websites or platforms for disseminating content, using accounts that are either real, fake, or automated to interact with users on social media, or creating substantive content such as images, videos or blog posts—fake images, as well. They do not have to be sinister or abusive in themselves: for example, Israel deploys the policy of positive interactions with social media users who are critical of the Government, and the Czech Republic seeks to provide neutral fact-checking services. However, negative strategies are used, as we have heard.
These Government-sponsored accounts are not always run directly by the services whose message they are spreading, nor is that message always obvious. The University of Oxford research found one Russian cyber-trooper who ran a fortune-telling blog that provided insight into relationships, weight loss, feng shui, and just occasionally geopolitics, with the goal of weaving propaganda seamlessly into what appeared to be the non-political musings of an everyday person. The serious point is that this can be very hard to detect by the most informed consumer.
With the vast range of activities, sources and strategies deployed by cyber-troops, it is important to keep up with the changing geopolitical landscape, so I ask the Minister to tell me what assessment has been made of these measures deployed by cyber-troops across the world, and specifically what the impact is on UK citizens and our democracy. The emergence of these strategies and threats is a threat to our democracy, which emphasises the importance of collaboration with our friends and allies to fully map the threats that we face. We have heard of the well-publicised Russian disinformation campaign in the US 2016 election, as well as our lack of resilience, and even as our service personnel are mobilised to help contain the pandemic, our adversaries are feeding disinformation and division into our communities. That shows how essential public understanding is in a crisis, and that the enemies of democracy will exploit every weakness. The Government launched the armed forces cyber-regiment last year. That is good, but I ask the Minister why it took so long, and whether we have already been exposed to digital hostility.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) emphasised the changing role of the armed forces, and I pay tribute to his work with the armed forces. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Defence specifically on cyber-troops? There can be confusion between the responsibilities of the National Cyber Security Centre and those of Ofcom in this key area, so could she outline where the demarcation is there? As we have heard, cyber-troops operate primarily on social media: Facebook, Google, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, and all parts of our social lives, as well as our work lives and consumer lives. However, we have little control over how that content is curated. Facebook itself says that millions of users have been exposed to coronavirus disinformation, so I ask the Minister why we are so slow to introduce any effective regulation of online content, when the online safety Bill will be before us, and whether it will include anything to address cyber-troops.
The hon. Member for Midlothian also highlighted the impact of disinformation on our democracy specifically. What discussions has the Minister had about the need to reform our electoral system to protect it from foreign interference, as the Electoral Commission and the Law Commission have set out in a number of reports? Does she accept that cyber-troops warrant reform to our electoral laws, and what recommendations does she have, if any?
It is harder than ever to trust what we see online, with fake images pretending to be from reputable sources such as the BBC and so on. As we have heard, the Government were themselves guilty of that during the 2019 general election, when they changed their official social media channels to appear as unbiased, neutral fact-checkers. The bots may be following the Prime Minister, but is the Prime Minister following the bots?
So far, the Government appear content to leave those issues to the market, but it is a market that has allowed the spread of disinformation, opening the door to cyber-troops. Self-regulation by the social media giants has failed, and they have made little progress. Twitter has begun checking some of its posts, and Mark Zuckerberg has rolled back on his declaration that Facebook would not become the arbiter of peace, but that is too little, too late, and there is not enough progress. Will the Minister explain why the only requirement that she places on those platforms is that they should not make money from disinformation? Surely there has to be a higher standard than not directly profiting from it.
Finally, anonymity is a complex issue, but the sheer scale of misinformation, online abuse and extremism means that there has to be more we can do. We recognise anonymity as a shield for whisteblowers, victims finding refuge online, or children in minorities exploring self-expression, but how does the Minister see the relationship between anonymity and the work of cyber-troops? Is she looking at the trade-off of protecting privacy and free speech—the hon. Member for Strangford talked about the importance of free speech, and I echo that point—and protecting our democracy and citizens from harm and abuse? Inaction is to make the worst trade-off of them all.
This Government have been in place, in one form or another, since 2010, and in that time we have seen a dramatic change in the prominence and the role that the online world plays in our lives, our democracy, our news and our understanding of the world, yet we have seen no action from the Government. Understanding mapping and measuring the impact of cyber-troops on UK citizens is an action that any responsible Government should be taking. We have heard today about the ways in which cyber-troops are deployed, controlled and developed, but those strategies will not stay the same—they will continue to evolve—and we are not even playing catch-up, because we do not seem to be in the game at all. I am really pleased that those key points have been raised in the debate, and I hope that the Minister will set out in her response the action that the Government will take.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Sir Charles. I join everyone else in thanking the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for bringing forward this really important topic. I know that he has long been a really powerful and strong voice on the subject, and he is absolutely right to keep bringing attention to the issue, because the worrying industrialisation in disinformation is something that we should all be concerned about.
