International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kerry McCarthy(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Thirteen Members still wish to speak, so we need brevity from everybody.
Kerry McCarthy
I agree that a united approach would be good, and I am sure there are many issues we can discuss across the House. We must consider how we can encourage a different, more sustainable model of development in countries that benefit from our aid, and think carefully about how we can protect and preserve the world’s resources, rather than assuming that they are always there to be plundered.
To conclude, the fight to tackle climate change, increase climate resilience and protect vulnerable communities from climate risk must be a central part of DFID’s work, and the importance of that work is one reason why I speak today in support of enshrining the 0.7% target in law. As a first step, we need to make progress on climate finance, on the commitments made by Heads of State at Copenhagen and the creation of the Green Climate Fund, and on mobilising $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020. UK NGOs, led by Oxfam, are asking that the UK Government pledge $1 billion as a “fair” contribution to the Green Climate Fund, spread over three years. That should be possible because the UK has about £1.8 billion left to play with in the international climate fund, which is where the contribution would come from.
As we approach Ban Ki-moon’s summit in New York in September, it is up to the UK to show international leadership, as we have done on international development issues across the board, by being one of the first countries to state how much it is pledging to the green climate fund. We should show leadership on this issue; it is too important to leave to others.
Business without Debate
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kerry McCarthy(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to an urgent question on 19 November from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), the shadow International Development Secretary, the International Development Secretary refused to give any commitment on whether she would cease aid to Rwanda in light of concerns about the regime’s connection with the M23 group, saying repeatedly that this was a decision she would take in December. Why has she then today, on what some might consider an excellent day to bury news, released a written statement saying that £21 million of support to Rwanda would not now be released, also pre-empting the publication today of the Select Committee on International Development’s report on Rwanda, which one would have thought she might have wanted to read first? Will the Deputy Speaker ask the International Development Secretary to come to the House to explain why the decision has now been taken today?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Lady has certainly got it on the record and made the point. I think it will have been heard on the Government Benches. I am sure that on Monday, if not satisfied, somebody may use other courses of action to bring this forward.
Regional Pay (NHS)
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kerry McCarthy(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
I agree entirely. There is a danger of even greater fragmentation so that we move from national pay to regional pay to very localised pay, with everyone competing against each other—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said “paymasters”. I am sure that he would not want that to be on the record, and that he would want to withdraw it—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Not individuals? I was worried that the hon. Gentleman was referring to individuals.
Kerry McCarthy
During the first two years of this Government, the south-west’s nursing work force has fallen by more than 3.5%, which is three times the national average. According to the 2011 national NHS staff survey, 11 of the 20 trusts involved in the south-west consortium are in the worst 20% for people feeling satisfied with the quality of work and patient care. The consortium arrangements will not alleviate these pressures and can only make working conditions worse.
These statistics are reflected in the often heartbreaking comments that I have received from constituents, who report on increased work loads, under-staffed wards, and friends and families they rarely get to see. They are considering leaving the south-west, or the NHS altogether. The consortium’s proposals are the last straw when morale is already at an all-time low. One constituent told me:
“I now feel as disposable as the equipment I use. Nursing is on the cusp of disaster.”
When the Prime Minister claimed to lead
“the party of the NHS”,
I do not think my constituents knew whether to laugh or cry.
Health Ministers’ answers on the consortium, like the Secretary of State’s speech today, frequently hide behind “Agenda for Change”, a framework that was agreed only after lengthy negotiations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. This prevented there being damaging competition for staff, avoided the risk of ratchet bargaining and minimised the costs of pay negotiation. It meant that nurses were no longer paid as little as £12,000 just because of where they lived. Significantly, “Agenda for Change” has largely eradicated equal pay challenges, so I hope Government Members do not want to replicate the larger gender pay gap that we see in the private sector.
National negotiations on “Agenda for Change” are now being undermined by the consortium, especially when the chair of NHS Employers, who also runs a trust in the south-west, was reportedly instrumental in establishing it. I would be interested to know what conversations Ministers have had with the chair of NHS Employers before she played a leading role in setting up the consortium. The Royal College of Nursing warns that the NHS is simply not equipped for the added bureaucracy, time and expense needed to negotiate pay on a more local basis, and that this ultimately would take the more experienced staff away from the front line.
Health Ministers have sought to defend the possibility of regional pay in the NHS by pointing to its potential under “Agenda for Change”. The inclusion of high cost area supplements and the recruitment and retention premiums, as we have already tried to explain to those on the Government Benches, were designed to help trusts recruit in high cost or low supply areas. They were not intended to drive down pay and drive away staff.
