Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mary Robinson]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all Members for their contributions and for being present for this important debate. Let me begin my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), who rightly described the pensions dashboards as brilliant, and acknowledged their potential to enable people to find the various pension pots that they may have acquired during their working lives. So many people who have lost or forgotten pensions and simply do not know where to go will be helped by this groundbreaking legislation.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her support: she was right to recognise the importance of good, well-run pension schemes. I thank the Minister for his support, and I thank the DWP officials for their assistance in preparing the Bill and for helping me to present it to the House today.

As we move forward with the pensions dashboard, I am glad that we can also put in place the provisions that we will need to protect hard-working people and their savings. The Bill is intended to safeguard people’s pension savings, and I hope it will be able to progress with the support of the whole House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on achieving a Second Reading for her excellent Bill.

DWP Office Closures

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I have family members in his constituency, as he knows, so I am well aware of his constituency. He raises a very important point about satellite offices, but there is also homeworking. We were told that homeworking was a suggestion, but it seems now that the Government want to force people away from working at home into offices—only the Government are now closing these offices, so there do seem to be some mixed messages from the Government. I do thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a very important point, and I hope the Minister will respond to it.

On 16 June, a voluntary redundancy scheme was offered to those staff at the 25 sites identified as being at risk of redundancy. Most of these closures are based on plans originally drawn up in 2016 and announced in 2017, and they are seriously out of date. The sites chosen for closure have, according to the Department, been selected after not just looking at the condition and suitability of buildings, but considering the potential impact of taking work out of locations that score more highly for economic deprivation.

However, many of these closures do not seem to make a lot of sense if their impact on the local economy has been taken into account. Many of these closures are in areas of economic deprivation that can hardly afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. For example, 29 of the 41 processing sites are in constituencies that have higher than the national average claimant rates, and 18 of the 33 England office closures are in constituencies rated in the top 100 most deprived constituencies in the country. I do not call that levelling up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) has done a survey of businesses near the Springburn site, which is earmarked for closure. It makes interesting reading, and I will take a moment to mention what has been identified in that community impact assessment. There are many businesses that staff at the Springburn site use. The off-sales, where people may perhaps buy a bottle of wine before they go home for the evening, and the Chinese restaurant next door, have concerns about the closure of that office.

The local florist is very concerned because the staff use that service, the local pharmacy has concerns about the closure and the local butcher has made representations about the closure of the Springburn office. That is the very real impact, just in Springburn alone, that such office closures will have on the local economy. It seems—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the overriding reason for many of these closures is that the Department for Work and Pensions has itself let the buildings in which it is located fall into major disrepair.

Let me now turn to concerns about the lack of opportunities to redeploy staff. When offices have been closing, Ministers have sought to reassure Members that staff will be redeployed elsewhere in the DWP or in other Departments whenever possible. However, the potential for redeployment elsewhere in the civil service has become less likely following the Government’s announcement on 13 May, through the press and without consultation with staff or trade unions, of their plan to cut 91,000 civil service jobs. The DWP’s decision not to make permanent thousands of staff on fixed-term appointments will, I believe, have come as a blow to staff as well as service delivery.

Under the recent permanency exercise for 12,000 work coaches who joined the Department on fixed-term contracts, only 9,300 have been offered permanent posts. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether those who are not among the 9,300 will be offered permanent employment in the DWP. Not all the posts have been offered to staff in their preferred workplaces, so they face making significant journeys if they want to continue their employment with the DWP.

The current position is that 1,400 full-time equivalent staff are on a waiting list but are being told that their contracts will end on 30 June 2022. Other FTEs have not been put on the waiting list and have been selected out of the process, despite having joined the DWP on the basis of fair and open competition. If this position does not change, it will lead to significant shortfalls in staff in jobcentres and DWP offices, which face staff reductions of up to 5,000. That will lead to increased workloads, place greater pressure on existing staff, and have a detrimental impact on the services that the public receive from the DWP. We believe that it makes no sense to threaten experienced staff with redundancies when the Department needs more staff, not fewer, to deal with higher workloads. If these closures and job cuts are allowed to go ahead, we will face the absurd prospect of staff being made redundant in one area while new staff are recruited in another to do the same job. That would be both costly and inefficient.

