Equitable Life

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]]

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it, and on his co-chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, which I have been happy to join. He very eloquently set out the background to this matter in his opening speech, and I associate myself entirely with his comments. As he said, this situation has its origins in unique circumstances, and as the parliamentary ombudsman found in 2008, the victims’ losses have been directly attributable to a decade of serious and serial regulatory maladministration.

These matters have been well covered so far, but I would like to make three brief points. The Equitable Members Action Group has raised doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the Treasury’s methodology, and how it has been used to calculate the compensation payments made. I hope that can be addressed in the interests of open government, so that concerns in that area can be resolved. I also note the action group’s call for a joint inquiry on payment accuracy by the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am a member of the latter Committee, and I note that call. I am sympathetic to it, so that this can be looked into further.

This is a very technical matter, but I think we should look at the human side of it as well. A recent Prime Minister said:

“The British people are decent, sensible, reasonable and they just want a government that supports the vulnerable, backs those who do the right thing and helps them get on in life.”

That really sums up some of the Equitable Life victims I have met in Gedling. I have met only a small handful of the 2,300 victims and their dependants in my constituency, but they come across as quiet, unassuming people who do not want to cause a fuss, and tried to do the right thing, work hard, and make the right preparations for their retirement. It is time that we tried to address their valid concerns. Equitable Life had a series of adverts in the early 1990s that traded on the solidity of its investments. A 1993 commercial finished with the slogan, “You profit from our principles”. That appears not to have occurred, and I hope this is something that we can finally begin to address.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I would like to try to give everybody on the list a chance to speak. Therefore, with apologies to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for giving him no notice whatsoever, I now have to impose a time limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

As we have heard today, it has been more than 20 years since the House of Lords ruling rendered the Equitable Life Assurance Society financially unviable, and it has been over a decade since the then Chancellor announced the Equitable Life payment scheme to compensate policyholders who had lost out as a result of the scandal at that company, yet even after so many years, thousands of Equitable Life policyholders do not feel they have been treated fairly.

The Equitable Members Action Group continues to campaign tirelessly on their behalf, and during this afternoon’s debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it—we have heard Members from all sides passionately setting out the injustice that so many policyholders feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) powerfully set out the upsetting case of the 84-year-old pharmacist she represents as an example of how the scandal has affected people living in constituencies across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke of the human impact on her constituent, an 89-year-old living with dementia, whose life has been hit by this scandal, alongside nurses, teachers, shop workers and so many others over many years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) emphasised how long the scandal has been going on, and spoke about the crucial importance of transparency, which I will return to. The importance of transparency was also underscored by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who spoke about the costs of the scandal on the plans and dreams of those affected, and the ongoing impact of current cases such as London Capital & Finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) spoke about a 91-year-old in her constituency and others who invested in good faith but have gone for decades without a satisfactory conclusion.

It is crucial that we learn lessons from what happened at Equitable Life, including about the wider importance of having a well-regulated financial services sector, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said. In recent months, the cases we have seen at London Capital & Finance and Brewin Dolphin underline the importance of the Government’s doing more to ensure that people are well protected in the first place.

On Equitable Life itself, the issue at the heart of the disagreement over the past decade has been how the payments to the vast majority of its policyholders have been determined. As we know, that has generated intense disagreement with the Government over their approach, and as today’s motion makes clear, there is a further issue of transparency and trust. Many policyholders lack confidence that those payments have been calculated fairly.

In October 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking for the Treasury to set out clearly the basis on which it had calculated the payments that had been made to policyholders and to ask what assessment his officials had made of the overall accuracy of the scheme. In his reply, the Chancellor claimed that when the Equitable Life payment scheme was operational, it was fully transparent, and that its calculations methodology was published in full. He claimed that the Treasury had worked with the Equitable Members Action Group and others to produce a simplified explanation for policyholders.

Unfortunately for the Chancellor, the Equitable Members Action Group does not share his assessment. It contends that the Treasury refused full disclosure and hid behind commercial confidentiality. The group had to attempt to reverse-engineer the calculations, and it remains unsatisfied that payments can be shown to be accurate. It has presented cases of policyholders who received an amount substantially less than they were due. In one of the most extreme examples, which the hon. Member for Harrow East drew attention to, it quotes a case where the Treasury calculated a policyholder’s loss at £17, only for that to be revised to £8,661 when challenged. More widely, the group cites a freedom of information request that revealed that, where compensation had been recalculated following complaints, it resulted in an increased payment to the policyholder in every case—on average, by a factor of three.

A report of the Public Accounts Committee, under its former Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), concluded:

“Policyholders have struggled to understand how their payments have been calculated and cannot, therefore, check that the amount that they receive is correct.”

In a letter to the Committee’s current Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the permanent secretary to the Treasury restated the Government position. He said:

“no errors in the actual methodology have been found, including when the Equitable Members Action Group’s own actuary examined the methodology.”

Again, the group does not share the Treasury’s assessment. It contends that the actuary acting on its behalf was denied the information he needed to validate the methodology used, and he could not verify the calculations for one third of the sample policies studied.

It is the Government’s responsibility not only to do the right thing but to earn people’s trust that they will do so. It is clear from the continuing challenge presented by Members of Parliament on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders today that that is not yet the case. I find it hard to disagree with the Equitable Members Action Group’s view that the Treasury’s refusal to be fully transparent only increases suspicion that something is wrong.

After such a long-running disagreement, we believe that a transparent approach is the best way forward, and that it is the only way to find a way forward that is widely trusted and accepted. We therefore look forward to the response from the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on this important call to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and apologise to him that the timer has been put on. Can the timer please be taken off by whoever is controlling it? It is very distracting and it was not fair to Mr Murray to have those numbers apparently telling him he had to stop when he did not have to stop. I am sorry for that, but these technical hitches sometimes just happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman [V]]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank the, I think, 25 Back-Bench Members from five different political parties who have contributed to this debate. In direct answer to my hon. Friend the Minister, let us be clear: £280 billion has been found to shore up the economy because of covid; less than 1% of which would provide full compensation to the victims who have been waiting more than 20 years for it. Equally, had Equitable Life been allowed to fail, the people who lost their money would have been entitled to 90% compensation under the industry scheme, but they were denied access to that scheme because Equitable Life was too big to fail.

