Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Tim Farron, follow that.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I will do my best, Mr Speaker.

Outdoor education centres are a crucial part of our visitor economy. There are 60-plus of them in Cumbria, employing hundreds of talented people whose jobs are, I am afraid, now seriously at risk. Outdoor education centres provide huge benefits in personal development, education, and physical and mental health, which are particularly valuable, even essential, at this time. They are as safe to reopen as schools, yet they face imminent closure and ruin. Will the Minister meet with me and the heads of outdoor education centres so we can take urgent action to save them?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, and having lived in his constituency for a couple of years, I know how important outdoor education centres are to the economy. He is also quite right to point to their benefit to mental and physical health, often for young people, who have been particularly impacted in recent weeks. I suggest that I alert Ministers in the Department for Education to the specific concern he raises, so they can meet him so that the Department’s guidance can take his point on board.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We stand in this country at a crossroads in our economy, with profound implications for future generations. That is why I support, and my party supports, the Labour party in its call for an extension of the furlough scheme—but more, we would like it to cover all sectors, incentivise flexibility and be guaranteed until at least June 2021. This is a scheme that the Liberal Democrats called for and campaigned for, and, to give the Government credit, it has helped to stave off the worst economic impact of covid-19. Almost 10 million jobs were furloughed from March to June, and more than 6 million people still benefit.

The scheme has massive flaws, however. Primarily, it does not help everyone. It has excluded more than 3 million people, who have been left without any financial support at all. Perhaps the biggest long-term flaw is that the current support scheme was intended as a bridge over the deepest chasm of this crisis, and so far it offers us no destination. If the Government have a strategy for the onward journey, this would be the time to tell us. Where will those nearly 7 million people be when the bridge comes to an end? At the moment, I fear that the answer is: high and dry.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am particularly concerned about tourism in the lakes and dales. We had a very busy August, and that was welcome, but most businesses could not operate at anywhere near capacity and therefore they could not turn a profit after losing £1.6 billion in the first part of the year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a special package to support hospitality and tourism, especially through the winter months, before the new season kicks in next year?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent point he makes. I know the impact on Edinburgh West of the loss of the festivals, and tourism is one of the sectors that will struggle. My fear is that if the scheme is withdrawn, we will simply have spent billions to delay the pain for those sectors, with nothing to lessen it in the long term and nothing to prepare for worse to come. Aviation, hospitality, the arts and tourism are all struggling sectors. We need the scheme not only to continue, but to do more. We need it to invest not just in staving off the crisis, but in creating a new, stronger, greener economy. If the job retention scheme is to be truly successful, that is where the bridge must lead us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

These are deeply troubling times for the businesses and workers across the country who form the backbone of our economy and are looking to this Government to provide reassurances that they will continue to be supported, not cast aside as the recession worsens and we enter a potential second wave of the pandemic. The furlough scheme has been a welcome lifeline for many businesses. In my constituency of Ilford South, 17,500 people—a third of those in work—were furloughed at the peak of the crisis. The flipside is that a significant number could sadly be unemployed when the furlough scheme ends, with a cataclysmic knock-on impact in Ilford and across east London and Essex.

Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that between 10% and 20% of those currently on furlough will end up unemployed when the scheme ends. In my constituency, that would mean more than 4,500 people being thrown on the dole. Recently, the Bank of England predicted that a further 1 million more people will be unemployed by Christmas, with potential headline unemployment rising to more than 2.5 million.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely good points. His constituency, like mine, will have on average something like 4,500 workers and business people who have received no support whatsoever from the Government since March. The excluded groups include those who have been self-employed for a short period and many others, as we know. Does he agree that it is right for the Government to compensate those people, who are struggling to put food on their tables right now, having had nothing throughout this whole crisis?

[Sam Tarry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Like him, I have had many constituents get in touch to raise exactly that point. Clearly the Government have been found wanting on that issue.

The Bank of England estimates that ending the furlough system before businesses have recovered from the first phase will lead to a total of 4.5 million unemployed. To put that into context, that is worse than the great depression of 1930s and will have a catastrophic effect on our nation’s finances. With half a million of those job losses predicted in Conservative-held seats, I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in urging the Government to extend the supportive measures that are already in place.

We have already seen that our economy was the worst hit of all the major economies in the OECD. With both the CBI and the TUC calling for the furlough scheme to be continued to avoid such mass unemployment, will the Minister and the Government now listen to the united voices of business and unions, bosses and workers and change course before it is too late? This is not an unrealistic expectation; it is a practical necessity. Other European nations have already committed to long-term furlough schemes, which will give their economies a much better chance of bouncing back from the negative spiral they are already in. For example, Germany and France have both committed to supporting their workers up until 2022, so why cut our own jobs lifeline after just eight months?

