Liverpool City Region (Poverty)

Debate between Angela Eagle and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It seems somehow appropriate that we are here under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, given that you represent a constituency in the Liverpool city region.

Nothing defines poverty more starkly than someone being unable to feed themselves and their family because there is no food in the house and no money to buy it. In my experience, that is not a position that anyone wishes to be in. We still live in one of the richest countries in the world, but that kind of poverty is widespread and increasing. It is a key part of the worst of the poverty that I see increasingly in south Liverpool and Halewood.

Since the global financial crisis hit in 2007-08 and the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government decided in 2010 that never-ending austerity and public spending cuts were the answer to it, there has been an explosion in the number of our citizens placed in the painful, invidious, unhealthy and humiliating position of having to go to a food bank to feed themselves and their families. Since the election of a Tory Government in 2015, we have also seen a doubling down on cuts in social security support. Scapegoating and a blame culture have become characteristic of the callous and sneering tenure of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and his successors in the DWP. It seems that we are to expect more of the same from our new Chancellor of the Exchequer in next week’s Budget as he desperately tries to offset the spiralling pressures and economic uncertainties caused by the extreme way in which his Government are intent on us leaving the EU.

The numbers on food bank use are stark. Some 2,894 people accessed a food bank in 2005-06, but just 10 years later, in 2015-16, 1.11 million people had to access Trussell Trust food banks alone. Figures for the first six months of this financial year up to September 2016 show that that number is on course to increase again. However, we do not know the true number of people affected, because the Government, disgracefully and callously, still refuse to collect the statistics. We know that the available figures understate the extent of the problem, because there are hundreds of food banks not included in the Trussell Trust scheme that do not use the vouchers on which its statistics are based, and many people cannot use food banks because they cannot eat the dried, tinned and processed food that is given out in food parcels, for medical, practical or cultural reasons. They sometimes cannot do so because their financial problems mean that they have no gas or electricity and cannot cook what they are given to eat. In my experience, that is an increasing problem.

In December 2014, the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is in his place, tried to fill the gap in statistics created by Government indifference. In its report, “Feeding Britain”, it stated that 4 million people were at risk of going hungry, 3.5 million adults could not afford to eat properly and half a million children were affected.

Thanks to the work of the “Share Your Lunch” campaign run by the social business Can Cook, which is based in my constituency, I can say that in Liverpool we calculate that our food bank and other food help outlets have had about 60,000 visits in the last year. Some of those will have been repeat visits, but “Share Your Lunch” thinks that the real number of people without food is double that. Indeed, visits to Bridge Chapel, the Trussell Trust food bank in my constituency, increased by 10% last year to 3,890 after a two-year plateau, with 43.5% of visitors coming from Speke-Garston. Some 10% of the households who access help at Bridge Chapel have at least one person in work. That indicates the extent of very low pay and zero-hours contracts that do not guarantee any minimum income. Under-employment is a real problem in our region.

According to “Share Your Lunch”, 45% of Liverpool families live below the poverty line and risk falling into food crisis. The number of children who start school under- weight has risen by 16% since 2012, up to one in five children in the UK arrive at school hungry, and one in three teachers surveyed by YouGov have brought in food for children in response to finding hunger in their classroom.

Why do we have this problem in Liverpool when we live in the sixth richest country in the world, and what can be done about it? The Trussell Trust says that the most common reasons for referrals are benefit delays, low income and benefit changes, which account for 27%, 25% and 16% of referrals respectively. That means that a full 43% of people who use food banks have to do so because of the DWP’s inadequacies and poor actions. No wonder the Government will not even collect statistics on why people are forced to go to food banks—they would be embarrassed by the findings.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is also a similar pattern in the Wirral? I suspect the numbers are not quite as high, but the reasons for the existence, running and use of food banks on the Wirral are similar. There are now seven food banks in Wallasey, and according to the Trussell Trust, benefit sanctions, the inadequacy of benefits and delays in paying benefits are why almost half of the people affected find they have to resort to a food bank to feed their families.

[Maria Eagle]

Indeed. In fact, “Feeding Britain”, the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, had an even higher figure: it said in December 2014 that almost two thirds go to food banks because of benefit issues. That accords with my experience in my advice surgeries in Liverpool and Halewood, where I find that those who most need help have been let down completely by the social security benefit system and that, more often than not, the crisis precipitated by DWP behaviour has left them without money and without food.

Typical scenarios include illness leading to job loss; redundancy leading to an application for jobseeker’s allowance or other benefit, which is then delayed for months while the family has no income; or sudden Kafkaesque checks on entitlement at the behest of Government, like the recent behaviour of Concentrix in cancelling people’s tax credit on the basis of entirely groundless supposition. It was unavailable to be contacted and delayed putting things right for months. That company had been financially incentivised by the Government to cancel claims, and it did so unjustifiably and at random.