NHS staff in Bristol are having to work more, with fewer staff and when their pay is frozen. They are stressed at work and stressed at home as they try to make ends meet each month, and now there is a conspiracy to reduce their pay and conditions. My constituents need answers from Ministers. When did the Department of Health first find out about the consortium? I do not mean when it first found out that the documents had been leaked to the public. Who is responsible for appointing the consortium’s director and for its budget? Most importantly, will the Government intervene to prevent the consortium undermining the progress made under “Agenda for Change”, local health services and the NHS as a national service?
My constituents deserve to be paid according to the work they do, not where they live. The proposals for regional pay risk undermining our national health service and undervaluing the work done by those who have dedicated their lives to it. The proposals should be scrapped, and scrapped now.
Badger Cull
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kerry McCarthy(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If we are to have interventions, they must be short, but those Members who intervene and wish to speak should recognise that they will go to the bottom of the list. That is just a warning for all.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, as we have heard in the debate and in the statement on Tuesday.
Many hon. Members will want to discuss vaccination. I am pleased that, in the west country, there have been efforts to roll out badger vaccination programmes. They seem to have been successful, although it is the very early stages. Many hon. Members will discuss the scientific evidence, which seems to me to be overwhelmingly in support of the notion that badger culling would have a limited impact if any—I believe it says there would be a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years.
However, in the time available, I want to focus on cattle-to-cattle transmission. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) probably misspoke when she said that if every single badger were eradicated, we could eradicate bovine TB—she went on to say that we could not eradicate all badgers and mentioned cattle-to-cattle transmission. In response to a question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in September this year, the Government accepted that about 50% of cases of bovine TB in areas where the randomised badger culling trial took place were attributed to badgers. The other 50% were attributed to cattle-to-cattle transmission. In areas where there is lower incidence, there is a much higher rate of cattle-to-cattle transmission.
It is important to address that point. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not seem to be willing to acknowledge in Tuesday’s statement the very significant role that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays in spreading the disease. Indeed, when he was asked a question about cattle husbandry, he said that the problem was that badgers can get into sheds. He also said that famers grazing cattle in fields cannot prevent badgers from getting to them. That is not what the cattle husbandry issue is about—the Secretary of State was focused totally on badgers, rather than on what happens when cattle spread disease. The fact is that many of the badgers that carry TB are not particularly infectious—[Interruption.] I can cite evidence on that.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kerry McCarthy(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 7, page 12, line 36, at end add—
‘(8) The Chancellor shall publish, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.
Kerry McCarthy
The backdrop to today’s debate is an economy that is flat-lining, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted last week. Since the Chancellor’s spending review, we have had no economic growth, and it is ordinary people who are hardest hit by that stagnation, with 2.5 million people out of work, including nearly 1 million young people—one in five 16 to 24-year-olds. An increasing number of people have been jobless for more than a year—nearly 850,000 and rising. This year, as the Government’s cuts start to bite, hundreds of thousands more people could lose their jobs. I believe that that is what the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office called an
“immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we need.”
Apparently, it is what the Chancellor describes as “good news” and a sign that the economy is on the right track. Families are feeling the effects of the crisis in their pockets. Prices are still rising by more than 5% on the retail prices index, while earnings are growing at just 2% a year.
Rising fuel prices are a big part of this squeeze. According to the Office for National Statistics, fuel prices are currently one of the most significant contributors to consumer price inflation. According to this week’s figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the average UK pump price is now £1.36 for a litre of petrol and £1.42 for a litre of diesel. I am sure that many Members will be aware that at their local petrol pumps prices are even higher. That means that petrol is more than 3p a litre more expensive than it was last month, or 15p more than this time last year, and that diesel is 3p more expensive than last month, or nearly 20p more than last year. Unfortunately, the 1p saving we got from the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty lasted barely a week before price rises at the pumps wiped it out.
The Chairman
I must admit that, if there was noise interference, I did not know where it was coming from and could not hear it in front of the Chair. I am sure that Members will be quieter in future.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for that, because it certainly seemed quite noisy from where I was standing.
As I was saying, as real incomes fall, spending on basic items such as food, energy and fuel makes up an increasing proportion of the average family’s weekly spend, as the Office for National Statistics acknowledged in March when it changed the make-up of its retail prices index basket. That means that families are increasingly vulnerable when prices rise quickly.
The Opposition accept that no Government can control the price of oil, which the global markets set, and that the situation in the middle east is affecting people in countries throughout the world, to which the UK is of course no exception, but the Government have control over fuel taxation, and that has a significant effect on pump prices. When so many people are out of work and real wages are falling, the Chancellor has a responsibility to do all he can to help business and to promote economic growth and jobs; and when ordinary working people are struggling to make ends meet, he has a responsibility to do everything possible to help them get on.
