Student Loans
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the student loans system. I took out a student loan under the plan 1 system. I am, fortunately, not young enough to have benefited from a plan 2, or, now, a plan 5 loan. However, despite having graduated with about £40,000 of student debt, I did consider myself fortunate—fortunate that I went to university under a Labour Government who had widened participation in higher education and created a fees, grants and loans system that enabled me to go to university and pay my living costs, which my single-parent family would not have been able to do without the grants that were, unfortunately, then cut by the Conservatives. I was happy to contribute towards my university education on the basis that most people at my school would not go to university, but a system that was one of contribution and fairness has become an aggressive system, and I believe it is time to review the plan 2, and now plan 5, loans systems.
I have heard from many of my constituents about the system as it is operating, including those at Brunel University. Recently, a teacher told me about the challenges of repaying her loan and how she is considering going part-time as a result of high interest rates. There are clearly a number of options that could be taken, such as changing the RPI basis to a CPI basis, capping lifetime interest costs and uprating the thresholds once again. Suggestions have also been made by the Good Growth Foundation.
It is important that, rather than going for any one of those changes, we properly analyse the options and the distributional impacts—work which the Conservative party clearly did not do given the half-baked proposals before us. It is quite baffling that the Conservatives moved this motion. Having been the architects of this regressive student loans system, having maintained the system for a decade, having continually frozen the repayment thresholds, and having trebled the fees when in coalition with the Lib Dems and cut maintenance grants for the poorest, they now pretend to be the party of students.
However, the mask has slipped in the last section of the Conservatives’ motion. They plan to pay for their minor change by reducing the number of people going to university. When they say that fewer young people should go to uni, they almost never mean that they should not, or that their children should not, and they do not mean that the universities in their constituencies should close. They are talking about other people, including those at universities such as Brunel in my constituency. They look down on the arts or “ology” courses that they feel have less benefit, and to be frank, that is elitism.
Alex McIntyre
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how, when the Opposition say they are going to cut funding for certain courses, they really mean that those courses will be available for wealthier students who can afford to pay for them without a Government subsidy. Does he agree that that will lead to a decrease in students from working-class backgrounds being able to access arts degrees?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Members are being very generous with their time, but I remind them that I will be starting the Front-Bench speeches at about 6.40 pm, and we still have four more Back Benchers left to speak.
Neil O’Brien
Just one moment.
Analysis by the IFS found that total returns on going to university will be negative for about 30% of both men and women—and that is based on the cohort from the noughties. The problem now is probably even bigger because the graduate premium has declined further. As a result, many graduates now earn so little that they will never fully repay their student loans, leaving the taxpayer to cover about £8 billion in losses every year. That is why we would restore the number controls that existed for 70 years and use that to reduce the number of people who are on courses that are not good value for the taxpayer and not helping the young people, either.
To listen to Labour Members, anyone would think that there was not a single bad course, that every single course is totally brilliant and that there is no prospect of ever reducing spending on any single course. That is a fantasy world. We do not say about any other type of public service that every single instance of it is completely brilliant and there is no scope for improvement. We would use the savings from our proposal not just to abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans but to double the number of apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds so that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18.
Why would we do that? Recent data shows that five years after finishing a course in 2018, the average level 4 apprentice was earning £32,000; by contrast, the average graduate was earning just £26,500 and the lower quartile of graduates were earning £19,000 or less. In many cases, a high-quality apprenticeship can be a better option than a low-value university course. That is why we would make that change.
Alex McIntyre
Labour Members have asked Conservative Members repeatedly if they can name a course or an institution that they would cut. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) had to make up a course in David Beckham studies—as far as I understand, that never existed—to make the point. Does the hon. Gentleman have a real course in mind, or are his made up as well?
Neil O’Brien
We have already talked about that. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list, he can go on my Substack and see a whole bunch of different institutions with low returns. He can also do better than that: he can look on the DFE’s website and see that many courses lead to low earnings. [Interruption.] It is not my purpose here to single out individual courses.
We have talked quite a lot about creative arts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only 4.5% of those degrees represent a positive return to taxpayers. Some people will look at a statistic like that, say that it is only worth it for taxpayers 4% of the time and say, “That is not a problem. Let’s carry on shovelling money into something that is only working 4% of the time.” Other people would say, “We have to make choices, and we could use that money, which the Government continue to shovel into low-value courses, to fund more high-quality apprenticeships and cut repayments for betrayed plan 2 voters.”