There is also the issue of the buildings. I understand that the Department aims to rationalise its estate, taking into account matters such as hybrid working, making offices fit for the future, and considering the green agenda as it reviews existing offices. I am told that all offices will be looked at, including jobcentres, and that the Department wants to ensure that everyone is working in an office that is of good quality.

The employers seem to believe that much of the DWP’s existing estate is no longer fit for purpose. They will seek to leave sites that are no longer suitable and relocate in new premises in the vicinity where they want to maintain a presence, overhauling some sites and closing others where they believe the DWP no longer needs to be located. They also seem to believe that having fewer, bigger buildings is a more efficient way of running the Department, although, as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that will not necessarily always be the case.

However, many of the processing sites are based in buildings from which the DWP will still operate. For example, jobcentres remain in the same location in Doncaster, a site that could easily accommodate the 300-plus staff that the DWP considers to be the minimum number to make a building viable. It will not be possible to sub-let parts of the buildings that it will be vacating, so we question the sense in making experienced staff redundant only for the part of the empty office space that they have vacated to—potentially—become unused. One such example is the Gloucester jobcentre at Cedar House, where only one part of one floor is being vacated and more than 40 staff who are unable to move to Worcester have now been identified as being at risk of redundancy.

The Department and Ministers have claimed that the estate programme is in support of the Government’s commitments on sustainability and net zero carbon. However, these plans are likely to lead to staff having to travel further to work as a result, which in turn would lead to more carbon emissions. No doubt the hon. Member for Strangford would agree with that, given his earlier intervention. It is also worth considering that the DWP is not totally vacating many of the buildings in question but has not said whether it plans to invest in making these buildings more energy-efficient in future. There is little evidence that the DWP is doing anything to improve the rest of its estate. Much of the remaining estate is similarly unsuitable and unsustainable. We also have concerns that not all the buildings the DWP proposes to move staff to will be able to accommodate the numbers.

That brings me to the issue of equality impact assessments. The restrictions on the equality impact assessments have been lifted by the Department and they are now available in the House of Commons Library. However, there are concerns that the equality impact assessments have identified that there will be groups disadvantaged by the closures but said very little about what is being done to mitigate those impacts. The assessments were produced before the one-to-one interviews were conducted with staff facing closure of their offices. It is likely that this process would further confirm the impact on people with protected characteristics.

Women form a significant majority of the DWP’s workforce, on some sites constituting over 75%. There are no tangible mitigations offered in these documents that are likely to compensate for the clear detriment that women face from this office closure programme. People with disabilities, particularly if they impair their ability to travel to work, are likely to face disproportionate impact from office closures as they will have to travel, in some cases by making significant journeys, further to work.

The DWP aims to mitigate the impact on disabled staff by exploring reasonable adjustments and flexible working arrangements. However, this is unlikely to provide sufficient mitigation as the Department is currently not prepared to fully embrace working from home as a redundancy avoidance. I am sure that people in Strangford and other rural parts of these islands have benefited, and Departments have benefited, from staff working from home, particularly those in the DWP, where there was a huge increase in the number of universal credit claimants, for example. DWP staff should be congratulated on the work that they did during that period and should not now have to face their offices being closed and the prospect of redundancy.

In some sites—for example, Hackney—there is a high percentage of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds. The proposed solution inevitably means longer travel at greater expense if they are able to relocate, which is a clear detriment for those impacted. In Blackburn, 36% of staff have been identified as being ethnic minority. Despite this, the DWP’s analysis is that there is no evidence to suggest that they will be negatively impacted. We believe that that analysis is flawed. There are high proportions of part-time workers, who are more likely to be carers, in many of these sites. Again, there is little by way of mitigation offered to those workers.

