Pharmacy First

Debate between Sarah Jones and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

The three pharmacies in Shirley, in my constituency, have been there for decades. They are very well known and very trusted, but they are all on the edge of having to close. To stay open, one pharmacist is using their own savings and not paying themselves a wage. I welcome your announcement, but would you read a letter from them—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There may have been lax obeying of the rules at other times, but would the hon. Lady please refer to the Minister as “she”, not “you”?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Jones and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was of course absolutely right: we have seen managed decline under this Government, with no coherent industrial strategy, total failure to get the grid connected where we need it, and different Departments giving mixed messages and providing complicated processes to access any support.

On top of all that, our industry has to pay twice as much on its energy bills compared with European competitors. A recent report by UK Steel stated that our steel producers have to pay £117 million more per year on electricity, forcing the Government to deliver a subsidy through the supercharger, which in turn raises bills for everybody else. Instead of such short-term policies, is it time for Labour’s industrial strategy, Labour’s grid reform and Labour’s mission to become a clean energy superpower, so that we can permanently cut bills for everyone, grow our economy and give Britain its future back?

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Sarah Jones and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has made a lengthy speech on this occasion, perhaps trying to ensure that others have less time to speak. I am glad that he took an intervention from the Father of the House on this occasion—he did not do so yesterday—but unfortunately he did not answer the main point, and therefore we must conclude that the Government are content for the £10 billion of additional cost to be shouldered by leaseholders.

We find ourselves in an extraordinary position. We voted on this only yesterday, and in that debate every single speaker—the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem contributors—pleaded with the Government to support leaseholders. No one spoke in the Government’s favour, and the Government’s majority was halved in the vote. At what point does the Minister question the sense of his approach? At what point does he turn around and think, “Well, all these people who have spoken are sensible and well meaning; perhaps they have a point”? At what point does he consider that he might actually agree with us?

I suspect that the Minister has had those thoughts, and I suspect that he even agrees with us. He knows that the Bank of England is worried about a crash caused directly by the crisis. He knows that hundreds of thousands of people are suffering. But he also knows that his Chancellor and his Prime Minister do not care enough to act. They have other priorities—to their property and development donors. Fourteen separate companies and individuals with links to construction companies using potentially lethal aluminium composite material cladding on buildings have donated nearly £4 million to the Conservatives since 2006. The Prime Minister must have his new curtains, so they turn away from the screams for help from the people hit with extraordinary bills of £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and the Minister has to bunker down, hold his nose and hold the line. I almost feel sorry for him.

Let me touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Minister yesterday and today for not accepting these amendments. The argument that they would further delay the implementation of the Grenfell recommendations does not wash and is frankly insulting to the Grenfell survivors. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) read out Grenfell United’s condemnation of the use and abuse of the tragedy to put the blame on leaseholders. It said that the Government’s excuse that amendments to protect leaseholders would delay Grenfell recommendations is “deeply upsetting”, “wrong”,

“and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created.”

That argument against delaying the Bill was put to us time and again when we were trying to make amendments to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. On Report, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said that accepting our amendment to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations would “create uncertainty”. The Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), later said:

“It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 950.]

He added that it causes “confusion”. However, after continually voting against our amendments, the Government eventually gave in and made the concession in the other place. It was possible then, even after months of their saying it was not, and it is possible now.

The Housing Minister has the audacity to imply that the supposed delays from new amendments would mean that people were less safe, as if people are not already unsafe living in buildings riddled with fire safety issues. Has he forgotten that hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country are already stuck in unsafe buildings? I say to him again today: if the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill now? Labour’s amendment would buy the Government time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government came up with a longer-term plan.

As Lord Kennedy of Southwark said yesterday in the other place, it is unusual to be here again so soon, but this is an unprecedented crisis and the Government should be taking unprecedented measures to sort it out. The Government know that hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to pay to fix fire safety issues that were not their fault. The Government should pay and then go after the building companies and developers who are responsible. Most MPs agree: 95% of all MPs, and 92% of Tory MPs, said that the developers who built the flats should pay to make them safe.

The tragedy is that we know that, at some point, the Government are going to have to act to fix this problem. We know that they cannot leave leaseholders to foot a £10 billion bill. Yet yesterday, many Conservative Members voted against an amendment that would have protected leaseholders. What will they do today? Will they keep voting against their conscience, against their opinions, against the will of their constituents, or will they do the right thing and vote to protect leaseholders?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We have a very short time for this debate, so I am afraid that we have to have a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Sarah Jones and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to focus my brief remarks on how the Chancellor could deliver growth in south London.

Over many years, as house prices have risen in inner London, people have moved to outer London where house prices are marginally more affordable. Croydon exemplifies that shift. We love having new people, but we are now an outer-London borough with inner-London costs. As our demographics have shifted, so has the need to fund more social care, health services and education.

We have now reached the worrying situation where Croydon receives £200 less per person compared with some inner boroughs, even though it faces the same and in many cases higher levels of deprivation. Other boroughs often place looked-after children in Croydon. We have a high number of unaccompanied asylum seekers, whom we support. We have a lot of old people’s homes. We welcome them all, but we do not receive the funding to support them.

The first item on my list for the Chancellor is that we need a level playing field, so that we can tackle the challenges we face and give every area the same chance. Funding for local authorities must be rebalanced and we must be supported to deal with the additional costs other areas do not have. Of course, the chronic overall underfunding of local government must stop and we must have proper funding for our services.

Secondly, a quick look at major transport and capital investment shows that south London has actually missed out for decades. We know London is a wonderful area. West London has a well-established economy. North London has seen several recent infrastructure developments, such as the hugely successful King’s Cross development and the start of High Speed 2. The Olympics signalled a shift east for some of our economy on the back of the growth of the stadium, housing and businesses there.

What is south London’s equivalent investment? Many parts do not have the Tube, we do not have bike infrastructure and I cannot remember the last time the Government invested significantly in our transport system. I therefore ask the Chancellor to look at investing in our transport system. East Croydon station and the Windmill bridge outside it require major transformation to keep moving the hundreds of thousands of people who every day travel through East Croydon from the south coast to London. Of course, the number of people using the train has slowed during covid, but it will go back up again and that funding will have to be found, so I ask the Chancellor to do that. Perhaps he can also support our call to move Croydon to zone 4. That could be funded by the rail companies in the new bidding rounds. We need all kinds of infrastructure. Either we should have a Transport for London supported by the Chancellor, or he should give more powers to the Mayor of London so that we can do these things ourselves.

Thirdly, we have high streets that are really struggling. Westfield was due to come to Croydon and build the largest shopping centre in Europe, but because of the insecurities of the high street now, and the unfairness between the business rates paid by our physical businesses and those paid by our online businesses, that has not happened. The insecurity of Brexit did not help. So we need the Chancellor to speed up, review and reform the business rates system, so we can have a level playing field. We want to grow our high streets in Croydon and we will, but we need him to create the climate in which that can happen.

Fourthly, we have the very best, talented people in south London, particularly in Croydon, but Croydon College, a wonderful resource, has had its funding cut by a third. We have to invest in skills and education. Finally, small businesses are the backbone of Croydon and south London, and we need to do more and go further to support them as we build back after covid. It is time for south London to be invested in. I hope the Chancellor will support us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now try to go back to the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). Sadly, he has to be audio only.

Westferry Printworks Development

Debate between Sarah Jones and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. She cannot be standing up in the Chamber. If the Secretary of State wants to give way, he will give way, and she must not heckle.