I had many constituents coming to my advice surgery who were in work and had suddenly had their tax credits stopped, which meant that they could not afford their childcare, which in turn meant that they could not go to work. All kinds of problems followed, often leading to visits to our local food banks. Even the current Government were forced to act, thanks to the pressure put on them by colleagues across the House, yet a number of my constituents have been left with no money and no food by that behaviour of Concentrix. Fortunately, some of them are now getting compensation —perhaps up to £100, but more usually £50—from the Government for what has been done to them.

Sometimes, benefit changes precipitate food crisis, such as when people move from JSA to employment and support allowance or from disability living allowance to personal independence payment. Believe me, such a change can, and often does, cause a cascade of catastrophe when things go wrong. People have to manage for months with no money before the system is put right and the backdated payments are made. That is how people end up with no money and no food.

I am seeing benefit sanctions happen increasingly—it is an accelerating problem. Sometimes—this is deplorable —the sanction is open-ended, and my constituents are not told about that. It is often unfairly applied to vulnerable people who have done nothing to deserve having all their money stopped indefinitely.

It is clear that the best way of making inroads into the cause of this problem and cutting food poverty is by turning the DWP back into what it should be—a provider of social security for those who need it—and by ending the punishment of poor and disabled citizens just because of the misfortune of their circumstances, which seems to be the DWP’s raison d’être these days. That, however, will require a Labour Government.

I want to say a little about what can be done and is being done about the problem. In my constituency, I have a range of organisations trying to help. They include the Trussell Trust, with its food bank in Bridge Chapel; non-Trussell Trust food banks and more ad hoc arrangements in a number of places in Halewood, Speke and Garston; a FareShare distribution centre in Speke; and Can Cook, a social business that helps run “Share Your Lunch”, an ambitious initiative that aims to eradicate food poverty and provide fresh, nutritious food for those who are hungry rather than food parcels of dried and tinned processed food. There is no shortage of people trying to help. I thank the volunteers and organisers who have been willing to step in to help their fellow citizens when the Government are abrogating their responsibility and are happy to leave people with nothing.

I also thank the public, who make donations. In Liverpool, we are particularly blessed by the solidarity and generosity that people show each other, in particular those less fortunate than themselves. That is true across the city region—it is a defining characteristic of Merseyside and Halton. That generosity is exemplified by the “Share Your Lunch” campaign, run by Can Cook in my constituency but well and ably supported by the Liverpool Echo, which I commend for the work it has done in highlighting this issue and tackling it in practical ways, and by many business supporters and other individual donors. It has raised £51,600, generating a total of 28,800 fresh, nutritious meals that it has supplied to people who need food. More than 19,000 kg of fresh vegetables and 18,000 kg of fresh meat have been provided through its efforts. Indeed, in the campaign’s first week it raised £35,000, all because of the generosity of our fellow citizens in the city region. I hope the Minister accepts that that shows people’s concern about the fact that their fellow citizens are having to suffer the humiliation of not being able to feed themselves and their families.

That huge response has been welcome. It has enabled “Share Your Lunch” to carry out initiatives such as providing everything for Christmas lunch for people who could not afford Christmas and helping families in food poverty get through the school holidays, which are a big problem. When no school dinners are available, it can be almost impossible for certain families to feed their children. The current food bank model is not perfect—it is not the last word—but it does give emergency help to thousands of families when they need it.

There are different ways of tackling this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) set out the long history we have in the city region of charitable assistance and innovative social support, which long predates any of us being Members of this House. He was right to highlight that. That entrepreneurship is continuing in organisations such as Can Cook, with its “Share Your Lunch” campaign in my constituency.

In a typical food bank parcel for a family, there are 22 tins of processed food, all extremely high in salt and sugar. If the food does not go together to make a good meal, some of it may remain difficult for families and recipients to utilise. Food bank parcels do not cater for vegetarians, vegans or those with special dietary needs, so how do those people get help? Perhaps FareShare can help. It has a distribution centre in my constituency and does good work delivering surplus food from supermarkets, which would otherwise go to waste, to third sector organisations. Of course, food banks and other organisations do have to pay to be members and to receive the available food. They also have to take what is available; they cannot order what they would like or what is needed. I know anecdotally that much of what is passed on remains unused or ends up sent to landfill by the third sector organisations rather than by the supermarkets, because it cannot be used for one reason or another. Therefore, while the food bank model operated by the Trussell Trust and the work done by FareShare helps many people—it has been a lifeline for many—there is room for other approaches to be tried as well.