We are aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the permanent secretary invited a limited number of staff to attend a meeting on 26 May 2022 that they addressed with a presentation of the departmental plan for 2022-25. Once again, the DWP and Ministers have gone to staff without proper engagement with the trade unions. I would suggest that there should be full and proper consultation with the trade unions on the detail of a plan that has huge implications for trade union members, DWP staff and the public they serve. The plan identifies a cut in funding for staffing resources while at the same time introducing more work. It suggests a 12% cut in funding for staff over the three-year period. It also suggests a 16% increase in payments for universal credit, legacy benefits and pensions. This can only mean more work for less staff.

We want to see the Department take a realistic approach to a likely surge in demand for services as the impact of the war in Ukraine and the fall-out from the pandemic devastate the economy. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer many of the points that have been raised on this office closure programme and the concerns that we have for DWP staff, who deliver a great service. I hope that she will be able to confirm that there are no redundancies for those staff.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am checking whether anyone else present wishes to speak; there being time, I cannot stop that. Excellent; no Member has risen to their feet, so I call Minister Mims Davies.

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of Kirsty Blackman has not been selected.

Child Maintenance Arrears

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

What an honour and a privilege it is to speak in this very important debate, which relates to every single constituency in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) should be congratulated on raising a really important issue that has great relevance up and down the land, and every constituency Member will benefit from the fact that he has brought forward this issue in an Adjournment debate. I congratulate him doubly because, as I understand it, this is his first ever Adjournment debate. Obviously, no Member can have an Adjournment debate, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, without being blessed by an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I know has supporters in the Gallery and, frankly, across the House of Commons.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It is not an absolute rule.

Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

As time is tight, I will keep this very short. I wanted to have the opportunity to thank my friend the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for all the hard work she has been doing. I welcome the Bill that she has put forward. Experts welcome the Bill, which will clarify and streamline the primary legislation on GMP conversion. It will make the whole process of equalising using GMP conversion easier. For that reason, I welcome the Bill and will be supporting it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

My goodness, that was quick!

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by both Lords amendments. If the House agrees to either Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

Up-rating of state pension and certain other benefits following review in tax year 2021-22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2.

[Guy Opperman]

The Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill is a one-year Bill by reason of the pandemic. Last year, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, we changed the law for one year to increase state pensions by 2.5% at a time when average earnings had fallen and consumer price inflation had increased by half a percentage point. If we had not taken this action, state pensions would have been frozen.

This year, average earnings growth is estimated to be unusually high, distorted by the cumulative effects of a natural economic reaction to the coronavirus pandemic and the response to the supportive measures introduced by the Government to protect livelihoods. The figure for average weekly earnings from May to July—the measure used for uprating earnings-linked benefits—has grown at 8.3%, which is over two percentage points higher than at any time over the past two decades. Recognising this covid-related distortion, the Government are setting aside the earnings link for one more year, 2022-23, and continuing the double lock of at least inflation or 2.5%. The triple lock will be applied again in the usual way for the basic and new state pensions from the following year.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during a Committee stage, I will remain in the Speaker’s chair while we still have the screens around the Table. I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but Chairman of the Committee. The occupant of the chair during the Committee stage should be addressed as the Chair of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speaker.

Clause 1

Up-rating of state pension and certain other benefits following review in tax year 2021-22

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 2 stand part.

New Clause 1—Review of public health and poverty effects—

“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK,

(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010,

(c) the effect of uprating benefits in line with price inflation instead of earnings growth under this Act on inter-generational income distribution and fairness,

(d) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and

(e) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact of temporarily linking the state pension and other benefits covered by this Bill with price inflation rather than earnings growth.

New clause 2—Review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of this Act on levels of poverty among pensioners in—

(a) Scotland,

(b) Wales, and

(c) England.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the uprating next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth on levels of pensioner poverty in Scotland, Wales and England (the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland).

