Finance (No. 2) Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On Sunday, MPs across the House remembered all those who died in conflict. It is now 76 years on from the time we started to rebuild our country from the devastation of world war two. The bombs that rained down during that war caused enormous loss of life. They tore our cities apart. In London, air raids wrecked or razed to the ground some 116,000 buildings, and in Liverpool and Bristol tens of thousands of buildings were damaged or destroyed.

While the war left a mark on the nation that lasts to this day, those dark years were followed by a period of reconstruction and renewal. In 1951, the iconic Royal Festival Hall opened in London as the centrepiece and legacy of the Festival of Britain. In the 1960s, Liverpool built its extraordinary Metropolitan Cathedral, while the iconic Severn bridge was constructed near Bristol.

Today, we are living in very different times, and we have thankfully not experienced such devastation here again, but we share some parallels with our wartime predecessors. As we emerge from the pandemic, our cities’ buildings may remain intact, but jobs, families and livelihoods have been at risk, and some have been damaged by the worst economic shock in 300 years. It is right, therefore, that we too now rebuild and turn our attention to creating a better future for this country and its people. Last month, the Chancellor started that work. His Budget set out our plans for the stronger economy that will allow Britain to succeed: an economy of stronger growth, stronger employment and stronger public finances, with higher wages, high skills and rising productivity. This Finance Bill will achieve that.

Before I turn to the Bill’s main measures, I will talk about its context. Our economic situation has improved since the last Finance Bill. We have moved away from emergency support to focusing on our recovery, which is now well under way. In fact, the economy is expected to bounce back to its pre-covid levels by the turn of the year—earlier than was expected in March—while our economic plan to safeguard jobs, livelihoods and businesses has worked. As a result, we can now invest in better public services, in jobs and skills, and in levelling up the country so that we open opportunity to everyone everywhere.

However, we should not forget that debt is still at its highest level as a percentage of GDP since the early 1960s and is set to pass £1.3 trillion. While this level of borrowing is still affordable, it leaves us vulnerable if another crisis hits, so we must continue to create a stronger economy that can withstand financial shocks. That is why the Chancellor announced a new charter for budget responsibility, with two fiscal rules that will keep us on the right track.

I want to focus on three aspects of the Budget in this Finance Bill: support for people, support for businesses and growth, and some underlying aspects of fairness. This is a Government who put people first, and this Bill’s measures complement the wider action we took in the Budget to support individuals and working families right around the country. We have reduced the universal credit taper rate and increased the national living wage so that work really does pay. We have continued our fuel duty freeze, helping to lower the cost of everyday life. We have announced that public sector workers will receive fair and affordable pay rises across the whole spending review period.

This Bill will improve people’s lives by backing the businesses that generate jobs and growth. In March, we extended the temporary £1 million level of annual investment allowance on plant and machinery assets. The allowance was due to revert to its previous level of £200,000, but as the Chancellor said:

“Now is not the time to remove tax breaks on investment”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 283.]

This Bill extends the £1 million level until the end of March 2023, encouraging firms to invest more and invest earlier.

While the changes to business rates that we announced in the Budget will encourage more firms to grow and invest, the Bill will also help the UK’s financial services industry became even more successful. In the March Budget, we said we would increase the corporation tax rate to 25% from 2023, for which we have now legislated. However, to make sure that our banks stay internationally competitive while still paying their fair share of tax, this Bill sets the bank surcharge rate at 3%. In addition, we are increasing the bank surcharge annual allowance from £25 million to £100 million, a move that will help smaller, challenger banks.

The Bill also supports another important industry—shipping. It does this by making our tonnage tax regime simpler and more competitive, and by rewarding companies that adopt the UK red ensign.

Finally, we should not forget that our cultural industries also contribute to our economic success. This Bill therefore extends the tax relief on museum and gallery exhibitions for another two years until the end of March 2024, and it doubles the tax relief for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries until April 2023, to revert to the normal rate only in April 2024. This tax relief for culture is worth a quarter of a billion pounds.

