Christmas Adjournment

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank you for allowing me the honour of firing off on this debate this afternoon, on the last day before the festive break.

As Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, I should explain to hon. Members why we are here in Westminster Hall, as they will be used to this kind of debate taking place in the main Chamber. Having not had any time from the Government for eight weeks, and not having any assurances that we would get any at all, the Backbench Business Committee decided to hold this debate here to ensure that it took place. We knew that this slot was available about three weeks ago, and it was only last week that we found that we would get time in the main Chamber today, and we already had queues of debates waiting to take up that time.

It may be a Christmas carol to some Members’ ears that I do not intend to use my contribution to discuss the intricacies of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Instead, I hope once again to illuminate the Commons with tales from the frozen wastes of the north, and in particular from my constituency of Gateshead.

Gateshead is a wonderful place, as I am sure Members from all sides of the House would agree. It has actually hosted Conservative party spring conferences, and Conservative party members have enjoyed themselves in Gateshead. They were very welcome, although they have not come back recently.

We have much to be proud of—our angel of the north, our Quayside development, the Baltic, the Sage Gateshead regional music centre and our Gateshead Millennium Bridge that connects us to that village on the north side of the River Tyne, which I believe is called Newcastle. Then there is our town centre redevelopment, which has dramatically increased footfall, our sports stadium, once renowned for hosting major national and international athletics events, our Metrocentre, and our wonderful municipal Victorian park, Saltwell Park. And we have great people, who have genuine generosity of spirit and Geordie warmth. I could go on at length about the great things that Gateshead has to offer, but I feel, sadly, a bit like a scratched record. Having had the honour of chairing the Backbench Business Committee since 2015, I have participated in a number of these debates, and I do not want to repeat much of what I have said before about Gateshead.

Although it is always fantastic to have the opportunity to talk about the many great things happening in Gateshead, I am afraid to say that, for the last eight and a half years, they have happened through the prism of austerity. My local authority has lost well over £100 million per annum in annual revenue since 2010, and that has made life very difficult for many of the poorest people living in my constituency. That is set against the backdrop of a significant year-on-year increase in demand for services, which is partly due to the growth in population. Perhaps more concerning is the significant growth in demand for services to meet the increasing needs in our community. Adult social care demand is well up, and children’s social care demand is increasing exponentially. There is no doubt that policies enacted by this and previous Governments have been driving down living standards and increasing the demand for social care services.

We are all well aware of the health benefits of preventive care, as well as the significant reduction in later costs if those preventive care measures are in place. However, in the north-east—an area with historically lower than average life expectancy—constituents have been pushed to breaking point and beyond by failing welfare reform policies, such as universal credit and personal independence payments. In addition, local authority provision has been pared back to such an extent that often some of those who are most in need still miss out.

It is all well and good for the Prime Minister to decree the end of austerity, but the numbers and the reality do not match the rhetoric. Gateshead, my own local authority, faces a funding gap in the next financial year of a further £29.2 million, rising to £76.7 million by the year 2022-23 and 2023-24. Withdrawing the revenue support grant to local authorities is a policy decision that the Government are entitled to make, but to do that without reforming the council tax system for collecting local revenue is reckless, bordering on criminal. It means that the two sides of the equation do not add up.

To put it in simple terms, when council tax was brought in in the early 1990s, everyone breathed a sigh of relief, because it meant the end of the community charge—the poll tax. Here we are, 28 years later. The council tax system was brought in with bands A to H, with band D as the median, and it was fine for a time. Once the revenue support grant is withdrawn, however, without rectifying the council tax banding system, a local authority such as mine where 65% of all the properties are band A cannot raise enough revenue to meet the needs of the community that it serves.

It is well documented that there is a correlation between cuts to preventive work and increased costs further down the line. The Government continue to give out platitudes and soundbites while constituents of hon. Members all across the House have nowhere else to go. The Government talk about parity of esteem for mental health and physical health, while cutting back on funding to the NHS for public health programmes and cutting local authority budgets—the 12 local authorities in north-east England will lose a combined £190 million from their public health budget, which is there to provide preventive health programmes. The Government talk about helping people into work, while leaving many of my constituents with no more than £190 per month to pay their utility bills and to feed themselves. Many of my constituents are left with £45 a week to live on.

Last week, I met a very severely disabled lady called Anna, who I first met four or five years ago. She is confined to a wheelchair and has had the mobility element in her benefits payments reduced. At the same time, she faces significantly increased charges for her daily care packages, because she requires round-the-clock care. She now does not have enough money to get out of the house more than once a week. It is sad, in the 21st century, that one of the most vulnerable people living in Gateshead—an intelligent woman, confined to a wheelchair—is not able to get out of the house more than once a week because of the constraints on her finances. The care packages that she pays for are sometimes nothing more than 15-minute flying visits.

The Government talk about solving the homelessness crisis, but they sit by while the right-to-buy programme continues to take the best stock out of our social housing. They talk about protecting private landlords and their tenants, but they model housing payments in universal credit on local authority allowance rates, not on the realities of real-world rental payments. They talk about opportunity for all, while fragmenting the education system so badly that a private academy trust operating in my local authority is closing a school of which I was chair of governors, having so badly mismanaged it over the past five years—and having seen the pupil population fall from 700 to 200—that they can no longer afford to keep it open. Schools face a recruitment and retention crisis, and a funding crisis, while increasingly being expected to rectify the social ills inflicted on their children by austerity.