The reality, as has been mentioned, is that the Treasury has hidden behind commercial confidentiality in terms of displaying and disclosing the information necessary for individuals to calculate the compensation they were due, even under the reduced scheme. In addition, the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who are the most vulnerable victims, were never singled out by any report until the Government laid legislation in 2010.

I ask that the House passes the motion by acclamation and that we get on with the inquiries. I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to do the right thing and ensure that full compensation is provided to the victims of this terrible scam.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Although I am, of course, impartial in all matters that happen here in the Chamber, I am an enthusiastic member of his all-party parliamentary group and most grateful to him for all the work he does.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House expresses grave concern regarding the Government’s continued inaction with respect to the injustice suffered by Equitable Life policyholders, the vast majority of whom have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures despite the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings to compensate victims in full in relation to the maladministration of Equitable Life; notes the concern previously expressed by the Public Accounts Committee on the transparency and accuracy of the payments being made to victims; further notes the Government’s failure to fulfil the Committee’s request to publish an intelligible and transparent explanation to policyholders on how to verify the correctness of the compensation they have received; notes examples of grossly inaccurate payments, adjusted only when identified by policyholders, gathered by the Equitable Members Action Group (EMAG); notes the Government’s continued insistence that there have been no mistakes in the methodology for calculating payments to policyholders; and therefore calls on the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will now suspend the House for a few minutes, to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Economic Update

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and insightful point. This is about resilience in the public finances—he used the word well. We have faced two supposedly once-in-a-generation shocks in the space of 10 years and we do not know what the future holds. What we do know is that we want to encounter the next shock that comes along in as strong a position as possible, because ultimately that will enable us to respond in as comprehensive and generous a way as we have here. That is why, over time, we must rebuild our public finances to that position of, as he said, resilience and strength.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I wonder if hon. Members really do believe in being fair to everyone. If they do, I implore them to ask short questions—do not make statements and do not make speeches. This is a statement by the Chancellor. It is an occasion for a quick question. I have 36 people to get in and 25 minutes in which to do it. Shall we see whether Members really do want to be fair to everybody else?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]]

Behavioural scientists are clear that to get people to self-isolate requires that they have the capacity, motivation and opportunity to do so. So far, frankly, the £500 on offer is not achieving that. What assessment has the Chancellor made of that scheme, and what is he planning to do to improve it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right about the supply chain. He will know that much of the supply chain also supplies the on-premises trade as well as the off-premises, so those businesses will have some trade during this period, but he is right that we must ensure that it is there for the recovery. The supply chain will, of course, benefit from our furlough scheme, which is very comprehensive in its eligibility and very generous. I thank him for his points and will of course bear them in mind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Let us see if we can go a bit faster to try to get everybody in.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]]

The Young Women’s Trust found that because of covid 1.5 million women are losing income; 69% are claiming benefits to the first time; half of young mums are unable to keep or find employment because of childcare costs; and a third of women will not report sexual harassment for fear of being fired. Can the Chancellor therefore tell me how his Government can possibly continue to justify the five-week wait, have statutory sick pay at a disgracefully low £94 a week, and exclude many female business owners from help? Will he take proper action for women, who are bearing the brunt of this pandemic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have a lot of respect, mentioned two things: unemployment and child poverty. We know that the best way to ensure that children do not grow up in poverty is for them not to grow up in a workless household; indeed, the rate of poverty among children who are not in workless households is five times lower. Work—removing unemployment—is the best, surest and most sustainable way out of poverty, which is why this Government have backed with billions of pounds our various initiatives to support people into work, which I know she will support, whether that is the restart scheme, the kickstart scheme, doubling the amount of work coaches or increasing the incentive for people to take on new apprentices. Those are all the surest ways to help people out of poverty, and that is why we are committing billions of pounds to that end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We are officially out of time, but I will keep this running for a few minutes longer if Members will be decent and be quick. There are two more items of business, and it is simply not fair on other Members later in the day if this item of business takes too long.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

Retraining opportunities will be a crucial part of our economic recovery. I have been really impressed by companies such as Openreach, which has set a promising target for more women in its employment programmes. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor look at making sure that women are not excluded from the economic recovery?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

The Welsh Government have received over £5 billion of up-front funding guarantees to support their local economy. I hope they will use it to do exactly that, but also, Welsh businesses will benefit from UK-wide interventions—for example, our furlough scheme, our loan programme or, indeed, some of the VAT reductions—and I have said that all our support now extends through to the spring. We will have a Budget on 3 March, where we will set out the next stage of that economic response to coronavirus.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Between this item of business and the next statement, I will briefly suspend the House for three minutes.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill: Business of the House

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I would simply say this in response to the right hon. Gentleman: the Government have been moving at great speed, and much of the regulation is already in the public domain, together with an enormous amount of further communications and support systems. The Government are putting in front of the House today a Bill that encodes the Northern Ireland protocol and a Command Paper that has been in the public domain for many months, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to have more scrutiny, he perhaps might have considered not having a debate on this motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am aware that some Members would like to make points on this, but I am afraid that it is not in order for them to do so, because under current rules I have to stick to the speaking list. Just as a matter of fact, interventions would have been fine, but not speeches.

Question put and agreed to.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Rebecca Harris.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As the House has just agreed, amendments and new clauses to be moved in Committee of the Whole of House may now be tabled. Hon. Members should table through the Public Bill Office inbox, which is [e-mail]. They should not attempt to hand in amendments and new clauses to the Table in the Chamber due to the current situation of the pandemic.

International Men’s Day

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ben Bradley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Representing a constituency and community like mine, where these lads are really struggling, taught me about the need for face-to-face contact and support for the most disadvantaged children. That is hugely important, and I thank her for raising that.

What is the point of the Equality Act 2010 if its usage is based only on what seems popular or politically correct, rather than on reality in order to help those most in need? The reality and the figures tell us that boys need help getting into higher education, more so than girls, so are these interventions actually making this inequality worse? Possibly so. To be absolutely clear, that is not to say that we should not help girls, but simply that selecting who to help based on physical characteristics alone is the very definition of discrimination; that the need for this help should be evidenced if it is to comply with the law; and that boys need help too.

Boys seem consistently left behind by this kind of politically correct agenda. So long as the Equality Act continues to be so wilfully and regularly misapplied across gender, race and every other characteristic, it can do more harm than good. We need to make clear in this place that we should help people based on their actual need, and that the Act applies equally to everybody. Would it not be nice to try to help those most in need —based not on their physical characteristics but on what they need? Or at least to recognise that we all have equal protection under this law? Whether gay, black and minority ethnic, female or a straight white man, those are all protected characteristics.