Let me be clear: the current system is unfair. The Government admit it is unfair. Like so many other things, they say they will look at it. This is a Prime Minister who we can always rely on to do the right thing once we have dragged him by the nose to do it. As the former Deputy Prime Minister says, time is running out for this Labour Government, and it is time for them to stop moaning, grow a pair and fix this problem that they have moaned about.
Youth Unemployment
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend and I had a great day in Bellshill just before Christmas; I am grateful to him for the visit, and to the staff at the local jobcentre for explaining to us both the work that they were doing. The programme I am announcing today offers hope to young people in his constituency; the £3,000 hiring bonus will be available throughout Scotland. Of course, apprenticeship funding is devolved, but I hope that the Scottish Government will provide the maximum opportunity for young people to combine an apprenticeship role with the hiring bonus, which is available to businesses across the country.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I must admit that I am a little disappointed by those on the shadow Front Bench, who are sneering and suggesting that plunging 3,000 Gloucester children back into poverty will somehow solve long-standing issues with youth unemployment. That is not backed up by the facts, and, quite frankly, it comes across as quite nasty. The Conservatives promised to level up places like Gloucester, but they left the most deprived parts of my city, and the young people living there, without the opportunity to get on.
I am really pleased to see Gloucester boy Tom Kerridge, who grew up in Matson in my constituency, backing the proposals that my right hon. Friend is putting forward. Can he explain to the House how more young people will be able to benefit from the Government’s reforms?
Pat McFadden
Tom Kerridge has achieved a great amount and done fantastic things. I was very pleased to meet him and talk to him about this package a few days ago, and I welcome his warm support for it. I agree with my hon. Friend on the response from those on the Opposition Front Bench. Young people throughout the country will have heard them dismiss the help that we are putting in place. If that is what the Opposition want to do, that is up to them, but we take a very different view. We want to give hope and opportunity to young people; we want to stop dismissing them; and we want to give them belief in their future. That is what this package is about.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The statistics for the second half of 2024 show the scale of the situation that we inherited from the previous Government. The number of young people not in education, employment or training had increased by around 300,000 since 2021, but, unlike the last Government, we are doing something about that. Over three years, the Government will invest some £1.5 billion to improve opportunities for young people through both the youth guarantee and more youth apprenticeships. We are expanding the number of youth hubs to more areas of the country, and we aim to add about 50,000 more starts through the change to youth apprenticeships. That is in stark contrast to the situation we inherited.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully of how unemployment in her constituency has scarred generations. I assure her that the youth guarantee will become nationwide by the end of the year. We have to break the cycle of intergenerational unemployment that she has spoken about, and I share her desire to be more ambitious in that area. I am very happy to keep up a dialogue with her and to meet with her, or to have a fellow Minister in the team do so.
Alex McIntyre
Gloucestershire Gateway Trust does vital work in my constituency, helping those not in employment, education or training back into work. It runs the Bridging the Gap programme, which provides an employability skills course and a guaranteed interview at the country’s best motorway services, Gloucester services. It also ran the Going the Extra Mile project, which supported over 2,000 local residents who were furthest from employment. It is exactly the kind of organisation we need to work with to tackle the challenges we face, but the GEM project was stopped under the previous Government due to a lack of funding. Can the Secretary of State visit my constituency to see the work that Gloucestershire Gateway Trust is doing, and to discuss how we can work with community and voluntary organisations to tackle these challenges from the ground up?
Pat McFadden
I suspect we could be here for some time talking about what the best service station in the country is, but I have to say that Rugby services, between London and Wolverhampton, has taken things to another level. Gloucestershire Gateway Trust has helped create over 400 jobs for local residents. It continues to provide invaluable support, and I am very happy to take the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at some point—diary permitting, as they say.
Youth Unemployment
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Summer and holiday jobs are important ways for young people to gain experience before they leave education and seek full-time jobs, but there has been a shocking decline in the availability of such jobs because of this Government, who have increased regulation and the cost of employment—that is exactly the problem.