I am interested in this sort of stuff, because I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and I am still chair of governors of a primary school in the centre of Gateshead, where 34 different languages are spoken by the pupil population. It is a poor community. That poor community, and those children, have seen a whole combination of things inflicted on them over the last eight and a half years—not just by the Department for Education but by a whole range of Government Departments—that have had a quite catastrophic effect on their lives.

We have had cuts over the years. First and foremost, one of the early ones was to something that affected children before they were born. We used to give health and maternity grants in this country to ensure that mothers conducted their lives in a healthy way during pregnancy, but they were cut. Hundreds of Sure Start centres have either closed or had their services curtailed. The previous Government were going to roll out a pilot project called ContactPoint to track children and ensure that no child fell through the cracks in the system. It came about because of cases such as that of Victoria Climbié, but it was abolished by the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).

The play strategy, which was developed to ensure that we had fit playing environments in our communities, was abolished. A programme called “Play Builder”, which was designed to renew local authority municipal play equipment, was gone. The “Creative Partnerships” scheme, which was about cultural enrichment in our secondary schools, was abolished. School sport partnerships had two thirds of their funding taken away. Aimhigher, a programme aimed at getting youngsters from the most deprived communities into university, was also abolished. Then education maintenance allowances went. The careers information, advice and guidance service went. Our youth and community services have been decimated. Add to that the cuts in local authority and welfare benefits.

All of this put together has had a devastating impact on some of the poorest children in our communities. The Government talk about making the welfare benefit system simple while cutting local authority funding, which has traditionally been the backbone of support for voluntary sector organisations. These sorts of services are invaluable when it comes to assisting people in difficulty. It is all talk, and from my perspective, as someone who represents Gateshead, I am afraid it always has been.

I said at the outset that I would not talk about Brexit, but how can I not? Some 57% of my constituency voted to leave, but that came after six years of Government austerity. Many of the social problems that have been identified brought about a situation whereby I would say to people on their doorsteps, “Look, we’ve got to remain in the European Union, or things will get much worse.” Some of my constituents would say, “Worse? What, worse than this?” and they meant it. We face poverty, homelessness, low pay and unemployment.

Before Government Members talk about their jobs miracle, let me say that the number of unemployed people in my constituency is 1,020 higher than it was in the same month last year, and the figure for youth unemployment is now more than 650. Those things were all caused by the Government’s policies, with little or no regard for massive regional variations or the widening north-south divide. Unfortunately, however we exit the EU, those problems will remain. It is shameful, frankly, for a so-called modern and prosperous country that the United Nations had to send a rapporteur to look at the effects of welfare reform on places such as mine in the north-east of England. It is equally shameful that Members from the governing party saw fit to grab food bank selfies earlier this month. I support the food bank in Gateshead, but I wish it did not have to exist. Given that it does exist and is needed, I will support it, but I work for the day when we do not need it any more.

Although people across the country who volunteer in food banks should be commended, it is a disgrace that millions of our constituents have to rely on donations for food. Although I wish every Member of the House and all staff a very happy, peaceful and restful Christmas, it is a time for reflection more than a time for celebration. I sincerely hope that Members across the House will spend some time over this festive period reflecting on how their choices in the voting Lobbies are directly affecting people in our communities, who are unable to enjoy this time of year as much as we would want them to. I wish everyone all the very best.

May Adjournment

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the May adjournment.

Earlier, I listened to Ministers saying that EU citizens’ rights would be defended robustly after Brexit, but I have also heard this week from Members of the European Parliament representing the north-east of England that EU negotiators are sceptical about such assertions because of what has happened with the Windrush situation.

I am currently dealing with a case of an EU citizen who is being denied benefits, despite the fact that she has been resident in Gateshead for 27 years. Kim Voogel came to the United Kingdom from the Netherlands in 1991. She has never been back to the Netherlands since then, and the Dutch Government have confirmed that they have no record of her ever going back to the Netherlands over the entirety of that period. She has worked on and off over that time, because her ex-husband was the main breadwinner in the family, and she has given birth to and raised three children, all of whom are still resident in Gateshead. Following a head injury after falling from a ladder, which has given her some mild brain damage, she had to reapply for universal credit, having transferred from employment and support allowance. In the transition between benefits, she has been refused universal credit because the Department for Work and Pensions said that she could not prove that she had been resident continuously in the United Kingdom for 27 years.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that these sorts of cases affect not only the individual involved, but the whole family, particularly the children?

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

Despite the fact that this lady has three children, only one of whom is now in his 20s; despite the fact that she has been receiving child benefit for those children throughout the entire period; and despite the fact that she also has a work record, having worked in between having her children, she has been refused universal credit. Part of the reason for the refusal is that the online application form asked when her children came to the United Kingdom with her. Of course, they did not come to the United Kingdom; they were born here. Therefore, she has failed the permanent residency test and been refused universal credit, despite living here for 27 years.

With such cases occurring now, the assurances that have been given by Ministers about the rights of EU citizens following Brexit sound really quite hollow. There is a big job of work to be done. It is not just the Home Office that needs to recognise the rights of EU citizens; other Government Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions must do so too. This lady’s case needs to be resolved, and resolved quickly and positively. She deserves nothing less than that.