Men face countless challenges in our society. Three times as many men as women die by suicide, with men aged 40 to 49 having the highest rates. Men report lower levels of life satisfaction, according to the Government’s national wellbeing survey, but are less likely to access psychological therapies. Nearly three quarters of adults who go missing are men. Eighty-seven per cent. of rough sleepers are men. Men are three times as likely to become dependent on alcohol or drugs, are more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act and are more likely to be a victim of violent crime. Of course, men also make up the vast majority of the prison population. These figures really put that male privilege in perspective.

In recent years, it seems like more and more phrases coming into use are designed to undermine the role and confidence of men in our society. I mentioned a few before—male privilege, toxic masculinity, mansplaining, manterrupting, the trend of spelling “woman” with an x to remove the undesirable “man” part. That is wonderfully empowering for some, I am sure, but as I said at the beginning of this speech, somebody seeking equality of fairness does not need to mean they drag down everyone around them. I am fairly sure that bad behaviour is not limited solely to the male of the species, nor is rudeness gender specific.

The outcome of this discourse and this language for many men is serious, particularly in the most disadvantaged communities. There is such a thing as working-class values—values that have lasted for many decades that might be considered old hat or even sexist by the modern establishment. They include holding the door open for a lady and expecting a man to stick around and provide for his family. The idea that a man being a worker and breadwinner is a positive role model for his children is still entrenched and well taught. That is not to the detriment of women or to limit their ambition, but about the promotion of family, of tradition, of strong male role models. These things are important.

Having been brought up with those values, a lot of men from those communities will feel lost if they are unable to find work due to our economic situation. They might feel helpless, or like failures. They are far from it, but they need our support. We might also find that young men looking ahead and seeking their purpose in life might struggle to find it when they are told that those things they thought were virtues—their good manners, wanting to provide for their family, wanting to be a man’s man, wanting to go down to the football at the weekend and have some banter with the lads—are in fact not virtuous but toxic and doing down the women around them; those manners and the way they were taught to respect the women in their life are now sexist; that banter is now bullying.

On family, rather than promoting strong male role models, we often encourage dads to be more like mums, trying to break down tradition, teaching them the opposite of what they were always told growing up and that they have been doing it wrong. We talk of “deadbeat” dads. We have a legal system in the family courts that seems to assume the guilt of many men in a relationship. We have men being alienated from their kids. We talk more and more about how desirable it is to have different kinds of families, with the implication that we do not need those strong male role models. Is it any wonder that so many are struggling to figure all this out?

It is right that people should live by their own choices, and be who they want to be, however they are comfortable. That is true whether someone is gay or straight, black or white, male or female, and it is equally true if what they want is to fulfil the traditional role of a strong father, provider and breadwinner—to be, for want of a better word, a bloke. I fear that we are building up huge problems for the future when we forget the traditional role of men—indeed, sometimes we do not just forget it; we try to eradicate it from our society.

With few of life’s advantages on their side in such an environment, and when society seems insistent on ripping the heart out of things that they experienced growing up and the things they were taught, it is no wonder that so many young men tragically cut their lives short. We cannot continue to talk down the role and purpose of young men when we should be building them up.

Let me move on a little from the gloom and doom and speak about some positive things and actions we can take. I particularly want to play tribute to dads, and to all those dads who are putting their families first and doing the right thing, I say this: thank you. That is often taken for granted, but it is so important. I know myself how difficult it is in this job to balance being a dad with work, and try to keep myself on a level and live up to expectations. It is not easy.

There are countless thousands of dads out there who have a much tougher task than me—dads who might be struggling financially or be battling things like trying to see their kids, or fighting in the family courts to do the right thing. They are trying to be a role model for their kids, although truthfully, we are all making it up as we go along. Some dads might be trying to overcome their own challenges with mental health, work or stress, and they might feel as if they have to hide that away for the sake of their families and children.

I want to say a big thank you to good dads, and to those who are trying their best to be good dads and good men. That can make all the difference for our kids, for families, and for our society. There are places and people that dads can go to if they need help. Those are places such as the Samaritans, Rethink, the Campaign Against Living Miserably—CALM—helpline, Safeline, or a friend or relative. It is good to talk, as they say, rather than sweep things under the carpet.

What more can we in this place do? For starters, we can change the discourse here. Can we look again at equalities legislation? If we are to hold Departments across Whitehall to account, with people dedicated to ensuring—quite rightly so—that women are considered, why not do the same for men? Why have a Minister for Women, but not one for men? Why single out one characteristic for a special mention? Can we ensure that equality means just that, rather than positive discrimination at the expense of certain groups, and ensure that the male is as equally protected as the female? We could do worse in this place to confirm how the Equality Act 2010 should be properly used.

Can we promote the role of fatherhood, and stop shying away from its importance? Yes, families come in all shapes and sizes. I do not wish to detract from anyone who wants to do things differently, but the positive role to be played by an active father cannot, and should not, be ignored. Modern families are all different, but you can guarantee that every one of them has involved a dad in one way or another. The vast majority of families still look like a mum, dad, and kids and we should not shy away from that.

Can we push forward an action plan to look at male suicide? We know the figures are awful, and we should have someone in Government accountable for delivering that plan, including better access to mental health support. Can we review our legal system, which is not always balanced, and our family courts, which too often seem to consider dads guilty until proven innocent? Parental alienation seems to be increasing, and more and more dads feel that they have been let down by the system. Can we reform the Child Maintenance Service—the bane of every MP’s life, by the way—so that it is fairer to all parties and works in the interests of families? Can we have a long-term plan to improve available alcohol addiction services, as those who need them are overwhelmingly male? Can we boost support for new fathers, as well as mothers, at a time when men can often feel totally helpless?