A number of Members have spoken about the increasing sophistication of digital technology. Even this week there was a deepfake of Tom Cruise on TikTok; it was incredibly lifelike and plausible and was not intended for sinister purposes. That only underlines what is the art of the possible if that technology is in the hands of those who are up to no good. It has always been vital that UK citizens have access to accurate information when it comes to elections but also situations such as our current pandemic; it is vital to our democracy and everyday life as well. Disinformation and mis-information, which is spread without intention, threaten our democratic freedoms and can cause harm to individuals and society, and it is an issue that the Government take incredibly seriously.
That is why we established a dedicated counter-disinformation unit, which brings together cross-Government monitoring and analysis capabilities to build a comprehensive picture of disinformation and misinformation. It works with partners to ensure appropriate action is taken. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that this unit that has generally been stood up at elections; it was stood up during the European parliamentary elections, the UK general election in 2019 and again in March last year to respond to the covid pandemic, and it remains operational. The component parts of the unit remain operational all the time—organisations such as the 77th Brigade, for example.
Throughout the pandemic particularly, the unit has been working closely with social media platforms to quickly identify potential harmful content on their platforms and help them respond to it. We have seen major platforms update their terms of service and introduce new measures to tackle disinformation and misinformation related to covid-19. This is not just about not being able to profit from it; a really important part of the agreement is that they also put up links to reliable, Government-backed sources of information. We welcome this, and there is clearly more to do. We continue to put pressure on platforms to ensure that their policies and enforcement are fit for purpose, while respecting freedom of expression. The unit also works with Government communications teams to ensure that public communications and community engagement address false information where appropriate to do so.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her comments and the information she is giving. Before she moves on from the unit for disinformation, when I asked recently how many full-time employees it had, the answer was none. She has talked about how spread out it is, but given the increased importance of disinformation, will there be full-time employees in the unit or will they all have other things to do as well as disinformation?
Caroline Dinenage
It is a unit that expands. There are full-time members of staff dedicated to this, but that is obviously a tiny number in normal circumstances. It expands enormously when the Government disinformation unit is stood up.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) has referred to the numbers in the unit, but surely the close working with the police forces across all the regions gives extra numerical strength to what the Government are trying to do.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are working closely with the police and also the Army, as I have mentioned. I am always slightly nervous about what I am allowed to say around this issue, not being an MOD Minister, but there is the 77th Brigade, which is a military unit dedicated to this sort of activity and with which we work very closely.
While such information can come from a range of sources, we know that certain states routinely use it as a tool to exploit our open system by sowing division and undermining trust in our democracy, as the hon. Gentleman said. This can be through disinformation, cyber-attacks and other methods. We have made it clear that any foreign interference in the UK’s democratic process is absolutely unacceptable—it does not even need to be said—and it is, and always will be, an absolute priority to protect the UK against it. The UK, along with our G7 and NATO partners, is working hard to protect our democracy against disinformation as we work together to tackle the shared threat of covid-19.
We remain firmly committed to protecting our democratic values and our electoral processes, which I know the hon. Member for Midlothian is concerned about, and we have robust systems in place to protect the UK against foreign interference. As he says, it is all about working collaboratively. These systems bring together Government, civil society and private sector organisations to monitor and respond to interference in whatever form it takes. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) talked about these things sometimes coming in the guise of something that could look quite harmless but can actually be incredibly sinister.
It is absolutely vital to ensure that our democracy stays open, vibrant and transparent. The Government are strengthening our legislative framework, enhancing capabilities and engaging with partners to expand our efforts to ensure the maximum impact. That joined-up approach is supported through the defending democracy programme, based in the Cabinet Office, which provides a strategic co-ordinating forum, drawing together work and expertise across Departments on a number of fronts to protect democratic processes, strengthen the integrity of elections, encourage respect for open and safe democratic participation, and promote open, fact-based discourse.
The Government are taking steps to strengthen elections by introducing legislation, as the hon. Member for Midlothian said, to ensure that the framework is fit for the modern age, for example by updating online campaigning rules. In May 2019, the Government committed to introducing a digital imprints regime, which will inform voters about the source of online campaign material. In August, we launched a technical consultation on this proposal. It closed in November, and further details will be set out shortly.
During major democratic events, the Government stand up an election cell—a co-ordinated structure that works with relevant organisations to identify and respond to emerging issues and protect the safety and security of the democratic process. The counter-disinformation unit works closely with the election cell, co-ordinating the Government’s operational response to any evolving threat of disinformation and other forms of online manipulation. The Government are working really closely with partners to support the delivery of safe and inclusive elections. Of course, the next ones will be very shortly, in May.
