Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan]

I want to make it clear that this Government will not tolerate religious hatred towards Muslims or any other faith group. That is a red line. This Government are aware, very sadly, of incidents of anti-Muslim hatred, which is why we put in place an extra £4.9 million of protective security funding for Muslim mosques, faith schools and communities. We are 100% behind our Muslim communities.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)]

The Department publishes official statistics on homelessness duties owed, including the number of households threatened with homelessness following service of a valid section 21 notice. We are committed to the abolition of section 21 through our landmark Renters (Reform) Bill, which will deliver a fairer private rented sector for both tenants and landlords.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

In 2019 the Government promised to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, but the Bill that they finally published five years later, which the Minister mentioned, does not actually abolish section 21 no-fault evictions. Meanwhile, 140,000 children are living in costly temporary accommodation. In my constituency we get one or two cases every week. The problems are piling up. When will this Government do what they promised—stop delaying, stop dithering, and abolish no-fault evictions?

[Jacob Young]

As I have already said, we are absolutely committed to abolishing section 21. The Renters (Reform) Bill is going through Parliament and I look forward to debating it with the hon. Lady when it returns to this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady highlights a number of things that she obviously wants to make a point about. The reality is that billions and billions of additional taxpayer subsidy was made available within the settlement last week. We will come forward with further information in due course. Ultimately, the Labour party’s position is fundamentally that there can be no contribution from local taxpayers. That is a very interesting place to be given that there ultimately has to be a link between services and taxation. That is something that the Government recognise while still providing billions in taxpayer subsidy from the centre to improve lives and services in the long run.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of increases in (a) interest rates and (b) inflation on regional inequality.

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

It is because we are concerned about the impact of inflation and increases in interest rates that this autumn statement protected the most vulnerable by uprating benefits and pensions with inflation, strengthening the energy price guarantee, and providing cost of living payments.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would also like to update the House on the score in Qatar: it is now 5-1 to England. I feel it is appropriate for me to do this because the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) has been providing a running commentary on the answers being given from the Treasury Bench, so it is only fair that we provide a running commentary that the country actually wants to hear.

[Mr Speaker]

Excuse me! Secretary of State, I thought you were in charge of levelling up—it doesn’t look that way with that score!

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I would have informed the House of that, had the Secretary of State not got there before me. After promising to match EU structural funds in the Government’s manifesto, and then taking £1 billion a year out of them for the replacement shared prosperity fund, how can the Secretary of State claim to be levelling up when his Government have presided over a net loss in funding across the country, including in the north-west, which stands to lose £206 million under the shared prosperity fund, which the Government have failed even to inflation-proof?

[Michael Gove]

It is not just the UK shared prosperity fund, but the levelling-up fund that has seen money go to not just Liverpool city region, but all those areas we are targeting that have been overlooked and undervalued in the past. Specifically, the UK shared prosperity fund has provided £52 million for the Liverpool city region—money that I know will be well invested by Steve Rotheram and others.

Merseyside: Funding of Local Authorities

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on having successfully applied for this important debate. The past 11 years of Conservative rule have seen an unrelenting assault on the budgets of local authorities, but that assault has been worse in some places than in others. Those with the poorest and most vulnerable populations have been hit hardest; those with the biggest issues to deal with have suffered the highest level of funding cuts. That has been a conscious choice made by successive Conservative Governments in full knowledge of the consequences, which is why the phrase “levelling up” rings so hollow on the Wirral and Merseyside.

In my local authority of Wirral, £230 million in direct funding from the Government was cut to just £37 million by 2020, despite the fact that close to a quarter of Wirral’s neighbourhoods rank in the 10% most deprived nationally. We have all seen the explosion in food banks, social supermarkets, and people going hungry and not being able to afford to heat their homes as a consequence of deprivation and soaring levels of poverty.

There has been a staggering 53% real-terms cut in our Government funding since 2010, which equates to £635 per household. In the same period, local authority staffing levels in Wirral have fallen from 7,669 to just 3,713. The adult social care budget has been cut by a quarter since 2010, despite a huge increase in the number of older people and young disabled people who require help simply to live. This means that a huge and growing area of need is going completely unmet, and the life experiences of those who need support have plummeted, putting an unbearable burden on their carers. However, close to two thirds of the budget is taken up by adult and children’s services, leaving very little for anything else.

Despite the Government’s vainglorious boasts, the 2022-23 local government finance settlement is actually a 2.2% decrease on the last financial year when adjusted for inflation, and that adjustment will get even worse as inflation soars. National Government funding for Wirral has decreased by 37.3% in real terms since 2015-16, leaving the difference to be made up by huge increases in council tax, which the Government assume in their figures. More Government sleight of hand means that they are assuming that all local authorities will put up council taxes by the full amount they can without having to hold a referendum. This transfer of funding from national to local taxes has left local residents paying far more in council tax for far fewer services because of the huge cuts to their budgets allocated by the national Government.