Although, as the name suggests, the Prime Minister’s Race Disparity Unit focuses particularly on race, I am pleased that it includes looking at education, attainment and support for white working-class boys. There are regional, cultural and gender-based inequalities, and the challenge faced by boys in education cannot be denied. The figures show a clear picture of increasing numbers of left-behind boys who grow into troubled young men seeking purpose. That is a huge challenge for our wider society, and I hope we can build on that work and consider it in more detail. I will end with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, so as to give colleagues as much time as I can. I thank the Minister for her consideration today, and I look forward to listening to the thoughts of colleagues across the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will have to rush into this with a time limit of three minutes for Back-Bench speeches, and there will not be much time for Front-Bench speeches either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing this vital debate. I agree with his comments about the underperformance of white boys from underprivileged backgrounds in the school system. The facts speak for themselves and they cannot be disputed. I think it right that the Education Committee, on which I serve, is currently looking at that issue in depth. That is not to say we are not going to look at other issues, but why should we not look at that one issue as well?

I want to talk about men’s mental health, which is getting more attention now than it ever has. The simple fact is that many men who struggle with their mental health do not feel comfortable talking about it. They might think deep down it is a sign of weakness—of course they are wrong, it is not—but they should feel comfortable to talk about it. Awareness of mental health is greater than it has ever been, because there is not a single person in this country whose mental health has not been impacted to some extent. I think even about my own father. If I had spoken to him a year or two ago about mental health, he probably would have said, “Man up—stiff upper lip,” and taken a very masculine approach to it, whereas he is 75 years old and has had to shield himself, and when I talked to him about this very issue not long ago, I never thought that I would hear it but my dad was talking about his mental health. That is a good thing, and we should encourage more of it.

There are great challenges, and the pandemic has brought this issue to light more than ever. Many of the things that men rely on, such as going to watch the football, fishing and golf, have not been possible, particularly during this second lockdown. I wish, though, to highlight something brilliant that is happening in Chantry in Ipswich. Over the summer, the local landlady, Penny, spoke to me about the problem of men’s mental health and how she wanted to do something about it. After a small period—two to three months—she now has 33 members of her men’s mental health support group in Chantry, including Rex Manning, a professionally trained chef from the local area. They have secured an allotment at the Robin Drive allotments, and all the men go down there, become members and talk. Even if they do not feel comfortable talking about their mental health directly, engaging in something like that, which is so good for their wellbeing, really brings people and the whole community together. They make produce with the vegetables, and Rex collects it all together and they all eat it together in the local pub.

Men’s mental health is a very challenging issue, and it is right that we have this debate, but there is a great opportunity here. The pandemic has highlighted mental health more than ever before, but talking about our mental health is not a sign of weakness; it is something that should be encouraged. It is right that we have this debate today, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

An hon. Gentleman has, unusually, withdrawn from the debate, which gives us a tiny bit of extra time. I am therefore going to raise the limit on Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. As shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, I am conscious that we should seek not to pit the problems of men and women against each other but to aspire to raise outcomes where one is below the other.

We have heard a number of important contributions in this debate. First, I congratulate the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. We see that it is now truly an annual occasion after a year’s absence, as it fell during the election campaign last year. Having read, through Hansard, previous iterations of this debate, I am reassured that we are continuing to emphasise these important issues, but concerned to note that they still need to be raised.

The ongoing tragedy of male suicides has continued, with the rate in England and Wales of 16.9 deaths per 100,000, the highest since 2000. That remains in line with the rate in 2018, and makes up about three quarters of suicides. Males aged 45 to 49 still have the highest age-specific suicide rate. A number of colleagues have mentioned charities that work hard in this field, so I commend the work of CALM, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, Rethink, Mind and the other organisations that have been highlighted. I would also like to remind all Members that the Samaritans can be phoned at any time, day or night, on 116 123.

The same messages are given every year and are ever more relevant in 2020, with all its stress and fear. Men should feel able to talk about their problems with friends or professionals. They do not have to do it in public like hon. Members have today, but society must accept and embrace a more open understanding of men’s feelings and concerns. I include in that men who may be gay, bisexual or transgender who feel alone or scared about their very identities. They must be more supportive of each other. I note the news today that the Government are ending the £4 million funding for anti-LGBT bullying in our schools. That is a real step backwards that will prolong harm for too many young boys.

I cannot join Movember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I praise the Members who are doing it this year and hope that they may continue to brighten the spotlight on men’s health. Most obviously, covid has had a disproportionate fatal impact on men. As further research unearths more about what is still a very new virus, we may find out why. On prostate cancer, the second-biggest killer of men worldwide, I encourage men to discuss it with their doctors at age 50, and black men or men with a family history of prostate cancer should discuss it at 45. On testicular cancer, men should know how to test themselves. It is not taboo to look these things up. Men are more likely to die prematurely than women, including of diseases that are considered preventable. Please do not be too scared to ask questions for fear of some toxic male expectations or image. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for raising these health issues.

We have rightly heard today about the challenges of boys’ educational attainment and the need for schools and the Department for Education to address this. Whether this means more male teachers, more male role models or closer support and attention to alternative teaching methods, it is a real concern. The literacy gap between boys and girls peaks at 16, when children are beginning to consider their choices for life after school.

Men are still more likely to be victims of violent crime in the UK—men are nearly twice as likely as women to be a victim of violent crime—and among children, boys are more likely than girls to be victims of violence, while more than two thirds of murder victims are male. It is worth mentioning the male victims of domestic violence, and the statistics show that they are less likely to speak out or confide in somebody about it. They must not be forgotten, as was mentioned in a powerful contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey).

As the days and nights get colder and wetter, it is sombre to think of the thousands of rough sleepers on our streets. The Government’s actions earlier in the year showed that it is possible to eliminate rough sleeping, but now, once again, there are huge numbers of people forced to choose between a cold winter on the streets of our country or the threat of catching covid in an overcrowded shelter. Government statistics state that 86% of rough sleepers in England are male. I hope the Minister can say what will be done to end this awful situation.

Finally, it is worth remembering that today is International Men’s Day, and we should consider the problems that men and boys face around the world, where they die on average six years before women, thousands are forced into becoming child soldiers, and gay men in particular are all too often oppressed with threats of violent death. Once again, I thank all of the speakers, and I hope that in next year’s debate we will be able to report on progress in these many important areas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before the Minister starts, I must commend the House. I said we would have to rush through this and I was expecting the Minister to be on her feet with only five minutes to spare, but the House has been so disciplined, speeches have been so to the point, precise, moving and clever, that I hope other people will learn that brevity is indeed the soul of wit. I am not going to mention the fact that very few women have taken part in the debate this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the Minister for her response and for the work that she is doing to get the equalities agenda right, and particularly the hub that she mentioned, which includes socioeconomic and geographical factors for the first time—I raised this in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, and I am very pleased about that. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), to her place and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for talking about reaching out to our loved ones at this very difficult time.

