Climate Goals: Wellbeing Economy

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members of the guidance from the Commission and the Government about wearing face masks when they are not speaking, giving space to other Members and staff, and testing twice weekly with lateral flow tests, either on the estate or at home.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a wellbeing economy approach to meeting climate goals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Betts. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate why the Government should embrace a wellbeing economy if they are serious about meeting their climate goals. Beyond the climate emergency, there are many other reasons to move beyond our current extractive, exploitative and growth-addicted economic system: tackling inequality, stopping the destruction of the natural world and preventing future pandemics, to name just three.

Crucially, the discussions in and around the COP26 summit remind us that those issues cannot be separated and siloed. If we keep decimating the natural world, we will not meet climate goals. If we do not put equality and justice at the heart of climate action, we will not make the shift to a greener and fairer economy. Pandemics, meanwhile, in the words of some of the world’s leading scientists, are

“a direct consequence of human activity—particularly our global financial and economic systems, based on a limited paradigm that prizes economic growth at any cost.”

Many colleagues will be well versed in why GDP growth has always been a terrible measure of a nation’s economic progress—I will not go into the detail now. However, it cannot be overestimated how critical shifting from growth to wellbeing is from a social and equity perspective. As a report by leading economists for the OECD finds, patterns of economic growth have generated significant harm over recent decades. That includes rising inequality, not just catastrophic environmental degradation—which itself hits the most vulnerable the hardest.

I want to focus on the climate imperative of transforming our economic system, and on the wellbeing economy as a specific, practical and positive alternative to economics as usual. I will start by mentioning a recent parliamentary petition that called on the Government to shift to a wellbeing economy and put the health of people and planet first. It has been linked to this debate on today’s Order Paper; I want to thank the many thousands of people who supported that petition. It was started by a young Brighton constituent, Skylar Sharples, and it begins like this:

“We urgently need the Government to prioritise the health and wellbeing of people and planet, by pursuing a Wellbeing Economy approach. To deliver a sustainable and equitable recovery, the Treasury should target social and environmental goals, rather than fixating on short-term profit and growth…Two thirds of the public want the Treasury to put wellbeing above growth. Scotland and Wales are already part of the Wellbeing Economy Governments alliance. As host of the COP26 climate summit, the UK Government should build and champion a Wellbeing Economy—at home and globally.”

That petition did tremendously well to get almost 70,000 signatures. Even though it was not enough to secure a debate via the Petitions Committee, I am very grateful that through the ballot process we were able to hold today’s debate.

In turning to the climate imperative for switching from growth to wellbeing as the purpose of our economy, I will start with the science. If we take the global climate goal of reaching net zero by 2050—leaving aside the injustice and inadequacy of that as the UK’s goal—economic growth is still the elephant in the room. During that same 30-year period, between now and 2050, the global economy is set to nearly triple in size. That means three times more production and consumption than we already have each year. It is enough of a challenge to decarbonise an economy the size of the current one in such a short time span; it will be virtually impossible to do it three times over. If we carry on with growth as usual, then halving emissions by 2030 would require that rich countries like the UK decarbonise their economies at a rate of more than 12% per year. That is more than five times faster than the historic rate of decarbonisation, and about three times faster than what scientists project is possible, even under highly optimistic conditions. The most “successful” rich countries are decarbonising at only around 3.4% a year; the performance of average rich countries is much worse. The gap is huge, and however heroic one’s assumptions are about the potential for decoupling growth from carbon emissions—an argument that I am sure we will hear from the Minister—there is no evidence that there can be absolute decoupling in anything like a fast enough timeframe.

The bottom line is that the GDP figures that we are using to measure economic success are also measuring the rate at which we are barrelling towards climate catastrophe. It is little wonder that the voices around us are saying that we need to end our addiction to GDP growth to tackle the climate emergency. Those voices—from climate scientists and environmentalists to economists, health professionals and business leaders—are becoming louder. I want to give two examples.

There was a recent joint report from the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—an intergovernmental body that assesses biodiversity. The report calls for

“a profound collective shift of individual and shared values concerning nature—such as moving away from the conception of economic progress based solely on GDP growth, to one that balances human development with multiple values of nature for a good quality of life, while not overshooting biophysical and social limits.”

That is pretty clear, and it is coming from the world’s most respected scientists.

To take one example from the business world, former Unilever CEO, Paul Polman, recently wrote about the World Economic Forum’s 2021 global risks report, in which four of the top five risks to our economies are coming from the environment—including climate change and biodiversity loss. He said that

“the estimated $300 billion annual cost of natural disasters caused by ecosystem disruption and climate change”

highlights

“the risks of unbridled economic growth. Thinking beyond GDP and short-term profit is therefore essential in order to restore our relationship with the planet and transform our system into a viable one.”

So, wellbeing within planetary limits, not infinite GDP growth, is the new economic goal we urgently need. If the boss of a massive multinational can get that, I have to ask why can’t Treasury, especially when its own Dasgupta review of “The Economics of Biodiversity” made the case so well, too. It reads,

“GDP does not account for the depreciation of assets, including the natural environment. As our primary measure of economic success, it therefore encourages us to pursue unsustainable economic growth and development.”

The Dasgupta review also calls for an

“urgent and transformative change in how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world”.

Yet the Treasury response to that key recommendation does little more than refer to a review of GDP that was done six years ago. That is not “urgent and transformative change”.

I hope the Minister can convince us today that the Treasury is not as cavalier and complacent as it would appear. Will she confirm that the Government accept the need to adopt new measures of economic success beyond GDP to give climate, nature and collective wellbeing the priority they deserve? What work is taking place on that? It will not be good enough to say that the Office for National Statistics has developed natural capital and wellbeing indicators, because those indicators are not just out of date; they are clearly not being used in policy making, least of all inside the Treasury where GDP growth reigns supreme. It is a bit like claiming that you have adopted a healthy diet because you have some flaccid carrots in the fridge but meanwhile you are chomping down on a box of Mars bars. It does not wash.

Similarly, the inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, into biodiversity and ecosystems concluded:

“Alternatives to GDP urgently need to be adopted as more appropriate ways to measure economic success, appraise investment projects and identify sustainable development.”

So will the Minister today accept that cross-party recommendation and set out a timeline for progress?

The wellbeing economy is not just a brilliant idea; it is already being implemented in the UK and around the world. At local, national and international level—beyond Westminster—the green shoots of a new economic paradigm fit for the age of climate emergency are already emerging. In the short time that I have, it is impossible to mention more than a fraction of the researchers, campaigners, practitioners and others who make up the movement for a new economy, designed to serve people and planet—from community wealth building to the Doughnut Economics Action Lab.

The wellbeing economy is one example. It is being taken forward by the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, a collaboration of, so far, five national and regional Governments. In Finland, the world’s youngest Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, heads up a Government who are outspoken on the principle that,

“Economic growth is never an end in itself and well-being is not just an item of expenditure for public finances”.

In Iceland, indicators for wellbeing guide Government decision making. Scotland has a national performance framework centred around wellbeing, and with Greens now in government we can expect even more leadership on the post-growth wellbeing economy. Wales has the first ever Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, a version of which many of us have been championing in this House as well, and New Zealand is home to the world’s first ever wellbeing budget and a Finance Ministry that uses a living standards framework to shape all economic policy making.

Those nations are working together to share expertise and advance a shared ambition to build wellbeing economies. Will the UK join them? If the Minister cannot quite commit to that, will she at least commit to carrying out a major review of what the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership is doing, and the benefits of the Treasury taking a similar approach, ideally in time for the next Budget to be the UK’s first wellbeing Budget? As a first step, the UK’s first wellbeing Budget could swap the focus on GDP and change it for GDWe, or gross domestic wellbeing, as developed by Carnegie UK. No one is saying that untangling our growth addiction is simple, but we can no longer delay. As the economist Kate Raworth puts it, we need to create

“economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow”

rather than having economies that grow whether or not they make us thrive.