Last Saturday, 28 April, we celebrated Workers Memorial Day. It is an important day for us all to celebrate; I and dozens and dozens of people attended a very moving service in Saltwell park in my constituency. There is a permanent memorial for Workers’ Memorial Day in Saltwell park, and I congratulate not only Gateshead Trades Council, but Gateshead Council, on erecting it.

The whole point of Workers Memorial Day is to help people realise that many workers die, receive injuries, or develop life-threatening illnesses owing to circumstances at work. I am glad to say that the number of people who die owing to injuries at work has dropped dramatically over the years since we have introduced a plethora of health and safety legislation. However, when I hear Members on the Government Benches talking about freeing up the labour market and getting rid of red tape, I do honestly wonder whether that actually means getting rid of vital health and safety regulations that keep our workers safe.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Does he share my concern that the numbers of staff based at the Health and Safety Executive have been reducing year on year since 2010?

[Ian Mearns]

That is a concern. As well as my duties as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and as a member of the Select Committee on Education, I am a member of several parliamentary trade union groups, including the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which, with the Health and Safety Executive, has been struggling to get recognition for a condition known as baker’s asthma. I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman’s point. The HSE is working under great pressure to conduct the work that it must do.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those responsible for arranging Workers Memorial Day, including Councillor Tony Gosling in my area, who worked with the Scunthorpe Baptist church and Berkeley Junior School to hold a fantastic celebration of the work of trade unions in improving health and safety with their employers. The young people from Berkeley Junior School will take that message with them through their lives, and that will really transform health and safety in the future.

[Ian Mearns]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments.

Workers Memorial Day is important, but it comes with a vital message. As we prepare to leave the European Union, when so much power will be handed back to Ministers, the protection of health and safety regulations and law is so much more important now than it has probably been for an awful long time.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I am a former night worker at Brace’s bakery in Oakdale in south Wales, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on the important work he is doing with the bakers’ union.

[Ian Mearns]

I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments.

In commemorating Workers Memorial Day, we have to do two things. We remember the dead and we fight for the living, and it is so important that that fight continues.

In the last pre-recess debate, I raised the issue of a vexed question that is threatening the provision of a safe environment for adults with learning disabilities. A big problem has occurred because there is a lack of recognition that sleep-in workers who look after people with learning difficulties should be paid the minimum wage. A court case concluded that individuals who look after people with learning difficulties and carry out sleep-in duties should be paid the minimum wage, and that that minimum wage payment should be backdated by about six years. This is making providers—many of which are in the voluntary, not-for-profit and charitable sectors—very worried because the overall bill, which has not been provided for by central Government or through central Government grant by local government, could amount to £400 million.

There is a real danger that some providers will hand back contracts—in fact, this is already happening—and local authorities could end up having to deal with people who are no longer being provided for by the charitable or not-for-profit sectors. This case is really quite worrying. Providers are being told that they will have to pay back the £400 million bill by March next year, but they quite clearly do not have the means to do so. Organisations such as Mencap have expressed severe concern about what will happen to people with learning difficulties should the provision cease.

I also chair the all-party parliamentary group for footballer supporters, which we established because we felt that, although there is a very good all-party parliamentary football group, it mainly looks at the interests of clubs, leagues and football associations across the United Kingdom. The APPG for football supporters has great support from fans around the country and Members of the House. The secretariat is provided by the Football Supporters Federation, which has been campaigning on a number of things with the all-party group. For instance, a couple of years ago we ran a campaign called Twenty’s Plenty, which was about the cost of tickets at away games in the premier league. The premier league came to a deal on that, and the maximum cost is now £30, so the campaign was clearly a success. Having travelled to away games in London against sides like Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur and paid in excess of £50 at some of those grounds, I am glad to say that now, because of the campaign, the maximum that clubs can charge is £30. That is a very welcome change.

A campaign that is coming to prominence at the moment, which has seen 110,000 signatures added to a parliamentary petition, is for safe standing in top-tier football grounds. We all know that after the Hillsborough disaster, the Taylor report brought in all-seater stadiums, and I think we have all welcomed the new safer environment in football grounds because of that. Unfortunately, however—or fortunately for those who like the atmosphere at football grounds—fans regularly stand in all-seater stadiums, particularly in the away end, where there will invariably be people standing in their droves at any championship or premier league ground. We see that week in, week out at over 40 grounds.

Safe standing may well be the solution. Rail seating, for instance, is an engineering-based solution that has been tried and tested north of the border by Celtic in Glasgow. The other night, we had a presentation at the all-party group by the safety officer of Celtic football club, Mr Ronnie Hawthorn. I thank him for coming down from Glasgow to give that presentation, which was really illuminating. The debate in Westminster Hall as a result of the petition is due to happen on 25 June. I hope that the Government take very seriously the suggestions being put forward by football fans up and down the country. You might have seen, Mr Speaker, that the other night I made a brief appearance on “Sky Sports News” talking about this issue. I understand that “Sky Sports News” probably attracts one or two more viewers than Parliament Live TV, so I was happy to get the message out there.