I say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I am very sorry that he got only three minutes to speak, because he is as responsible as I am for securing this debate. It is a great shame. He gets half the credit at least that colleagues have paid to me in the Chamber. I thank all colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. I do not have time to go through them all but others have, and there were some very moving, heartfelt ones.

International Men’s Day is one day that we celebrate annually, but this is not a conversation just for one day. It is a chance to raise great role models and huge challenges—things that we can do every day in this House in the very privileged position that we hold. The public discourse—the negative attitudes—that I mentioned pervades every day. The support that men and boys need is needed every day and is available every day. We should all be helping men to reach out and seek help, and continuing to raise the issues that we have discussed today—many of which are around mental health, suicide and our services—at every opportunity in this House, not just on International Men’s Day, but when this day has long gone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

What an excellent debate—and accomplished in less than one hour.

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). It is safe to say, as others have done, that this is not a debate that will have folk at home sitting on the edge of their seat awfully excited, that is for sure. None the less, it is an incredibly important debate. It is an incredibly important matter for the UK economy, but also for the Scottish economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) outlined. The financial services sector in Scotland is incredibly important, and it is linked to tens of thousands of jobs across our nation. It is in that broader context that we are obviously quite content to let this Bill pass on Second Reading, bearing in mind the fact that a regulatory framework is needed at this stage. I hope the Government will be amenable to some of the amendments we will put forward. Those amendments will broadly—how shall I put it?—be borne out of frustration that perhaps the Bill does not necessarily go as far as it could or should go. I will seek to touch on a couple of those matters during my speech today.

The first one I would like to touch on is about clause 31, which is on money laundering. Clause 31 in itself appears to be one that is quite self-congratulatory in its nature. To quote, as I feel is appropriate to do on this occasion, the Government say that the Bill

“will further support the public and private sectors to efficiently and effectively target their resources towards potential criminal activity using trusts, maintaining the resilience of the UK’s defences against economic crime.”

On the face of it, that looks like a fantastic thing, but when we look a little bit more at what we on the SNP Benches have been saying for a number of years now about Scottish limited partnerships, it appears that the warm words of the Government do not actually bear fruit given the reality of the picture on the ground. It should not need to be said to Members on the Government Benches, but when we are talking about Scottish limited partnerships, we are talking about organisations through which people can access financial products without having to name who they are. If that is not an open invitation to money laundering, I do not know what is. When we look at money laundering in the context of Scottish limited partnerships and also of tax avoidance and £35 billion tax gap that exists in the UK at this moment in time, it is probably safe to say that the public are a little bit sceptical about whether the Government take this as seriously as they should.

Our frustrations do not stop there. They also relate to clause 32, on the debt respite scheme. The Government say that clause 32 will

“empower the Government to make regulations which will compel creditors to accept amended repayment terms”.

Again, on the face of it, that seems like a perfectly legitimate and correct thing to do, but does it necessarily address the situation at this moment in time, when businesses across Scotland and the UK have taken out bounce back loans and coronavirus business interruption loans that they will not be able to pay back? Does it meet the reality of the situation? I am very sceptical as to whether it does.

The Government have two options on that front. They could simply write off that debt for small to medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our economy, or they could take strategic moves to turn some of that debt into equity stakes, where it would be appropriate to do so, to boost economic activity and perhaps gain some money back for the public purse. Unfortunately, again I am sceptical as to whether the Government will seek to do either of those things. That is not in any way a positive outcome.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on clauses 24 to 26, on the overseas funds regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, the ABI has expressed concerns about the potential for equivalence to be used as a political football. I think all of us have that concern. We heard warm words from the Chancellor earlier today about the fact that he would not seek to use it as a political football, but being a bit of a sceptic about this Government, I think that warm words from the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box are not quite good enough. The record of this Government when it comes to saying one thing and doing the complete opposite is all too clear for everyone to see, so I have grave concerns in that regard.

The issue of equivalence takes me on to the final point that I wish to make, which is about the ongoing shambles in relation to Brexit. The UK Government website states that the Bill will “promote financial stability”. We do not have a trade deal with the European Union, and the transition period is a matter of weeks away. We do not know whether it will be possible for our financial services to access markets in Europe uninhibited. The scale of that issue is immense, particularly when we consider the fact that the City of London alone accounts for just under a third of all capital market activity across Europe. The market that we are seeking to leave is enormous, and this Government appear to have no plan and no desire to act prudently.

We heard from the Chancellor earlier, and we will probably hear it again from Government Members, that the blame for this lies at the EU’s feet, because it is refusing to partake in discussions in a proper and appropriate way. Who can blame the EU when, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, this UK Government are actively seeking to break international law? Who can blame the EU for being a little bit sceptical about the intentions of this Conservative Government? The sabre rattling needs to end, and the Government need to realise that the financial services industry must have the access it needs to support the tens of thousands of jobs that are reliant upon it, not only in England but in Scotland.

To conclude, I want to once again clarify that this Bill is very much born out of necessity, and we broadly support the regulatory framework around it. However, what is clear from this Bill, from the Brexit shambles and from the fact that the UK’s credit rating once again got downgraded just three days before the Bill was published, is that this Tory Government are no longer a Government of financial stability. I long for the day when Scotland no longer has to take its decisions in this place but can take its own decisions as an independent European nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Gareth Davies. I will give him a moment in case he is here—I should have gone to Specsavers. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You almost caught me unawares, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thought that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) would be about.

I broadly support what is in the Bill, but I have a couple of requests, as others have had. I want to make three specific points on the LIBOR transition, debt respite and the inadequate FCA regulatory framework for SME lending. I say, first, that it is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is always very responsive to us all on the questions we ask him, and he always keeps a smile on his face—it is always something you do extremely well, even though the questions that we may put to you are hard and perhaps not always put in the way that they should be.

LIBOR, the London interbank offered rate, is an interest rate benchmark used to indicate banks’ costs of funding their activities: for example, the cost of obtaining money for a loan they will make. It has been used and continues to be used as a reference in hundreds of trillions of pounds-worth of financial contracts, so this is a very important issue. The former FCA chief executive officer and now Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, said that after 2021 the FCA will no longer persuade or compel banks to submit the underlying data that goes to calculating LIBOR, causing concern that it could cease to exist. Minister, it is a really big issue for us all, and certainly one that people have contacted me about. There have been many loans in the past and that are still in force where banks have used LIBOR.