That is why we tabled amendment 7. It is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s policies on fuel taxation and their total effect on fuel prices at the pump, because the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty, as set out in clause 19, is not all that it seems. In January the Government decided to increase VAT on fuel from 17.5% to 20%, even though the Prime Minister told voters just before the election that he had “no plans” to increase VAT. Without that VAT rise, petrol would be almost 3p cheaper now, swamping the 1p cut that the Bill brings in.
The Federation of Small Businesses said that the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprises would be “severely affected” by that hike in fuel tax. A survey of its members in January pointed to the increase as the single biggest threat to their business—something that will resonate with Government Members, who I am sure have been lobbied by the FSB on that point. Some 89% of businesses that responded thought that the Government’s measures would add £2,000 to their costs over six months. A spokesperson for the FSB said in response to the January rise in fuel tax:
“The Government have said it is putting its faith in the private sector to put the economy on a firm footing, yet 36% said they will have to reduce investment in new products and services and 78% said their profitability will be reduced—hardly conducive to growth.”
Many small business people in my constituency are struggling to stay afloat, particularly in the face of cash-flow difficulties. The VAT increase at the beginning of this year was expected to put severe strain on their cash flow, so the Chancellor’s 1p reduction in fuel duty has to be seen in that context.
Some people will be able to cut down on their use of fuel or even stop using petrol all together. Some people are switching to cycling or to public transport, and for those who are able to do so that is a good thing. As an MP for Bristol, which saw investment from the previous Labour Government so that it could become the UK’s first cycling city, I welcome people taking up cycling.
The Chairman
Order. We must keep questions to the subject of the amendment that we are dealing with.
Kerry McCarthy
Before the election, the Economic Secretary said in this House during a debate on fuel duty:
“What people want from the Government today is a helping hand to get them out of their financial troubles. Instead, what they see from the Government is no help at all. Far from providing a hand to pull them out of their troubles, the Government are pushing them further down into them.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 359.]
How astonishing, then, to find that that is exactly what she and her Government are doing. They may have made a show of helping people up with a small fuel duty cut, but that is after they have given them a much bigger push down with their VAT rise on fuel. Before the Chancellor gave his Budget statement, Labour Members called for him to look again at the fuel duty escalator, which I think the Economic Secretary is muttering about from a sedentary position. In previous Budgets, we cancelled or postponed fuel duty rises when pump prices were rising quickly. In the 2010 Budget, the then Labour Chancellor phased in the increase for that year in three stages to ease pressure on business and household incomes. In the 2008 Budget, the previous Government postponed the increase in fuel duty for six months, again to support the economy and help businesses and families. We therefore welcome the fact that the Chancellor has done so again in this Finance Bill. However, when that cut is put in context, we see that families and businesses are facing more pressure than before as a result of the Government’s policies on fuel tax.
This is not the only policy in the Bill that is not all that it seems when it is put in context. The Government have made much of their increase in the personal allowance for income tax. The Chancellor said:
“The increase in the personal tax allowance already announced will vastly exceed anything lost through employee NICs uprating”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 954.]
However, he failed to mention that the rise in the allowance is swamped by his VAT rise, which will take £450 a year, on average, from the pockets of families with children. Families earning as little as £31,000 could lose their child tax credits as the Government take £400 million out of the system, while the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill creates uncertainty for families over whether they will keep their child care support and free school meals. In a couple of years, a family with two children with a single earner earning just £44,000 could find that the Government have taken £1,750 a year away from them in child benefit. It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Chancellor was
“giving with one hand…and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
Nor is it surprising that the economist Roger Bootle said today that household incomes were “all but certain” to fall.
All this comes at a time when Government cuts mean front-line cuts in services that people rely on—schools, the NHS, social care, even the police—and workers in those vital public sector jobs are facing redundancies. The Government may say that some factors are outside their control. When we were in government, oil prices rose substantially, as we are seeing now, but we left government with a proportional tax take on fuel lower than when we came into government—down from 75% to less than 65% on petrol and down from 74% to 64% on diesel. It is no coincidence that under the last Conservative Government fuel taxation shot up from 66% of the price of petrol in 1992 to 75% in 1997, and from 66% to 74% for diesel.
The Minister of State for International Development made the front pages in March, saying:
“if this does go wrong”,
referring to the Budget,
“£1.30 at the pump could look like a luxury, $200 a barrel is on the cards”.
He can hardly have expected that remark to put a stop to speculation in the oil markets.