This Government’s rationale—we have heard it from some colleagues on the Conservative Benches today—is that the furlough scheme has cost too much. We have invested only—in my view—£35 billion, which is a fraction of the £500 billion that was used to bale out our banks during the global financial crisis. The social and economic costs in many now Conservative-held seats would be catastrophic and incalculable. History shows us that once good skilled jobs are lost, they do not return in this country.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who made some interesting points about this move. Although, as Members from all parts of the House have said, there are other things we could do with the money—there is an opportunity cost to spending it—there is no doubt that it will make a difference to the economy. The buying and selling of properties has a knock-on effect and creates a multiplier, and that will create some movement. It is worth saying that that does not mean it is the best use that could possibly be made of this money, but given that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have discovered a veritable rainforest of money trees, this may be a good use for a few of them.

For the good that the measure will do—it is important to concede that—what it will not do is to rise to the challenge of the United Kingdom’s general lack of affordable housing. It has been going on for some time, and this represents a failure to grasp the nettle. I am sure Members will know that Crisis and the National Housing Federation have together come up with a conservative estimate that the UK needs 145,000 new affordable homes per year, 90,000 of which need to be social rented. Shelter takes the view—I think it is nearer to the money—that the number is closer to 300,000. Either way, we need a minimum of 90,000 additional social rented homes a year. The Government will deliver 3,500 this year, but there are just over 3,000 on the social housing waiting list in my constituency alone. That is the scale of the problem, and this measure does not help—it does not hinder, but it does not help.

[Mike Wood]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that what probably will help is the £12 billion affordable housing programme announced in the Budget only four months ago?

[Tim Farron]

Potentially—although, to go on a little diversion, we cannot build houses of any kind whatsoever without a workforce. One thing that I wish the Government would take seriously, in looking at their supply chain and the means of reaching their targets, is that we are something like 40% below the workforce required to construct even the Government’s existing programme of development. By the way, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which we debated the other week, will take that down by another 9%. The Government can announce whatever big numbers they like, but they cannot press-release their way out of a recession; they have to plan their way out of it. There is a lack of long-term or even medium-term planning, but it is better to spend that money than not, and I concede that it will do more good than the proposal that we are debating.

I represent a constituency where we have, bluntly, London house prices without London incomes. The average household income is about £25,000 a year, and the average house price across the constituency is about a quarter of a million. In the Lake district and the dales, which make up more than half the land mass of my constituency, we are looking at an average property price of more like £400,000. Put bluntly, the average person in my constituency is stuffed when it comes to buying a home, and this measure will not help. We lose one in three of our young people, never to return, for this very reason. Long-lasting, real action is required as well as something like this, which I am sure will give a short-term and necessary boost to economic activity.

I agree with the Town and Country Planning Association and the Nationwide Foundation that we need to redefine what affordability is. We talk about affordability as a percentage of market rent when actually we should be talking about affordability in terms of how it relates to people’s incomes, obviously, because that is what makes something affordable or otherwise. This and previous Governments have used “affordable housing” as a term that is utterly meaningless to the majority of people who are supposedly in the market. Let us take this opportunity to do something radical.

I also agree with the Town and Country Planning Association, and with Shelter, when they say that one of the most useful things that we could do—and since we are in this mood for swift and radical legislation that will make a difference, let us grab the moment—is to reform the Land Compensation Act 1961, which currently fixes the hope value of land at a level based on what would be the most lucrative value of that land rather than pegging it at the actual value of the land. That inflates land prices, inflates house prices, and stagnates the market. If we wanted to reduce the cost of land, reduce the cost of housing and therefore make it more affordable, make sure that every home is zero-carbon, which the Government should also be doing at this time, and make it more likely that land will come forward to be built on in the first place, that is the one thing we would do: it is close to being a silver bullet. In this time of swift legislation and passing whole Bills in a matter of hours, that is what we should use one of these slots for. Radical change is important, and we in this House have the opportunity—and, I think, the mood—to do it.

We should also be reforming viability assessments and preventing developers from changing the goalposts after they have been given planning permission. I want to see developers forced to deliver not just zero-carbon homes but homes that are genuinely affordable, and not then going over the field, digging up a few rocks, and saying, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t afford to do the affordables anymore.” This is an opportunity for the Government to make sure that any new building that takes place, and such as I trust will take place, will deliver homes that people can actually afford.

As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who made a really good and important contribution, this move will not help any of the people facing financial ruin, such as the one in four in my constituency who work for themselves, many of whom are directors of small limited companies, newly employed people or new starters. They are the entrepreneurs we need to rely on to build back for our country and to build our economy, and they have been excluded. As she said, we had the launch of the all-party group last week with 200 Members there, many of them Conservatives. My message to friends and colleagues on the Conservative Benches is: this is your moment to put your money where your mouth is and to stand up for those 3 million excluded people in this country, and to say that the Chancellor must back them, because they are not in a position to consider whether they are going to move house; they are in a position of wondering whether they can afford to feed their kids. This is the time when the Chancellor must act.