I understand that the existing powers on benchmarks granted to the FCA, passed under EU law and to form part of UK law from 2021, are seen as insufficient to ensure a smooth transition away from the use of LIBOR, so again, Minister, perhaps you can give me an answer on that. I welcome, among other things, clauses 8 to 19, which appear to grant the FCA greater powers to compel the continued publication of the benchmarks, to prohibit the use of benchmarks and to oversee the orderly wind-down of benchmarks. I hope that the new FCA chief executive officer will now deploy these powers at the earliest opportunity. Again, Minister, perhaps we will be able to get some indication of a timescale for that, if possible, to assure us on where we are.

I welcome the fact that the Government have made a commitment to Gibraltar. Others have referred to it and others will—it is certainly one of the issues that I am concerned about. This gives peace of mind to that sector and we thank you for that.

Can I, Minister, perhaps underline another issue—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say, “Can I, Minister—”. How many millions of times have I said this to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—only usually, I do not, because there is no time and there is a lot going on? Here I have my opportunity: he has heard my request to him a hundred times to please address the Chair. He cannot say, “Minister, will you do this?” And even worse, when he is addressing the Prime Minister, he must not say, “Prime Minister, will you do this?” He has to say, “Will the Prime Minister do this?” and “Will the Minister do this?”—in the third person, not the second person, please.

[Jim Shannon]

I stand corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will use my best endeavours to do that. Sometimes I get carried away in the emotion of the debate—it is a very emotional debate, of course—and I find that maybe I do not use the correct words.

Will the Minister look at the issue of money laundering in Northern Ireland? I make that comment because in all the countries across the globe, and particularly in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, money laundering is one of the issues that concerns me greatly. We have had many cases of money laundering over the last while, and we have many cases in Northern Ireland where paramilitary groups are involved in clear money laundering activities, which are against the law. With the Bill coming forward, will the Minister be able to give an assurance on money laundering, particularly in Northern Ireland? What discussions have taken place with the regional Assembly and the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly with responsibility for policing and justice, and what has been the feedback from that? I think that if we are going to do this well, we have to ensure that contact is made with the regional devolved Administration and that there are discussions outside that, particularly with the Republic of Ireland. Many illegal things are taking place in respect of transport across the border in all places, but we must tackle the ability of paramilitary groups to actively use the border with this purpose in mind.

Secondly, on the debt respite scheme, will the Minister confirm that clause 32 will amend the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 to empower the Government to make regulations that compel creditors to accept amended repayment terms; provide for a charging mechanism through which creditors will contribute to the costs of running the scheme and repayment plans; and include debts owed to a Government Department at any level, including the devolved Administrations, in the statutory debt repayment plan? Again, I make a plea for the Northern Ireland Assembly: what will be the position in relation to any debts that are due? When do the Government expect to bring forward the relevant regulations? What discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations on the statutory debt repayment plan?

The Treasury will be aware that the Business Banking Resolution Service has to be part of an effective solution under this process. The Democratic Unionist party remains concerned that we are not on track to do that. While the income from financial services is notable, so is the responsibility not only to shareholders but to the Government. We must ensure that that obligation is understood completely by enforcing the BBRS within legislation.

Thirdly and lastly, I refer to the bank lending regulatory framework. I finish with this because I believe it is the most important point. I know that the Minister is fully aware of it from discussions with the DUP and others who have contacted him. I have been in contact with him regularly about this issue since he first spoke about it at the Dispatch Box in January 2019. Of course, I have also been in touch with the Chancellor over the past month. The Minister must agree that it is crucial for SMEs to have the opportunity to export their products and services to the global economy, and the support to do so. I believe that our financial services industry, and banks in particular, must be regulated by the FCA in a much more legally effective way under this Government. Minister, it is very important that we have the bite, so to speak. It is all very well having words, but we need the strength of legislation to govern the banks’ small business lending post-Brexit.

The Government must get this right. I know that they can and I know that there is a will to do so. It is important that the future legal and regulatory framework allows our SMEs to have confidence in the 21st century global economy. I believe we have an opportunity to get it right this time, and it is time to do just that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that is to your satisfaction. Thank you very much.

Lockdown: Economic Support

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

That is simply not correct because the Department of Health, to which we have allocated funding for Track and Trace, is subject to managing public money rules in the same way as any other Department. It is subject to the decisions of its accounting officer and its Ministers in the usual way, so the normal managing public money rules would apply.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am terribly sorry, but I missed out the hon. Member for St Ives—Derek Thomas.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope it is worth waiting for.

Can I thank the Chief Secretary for all that is being done to help my constituents in west Cornwall and on Scilly? One of the great successes of recent years is the job growth across Cornwall, and that is because small businesses have been set up by entrepreneurs—individuals who know they cannot get a big job in big business, because they do not exist in Cornwall, so they have set up their business. The problem is that they are very early in their business, and they are growing, maturing and flourishing, but this year has been a disaster for them. They are at a point now where they just do not know if it is worth continuing, because of his second lockdown being announced, and they just do not know what the future holds. Will the Chief Secretary look very carefully at how we can encourage these people to stick with it, but also look at, as we have discussed already this afternoon many times, the support that is available to these fledgling businesses so they really have the finances to sustain these jobs? We must make sure these businesses can be part of the recovery that we will so badly need next year and beyond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I know that my right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the Union and part of the strength of the furlough scheme has been its ability to provide support across the United Kingdom; it is a UK-wide scheme. Thanks to the Treasury’s ability to operate a UK-wide scheme, we have been able to put in place more than £200 billion of support—the comprehensive package that I mentioned a moment ago—which is why it stands international comparison in terms of its scale and speed. That was recognised by the IMF director just last week, and the furlough will continue to be a UK-wide scheme.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those anticipating the next item of business, we will suspend the House for three minutes.

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. He has done this because the motion was tabled only shortly before the moment of interruption yesterday, and because one of his predecessors selected a manuscript amendment to an Opposition day motion in comparable circumstances on Monday 3 December 2001, thus creating a precedent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) who keeps chuntering: you had your chance, mate. Let other people in.