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am just a little puzzled. I understood, looking at the Annunciator, that we were discussing clause 1 stand part, rather than amendments to clause 1. I just wondered precisely what we are doing here.

[The Chairman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very reasonable point of order. Although each part of the Committee stage stands separately, I have decided that, as laid out in the selection list which should be available in the Lobby, we will discuss all matters in one group, especially as this is a short Bill with only four separate matters for discussion. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) is therefore absolutely in order to refer to any part of the Bill during this part of the proceedings.

[Matt Rodda]

In conclusion, these are sensible amendments which recognise the risks in the approach being taken by the Government. They offer a way of providing important information to Ministers and they could indeed alert them to potential problems with the Government’s approach. The new clauses also offer important safeguards for pensioners, and I hope the Government will consider them thoroughly. Given the Government’s dreadful record of playing fast and loose with manifesto commitments, it is the very least we can expect from them.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to catch my eye. I do not think that there will be time for everyone, but we will start with a time limit of five minutes—which, of course, does not apply to the spokesman for the SNP, David Linden.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done in trying to lobby the Chancellor, who appears to have decided that he will deploy the politics of Margaret Thatcher and pit people against each other. Unfortunately, it is my hon. Friend’s constituents who will feel the wrath of that.

The British Government need to face the reality of what the cut will mean for people across these islands. Slashing universal credit will impose the largest overnight cut in the basic rate of social security since the modern welfare state began. It will mean millions of families being plunged into poverty, facing real financial hardship as we go into the cold, harsh winter months. So when the Division bell rings tonight, my party will vote Aye to this motion, and we will continue to push for these cuts to be cancelled. However, it is increasingly clear that independence is the only way to keep Scotland safe from the cruel Tory cuts that only seek to deepen inequalities and poverty in our communities.

Independence will guarantee Scotland the full powers needed to build a strong, fair, and equal economy, while eradicating poverty and supporting the most vulnerable people in our communities. So yes, we will vote for the motion on the Order Paper tonight, but I suspect that the only vote that will truly end the ongoing Tory assault on social security is a vote for Scottish independence in the upcoming referendum, and, frankly, it cannot come fast enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We now have a time limit of five minutes. I call Stephen Crabb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

Yes, a tax that the Labour party raised in 2003. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot have shouting from Members who are sitting down. If the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) wishes to intervene, she should stand up and ask to intervene.

[Claire Coutinho]

Let us talk about taxes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the 2017 manifesto on which many Labour Members stood contained the highest taxes in peacetime—£80 billion-worth of taxes—and that was before the pandemic, so I find it surprising that they are trying to paint themselves as the party of low taxes. I do not think anyone in the country will believe that.

The vision we are trying to present to communities in this country is one of jobs, wages, growth and investment, and those communities are now voting for us because they buy into that vision. Look at people like Ben Houchen, the Teesside Mayor—that is what he is bringing to those communities. That is what people are looking for, and I believe it is the best route out of poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

Of course, the taper rate—which essentially operates as a participation tax of 63%—is an issue that I hope the Minister and the Department look into as they put forward bids to the Treasury.

Let me return to the cost of living. The cost of childcare is really striking. Our childcare market really is broken. Despite multiple Government support and intervention schemes, people still see childcare and caring responsibilities as a barrier to getting into work and a cause of ongoing financial hardship, either because they cannot get it full stop as it is not available, or because of exorbitant costs.

I remember knocking on people’s doors many times while campaigning in different parts of the country, and people telling me that they would love to work but that caring responsibilities were a barrier to their getting into work. That is a fundamental wrong. We have to do everything we can to support people who want to work into work, and that has to be a part of our efforts on the cost of living.