In the aftermath of the covid pandemic, which closed council services and destroyed revenue-raising opportunities, Wirral has been ordered by Ministers to make £27 million of cuts to its 2022-23 budget, under the threat of further national Government intervention. That will mean the decimation of services, increased charges for the use of what local facilities remain, and a mass sell-off of local authority buildings. It means that, at the diktat of national Government, residents in Wallasey will continue being asked to pay more in council tax for lower levels of services. The Government have taken far more from our local area than is fair and have forced huge increases in council tax, which is still failing to keep up with the rising demand. That is not a fair or sustainable solution, and I look to the Minister to give us some relief in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way; I am so sorry.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Oh, come on!

[Neil O'Brien]

I am up against the clock, as the hon. Lady knows.

As we announced on Monday, the local government finance settlement for the next year makes an additional £3.7 billion available to councils in England; that includes funding for adult social care reform. This is an increase in local authority funding of more than 4.5% in real terms compared with the previous year, and we expect core spending power—the measure of resources available to local authorities to fund service delivery—to rise from £50.4 billion in 2021-22 to £54.1 billion in 2022-23, which I am just about to come to. I emphasise that the Government are providing around £1.6 billion in additional grant in the next year through the settlement, and through additional funding for things such as the supporting families programme and cyber-resilience. What that means for Merseyside is that core spending power will increase for all authorities in the region by at least 7.7%, compared with last year.

Redundancy Protection: Women and New Parents

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating or intervening virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela, and to raise the important issue of extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.

Regrettably, as in so many areas where progress is needed, Scotland is being held back from taking action due to employment law being reserved to Westminster. Without power over employment law, Scotland is not able to legislate to protect women and new parents from discrimination and unfair redundancy. Scotland should not have to wait for Westminster to act to prevent widespread redundancy discrimination, and I look forward to the time when we do not have to do so.

However, despite the lack of progress to date, I acknowledge the work undertaken by many Members of this House on a cross-party basis and by organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, going back many years. In 2015, the commission published research that revealed that one in 20 new mothers are made redundant during pregnancy or maternity leave, or on their return to work. That shocking statistic reveals a disturbing level of disregard on the part of some employers for the needs of women, children and new families.

The following year, the Taylor review into modern working practices highlighted further research that confirmed that the majority of employers expressed a willingness to support pregnant women and new mothers. The report commented favourably on the finding that more than 80% of employers felt it was in their interest to support pregnant women and new mothers. However, women might be less enamoured with the finding that at least one in 10 employers, and possibly as many as one in five, are not willing to support pregnant women and new mothers.

The detailed findings show a disturbing level of acceptance among employers and managers that discrimination against women on the basis of their decision to bear children or their caring responsibilities is acceptable. All the following views were endorsed by at least a third of the employers and managers interviewed for the research:

“During recruitment, it is reasonable to ask women if they have young children”,

and about their plans to have young children;

“During recruitment, women should have to disclose whether they are pregnant”;

“Women should work for an organisation for at least a year before deciding to have children”;

“Women who become pregnant and new mothers in work are generally less interested in career progression than other employees”.

Many of those interviewed claimed to have seen at least one pregnant woman “take advantage” of their pregnancy, and regarded pregnancy as putting an “unnecessary cost burden” on the workplace—quite shocking. Given that those attitudes and views are widely held among employers and managers, is it any wonder that pregnant women and new mothers are so widely discriminated against in the workplace?

I am sure the Minister is familiar with the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child”. It is 25 years since Hillary Clinton highlighted that, in our modern and highly urbanised society, the underlying premise of that proverb is perhaps truer now than it has ever been. Of course, children are vital to the future of our society and our economy, with declining birth rates, increasing life spans and ever-more dispersed families. Perhaps, whatever we might think in our ever-more digital world, we are collectively becoming more dependent on community networks and wider society than ever before.

How can those interrelationships and that long-term intergenerational benefit work, though, if the first thing that happens to an expectant woman or a new mother is that she loses her job and her family’s ability to raise a child is compromised? However, unfortunately, as the research shows, far too often that is indeed what happens, so I hope it is accepted by the UK Government that no one should have to fear losing their job because they become pregnant. Surely that must be a given.

Between employers and Governments, effective arrangements should be in place to support women and their families through the potentially life-changing process of pregnancy and child rearing. However, under current arrangements, women only have enhanced protection from redundancy until they return from maternity leave, and the evidence is that this protection is not working. All the protection means is that a woman on maternity leave can be made redundant, but must be offered an alternative job above anyone else being made redundant if another job exists, which can prove a very big caveat.

The current law does not stop employers using pregnancy as an excuse for a piece of cost-cutting, as demonstrated by the case of Jessica—which is not her real name. Jessica, whose case was disclosed by the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, had a well-paid job, became pregnant, and was made redundant on the day she was due to return from maternity leave. The day before she was due back, which was during lockdown, she received a text telling her to not go into the office, but to be available for a video call with a senior manager. During that call, she was told that she was being made redundant. She had been back at work for all of 30 minutes. She is convinced that the firm simply wanted to cut its staff budget, and by going on maternity leave, she had unknowingly self-selected for redundancy. What a way to treat a member of staff, and what a welcome to the world for her child, into a family now burdened by unaffordable debt and forced to move out of their home, and with a mother whose mental health and career are in tatters.