I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on rail in the north. There has been some correspondence between north-east MPs and the Department for Transport following a report produced by the Institute for Public Policy Research about differentials in levels of transport infrastructure investment between London and the regions of England. The report, which looked at forecast expenditure, including the Transport for London budget, shows that up to five times as much is spent on transport for people in London per head of population than it is in places like the north-east of England. That is clearly unfair and unsustainable.

That is also fettering the growth of the economy in places like the north-east of England. I am sad to report that, together with uncertainty around Brexit and some problems in the motor industry, that means unemployment is continuing to rise in my constituency of Gateshead, even though we are constantly told that employment is at an all-time high. Unemployment in my constituency is currently about 6%, and youth unemployment stays stubbornly high. We therefore need those differentials in transport infrastructure investment to be eroded, so that people in the north-east can be held in the same esteem as their counterparts in London in the way in which Government expenditure is handed out for investment purposes.

Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to mention, as we are now in May, the launch of the Great Exhibition of the North on 22 June, which is being hosted in Newcastle and Gateshead. It has an 80-day programme, which will culminate in September with the Great North Run and will show off all that is great and good about the north of England. I am sure the Minister has already said that he is looking forward to coming to Gateshead and Newcastle for that festival. It will be a great festival, celebrating the architecture, culture, industry, innovation and creativity of people all across the three northern regions. So please, from 22 June, get north and come to Newcastle and Gateshead for the Great Exhibition of the North.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish all staff in the House a very pleasant May day celebration and weekend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Indeed. I think this is one of those debates.

Let me get back to the main point, which is that it is a bad omen if young men and young women trying to be criminal law barristers are finding it very difficult. I am making this speech because earlier this week, I met a young barrister from my constituency who has had to leave the criminal Bar because she simply could not afford to live while working within the system. She was originally from the midlands, from a family of farmers, and she and her siblings were the first generation of the family to go to university. Her parents were totally supportive of her wish to be a barrister, a dream she told me she had had since she was 12 years old. She loved lawyer dramas on television, and her mother told her that her urge to be a lawyer had probably come from watching too much of the American law drama “Ally McNeal”, because she had a superb mobile phone.

[Ian Mearns]

“Ally McBeal”.

[Bob Stewart]

I stand corrected. It is hard to keep going.

My constituent studied law at Liverpool University and then applied for the Bar exams. Fully supported by her parents, she reluctantly came to London because there were more pupillages here. In 2008 she took the Bar exams, which cost her £15,000 of debt, not including accommodation. I gather that only about a third of people who pass the Bar exam now manage to get pupillages, and it took her three years to get hers.

During that time, my constituent worked for various agencies and did paralegal jobs to get relevant experience to help with her application. For some of that time she was on the minimum wage, but she eventually managed to get a criminal paralegal role in north London that paid about £14,000 a year. She did that to gain experience and advance her chances of getting a pupillage. However, the experience that really managed to get her a pupillage was doing voluntary legal work abroad. She was able to get a scholarship to cover her flights from the Inns of Court—well done them—and she managed to get someone to help her pay the rent on her flat in London while she was abroad. That allowed her to exist on that money while she was out of the country, because she was in free accommodation.

The young lawyer finally started her pupillage in October 2011. Although she had been warned that she would receive very little money, she was ignorant of just how little it would be. She told me that, during her first year, she received £16,285.38, but her travel expenses of well over £5,000 were not covered, so in effect she had to exist in London on about £10,000. In that year she could take only five days of holiday, she could not be sick, and she worked late nights and weekends constantly. For a young person, she had little social life. She travelled all over the country to various courts, and on most days she had to represent two clients, often in different courts, working through her lunch break and preparing for further clients late into the night.

My constituent told me that there were simply no breaks at all, but it was her vocation and the job she really wanted to do in life. However, she found that she could not live at that pace and, with so very little money, it was just not sustainable. She had to look at a different area of law, rather than criminal work. To start with she thought she could use that to subsidise what she really wanted to do, which was working at the criminal Bar. However, when she moved to a different area of law, her salary tripled almost instantly and she had more time for herself. As a result, she now practises in that area, and has largely left criminal law. She never thought she would make such a decision, but it was largely forced on her by circumstances. She wants to have a family life and bring up children, and she honestly felt that there was little chance of that happening for her at the criminal Bar. How sad is that?

My constituent came to me earlier this week because she feels that what has happened to her is wrong both for individuals and for the profession itself. People who try to be criminal law barristers normally have a massive calling. They know it may not pay half as much as other parts of their profession, but they feel that it is where they can do most good and what they should be doing. Being paid £10,000 for working all hours that God sends, and having to worry so much about money, is simply wrong for someone with responsibilities like hers. Despite the fact that my learned friend—my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—existed on peanuts when he was a young barrister, if this continues we will simply not have enough criminal law barristers, and we will certainly not have ones of the quality that defending in the public arena deserves. Is it an exaggeration to suggest that the criminal justice system could collapse? It is certainly in crisis if my young constituent is typical.