Just as distressing for us in south Lakeland is the bonus that is being given to people who own second homes. I want to be very clear here: I am not talking about holiday lets, which are crucial to the tourism economy in the lakes and the dales and elsewhere, bringing in visitors who spend their money locally. Holiday lets are part of a tourism economy that is worth £3 billion a year and more, and employs 60,000 people in Cumbria—our single biggest employer—so it is vital that we support that industry. I am talking about homes owned by people as a second property that they visit maybe a few times a year—and good luck to them. I want those people to feel welcome: this is not a personal slight on them. But as somebody who lives among these communities, I cannot deny the evidence of my eyes, which is that excessive second home ownership kills communities. When 50% of the homes in Coniston are not lived in all year round, of course that is one of the reasons why the schools in that community do not have the numbers they would otherwise, of course it is a reason why bus services shut, and of course it is a reason why shops, post offices and others struggle. That is why this boon and bonus to second home owners is an insult to people in the lakes and the dales—the local people struggling to get by there—and why this should be an opportunity not to give these people an additional incentive to take homes out of the local market, but to tackle the incentives that currently exist.

Some 18 months ago, the Government concluded a consultation on whether they should close the loophole that allows second home owners effectively to pretend that the home is a business and therefore avoid paying any tax whatsoever. In the 18 months since—I accept that it has been a busy 18 months—naff all has happened. The Welsh Assembly Government closed that loophole and did so effectively. Why will the Government not take the opportunity to do that and help constituencies like mine? That loophole needs to be closed.

In summary, I am deeply concerned about this proposal. It will do some good and I can see the economic arguments for it, so we will not formally oppose it when it comes to any Division, but we must understand what it is and what it is not. It will increase demand, but among those it will help are those lucky enough to have multiple homes. It does not help those who are desperate to put food on the table and pay the rent. The Government are not helping the excluded and this was the chance to do that. The proposal has some economic value. It will help to kick-start the economy in the short term and that is welcome insofar as it goes, but it is a scattergun attempt to build back quicker, not build back better. If we do not build anything new either, it is simply a case of “buy, buy, buy”, not “build, build, build.”

The Economy

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is important that the right hon. Gentleman’s focus is on jobs. Will he reflect on the fact that the hospitality and tourism industry—the fourth biggest employer in the country and the biggest employer in Cumbria—is now effectively in the middle of three winters in a row? The VAT cut is very welcome. However, 69% of hospitality businesses are not able to open fully, so, with goods and services that they cannot trade, they will get no benefit whatsoever from a tax cut. Does he agree that it is therefore right to invest in a wages and grant package to see the industry through to spring next year, so that it can come out fighting once the demand returns?

[Steve Barclay]

It is to address that exact reason that the Chancellor did not simply announce a VAT cut to help that sector. It is also why the eat out to help out programme is particularly targeted. Demand is key to those businesses being able to restart and take back people who are furloughed. It is predominantly and disproportionately the young who are most affected within that sector, and that is why the measures are targeted to help those who would have been most scarred economically if they lost their jobs at the start of their career.

The commitment to levelling up across the regions, including in Cumbria—in a way I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is a proponent of localism, would support—is not just about the big-ticket projects such as High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, important though those are. It is every bit as much about numerous smaller-scale projects: the trunk roads, the local bus services, the flood defences—projects that rarely make national headlines but are every bit as transformative at a local level. That is why the Government have announced more than £100 million for local road upgrades. It means that we can proceed with much-needed bridge repairs in Sandwell, we can set about upgrading the A15 in the Humber region, and we can provide £10 million to support tackling bottlenecks in the Manchester rail network to bring about a faster, more reliable journey for thousands of passengers.

Our commitment to levelling up is directly linked to another of the Government’s totemic ambitions—that of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It was a joy to read in one newspaper this morning that the theme of the Chancellor’s statement today would be jobs, jobs, jobs, which had a pretty familiar ring to it, as did the reports that the Prime Minister wants to bring about a green industrial revolution. In fact, I half expected the Chancellor to open his speech this afternoon by promising an economic policy for the many, not the few. These are truly extraordinary times, but in the end, history will not measure the Chancellor’s success in newspaper headlines or column inches. It will be measured by the unemployment figures. It will be measured by the strength of the recovery, and it will be measured by whether he is able to build back better, build back greener and build a brighter future for every part of our country after a decade of failed economic policies.

Just as these are extraordinary times, this is no ordinary recession. The shutdown of our economy—essential to saving lives—has delivered the biggest contraction of economic activity in living memory, with a record fall in GDP measuring three times that which occurred during the financial crisis. Every community has been affected. Between March and May, an additional 1.6 million people claimed unemployment-related benefits, bringing the total to just under 3 million. We have seen the largest quarterly fall in vacancies since records began in 1971, and 22% of businesses reported turnover down by more than 50%. While the impact has been felt across our country, we know that it has not been felt evenly. Some in our services sector have been hit particularly hard, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing a fall in output in accommodation and food of 92%, compared with 20% in professional services.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good series of points. He is right to say that there is an inequality in the support. The Chancellor has failed today to provide support for the hundreds of thousands of newly set up small businesses, self-employed people and directors of small limited companies who are still excluded from support. Is not today the day that the Chancellor should be supporting those people and helping them to keep going, ready to meet the recovery?

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree, and it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I will come on to make exactly that point.