As an employee of the company, Jessica might have had some chance of arguing a case for discrimination, although the costs and hurdles associated with attempting this would, and do, put most people off trying. On the other hand, Mandy, whose case was highlighted by the Taylor review, had no chance of doing so, because legal protections in the UK are so heavily and deliberately weighted against workers who are not direct employees. Mandy had worked for a bank on a zero-hours contract for several months. However, when she informed her employer that she was pregnant, her hours were reduced to zero; in effect, she was summarily dismissed with no recourse. Mandy is one of those pregnant women and new mothers who have borne the brunt of the increasing casualisation of the UK workforce. She found out that employment status, whether as a direct employee, self-employed, or as a limb (b) worker, is important, because it dictates entitlement to some key maternity and parental rights. Those in the growing number of insecure forms of employment can find their rights greatly diminished, reducing or eliminating their entitlements to maternity and parental pay and leave, health and safety protection, time off for antenatal appointments, and rights to return to work.

The “Insecure Labour” report produced by Maternity Action in November 2020 spells out some of the implications of casualised or insecure work on women workers, and pregnant women and new mothers in particular. Heather Wakefield, chair of Maternity Action, said that the report

“paints a shocking picture, which requires swift and radical action by Government, employers and trade unions to halt the damaging impact of casualisation on the working lives and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers.”

Cases such as Jessica’s and Mandy’s are not isolated incidents, certainly not during the pandemic. Last summer, Pregnant Then Screwed conducted research involving almost 20,000 pregnant women and mothers. It found that 10% of pregnant women said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. More than half said that their pregnancy was a factor. Some 11% of women on maternity leave said they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months, and more than 60% said that their maternity leave was a factor. Almost 13% of women who had recently returned from maternity leave said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. Two thirds said that their maternity leave was a factor.

Further research that Pregnant Then Screwed conducted in March and April of this year suggests that the situation is worse this year than it was last year. Surveying 16,000 pregnant women and mothers, it found that 30% believed they had experienced discrimination from their employer during the pandemic. Clearly, if the protection is not working as it should, that is something that should have been addressed long before now. The SNP has been pressing the UK Government to act to protect pregnant women and new mothers facing discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace, yet five years on from the EHRC research, the UK Government have so far failed to take the necessary steps to prevent redundancy discrimination. Surely the UK Government would agree with the need to protect pregnant women and new mothers.

In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended the UK Government implement within the next two years additional redundancy protection throughout pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months afterwards. In 2017, in their response to the Committee, the Government indicated that the current position was “clearly unacceptable.” Yet, here we are—four years on and no further forward. Had the UK Government implemented reform within the timeframe proposed by the Committee, many women would have been spared unfair redundancy and discrimination prior to and in the aftermath of the pandemic.

In the absence of action by Government, last year the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on pregnancy and maternity redundancy protection, which is still awaiting Second Reading. The Bill seeks to

“prohibit redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months after the end of pregnancy or leave, except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes”.

The SNP wholeheartedly supports the Bill. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government have yet to put their weight behind it.

Earlier this year, Jamie Hepburn MSP, the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Minister responding today, outlining the Scottish Government’s support for a range of reforms to support women and families, including extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. The letter makes clear the Scottish Government’s support for the Bill. It has also been endorsed by Maternity Action, which said that the Government should strengthen redundancy protections by immediately adopting the Bill as its own and expedite it into law.

Commenting on the current law, Rosalind Bragg, director of Maternity Action, said:

“The current law on redundancy and maternity is complex, poorly understood and difficult to enforce.”

She highlighted that women often find the person covering their maternity leave is kept on, while their role is made redundant, and described that as

“a classic case of unfair and unlawful redundancy”.

Maternity Action recognises that it may be impossible for pregnant women and new mothers to devote their energy and finances to pursuing employment tribunal claims, which is why it is important that the timescale for pursuing such claims is extended from three to six months.

Shamefully, due to the UK Government’s inaction on redundancy protection, women across the UK are facing a new wave of pregnancy discrimination and unfair redundancies as the furlough scheme winds down and employees try to return to their jobs. After years of the Government failing to deliver on their commitment to act, urgent legislation is now needed.

In April 2019, the UK Government accepted the need to extend redundancy protection for six months once the new mother has returned to work, afford the same protection to those taking adoption leave and extend redundancy protection for those returning from shared parental leave. It is now time for the UK Government to act and I look forward to seeing those proposals reflected in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May.

If the Minister is able, I am also keen to hear his thoughts and the Government’s plans to protect women and new parents in their employment in the context of the pandemic and the future of work. As we move out of the immediate crisis of the pandemic, some things are very clear. For instance, unfortunately, jobs and job security will be an issue and concern for many people. We cannot simply throw women and new parents on a jobs bonfire post pandemic. Employment protections, equality provisions and flexibility are all areas where, although in-roads have been made, they are not nearly enough. We must accept the need to go further.