That is where Can Cook and its “Share Your Lunch” comes in. It believes that good fresh food is a human right and that everybody should have access to fresh food by choice, regardless of their circumstances. Given that many people who find themselves with no food and no money are in that positon not because of anything they have done but because of circumstances, I agree completely that those people ought to have choice if that is possible. That is an ideal worth pursuing. Why should those in food poverty have no choice but to eat dried and processed tinned food, full of sugar and fat, which is not healthy or nutritious and may not go together to make balanced meals? Why should they not have a choice of fresh, healthy, nutritious food?

“Share Your Lunch” has developed a good food model with the aim of using some of the profits from its catering operation—it is a social business providing good, fresh to schools and care homes—to generate free, fresh, nutritious meals for those who need them. It has partnerships across the city region—across Liverpool and Knowsley—with councils and with businesses. It aims to develop good food areas where it can feed hungry residents in a designated area with the free meals generated by its commercial activity. That model is interesting and has something to offer. It is a win-win if it works and will give residents an extra choice when they face a food crisis, so that they can access fresh and nutritious food if they prefer or if it suits them, rather than a food bank parcel.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the problem is to be tackled across the whole UK. What does he have to say about “Share Your Lunch” and Can Cook’s model? I wish “Share Your Lunch”, the campaign, and Can Cook, the organisation, all the best in their endeavour. If they succeed, even the poorest of my constituents, at the worst time of their lives when they have no food and no money for food, will be able to eat healthily and properly should they choose to do so.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Angela Eagle and Maria Eagle

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I do not intend to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. He had his chance earlier.

This authoritarian demeanour is alien to our British tradition, and the sooner the new Government realise it and mend their ways, the better. Secondly, the nature of the exit that the Government seem intent on pursuing has influenced me. I think that this extreme, right-wing exit that they are pursuing, without any authorisation from this Parliament or the people of this country, will damage the jobs and economy of the UK, undermine our standing and position in the world and hit the poorest, like many who live and work in my constituency, the hardest.

I disagree that the Prime Minister should simply give up on single market membership—something that has benefited and could continue to benefit our people as workers and consumers greatly—without even bothering to negotiate on it, even though she was elected on a manifesto in the 2015 general election that promised to stay in the single market. It said:

“We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.”

Why did the Prime Minister not make pursuing membership of the single market part of her negotiating position?

Thirdly, although we have recently been given vague promises of further votes in this place after the negotiations, it remains unclear to me whether they will be meaningful in any way. This Bill therefore represents the only real opportunity at present that parliamentarians have to make their concerns known and shape the kind of exit that we get. I think the Government intend it to be the only opportunity we get, and let us remind ourselves: they did not intend that we should have this one. Once article 50 is triggered, time is set running and at the expiry of two years, the UK is out of the EU, unless all 27 countries agree to some alternative arrangements for those negotiations to continue in the interim. Simply by the effluxion of time, whatever the state of the negotiations, the reality will be that we are out—over a cliff edge, over a precipice. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) let the cat out of the bag in his speech, and the Government themselves argued before the courts that the process is irrevocable once set in motion.

Had the Government produced a White Paper following consultations about what kind of exit we should seek to secure and had they tried to reach a consensus across parties on what was best for the country, in order to bring it together and reconcile the 48% who voted to remain in an open and meaningful way, the triggering of article 50 may not have seemed the watershed or the last possible point of parliamentary influence that it now seems. The Government have had plenty of time to undertake such a process, but they have spent it telling parliamentarians that “Brexit means Brexit”, pointlessly appealing the High Court judgment—with an entirely predictable result—and refusing to say anything of substance on the grounds that it will compromise our negotiating position. The effluxion of time is what will compromise our negotiating position. What pressure will there be on our partners to agree to anything, when by simply biding their time we will be expelled, perhaps without any of the agreements we seek?

Fourthly, I represent a city and a constituency that voted to remain, and I feel the need to represent the views of my constituents on such a momentous issue. In Liverpool, we have seen over many years the advantages of EU membership at first hand. As the Tory Government of Margaret Thatcher genuinely considered organising the “managed decline” of Liverpool in the early 1980s, when I was growing up there, it was the European Economic Community that began to send what over the years became billions of pounds of structural funds to help the regeneration of the city.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will my hon. Friend explain to the House precisely how important objective 1 was to the regeneration of Liverpool in those dark times?

[Maria Eagle]

It stopped the city from falling even further than it had already fallen, and it gave us a real boost in starting the regeneration of the city. That is perhaps why Liverpool voted to remain.

If we leave the EU in the way in which the current Government want, it will be people such as my constituents, who have had almost seven years of coalition and Tory Government public spending cuts, who will be hit again and hit disproportionately. I fear that the extreme exit that the Prime Minister has decided we are to pursue will, over a few years, destroy our industrial base and our manufacturing industry. Of course, with such a divisive, irreconcilable and irreversible vote, some of my constituents will not like what I do whatever I do, but as their MP, I owe them my sincere judgment, and that is what I am giving them tonight.