Drawing to a conclusion, I want to quickly share some views from members of the public on the topic of today’s debate. They were gathered via a survey over the weekend, thanks to the parliamentary digital engagement service. It has had more than 1,000 submissions and shows how severely our current economy is failing on the basics. Hazel, for example, wrote about what a wellbeing economy could prioritise. She suggests:

“Ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met, including any additional needs resulting from disability. Such needs include access to healthy food, safe, warm homes, and access to health care (both physical and mental). Nobody in the developed world should need to rely on food banks.”

Natalie wrote:

“Aiming for constant financial growth cannot be sustained on a planet of finite resources…The health and well-being of our shared planet and all beings who reside here should be our priority. The way and extent to which we care for it and for each other should be key. Wastefulness should be seen as the loss that it truly is. Ecology and economics should not be at odds; the words both derive from the concept of looking after our home.”

The responses are another sign that, far from delivering on the famous “people’s priorities,” as the Government like to say, the Treasury is completely ignoring them by sticking to an outdated and dangerous fixation on economic growth. It is time for global Britain to become a global leader, fit for the age of climate emergency, rather than a laggard in a shift to a wellbeing economy. For the sake of climate justice today and for the lives of future generations, I look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with Members across the House to prove that another economy is not just possible; it is on its way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

There are six Members still to speak, so Members have around three minutes.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am delighted to be called to speak first after the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I thank for securing this debate on the most important issue. I genuinely cannot imagine two more important priorities for an independent Scotland than ensuring that we have action on climate change and that we put wellbeing at the front of everything we do.

We are lucky in Scotland that we are already on this road. We have begun to make the changes that are required to move away from focusing entirely on economic growth and toward looking at the wellbeing of our population. When we are looking at budgets, such as the national performance framework, as was mentioned, our decisions are looked at through a lens. Do they improve wellbeing? Do they reduce our negative impact on the planet? I think it is wonderful that we do that.

There are also good things happening in schools. Bairns throughout Scotland are aware of their rights under the UN convention on the rights of a child. It is taught throughout Scottish schools. I can speak to kids as young as five and ask them about their rights. It is important for people’s wellbeing that they are aware of their rights and are able to fight for the rights that they deserve. It is important that they are able to make their voices heard. The only way we are going to get to wellbeing is to ensure that everybody is empowered to get those rights.

There is absolutely no point in focusing on economic growth for economic growth’s sake. The UK economy has been growing, but inequality is still stretching. We have still seen an increase in inequality. People who are on the bottom of the pile continue to be on the bottom of the pile. We are not improving societal wellbeing if we are not ensuring that decisions benefit everybody, rather than those currently at the top of the pile. For all our constituents, we need to ensure not just growth, but fair growth. We must focus on reducing inequality—and focus on everything that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said—and on making sure that decisions, particularly budgetary decisions, are taken with the wellbeing of people in mind, not simply growing the money of this country’s richest people.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

The guideline is that Members have around four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hanna]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We have proven that the theories he outlines, which are supposed to be in place, have not worked, and that our economy has not worked. The kind of model that he suggests, which allows people to flourish, is desirable and achievable.

As with addressing climate breakdown, we know what has to be done; we just have to decide to do it. While it is tempting and valid to protest and rage against the machine on this, it is very encouraging to see some of the practical initiatives that people are taking across their constituencies and in other regions. I pay tribute to groups such as the Carryduff Regeneration Forum, the Conservation Volunteers, Open Ormeau, Repair Café Belfast and many others in my own corner of the world who are showing what is possible when people try to slow down, clean up and build cohesion, and what is possible through care, education and creativity.

Northern Ireland is among the most nature-depleted regions in the world. Currently, we have no binding environmental targets, no environmental protection agency and no coherent plan to address that. We do not even have any certainty that the Assembly will stay up long enough to pass the Climate Bill that the Green party, my own party and others are bringing through at the moment.

Members have outlined some of the many solutions that are in place and some of the Bills that are currently working through that can help us achieve environmental and generational justice, because the impacts on future generations are very real. We need to be real about the possibilities and limitations of green growth and rescue technologies. As the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) outlined, some of these have been demonstrated to not necessarily have the solution to all our problems.

We need to embrace lower labour productivity at times, and accept that long hours and low-reward jobs, where people are working just to stand still economically and consume, are not good for them or for the planet. We also need to encourage reporting of non-GDP measurements. The ONS records these, but we do not use them and they do not get reported in the media, and we know that, unfortunately, what gets reported, gets done.

Members have rightly referenced initiatives in New Zealand, Scotland and Wales, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the UK Government as a whole intends to step up in this regard.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We are going to start the winding-up speeches at 5.36 pm.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for this hour to reflect on a different economic model—an hour that should pivot the wanton greed of state to one of restoring the scars of its heritage.

Leaving Glasgow with our planet heating at a dangerous rate and the failure to slam the brakes on climate destruction, the Government were given a year to reset. COP27 will be their reckoning. Right now, the global south is paying for the exploits of the global north, and this generation is paying for centuries of colonialisation, industrialisation and exploitation, as people and planet were exploited, minerals, crops and humanity were exploited, and carbon and hope were burnt. In this generation, it is our duty to restore. We have no choice.

Kate Raworth’s work on doughnut economics shows us a path out. York Central development, at the heart of my constituency, could be the first doughnut development, where we see the planned luxury apartments becoming sustainable housing that meets need. We could see that site being car free, wellbeing communities being built and a carbon negative future with our green new deal.

As I set out in my Adjournment debate last week, York is seeking to lead. Our green new deal, BioYorkshire, will create 4,000 green-collar jobs and upskill 25,000 people as it takes 2.8 million tonnes of carbon out of our atmosphere and repurposes 1.2 million tonnes of landfill. With research and development of new precision-farming agricultural practices, it is the point where international development will meet international trade. While partners from the University of York, Askham Bryan College and Fera Science have reached out into the region, it is my hope that this green new deal will reach out across the globe, such is the power of its science.

It is this project that will put pride back into my community—one that to this very day celebrates the Rowntree legacy of integrating good business with good employment and social practices. In parallel, York has developed the good business charter. I hope that the Minister is aware of the charter, supported by the CBI and TUC, as it sets out 10 principles, including a real living wage, employee wellbeing, environmental responsibility and ethical sourcing, resetting the terms for business, the economy and workers. Different parts of the economy should not be able to choose whether or not they opt into those initiatives. We need a comprehensive refocus. Labour in Wales was the first in the world to introduce a wellbeing Act—the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—and the rest of the UK must now follow. Instead, this Government’s mantra seems to be, “Always need to take, not restore”, and that must be reversed.

Just imagine if those principles had been embedded in our approach to the covid-19 vaccine. We would not be debating omicron today. Given that the west has hoarded and destroyed global vaccine supplies—and taken at least three vaccines for each of us—the vaccine rate in developing countries is just 3%. For the sake of profit for big pharma, this Government are prepared to sacrifice the global south. However, in this interconnected world, we too will fall prey to a virus that does not play by the rules. That is why we need to change the rules that govern us. It may not be omicron that calls us short—it may be the pyro or sigma variants.

This is about moving from a mindset of economic nationalism to one of responsible internationalism. The Government were sent to Glasgow to keep the idea of 1.5° alive, but it is now in critical care. Everything must be injected into rehabilitating our economy. The cost of not doing so will be fatal.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for keeping to time in this debate. We can now move on to the Front Benchers. First, I call Patrick Grady for the Scottish National party, who has five minutes.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak, and I apologise to the Chamber that I was a couple of minutes late for this debate and so missed the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I warmly congratulate her on securing this debate and on setting out the substance so clearly, which has been echoed by all the Members who have been able to speak in the time available.

It is disappointing that there were no speeches from Government Back-Benchers, because—and I will say a bit more about this at the end of my remarks—this is not an ideological debate. This is about how we frame, or reframe, the debate. Very few people, and I believe that includes most Government Members, come into politics wanting to impoverish people or increase inequalities. The debate is really about how we get there and achieve a better society, which I hope is an aim that we all share.