The Government welcome the valuable analysis and insight from academia, including the Oxford University report, and we take seriously the findings of other experts in this field. Countering disinformation and other forms of manipulation requires a whole-of-society approach, and the Government are working closely with the Oxford Internet Institute and other stakeholders from civil society, academia and industry to much better understand the issues in this space. In particular, last year the Government launched a counter-disinformation policy forum, bringing together key actors in industry, civil society and academia to improve responses to misinformation and disinformation and, crucially, to prepare for future threats. This forum contributes to the collective understanding of challenges to the information ecosystem, allows us to improve the responses that our organisations can deliver to better mitigate evolving threats posed by false narrative and helps us to prepare for future advances in technology, which is of course what we are all really worried about; as we have already said, the technology evolves rapidly.
We are entering a new age of accountability for the tech industry. The hon. Member for Midlothian and others mentioned the online safety legislation. We announced plans at the end of last year for a groundbreaking rulebook that will make tech companies responsible for tackling harmful content on their sites. This new regulatory framework will give digital businesses much more robust rules of the road, as it were, so that we can seize the brilliance of modern technology to improve our lives while protecting children, building trust and, crucially, tackling criminal activity online.
The full Government response to the online harms White Paper was published at the end of last year and set out how the proposed legal duty of care on online companies will work in practice. It will of course defend freedom of expression and the role of the free press. The new laws will also ensure appropriate checks and balances on platforms’ power over public discourse and will promote a thriving democracy where pluralism and freedom of expression are protected. The laws will have robust and proportionate measures to deal with misinformation and disinformation. That is crucial, because we know that they can cause significant physical or psychological harm to an individual. An example is the anti-vax falsehoods that we are seeing around covid-19 at the moment. Crucially, the Bill will give Ofcom the tools it needs to understand how effectively disinformation is being addressed. That will be done through transparency reports, and then it can take action in the appropriate way, as required.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her comments. I asked about the role of Ofcom with regard to cyber-troops and electoral disinformation and whether she sees a role for Ofcom and the NCSC there.
Caroline Dinenage
As the hon. Lady knows, the NCSC is not a regulator, but it provides authoritative advice, and the online harms response says very clearly that it is vital that Ofcom is able to take advice, if necessary, from experts in whatever field, whether civil society, charities, academia or businesses. They will have to work together very collaboratively, because it is Ofcom’s job to hold companies to account to ensure that this issue is being tackled appropriately.
It is important to say that we really do support freedom of expression as a fundamental right. It is an essential element of the full range of human rights. Therefore, while we take action to address false narratives online, we have to remain committed to protecting the freedom of expression that we are so well known for, across our nations. However, our commitment to tackling misinformation and disinformation in all their forms remains an absolutely key priority. Our challenge as a society is to help to shape the internet so that it remains open and vibrant but still protects users from all kinds of harm. It is a really difficult balance to strike, but our commitment to protecting our democratic freedoms and processes from outside interference by any actor, whether state or non-state, remains unwavering.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Mr Thompson, would you like to give us a couple more minutes in winding up the debate?
Owen Thompson
Thank you, Sir Charles. I will briefly thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. I think we have seen a very clear understanding that it is in all our interests to ensure that we tackle this issue and get it right. I very much endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) about seeking a strategy, because we are starting to see a swell of opinion for tackling some of these things, especially misinformation online. We have seen the importance of that through the current pandemic. The public need to be able to have confidence in the information that they access.
In a nutshell, the issue comes back to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. He very ably made the point that it is so important that we are able to agree to disagree. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that we need to have any kind of thought control or that everybody has to have the same opinions. It is important that we do not, but it is important also that we can have confidence that those views and opinions are presented in a way that is accurate and factual.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I thank colleagues for facilitating and conducting such an excellent debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered cyber troop activity in the UK.
Written Statements
Tackling Intimidation in Public Life
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I wish to update hon. Members on the steps that the Government are taking to tackle intimidation in public life.
In July 2017, the then Prime Minister commissioned the Committee on Standards in Public Life to undertake a review into abuse and intimidation in elections. This followed concerning evidence from many parliamentary candidates across the political spectrum on their experiences during the 2017 general election. The Government’s response to that report in March 2018 outlined the Government’s planned programme of work in the area, and the Committee has published its own follow-up to its report in December 2020.
Tackling intimidation in public life also forms an important part of the defending democracy programme, a cross-Government initiative led by the Cabinet Office.
Protecting free speech within the law
It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on the one hand, and unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence on the other. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional.
Free speech within the law can sometimes involve the expression of political views that some may find offensive: a point that the Government have recognised in the Department for Education’s policy paper, “Higher education: free speech and academic freedom”, published last month. But a line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, which refuses to tolerate other opinions and seeks to deprive others from exercising their free speech and freedom of association.
Tackling threats to MPs
The Home Office is responding today, on behalf of Government, to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, “Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs”.
This outlines how the Government are addressing the concerns raised in the report on:
The need for collaboration to tackle the issue of threats to MPs;
The national approach to prosecuting offences against MPs;
The online abuse and harassment faced by MPs; and
Policing around Parliament and beyond.