On exactly the point about regulation and red tape, the Employment Rights Bill is making it harder for businesses to employ people. Labour says that it wants to achieve growth, but its policies are obviously going to achieve the exact opposite. The problem is that Labour Members do not understand business. Have they any idea how hard it is to break even, let alone to make a profit; any idea how hard it is for people who have started a business to bring in enough to cover the payroll each month, never mind pay themselves; or any idea how hard it is for business owners to make their staff redundant because they cannot afford to keep paying them? Of course they do not, because how many Labour Front Benchers have worked in a business—I am not counting union officials—let alone run one?
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
As my previous career was in advising businesses up and down the country, I take some issue with the hon. Lady’s point that there is no experience among Labour Members. She says that taxes, particularly the rise in national insurance, are causing the rise in youth unemployment, but does she know at what level of income young people, specifically those under 21, start to attract national insurance contributions?
Helen Whately
I am perfectly well aware of the policy on national insurance. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that some Labour MPs do have business experience, but if we look at Labour Front Benchers, particularly those in the Cabinet, we will see that they are few and far between. If he has been talking to businesses—he clearly knows some—he will hear them say, as they have said directly to me and many of my hon. Friends, that it is the Labour Government’s policies that are making it so hard and so expensive to employ people, particularly young people. Even if Government Members do not have business experience, they could and should listen to what businesses have been telling them.
For instance, Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality said that Labour’s 2024 Budget did “unthinkable damage” to the sector. She was backed up by her colleague, Allen Simpson, who said recently that if the Government continue their approach,
“we will only see job losses and business closures accelerate.”
That sector has shed over 100,000 jobs under this Government.
Jane Gratton, from the British Chambers of Commerce, said that Labour’s policies are
“deeply worrying for employers. They will increase employment costs, complexity and risk for firms, particularly SMEs…Government needs to help not hinder businesses”.
That is the crux of the matter: Labour sees businesses as a cash cow, not as the engine of the economy, and young people in particular are suffering as a result.
Before businesses start letting people go, they generally stop hiring, and that is what they are doing. And when they stop hiring, who gets hit hardest? Young people. By hitting hospitality—all those pubs and cafés where people get their first jobs—the Government are hitting young people again. The simple fact is that there are fewer jobs for young people under this Government. This unemployment disaster for young people is not something that has just happened on this Labour Government’s watch—it is a disaster of their making.
Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
There is a certain irony in the fact that last year I was given a minute in this Chamber to speak about the inadequacy of paternity leave, and this year I have been given 90 seconds.
Two years ago today, I was beginning my journey as a first-time parent. That means that it is about two years since I last had a good night’s sleep. If the Minister would like to give my little boy a birthday present today, on his second birthday, he could extend parental leave, and paternity leave in particular, so that if my son chooses to have children in the future, he can have some time with his child.
It is simply not right that fathers receive only two weeks’ statutory leave. That denies fathers a chance to bond with their children and perpetuates the outdated stereotype that women are expected to be the primary caregiver. Importantly, the way that women give birth in this country has changed: about 40% of all births in England are now carried out by caesarean section, which has a recovery time of up to six weeks. Why is a father expected to return to work, leaving his partner with a newborn baby when she is still recovering from major surgery and is unable to drive or even lift her child safely? We should be encouraging fathers to spend time at home with their partner.
I was proud to sit on the Employment Rights Bill Committee earlier this year, and to play a role in extending paternity leave rights to more dads in my constituency. But we must go further. As a country, we are getting older; we need more people to have children. Will the Minister confirm that the review of parental leave and pay will, at the very least, consider increasing statutory paternity leave to six weeks, commit to reforming shared parental leave so that it is more attractive to parents, and deliver on our manifesto pledge to give every child in Gloucester the best start in life?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for so competently introducing the debate, with an excellent speech, and I thank everyone else who has contributed to it.
I was particularly struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about Hugh’s law and the need for further work on bereavement support. That reminded me of one of my constituents, Clara Gilley, who has a very unusual brain cancer. The real-life issues that she faced, and which I was dealing with as her MP, were the travel costs to Bristol—that is a long way to go from Devon—and the costs of adaptations. I recognise the calls for us to consider how we can help parents whose children are sick and unwell with the costs of that, and I hope that the Minister heard them. I have seen it at first hand, and I am sure lots of other Members will have seen similar issues.