One of the key points about the wellbeing economy and reframing the debate is how we measure what matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said that and it was also echoed by the First Minister of Scotland when she gave a TED talk on this very subject back in 2019. Measuring what matters will help us to reframe the debate and reset the things that we are trying to achieve by the policies that we all want to put forward.

That is particularly important in the context of the conference of the parties and meeting climate goals, as the title of the debate suggests, because at the end of the day the costs of climate change will have to be paid for. It is a bit like covid-19: we are going to have to pay for climate change. We can either pay for it now by taking action to mitigate the damage that has already been done and adapting to the damage that is coming down the line, or we can pay for it later, once our cities are under water and there is even greater human displacement because parts of the world become unliveable.

We have been speaking in this debate today about future generations. I cannot recommend highly enough “The Ministry for the Future”, a book by Kim Stanley Robinson, which deals with an awful lot of those challenges. We also face not an ageing population per se but a longer-lived population and the risk that brings of increasing inequalities. That has to be tackled, and reframing the debate through a wellbeing approach is one of the most effective ways in which we can do that.

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke about my constituent, Dr Katherine Trebeck, who really is a leading thinker on this matter. She talks about cornerstone indicators of how we can measure progress in society. The number of girls who ride a bike to school should be, and can be, a measure of achievement in society. It sums up the many things that have to go right—all those different things that lead to young girls being able to cycle to school, whether in this country or in sub-Saharan African—and it brings many benefits. That would be a demonstration—a real indicator —that we were using our wealth, knowledge and resources effectively, and that we were meeting the goals that will bring about a better society.

Scotland is buying into this. We can go further. We have heard about the relationship that has been established with the Greens, which I warmly welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about what Scotland could achieve if we were an independent country and had all the powers at our hands. Nevertheless, the national performance framework has been in place since 2007. There are 81 different national indicators that reflect the values and aspirations of the people of Scotland. They are aligned with the sustainable development goals of the United Nations and are there to help to track progress in reducing inequality. Scotland was a founding member of the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, which was founded in 2018 and continues to grow. It met during COP26 precisely to progress those goals.

That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is not ideological per se: it is a challenge to both the traditional left and the traditional right. If we agree that the aim is to reduce inequality, to improve wellbeing and to meet climate goals, we can have a debate about how best to do that. Perhaps there is an argument for the free market, for the leveraging of capital, for innovation and entrepreneurship; perhaps there is a greater role for the state and the investment of public money, goods and resources. That is the clash of ideas, but this is changing the goal that we are heading for, because infinite growth on a finite planet simply is not possible.

I encourage the Government to take this on and to look at what other ambitious countries around the world and their own devolved institutions are doing. If they are not prepared to do that or to follow along with the devolved institutions, we will see continued divergence, and that will only help the cause of Members such as myself in the Scottish National party, and those who want to see further devolution and ultimately independence. The Government must get into a 21st-century mindset, and that means leaving 19th and 20th-century ideas of unlimited growth as the only measure of success far behind.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

For the Opposition, I call Pat McFadden, and again he has five minutes.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and thank all the hon. Members who have taken part over the past hour or so.

The debate on the relationship between wellbeing and the traditional economic growth measure of GDP has been going on for a long time. We welcome an emphasis on wellbeing and on not measuring everything purely by traditional economic statistics. As we have heard, there are deficiencies in GDP. For example, it tells us nothing about equality or the level of social inclusion in a society. That is what it does not include, but it does include things we might not want to include, such as measures of waste or of throwaway goods that are bad for our environment.

As a material measure of output, GDP is certainly not the same as general happiness. That is why in my party, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has argued that the Office for National Statistics should measure health and happiness through a healthy living index. We have heard about what the Welsh Labour Government are doing, putting wellbeing at the heart of their thinking.

As we transition to a cleaner and greener economy, we will want to take into account other things, most obviously the sources of our energy and how renewable they are. We will want to ask different questions—not just, “What did you produce?” but, “How did you produce that?” All that will have to be a greater part of our economic thinking. We do, after all, have only one planet, and we have a duty to cherish and preserve it for future generations.

This debate also forces a discussion on not only the costs of acting, but the costs of not acting. The Office for Budget Responsibility report earlier this year was very clear on that point. If we delay taking the necessary action on the transition to net zero, it will not make the costs disappear. Instead, it will increase them in the longer run, adding to our debt and our deficit, and loading further costs on the taxpayer. That is why Labour announced at our recent conference a commitment to investing in this transition year on year for a decade.

That commitment will help to ensure that the homes we live in are heated in a sustainable way. In so doing, it will create many jobs, reduce people’s heating bills and make a material contribution to the wellbeing we have heard about today. We will also want to invest in the charging infrastructure for low-carbon transport, and many of the other changes we need. That is what we want to do.

Let us not be entirely dismissive of GDP and the importance of economic growth. For the past decade, we have had, as it were, a real-world experiment in what it is like to live through low growth. We have high taxes now because economic growth has been low. That anaemic growth over the past decade means that we are a less prosperous country than we would have been had we had higher growth rates—for example, the kind of growth rates that we had in the first decade of this century. That has borne down on real incomes and on public services and their capacity to improve wellbeing.

Low economic growth over the past decade has adversely impacted on the quality of life in places such as Wolverhampton, which I represent, the Black Country and many other parts of the country. It has left the public square impoverished and degraded. In arguing for a broader view, we should not make the mistake of thinking that low growth or no growth is a good thing. The experience of low growth over the past decade suggests that that is very much not the case. I am all for a broader definition, I am all for greener growth, but I also want to see prosperity in every part of the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Minister, you have 10 minutes, which will leave a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up at the end.

Health and Social Care Levy

Clive Betts Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that, because of the employment allowance, the bottom 40% of businesses will pay nothing and the next 40% will pay an average of £450. So this does not fall heavily on the bottom end of businesses, and of course it comes in a context in which the Government have provided over £400 billion of support to business and to the nation as a whole in the course of fighting the pandemic. In that sense it is, and it has been recognised to be by reputable independent commentators, a broad-based approach.

From April 2023, once HMRC systems have been updated, a formal legal surcharge of 1.25% will replace the temporary increase in NICs rates, which will return to their previous level. Again, this revenue will be ring-fenced in law for health and for social care only. As the Chancellor stated yesterday, this levy is no stealth tax. That is why the exact amount that each employee pays will also be visible as a separate line on their payslip. Finally, the levy will be administered by HMRC, and collected by the current reporting and collection procedures for NICs—pay-as-you-earn and income tax self-assessment.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to ask the Minister: how much money is actually going to get to local authorities to deliver social care at the frontline? Can I refer him to paragraph 36 of the Government’s document, which we got yesterday? It says that £5.4 billion in adult social care will be provided from this levy, but that will be spent on the reforms that are in the document. It also says that all the other pressures on social care that local authorities have now, demographic and otherwise, will be paid for from council tax and the social care precept, which is council tax by another name. So are we expecting the pressures on social care to be funded not from this document, but actually from further rises in council tax? Is that the honest situation?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am also very grateful to him for actually reading the document, which many of his colleagues may not have done, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to that section. What the levy does, of course, is to provide a very substantial form of funding for social care. The question of the capacity of local authorities, which is of course a matter of great interest to Government and an area that we have supported significantly in the last year or two, will be considered in the Budget in the normal course of things.

If I may, I will now set out why a levy based on national insurance is the best way to raise the funds needed for the Government’s plan for health and social care. The first reason is that there is already a clear precedent. Indeed, in 2003 the then Labour Government increased these same NICs rates by 1% specifically to put more funding into the NHS. Within the NICs system there is, as Members across the House will know, already a long-standing ring-fenced proportion of receipts directed to the NHS.

The second reason is that this is a fair method. Businesses will play their part. In fact, the largest 1% of businesses will contribute 70% of the revenue. However, existing NICs reliefs and allowances will also apply to the levy. That will mean, as I have said, that 40% of all businesses will not be affected due to the employment allowance. When it comes to individuals, those earning more will pay more. Conversely, at least 6.2 million people earning less than the NICs primary threshold will not pay the levy at all.