Tax is of course central to our economic health and to funding the public services that make people’s lives better, but the way we collect tax must be fair and simple too, and the measures in this Bill will help us to achieve that. As Members will be aware, we are tackling the social care crisis with a new UK-wide 1.25% levy on national insurance contributions. This Bill will increase the tax rate on dividends by the same amount, so that those receiving this income will also contribute in line with employees and the self-employed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House just exactly how much of that national insurance increase is going to go to social care?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Member will know that this has been set out. First, the money will go to the NHS, and then afterwards it will be going to social care. It is absolutely essential that we do that. £12 billion will be collected and will be going through to our social care services, as well as to the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Lucy Frazer]

I will just carry on to my next point, which is that there will be an increase in the social care budget in the spending review period.

A fairer tax system also means tackling those who avoid paying their share. A new economic crime levy will help to fund measures that will prevent criminals from laundering money in the UK. It will apply to about 4,000 businesses and bring in £100 million. The Bill also contains tougher measures to prevent promoters from marketing tax avoidance schemes. In addition, it includes sanctions to tackle tobacco duty evasion, which costs the Exchequer an estimated £2.3 billion a year. The Bill also clamps down on electronic sales suppression, a form of tax evasion in which a business deliberately manipulates its electronic sales records to reduce its recorded turnover and corresponding tax liabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. It is important that we nail down the issue of where the national insurance increase is going. The Minister said earlier that it was going to the NHS and then it was going into social care, but it cannot be spent twice, so when will that money be switched, and what level of cuts will the NHS face then in order to shift that money into social care?

[Lucy Frazer]

I find it disappointing when people talk about cuts when actually there is significant investment—record amounts—going into the NHS. This Budget highlighted not just £5 billion for the diagnostic centres the Department of Health and Social Care will be operating around the country, but £9 billion for covid support, and the hon. Gentleman will know that £36 billion was put into the NHS before that—a significant sum. So it is dangerous when people talk inappropriately about cuts. There are not any cuts; this is investment going into the NHS.

Budget Resolutions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have often found myself wondering what levelling up means and how we know that we have got there. I have discovered the answer in the Budget today. It means that the Tories’ ambition is to get back to Labour’s level of public funding in 2010. Eleven wasted years—the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are trying to create the impression that this Government have only been in power for the last two years, and that they were not part of austerity and the years that followed. We cannot return to a system of austerity that kicks the stuffing out of our public services to the point that they do not have the resilience to respond to something such as the covid pandemic. Covid taught us that we need resilient public services—services that we are not only entitled to, but that we so desperately need to have in place.

The Tory austerity years from 2010 saw the lowest annual increases in NHS spending—lower even than under Margaret Thatcher, so she would be very proud of the Government. There have been cuts to police funding; central Government grants for policing fell by 30% in real terms between 2010 and 2019. There have also been cuts to education funding. According to the IFS, education funding from 2010 to 2019 was the worst since the 1970s. Government funding for local authorities has fallen by an estimated 49% in real terms from 2010 to 2018. Our public services were already stretched before covid came along.

In 2010, funding for Sure Start—we have heard a lot about that today—was £1.8 billion. It was cut by a third by 2018, with over 500 centres closing between 2011 and 2017. We now have today’s announcement of £300 million. That is nowhere near to getting us back to where we were with Sure Start. We have had all the guff about wraparound services, but these could easily have been provided through Sure Start—why was it cut? We heard from the Chancellor about youth spending, with another 300 youth clubs. Youth service spending was £1.4 billion in 2010. By 2019 it had been cut to £429 million, and 700 youth clubs went, as well as 4,500 youth workers.

Then we have the 21,000 police officers that were cut. The Conservatives came here and told us that they were going to cut 21,000 police officers but that it was going to result in more police officers being on the street. They closed nearly 600 police stations. In London, they took £1 billion away from policing; when the Prime Minister was Mayor, we lost our safer neighbourhood teams. My local Tories are now campaigning about closures of police stations—the brass neck! The Tories were warned that cutting 21,000 police officers would lead to rising crime, as it did, and now they are panicking and trying to put 20,000 officers back, as was confirmed in this Budget. Like burglars wanting to be thanked for returning stolen goods, they want to be thanked for reversing the cuts that they made in the first place.

It is the same in the NHS. Capital spending is back to 2010 levels—so we cannot not welcome that. We have 80,000 vacancies in the NHS. The Tories cut nursing bursaries. They were warned that that would lead to a lack of recruitment among nurses. We now have 38,000 nursing vacancies—nearly half the vacancies in the NHS. What was the Government’s response after covid—after everything nurses had done? The Government wanted to give them a 1% pay increase. That is not the way to deal with the recruitment crisis in the NHS. There was precious little about that in the Budget. A Nursing Times survey indicated that 80% of nurses feel that patient safety is compromised due to the severe staff shortage. Health Education England is saying that we need £900,000 per year for training to plug the gaps in nurse numbers in our NHS. In 2015, the Government promised 5,000 doctors, but we are 1,300 down on that figure.