I accept that the Government will get their way tomorrow night, and if they do, I expect to support the many excellent amendments being put forward by my Front-Bench team and others to try to improve the Bill, but I hope that the Government will, even now, see the benefit of accepting some of the amendments and try at this late stage to proceed in a way designed to bring the country together and not to ride roughshod over those with whom they disagree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Eagle and Maria Eagle

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am loth to come between sisters, especially twins, but I call Angela Eagle.

National Health Service Funding

Debate between Angela Eagle and Maria Eagle

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I want to talk about the Cheshire and Merseyside sustainability and transformation plan and the documents relating to it, which were finally published last Wednesday, although details had been repeatedly leaked. The plans are every bit as full of unrealistic proposals and management newspeak as many of us feared. They amount to a catastrophic financially driven plan drawn up by managers in secrecy under pressure from the Secretary of State for Health. They are already being implemented, without any of the affected stakeholders or the people of Cheshire and Merseyside ever being asked what they think.

If fully implemented, the STP would involve the merging of the Royal Liverpool, Broadgreen and Aintree hospitals, with the Liverpool Women’s hospital being “reconfigured” and merged into the new organisation at a later date. It is planned to be rebuilt nearer the Royal, but there is no NHS money available for the new hospital building. The plans entail the downgrading of hospital A&E services at Whiston hospital, where many of my constituents go, or at Warrington or Southport hospitals, or some combination of all three. Details are not provided.

These shocking cuts and mergers have very little chance of being accepted by the people of Garston and Halewood, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is clear that the Cheshire and Merseyside STP is financially driven. This has been admitted by those who have drawn it up. Katherine Sheerin, chief officer of Liverpool clinical commissioning group, accepted this in an interview that she gave in the Liverpool Echo. When asked what would happen if these changes were not made, she said:

“If we did nothing, we would not have enough money to run the services. This is about managing that, rather than letting it happen.”

When asked if these changes were being driven by cuts, she replied:

“The financial component has been a strong driver”.

The King’s Fund agrees with her. In its report entitled “Sustainability and Transformation Plans in the NHS”, it says:

“The original purpose of STPs was to support local areas to improve care quality and efficiency of services . . . The emphasis from national NHS bodies has shifted over time to focus more heavily on how STPs can bring the NHS into financial balance (quickly).”

Quite so, and we can see this in Katherine Sheerin’s answers.

The Cheshire and Merseyside STP has to deal with the pressure of almost a £1 billion gap in its funding by 2021, so making cuts in spending to meet the Government’s financial requirement is at the core of these plans. The people of Merseyside are not daft— they can see this. The Cheshire and Merseyside STP requires £755 million of capital funding, which is now no longer available. In Liverpool alone, our hospitals’ deficit is estimated to be £276.5 million. In her Liverpool Echo interview, Katherine Sheerin suggested that Liverpool City Council would provide the missing capital funding.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The Wirral Borough Council was not asked to participate at all. Was the Liverpool authority asked to participate?

[Maria Eagle]

Neither Liverpool City Council nor Knowsley Borough Council has been consulted at all about the plans. However, when asked where she was going to get the money for the new hospital, Katherine Sheerin said:

“There’s limited capital available but there are options to explore. Councils tend to be able to access borrowing at a very cheap rate.”

There we have it: Liverpool City Council is expected to stump up the money to implement what is supposed to be a key part of the strategy—building a new women’s hospital. However, this is the same Liverpool City Council that has had 58% of its money from central Government removed—first by the Lib Dem-Tory coalition and then by the Tory Governments after 2010—and that relies for almost three quarters of its income on that Government grant. This is the same Liverpool City Council that already spends £151 million on adult social services for its ageing population, but that can raise only £147 million in council tax. This is the same Liverpool City Council that is expected to find another £90 million of savings over the next three years and that is facing some extremely invidious choices to balance its budget.

My second point is this: these plans have been drawn up in near secrecy by NHS managers, and without consultation with those who are now being exhorted to help. Neither Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council nor Liverpool City Council has been asked what it thinks. Consequently, both say, unsurprisingly, that they are opposed to the plans. In Liverpool, the ruling Labour group has made it clear that it will oppose any STP that proposes cuts, and the Mayor of Liverpool has said publicly that he opposes the proposed closure of the Women’s hospital and will campaign to keep a women’s hospital in Liverpool. I agree with him. Labour in Liverpool will support any change to existing provision only if it improves services to women in Liverpool.

The current plans are already being implemented, and that is another thing we cannot allow to go ahead without proper consultation.