For some people in secure jobs and on decent pay, the lockdown restrictions have been an opportunity to clear the credit card or build up savings, but for so many others—particularly the young and the low-paid—the labour market shock has been severe, and so has the impact on their pockets. Behind every one of these statistics are people—families and communities who have played their part in getting our country through this crisis, keeping our supermarkets stocked and essential services running; caring for us when we need it, from the brilliant staff who work in our NHS to the dedicated, often disgracefully low-paid and, this week, it seems, maligned staff who work in our care homes; and, with some notable high-profile exceptions, doing everything that was asked of them, staying home to save lives, looking out for their neighbours and volunteering in their communities. It is a truly national response, and it is not over yet. Coronavirus is the biggest crisis of most of our lifetimes. A resurgence of the virus remains the biggest threat to lives and livelihoods at the present time. And the health of our economy cannot be separated from the health of our country. That is why the Government’s failure to put in place an effective track and trace system is so concerning. The Chancellor did not mention it this afternoon, but he knows as well as we do that, without it, the risk to public health and to our economy are that much greater.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

First, I want to say that with the Government and the Chancellor there is always a catch. Nothing is quite so shiny once we pull back the label and see what is underneath. I enjoy looking through the statement, picking around for the detail and the unanswered questions that many in this House have raised and did not have answered.

The Prime Minister’s so-called new deal was neither new nor a deal sufficient for the challenge ahead of us—“Build, build, build” was plagiarised from President Duterte of the Philippines—so I have no hesitation in repeating the calls we have made for an £80 billion stimulus to protect household incomes and grow the economy.

Just as the clinical impact of covid-19 has varied over different geographical areas, so too will the economic impact. It has been a global crisis with very localised effects, and the economic response should reflect that. That is why Scotland’s First Minister has proposed that Scotland should have greater financial powers, for example, over borrowing, so that we can shape our own targeted response to this pandemic, meeting Scotland’s specific needs. The potential benefits to Scotland are clear. Where we have had the power, the Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid-19 and more than £2.3 billion to help businesses, well above the Barnett consequentials. The Scottish Government, however, are operating with one hand tied behind their back. According to the Fraser Of Allander Institute, the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450 million per annum for capital investment, with a cap of £3 billion. On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600 million per annum, with a cap of £1.75 billion, but only for forecast error and cash management; they cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.

The fiscal framework could not have envisaged covid-19 and must now be reviewed, as a matter of urgency, to allow the Scottish Government the flexibility to respond to this crisis. It is not just us calling for this; the Northern Irish and Welsh legislatures are also calling for this flexibility for their own needs. The Government would do well to listen to these requests, because they are made on a cross-Government, cross-party basis and with good intent at their heart.

I want to talk about some of the choices the Government can make quickly to help recovery in Scotland. Glasgow has five higher education institutions: the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Caledonian University, the Glasgow School of Art, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Glasgow University. This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a new report warning that the higher education sector faces losses ranging between £3 billion and £19 billion and that several universities could be at risk of collapse due to the pandemic, yet there is nothing in the statement about this looming crisis.

The Government need to think about how they want to help this vital sector recover and support innovation. At the very least, it would be beneficial to have the graduate work visas extended to those already here on a tier 4 visa and the maintenance of home student fees for EU students. This would be a lifeline post-covid for cities such as Glasgow and for universities across the UK.

Local government is also struggling in Scotland. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) put well the challenges facing local government across the country in the context of dealing with coronavirus and a decade of austerity orchestrated from Westminster. More money to support local government would of course be welcome, but also useful would be the demand from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for a 12-month payment holiday from the Public Works Loan Board, which would be instrumental in helping local authorities manage the constraints arising from covid-19. I urge the Government to consider this.

Local authorities, along with other employers, would also benefit from a reconsideration of the winding up of the furlough scheme, which NIESR has said would result in a 2.5% reduction in the UK’s GDP—a not insignificant sum. I think it would be a grave error to wind this scheme up too early and have repeatedly made my feelings clear on this. Businesses cannot be left to fail. We have seen awful news this week of job cuts across sectors and industries but primarily from businesses in tourism, hospitality and retail, which have suffered the most.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member is making a really great contribution. She is right to focus on businesses in hospitality and tourism. For many of them, the Budget in the autumn will simply be too late. Thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs are at risk this month as the furlough scheme is rolled back from August. Does she agree that sector-specific support for things such as hospitality and tourism could save thousands of jobs and that the Chancellor should provide such support—indeed, should have done so today?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree with the hon. Member. Not all industries are in exactly the same position. Some cannot open now. Some will not be able to open for some months. As hon. Members said earlier, some might not open fully until next year. The International Monetary Fund has said that the UK’s GDP could drop by 10.2%, and the scale of the response must meet the scale of the challenge we face, or we could be looking at years of unemployment and hardship across the UK.