Rather than aiming to go back to the old normal, the Government must consider fair work, the future of work, and what jobs and work will and should look like. All of us lose out when we restrict the talent pool by putting unnecessary barriers to work in front of women and new parents. An unthinking return to the same old, same old would be a real lost opportunity to do things differently and to take a lead on the employment policies and practices and structures that will make work possible for women, new parents and those with caring and other responsibilities. Things like the right to request flexible working from the start of a job would make a vast difference to many employees, and would support employers, too, in adopting the working practices and environments that will allow the talents of all employees to properly shine through.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on these and the other points that I have made today.

Greensill Capital

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Having been in opposition at a local level, I know what causes speculation and mistrust among the public, and it is that chipping away, the politicisation of some of these issues. But the Chancellor has been particularly robust in his actions and his outcomes here. There is a review; Nigel Boardman will do his work. People have committed to be open and transparent with him, and the review will report back at the end of June, and will show results for the public to see.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]]

Was the British Business Bank approached by senior civil servants or Ministers about Greensill’s having access to the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme? Did Greensill exceed its authority and lend more than it was authorised to lend—£400 million to the Gupta group alone, all of which has now been lost?

Draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (modification of the local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 General Committees

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Austin. As you know, I am not a member of this Committee. I am allowed to speak, but unfortunately I cannot vote. I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton declare that he would not force this particular SI to a vote. Obviously, he has made that decision. I encourage colleagues and Opposition Members to vote against this particular piece of subsidiary legislation.

It falls to me to be the only voice for Buckinghamshire in the room.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I assure the right hon. Lady that I will say a few words after her in support of the points that I suspect she will make.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

I will take support from any part of the House. Perhaps I should have said that I would be the only elected Member for a Buckinghamshire constituency to speak. The hon. Lady and I have been in this House for exactly the same length of time, so she will forgive me for my inadvertent error. I look forward to some support from her.

When the local government reorganisation propositions were put forward from certain quarters in Buckinghamshire, I was one of the few voices at the time to ask myriad questions of both Secretaries of State who have been involved in these plans. Although I am not intrinsically against local government reorganisation—indeed, it can be very beneficial—I questioned what problems in Buckinghamshire they were trying to solve with this particular set of proposals.

As has been said, the reorganisation was driven by one quarter from the county council and by the local enterprise partnership—one of the LEPs, because unfortunately we have two LEPs in Buckinghamshire. I remain to be convinced that the path the Government have chosen is the best for Buckinghamshire. I am standing up today to represent partly my views, but mostly those of Chiltern District Council, because the constituency of Chesham and Amersham has contiguous boundaries with Chiltern District Council, and if someone is a Chiltern District Council council tax payer they are a constituent of mine.

Chiltern District Council has asked me to speak on its behalf today, because the combined single authority was certainly not its choice. It has said all along that if there was going to be reorganisation, it should be by evolution, not revolution, and I particularly evidence the fact that Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council have been working together for years, putting their back rooms together, if people will forgive that expression. They have both put their administration together to save money for council tax payers and to deliver better and more efficient local services.

I would have thought that that very progress that was being made by those district councils coming together would be the way forward and the way to encourage local government reorganisation. There is also the fact that Buckinghamshire is an exceedingly large area, with great differences between the north and the south of the county, and there is much more synergy between the three southern district council areas than there is between all the four district council areas that make up Buckinghamshire County Council. I am afraid, however, that such a way forward was not to be. Nevertheless, my district authority said on the record that if this reorganisation is going to happen, it wanted to work together with the other councils. Until it saw the detail, that was indeed its plan.

I will just mention a few points that Chiltern District Council has raised with me, because I think that they are important for members of this Committee. When the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 was passed in this House, the Minister said that it was to overcome obstacles to combined arrangements and devolution. However, the Minister—James Wharton MP, as he was at the time, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—actually said that

“it is indeed the Government’s intention to build that consensus…We are not going to impose change on areas that do not want it.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 723.]

While considering an amendment during the passage of that Bill, he said it was important that these matters were delivered in a “straightforward” way as part of a deal, “where there is consensus”.

I think that it is quite obvious that there is not consensus, because sadly four out of the five authorities—the four district councils—did not consent to a single authority. The Minister in the Lords, Baroness Williams of Trafford, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, said, when looking at this area particularly, in a Government response concerning whether a single authority vetoed the change:

“During the passage of the Bill, it became very clear that in certain circumstances, and in particular in relation to structural or boundary change, the consent provisions as initially drafted gave to any single council in an area an effective power of veto over any such change, even if as might be the case in two tier local government, another council in that same area was in favour. The potential for the exercise of such veto may close down consideration and discussion of any such proposals regardless of the wider benefits they could bring to an area or the degree to which they had local support.

Amendment 36 removes that barrier to discussion and consideration of proposals, and, as has been made clear in debate in the Commons, is designed to facilitate the continuation of such wider conversations which it would be hoped would lead to a consensus across the area. We have made very clear that whenever the Secretary of State exercises these powers, he will maintain the preference for consensus, but with this Amendment there is greater flexibility to deliver devolution deals and the underpinning governance which areas want and need.”

I am afraid that there is no consensus.