Ensuring safety of journalists
Also today, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is publishing the first National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists.
The Government’s aim is to ensure that journalists operating in the UK are as safe as possible; reduce the number of attacks on and threats issued to journalists; and ensure those that are responsible for such are brought to justice. In order to support this goal, it outlines how the Government are taking steps to:
Increase our understanding of the problem;
Enhance the criminal justice system response in tackling crimes against journalists;
Support journalists and their employers to build the resources they need to protect personal safety;
Help online platforms to tackle the wider issue of abuse online; and
Improve public recognition of the value of journalists.
Preventing intimidation in elections
In due course, the Government will legislate to introduce a new electoral sanction of intimidation against those who participate in elections and contribute to the political debate, including candidates and campaigners. This new sanction complements the existing offence of undue influence against electors.
Under this new electoral sanction, someone convicted of intimidating a candidate, future candidate, campaigner or elected representative will face a ban on standing for and holding elective office for five years. This five-year disqualification is in addition to the substantive punishment for the underlying existing criminal offences of an intimidatory nature. It is simply not right that those who seek to damage free, fair and vibrant political participation should then be allowed to participate in the very same process they sought to undermine.
We have already updated electoral law to ensure local candidates can choose for their home address to not be made public; the local authority area in which they live can appear on the ballot paper instead.
The Government will also be legislating to require imprints on digital campaigning material. While this will increase transparency in modern campaigning, it will also ensure greater scrutiny and accountability of those who promote material, including third party campaigners. The Cabinet Office has undertaken two separate consultations on this area, as it is complex. We need to be mindful not to impose excessive regulation of free speech by individuals, nor force campaigners to publish their home addresses as part of the imprint requirement.
The Government will also legislate to clarify and improve the offence of undue influence of a voter. We want to ensure that the offence offers adequate protection for electors to be free from undue influence and that the offence is effective for enforcement agencies. This reflects recommendations made by the Pickles review into electoral fraud, following the 2015 election court relating to elections in Tower Hamlets.
Parties leading on codes of conduct and support
The Government response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life report asserted that all political parties should put in place their own individual, tailored, code of conduct which sets out the standards of behaviour expected of their party members and representatives. All of the political parties represented in the House of Commons now have in place their own code of conduct.
The Government did not, and does not, support a joint code. This is impractical given there are over 300 registered political parties, and since joint codes may fuel and encourage the issuing of politically vexatious and unfounded complaints.
Many parties have significantly increased their support for elected representatives who face abuse.
Providing guidance for MPs
The Government have worked with the Law Officers to publish new guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the laws on intimidation, and the wide range of areas in which intimidation can be prosecuted under existing laws. This has been complemented by police guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
For hon. Members who have not previously read the CPS guidance, it can be found at:
Responding to intimidating behaviour: Information for Parliamentarians:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/responding-to-intimidating-behaviour-04-2019.
The NPCC, CPS, College of Policing and Electoral Commission have also issued Joint Guidance for Candidates in Elections, which is distributed by the Electoral Commission:
https://www.electoraslcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Joint-Guidance-for-Candidates-in-Elections.
Action on online communications
The Government have published their full response to the Online Harms White Paper consultation. The response confirms that Ofcom will be named as the independent regulator, who will oversee the regulatory framework, setting clear safety standards, backed up by mandatory reporting requirements and strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. Legislation will follow in due course.
We expect companies to take action now, ahead of the regulatory framework coming into force. We have set out steps that we expect companies to take across a range of harms on a voluntary basis ahead of legislation being finalised. These include ensuring products and services are safe by design and that users who have experienced harm are directed to, and are able to receive, adequate support. While it is not for the Government to dictate how companies allocate resources internally, we have been clear that platforms need to do significantly more to address online abuse.
We are also ensuring that the criminal law is fit for purpose to deal with online abuse. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice engaged the Law Commission on a second phase of its review of abusive and offensive online communications. This included considering whether co-ordinated harassment by groups of people online could be more effectively dealt with by the criminal law. The Law Commission has now consulted on proposed recommendations for reform. It will provide final recommendations in 2021, which we will carefully consider.
The Government are engaging with international partners to promote international consensus on what constitutes hate crime and intimidation online. The Government are currently working with international partners on this issue in the Council of Europe.
I hope this outlines how the Government are continuing to work to deliver their commitments to tackle intimidation in public life. The Government are open and receptive to ideas from hon. Members and other elected representatives on what further steps can be taken to protect the exercise of free speech and democratic representation across the United Kingdom.