Simon Jack, the BBC’s business editor, made a very interesting point about the scale of the challenge facing business and the gamble that business are now taking. As he said, the calculation facing business owners is: are they prepared to pay 5% of the wages of furloughed workers in August, 15% in September and 24% in October, plus £1,560 from November, to get a £1,000 bonus in January? It will depend on demand that the Chancellor is trying to stimulate with food discounts and VAT cuts. It is a gamble for many businesses, and we can see from all the job cuts in the past week, that gamble means people losing their jobs now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

On Saturday, we proudly and safely reopened hospitality and tourism in Cumbria. Tourism is our largest employer, but 69% of hospitality industry businesses will not be able to reopen fully. Having lost most of the season, the industry will see hundreds of successful businesses fail and tens of thousands of jobs lost—unless the Chancellor agrees to a package of grant and wage support in the Budget statement tomorrow. Will he do that?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, an enormous amount of support is already in the system. I am delighted that shops and other organisations are opening up in his constituency; we look to see more of that over time as the support feeds through into the system.

Finance Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The need to rebuild from this crisis, and to rebuild better and greener, could hardly be more important for my constituency. Early analysis shows that unless bold further action is taken by the Government, the economic effects of the pandemic will hit Coventry and the west midlands particularly hard.

The effects are already being felt. Each week, new job losses are announced and more businesses close their doors. Rolls-Royce plans to cut thousands of staff, including at its nearby Ansty plant. Jaguar Land Rover has announced hundreds of redundancies in nearby Solihull, with a domino effect causing hundreds of job losses in car parts manufacturers in Coventry South. That will have a devastating knock-on effect for local suppliers and shops in the city, not to mention the dire impact of the crisis on hospitality, the arts and countless other industries in the city.

Even before the job retention scheme is wound down and the potential unemployment tsunami hits us, the human cost is already starting to build up. Pressure is growing on Coventry’s voluntary sector, on its food bank and on local services. It is estimated that without further action, across the country 1 million more people will fall into poverty this year alone.

We stand on the verge of an economic and social calamity. This is no time for the Government to sit on the sidelines, or to offer the same old answers, or to try to go back to the old normal. That system was broken and already failing working people, but the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday does not rise to the challenge. What he is proposing is barely even a sticking plaster. In the face of the worst recession for generations, the new deal the Prime Minister promises equates to less spending than the cost of two aircraft carriers. It is a drop in the ocean.

The challenge before us is not simply recovering from coronavirus, but combating the climate emergency as well, because the danger of ignoring warnings and delaying actions is now all too clear. We simply cannot afford to make the same mistakes with the climate. There is no planet B to fall back on. We do need a new deal, but it must be a green new deal—one that is bold and ambitious, that hardwires lasting change in our society, and that works for working people. It should be a new deal that creates 1 million green jobs, as the TUC has proposed; one that invests in green industries, renewable energy and home insulation, and builds a resilient health and care service. It should be a new deal that harnesses the skills and industry that we have in Coventry to make the city a world leader in the automotive industry once again, but now building the electric cars of the future. It should be a new deal that builds green public transport, with railways and bus networks expanded, owned and run for public benefit, not private profit.

It should be a new deal for our key workers. They kept society running through this crisis; now it is time to run the economy for them. Let us give them a new deal with the pay rise they deserve. With this new deal, let us ask the super-rich and the big corporations to pay their fair share—no more bail-outs for companies registered in tax havens, no more tax dodging or corporate excess.

As we emerge from this crisis, we stand at a crossroads that will determine our future, so let us learn from the lessons of the past. In 2008, bankers crashed the economy, but working people paid the price, with a decade of cuts and stagnant wages. We became a nation of food banks and zero-hours contracts. The Government missed deficit targets, but ripped up the social safety net. There is no doubt that that was a grave mistake, but even now we hear calls for more years of austerity.

In 1945, we took a different path. With mountains of debt and an economy in ruins, we planned and invested for the people. We built the national health service, the welfare state and 1 million council homes. We ran industries for the public good and we taxed the richest. Living standards rose, the economy grew and debts were repaid. Which path we take now is up to us.

In this crisis, we have seen the best of society, from the mutual aid groups that sprang up to the outpouring of love for the NHS and its heroic workers. We have seen how deeply we care for one another. Across divides and differences, we pulled together, so let us pull together again and build back better and greener with a green new deal, tackling social injustices and the climate crisis and building a Britain fit for our key workers and for the future.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

There has been much talk of Roosevelt and the new deal but, as the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) said, the Roosevelt new deal comprised 40% of US GDP and the Prime Minister’s announcement 0.2% of UK GDP. The new deal rhetoric is right—let us congratulate the Government on that—but the reality is utterly limp.

We stand on the precipice of a recession, probably the worst of our lifetimes, and so it is good to hear Conservatives, for the first time in generations, looking to the great liberal economist John Maynard Keynes for inspiration. This is a time to boost demand and economic activity, to create jobs by direct Government intervention. We will do that by borrowing to invest, and we should do so on a colossal and ambitious scale. Yesterday’s announcement of £5 billion investment would transform Cumbria, if all of it was spent there. No serious person thinks it will even make a dent in the UK-wide economic situation.