In education, it is a similar situation. According to the IFS annual review of education funding, teachers’ pay has fallen by 9% since 2010. Total spending per pupil in England was just over £6,400 in 2020. Compare that with the high point of £7,200 in 2010, under the last Labour Government. Now we are going back to 2010 levels, the Chancellor claims in the Budget. Overall, the most deprived secondary schools have received a 14% real-terms cut per pupil between 2010 and 2020, compared with just 9% in the least deprived areas. Go tell that to the red wall seats! The IFS says that represents the largest cut in over 40 years. The increase in spending in previous years under the Labour Government was 60%. Cuts to our children’s education just highlight the reality of Tory austerity Britain. Under austerity, our children’s education was expendable. Funding had consistently been cut since 2010. Small wonder that the Tories failed to fund the catch-up that our children need following covid and refuse to feed our children during the school holidays.

Since 2010, as part of austerity, the Tories’ strategy has been intentionally to impose a cut on public sector pay. As a result, average public sector pay is £900 lower today in real terms than it was in 2010. For many, the loss in pay was more than £900 a year. For example, nurses and community nurses at NHS band 5 are more than £3,000 worse off today in real terms than they were in 2010. Residential care workers employed by local government are nearly £1,900 worse off in real terms. Ambulance drivers are £1,600 worse off in real terms. Now we are told that the Government believe that public sector workers deserve a pay rise. Will it be funded? Do they intend to restore public sector pay to 2010 levels in real terms? Will they fund those pay rises no matter what is recommended, or will the Government insist the increases are found from within existing budgets, as they did with nurses’ pay this year?

What does levelling up mean when it comes to poverty? In 2010, 49,000 people received three days’ worth of emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks; in 2019, that number was 1.9 million; and in the last financial year, it was 2.5 million. Is reducing reliance on food banks a measure of levelling-up success? Since 2010, the number of pensioners in poverty has risen from 1.6 million to 2.1 million. The TUC found that the number of children growing up in poverty in working households has risen since 2010 by 800,000 to 2.9 million. Working households comprised 37% of those below the official poverty level in 1994-95. By 2017-18, that had risen to 58%. Most people in poverty live in a family with someone in work—a dramatic change from 20 years ago according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Will we see those people levelled up as a result of this Budget? I think not.

Then there is the cut to universal credit. In my constituency, 8,690 households containing 5,383 children will lose a combined £9 million. That is £9 million they will not have available to survive from day to day. That is £9 million that will not be spent in my local community. They will be facing the costs of inflation, fuel bills and food prices that they cannot avoid. The living wage increase does not touch families living on universal credit. It only affects the 2 million people on the national living wage. As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), the taper on that was at 75%. When we take into consideration income tax—income tax relief has been frozen, so that is an increase—and the increase in national insurance, with the marginal rate of tax for people on the national living wage, the change will be minimal. They will be lucky if they end up with £7 a week—not the large figures read out by the Chancellor.

Getting funding back to the levels of 11 years ago is not progress. It is an indictment of the Tories’ record and underlines the fact that we have had 11 wasted years of Tory austerity. Sadly, following this Budget, I think that that will continue.

Budget: Pre-announcement of Provisions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I will not comment on leaks—[Laughter.] The absolute bottom line is that we are, of course, committed to plan A, and there is no question but that he will find that plan A remains the resolute conviction of both this Government and, I believe, this House in terms of how we can most sensibly take the country through the winter ahead. We are not moving to plan B. We are committed to plan A. He should be reassured that we want to keep our economy and society open as we move through the challenges of the weeks and months ahead.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have been here for many years and have seen many Budgets. I have seen the Order Papers being waved on the day, and then the Budgets fall apart over the following hours and the following days, but this is the first Budget that I have seen fall apart before Budget day. We have heard the announcement about public sector pay, but we have not heard whether, if it is increased, that increase will be funded, or whether it will have to come from within existing budgets. When the Government were forced to increase the pay rise for nurses from 1% to 3%, they did not fund it; they forced it to be funded from within NHS resources. Since we are into leaks, will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to fund a public sector pay increase?