The third reason why a levy based on NICs is the right approach is that it has worked elsewhere. France, Germany and Japan have all increased social security contributions to fund social care provision. Finally, the question of how to fund health and social care is one that applies to a whole nation. NICs are set on a UK-wide basis, and the levy therefore provides a clear UK-wide solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Betts]

I bring my hon. Friend back to paragraph 36, which I asked the Minister about, which seems absolutely key. There is no clear money coming from the levy to social care. That is what the Government said. I think the Minister said it would all be revealed in the spending review. Paragraph 36 states:

“The Government will ensure Local Authorities have access to sustainable funding for core budgets at the Spending Review. We expect demographic and unit cost pressures will be met through Council Tax, social care precept”.

On top of all the other hits that working families are going to get, can they expect an above-inflation rise in their council tax next year to pay for the Government’s failure to fund social care properly?

[Rachel Reeves]

I think many councils and the people who work for them and provide social care at a local level will be incredibly worried about what they are hearing from this Government, which is that council costs are going to go up while they are getting no additional money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow]

We will not approach the backlog unless we have the money and capacity to fund it, and that needs to go hand in hand with what I said about innovation, new pathways and new ways of working. I remember talking to someone who told me that we had three years’ worth of innovation in the NHS in just three months because of the pandemic. New ways of working and new pathways were adopted.

Every time we talk about innovation in our NHS and new pathways—the accelerated access review, the “Innovation Health and Wealth” report and a new life sciences strategy all talk about innovation and new ways of doing things in our NHS. But those new ways of doing things need to be spread at pace and at scale. There is no excuse not to do it now. If it works in one part of the NHS, it will work in another. Culturally, the NHS needs to grasp the nettle and spread that innovation and new ways of doing things so that we can get productivity and outcomes for patients. Now is the time to do it.

[Mr Betts]

The Health and Social Care Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, estimated last autumn that there was a £3.9 billion funding gap in social care. I assume that he agreed with that report. Can he explain, therefore, how this levy will deliver £3.9 billion a year for social care? I have not seen any figures showing that at all.

[Paul Bristow]

Having no plan will not provide the £3.9 billion, and Labour Members have indicated today that there is no plan.

This is a significant tax increase. I am a Conservative, so I do not like tax increases, but I also understand that an enormous thing happened between the manifesto and now. There has been a global pandemic, and Labour Members seem to have missed that fact. We need to shorten waiting lists, we need to do something about it and we need to correct it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is pretty obvious that there has been a major funding crisis in local government over the past 10 years. Local councils have had bigger cuts to their budgets than any other part of the public sector, around 30%.

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of local government, unlike the Minister, who barely acknowledged its existence. Does he agree that the last decade of ideological austerity and cuts by this Government has meant that local government budgets have been slashed by up to 50%, directly contributing to this crisis?

[Mr Betts]

I have made my position clear on the extent to which local government has been unfairly cut compared with other parts of the public sector.

Across the piece, local councils of all political persuasions have done a brilliant job of protecting their communities over the past few years. They have done it by giving priority to social care, but that has still meant real-terms cuts due to the demographics, with more older people, with people with learning disabilities living longer and with increased costs and demand for children’s social care—demand for the latter two has gone up faster than the demand for elderly care over the past few years.

In protecting social care, there have still been real-terms cuts. There are 1 million more elderly people not getting care who would have received it in the past. Other services, such as parks, libraries, buses and highway safety, have all been cut by up to 50% in local authorities across the country. We are repeatedly asking our constituents to pay increased council tax, often for care services they are not receiving, when the services they do receive are being cut to shreds. That is the reality.

As representatives of both parties in the local government sector said to the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, we cannot sort out the funding problems in local government without sorting out the funding problems in social care. That is the reality.

We are in the middle of a Select Committee inquiry, and we will be taking evidence from Ministers. I hope they will start to explain to us how the care plan will solve that problem. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee have received estimates that the funding gap for social care alone is between £2.5 billion and £4 billion a year, which does nothing to restore services to the level they should be at or to address the real problems of low pay, which will eventually destroy the service because it will not be able to recruit people as alternative jobs, such as at Amazon, pay so much more. That is simply the reality.

How much money will come from the levy? Paragraph 30 is the only bit that talks about money: £5.5 billion over three years. The gap is between £2.5 billion and £4 billion a year, yet we know the £5.5 billion has to fund: the cap and floor system, which will be at least half of it, maybe more; and the £500 million for workforce training, which is welcome. The money goes nowhere near funding the current gap, let alone bringing about any improvements or bringing people into the social care system who are currently excluded. It just does not do it.

The Government have said they will

“ensure local authorities have access to sustainable funding for core budgets at the spending review”.

All will be revealed in the spending review, but the key bit is that the Government say they expect

“demographic and unit cost pressures”

will be met

“through council tax, social care precept”.

We have had 5% council tax increases year on year, and a lot of it has been to fund social care, so we are going to get above-inflation council tax increases again, are we? If we say national insurance payments are regressive, council tax is now regressive, too. That is the reality.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Betts]

Yes, I will give way, because I think the hon. Gentleman will ask me about the Select Committee’s 2018 report. Am I correct?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As always, he is making some very good points. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with him on the Select Committee.

We did two reports on social care, and we made a recommendation in 2018 to fund social care through the national insurance system. Does the hon. Gentleman still support that recommendation?

[Mr Betts]

Yes. However, may I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it was a slightly different recommendation from what the Government are proposing now? I have our report here, just by chance—I thought I might be asked the question. We talked about the rate at which national insurance would be paid—this was to cover the points that the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made about low-paid areas. We talked about paying right the way up the income scale. We talked about extending it to pensions and unearned income, and about it not being paid for by the under-40s, who have been really badly hit by this pandemic, and we ought to be doing our best to protect them. In paragraph 95, we also made the important point that people should not have to sell their homes to pay for social care and proposed instead

“that a specified additional amount of Inheritance Tax should be levied”.

We all agreed to that. That system is a lot fairer; people would pay according to the value of their home and it would not be that people in constituencies such as the right hon. Gentleman’s, where house prices are relatively low, end up paying a bigger percentage of the value of their home to fund care than people in areas with higher house prices. I stand by that recommendation. It is a different proposal from the one the Government are now putting forward.

I want to come back to the point for the Minister. There is a crisis in social care, and we have all got that; we all have constituents come to us begging for social care. They are really concerned about having to sell their home, but sometimes it is about not being able to get into a care home or get the care at home they need. Most social care should be delivered in the home where people live. The reality is that there simply is not a proposal in this so-called “plan” to give local authorities that money that is needed to both fund the existing gap and to extend social care to the many people who have been denied it because of the cuts in the past few years. Furthermore, the alternatives will be: bigger rises in council tax—the Government have almost signalled that in this report; or further devastating cuts to other services received by most of our constituents, who do not get social care but have to pay for it. This is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, when it works through, everyone will see that there is no plan for social care here, because there is no funding for social care that will deliver the sort of social care system we all want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I will come to the points on devolution and happily give way at that stage, but let me just deal with the Opposition amendment, which requests a distributional impact assessment. As we have covered, that has been set out today. The Government have already published a document on the impact of our health and social care plan on households, looking at the impact of the new spending and the levy, with a full distributional analysis being published at the Budget and spending review.

As for the impact on businesses, businesses will play their part in funding this plan. However, existing national insurance contribution reliefs and allowances will also apply to the levy. This means that 40% of all businesses will not be affected due to the employment allowance, and it allows eligible employees to reduce their national insurance liability by up to £4,000. Again, that point was brought out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who highlighted the impact on business and the fact that businesses, with 1% of the highest turnover, will cover 70% of the cost.

[Mr Betts]

I think the right hon. Gentleman probably knows which point I am going to raise. I am very interested in the impact on local authorities. Out of the £36 billion that will be raised over three years, how much extra money will go to local authorities after the costs of the “cap and floor” system have been taken into account? How much extra money over three years will go to local authorities out of the £36 billion?