Nor does that investment, of course, comprise a green infrastructure revolution. Yet, if we really are to build an economy that is better, that is the revolution we would choose. An active, ambitious Government would invest not £5 billion, but the £150 billion that the Liberal Democrats propose, over the next three years. That way, we would stand a chance of ending the recession before it starts, protecting and creating jobs and preventing hardship. We would also stand a chance of leaving a legacy that future generations will thank us for.

In working together, in a collective national endeavour to build the sustainable infrastructure we need, we can generate the national unity and common purpose that has been absent ever since the debate about our relationship with the rest of Europe turned into a self-destructive culture war. We can unite the country, avert the recession and save the planet all in one go, but it will take an awful lot more than 0.2% of GDP.

So what should we do? We expect to see as few as 3,500 social rented homes built across the entire country this year, the lowest number in history. In my constituency alone, we have 3,000 people languishing on the housing list. We need new homes, genuinely affordable homes and zero-carbon homes. The Government must fast-track the affordable homes programme and spend it on building new, zero-carbon social rented homes.

The Government must also launch a nationwide programme of energy insulation, starting with the homes of those with the lowest incomes, and they must also use this time of fast-tracked legislation—since they are in the mood to do it—to reform the Land Compensation Act 1961 to prevent land values from being inflated, so that we can make zero-carbon homes more affordable to build and more likely to be built.

Transport is key to rural communities such as mine, and to the environment and the recovery. In the north-west, transport spend per head of the population is still barely half of what it is in London, despite the promises made when the northern powerhouse was established. Bus services in London receive a £722 million annual subsidy; in Cumbria, we receive nothing at all. What little money exists rarely makes it north of the M60—not much of a powerhouse, and not very northern.

Our communities in South Lakeland have done a spectacular job putting together community bus services, such as the Western Dales Bus service connecting Sedbergh and Dent with Kendal and the surrounding communities, to plug some of the gaps caused by the steady loss of services, but we should not have to do that. The lack of subsidy means that fares are extortionate, which is a huge challenge, especially for low-paid workers. The 5-mile journey from Ambleside to Grasmere costs £4.90; a journey of equivalent length in London costs £1.50.

Bus services are essential to life in rural communities such as ours—essential to boosting our economy, moving to zero carbon and tackling isolation. They are also key to Cumbria’s vital tourism industry. Between 16 million and 20 million people visit us each year, and 83% of those visitors travel to us by car. With the right interventions and conditions, our visitors will travel sustainably.

We ask for a comprehensive, affordable rural bus service connecting all our villages to our main towns regularly and reliably. We ask for a network of electric hire bike stations. There should be such stations at all railway stations, in village centres, and at major bus stops, and action to make cycling easier and safer throughout Cumbria. We ask for the Lakes line, which connects the English Lake district to the main line, to be electrified. It is shameful that the Government cancelled electrification plans in 2017 for utterly bogus reasons. Now is the time to keep that promise and electrify this iconic line, which serves Britain’s second-biggest visitor destination after London. We ask that there be a passing loop on the Lakes line at Burneside to enable a huge increase in capacity, and we ask for Staveley station to be made accessible, so that it is no longer out of reach of those with mobility difficulties, who cannot make it up the 41 steps.

We ask that the Government show their commitment to industrial renewal and to tackling the climate emergency by investing in wave, hydro and tidal power in the most beautiful but—let us be honest—wettest part of Britain. Why is it that the UK, with the highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, spends so little on the reliable power that water offers? We are proud to have Gilkes in Kendal, beacon to the hydro energy industry. Let us back it, and others like it, so that we can get Britain working, sustainably.

For Cumbria and Britain, building back better and greener is possible—essential—but it means doing more than just using Roosevelt’s name; it will mean deploying Roosevelt’s courage.

[Jim Shannon]

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this important topic. I declare an interest as a landowner. Many years ago, I used the initiative to provide saplings to landowners free of charge, and I planted 3,500 trees on my farm—my father’s farm, as it was then. Over the years I have watched them grow, and have seen wildlife flourish. I am very proud of my biodiversity foray. However, I would never have thought to use some five acres of my farm to plant trees had not the relevant Department publicised and encouraged the scheme, and made it easier for me.

I understand that the Prime Minister has this week indicated that 1.5 billion trees will be planted between now and 2050. That will raise forest cover across the United Kingdom of Great Britain from 15% to 17%. I would have liked more than that, of course, but I welcome it; we should welcome that very positive announcement. It is clear to me that Government initiatives on the environment make a difference. I am not talking about ceasing production of diesel cars or other preventive measures; I am talking about initiatives from which the constituent feels the benefit. Constituents knew that they could get money for scrapping their old carbon-emitting guzzler car, and could put that towards a more environmentally friendly car that cost them less in road tax, and they did it. They knew that they could get a grant to help install solar panels on their roof and for insulation, so that they did not have to use as much oil, and they did it. Battery storage is one of the projects in my constituency. We hope to see it going forward as one of our very positive green energy projects. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is in discussions with the Government about hydrogen vehicles. He also asked a question of the Prime Minister today about buses.