[Mr Clarke]

Ensuring that we can move out of the shadow of the public sector pay freeze is obviously something that we are all glad to be able to do. The Chancellor will set out the full details of how that will operate in his statement tomorrow.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I think one needs to see whether these are roles that are driving efficiency and creating savings elsewhere, or whether they are viewed in isolation. That is why one needs to understand the workforce as a whole, where there are overlaps within the NHS but, above all, how we deliver reform, which is something I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is passionately committed to doing. That relates to the point that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on the delivery of reform in order to maximise the value for money of the spend that the levy will unlock.

Finally, we need to fund our vision for the future of health and social care in this country over the longer term. As the Prime Minister said, with proper funding, we can not only tackle the NHS backlog and expand the social care safety net but afford the nurses’ pay rise, invest in the best equipment and prepare for the next pandemic. We can provide the largest investment ever to upskill social care workers and build the modern, more efficient health service the British public deserve.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It seems to me that we are spending this money twice, so can the Minister tell the House specifically how much will go into the NHS from this increase and how much will go into social care? What I am hearing from him is that we are going to deal with the backlog, which will take us back to pre-pandemic levels. That will leave us with a 2 million waiting list, so can he tell us specifically how much is going into the NHS and how much is going into social care?

[Steve Barclay]

Of the £36 billion, £5.4 billion is going to adult social care, with the rest going into the NHS or through Barnett. That is over three years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt]

As it happens, we are currently conducting an inquiry into how to deal with the covid backlog, so I commit to my hon. Friend, with whom I so enjoyed working at the Department of Health and Social Care, that we will certainly do that.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Jeremy Hunt]

I will give way and then make some progress.

[Clive Efford]

I have heard what the former Secretary of State has said about the record on social care, but can he explain what he did to try to prevent the Conservative Government from taking £8 billion out of social care?

[Jeremy Hunt]

First, we passed the Care Act 2014, which put in place the legislative foundations for the proposals that we are now going to fund. Secondly, I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman: the social care system has needed more money for some time. That is why it is so extraordinary that his party is to vote against this Bill.

If we are going to take £12 billion a year out of people’s pockets, we need to avoid falling into three traps—and I say this as someone who has fallen into more traps in this policy area than anyone else in this House. The first trap that we need to be careful of is the workforce. If we put an extra £8 billion into the NHS but we do not have £8 billion-worth of additional doctors and nurses to do the extra treatments, the risk is that that money will hit the ground without touching the sides. That is why we need a workforce plan.

The Health Foundation says that the backlog will require 4,000 more doctors and 18,000 more nurses, but we have not had any workforce plan from the DHSC. I suspect that in the short term we will have to relax all the immigration requirements for doctors and nurses. That will not be great for developing countries, but it may well be our only choice. In the medium term, the best suggestion is what my Select Committee and many others have proposed: we should give Health Education England the statutory responsibility to produce independent workforce estimates and create a discipline, a bit like the OBR does for Budgets, to make sure that we are training enough doctors and nurses. That is the first trap.

Health and Social Care Levy

Clive Efford Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This national insurance increase is a point of no return for the Tories. It is an unfair way to raise the money needed for our NHS and social care, with those who earn the least and the young paying for those who are already well off. It is the biggest single tax increase in 70 years, which will see the highest level of tax paid in the UK in peacetime, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) pointed out, the Government’s own document says there is more to come in council tax increases. We have already had increases and precepts imposed on council tax. When the Tories got caught out because they cut 20,000 police officers, they put a levy on council tax to pay for police officers and this year they put on a 3% levy—£600 million—to go into social care. They have had their hands in people’s pockets for several years now and they have not taken them out.

Let us be clear: the claim that the Tories are the party of low taxes and a small state is over. The argument in the future will be about how we invest in public services and how we value the workers who work in them. People earning as little £10,000 will pay the increase. People who can afford to pay more, such as hon. Members on these Benches, should not rely on them to pay increased taxes: they should be asked to pay their fair share. People who have to count every penny to survive on a daily basis—to buy food and to pay rent, travel costs and household bills—have to budget day by day to live and they will have to tighten their belts, but those of us on higher incomes who could pay more and whose lives will not be changed by this increase will not have to tighten our belts at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) pointed out one of the areas that will suffer most. It is those areas where the Tories talk about levelling up that will be the hardest hit by this tax increase. What of their local economies, with the tax the Government are taking out of those economies that will not be there to be spent in local businesses? There is no levelling up in this tax the Tories are imposing, and there will be less money to circulate in those economies. It is not fair that those people we clapped during covid—care workers, delivery workers, shop workers, postmen and postwomen, and many more who kept our economy going during difficult circumstances—will be asked to pay a disproportionate amount through this tax increase.