[HCWS833]
Covid-19: Industrial Development Act 1982
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. Members to bring to their attention spend under the Industrial Development Act 1982. In addition to the obligation to report on spend under the Industrial Development Act annually, the Coronavirus Act 2020 created a new quarterly reporting requirement for spend which has been designated as coronavirus-related under the Coronavirus Act. This statement fulfils that purpose. Actual expenditure of assistance provided by Her Majesty’s Government from 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020 £647,308,581 All expenditure of assistance provided by Her Majesty’s Government from 25 March 2020 £ 694,945,581 Actual expenditure of assistance provided by: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy £694,908,581 Competition Appeal Tribunal £ 37,000 Contingent liability under the Coronavirus Act 2020 Contingent liability of assistance provided by the Secretary of State from 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020 £ 18,985,945,140 All contingent liability of assistance provided by the Secretary of State from 25 March 2020 £ 49,442,128,910
The statement also includes a report of the movement in contingent liability during the quarter. Hon. Members will wish to note that measures such as local authority grants, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employed income support scheme, and tax measures such as the suspension of business rates are not provided under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and hence are not included below.
This report covers the third quarter of 2020, from 1 July to 30 September 2020, in accordance with the Coronavirus Act. The written ministerial statement covering the second quarter of 2020 was published on 18 January 2021.
Spend under the Coronavirus Act 2020
Under the Coronavirus Act 2020, there is a requirement to lay before Parliament details of the amount of assistance designated as coronavirus-related provided in each relevant quarter. In the period from 1 July to 30 September 2020, the following expenditures were incurred:
[HCWS832]
National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
Today, the Government will publish the UK’s first “National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists”. This ambitious document is intended to ensure that journalists operating in the UK can do so free from abuse, violence and threats of harm. This Government are committed to a free and open media. In order to protect this, journalists must be free to carry out their vital roles free from threats and violence. Threats to journalists’ safety are not just threats to individuals—such threats lead to journalists leaving the profession, and to self-censorship of those that remain. Without action in this area, there will be less challenge to those in power, and weaker democracy. This work is critical in its own right, and it will also serve to support the ongoing work by the Government to tackle intimidation in public life. An update on this is also being published today.
The plan has been produced by members of the National Committee for Safety of Journalists, established in 2020, chaired by relevant Home Office and DCMS Ministers, and comprising representatives of police and prosecutors from across the UK, as well as publishers, broadcasters, groups representing journalists and non-governmental organisations.
It focuses on five key areas: increasing our understanding of the problem; enhancing the criminal justice system response in tackling crimes against journalists; supporting journalists and their employers to build the resources they need to protect personal safety; helping online platforms to tackle the wider issue of online abuse, and improving public recognition of the value of journalists. It makes a range of commitments from the Government, law enforcement agencies and industry. These include a plan to launch a call for evidence into the scale of the threats facing journalists, the police working with the National Council for the Training of Journalists to provide training on police operations for journalists and the provision of guidance to help journalists understand the law in this area by the Media Lawyers Association.
The committee will hold its members to account for the delivery of these commitments while the action plan and its impact will be reviewed regularly and updated if and when appropriate.
A copy of the action plan will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-03-09/HCWS831/.
[HCWS831]
Covid-19: Children's Social Care Services
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Extension of temporary regulations to support children’s social care during the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic.
Throughout the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic, the Government have consistently put protecting the most vulnerable at the forefront of our actions. The duties to our most vulnerable children, which are set out in primary legislation, all remain in place. This statutory framework enables the most effective support and protection to children and their families, by local authorities, local safeguarding partners and other services. However, the impact of the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic, has required the Government to introduce a number of amendments to secondary legislation to ensure that children and families can be supported in the best way possible despite the restrictions in place across society.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the Government introduced a series of temporary changes to the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations to support children’s social care services. These changes provided flexibilities to local authorities and other children’s social care settings, in the event that services suffered from high levels of staff absence or an increased need for services supporting vulnerable children. We made no amendments to primary legislation, and the vast majority of statutory duties in secondary legislation remained unchanged.
Over the summer we reviewed these flexibilities and decided that only a small number continued to be needed. Following a consultation, a second set of regulations with fewer flexibilities—the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations—came into force in September 2020. These are due to lapse on 31 March 2021.
The extraordinary measures the Government have taken over the last year means that we are now in a much better position to ease the restrictions that everyone has faced in the coming months. However, the challenges from the covid-19 pandemic remain significant and Government believe that there may be circumstances in which some services continue to face specific and exceptional challenges into spring/summer. As more children are seen by schools, and national restrictions ease further and hitherto hidden harms may come to light, we must be prepared for the potential additional demands that may still be placed on services.
We therefore went out to public consultation on 9 February to seek views on whether to extend all the existing flexibilities for a further six months, up to September 2021, and whether to amend arrangements for healthcare assessments in adoption. This statement updates the House on the outcome of that consultation.
The consultation closed on 28 February and a total of 212 responses were received. Officials engaged with stakeholders, including local authorities, charities, children’s rights organisations and other Government Departments and captured the views of children and young people directly.