Furthermore, upon consultation I think that people will find that, as was said by the Opposition spokesperson, there was only one survey that was robust in terms of its statistical analysis, and that survey of residents supported two unitary authorities.

Polls of the parishes also showed over 70% support for two unitaries, and there was greater support for two unitaries from business and stakeholders.

The Secretary of State admitted in his written ministerial statement that there was broad local support for two unitaries, so there is no consensus. I therefore ask the Minister to justify the use of section 15(5) of the 2016 Act, with which he will be familiar. It was intended to be used as a last resort. At the time, the Local Government Association worked with parliamentarians

“to secure assurances from the Secretary of State that the powers to determine the composition of local governance arrangements and remove functions from local authorities without local consent will be used sparingly and only as a last resort.”

In fact, the Minister, James Wharton, said:

“The Government’s intention is to work with local areas to deliver economically sensible areas of devolution, with structures that sit beneath them that allow those things to be delivered and that potential to be realised.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 773.]

There is no devolution deal or combined authority proposal in Buckinghamshire; this is a straightforward local government reorganisation, which, as that junior Minister was at pains to point out, the Secretary of State already has powers to carry out, just as he is doing right now in Northamptonshire by means of an invitation that requires him to carry out local public consultation, so that he properly understands the views of the local area before reaching his decision.

The proposals are not part of a pilot; they are being rushed through. Under section 15(8) of the 2016 Act, the regulation-making power expires—guess when?—on 31 March 2019. The end of March will be such an exciting time. The regulations are being pushed through Parliament before that power expires to circumvent the time limits in the parent Act.

These regulations are being laid before Parliament before the associated order—I have a copy of the draft order here—is laid before Parliament. I think the regulations have been separated from that order to get the regulations through Parliament on time. I understand that officials would advise Parliament to consider the two together; I do not understand why the Minister is not doing that, though if we did, we would not be able to meet the ambitious timetable of the end of March. We know what happens when one is up against timetables: one starts to rush things. I feel strongly that the Committee is being asked to put the cart before the horse, and to judge before we have seen the whole picture.

The Minister mentioned the requirement in the Act for the consent of at least one authority to the regulations being laid before Parliament. Four out of five authorities did not consent. The only authority that consented did so conditionally. The resolution of Buckinghamshire County Council’s cabinet made it clear that it was a subjective consent, based on certain terms in the order that were set out in a letter from the Secretary of State. The order giving effect to the decision set out in the letter is yet to be laid before Parliament.

The county council has said:

“In line with the main report Unitary Transition Arrangements Cabinet is recommended to confirm that the County Council gives consent to the making of the Regulations.”

So far, so good; the council is giving consent. Then comes the rub:

“This consent is on the basis of the Secretary of State’s decision on the draft Structural Changes Order as set out in the letter at Appendix 2 and detailed in the table at paragraph 1 below.”

That order has not yet appeared. The result is that three of our district councils are subjecting the Department to judicial review: Wycombe District Council, South Bucks District Council and my council, Chiltern District Council. They argue that the regulations are ultra vires. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about all of those points. I could probably write his speech for him—they are all going to be brushed aside—but it is important to Chiltern District Council that they are put on the record, so that they are all out in the open.

Dislocating the regulations from the order means asking Members of Parliament to blindly open the door to an order that would impose undemocratic arrangements on Buckinghamshire. As the gentleman who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton said, the imposition of a leader and the usurping of the powers of the shadow executive is likely to result in a new council being created in the image of one of the old ones, Buckinghamshire County Council. That is not a bad council, but the principle is to create a new council that takes the best from all the local councils involved. Effectively giving Buckinghamshire County Council a majority on the executive and potentially imposing that council’s chief executive as implementation leader is not what that process should be about. In addition, without the order, how can Parliament properly scrutinise the modification regulations that are before the Committee?

Creating an irrational executive dominance of the shadow authority—which, as currently drafted, the order that is not before the House does—is going to be a major problem. The functions of the shadow authority will be provided for throughout the order, and will theoretically be extensive: it will have powers to formulate the executive arrangements, the code of conduct and members’ allowances, and must prepare, review and revise an implementation plan. However, in practice, those functions are all but extinguished by article 16, which effectively usurps the shadow authority’s functions. They are to be exercised by the shadow executive itself.

The default position in the order that should come before the House is that the shadow authority is disempowered at the hands and whims of a shadow executive, in a context in which that shadow executive is heavily dominated by the county council and can take any decision by steamrolling over legitimately critical opposition within it. That appears to grant the shadow executive a line of patronage to key offices in the shadow authority, including the appointment of the substantive chief executive of the new council. It reduces those offices’ independence and creates the perception that their scrutiny of the executive is weakened.