There is no going back for the Tories from this day forward. Whatever happened to the pledge the Prime Minister made in 2019 that no one would have to sell their home to pay for care and that he would co-operate across the House and discuss the way forward on how to deal with the issue of social care? That is yet another broken promise from this Prime Minister. If a person is property rich and cash poor, how are they going to be able to avoid having to sell their homes? The £86,000 is a Kensington cap. Outside London, in many areas the cap is far too high and will lead to people losing their homes.

There is no plan for social care in what the Government have announced so far. The Tories have behaved here today as if these problems had just been created and had just emerged because of the pandemic, but nothing could be further from the truth. The waiting list was 2 million before the pandemic hit, and they took £8 billion out of social care. Where was all the hand-wringing and all the concern about social care and the NHS back then? They are using the pandemic as cover for 10 years of cutting public services and underfunding our national health service. How are they going to explain to their constituents that they are being forced to pay this increase to pay for 10 years of Tory neglect?

Ministerial Code/Register of Ministers’ Interests

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]]

MPs make mistakes from time to time and when that is drawn to their attention they apologise and we are severely admonished for them, but it is extraordinary that the new register of ministerial interests has not been published yet, and when Ministers start to double down and reports are not published, people start to wonder what the Government have to hide. Is the Minister saying to us today that no one has breached the ministerial code of conduct and that this is all just a misunderstanding that will be sorted out when various reports are published?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman’s question again betrays what is actually taking place this afternoon. I do not know; I do not have a crystal ball to see into the future. I am in the same position as everyone else, but what I do know is that to make unsubstantiated allegations about people is quite wrong.

North of England: Economic Support

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with the new rules regarding Westminster Hall debates, so please respect social distancing and clean your microphones before and after you use them. Only Members on the call list may be here. This is an over-subscribed debate, so will those due to speak in the latter stages please use the seats at the back?

Bear in mind that, if you are sitting at a microphone and you have spoken, you can move. You are not required to stay for the winding-up speeches, so you can leave if you wish; you do not have to come back for the winding-up speeches, but if there is space, you are welcome to do so.

The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can leave the Chamber to observe the silence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. To allow everybody on the call list to speak, I am going to have to impose a three-minute limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this important debate.

Last year, the Prime Minister fought and won an election on the promise of uniting our country and levelling up left-behind towns such as Birkenhead. As is often the case with this failing Government, the reality falls short of the rhetoric. When areas of northern England were placed under tier 3 local restrictions in October, the Chancellor imposed a cut-price furlough payment of just 67% on the thousands of people who were unable to work; only when the Tory heartlands entered lockdown did he agree to step up furlough to 80%. The message was clear in the eyes of the Government: workers in the north were simply worth less than those in the south. They remain left behind.

The UK remains one of the most regionally unbalanced economies in the developed world. It has nothing to do with accents or geography. There was a conscious policy over 10 years of Conservative Governments to channel wealth to the south-east and sit back while the traditional centres of industry and employment in the north became ghost towns at worst and tourist attractions at best.

Rotherham, once famous for its steel, is starved of hope as the mills close and the jobs disappear. St Helens, which used to be famous for making glass, now has a glass museum with too few visitors. My constituency of Birkenhead is at the sharp end of regional disparity. I represent two of the most deprived council wards in England. Unemployment is above the national average and my constituency can expect far worse outcomes in terms of job opportunities, income and even life expectancy than the people elsewhere in the country. Things do not need to be that way.

This week, the Labour party outlined our plans for the green economic recovery, which offers real hope to towns in the north of England. The proposals call for £30 billion in capital investment to create 400,000 high skilled, low-carbon jobs in just 18 months to provide vital support for UK manufacturing. The Trades Union Congress has estimated that £85 billion in capital spending on rail, social housing and green investment could create 1.2 million jobs in the next two years alone. The Chancellor should take note. To lead us out of the worst recession in living memory, the Government need to exploit historically low lending rates and invest in the high skill green jobs of the future.