My constituent asked colleagues to provide her with their financial experiences as they strove to get into the profession, and she gave me the examples of five of her friends. None made more than £20,000 in their first year, and they all had to spend a huge amount of that on travel. They also had considerable debts to repay. Young criminal law barristers often do not even receive the minimum wage. That is wrong for them and most definitely wrong for a profession that we need to be as good as possible. Justice will be best served when those who argue for it are also the best, and we need well-motivated, driven people who care that we get things right in our criminal courts. Someone needs to look closely at what is happening, so that we do something about it before it is too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I absolutely agree that we need to be able to make free trade deals with other countries. The corollary to that is that we cannot be in the customs union, as my hon. Friend said. At the same time it is vital, as the Prime Minster has made clear, that we have frictionless trade and that our industries—not only manufacturing, but agriculture and many other industries—across the country can continue to operate without the hindrance and costs that might be caused by certain arrangements. I have every confidence that the Prime Minister and the Government will come up with the correct decision and conclusion, which may not be one that my hon. Friend and I are currently thinking of.

[Ian Mearns]

The manufacturing industry in the north-east of England relies heavily on frictionless trade, because so many components for Nissan vehicles, for example, come in or go out to other plants partly assembled. There are 7,000 or so people working at Nissan, but 35,000 people in the supply chain. Without frictionless trade, many of those jobs will be in real jeopardy.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point exactly. My first job after university was working in the motor industry in Bridgend for Ford, which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned earlier today in the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is vital that the interests of those workers and millions of other workers across the country in similar positions are taken into account.

My final point is about access to the high-quality staff that this country needs at all levels. It is quite right that we will be taking back control, but taking back control does not necessarily mean having a highly restrictive immigration policy. It means having an immigration policy that is suitable for the needs of our country, but one over which we have control. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your forbearance.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Paul Maynard)]

You have promoted me inopportunely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can claim no such role, but I shall do my best.

I was struck with surprise when I learned that there was yet another pre-recess Adjournment debate so soon after the last one. We are only having one day off—how can we deserve this treat? I do not think we do. As the debate wore on, however, I noted that demand always grows to meet supply, and Members willing to speak kept creeping out of the oddest corners.

We have had a fascinating debate. It reminded me of my childhood trips to Woolworths, surveying the pick ‘n’ mix selection and not knowing quite where to begin. However, I have to start with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and I pay tribute to his 27 years in local government. I cannot believe that the Conservative party ever had the temerity to oppose him on the ballot paper. Surely we gave him a free ride—I hope we did.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important case that I hope he has shared with the Department for Work and Pensions. It concerns the important matter of how we treat EU citizens in the future. We have always said that we want to provide certainty for individuals and businesses. We have been clear in our statement about EU citizens who arrive in the UK during the implementation period, and there has to be reciprocity. UK nationals who move to the EU must be treated similarly, and we are clear about that and have reached a firm agreement with the EU.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of clarity regarding any application for any form of benefits. As a former member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I know all too well that we need a constant process of review, and the DWP must never let up reviewing its application forms. Those forms must be clear, and I know that when they are 80 pages long, their very length can put some people off applying, particularly if they lack the functional skills required to fill them in adequately. That in itself is not acceptable, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that those forms are clear.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about Workers Memorial Day. In my time as a Rail Minister, I was conscious that Network Rail and the wider rail industry had gone for many years without any casualties on the network. The importance of maintaining that was not just a matter for those working on the railways; it had to go to the top of Network Rail and be a priority for its chief executive and for me as Rail Minister. Indeed, we always discussed that issue, because the moment we do not pay attention to health and safety is the moment when problems can start to emerge several years down the line. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s points on that issue.

I have also been briefed on sleep-in workers, and I know that the Government are working closely with social care providers to try to find a solution to the problem. They are also working with the EU Commission, which is currently placing limitations on what the solution might eventually look like. Work is ongoing, but I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point.



I was glad to hear about the all-party group for football supporters. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Blackpool Supporters Trust is perhaps one of the more active groups, given our own travails at Blackpool football club. I know he has had a good season as a Newcastle United fan. I hear the point about safe standing. If I may raise a point with him, I was perturbed to read earlier in the week that the obligation to produce match day programmes might be dropped by the Football League. That would be a great tragedy for the many of us who treasure those items.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned rail in the north. He tempts me into a full hour’s response. It might help the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) to not go canvassing if I were to embark upon that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Institute for Public Policy Research figures, which come up every year. They are what they are, but they do not capture schemes that are centrally funded but delivered locally. Another aspect is how to capture spending in one region that benefits another region. I am reliant on the west coast main line. How should spending on Euston be reported? It benefits those from the north-west who seek to go to London on business, but it does not appear as investment in the north-west.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about the north-east. I can assure him that it is not overlooked. I took great personal care to make sure it got the money for the new Metro trains.

[Ian Mearns]

I am very grateful for the funding for the Tyne and Wear Metro, but I just remind the Minister of a presentation that was given to the all-party group for rail in the north by Network Rail about two or three years ago, which showed its plans for the next five-year control period investment plan. It showed a scheme in Preston and the northern hub in Manchester. On the east side of the map there was an arrow next to York which said “To Scotland”, but there was nothing at all for the north-east of England.