Social Security

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]]

The employment allowance, of course, was born during the years of the coalition to help small businesses, charities and sports clubs to take on their first employees. The Liberal Democrats are proud of our legacy and commitment to understanding and meeting the needs of entrepreneurs and small businesses. This has never been more important than it is now, so the increase is a welcome development and we are very happy to support it. However, it will be of use only to those businesses that are able to stay in business. Our challenge is to ensure that small businesses and charities are able to stay afloat until we are out of lockdown, so that they can benefit from it. That is not a call to end or ease the lockdown soon; we have to be led by science and safety, not politics and impatience. My fear, though, is that the increase in the allowance could end up being the cherry on a cake that no longer exists. Put bluntly, it will be of no use to businesses that have gone to the wall.

The allowance increase, sadly, will have escaped the attention of many, given that it arrived just as the economy went into shock in the face of the covid-19 crisis. Here in the south lakes, that shock is being felt acutely. We are a community where volunteering is second nature, where small charities, community groups and sports clubs form the glue that binds us together, but for most, their income has disappeared, and Government support has not reached everyone. We are a community where one in four people work for themselves, hundreds of them new start-ups. Small employers, new employers and potential employers are the very people the employment allowance is there to help, and most of them have been closed or curtailed by the virus.

We claim to be the biggest visitor destination in the UK outside London, but the market squares, pubs, restaurants and hotels of the lakes and dales are still and silent. It is right that they are; we all know that the priority is to protect people, to save lives. The problem is that if hospitality and tourism are phased back into action in the autumn, the industry will have missed out on the business of the summer months that it relies on to get through the winter. If we do not provide long-term support for those businesses, we will be faced with tens of thousands of furloughed workers losing their jobs as soon as support ends. That will have a colossal impact on our communities in the south lakes and will push countless families into poverty.

I hope that Ministers share my determination to ensure that we keep businesses going now, so that employers are able to re-hire furloughed staff and to employ new staff after this is all over. For those in the tourism and hospitality business, that must mean committing to a 12-month funding settlement, to see them through to spring 2021. Anything less, and we will simply be delaying the collapse of hundreds of businesses until the autumn. I want those employers to be around to benefit from the raised employment allowance.

If you could live in a beautiful place like Cumbria and make a living, you just would. Well, thanks to improved broadband speeds, increasing numbers of people have done just that. We are one of the most entrepreneurial places in the country. Hundreds of people have set up their businesses here, underpinning our local communities. There has been an explosion in the number of new businesses based in spare bedrooms, on kitchen tables, in sheds or shared spaces. Often, these businesses do not expect to make much money—if any—in the first year or two; many work at a loss until the third or fourth year. Those are the very businesses that, until now, have not qualified for any support from Government during this crisis—those self-employed for less than a year, those working in shared spaces and those who work from home. Small B&Bs have also missed out. Many of these businesses have already had to close, leaving people’s dreams shattered and families experiencing desperate hardship and even destitution.

The announcement last weekend of a £617 million package for those who have fallen through the cracks is welcome, and I am grateful to Ministers for listening to us. But I confess that the details of this fund trouble me and my constituents. South Lakeland has such a large number of businesses hit, because of our reliance on tourism and hospitality, that the local council has distributed one of the largest hardship budgets in the country—£70 million, which is much more than places like Newcastle and Nottingham, with populations of three times our size. If this new money is divided out according to the size of population, South Lakeland will get about £2 million, which would leave hundreds of businesses with absolutely nothing. This announcement would, in that case, have given false hope.

I ask the Government to distribute on the basis of need and be willing to increase the sum available across the country if it turns out that people are missing out. I also ask for clarity on which businesses will be eligible for this support. For example, will it include those who are operating from home? I warmly welcome these regulations. We must do everything in our power to ensure that small employers survive this crisis, so that they are still around to use this money and create opportunities for others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On day one, we will have exactly the same rules. We will not be rule takers. We will have the right to diverge in future, but on day one we can absolutely see why the EU will be looking very carefully at the equivalence decision.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In the South Lakes we have 3,000 local families waiting for a council home, yet the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee says that the Government’s plan for visas and migrant pay will see an 8% reduction in the construction workforce. So will the Chancellor explain who is going to build the homes that families in the South Lakes so desperately need?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, since 2010, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of homes being built. I think that last year there was the highest number of homes built in all but one of the past 30 years. When it comes to building more of those homes, of course we do need enough workers in the industry. That is exactly what our points-based system is about—making sure that it focuses on those areas where we need most support.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Funding

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a massive honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who made an outstanding speech. I am grateful to her for leading the debate.

In the run-up to the debate, I contacted all the headteachers in my constituency to ask what they wanted me to tell the Minister about special educational needs funding and provision. The collective message that came back is one of desperation. In rural communities such as ours in Cumbria, small local schools simply do not have the financial resilience to cope with the ludicrous cuts they have to face from the Government, but it is especially tough when it comes to SEN funding.