Despite the Chancellor’s promise of a green jobs revolution, the UK has committed only £5 billion to green stimulus projects since the pandemic began. In contrast, France has committed to spending €27 billion and Germany more than €36 billion, with countries as diverse as Italy, South Korea and Colombia putting sustainable developments at the heart of their recovery. The UK risks falling far behind.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Damien Moore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank and pay tribute to my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for securing this important debate. He has rightly made the case for better economic support for areas, such as ours, that have been hit hard by the covid-19 pandemic. Back in April, it was the former industrial towns that were predicted to be the most economically at risk. Indeed, Worsbrough in my constituency was given the unenviable title of tenth most at risk town in the country. The number of people claiming unemployment benefits in Barnsley East has doubled over the last six months and we need urgent help to get through the winter.

I will focus my remarks today on three simple asks. First, can the Minister outline the Government’s exit plan for the national lockdown? Last minute announcements by social media and the press have left too many businesses in limbo and unable to plan beyond the next week. We need clarity now more than ever. Secondly, will the Government us the national lockdown to fix the broken track and trace system and give control to local authorities? Test and trace should be run by people who know their areas best. The biggest threat to economies in the north is the spread of the virus and we need to get control of it now. Lastly, will the Government close the gaps in the economic support package and provide clarity on what support local areas should expect if they have to stay in lockdown for longer? Too many Barnsley businesses have gone to the wall and too many workers have been made redundant while the Chancellor has changed his plans from one week to the next.

Barnsley, like many areas across the north, was under strict tier 3 restrictions when the national lockdown was announced. During the negotiations, the Government said that workers in the north would receive only 67% of their pre-crisis income—80% was apparently impossible. Now, however, when restrictions are put in place in the south, the Government have again changed their mind. Clearly, there is one rule for the north and another for the leafy Tory shires. Last week, alongside fellow Labour MPs, Yorkshire Mayors and council leaders, I signed a letter to the Chancellor. We said:

“People in the north are not worth 13% less than those in the rest of the country.”

I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position.

The north of England is full of ex-industrial towns that have suffered, since pit closures, from a lack of investment, underemployment, a declining bus network and poor broadband performance. It is a simple fact that low-wage workers and those on insecure contracts are more at risk of becoming unemployed during recessions. The shutdown of pubs, restaurants and shops has had a devastating effect on the local economy in my area, where a large proportion of the population work in those sectors and rely on less secure and low-paid work. If levelling up is to become more than just a slogan, a genuine commitment will be required.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. You have been disciplined with your time, which has allowed me to relax the time for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes, for the time being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), also a metro Mayor, for securing such a vital debate.

The levelling up of regions of the UK is a stated focus of the current Government, as has been said across this Chamber today. Coronavirus has become the first—and, I would imagine, the largest— hurdle to this agenda for us all. At this first hurdle, the Government have fallen. They have given away the fact that, at their core, they do not value people and jobs equally.

In the spring, when the Government decided to lock down—lockdown 1—under pressure from the Opposition Benches, businesses and unions, they quickly drew up plans to provide 80% of wages through the furlough scheme for people who could no longer work. However, in October, when my constituents, and many others across the north, were plunged into tier 3, along with the Liverpool city region, it was decided that workers needed only 67% of their wages. The Chancellor told us that more money could not be found, but three weeks later—hey presto!—the Treasury suddenly uncovered more cash when we went into national lockdown. Now we are back to 80%, after a sustained campaign by many people—not only parliamentarians, but businesses and trade unions. What hope can we have of levelling up when, in the middle of an international crisis, the Government send the clear signal that northerners, northern livelihoods and northern businesses mean less?

As my Labour colleagues highlighted this week, we can harness the opportunities for green growth if the Government act urgently to deliver the economic recovery that the nation requires. That must include the plan that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central eloquently put forward for levelling up growth, skills and investment in the north through the UK prosperity fund. We must also look at the Green Book reforms that have been much peddled and promised in the media. In my constituency, we also need more investment in hydrogen, which hon. Members from across the House have mentioned, and investment in Sci-Tech Daresbury, with which the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), is very familiar—he was helpful with it in the past. We need more investment with a laser-like focus to drive up prosperity and economic recovery.