[Paul Maynard]

I have always been very clear that northern powerhouse rail has to include Newcastle. The north does not stop at York any more than it stops at Manchester—Liverpool needs to be included, too. I look forward to visiting Gateshead for the Great Exhibition of the North.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was his characteristic self. He made a number of important points on issues he has encountered in his surgery. I know the relevant Minister is working with the Bar Council on how to resolve some of those very difficult issues, and I listened with interest to the comments my hon. Friend had to make on that. He may be aware that the Adjournment debate—if we ever get to it; the Minister has been here patiently waiting for several hours now—is about the exclusion of the under-25s from the national minimum wage, so some of the comments in that debate may well appertain to that. He also made a point about the security briefings that are circulated and the issue of run, hide and tell. It is best if I personally refrain from commenting on those issues, but I think we would all want to pay tribute to those members of staff who do all they can to make us safe and keep us safe. They put their lives on the line at times, as we have seen in recent years.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and I renew our acquaintance, which I am most pleased about. I would never call him a whinger! I cannot believe his Whips Office could be so rude—he is anything but.

Easter Adjournment

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

I begin, Mr Speaker, by wishing you and your staff, all right hon. and hon. Members and their families and all the staff of this House, who keep us going so well, a happy Easter. I think everyone is truly looking forward to this break, although some of us have local elections to fight during that time.

I want to bring to the House’s attention the perverse nature of the Government’s decision to award the passport printing contract to a Franco-Dutch company that is partly owned by the French Government. It is right that the UK follows both European Union and World Trade Organisation rules when considering any tender process and that we continue to maintain close relationships with our neighbours and allies as we leave the EU, but the Government have serious questions to answer about the assessment or apparent lack of assessment of the economic impact of this decision on the north-east, including my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), where De La Rue resides.

As hon. Members may well know, De La Rue, which has printed UK passports for the past decade, submitted a bid to continue that service, but the great British blue passport is going to be made in the EU—probably in France. We certainly do not want to shun trade with our continental neighbours, but to suggest that defending jobs at home is to shun trade abroad is simply false. De La Rue provides hard-fought-for, well-paid jobs for some 600 workers at the Gateshead plant alone, about 100 of whom work on printing British passports.

I would not ordinarily promote the Daily Mail, but its online petition opposing this decision now has more than 200,000 signatures. In addition, an e-petition on the Government and Parliament site has over 32,000 signatures from people demanding a Government response to the question at hand.

In a post-Brexit Britain, we must ensure that jobs at home are secured. The Government would be wrong to push forward during the Easter recess with the plan to export the production of British passports. The savings on the contract will surely be offset by the loss of revenue to the Exchequer from employee and employer taxes—income tax, national insurance and corporation tax—not to mention the loss of spending power in the local community on the part of workers who spend their hard-earned money in local businesses. Placing jobs at risk is surely not worth the savings expected from the current plan.

The Government tout the idea of making the passport affordable for all, but the Home Office has increased the fees on passports across the board. Online applications for a new passport have gone up by nearly 4%, while people applying via the post are seeing an even more substantial increase of £12.50 per passport application, which represents a 17% increase. While the Government are making savings on the contract by giving it to Gemalto, they are not actually passing on those savings to the people buying passports. That should be remembered because, after all, we are here to serve those people. Incredibly, there will be a 27% increase in the cost of a child’s passport application, which surely cannot be right.

What a sham it is that the Government claim to be getting a deal for their people, when they are in fact raising costs and exporting British jobs at the same time. The French Government and people, on the grounds of national security, would never countenance printing their passports in Britain, but our Government are more wedded to free market economics than to Britain’s national security, national integrity and national pride. We need a robust debate on a better solution than what is currently planned, and it should occur after the recess.

Apprenticeships and jobs are hot topics in the north-east of England, as they often are in this House, but the current statistics do not reflect the Government’s ambition. As the year progresses, the number of unemployed claimants in my constituency continues to rise. Just last month, there are, since February, nearly 300 more claimants, and 5.5% of the economically active population find themselves unemployed. Under-employment and unemployment continue to plague the north-east region, with youth unemployment up 2%.

Touting the current unemployment figures as a positive for the region is merely a smokescreen. Regionally, unemployment in the north-east is one percentage point higher than in the rest of the country, but this number does not take into account the people who have given up looking for work altogether. In addition, wages continue to be below those pre the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. While fewer people may be out of work, those in work are earning far less than their counterparts a decade ago, as the cost of living has risen.

Data released in February show that the Government are failing to hit their marks on apprenticeship recruitment and apprenticeship opportunities, thus failing our young people and employers. According to figures from the Department for Education, between May and July 2017, 48,000 people began an apprenticeship. That is fewer than half the 117,000 apprenticeships begun in the same period in 2016—a staggering 61% decrease. Such numbers are hardly surprising given the intrinsic flaws in the apprenticeship levy. The lack of flexibility in the value of levy contributions, which large employers can pass down the supply chain to smaller subcontractors who work for them, is key. That is especially true for trades jobs, which larger firms often tend to subcontract down the supply chain.

The apprenticeship levy scheme must be radically reformed to serve better the hardest hit communities and young people looking to join the workforce. Although levels of unemployment for people over 50 may have gone down, youth unemployment has increased in my constituency. Compound that with the troubled roll-out of universal credit and the plan to outsource the production of British passports and it is easy to wonder whether the Government truly care about the economy of the north-east.