For hundreds of years, Mancunians have been told to know our place, but we have never listened—from the People’s History Museum to the Mechanics Institute, from our science and industry to women’s suffrage. We will not be told what our place is, and we will not be bullied into taking it. We are proud of our history and proud of our collective contribution to our great country and determined to build a great future together.

This is not just about Greater Manchester; this is about all of us. We will not be picked off one by one. We will not be offered the crumbs when we helped bake the loaf. We deserve a fair slice and our people deserve a Government willing to protect them and to do as the Chancellor promised—“Whatever it takes”. In recent days, it has been Lancashire, Liverpool and Greater Manchester. Next week, and in the weeks ahead, it will be communities in other parts of the country that find themselves in tier 3. If the Government are prepared to wilfully inflict so much harm on their own people in the middle of a pandemic in one part of the country, they will do it to people elsewhere as well.

We are staring down the barrel of a bleak winter, because the Government have lost control of the virus: infections are rising; hospital admissions are rising; and deaths, tragically, are rising. The testing system has collapsed. People and businesses across the country will be anxious that they will not be able to make ends meet and put food on the table. Our motion today will ensure a fair national deal for the country, a vote of this House on it and the Government’s own promises to workers kept. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. [Interruption.] Do not heckle me while I am on my feet. I call Steve Barclay to move the manuscript amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to everyone in the Chamber and those who wish to take part but cannot get in because it is very nearly full—I appreciate why they cannot be here—that this debate is very over-subscribed. From the very beginning, the time limit will have to be four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

The past few weeks have been utterly exhausting, not just for those of us who represent Greater Manchester and local authority leaders but, more importantly, for the people we represent. Areas such as my constituency have lived with restrictions for months, and there is a real sense of never having properly left the lockdown that we all endured at the start of the year. That is why today I can only express my absolute dismay at how things have gone over the past 48 hours.

None of us—I do mean none—wanted to go into tier 3. The Minister will have heard from all 27 Greater Manchester MPs at one point or another, and even the press noted our outbreak of unity. However, as the weeks dragged on and brief and counter-brief ping-ponged their way across social media and the front pages, the likelihood of getting something that works for Greater Manchester became more and more remote. I need only look at my Twitter feed today to see that Andy Burnham, consummate performer that he is, is already rewriting the past few weeks, aided by the breathless adulation of the commentariat. The important message behind all this, however, is that 2.8 million people are now in desperate need of answers.

I watched yesterday’s press conference as the Mayor donned his carefully confected outrage and gave an encore performance of his old refrain, “Nothing to do with me.” We should let local leaders, with the support of Greater Manchester’s MPs, talk to the Government about how we will be supported over the next 28 days and beyond. The people I represent are being asked to face the toughest restrictions of their lives and livelihoods since March, and I am genuinely worried—I am sure that colleagues are, too—about the future of the people and businesses in the communities we serve. I have asked the Government to ensure that their efforts are redoubled and that any settlement with individual boroughs in Greater Manchester is conducted quickly. Despite our myriad political differences, I know that the leader of Rochdale Borough Council cares deeply for the people of our borough, and I will work with him, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and anyone else who wants to ensure that we have the support we need.

We have been very badly let down. Andy Burnham inserted himself into this process, and at every step of the way, he promoted himself as the leader of Greater Manchester and purported to speak for us all. Some of us—I include myself in this—were willing to give him some latitude. Not unlike the First Minister of Scotland, Mr Burnham has the same sort of reality distortion field, which allows him to shrug off every broken promise and failed initiative and to emerge squeaky clean. In all honesty, who would not want some of that stardust working for them?

I am a pragmatist. I just wanted the support package; I did not care who got credit for it. Unfortunately, the Mayor did. That is why, after a demand of £65 million was made at the negotiating table and the majority of that sum—92%—was offered, Andy got up and walked away from the table, all because he wanted to brag about having got more money than Merseyside or Lancashire. That dogma and demagoguery will cost people dearly.

I am supporter of devolution, which on the whole I think has been a positive force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I cannot say the same for the piecemeal and patchy system that we have in England. Mayors have ill-defined and varying powers, which makes them next to impossible to scrutinise or hold to account. What this whole shabby episode has told us should be a salutary lesson for us all. Today’s last minute debate has all the hallmarks of the same opportunism that has done so much damage over the past few days, no doubt with a carefully calculated vote at the end, designed for release on social media afterwards.

I implore Opposition Members to park the opportunism. I know the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) thinks this is a good crisis that the Labour party should exploit, and I know she speaks for a lot of her Front Bench colleagues when she says that. We just need to see it in the support-U-turn-oppose approach that has characterised their hindsight-heavy behaviour. [Interruption.] Excuse me, did the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) just call me scum?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will not have remarks like that from the Front Bench: not under any circumstances, no matter how heartfelt they might be—not at all.

[Angela Rayner]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask your guidance on the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) saying things in his speech about Labour Front Benchers that are inaccurate. I ask him to withdraw them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is not for the Chair to decide what is accurate or inaccurate. I cannot make such a judgment, but of course I will ask the hon. Gentleman to be reasonable in what he says and to be careful of his remarks. I am sure that if he feels he has said anything that is offensive to the hon. Lady, he will undoubtedly withdraw and apologise immediately.

[Chris Clarkson]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should clarify that I asked the hon. Lady whether she called me that. That is what I heard.

I implore Opposition Members to look at the damage that is being done here, to follow the example of Labour leaders in the Liverpool and Sheffield city regions who put the welfare of their constituents first and to see the debacle of Andy Burnham’s failure for the learning experience it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am sure I am not the only person in the House who is suffering from an overwhelming and frustrating sense of déjà vu. Often in this crisis, I feel like a parent dealing with a petulant teenager—it does not matter how often we say it, because even though they know in their heart of hearts that their parents are right, they do not want to admit it. Like that parent of a petulant teenager, the nagging from Opposition Members is because we care. We care about the outcome, and we care about people who are suffering across this country.

We care about businesses such as the long-established recruitment firm in my constituency that came to me because it did not qualify for support, or the company I spoke to this morning that was successful until March and now has to make people redundant—something that would have been unthinkable a year ago. This evening, I will be talking to constituents about how we can save Murrayfield ice rink, one of not only Edinburgh’s but Scotland’s most loved and used facilities. These might all be statistics to the Government; I hope they are not. But behind every single one of these cases are people—employees who are suffering and many self-employed people who have had no income for months.