We have had enough of second-rate public transport and hand-me-down rolling stock, the talk of levelling up while levelling down to rubble a multimillion-pound college in the Northwich part of my constituency, and the spin of “build, build, build” while the Government’s housing algorithm means 28% fewer houses in the north and more than 160% more houses in London. Any investment in regional economies must be matched by investment in local decision making. We need to harness it is as much as we harness the economic power that the north is capable of. The levelling up agenda must include a radical transfer of fiscal and political power. We lack not just funding and investment in the north, but the ability to shape our fortunes and make change ourselves. We cannot continue to tolerate inequality of power, which drives inequalities of prosperity across the country and the north, so I ask the Minister to consider—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

I thank my very near neighbour, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for calling this important debate at a critical moment in our national story. The border between us is at one point marked by the River Dearne, where it swirls and pools into a beautiful lake in the grounds of the Yorkshire Sculpture Park. I suspect that fewer boundaries between two constituencies in this sceptred isle are more picturesque, although if you come to view it, Mr Efford, look from the south side towards the vista in the north, because the spires of Wakefield are a delight to behold.

In the 2019 general election campaign, the Conservative party pledged to level up parts of the United Kingdom that had long been left behind, such as Yorkshire. Disparities between the north and south have long been evident. In 2004, London’s economy was the same size as the north’s. This year, according to the think-tank Onward, London’s economy is a quarter larger. Certain forms of spending occur disproportionately in London and the south-east, in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. One glaring example is travel. It is believed that it would cost £2 billion to bring per-person transport spending across England in line with London’s. That highlights the shameful chasm that splits this country between the north and south.

In an excellent report, WPI Strategy’s levelling-up index ranked the Wakefield constituency as a priority and 126th most in need of levelling up. More than any other report that I have seen thus far, it showed the extent to which, through successive Governments and failed policies—national and local, of all stripes—the north has been failed. In my constituency, financial deprivation is 27% higher than the English and Welsh average, and deprivation is 21% higher than the English average. From a commercial perspective, there are 33% more empty properties in Wakefield than the national average—evidence of the disproportionate effect that London-centric policies have on the overall economic environment.

It is promising that Her Majesty’s Government have already pledged vast sums of money to tackle regional inequalities. A £5 billion package of new funding to overhaul bus and cycle links for every region outside London has been established. The pledge to create 10 new freeports is another key means to achieve the levelling-up agenda and provide a significant boost to the entire economy, with the first of the freeports expected to be opened in 2021.

The entire basis of Her Majesty’s Government’s approach to levelling up is through providing communities with the tools to achieve prosperity, not simply handouts. There is nothing more crucial to Conservatives than supporting people in achieving their ambitions. The investment that this Government have pledged to boost the number of viable apprenticeships is testimony to Conservative values.

I am greatly encouraged by the efforts of my parliamentary colleagues in helping to level up the north, and have been particularly heartened by the co-operation shown by neighbouring northern MPs from across the House. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central and I have been working together on opening a rail link between Barnsley and Wakefield, which will not only improve interconnectivity between northern hubs, but provide economic benefits for all of Yorkshire. I hope that more projects aimed at boosting the north will be championed and allowed to reach fruition.

Once we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, it is vital that we utilise the opportunity of recovery to reset our economy. To achieve that, the Government need to ensure that their commitments to the levelling-up agenda are met, and that places such as my constituency are given the tools and the infrastructure to ensure their prosperity. I am confident that I and my fellow parliamentary colleagues will hold the Government to account and ensure that they deliver on their promise to our constituents.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before I call Judith Cummins, we have been joined by Mr Fletcher, so I am going to have to reimpose a 3-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I will put the question at 10.59 am, to allow time for the moment of remembrance. If the Front-Bench spokespersons take 10 minutes each, it will leave a short period for Mr Jarvis to wind up, in accordance with the convention. Before that, I call Nick Fletcher.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

It is precisely because we took a generous and universal approach to eligibility for the job support scheme, with its new generosity, that supply chains of all affected industries will be able to benefit. There were some calls that it should only be targeted at those in tier 2 areas, or, for example, only those in hospitality. We have taken the decision to ensure that the new job support scheme, with its new generosity, is available to all employers and all employees wherever they are in the UK. I think that will be of benefit to the industries and businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

There is no change in this announcement for people who are self-employed. A constituent of mine has contacted me. Back in March, she was assessed as earning too much to qualify for any assistance. Her income has now been revised down, but there is no way for her to appeal that original decision. This is no way to treat self-employed people. Can the Chancellor go away and look at these people who have fallen through the net?