The majority of respondents agreed with our proposals to extend the existing flexibilities in relation to virtual visits, medical reports—for fostering and adoption—and the minimum frequency of Ofsted inspections of children’s social care provision. I am therefore today laying regulations before the House to that effect. This means that:
General Practitioners and other health professionals will continue to be given more time to provide information to support the process of approving much needed potential adopters and foster carers. This does not remove the requirement for medical reports to be provided before the child is placed with the foster parent or adoptive parent, but allows some flexibility as to when in the process the report is required.
Social workers will continue to be able to carry out virtual, rather than face-to face visits in some limited circumstances. The regulations and guidance are clear that virtual visits should only happen when face to face visits would be contrary to public health advice, or where face to face visits would otherwise not be reasonably practicable as a result of coronavirus.
The requirement for a minimum frequency of Ofsted inspections for all children’s social care providers will continue to be suspended for six months, until 30 September 2021. Extending the flexibility will enable Ofsted to use their resources under existing inspection powers to carry out inspections to as many providers as possible, prioritised on a risk-assessed basis. It is important to note that extending this flexibility does not prevent Ofsted from inspecting services or change their inspection powers, it only affects the frequency with which they must inspect.
Alongside the regulations, I am today publishing the Government’s response to the consultation, setting out more detail on each flexibility, the rationale for our approach and the views received.
As part of the consultation, we also asked for views on two new proposals in relation to adoption: to allow medical reports to be completed by other qualified medical professionals and to remove the requirement for a full medical examination. While a majority agreed with the first proposal, there were a greater number who disagreed with the second proposal, and concerns were raised in relation to safeguarding. This is an area on which the Government places paramount importance and we therefore want to give this further reflection. We are therefore not proceeding with these additional flexibilities at this time.
Protecting vulnerable children has been at the heart of the Government’s response to the virus. These regulations formed part of that response, alongside keeping schools and other settings open for vulnerable children, substantial additional investment in local authority services and additional support direct to children, young people, and their families. The Government are clear that these flexibilities will only remain in place for as long as they are needed and there currently are no plans to extend them beyond 30 September 2021. Their use will continue to be monitored and they will be reviewed in line with the Government road map to recovery. Our guidance sets out clear safeguards about how and when they should be used.
Since the introduction of the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 we have kept the flexibilities under constant review. Data for the period from 25 September to 24 November 2020 suggested that over half of local authorities were using both the existing temporary flexibilities—to enable virtual visits and to allow greater time to provide a medical report for a prospective foster carer or adopter. Out of 113 LAs that we had spoken to over 90 LAs had made use of the regulations. The most used related to virtual engagement with children and families—this had often been used alongside face-to-face visits and, in some cases, this has resulted in greater levels of contact between children, young people, parents, and carers—and improved engagement from some young people. We will continue to monitor the usage of the flexibilities through monitoring information collected from the Regional Educational and Care Teams and delivery partners.
Medical reports
In order to become a foster carer or adoptive parent, one needs to provide a medical report from a General Practitioner. As restrictions are eased and schools return, we expect that there may be more children needing care than is usual, and therefore there will be a higher need for potential adopters and foster carers. Our National Health Service (NHS) continues to face unprecedented challenges during the ongoing pressure from the pandemic. This is unlikely to ease for some time, even when the country enters a period of recovery. Therefore, I am minded to extend the amendments that allow more time for General Practitioners and other health professionals to provide information to support the process of approving much needed potential adopters and foster carers. This does not remove the requirement for medical reports to be provided but moves the time during the process that the report must be provided before the child is placed with the foster parent or adoptive parent.
Virtual Visits
We must be able to keep essential services, such as social worker visits, operating during any local lockdowns, and in cases where households are being required to self-isolate due to a case, or suspected case, of covid-19, or contact with someone who has tested positive for covid-19, in line with medical advice from the NHS test and trace service. The Government recognise that visits by social workers to looked after children provide important opportunities to consider children and young people’s safety and wellbeing and that virtual visits may not always provide the best conditions. We have been clear in the consultation and in our guidance that visits should happen, whenever possible, face to face. The regulations and guidance explicitly provide that virtual visits should only happen when face to face visits would be contrary to public health advice, or where face to face visits would otherwise not be reasonably practicable as a result of coronavirus.
The Government also recognise the importance of ensuring that social workers are well equipped to use virtual visits effectively. Therefore, I am suggesting that it is appropriate to continue to enable visits in these situations to happen virtually. However, in all other situations I would expect face to face visits to take place.