[Steve Barclay]

I listened very closely to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, because he is a very informed and knowledgeable commentator on these issues. He rightly pointed to paragraph 36, where we are being very clear about the role in terms of demographic and unit pressure. As he well knows, part of the discussion at a spending review is to look at local government pressures in the round. That is in the context that local authorities are getting an additional £2.2 billion of funding. I remind the House, in terms of the adult social care flexibility that was allowed for councils this year, that out of the 152 local authorities, less than two thirds actually used that flexibility. That is part of looking at these issues in context.

Let me come to the central point put forward by the Scottish National party, which was very well demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). All parts of the United Kingdom need a long-term solution to fund health and social care. The Scottish Government’s independent review of adult social care recently noted—[Interruption.] I am quoting from their own review. I thought they would want to hear that. It stated that

“Scotland’s ageing demography means that more money will need to be spent on adult social care over the long term”—

and its recommendations to the Scottish Government are that this would

“require a long-term and substantial uplift in adult social care funding.”

In fact, in 2002, John Swinney said that a 1% increase was

“progressive taxation…required to invest in the health service in Scotland”.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 18 April 2002; c. 8005.]

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. He is right—I think the average aid spending of the last Labour Government was 0.36%, so it will be sufficiently ahead of that. As I said, we intend to return to this over time when the fiscal situation allows. He will appreciate better than others the unbelievable uncertainty at the moment, but that is our intention.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]]

May I declare an interest in this question, as I suffer from myeloma, a form of blood cancer?

We all recognise and applaud the incredible work that the NHS and its staff have done for us all in the past few months. In terms of the future, does the Chancellor recognise, however, that much research for cancer is funded by charitable donations, which have fallen significantly during recent months for reasons that everyone can understand? To ensure that treatments continue to improve in the future, will he agree to fully fund cancer research to make up the difference in charitable donations, at least for the next few years?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that it is a topic on which he speaks passionately. He will be pleased to know more generally about our record spending on R&D next year of just shy of £15 billion; the exact allocation is for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but there is a significant increase for basic research. Also, within the Department of Health and Social Care Budget settlement, there is about £1.3 billion to fund research for the National Institute for Health Research and Genomics England—both of which do a fantastic job, and I am sure will be working on treatments for us all for many years to come.

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will go a little bit further and compliment some of the Tory Members who have stood up as part of Greater Manchester, and I will be incredibly disappointed if what I have seen over the past 24 hours results in this becoming a party political fight. Because in Greater Manchester, despite what the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary were trying to suggest, we were united in trying to support our citizens across the conurbation in doing the right thing, bringing the virus rate down and supporting our economy. I hope we can continue to do that. I hope we do not get distracted by messages that are not in the motion, and I absolutely hope the Prime Minister does the right thing, because this is not just about Greater Manchester—this is coming to a town near you. In so many areas now, the R number is increasing. So many areas are in tier 2; so many areas are going to go into tier 3. This is a marker to ensure that our economy survives through those problems.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On that point about coming to a town near you: it is indeed coming to cities and towns in the Sheffield city region, it was announced today. The package of assistance is totally inadequate. It is nothing like what the leaders and the Mayor asked for. It is exactly the same as has been offered to other areas—the standard package. It is not locally negotiated; it is the standard package. As the leader of Rotherham said, “They put lots of civil servants into a room with us to tell us what we couldn’t have.” That is actually what has been happening in the negotiations.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his insight. Many of the local leaders I have heard from have said that it felt like they had been blackmailed and pressurised into taking a deal. Greater Manchester and the Mayor were not just trying arbitrarily to get more than somewhere else. We put a package together based on the needs of our city, our conurbation, our lowest-paid and the businesses that needed the support. It was not a bargaining chip to get this or that; it was about making sure that there was a floor that meant people were given the support that, by the way, this Government promised. They promised that support, and we are just asking them to keep to their promise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I will make a little progress and then of course I will give way.

In taking forward the targeted action plan that the Prime Minister has set out, we recognise that there will be significant local economic impacts, particularly for the areas in tier 3. That is why the Government have set out a package of support, and indeed why, as I say, the Mayors in other areas have worked constructively with it. This package has a number of parts. I heard reference in the shadow Minister’s opening remarks to £8 per head. That is just one component of a much wider package. It may therefore be helpful to take the House through the full suite of funding that is available.

First, local authorities are absolutely critical to the tier 3 restrictions. That is why, in addition to the £3.7 billion of un-ring-fenced grants that were announced earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a further £1 billion of support, so that is agreed funding for local authorities that will be allocated to them shortly. In addition to that, local authorities in tier 3 will receive a further £8 per head in respect of public health measures specifically linked to enforcement within the outbreak management fund. That goes alongside other measures such as the availability of military support, which sits in addition to the infection control funding that local authorities also have access to—a further £300 million that will support localised test and trace services, specifically within tier 3—and the £1.1 billion to support infection control within the adult social care sector. Before we get on to the discussion around business support or the support for individuals through the job support scheme, it is important not to talk about local authority support just in terms of £8 per head, because that is one component of a much wider package of support that the Prime Minister has announced.

[Mr Betts]

I welcome the support for local testing, tracking and tracing. It should have been done months ago: that is the reality of the situation. As regards local negotiations—I put this to the Health Secretary last night and he did not deny it—there are not negotiations; there is a financial package that the Government have decided on that has been offered to all areas that have been put up to tier 3 status. It is a case of saying, “Take it or leave it: there’s no extra money going to be negotiated.” That is exactly what leaders in South Yorkshire have said it is: lots of civil servants in a room telling us what we cannot have. These have been the discussions, not negotiations, that have been happening in South Yorkshire in the past few days.

[Steve Barclay]

There has been a framework that we have used to shape our discussions. However, is this not what the Opposition motion, in essence, is calling for—a nationalised approach? In fact, we just heard an Opposition Member calling for the exact opposite in saying that the Mayor of Manchester had a case that was supposedly better than that of the Mayors in Liverpool or South Yorkshire, so the Mayor of Manchester should be treated a preferential way to constituents elsewhere in the north-west. Yet the hon. Gentleman, who I know comes at this very constructively—I recognise that that has always been his approach in the House—says something different. There seems to be confusion among Opposition Members. Do they want a national approach or do they want the Mayor of Manchester to be able to negotiate something allegedly on behalf of Great Britain? I do not think that was his electoral mandate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

As I have already said, I welcome the extra money for track and trace; that should have happened a long time ago. Directors of public health are the professionals—not Serco—and if we had given them the responsibility a long time ago, virus infection levels would not be as high as they are today.

Let us be clear: there have not been local negotiations; there have been discussions with local leaders about how much the Government are going to give them from a standard package, which is the same in every area. The Government have not denied that that is what has happened; it is the reality. If the standard package was sufficient to provide the help that businesses and local people need, I would welcome it wholeheartedly, but it is not.

Many businesses that are partly affected—such as the breweries mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the coach companies mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)—are not going to get help at all. They are going to struggle and they may have to close. If they close but are not forced to close by Government diktat, then of course help would not be forthcoming. People who are made unemployed will not get the same help that they did under the furlough scheme. How can they manage? It is a simple question, and the answer, of course, is that they cannot manage.

We know that the number of people going into isolation who should be isolating is not nearly sufficient, and the reason is that many families simply cannot afford two weeks without any income. For heaven’s sake, extend the scheme beyond the £500 for the poorest families to those who are on average or below average incomes to encourage them to isolate when necessary, knowing that they do not have to make a choice between putting food on their family’s table and paying their rent, and going into isolation. No family should have to make that choice.

Let me turn to the travel restrictions. What we have been told this morning about going into tier 3 is that my constituents cannot go on holiday in the United Kingdom. But they can go on holiday abroad to any country that will have them. What does that say about helping the UK tourism industry? It is exactly the opposite of what Government were saying to people only a few weeks ago: “Go on holiday in the UK, not abroad.” Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) confirm whether that is the case? The Health Minister this morning confirmed that it was.