[Rishi Sunak]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed that part of the statement; I apologise if it was not clear, but we have doubled the value of the self-employed grants that will be paid in the winter from 20% to 40%, mirroring the increase in the Government’s support for those who are in employment and ensuring parity between self-employed and employed. As I have said, that is generous and comprehensive. With regard to the income threshold, yes, the hon. Gentleman is right; we have decided to target support for the self-employed at those who earn less than £50,000. That is 95% of all those who are majority self-employed. The average income of those 5% who are not included is about £200,000.

Economic Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right, as always, about the importance of private enterprise in driving our growth forward. He is right to highlight a freeport. I know what a difference it would make to his community; I remember that when I met his local businesses they were hungry to take up that opportunity to attract investment, to create new jobs, and to drive up productivity, and I look forward to working with him in the coming months on trying to make that a reality.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

A nine-month cut to stamp duty is welcome, but without an injection of new houses it risks forcing up prices, making it harder, not easier, for first-time buyers to buy homes. This statement should have been taken as an opportunity to inject capital into the housing market, and also into social housing, building houses that people can afford to live in, and creating opportunities for new jobs, new apprenticeships and new skills that people can use in the future, so will the Chancellor go away and have a look at putting some money particularly into building social housing?

[Rishi Sunak]

The good news is that we already have. The Prime Minister announced it, and I talked about it at the Budget: the affordable homes programme will increase from £9 billion to £12 billion over the next few years, a significant uplift in the amount of new housing delivery—180,000 new homes, from memory. With regard to the benefits of stamp duty, the evidence we have both from economists and HMRC is that the majority of the benefit of a stamp duty cut last time around, in ’08-’09, accrued to the buyers.

Covid-19

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This would be a difficult situation for any Government, but there are questions that must be answered and lessons that must be learned if we are to come out of lockdown safely. The large number of fatalities in this country was not inevitable. My heart goes out to those who have suffered a loss. The Government have made a religion of cuts and non-intervention, which led them to delay the decision to go into lockdown. Why did we ignore the warnings from other countries ahead of us in the epidemic? In Italy, lockdown began on 9 March; in Spain, it began on 15 March; in France, it began on 16 March. We finally entered lockdown on 23 March. Only Italy had more deaths at lockdown than the UK.

The lack of urgency was repeated over PPE and testing. We hear of frontline staff terrified of going to work without appropriate PPE. As late as 13 March, covid-19 guidance for care homes was issued. It stated that facemasks do not need to be worn in residential settings, and stressed:

“It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected.”

That guidance was not changed until 2 April—10 days after lockdown. Why was it not changed earlier? How has it contributed to the epidemic in care homes?

There is a worldwide PPE shortage, yet we hear even now of companies in the UK offering to supply PPE and being ignored by the Government. Why did the Government not act earlier to set up a secure supply structure here at home?

On testing, we have had announcement after announcement. On 18 March, the Prime Minister announced that we had a target of 25,000 tests per day. That was not reached for more than five weeks. On 25 March, he said that testing will “hopefully very soon” reach 250,000 per day. On 29 March, the Health Secretary tweeted, “We’ve reached 10,000,” but that was not correct. On 2 April, the Health Secretary announced that we will reach

“100,000 tests per day by the end of this month.”

That was achieved by sending 40,000 tests out in the post, and the 100,000 target has been missed every day since. This is more about media management than giving the public solid facts.

This far into the crisis, why are we sending tests to the USA? Why have we ignored the laboratories around the country in hospitals, universities and the private sector, many of which said they were geared up to answer the call to help that never came? The Prime Minister has changed the message to be alert, but it is the Government who must stay alert. Without an effective and efficient tracking and tracing system, this is a reckless move. It has already caused confusion. People were given 12 hours’ notice to go back to work today, but the detailed guidance is not being published until today, with some further guidance due tomorrow.

Too slow to lock down and secure the supply of PPE and testing; too rushed to end the lockdown in a coherent and planned way; the performance of the people has been superior to the Government’s. The Government must improve if we are to keep people safe as we come out of this crisis.