I appeal to the Minister to think again. If we are to have local government reorganisation in Buckinghamshire, it will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve local government. Irrespective of any political differences, all of us in this House strive to provide services to our constituents, and to ensure that local government and services are provided at reasonable cost and with reasonable efficiency. The non-consensual approach that is being adopted by the Government carries with it a high risk of creating a new, but unhappy, council that is not on the road to success and could be on the road to failure. I urge the Minister to try to secure local consent for a model that will genuinely be based on excellence, rather than on short-term expediency and the rapid timetable that he is working to, so that we can be seen to be working in the best interests of our residents. I think that is a goal that we all share, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Ms Eagle]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I am glad that I am able to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who has filled in a bit of the local colour that I assumed might exist when I read the documents that the Committee has been provided with. She has raised some extremely important questions, which I hope the Minister has extremely good answers to.

While looking at the documents, I noticed that, funnily enough, effectively all of the smaller local authorities in the Buckinghamshire area that are going to be swallowed up are against what the Minister is suggesting. Four local authorities—South Bucks District Council, Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council and Chiltern District Council, which covers the right hon. Lady’s constituency—have rejected the final plans for a unitary authority. It sounds to me, listening to the right hon. Lady’s comments a moment ago, that they have reasonable worries, which ought to be properly answered. However, given that the Minister’s powers will expire at the end of March, what we have here appears to be a bureaucratically driven exercise, which is trying to force a change through, despite there being plenty of evidence of local worries and a complete lack of local consent to some of these changes.

Does it matter that the people who object happen to come from the smaller district councils, rather than the leviathan county council, which will be empowered, it seems to me, by these plans? It ought to matter to those of us who are interested in local democracy being meaningful. If these kinds of things are to be done appropriately and in a successful way, it is not appropriate for the Minister to do it in a top-down, fast way, empowering the largest and most powerful local authority in the area, so that it can dominate the rest of the authorities that have been swallowed up by it. That will lead to getting off on the wrong foot, resentments, which will not disappear quickly, and the alienation of local people, who believe that their district council is being swallowed up in a way that leaves them with little chance to influence the new unitary authority that is being created.

In my area, we have experience of being forced to become unitary: our metropolitan council—the Merseyside one—was simply abolished, with no consent either, it must be said. That leads to a struggle. Despite the fact that we may in principle want authorities to be unitary, surely, if there is local democracy, there must be a local, democratic way of bringing that about, which does not just mean that the largest fish swallows all the smaller fish, whether they want to be swallowed or not.

It seems to me that in their bureaucratic efforts to get this done and dusted in time, the Government are riding roughshod over perfectly reasonable local interests. The fact that the Government have not seen it fit to lay before Parliament the appropriate documentation, so that we can check the assurances that they say they will give us, is a disgrace. This Committee should not be meeting without the appropriate documentation in front of it.

I hope the Minister will consider withdrawing these regulations, until he can sort himself out and bring to the Committee the appropriate documentation, so that everyone in Parliament can have a proper look at what we are meant to be approving. I certainly hope that if the Minister does not do that, the Opposition Front Bench will consider voting against this proposal.

The proposal is half-baked, it does not have the consent that it claims to have and the Minister has not even bothered to provide the appropriate documentation for us to consider. He ought to go back to the drawing board and come back with all the appropriate documentation. I look forward to him explaining that consent does not mean the consent of four of the five local authorities. It looks to me that there is a reasonable case for judicial review, because of the Government’s lack of ability to put before Parliament and the people in Buckinghamshire the appropriate documentation in an appropriate and timely fashion. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I would like him to say that he will withdraw this SI temporarily, and bring it back when he has all his ducks in order and has done the appropriate amount of work.

Tenant Fees Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I can give him a very direct answer. I will not disclose to the Chamber or in any other way what happens at the Speaker’s conference in the morning. It is a private meeting between Mr Speaker and his Deputies and senior Clerks, and I will not and cannot answer questions about it.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who has been here for 27 years, my service is obviously larger than that of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). Can the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is making an important point. Just be quiet.

[Ms Eagle]

While we are living in an era of some creativity with respect to the House’s Standing Orders, can you confirm that we have not been so creative so far that amendments can survive the main motion being withdrawn?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am delighted to answer the hon. Lady’s perspicacious point of order. She is absolutely correct that amendments cannot survive the withdrawal of the main motion. I will say it again that the selection of amendments is entirely a matter for Mr Speaker, and I am sure that if Mr Speaker had been here, as he will be at some future point, he would have been delighted to answer these questions.

Local Government Funding: Merseyside

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend will know the figures for Coventry very well. He set some out, and they sound similar to some of the figures we have seen on Merseyside. Any application for Coventry to join Merseyside will of course be considered by the appropriate authorities, if my hon. Friend wants to take that back to Coventry.

Nationally, £7 billion has been cut from social care budgets, so the £650 million announced by the Chancellor yesterday—to much fanfare—will make little impact on the size of the problem created by the Governments he has been a member of since 2010. I saw today that that figure will cover not only adult social care but children’s, and it also apparently includes money for NHS winter pressures next year, so perhaps that figure is not quite all it was cracked up to be in the Budget statement. However, even if it were, it would not be enough to deal with many of the problems created by the cuts to Liverpool’s social care that have had to be made in the last eight years and are still ongoing.

