Inequality and Social Mobility

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Margaret Greenwood

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I share a constituency border, for giving way. Does she agree that one thing we do not need at this time to tackle social mobility is a tax cut for those earning between £50,000 and £80,000 a year?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I wholly agree.

Of course, it is not just the commission that is seriously concerned. In May, the Institute for Fiscal Studies launched a five-year study on equality, reflecting growing concern about the deep divisions within our society. In the same month, the final report by the UN special rapporteur for extreme poverty and human rights said that

“key elements of the post-war ‘Beveridge social contract’ are being overturned”

and highlighted that

“British compassion has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and often callous approach”

by the Government. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has attacked what she called “the extraordinary political nature” of the report and the Chancellor, too, has brushed aside the evidence that Professor Alston presented—as if none of it mattered; as if the devastated communities and the lives of people ground down by poverty are of no concern. What sort of a Government are they who fail to see that the impact of their policies on people’s lives is always political? And what sort of a Government are they who can have such disregard for the suffering of their people? One of Professor Alston’s conclusions was that the

“Government has remained determinedly in a state of denial”

about the impact of their austerity policies. How right he is.

The next Labour Government will do things differently. Last Saturday, my colleague, the shadow Education Secretary, announced that Labour will create a new independent social justice commission to replace the current Social Mobility Commission. That is in line with the recommendation of the Education Committee, which called for a new commission to drive forward work across government to tackle social injustice. We believe that social justice is the right goal to pursue, rather than social mobility. Social mobility focuses on how easy it is for individuals to escape poverty. That is, of course, important, but it does not address the wider issue of tackling the causes of poverty and inequality. Our goal has to be the delivery of a fair and just society.

The Government’s own figures tell a shocking story. In 2017-18, 14 million people in the UK were living in poverty, 1 million higher than in 2010; 2 million pensioners were in poverty, 400,000 up on 2010; and 4.1 million children were growing up in poverty, an increase of half a million since 2010. Of course the impact of child poverty can continue throughout life. Children in poverty are more likely to die suddenly in infancy, to suffer acute infections and to experience mental ill health. The disadvantage they suffer can affect their progress at school or in work. By the age of 11, only 46% of pupils entitled to free school meals reach the standards expected for reading, writing and maths, compared with 68% of all other pupils. Only 16% of pupils on free school meals pass at least two A-levels—less than half as many as all other pupils.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Margaret Greenwood

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will be aware, and I will cover this further on in my speech, that she apologised for one of the three aspects for which an apology was necessary.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Last week, on 5 July, following my question at Work and Pensions questions on Monday, the Secretary of State said that she had made an error and wanted to report it to the House—as reported in column 500 of Hansard. Why does my hon. Friend think that it took 48 hours for her to come to the House when a written apology, or an apology on the Monday or Tuesday, could have done the job? Was it because the National Audit Office published its report at 11 o’clock on Wednesday?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My right hon. Friend raises such an important point. I was as shocked as he was to hear the Secretary of State say that it was when she had left the Chamber that she realised her mistake. She should have replied that afternoon. He is quite right on that point.

The Secretary of State adopted the same approach at Work and Pensions questions, as has been noted, leading the head of the National Audit Office, Sir Amyas Morse, to take the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to her, taking issue with a number of claims that she had made in response to the report. The three key claims that he took issue with were, first, that the NAO report said that the roll-out of universal credit should be speeded up; secondly, that the report

“didn’t take account of changes made by the government in the Budget”;

and, thirdly, that universal credit is working.

Let us just think about the significance of this. The National Audit Office is an independent body that scrutinises public spending before Parliament. It is responsible for auditing central Government Departments. Its reports matter. I shall take each claim in turn.

On 21 June, the Secretary of State stated on several occasions that the report had said that the Government should speed up the roll-out of universal credit. She repeated that claim at Work and Pensions oral questions on 2 July, when questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) and me. Of course, the NAO report does not say anywhere that the roll-out should be speeded up. In fact, it says very clearly that the Government should

“ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes.”

Cockling: Dee Estuary

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Margaret Greenwood

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he makes a good point: it absolutely is important that we protect the jobs of those currently engaged in the industry, as they have been for generations.

To return to the Minister’s response, he stated:

“Fisheries is a devolved matter, and the Dee Estuary is a cross border fishery which is managed by the Welsh Government and Natural Resources for Wales for the Welsh part of the estuary. For the English part of the estuary, fisheries management is covered by my Department, the Environment Agency, the Marine Management Organisation, and the North West Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.

However, Natural Resources for Wales (NRW) has responsibility for managing the cockle fishery in the Dee Estuary (on both the Welsh and English sides) as grantee of the Dee Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 2008. NRW has taken the decision to not open the fishery this year due to insufficient stocks. It has suggested that it may be opened in July 2016 should sufficient stock be available. I have not had any direct dealings with counterparts in Wales within the Dee Estuary fisheries management context or specifically in relation to the closure of the cockle beds.”

Does the Minister believe it is fair for NRW to charge cocklers the full licence fee for a season when that season amounts to only a few days? Cocklers are not doing this as a hobby; this is their livelihood, and if they are unable to access the beds they have no income. The cocklers are concerned that under the bird food modelling system used by NRW, a closed season will become the norm but they will still be expected to pay for a full licence and eventually be driven out of business by this cost.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that on my side of the River Dee Welsh cockle fishermen who live in my constituency face the same pressures. I have written to Natural Resources Wales about the issue but have not had satisfaction either, so she has my full support in asking for rebates on the full price of the fee for seasonal work.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point: this issue affects fishermen on both sides of the estuary.

I remind the Minister of his own words in relation to farming. He said that

“farming has always been a risky business because of the weather and price volatility. Farmers want to earn their profit from the market but they need a helping hand when things go wrong.”

Are the River Dee cocklers any different? Figures provided to my constituents show that costs for managing the fishery have escalated since 2012 and staff time attributed to the cockle fishery has gone up. I ask the Minister to get the breakdown of what staff time is being allocated, for example, for administration and the cost of bailiffs. I also ask the Minister to look into why, when the fishery was closed for the majority of last season, figures obtained by my constituents show that £87,000 was allocated for staff time? Who is doing what, and why is the Environment Agency not providing any scrutiny of this figure?

Last year I asked the Minister how much revenue had been raised from licence fees for cockling in the River Dee estuary in each year since 2010 and the figures showed a big leap from 2012-13. In 2010 £51,584 was raised, in 2011 it was £52,576, in 2012 it was £52,576, and then in 2013 it increased to £68,900, and remained this figure in 2014. Will the Minister clarify whether this increase was due to a rise in the number of people using the fishery or to an increase in license fee? I would also like to know whether it is the intention of the fishery to become “self-sustaining” at any point as this could be achieved only either by massively increasing the licence fee, which would merely drive people out of business, or by increasing the number of licences, which, again, would drive people out of business and cause considerable environment problems. The lack of financial transparency must be addressed. My constituents have repeatedly asked Natural Resources Wales questions about its spending and charges, but they feel that it has failed to answer them adequately. Apparently, NRW has indicated that a financial manager would address those points, but that has not been forthcoming so I therefore put these questions to the Minister.

According to my constituents, the fishery’s financial records are not adequate and contain numerous omissions and expenses that do not seem credible to my constituents, such as £20,000 running costs for an amphibious vehicle that was supposedly used only for cockle survey work, which would have amounted to just a few days each year. What work was that vehicle carrying out?