As well as childcare costs, housing and rental costs in my constituency are huge issues that put people at risk of financial hardship. We really need to tackle the issue of affordable housing, and particularly affordable rents. I beseech the Minister when he winds up the debate to tell me whether he and his Department will look into affordable housing and childcare costs as part of the cost of living review, and push forward some radical reform to help all our constituents, as many Members have asked for in this important debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I would like to try to give everybody the opportunity to speak, although it might not be possible. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. With five minutes to speak, I call Naz Shah.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I cannot claim to be surprised we are here debating the scrapping of the £20 uplift to universal credit. As the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) alluded to earlier, the fact that universal credit had to be uplifted is surely an admission that the provision afforded to those falling on hard times was not nearly adequate in the first place. Yet in this moment, when we are told that our economy is on the road to recovery, this Government shamelessly pull the rug from under the feet of millions of decent people. It is morally reprehensible and also bad economics. In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, it translates to 11,500 households, affecting more than 6,000 children. That number includes the more than 33% of UC claimants in my constituency who are in work.

We on the Opposition Benches are the party of work and workers. We do not make work pay through a low-wage economy subsidised by Dickensian social security systems, no matter how many times the Government employ divide and conquer tactics through the false dichotomy of strivers and skivers.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here to listen to how this cut will affect my constituents. She grew up in my wonderful city, and it obviously left a very poor impression on her if she is prepared to turn her back on the 62,000 households affected in the city of Liverpool alone, never mind the many more in towns and cities across this country. Let us say it clearly: this is a grotesque act of levelling down. It is levelling down, not levelling up. Indeed, what is “levelling up”, if her Department is prepared to remove £12 million from the pockets of those in Liverpool, Wavertree, £12.5 million from the pockets of those in Heywood and Middleton and more than £10 million from those in Darlington?

As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did not know the figure for his constituency, for the record it is just over £5.5 million, affecting 5,340 households and 4,008 children. It is shameful. I am sure the penny pinchers on the Government Benches are perfectly aware of those sums, but then of course there are those other sums trotted out by the Secretary of State. For someone with a PhD in chemistry, I thought she would have a good grasp of detail, such as how many hours it would actually take to make up the £20 loss in income. It is obvious, considering the bluster and false rhetoric, that she has no coherent strategy to make work pay on the back of this £20 cut. Ultimately, it represents an act of war on the low-paid and the unemployed. The consequences for ordinary people will be grave: more food banks and hunger, more homelessness and more destitution in our communities. I am sure it will provide ample opportunity for the regular circus of Tory MPs taking selfies at the very food banks their policies helped to create.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes in an attempt to give everybody a chance to speak.

Health and Safety Regulations: Cranes

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we begin the Adjournment debate, I have to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there is an open and adjourned inquest for June Harvey, who died in July 2020. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow reference to those proceedings in this debate by waiving sub judice in respect of that inquest. All hon. Members should, however, be mindful of matters which may be the subject of future legal proceedings, and should exercise caution in making reference to individual cases. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for her courtesy in consulting the Table Office in advance of this debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Income Tax (Charge)

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is always interesting to get a lecture on economic probity from a member of the Liverpool Labour party.

I will start by saying that I am chuffed to bits. I am very pleased indeed. I might not have got my bid for HS4 between Heywood and Middleton, but there is still time for that, and this is a very good Budget indeed. The past year and a bit has been exceptionally challenging for the country as a whole, but now we are on the path back to normality. We are looking forward to a future, and we have a Budget that supports our ambition to get the country back on its feet.

Yesterday, the Chancellor laid out a fiscal plan not just to help larger companies and the structures of our economy but to support SMEs, the self-employed and those in low-wage employment. We want to get our high streets and local businesses back on track soon and nowhere can that be more true than in Heywood and Middleton.

I am pleased to see that the uplift in universal credit remains until October. I thank the DWP and its team for the inestimable amount of support they have given my constituents and many others who face very real hardship as a result of the difficult but necessary decisions the Government had to take to combat the pandemic. Universal credit has been one of the quiet success stories of the pandemic response. Without its flexibility and agility, many would have found themselves in a precarious position as a result of a legacy benefit system that was still far too complex and clunky to cope.