There is also a genuine crisis facing the social care sector regarding sleep-in workers, although not many people seem to know about it. The Government provide funding for sleep-in staff who work with people with severe learning difficulties. Sleep-in shifts are an integral part of the public services provided by the Government, but for the past six years, the Government have not funded those services at the national minimum wage, and HMRC is now pursuing providers for six years of back pay. The providers are procured by local government contracts with money directly funded by central Government, and the shortfall is estimated at £400 million in liabilities for providers in that sector. This is a crisis for social care providers and the people who need those services most—those with learning difficulties and the most vulnerable. That unexpected cost on providers is threatening the viability of the care sector, and 69% of local authorities have reported service failure due to this issue. According to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, a provider in Blackpool is reportedly closing and others are handing back contracts that they are now unable to fulfil.

The Government must step in and fund that back pay to prevent the crisis from spiralling out of control. If unfunded, the sector could produce a rash of mini-Carillions. Vulnerable people will suffer; thousands of care workers will lose their jobs; and local authorities and NHS trusts will be unable to cope with the consequences. The social care sector should not, and cannot, afford to fund that service. The Government must face up to their responsibilities, otherwise we risk the care of vulnerable people.

Last Friday, I had the privilege of meeting a group of people—mainly grandparents—who are kinship carers for their grandchildren or extended families. Those kinship carers get very little support from the state and often look after children—sometimes several children—who have a range of personal, health and educational difficulties, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, attachment disorders, foetal alcohol syndrome, autism and behavioural difficulties. Those kinship carers diligently care for their children and often suffer in impoverished circumstances because their caring commitments take up so much time that they cannot work. They deserve our support and have been ignored for too long.

Finally—I will rattle through this—let me mention the upcoming Great Exhibition of the North. It begins on 22 June and is a free, summer-long event to celebrate the pioneering spirit of the north of England. Poetry, music, theatre, art galleries, life sciences and urban design will all be on display, highlighting the creative impact of our inventors, artists and designers. My constituency is excited to host such a world-class event, and the exhibition will attract attendees from all over the UK, Europe and beyond. The Great Exhibition of the North will be the largest event in the country to take place this year. Newcastle and Gateshead will become an even more visionary destination that will not only tell the story of the north and its people, but showcase everything that is great about them. Organisers, volunteers, contributors and artists have brought great pride to the community, and I hope hon. Members will join me in commending them for their work. This massive collaboration is sure to change any preconceptions about the north, and I hope that many Members will join me in attending this magnificent exhibition, and get north.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

That is an exceedingly worthwhile point. I know that we will all want to take note of the work that my hon. Friend’s group is doing and disseminate information as widely as possible throughout our constituencies.

I very much welcome the comments that the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) made about Simeon Andrews. I was very saddened to hear of his passing. He is a fantastic example of someone who greatly enhances the work we do in this place across all parties and none, and it was a great shock to hear of that. The hon. Lady also raised important points about fentanyl and the wider problems of opioids that we are seeing across our communities. I see it in my own constituency, and it is a matter of concern, so she is quite right to raise it.

I am also glad to see the hon. Lady joining in the growing fad of vaping. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) was talking just the other day about having more vaping areas in Parliament. Never having smoked in my life, I do not quite see the appeal, but I know that for those who have smoked, vaping might well be a way to get themselves off nicotine and on to something a little bit healthier. I wish her well in her campaign.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) spoke powerfully and movingly about ADHD and his MSP colleague. That is an important issue. We understand people by the labels that we hang around our necks, but the label of ADHD is particularly misunderstood by many. If we can do more to explain properly what the condition is and how it is best treated and understood, that can only be a good thing. I wish them well in that campaign.

What do I say about my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)? I am almost tempted to say nothing at all, because I cannot do it justice, but let me make an effort. He is quite right to draw attention to the RAF’s role in CBRN. As the shadow Leader of the House said, the RAF’s 100th birthday is coming up, and that may be one aspect of what the RAF is doing that we do not give sufficient attention to.

[Ian Mearns]

There is one thing that we forget: in celebrating 100 years of the RAF, we are also regretting the demise of the Royal Flying Corps, which was active for the duration of the first world war. We should not forget the Royal Flying Corps.

[Paul Maynard]

I agree entirely and thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful addition to my comments. It is important to place that on the record.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) made an important point about having a Minister for older people. I recall making a speech on that issue as a Back Bencher and being very supportive of it. Now that I am standing here, I am bound by collective responsibility, so she will have to guess what my thoughts are, but I wish her well in that cross-party campaign. She raises a worthwhile issue that covers many cross-departmental issues, and I know that many Ministers will want to think carefully about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) may be getting bored of people congratulating him on his Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, but even if he is, I will not stop, because he deserves praise and applause for what he has achieved. I well recall the issues around step-free access to his tube stations and the battle with Transport for London over getting the right amount of funding. He will be pleased to know that my successor, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), overheard it because she is sitting right next to me.

I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that one point I made very clear when negotiating Network Rail’s funding for control period 5 was that we must have a dedicated ring-fenced fund to make sure that Access for All funding continues. I know that my hon. Friend will take up the cudgels and keep fighting to make sure that we have inclusive transport across not just London but the country as a whole. I look forward to seeing the response to the inclusive transport consultation, and I wish him well with what I hope will be his Adjournment debate on the particularly tragic case that he raised.

Business of the House

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I am sure we will have a range of dedicated Ministers across a number of Departments focused on making a success of our leaving the EU. I am sure it will be a lively debate next week, and I look forward to all Members making a full contribution to it.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all members of staff and all Members around the House a very happy and healthy 2018—happy new year to everyone.