My constituency has eight secondary schools, two of which have fewer than 200 pupils; 35 primary schools, 10 of which have fewer than 30 pupils; and three primary schools smaller even than that. They are all fantastic schools. They are small because they serve sparsely populated areas that are significant distances away from one another, and small schools are the most vulnerable. One of our larger secondaries, Kendal’s Queen Katherine School, spoke for all the heads when it revealed the real financial pressure in being expected to fund the first 11 hours of education, health and care plans out of the school’s own budget. Because of the cuts that the Government have made to overall per-pupil funding, they have no reserves to provide that support.

The head of Storth Primary School sent me a copy of the letter that he had written to the county. He described the school’s reputation for being a caring and nurturing setting and how that has resulted in the school attracting more children with special educational needs. That should be celebrated, commended and rewarded. Instead, the lack of funding has made it a burden. In recent years the school has had children needing full-time 2:1 or 1:1 support, but no funding has been provided. They have been under a deficit recovery plan for five years. The head speaks of the pressure and anxiety that the staff are under and the frustration and pain of trying to provide the best possible care and education for all pupils on a budget that simply will not allow it.

A similar picture was painted by the special educational needs co-ordinator at Cartmel Primary School. The local authority recommends the school as suitable for children with an EHCP and 4.3% of its children have one, significantly above the national average. Although the school expresses its pride in its reputation, it is in danger of buckling under the funding pressure that falls on its shoulders alongside the usual strains that fall on small school budgets.

Cumbria is as vast as it is beautiful. Often in rural communities such as ours there simply is not the alternative provision available in reachable distances. The head of Langdale Primary School described how for many pupils the available special schools would require travelling extreme distances, and therefore they are effectively unavailable. She wrote with some distress that, despite the incredible hard work and enthusiasm of her excellent team, its ethos—to be wholeheartedly centred on individual children—was coming under increasing strain.

Heads in south Cumbria say that they are challenged by the lack of staffing, and in my experience that is the case. Cuts in support staff have left teachers isolated in supporting children’s needs in the classroom. St Martin & St Mary Church of England Primary School in Windermere described the extremely high criteria set to qualify for an EHCP, so only children with the most severe needs receive any funding at all. On top of that, many schools have to contend with long waiting lists for SEN referrals, followed by delayed assessments. Children are often then refused support, despite their evident need, and that leaves schools in Cumbria also having to find the resources to support the significant number of children who are in limbo, waiting for an assessment. They have needs but do not have an EHCP, and indeed they may never get one.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely unacceptable that families have to wait for far too long? He mentions the delays and assessment refusals, and how people have to wait a long time once assessments are granted. The statutory timescale is 20 weeks: four and a half months to wait to get an assessment. Even in my area of Hertfordshire County Council, one in five of the families do not get their assessment within the statutory period, so does he agree that the timescale should be shortened?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The situation is the same in Cumbria. The point was made earlier by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is no longer in her place, regarding the lack of educational psychologists. The Government are not funding the support needed to get people to have their EHCP in the first place, and therefore schools are picking up the tab for assessments that have not been made. Nevertheless, the needs are absolutely still there.

The head of Dallam School in Milnthorpe expressed concern on another matter: the lack of resources available to access quality training and training providers to equip staff to support pupils’ mental health needs. Many of the other heads shared the concern that it damaged their schools’ ability to do the job that they are so desperate to do. The Government can talk a good game on mental health, but they are utterly failing to invest in preventive mental health with the staff and training necessary in schools to keep our children mentally well. Indeed, across the whole of Cumbria only 75p is spent per child per year on preventive mental health work, which is an outrage.

The Government are demoralising our teachers and letting down our children, because schools have to fund those first hours of provision for children with EHCPs. We therefore have a system that punishes schools that have a deserved reputation for being nurturing and for caring for their children’s needs. The Government are systematically penalising the schools that do the right thing, and that must change. I challenge the Minister today to ensure that all funding to support children with EHCPs is delivered centrally and does not come from the school’s own budget.

I am grateful to all the headteachers who contacted me—many more than I have had time to refer to here. They are all hard-working, enthusiastic and caring, and so are their staff. I am incredibly proud of all of them, but they are desperate because Government funding has put them in an impossible position. They are outstanding professionals who love their jobs, love their schools, and are driven to make a difference in the lives of the children of Cumbria, whom they serve. Imagine how unbearable it is for them to know that they cannot do what they know they should; cannot meet the needs that they know they should; cannot support the children in the way that they know they should. It is as heartbreaking as it is outrageous. Let us have no more excuses. The Government must act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He makes an important point. As he will know, the Government will have a comprehensive spending review later this year, and there will be a multi-year capital settlement. Having the right amount of capital to ensure that we do all that is required for our NHS will be a priority.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Some 50% of people living with cancer require radiotherapy treatment, and yet only 5% of the cancer budget is spent on radiotherapy. What that means in real terms is that constituents of mine have to make two, three or four-hour roundtrips to get life-saving daily treatment. Will the Chancellor commit to spending money on radiotherapy provision, to provide satellite units at places such as Westmorland General Hospital?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. We are absolutely committed to providing the resources necessary for the NHS to provide even better cancer treatment for all our constituents. That is one of the reasons for this record financial settlement. Capital is also necessary, and further capital investment to have better cancer treatment will also be a priority.