Ofsted inspections of children’s social care providers
The Government and Ofsted are keen that routine inspections of children’s social care providers are resumed as soon as it is safe to do so. At present, Ofsted inspection frequency cycles are suspended due to covid-19, although it is continuing to register social care providers and managers, and to monitor children’s homes where there are safeguarding concerns. Therefore, I am minded to extend the suspension of the requirement for a minimum frequency of Ofsted inspections for all children’s social care providers to be extended for six months, until 30 September 2021. Extending the flexibility will enable Ofsted to use its resources under existing inspection powers to carry out inspections to as many providers as possible, prioritised on a risk- assessed basis.
It is important to note that extending this flexibility does not prevent Ofsted from inspecting services or change its inspection powers, it only affects the frequency with which they must inspect. During the covid-19 pandemic Ofsted is aiming to restart graded inspections from April although it will balance this with the nature and extent of any covid-19 restrictions that might be in place moving into the 2021-22 inspection year.
Throughout this pandemic, social workers, charities, and others working to support our most vulnerable children and families have worked tirelessly to ensure that they continue to receive the support they need. I would like to place on record my personal gratitude, and that of the whole Government, for everything they have done and continue to do. I would also like to acknowledge the extremely difficult circumstances many children and families have faced during this pandemic.
Protecting vulnerable children remains our top priority, as it does for local authorities and children’s social care providers across the country. As the country begins to return to a more normal way of life, it is absolutely right that this also applies to children’s social care.
[HCWS835]
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
This Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to make our country safer. This means backing our police and preventing and cutting crime.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, introduced today, will do this by: equipping police officers with the powers and tools they need to keep themselves and all of us safe; putting the police covenant into law; tackling unauthorised Traveller encampments; requiring schools, police, councils and health authorities to work together through violence reduction units to prevent serious crime; and empowering the police by a new court order to target known knife carriers, making it easier for officers to stop and search those convicted of knife crime.
This joint Bill also contains a number of Ministry of Justice-led measures, set out in a written ministerial statement by the Lord Chancellor.
The Home Office-led measures in the Bill will:
Establish a duty on the Home Secretary to publish an annual report on the work undertaken against delivery of the police covenant—the response to our consultation was published on 8 September 2020 [HCWS438];
Enable special constables to join the Police Federation of England and Wales;
Amend the definitions of dangerous and careless driving in road traffic legislation so that the skills and training of police officers can be taken into account should there be any subsequent investigations into their actions—the response to our consultation was published on 2 May 2019 [HCWS1536];
Introduce a new duty on specified authorities and bodies delivering public services to collaborate with each other to prevent and reduce serious violence—the response to our consultation was published on 15 July 2019 [HCWS1721];
Place a duty on the relevant chief officer of police, local authority and clinical commissioning group or local health board to undertake a homicide review of the circumstances of the death of a person aged 18 or over which involved an offensive weapon;
Reform pre-charge bail to better protect vulnerable victims and witnesses—the response to our consultation was published on 14 January 2021 [HCWS708];
Establish a statutory framework for the extraction of information from digital devices for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of crime, safeguarding purposes and the purposes of investigating deaths;
Extend the offence of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence to cover a wider range of preparatory conduct in respect of sex offences committed against children under 13;
Amend the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 to ensure that it operates effectively to give the police and prosecutors the power to obtain faster access to electronic data held overseas;
Streamline the police powers to require a convicted person to attend a police station for the purposes of taking their fingerprints, non-intimate samples and photographs;
Confer powers on the police to obtain information about the location of human remains where there is no ongoing criminal investigation;
Strengthen police powers to tackle non-violent protests that have a significant disruptive effect on the public or on access to Parliament;
Strengthen police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments, where trespassers cause distress and misery to local communities and businesses—the response to our consultation was being published on 8 March 2021 [HCWS826];
Place on a statutory footing the police’s powers to charge for the provision of retraining courses for those admitting to low-level driving offences and clarify their powers to charge for the removal of abandoned vehicles or those causing an obstruction;
Introduce serious violence reduction orders to confer on the police new targeted stop-and-search powers to tackle knife crime offenders—the response to the consultation is being published today—see below;
Strengthen the management of sex offenders, including by enabling positive obligations and electronic monitoring requirements to be imposed on those who pose a risk through sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders;
Strengthen the management of terrorism risk offenders on licence in the community by introducing new police powers of premises and personal search and an urgent power of arrest, implementing recommendations made by Jonathan Hall, QC, following his independent review of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) [HCWS686].
To support the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, we are publishing on www.gov.uk the following documents:
Overarching impact assessment covering the Home Office and two Department for Transport measures;
Impact assessment on the reforms to pre-charge bail;
Impact assessment on the new serious violence duty;
Delegated powers memorandum;
European convention on human rights memorandum; and
Fact sheets.
Serious Violence Reduction Orders
Today we are also publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on Serious violence reduction orders (SVROs) which ran from 14 September to 8 November 2020. We have received responses from the public, police, charities and other organisations and I am grateful to all those who provided responses.