Rather than helping people through the tough times, the Government seem to want to make things worse. There was an alternative for the Government. Before the Budget, we called on the Chancellor to scrap the hike in VAT on fuel. That would have been of genuine help to families and businesses.
Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kerry McCarthy(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Mr David Hanson to move the next amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Sorry. I call Kerry McCarthy.
Clause 3
Removal of entitlement to health in pregnancy grant
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 3, page 2, line 22 leave out Clause 3.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, page 2, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
‘(2) The Treasury will conduct a review of the health in pregnancy grant, to be concluded by 1 January 2012, which will consider, inter alia, the case for—
(a) the health in pregnancy grant to be retained in its current form;
(b) the health in pregnancy grant to be means-tested or in other ways targeted towards those most in need; and
(c) the health in pregnancy grant to be replaced by a system of vouchers.”’.
Amendment 44, page 2, line 27, leave out ‘2011’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 43, page 2, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
‘(2) The Treasury will conduct a review of the health in pregnancy grant, to be concluded by 1 January 2012, which will consider, inter alia, the case for—
(a) the health in pregnancy grant to be retained in its current form;
(b) the health in pregnancy grant to be means-tested or in other ways targeted towards those most in need; and
(c) the health in pregnancy grant to be replaced by a system of vouchers.”’.
Amendment 45, page 2, line 32, leave out ‘2011’ and insert ‘2014’.
Amendment 34, page 3, line 1, Clause 4, leave out ‘Sections’ and insert ‘Section’.
Amendment 30, page 3, line 1, leave out from ‘1992)’ to ‘extend’ in line 2.
Amendment 35, page 3, line 4, leave out ‘Sections’ and insert ‘Section’.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 5, leave out from ‘1992)’ to ‘extend’ in line 6.
Amendment 38, in title, line 2, leave out from ‘2009;’ to ‘and’ in line 3.
Kerry McCarthy
I am sorry for not notifying you in advance, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and I would be job sharing on Report.
We had a reasonably comprehensive debate in Committee on clause 3, which deals with the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant, although not as comprehensive as we would have liked. The Minister did not provide as much explanation as we would have liked on why he and his Government colleagues felt compelled to rush into axing the grant without sufficient evidence that it is not achieving the purposes for which it was intended. Amendment 3 would therefore delete clause 3, the grant would continue and we would have more time to assess whether it improves maternal health and nutrition, and the health of the unborn child and the child once it is born, and whether it achieves the important aim of getting expectant women to access professional advice during pregnancy.
I do not have time to rehearse in full the arguments in favour of such intervention during pregnancy. In Committee, we heard compelling evidence from witnesses of the health benefits for mother and child of tackling poor nutrition. We heard statistics about how many parents worry about not having enough money to feed their families and how many people on low incomes do not have enough money to provide healthy nutritious food. That can be seen in research carried out by organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on what sort of household income would be sufficient to provide a healthy diet. Witnesses also told us of the importance of the grant as a nudge towards changing behaviour—the Prime Minister has been a keen advocate of such nudges in the past. By giving the grant and, in particular, by making the payment conditional on accessing advice on nutrition during pregnancy, we have encouraged expectant mothers who perhaps were not completely au fait with nutritional issues to start thinking about them, to access advice on health during pregnancy and to start on the road towards changing their patterns of behaviour. The scheme was in place for only a couple of years, so there was nowhere near enough time to assess its impact, but we heard evidence that it could help break generational cycles of poor nutrition, poor health, birth defects or even mortality during childbirth.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I suggest that we stick to the amendments that are selected for discussion now? Amendment 49 is not on the selection list and nor are some of the other amendments. If we could stick to the list, I would be very grateful.
Kerry McCarthy
Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I assumed that they had all been grouped together.
Let me make a general point that links back to amendment 3 and the need to retain the grant. This is not just a matter of putting the £190 into people’s pockets so that they can spend it either on improving their diet during pregnancy or on items that they might need when the child is born. We need to bring people in so that they access professional health advice at the 25th week of pregnancy or, as we have debated, earlier in pregnancy. That is really important and there is nothing to replace it. The Government seem to have no suggestion on how to bring people in through the door and ensure that we increase the number of women who access such advice if the health in pregnancy grant is not used as a trigger mechanism. If the Government will not accept amendment 3 or any of the other amendments that call for more time and a review of how the grant works, will the Minister at least tell us how we can ensure that more women access professional advice on their health and the health of their unborn child during pregnancy? The grant was designed to tackle a serious issue and it is being abolished in its early stages. It is a shame to abandon the project at this stage.