The Conservatives are proud to be the party that champions family life. We recognise that strong families are the bedrock of a healthy society—that is something else that has come up this afternoon. Britain is one of the best places to have a child and raise a family, following measures introduced by Conservative Governments to extend free childcare, support flexible working and enable shared parental leave.
Alex McIntyre
As the hon. Lady is so proudly championing her party’s record, will she stand by the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that maternity pay is “excessive”, and by a donor to the Leader of the Opposition, Luke Johnson, who told the Employment Rights Bill Committee that the worst thing about the Bill is its further extension of paternity rights?
Rebecca Smith
On what the Leader of the Opposition said, I am not 100% sure of the quote, so I am not going to comment on that. I think it was taken quite significantly out of context. On the Bill Committee, I will continue saying it—[Interruption.] At the end of the day, I am the one here speaking this afternoon, so I am at least interested in this debate—let’s keep talking.
We understand the challenges facing families, which is why we updated the system to enable greater flexibility in how parental leave is taken. We wanted to ensure that parents are supported to spend the precious first few weeks and months bonding with their newborn, promoting healthy attachment that sets their child up for a successful future.
Welfare Reform
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I think it would be helpful to let Members know that I plan to allow this statement to continue until 5.15 pm. It would therefore be helpful if questions were short.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Over recent months, I have consulted with constituents who have lived experience of disability and the welfare system and their representatives. I know that they will welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that protections for existing claimants will be protected, but one of the most heartbreaking stories I heard in those consultations was about a young constituent who applied for hundreds of jobs and attended dozens of interviews and simply could not find a job. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what more we can do not just to support disabled people in my constituency, but to encourage employers to take on some of the talented, brilliant people living with disabilities in my constituency?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is the world of work and the need to ensure that employers recruit and retain more people with long-term sickness or a disability. That is precisely why, in addition to the huge advances in our Employment Rights Bill, we have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former boss of John Lewis, to look at what more we can do to support employers to recruit and retain disabled people. We are also overhauling our jobcentres so that they provide more personalised, tailored support. Indeed, we have set our jobcentres a new goal of reducing the disability employment gap, which I believe will also make a huge difference.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
If I may briefly say so, I am very proud that the spending review delivered the largest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people—quadrupling what we inherited from the last Government to over £1 billion a year, or a total of £3.5 billion over this Parliament—so that those who can work get the support they need, while we protect those who can never work.
Tackling child poverty is my personal priority, so I am proud that the Education Secretary and I are bringing in free school meals for all children in families on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty—a down payment on our child poverty strategy. We are also delivering the first ever three-year funding settlement for the household support fund, including for holiday hunger, and we are committed to funding the holiday activities and food programme, stopping kids going hungry while they are at school and during the holidays, too.
Liz Kendall
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Economic inactivity is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, and a staggering one in six young Scots are not in education, employment or training. We have delivered an extra £9 billion for Scotland over the spending review—the biggest settlement in the history of devolution—and I hope the SNP will match our ambition to get people who can work into work by investing in employment services, not cutting them, as they have in recent years.
Alex McIntyre
The expansion of free school meals will massively help families in my constituency of Gloucester and take them out of poverty. Can the Secretary of State confirm how many more families in Gloucester will be eligible for free school meals under the Government’s expansion, and what steps is she taking with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that every child is able to access that support?
Liz Kendall
This vital step will benefit 7,560 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It comes on top of rolling out free breakfast clubs, starting with Calton and Grange primary schools in his constituency, our new fair repayment rate in universal credit, and the first ever permanent, above-inflation increase in the standard allowance of universal credit, a vital part of our welfare reforms, putting more money into the pockets of hard-working families and helping to give all children the best start in life.
Food Banks
Alex McIntyre Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this important debate.
Food banks have undoubtedly become a lifeline for countless families and children across the UK, including in my own constituency of Gloucester, and I am deeply grateful for the vital work that organisations such as Gloucester food bank do in providing immediate support to those in crisis. I also wish to highlight the work of all the other charities and organisations tackling food poverty in Gloucester, including Gloucester Feed the Hungry, the Redwell Centre, Barney’s Pantry, the Community Kitchen, the Welcome Table café and Quedgeley Community Pantry, to name just a few.
Until 2010, food banks were something rare that only a few families ever had to rely on, perhaps in times of extreme need or emergency, but today that is no longer the case. Last year alone, more than 3.1 million emergency food parcels were handed out. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that in a nation as wealthy as the UK, which has the world’s sixth-largest economy, food poverty is no longer an isolated issue. It is a growing crisis, and one that worsens each year.