SVROs are being introduced through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. SVROs will help the police to tackle knife crime by giving them additional powers to stop and search adults convicted of knife and offensive weapons offences. The orders, one of the tools that the police will be able to use as part of a wider approach to reducing serious violence and saving young lives, are intended to be a powerful deterrent. They will send a clear signal to offenders that if they persist in carrying knives, they will be caught. Every offender issued with a SVRO will face an increased likelihood of being stopped by the police and if they continue to carry weapons, they will be sent back to prison or brought before the court, where they can expect to receive an immediate custodial sentence under the existing “two strikes” legislation brought by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Targeted use of stop and search, as part of a wider approach to intervene and support offenders, aims to help to safeguard those communities and individuals most at risk. To ensure that SVROs operate as effectively as possible, we will pilot SVROs in one or more police forces before a decision is made on national roll-out.
The response to the consultation will be available at www.gov.uk. A copy will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS834]
Property: Household Guidance on Hazards
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
The Government have responded at pace since the onset of this pandemic to provide a range of guidance to support and advise households. We have kept our guidance under continual review in response to the latest available evidence.
Today, the Government have published a new page of guidance. This guidance is for people living in all types of housing, in particular for people who live in accommodation with shared facilities, such as a block of flats; overcrowded accommodation; and shared accommodation.
The guidance highlights the importance of ventilation and cleaning, and makes information available on people’s rights as tenants and how to work with landlords and local authorities to address hazardous issues.
We continue to work with agencies across Government to collect evidence to inform the advice we issue so that it reflects the realities on the ground.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-shared-and-overcrowded-housing-reducing-the-risk-of-infection.
[HCWS837]
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
This Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to make our country safer. This means toughening sentences for the worst crimes and bringing offenders to justice swiftly through an efficient court system.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, introduced today, will do this by: introducing tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and ending automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes; creating robust and effective community sentences; enabling the trialling of secure schools; increasing the use of technology in courts; and improving employment opportunities for ex-offenders. This joint Bill also contains a number of Home Office-led measures, set out in a written statement by the Home Secretary.
The Ministry of Justice-led measures in the Bill will:
Deliver on commitments made in the Sentencing White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, announced to the House on 16 September 2020, which will reform the sentencing and release framework, so that we have a system that takes account of the true nature of crimes and protects the public from harm.
Ensure serious criminals spend longer in custody, including: ending the automatic halfway release point from prison for an additional cohort of serious sexual and violent offenders; making a whole life order the starting point for the premeditated murder of a child; instead of a life sentence with the possibility of Parole Board release after the minimum term is served; and preventing the automatic early release of prisoners who become of significant public protection concern while in custody.
Make community sentences more effective so that they offer an appropriate level of punishment and address the underlying drivers of offending, including: piloting a problem-solving court approach for certain community and suspended sentence orders; improving national consistency for adult out of court disposals; and extending the use of electronic monitoring.
Reduce the time periods after which some criminal sentences become spent, aiding rehabilitation by helping offenders to move on with their lives.
Deliver on the Government’s longstanding commitment to increase the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drinks or drugs. It will also introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.
Double the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years to ensure that the courts have the necessary powers to deal effectively with offenders who use violence against emergency workers.
Strengthen alternatives to custody for children who have offended which promote rehabilitation, and raise the threshold for custodial remand, while at the same time ensuring that children who commit serious offences and pose a risk to the public receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their offending.
Empower future providers of secure schools, which represent our vision for the future of youth custody—schools with security, rather than prisons with education: with education, healthcare and purposeful activity at their heart.
Enable prisoner escort and custody service officers to manage video remand hearings in police stations to continue to make the best use of technology and improve future efficiency.
Replace the current emergency provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which extend the use of video and audio hearings to enable more participants to attend criminal hearings remotely. We will always ensure a full hearing in court will be available when needed in the interests of justice.
Introduce measures to facilitate the remote observation of proceedings across the courts and tribunals using video and audio links underpinning the principle of open justice. These measures will also provide the necessary safeguards against the recording or broadcasting of proceedings by participants and observers.
Enable British sign language interpreters to be present in the jury deliberation room, meaning that profoundly deaf individuals are not prevented from participating in jury service.
Extend the scope of positions of trust legislation, which currently covers a number of statutory roles such as teachers and social workers, to include those who knowingly carry out certain activities within religious and sports settings, such as faith leaders or sports coaches.
Toughen the law where criminal damage of less than £5,000 is caused to a memorial by increasing the maximum sentence from three months to 10-years imprisonment. This brings it in line with criminal damage of £5,000 or more and ensures our courts have sufficient sentencing powers to punish the emotional harm caused by this type of offending even when the financial impact may be low.
To support the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, we are publishing on gov.uk the following documents:
Impact assessments covering sentencing, courts and criminal law;
Delegated Powers memorandum;
ECHR memorandum; and
Fact sheets.
[HCWS836]