Because of the importance of safeguarding livelihoods, I also welcome the extension of the furlough scheme and the self-employed income support scheme as part of a package of measures to get people back to work safely. The vast majority of people sat at home on these schemes want to get back to their jobs and their normal lives, and allowing the scheme to run until the end of September will give businesses the headroom they need to get their workforce back safely.

There are a large number of announcements for businesses and job creation in the Budget, one of the most unprecedented being the super deduction, which does exactly what it says on the tin—it is actually super. For companies in Heywood and Middleton, it will be one of the biggest tax cuts in their history and it will get them investing, creating jobs and driving our economic recovery.

Reopening the economy will also need to take account of the fact that some jobs and businesses simply have not been able to survive the economic uncertainties of the pandemic. So, with the launch the restart scheme, hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people will be supported back into work. The doubling of the number of work coaches, the introduction of the lifetime skills guarantee to fund level 3 qualifications for all adults and the launch of kickstart to help 250,000 young people into jobs will provide a comprehensive framework for our future prosperity. I welcome the doubling of the incentive payment to SMEs to take on apprentices of any age to £3,000 and the £126 million to triple the number of traineeships next year. With excellent further education providers such as Hopwood Hall College and Rochdale Sixth Form College supporting my constituents, I am confident that they will be well placed to take up these opportunities.

It takes vision and courage to respond to a world crisis with optimism and ambition. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, responded with nothing but doom, gloom and a comedy routine that was, ironically, the least funny bit of a pretty poor performance. Rubbishing freeports, deriding world-leading employment support and talking down the north—maybe it is just the way he tells them, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we go to Sarah Jones, I should say that, after Sarah Jones, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes. But with four minutes, I call Sarah Jones.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to focus my brief remarks on how the Chancellor could deliver growth in south London.

Over many years, as house prices have risen in inner London, people have moved to outer London where house prices are marginally more affordable. Croydon exemplifies that shift. We love having new people, but we are now an outer-London borough with inner-London costs. As our demographics have shifted, so has the need to fund more social care, health services and education.

We have now reached the worrying situation where Croydon receives £200 less per person compared with some inner boroughs, even though it faces the same and in many cases higher levels of deprivation. Other boroughs often place looked-after children in Croydon. We have a high number of unaccompanied asylum seekers, whom we support. We have a lot of old people’s homes. We welcome them all, but we do not receive the funding to support them.

The first item on my list for the Chancellor is that we need a level playing field, so that we can tackle the challenges we face and give every area the same chance. Funding for local authorities must be rebalanced and we must be supported to deal with the additional costs other areas do not have. Of course, the chronic overall underfunding of local government must stop and we must have proper funding for our services.

Secondly, a quick look at major transport and capital investment shows that south London has actually missed out for decades. We know London is a wonderful area. West London has a well-established economy. North London has seen several recent infrastructure developments, such as the hugely successful King’s Cross development and the start of High Speed 2. The Olympics signalled a shift east for some of our economy on the back of the growth of the stadium, housing and businesses there.

What is south London’s equivalent investment? Many parts do not have the Tube, we do not have bike infrastructure and I cannot remember the last time the Government invested significantly in our transport system. I therefore ask the Chancellor to look at investing in our transport system. East Croydon station and the Windmill bridge outside it require major transformation to keep moving the hundreds of thousands of people who every day travel through East Croydon from the south coast to London. Of course, the number of people using the train has slowed during covid, but it will go back up again and that funding will have to be found, so I ask the Chancellor to do that. Perhaps he can also support our call to move Croydon to zone 4. That could be funded by the rail companies in the new bidding rounds. We need all kinds of infrastructure. Either we should have a Transport for London supported by the Chancellor, or he should give more powers to the Mayor of London so that we can do these things ourselves.