Can the Minister also explain what will happen to a constituent of mine who emailed me? They said, “I am already on holiday in the UK. Do I have to come back, because I am not supposed to stay in another part of the United Kingdom once the tier 3 restrictions come in?” Nobody could give me any guidance this morning. This plan is half-baked and half thought-through. Other constituents of mine can walk to the pub in north-east Derbyshire, which will be in tier 2. The pubs will be open there and my constituents can go for a drink in them. They cannot go for a drink in my constituency, without a substantial meal. The Government are giving advice, but they are not actually enforcing it. What is going to happen in such cases?

The most stupid thing of all—I know that the Minister will not have an answer to this because nobody could give me an answer on the Zoom call this morning; they tried to, but it was a piece of nonsense—is that in my constituency during the last lockdown, people got great enjoyment from walking in the Moss valley, where the footpaths run between Sheffield and Derbyshire. When people walk on those footpaths, they walk between a tier 3 area and a tier 2 area, but the Government advice says that they are not supposed to leave a tier 3 area. I asked this morning whether people should stop at the boundary on those footpaths, and then turn around and come back. It is an unmarked boundary, so people would have to look at an Ordnance Survey map to find its location. I was told that that is the Government guidance now—that is, if someone is walking on a rural footpath, with no chance of giving covid to anyone, they should stop at that imaginary boundary, turn around and come back. I am sorry, but it is that sort of stupid, simplistic advice that brings the whole system into disrepute.

Finally, will the Government please tell people the measures by which tier 3 will end? No one has told us yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

We have had a lively, passionate and—what should I say?—vigorous debate across the House. We have heard a wide range of arguments and a considerable amount of passion. It is clear, however, that when we cut through the air being discharged on either side of the Chamber, there is a commonality of values across the House. In fact, the House is united on the most fundamental issues that we face, which are the need to combat this terrible covid-19 virus; the need to protect public health; the need to make every effort to prevent economic harm to our businesses, jobs and people; and the need to protect the fabric of our society. We all share those ambitions.

To do that, we need to do achieve a balance, as the Chancellor discussed last week. In the words of the deputy chief medical officer last night, we are trying to walk “a very fine line” between getting the virus under control in areas where it is surging and incurring minimal damage to the daily lives and livelihoods of people across the country. It was noticeable that the deputy chief medical officer also made it explicit that he did not support a national lockdown, that he backed a local approach and that it would not be appropriate to impose the strictest restrictions across the country. I thought that was an important and telling point from an independent adviser.

For the same reasons, it is clear that no Government, in any normal circumstances, would wish to impose the restrictions that we are discussing today. I can only express my thanks and recognition to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire for the fortitude that they have demonstrated, are demonstrating and will demonstrate.

The evidence shows that the most successful countries in combating covid-19 are those that have adopted localised measures to protect their populations. That is why we launched the three covid alert levels for England based on the prevalence of the virus in those areas. Although it is vital that we take decisive action to control the virus where it is surging, as we did yesterday in Manchester, we must also recognise that covid-19 is spreading in different ways and at different speeds across the country.

Covid-19 is a virus that we do not fully understand in epidemiological terms, or indeed in medical terms, but we know enough to say that the epidemiological evidence simply does not justify introducing a national circuit breaker. The costs of such an approach would be absolutely huge.

I vigorously support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), who said that there were weaknesses in the Welsh Government’s decision to impose a circuit breaker because it would put tremendous strain on areas where there had been no great upsurge in the virus. That point was also made by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It falls in fact into the category of being unnecessarily damaging to the economic fabric of our country.

The idea that the Welsh Government have done that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South put it, without adequate scrutiny, is a sharp contrast to here where the Opposition have been vigorous in holding the Government to account, and rightly so. Having said that, it is important to say, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, that these are not virtual costs: every day that a national lockdown was in place would bring very real costs in jobs lost, businesses closed and children’s education harmed. The costs can be measured and weighed in permanent damage to the economy, which in turn undermines our ability to fund our public services.

Let me briefly remind the House of what we are doing to support, in a broad, deep and consistent way, areas that face higher restrictions. We are helping businesses with fixed costs such as rents and bills through a new business grant scheme. We are supporting local authorities in tier 2 or 3 with significant new funding. We have introduced a national funding formula of £1 per head in tier 1 areas with a high incidence, going up to £3 and £8. Of course, that is just a covid-outbreak-combat measure —it is dedicated to a small part of a much wider pattern of programmes of support totalling, as the House will know, more than £200 billion in total. To give the House a sense of scale, that means that areas in high or very high alert are receiving, or will receive, up to half a billion pounds just focused on public health activities to do with combating the virus, such as local enforcement and contact tracing. That comes on top of the £6 billion that we have already provided to local authorities since the start of the crisis.

The third element is extra support for local authorities in tier 3—

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I would but I have been given so little time and have so much material to get through. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I press on.

As the House will know, we have provided one-off grants to Lancashire and Liverpool and will continue to do so for other authorities. Finally, we are expanding the job support scheme: businesses that have been legally required to close, whether in tier 3 areas or elsewhere, will be able to claim a direct wage subsidy.

Let me say a couple of things on the issue more widely before I finish. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) quite rightly said at the outset of this pandemic that it would be, in her words, “completely inappropriate” to engage in party politics on these desperately important issues of human life and human wellbeing. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said that we should not be having “political games”. I am afraid that an awful lot of what we have seen in the past 48 hours has been political games and party politics. It is a terrible, terrible shame.

Love Manchester though I do, I am afraid there is no reason why it should be treated as a special case and any differently from any other part of the country. Every country faces the potential of being struck down by covid and every part of this country should be supported in a proper way that is consistent across the piece. When the Mayor of Birmingham says, by contrast, that he will not put lives at risk, we have to recognise the sincerity and importance of his view.

Let me pick up a couple of other points that have been made. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke of Abraham Lincoln; she may also remember that Lincoln said that the gentleman he spoke of compressed the smallest amount of thought into the largest number of words. I am afraid we have seen a bit of that today.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) called for rationality and a truly national strategy; that is exactly what we are offering. That is what the Government are giving to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) was absolutely right to highlight the danger of theatrics and the importance of our not making this a north-south issue. It is absolutely not that. This is an issue in respect of which we are all desperately concerned to do the same thing: to protect people’s livelihoods, to protect their health and to protect the fabric of our economy and our society. What is the Labour alternative? A national firebreak? A circuit break? We should do everything that we possibly can to avoid that because of the unfairness of striking down areas that do not have high virus levels and suppressing their businesses. We all recognise the economic costs associated with that.

I do not think it is consistent with the Labour party’s commitment to avoid party politics to have descriptions from the Opposition Benches of, in one phrase, “screwing people over” heard in this Chamber, or, indeed, to hear references to a Member of this Chamber as scum from the Labour Front Bench.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I am very happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the package of support that the Chancellor set out in his winter plan will assist businesses in Stoke and elsewhere, bringing back jobs that are viable and supporting them in terms of their cash flow. Furlough has already seen more than half the jobs—from a peak of 8.9 million—come back, so it has served a key part of its purpose. I know that my hon. Friend is also a keen champion of the wider levelling up agenda, so as those businesses bounce back, it will also be important that we work together on that agenda, which I know areas such as Stoke should benefit from very strongly.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the leisure and entertainment industry in my constituency, Cineworld shut its cinema, Hollywood Bowl has written to me about the problems that it has, wanting a further cut in VAT because of the impact of additional restrictions, Peller Agency has had virtually no work for any of its artists in live entertainment venues since March, and Central Travel and Linburg Travel were offered no help by the Government at all because, perversely, coach companies are not seen as part of the leisure industry. Those are effects on the constituency without additional restrictions; it can only get worse if additional restrictions come into play. Will the Government introduce a comprehensive range of measures to help the leisure and entertainment industry? Ultimately, if measures are not brought in, such products and offerings will not be available for all of us to enjoy once the restrictions are lifted.