What about reserves? Tory Ministers frequently answer questions about the scale of the cuts faced by suggesting that authorities should spend their reserves; we often hear that cry. Liverpool has spent £146 million of its reserves to support social care spending, even at the reduced levels it now provides. Its reserves are down to £17 million, so I hope that the Minister was not planning to tell me that Liverpool City Council should spend its reserves. It is clear that that is not a long-term solution. In fact, it is not a solution that will work for much longer at all. Indeed, the NAO says that one in 10 authorities nationally will have nothing left in three years’ time if they continue to use their reserves to pay for social care, as Liverpool has done. Even if those remaining reserves were spent only on social care and nothing else, local authority reserves would be completely used up by 2022.

What about new money? The Mayor of the city of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, has adopted—quite entrepreneurially, I think—an invest to earn strategy, for which he has been criticised but which has yielded so far an extra £13 million a year in new revenue. His original idea was to use that money to support growth in the local economy. However, because of the extent of the cuts in Government funding and the damage they have done—the dire impact that they have had on some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society in Liverpool—he has had to use the money to support services that would otherwise have been cut even further. For example, all our Sure Start centres have been kept open, even though some of the services they provide have gone. However, the tide of extra need being caused by ongoing cuts in Government support and social security benefits is likely to overwhelm the extra funding that the Mayor has brought in via invest to earn, and to do so soon. In that regard, the roll-out of universal credit will mean 55,000 people in the city being transferred on to it.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the experience in Wirral with the roll-out of universal credit? That has led to a need for 30 extra tonnes of food and created a 32% increase in the use of food banks because of the hardship that it has caused.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend, perhaps unsurprisingly, has anticipated my next point—we tend to be on the same wavelength. The Trussell Trust says that in areas where universal credit has been rolled out, it sees a disproportionate increase—my hon. Friend reports a big increase in Wirral—in food bank referrals, as opposed to a lower increase in other areas. The Chancellor is putting some money back in for universal credit, to ameliorate the cuts made by George Osborne in Department for Work and Pensions budgets, but that will not prevent millions of poor and vulnerable people from losing money. They will just lose a little less—and that is without the administrative chaos and design features of this benefit that cause poverty and destitution in Liverpool. Only the Liverpool citizens support scheme, the mayoral hardship fund and the discretionary housing payments, on which the Mayor spends more than central Government provide in moneys, stand between many families and destitution.

The Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, has repeatedly invited Ministers to Liverpool to inspect the books and tell him just what else he is supposed to try in order to deal with the funding crisis that austerity has created, but not one has taken up the challenge. Indeed, he even sent train tickets to Eric Pickles, when he was Secretary of State, to facilitate a visit, but he did not use them. Perhaps this Minister can take up the offer to inspect the books and see what else he can suggest that Liverpool City Council do; we would be most happy to welcome him. If not, perhaps he could indicate that the Mayor of Liverpool’s suggestion of a royal commission on the funding formula will be seriously considered. After all, with things going as they are, soon there will be no consideration of levels of deprivation or need in any of the ways that funding is allocated to local authorities, nor will any account be taken of the ability of the people of a local area to pay for all that is needed themselves; there will be no elements of redistribution. That is a recipe for entrenching disadvantage and ending social solidarity.

According to the Local Government Association, 168 councils will soon receive no revenue support grant at all and will rely only on business rates and council tax for their income. That disadvantages Liverpool again, because the council tax mix and base is so low. For example, Liverpool has more people than Bristol, but raises £38 million less in council tax, because almost 60% of Liverpool properties are in band A, compared with an average of 24% across the country, and 90% are in bands A to C, compared with 66% nationally. In addition, almost 36% of council tax payers are eligible for a discount because of their circumstances, whereas the national average is 16%. However, Government funding takes no account of these issues. That makes a big difference. If Liverpool was at the national average for these things, that would have meant an additional £97.7 million in council tax available to be collected every year. As it is, Liverpool can raise only £167 million in council tax. Similarly, less is raised in business rates in Liverpool than in many other places, because of the density and mix of local businesses.

Forcing the people of the city to rely, for meeting higher levels of local need, on weaker business rate and council tax yields is not a fair way to fund local services. I therefore finish by asking the Minister to have the courage that his predecessors lacked and visit Liverpool to inspect our books and make some suggestions as to what else, if anything, can be done. I also ask him to address the question of establishing a royal commission on local Government funding to ensure that the Government of which he is a member do not entrench existing deprivation and remove elements of redistribution that have in the past ensured social solidarity and improved life chances, and equality between different areas of the country. We need that now more than ever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Hollobone. I would like to add to the congratulations to my sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), on securing this debate at such an important time. As she has pointed out, local authorities in general have seen a cut of nearly 50% to their budgets, but local authorities in Merseyside have suffered even greater cuts.

My local authority, Wirral, has suffered a 53% cut in real terms since 2010, which is above average. That means that it has lost well over half its 2010 budget, which is £635 less in resource every household in Wirral. Wirral’s local authority is expected to continue to cut £130 million more between now and 2021, despite the Chancellor and his jocular toilet jokes in the Budget yesterday.