The Backbench Business Committee has received a very heavily subscribed application for a debate about the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Do the Government have any plans to hold such a debate in Government time in the near future, as we had thought they would? That would be preferable to using Backbench Business Committee time which is already under heavy pressure.

Now that the festivities are over, you might remember, Mr Speaker, that just before Christmas I invited you and the Leader of the House to visit Gateshead and Newcastle for the great exhibition of the north, beginning in June this year and running through to September, culminating in the great north run in September. May I renew that invitation? Please do come and visit us for the great exhibition of the north; it will be the north at its best.

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, and this is my first chance to thank him for all the work he does; the Committee is an important part of the House’s business.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the R and R debate. He is right that the Government are keen to ensure that we hear the views of those on all sides on this issue. We are working hard to secure the right date in the parliamentary calendar to make sure as many hon. Members as possible can take part. I know there is a Backbench Business Committee debate, but that should not obviate the need to have a wider debate, and I hope we will secure a date for it as soon as possible.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation. I spent many days in Durham between Christmas and new year, and I enjoyed my tour of Gateshead. I went to see the angel of the north, for example. So I have already been to see it and was much impressed.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Laura Pidcock]

Absolutely. We are seeing lots of inadequacies in the universal credit system, which completely smash out of the water the idea that work pays under the Conservative Government.

Even taking account of housing costs, which I know take a huge slice of wages from people in the south-east, in the north-east we are still £84 a week worse off. The disparities in investment in my constituency create a vicious circle. We cannot attract the large-scale business investment that we desperately need without the infrastructure and the skilled people, and as much as Derwentside College in my constituency is a beacon of excellence in the education it provides, it is like every other further education establishment in the country in that it has a dwindling budget with which to educate the future skilled workforce that we need.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. There are very good FE colleges all over the north-east of England, with my local one in Gateshead being a very good example, but I am sad to say that when young people are leaving those colleges with skills, they are doing what generations of Geordies have done: leaving to come south for jobs because there is not the investment in the north-east of England.

[Laura Pidcock]

It is heartbreaking. Of course we want to keep as many of those brilliant young people in my constituency as possible, with the education they have received being put back into infrastructure and a rich economy, but the long-term employment just is not there.

New clause 6 would also address gender inequality, because it is women in my constituency and right across the country who have borne the brunt of inequality, as most women always do. Women, particularly working-class women, suffer structural inequality throughout their lives. On average, women earn less than men, have lower incomes over their lifetime and are more likely to be living in poverty. As has been mentioned, women are therefore less likely than men to benefit from cuts to income tax, and are more likely to lose out because of cuts to social security benefits and public services.

In conclusion, I urge Members to support new clause 6 and I call on the Government to carry out equality impact assessments so that my constituents can see, in black and white, the hard facts and the truth. If the Government are so proud of their achievements, why are they not shouting them from the rooftops so that they can receive full credit? Why not let everybody know what Government policy has achieved? Unfortunately, Opposition Members know that the facts will tell the truth and reveal that the Government do not care one jot about my region and that they are happy for wages to stagnate and for people to experience poorer lives with all the consequences that that entails. People in my constituency work extremely hard, and they definitely deserve much better. Please support the new clause so that we can see what the Government are actually doing to our region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

If the hon. Lady will permit me, I will make a bit of progress and then I will respond to her remarks in the fullness of my speech.

It is important to make my next point in relation to new clause 6 clear. We have heard Opposition Members say that women, or certain members of ethnic minorities, are more likely to be lower paid than other members of society. By taking the lowest paid people out of tax and increasing the national living wage, we are benefiting those groups of people who might suffer from low earnings. In addition—

[Ian Mearns]

When Government Members talk about, and celebrate, the fact that people are being taken out of income tax altogether, what they are doing is celebrating an economy of low pay. They are celebrating an economy where people are being paid so little that they are just above, or just at, the income tax threshold. For me, that underlines what it is actually like out there in constituencies such as mine in Gateshead.

[Bim Afolami]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is not celebrating low pay to say that people who are currently earning lower amounts should take home more of their money. That is not a celebration; it is about making their lives, every day and every week, that bit easier. It is worth saying that taking the lowest paid people out of tax and raising the national living wage is having significant benefits for many of the people—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

Well, well, well. When it comes to naivety, there is a very fine line; it can often be endearing before it eventually becomes quite offensive. And I did find the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) offensive. It began in the spirit of naivety. I could see that he was nervous at the beginning of his contribution—quite rightly, it turned out, towards the end—because he did not have the data that was being presented.

The debate went on and Labour Members presented the data, but rather than actually taking account of it, the hon. Gentleman continued, in a very odd way, to try to defend what most reasonable people would say is a quite indefensible position. He was essentially saying, “Listen—if men are doing okay, surely women will eventually do okay too.” I am not sure whether the solution he came up with to the shareholder conundrum was for women to find wealthy husbands who are shareholders, as if that might somehow lift them out of poverty and allow them to be the beneficiaries of the cuts in corporation tax.

[Ian Mearns]

We have discovered a new phenomenon: it is called trickle-down gendernomics. It is going to be the resolution to all the problems of poverty and the disparity in earnings between men and women in all our communities up and down the country—I don’t think so.

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair point.