Minister, this Government have to admit it, and admit it soon: what we saw yesterday in Greater Manchester is not an isolated case. People up and down this country feel abandoned and feel that the Government are not doing enough for them. They want to know why we are letting them down. They have contributed to the economy for years, and now they need something back—where is it? They face unprecedented hardship. That will only continue, and for some it will get worse.

It is an accepted fact in this country, repeated by various Conservative Governments over the years, that small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators are the backbone of the British economy. Minister, that back is breaking, and it needs this Government’s help. We need them to bring back the original job retention scheme after the end of this month and to keep it going until June next year; to extend the business rates holiday to the end of 2021 to protect the retail, hospitality, leisure and childcare sectors; and to bring in those excluded groups who have nothing.

Einstein said that to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result is madness. Well, Minister, I am prepared to indulge in that madness in the hope, which I hope is not a vain one, that the Government will eventually listen to the many voices in this country saying that we need to keep furlough—full furlough, the job retention scheme. We need to support more people. We need our economy to survive this, because without it we are all in deep, deep trouble.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady’s rhetoric, but three times during her speech she addressed the Minister. Yes, I see she gets the point. I make the point so that Members who are new to the House will not think she is correct, and I let her do it three times. The hon. Lady clearly knows, and I hope others will take note, that she should address the Chair.

Black History Month

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this important debate and on the passion and eloquence of her opening speech. I echo her call to everyone who wants to make change happen to register to vote in next year’s elections. I am pleased to be speaking in the Black History Month debate today, particularly given the fact that many Luton South constituents have signed the parliamentary petitions on teaching black history as part of a more inclusive curriculum.

I have heard many others speak about their experiences at school, and I want to pay tribute to the fantastic education I got at a diverse, working-class comprehensive and the experiences that have enabled me to stand here in this debate as an ally with my black and brown friends from school. I also want to pay tribute to my former teacher, Mr Taylor, who did his bit for black history education over 30 years ago. But he was not a history teacher; he was our drama teacher. He recognised not only the importance of teaching black history but the fact that education comes in many forms. He recognised the power of drama and creativity to engage young people of all races with knowledge and ideas. This is not politicising education, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) said; it is, importantly, enabling young people to better understand the world around them. That was how a diverse bunch of working-class kids from a comprehensive in Luton in the ’80s learned about the life and actions of Martin Luther King and the wider civil rights movement in America. We did it through creating a play of his life in the form of a Greek tragedy, with the chorus reiterating: “Martin Luther King—he was black”. When we performed it at the end-of-term show, my mum said that you could have heard a pin drop.

I take that with me now, as I speak in this debate, because I have now been given the opportunity to stand up once again for my friends. People have referenced a shared history, and we must all own that shared history, but the racism experienced by my friends at school, and sometimes by me alongside them for being their friend, makes the sharing of that history really painful. We cannot just say, “It’s a shared history. Let’s explore it.” My experience of that history is very different from the experience of my black and brown friends.

I want to reflect on how we recognise and celebrate black history and the important black role models in my home town of Luton, and I shall do that by taking a moment to celebrate Luton’s first black woman mayor, Councillor Desline Stewart. She was mayor in the mid-1990s, and she served our town as a local councillor for over 30 years. I was pleased to serve alongside her as a local councillor for a number of years. Desline was one of the key founders of the Mary Seacole Housing Association in my constituency. In the 1980s, Desline responded to direct pleas from young people who were running away from home. They sought her out, as she had built a reputation for her philanthropic work accommodating people from a wide range of backgrounds. She welcomed everyone into her kitchen if they needed help. Over time, more and more people went to her for help, until it became clear that she would need to increase her outreach. With the support of local politicians, grants from Urban Aid and support from Luton Council and Luton churches, a recommendation to the Housing Corporation resulted in the purchase of the first two houses on Brantwood Road to support her work.

Here is another example of how educating about black history comes in all forms. Desline chose to name the housing trust because she wanted to recognise Mary Seacole, a pioneering British Jamaican nurse and heroine of the Crimean war who overcame racism and injustice to nurse soldiers during that war 200-odd years ago. Desline felt a strong kinship with Mary Seacole and wanted to recognise her humanitarian work and altruism. She believed that there was an affinity between her own rescuing of homeless young people and Seacole’s nursing of wounded soldiers on the battlefield. In celebrating black history, which is British history, we must remember that much of that history is recent and much of that history is local.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next Member, I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes, but on five minutes, I call Paul Bristow.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given me notice of her intention to raise this matter. I trust that the hon. Lady has informed the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

[Sara Britcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I see that she is nodding, so she has informed him. It is very important for good order in the Chamber that if a specific criticism is being made, the Member being criticised should be informed. That is perfectly in order.

The hon. Lady asks me how she might draw attention to—excuse me, please stay back there. I am addressing the hon. Lady; you have to sit down. [Interruption.] Yes, no matter what is going on in here, it is important that we keep social distance, and are seen to keep social distance, at all times.

The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chair is not responsible for remarks made and points brought forward by right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber, nor is it for me to adjudicate as to whether what has been said is or is not accurate—which is fortunate, because that would be a full-time job. However, the hon. Lady has asked me how she might draw attention to the point that she has made, and I would say to her that she has already done so.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of making corrections, this morning during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister suggested that 93% of the current income of people in pubs and the hospitality industry would be ring-fenced or supported, which is actually untrue and is very confusing for my constituents. I did not have the honour of informing him, but given that Twitter is awash with it, I am sure that he is well aware of this.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

First, I must say to the hon. Lady that she heard my answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). This is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair. I have to say to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) that as she was criticising a Member—whoever that Member might be—she ought to have informed the hon. Member that she was intending to do so. Once again, it is a point of debate and it is not for me to adjudicate on the accuracy of statistics, but she has drawn her important point to the attention of the House and, indeed, to those on the Treasury Bench.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what you say, but my understanding was that you did not have to notify Ministers. Ministers are, as it were, fair game, because they are accountable to the whole House. That has never been the rule that has operated previously and, of course, there is a specific reason for that, because Ministers have an opportunity to correct the record. The Prime Minister, if he wanted to, could correct the record, but as you say, he might spend all day every day correcting the record.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

And I might spend all day every day adjudicating between one side of the House and the other, and that is not what I am here for, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point that he has made. I am very anxious not to eat into the time on the important motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which we are about to debate.