[Steve Barclay]

I gently take issue with the point about coaches not having support. One of the areas where coach firms have been able to benefit hugely from our response, and to work with the Government, has been in school transport. We were able to secure the additional capacity that we needed in part through the willingness of coach companies to adapt as part of our response. It is not the case that coach companies have been unable to get any business during the pandemic.

On more comprehensive measures, the hon. Member is right that the cinema industry has been hit hard. We were all concerned to see the announcement from Cineworld at the weekend. Together with Odeon and Vue that is 75% of the market, but as he knows it is not simply down to one issue. With cinemas, there is the supply of films—the delay of some of the blockbuster films has had an impact—and consumer confidence. Attendance is significantly down compared with last year, and there is also the impact of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. There is not one single factor, but we continue to work with the cinema industry in shaping our response.

Discrimination in Football

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I think the two go together. We can tackle the ills in wider society by rooting out the use of football as a cloak for bad behaviour in wider society. We must not use football and sport as a way to have intolerance. We don’t want it—get rid of it.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that racism does not merely exist in football grounds; it also exists in the boardroom? Some 30% of players are black and minority ethnic, but less than 5% of managers are. What will she do to require the football authorities to address this issue?

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. At the racism summit I held, there were people outside football holding football to account for not being diverse and welcoming enough. They know the problem. It is time to change who is at the top, because that changes everything.

Flybmi

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

It is good that my hon. Friend notes the importance of Derry City and Strabane District Council’s role in procuring and maintaining the contract, and it is interesting to note the council’s positivity about other airlines taking on the route. I noted over the weekend that Ryanair was offering flights for less than £10 for those who wished to travel from Belfast, although that means making another journey. We are obviously committed to supporting our regional airports, to holding the CAA to account so that it monitors what airlines are doing when they are struggling and to examining what we can do to help passengers to continue their journeys across the UK.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is quite frankly astonishing that the Minister did not mention Brexit in her initial comments, because the company certainly did. Flybmi said that uncertainty around Brexit and the possible costs of needing both UK and EU licences in the event of a no-deal Brexit were factors in its decision to go out of business. Will the Minister now make it clear whether all airlines should be planning for a no-deal scenario and looking at how to get dual licences?

[Ms Ghani]

The EU has been very clear that the UK aviation industry can continue as it is. We have been having good conversations with the EU on this, and we have tabled a number of statutory instruments and regulations to make sure we can continue flying. I just do not buy the argument that planes will not fly.

[Mr Betts]

These won’t fly anymore.

[Ms Ghani]

No, but Flybmi’s accounts show that, as far back as 2014, it was not as healthy as it could have been. If a company undertakes flights that are barely at 50% capacity, it is making a loss. To make an assumption that it is all down to Brexit just does not wash.

Grassroots Football Funding: Wembley Stadium

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right. As the shadow Sports Minister, she will know far more about the challenges than I do. When we compare our facilities with other countries, we are lagging behind. We have half the number of third generation pitches that Germany has and, shockingly, only one in three grass pitches are of adequate quality. Some 5 million playing opportunities were lost last year because of inadequate facilities. With the NHS struggling, schools facing a funding crisis, and the challenge of affordable housing, it is fair to say that we cannot expect the taxpayer to find the resources for this. However, as my hon. Friend said, there are huge opportunities for the grassroots in terms of the cash that is washing around the game.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

There are some really good examples. The Sheffield junior football league is the largest junior football league in Europe. The Isobel Bowler Sports Ground in my constituency is part of the Parklife project, funded by the FA and the Football Foundation. It has a great artificial pitch and a wonderful gym, where Disability Awareness with Sport runs facilities for disabled people. That is all wonderful and very positive—as is Mosborough rugby football club, where the Rugby Football Union has come in with support—but let us contrast the £300 million that local authorities spend on pitches in parks with the more than £200 million that the premier league’s clubs spent on agents’ fees alone in the last financial year. Is that not a contrast that we simply should not accept?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his excellent work with the parliamentary football club and with the Football Foundation. He is absolutely right about the cost: £200 million on agents’ fees, more than £1 billion in transfer fees every year now, and the direction of travel is only upwards. I know a levy operates at the moment on transfer fees, but a significant amount of that goes to players’ pensions and academies. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is for the professional side of the game and we are talking about the grassroots. I believe a small levy or a redistribution of existing funds could do an awful lot more for grassroots football.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate today and to make the case to the House for backing the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, ensuring a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union, delivering on the referendum decision of the British people and, at the same time, securing a close economic and security partnership with our nearest neighbours and most important trading partners. I will also make the case for rejecting the calls from those who would prefer to plunge the country into the uncertainty and economic self-harm of no deal and from those who would seek to undo the referendum decision and, in doing so, fuel a narrative of betrayal that would undermine the broad consent on which our democratic politics is based.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said recently that backing the Prime Minister’s deal would be better for the country than remaining in the EU. However, during the referendum campaign in February 2016, he said that a yes vote would lead to “very significant uncertainty” and would have a “chilling effect” on the economy. What information can the Chancellor share with the House that has caused him to have such a fundamental change of opinion?

[Mr Hammond]

I have always recognised that leaving the EU will have an economic cost, but the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated minimises that cost. Our nation is divided on the issue, and I fundamentally believe that we have to bring the country back together in order to succeed in the future. This deal offers a sensible compromise that protects our economy but delivers on the decision of the British people in the referendum. My judgment is that, if we want to maximise the chances of our nation being successful in the future, this is the right way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice. That is absolute generosity. I will press on, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

The Government need to recognise what motivated the Brexit vote. Over time, industries that sustained whole communities around the country have been destroyed or allowed to wither, tearing the heart out of our towns, from fishing ports to mining and manufacturing communities. This week’s report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation should be a wake-up call to us all. It confirmed that 1.5 million people are living not just in poverty, but in destitution, including 365,000 children. If we are to learn anything from the referendum vote, it is that so many of our people want change, and the decision on Brexit is fundamentally a choice about the kind of country we want to live in.

[Mr Betts]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever deal we come up with and wherever we move to on Brexit, we need to recognise those left-behind communities and what drove many people to vote leave, and we therefore need a major package of economic and social reconstruction in those areas, to support them?

[John McDonnell]

We need a major package, but one of the key criteria of that package is that it has to go beyond London and the south-east. It has to ensure that we invest in our regions, coastal towns and small towns—not just the cities. It has to bring everyone with us, as the result of a prosperous economy where prosperity is shared by everybody.

Labour has set out our stall. We stand for change, for an economy that works collaboratively and closely alongside our European partners, for an economy that invests in all the regions and nations of the UK, and for higher wages, driven by investment in skills and greater trade union rights. That is what our proposal embodies. I firmly hope that Members will agree to reject the prospect of no deal. Let us accept that the Prime Minister’s deal will not protect our economy and has to be rejected. Let us work together to secure the long-term interests and future prosperity of our country and our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the referendum, Sheffield voted 51% to 49% to leave. My constituency voted two to one to leave. Like the country, the city was split, with the more affluent western parts voting to remain and the poorer eastern part voting to leave. Whatever happens with this deal and the vote on it, we have to understand the reasons that led many of the poorest parts of the country to vote to leave. People feel left behind, disadvantaged, and that the burden of austerity has been placed on them unduly. That is the truth of the matter, and we have to recognise that. As I said to the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and I think he agreed—we need a major programme of economic and social reconstruction to help these areas.

We also need to understand the issue of migration, which affected many people in these areas. It is not good enough simply to dismiss the concerns and fears that people had as racism. We should recognise that migration from eastern Europe had real impacts on communities, which got very little help to deal with it—in fact, they got no help at all from the Government. We also have to recognise the feeling that people come over here and claim benefits, having paid nothing into the system. We did not use the 90-day rule in the way that countries such as Belgium did to prevent that from happening. It could have removed many of the concerns, or more appropriately dealt with them.

I think back to Sheffield in the 1970s and 1980s, when we lost 45,000 jobs in steel and engineering in the Don valley alone. Now, with the advanced manufacturing research centre, we have Rolls-Royce coming in, and Boeing and McLaren, and, building on the companies that are left, such as Forgemasters and Outokumpu, we have created new, high-tech, advanced jobs. I will not vote for any deal that puts those at risk. That is the fundamental issue for me to consider in deciding whether to vote for this or any other deal.