How do these cuts affect my constituents? Behind all the cuts and the many service reductions we have been forced to experience in the past few years are people who are often very vulnerable, not being looked after or being left to fend for themselves when circumstances make it impossible for them to survive independently. The social safety net has been deliberately destroyed by this Government in pursuit of their ideological obsessions with a smaller state. Not only do they pursue those obsessions and hit the poorest hardest, but when we have debates such as this they smirk and laugh, and do not believe the tales that we bring to the House about the real results their cuts have had. The Minister looks to me to be doing the same again today.

We have seen an increase in food bank use, homelessness and destitution, as well as anxiety and insecurity, which has led to increases in mental health breakdowns. A lot of these cuts are actually false economies. In Wirral, the adult social care budget has been cut by over a quarter since 2010, but because of our low council tax base the capacity to raise tax locally is severely constrained. A council tax increase of nearly 6% this year raised only £8 million, half of which is ring-fenced for social care, but because Wirral has an above average number of older people, that increase does not even cover the extra demand being generated by our ageing local population. It is not acceptable for the national Government to wash their hands of the different levels of demand for social care in different areas and leave council tax payers to pick up the bill when council tax bases vary so dramatically—my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said of Liverpool’s case—between different areas, because of different property prices.

In my constituency, over 11,000 people are providing unpaid care to their loved ones, many for 50 hours a week with little and diminishing help. We have seen real-terms cuts in spending on youth services. When Labour was in government, spending on youth services doubled, but since 2010 it has gone down by 7% nationally. Spending on young people’s services, such as counselling and youth centres, has fallen by over half. Some 1,000 Sure Start centres have closed and many preventive, proactive services have been wiped out. In Wirral, that has led to a huge increase in the number of children taken into care, which is up from 650 two years ago to 810 this year.

These cuts are a false economy, because as less is spent on preventive work, more has to be spent on much more profound and costly interventions later. How is it moral to wait until a young life is ruined, rather than spend less to prevent it from happening in the first place?

In Wallasey, 20 out of 26 schools face budget cuts. With nearly £3 million cut between 2015 and 2020, per-pupil funding has fallen by 8%. Since 2010, 50% of the Merseyside fire authority’s grant been taken away. Instead of having 42 fire engines, we now have 22, with only 14 available for immediate response. The number of firefighters has reduced by nearly 40% from 927 to a mere 580. After years of decline, fire deaths have increased by 10%. The Merseyside police budget cuts have led to the loss of over 1,000 officers and crime is rising. As the recent Home Affairs Committee report demonstrated, the police are becoming less and less able to cope. As crime rises, we see the number of arrests and charges falling.

Once more, the emergency services are so stretched that they can barely cope with emergencies, and they certainly cannot do preventive work, so lives are put at risk as public sector workers face relentless pressure, being expected to do more for less. This is not my definition of fairness and it is not my definition of the end of austerity. It is an ongoing, rolling scandal, which is placed at the door of this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Knowsley’s core spending power per household is about 20-something per cent. higher than the average for a similar metropolitan authority, which takes into account exactly his point. He talked about the fair funding review and, as I said, that is exactly where all the issues will be considered, ensuring that deprivation or, indeed, multiple other factors, are taken into account in the new funding formula.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

No. I will try to make some progress.

When it comes to that point, I am convinced and confident that those factors are taken into account. Indeed, as we restructure the fair funding formula, they will continue to be taken into account fairly and accurately.

Beyond Government grants, driving economic growth locally is the only sustainable way to ensure that we can raise the money we need to fund our services, and business rates retention is one such opportunity. I am delighted, and I am sure hon. Members here will join me in recognising, that Merseyside is in the fortunate position of being a 100% business rates retention area, which means that the local councils keep all the growth they generate from those rates. That is not something that is enjoyed by every local authority—[Interruption.]

Tower Block Cladding

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Dame Judith has set out a whole review of the system, end to end, and has taken a comprehensive stance. As I said in my statement last week, I intend to update the House before the summer on next steps. Knowing that certain issues will require legislation and others will not, I want to get on with it.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a real issue of enforcement here and that self-regulation, especially in competitive industries such as construction, simply will not work? I suspect that that is what Dame Judith Hackitt was getting at in her report. Given austerity cuts, can he assure the House that enforcement will be strengthened, so that as the regulations are changed, they bite and have an effect?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady is right to point out what Dame Judith Hackitt says in that regard—she certainly underlines the need for stronger enforcement, and indeed criminal sanctions in a number of cases. That will be subject to consultation, as I indicated last week, and we will review carefully the submissions that we receive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the flexibilities this Government have sought to put in place to deal with the essential issue of housing, which will be a core priority for me in the time ahead. I thank him for his kind wishes. Investment and flexibility will make a difference, provided they are taken up and we have partnership across the country, in delivering the homes people need.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. Does his Department have any targets for the number of affordable houses? Will he promise to take a look at the definition of affordable, which is at far too high a price under this Government?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady will know that our ambition is to get building up to about 300,000 homes a year. That is the real focus and commitment of this Government. Yes, it is about affordability and it is about ensuring that people have a positive sense for the future about getting into the housing market, and that is what this Government are determined to do.