Thirdly, we have high streets that are really struggling. Westfield was due to come to Croydon and build the largest shopping centre in Europe, but because of the insecurities of the high street now, and the unfairness between the business rates paid by our physical businesses and those paid by our online businesses, that has not happened. The insecurity of Brexit did not help. So we need the Chancellor to speed up, review and reform the business rates system, so we can have a level playing field. We want to grow our high streets in Croydon and we will, but we need him to create the climate in which that can happen.

Fourthly, we have the very best, talented people in south London, particularly in Croydon, but Croydon College, a wonderful resource, has had its funding cut by a third. We have to invest in skills and education. Finally, small businesses are the backbone of Croydon and south London, and we need to do more and go further to support them as we build back after covid. It is time for south London to be invested in. I hope the Chancellor will support us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now try to go back to the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). Sadly, he has to be audio only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

Just to be on the safe side, I will refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Nobody starts a business with anything other than a dream of what they want to achieve. Many leave a secure job to start a job in something that they adore, to start their own business and to grow it into something that may change their lives and those of many others over the years.

This past year, the pandemic has hit us in a way that has not so much dashed many of those dreams but paused them. The Budget has shown a deep understanding of how small businesses run, and the need to support them through furlough schemes and different initiatives that will enable them to restart and kickstart in the coming weeks and months and for the next few years so that those dreams become a reality.

One of the truths of the past few months has been the brilliant initiative of the kickstart scheme itself. I was very fortunate recently to have a Zoom meeting with Chris Luff and Saffron from our local Watford and West Herts chamber of commerce. They put me in front of a bunch of inspirational young people who are all part of a new kickstart scheme that they are running. They told me not just about the economics and the finances, and all the stuff that we like to talk about in this place, but their dreams, how it was changing their lives, and how it was giving them hope for their futures.

The Budget gives us the opportunity to look not just inward, but outward. I have seen the hope around education. During the past year, we have seen through such things as the Oak Academy the ability to use education to teach people not just the facts but how to inspire themselves to be better and to be different. One of the bits in the Budget that was not picked up on massively was the investment in infrastructure and skills—business skills and business leadership.

I am sure you will be too young, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remember the adverts that used to talk about teaching the world to sing, but I think that global Britain will be able simply to teach the world. Our ability to invest in business leadership, to invest in our young people and, as we have proven in the Budget, to deliver on that means that we can export those skills around the world. We can export leadership around the world, and I am really proud that we can look on yesterday as a way to look forward. The Prime Minister gave an excellent speech on the road map to recovery, but this Budget is not just for the next six months or the next year; this is a Budget for decades to come, and I back it wholeheartedly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid I do remember the adverts about teaching the world to sing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the International Trade Secretary announced that the UK Government and the US Administration have reached an agreement to suspend tariffs on UK products, including Scotch whisky and cashmere. Moray is home to more Scotch whisky distilleries than any other constituencies, and Johnstons of Elgin, which produces outstanding cashmere products. I wonder if there is a way I can put on record how well that decision and announcement have been received in Moray, in Scotland and across the UK, and ask whether the Government have made any representations to Mr Speaker to come to this House to explain what will be done over the next few weeks to get rid of those tariffs not just for four months, but completely.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw attention to his delight at that announcement and indeed to the great attributes of his constituency. I could tell that many Members showed enthusiasm and their fondness for the products of the distilleries he mentioned. Personally, I am much more of a fan—indeed, an enormous fan—of Johnstons of Elgin.

The hon. Gentleman asks how he might take the matter further here in the House. First of all, obviously, he has succeeded in drawing attention to it through his point of order, which, although not a point of order for the Chair, contained a question to which I can give him a very simple answer. The debate on the Budget continues, as the Whip has just announced, on Monday, and then on Tuesday. On Tuesday 9 March, the title of the debate is “Investment-led recovery and levelling up”. I expect that that debate will be led by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That would be an appropriate time, if not for the hon. Gentleman then for some of his colleagues, to raise the matters he wishes to draw to the attention of a wider public.