Some 56% of Sheffield exports go to the EU. That is higher than the national average. I have had a lot of advice, as I am sure all hon. Members have, from constituents telling me how to vote. Interestingly, very few people have written to me saying, “Vote for this deal.” The Prime Minister has managed to unite leavers and remainers against her deal. I have, however, had one letter, from Tinsley Bridge, an important exporter in my constituency, saying, “Please vote for the deal,” not because it thinks it is a particularly good deal, but because it worries that the alternative is no deal, which would put its just-in-time business at risk. I say to Tinsley Bridge and other businesses that we are not going to leave with no deal; that is not a good reason for voting for the bad deal that the Government are putting forward.

In the end, businesses are concerned about uncertainty, and the Government’s deal is all about uncertainty. It perpetuates uncertainty. Everything is postponed until 2020, at the earliest, and almost certainly until later, and the chances of getting a good deal then will be lessened because we will have given away all our bargaining power. The EU can keep us in the backstop until it chooses to let us go. We will have no bargaining power whatsoever. According to an article in the Financial Times, the path to an independent trade policy

“is one of the most ambiguous and contradictory parts of the political declaration.”

This is an uncertain deal, an unclear deal and a contradictory deal. I cannot vote for no deal, because that is the greatest risk to jobs in my constituency, but I cannot vote for an inadequate deal either. I want a deal that keeps us in a customs union and closely tied to the single market. If we cannot get a deal that protects jobs in my constituency and preserves living standards, environmental protections, health and safety protections and workers right—or rather if we cannot get a change of Government to secure that deal, since no one can trust this Government any more to secure a deal in the interests of the British people—I will, at that point, be prepared to consider voting for a second referendum, so that the British people, knowing clearly what they are voting for, can choose between clear-cut options. If we have to do that, it should be seen as an enhancement of the democratic process, not a negation of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I will not give way again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was clear that we must beware of some of the siren voices on other alternatives, particularly the EEA/EFTA option. We would pay highly for such an option. We would have to negotiate membership from outside the EU. The EU members as well as the EFTA members would all have to agree such a membership. We would have full regulatory alignment inside the single market and have less freedom on future trade agreements than we have under the agreement being put forward by the Government. We would be hamstrung by rules on our financial services—not even able to set the rules in our own City—and we would have full freedom of movement applied to us. It could not be further from what the public voted for in the referendum.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

Mental Health: Absence from Work

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Mr Betts.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing the debate. His introduction was excellent. The subject is important and topical, and one that I am aware of primarily through my constituents, as will be the case for others who participate in the debate. I hope that the Minister will give us some answers.

Recently, I read an interesting article in the Safety and Health Practitioner about this very issue. The crux of the matter is clear: with great respect, we are doing a disservice to those suffering from mental health issues if we make no changes. That is why this debate in Westminster Hall is important, even though many other things are happening in the House at the same time.

We are all aware of the massive impact that mental health issues have on our physical wellbeing, our mental acumen and our ability to cope with work relationships, home life and, simply, life in general. As an elected representative, I am into my 34th year, whether as a councillor, an Assembly Member or, now, an MP. Over all those years I have been very aware of those with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, and the impact that all that has on their life, work, income and whole lifestyle. The issue is so important.

The article is worth reading—it would be time well spent—but I do not have the time to repeat it verbatim in full:

“In the workplace, mental health issues can have a serious impact on both the morale of employees, those suffering from mental health issues and their colleagues who then pick up the additional workload.”

If an individual is under pressure to work but is not able to cope and is doing less, who knows who else will have to do more? That is one of the reasons why I want to highlight the issue.

The article goes on:

“It can also impact an organisation’s productivity and profitability through overtime costs, recruitment of temporary or permanent cover—absence from work due to mental health issues is thought to cost the UK economy £26 billion per annum.”

That assesses the magnitude of the issue financially, but it only tells a small part of the story. Each one of us, as elected representatives, will have individual cases with which to illustrate matters. Furthermore:

“Mental health issues can appear as the result of experiences in both our personal and working lives.”

Sometimes people’s personal life spills over into their working life, and sometimes their working life spills over into their private life. The person who is always happy and jolly in the workplace might not be a happy or jolly person when he or she gets home.

The Health and Safety Executive’s draft health and work strategy for work-related stress identifies that 1.5% of the working population suffers from mental health issues, a figure that resulted in 11.7 million lost working days in 2015-16. That is another indication of how, if we improve the health ability of our workforce, we can save working days and thereby turn around the profitability of a company. Compare that figure with self-reported injuries: 4.9 million working days lost—the scale of workplace mental ill health is almost two and a half times the physical impact of unsafe workplaces and working practices. Clearly, something needs to be done. Perhaps the job of the Minister and his Department is to lead the way. Furthermore, it is suspected that at least a third of injuries go unreported, and the same is likely to be true for work-related stress.

The initiative “Mates in Mind” has identified that the suicide rate in the construction industry could be 10 times more than the rate for construction fatalities. If that estimation is true, we have a massive problem that needs to be addressed. I am pleased that the Government created a suicide prevention Minister—that is a direction we need to be moving in. That Minister is not present, but perhaps the Minister responding to this debate will also comment on that initiative.

In 2011, the then coalition Government developed “No Health Without Mental Health”, a cross-Government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. It was a great idea, but it has not stopped the rise in the numbers of those with mental health issues. The document states how the Government want people to recognise mental health in the same way as they view physical and biological health.

The strategy also set out the aspiration of improved services for people with mental health issues. However, only an extra £15 million is expected to be pledged for creating places of safety and, with respect to the Minister, that amounts to only about £23,000 per parliamentary constituency. That is not a terrible lot per constituency—mine has a population of 79,000; I am not sure about the Minister’s constituency, but the average one has about 70,000, 75,000 or 80,000. If that is the case, that is about £3 per person, which does not really go anywhere towards addressing the issue.

According to the Centre for Mental Health, the financial cost to British business of mental ill health is an estimated £26 billion per annum, but positive steps to improve the management of mental health in the workplace can enable employers to save at least 30% of the cost of lost production and staff turnover. We are looking not only for the Government to do something but for companies to. It is important for companies to accept their responsibility—clearly, if they cut down on days lost to mental stress by making some changes, they thereby help themselves. If they can indeed save at least 30% of the cost of lost production and staff turnover, I say gently that it is an open-door policy and one that should be adopted right away.

One in four people will experience a mental health problem in any year. A common misconception is that mental health problems are only caused by issues at home—no, they are not—so some employers feel that it is not appropriate, or their responsibility, to intervene and provide support to employees. More commonly, the cause of an employee’s mental health problems is a combination of issues relating to both work and private lives.

To conclude, what I have sought today is not only to show in a small way support for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire but to seek Government intervention and help, and to raise company awareness. Companies have a clear role to play and one that they cannot ignore or not take responsibility for. I believe that the hon. Gentleman intended to demonstrate in his introduction to the debate that it is more cost-effective to take small steps to promote good mental health in the workplace, rather than having members of staff feeling like they cannot cope and going on the sick. We want to prevent that if possible.

I believe that enforced lunch breaks away from desks are an essential component, for example. It is all too easy for people to stay at their desks—my staff do it all the time. I was thinking about this before the debate: sometimes we ought to say to our staff, “Girls, go on down to the wee café there and take half an hour, 45 minutes or an hour, whatever it may be, away from the office”, because if they stay to eat their lunch, they also answer the phone. If someone comes in, they speak to them. I am not saying that they should not do that, but I am saying that the two—work and breaks—need to be divorced from each other.

I do not have all the answers but I do believe that we must do more—not because that is good for business, but for the sake of our one in four who are struggling with their mental health and who simply need help.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We are going to have a Division imminently, so it is sensible to suspend the sitting now for 15 minutes. We can go to vote and then come back to resume the debate.