In 2023, 7.2 million people, including 17% of children, were living in food-insecure households. That is a tragedy and a failure of our social and economic system. There are plenty of examples of failure under the Conservative Government, but the rise in the use of food banks stands out as perhaps one of the most alarming. Austerity, benefit sanctions, the botched roll-out of universal credit, underpaid and insecure employment, and an NHS left to fail—these policies have contributed to an epidemic of food poverty and, as always, it has fallen to a Labour Government to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind.
Food banks in Gloucester provide invaluable support, offering a lifeline in times of crisis. However, the work comes at a heavy cost: volunteers and organisers are under immense pressure, with many reaching the point of exhaustion to meet growing demand. I am pleased that the Government have started to take the action necessary to make work pay, improve workers’ and renters’ rights, build more social housing, and tackle child poverty head on.
Danny Kruger
We did not pledge to do it and we did not do it. I think it is important to have universal entitlement to essential benefits, but if there does need to be some means testing, surely it should penalise, or withdraw the payment from, only the wealthiest pensioners, not 90% as is happening under this policy.
The other thing that the Government have done is impose a significant tax on employment through the national insurance rise, which they promised not to do in their manifesto. The cost of that will fall disproportionately on low-paid workers, who will see the impact of that tax in their wage packet.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is no friend to my party, has pointed out that poverty is due to rise because of the Budget that the Chancellor has introduced. Every household type, except pensioners, will be poorer. Single-parent families will be £1,000 poorer. An average couple with children will be £1,760 poorer. Inequality will be higher. That is all the testament of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
The Office for Budget Responsibility points out that real wages will fall and indeed, the Budget has caused the OBR to lower its real wage growth forecast by 0.5%. As the OBR says, the Budget shifts
“real resources out of private households’ incomes in order to devote more resources to public service provision.”
That might indeed be the policy that the Government want to pursue, but the effect will to be to reduce household income, as the OBR acknowledges.
Alex McIntyre
Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that the OBR actually said that 90% of households will be better off under this Budget, and it is only the wealthiest 10% of households that will feel the cost, making sure that we are spreading the cost on to those shoulders that can bear it most?
Danny Kruger
As I said, I do not think that withdrawing the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners reflects a transfer of the burden on to those who can bear it most—nor does imposing a taxation on low-paid jobs.
What shall we do about all this? I am sorry to say that I have not heard enough in the debate about what could and should be done, although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East made some suggestions—many of which I agree with, particularly around the importance of having an adequate safety net. I, too, look forward to the universal credit review that the Government are bringing forward, and I strongly agree with the focus on nutrition and empowering communities.
I do not agree with the need for the essentials guarantee, although I respect that campaign. I do not think that transferring responsibility for setting benefit levels to an independent body—essentially, to an unaccountable quango—is the right way to go. The Government should be responsible for that policy, and accountable to Parliament, rather than an independent body.
If we look at the drivers of food bank use as reported in “Hunger in the UK”, we need to improve the benefits system and make it quicker and easier to use. I look forward to seeing how the Government are going to improve pension credit applications to improve winter fuel payment access. We need to drive up wages again; I deprecate the introduction of taxation on wages. We need to grow our jobs market and ensure that it is easier and better for employers to take workers on and promote them—which, I am afraid to say, the Employment Rights Bill that we are anticipating will not do, given that it imposes punitive obligations on employers from day one.
I am conscious that my time is almost up, so let me finish with this point. I praise the flexibility of food banks, and the human relationship that they imply: the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East talked about the powerful sense of community. A quiet revolution happened during the covid pandemic that momentarily offered a better social and economic model in which remarkable innovations, particularly around food and provision to the poorest among our neighbours, were enabled to flourish.
I agree that we want food banks to be redundant, but while we have hardship they can be an important part of the mix. I pay tribute to other innovations such as social supermarkets as well. Lastly, I do not agree with the hon. Member that we need a more central strategy and direction for the household support fund. Its great value is in the innovation that it enables, and the way that it empowers local communities, which he said that he believes in, to ensure that local authorities can take responsibility for supporting their communities. That is an important innovation that was brought in by the last Government, which I supported, and I hope that it will continue.