Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that getting more disabled people into work is vital for our economy and also for helping with their quality of life. I am very happy to look at what he has suggested.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Last year, the Department of Health announced £7.8 million for building a cancer unit in my constituency, which of course I was delighted about. However, the money is stuck in the Treasury and the Humber NHS Foundation Trust is unable to withdraw it in order to start the building work. Please can the Minister urgently unlock that money so that the trust can start to build that desperately needed cancer unit straight away?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I will look at what the hon. Lady has said, but I very much doubt that an amount of money of that size will be stuck in the Treasury, because of the NHS’s delegated limits. But let me look at it, and I will write to her.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Third sitting)

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the situation as it will pertain when we move to the new hubs—we are making some assumptions about what exactly the end point of the negotiations will be—will be sufficient to make sure we have a customs regime that works, that is low friction, and keeps trade moving and raises revenues on the duties that we may or may not apply.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

On resourcing, to add to the points already made, I want to double-check this because the first time I saw it I did not believe it was true, but it is. In December you asked for volunteers to be deployed to help plug the gaps in the UK’s Border Force. There had already been an acknowledgment that it did not have the number of people needed and you called for volunteers, which was opposed by Conservative MPs, who said they did not want to see a return to a Dad’s Army protecting the UK. Are you still planning to plug the gap with volunteers or will people be employed?

[Mel Stride]

I will take the hon. Lady’s references to “you” as not meaning the Chair of this Committee, but me. The issue that she has raised, which ran in the press a few weeks ago, relates to an issue for the Home Office and Border Force, not HMRC. It is outside the immediate scope of this Bill. I know that at least one Minister in the Home Office was able to refute those suggestions, but I will not dwell on that in this Committee.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Second sitting)

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am going to call Emma Hardy. I ask witnesses to make their answers a little shorter, because several Members wish to ask questions.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, and welcome. If the Bill is passed in its current form, do you think it will prevent excessive delays when importing freight?

Ben Richards: We represent members in the transport industry. In its current form, it is very hard to know whether the Bill will prevent excessive delays in importing freight, simply because we see so much of the detail being pushed to secondary legislation. That is where we would want to have these sorts of conversations to give evidence and have the discussion. One of our major concerns is that the real crux of the detail of our future system is being left to secondary legislation, where we and you will not have the opportunity to engage in detailed debates about exactly those issues.

[Emma Hardy]

Q Is there anything specific that you would want to see to prevent delays?

Ben Richards: It goes back to what Rosa was just talking about with the need to have a frictionless aspect to trade. That may be through a type of customs union arrangement, but in the Bill as it stands it is simply not clear. It is very hard to say whether this is the right or wrong way, but we know that with the automotive industry, in which we have tens of thousands of members, on average each part in a car built in the UK crosses a European border and our border anywhere from five to six times. Even a delay of five or 10 minutes added into the just-in-time production systems could create significant problems for such industries.

Alan Runswick: Briefly, on processing, my union is unable to say whether the new Customs Declarations System will be able to cope with the vast increase in the volume of declarations that would come under one of the scenarios we have, because we do not know that it will be that scenario. Similarly, some scenarios will require a big increase in staffing, as has already been mentioned, and those people have to be trained as well. Nobody knows yet what the rules will be. There is a great uncertainty about that position, and that means we have to be very concerned about whether HMRC could cope with the new situation to assist with frictionless trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q On the different procedures for delegated powers—the negative procedure, the made affirmative, the draft affirmative and the super-affirmative procedures—in this Bill specifically, do you feel the balance is right? Or do you feel, for example, that there are too many negative procedures, which are quite difficult for parliamentarians to get involved with?

Joel Blackwell: The negative procedure is the default procedure for scrutiny of delegated legislation, and in this Bill that represents that fact; the majority are subject to the negative procedure. Again, referring to the Delegated Powers Committee report, we would agree with the clauses they highlight that they think are negative and should be affirmative, particularly the ones that are what we call Henry VIII powers amending primary legislation. That Committee has always said that there needs to be a compelling reason why a negative procedure would be adequate for Henry VIII powers. Reading the delegated powers note, I cannot see a compelling reason; I think they should be made affirmative.

[Emma Hardy]

Q Welcome. Could you discuss in more detail the proposals you have for sift and scrutiny committees to deal with the delegated legislation?

Joel Blackwell: Of course. At the moment, the Chair of the Procedure Committee, Charles Walker, has tabled amendments that would introduce a sifting mechanism for clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which means that for those SIs laden with those powers that are subject to the negative power, a new European statutory instruments Committee—in the House of Commons only at the moment—would have the ability to recommend an upgrade if it thinks it more appropriate that the negative should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

At the moment that is only a recommendation; the Government is not obliged to follow that recommendation, and we have concerns about that. We proposed in September our variation of a sifting committee, which would combine the sifting mechanism with Committee scrutiny. That is in keeping with what we call the strengthened scrutiny procedure, but many others call the super-affirmative procedure: if you see a power in a Bill that you think is extremely wide—particularly if it involves numerous policy areas and Government Departments—you would say, “The affirmative is probably not rigorous enough; we would like a more rigorous procedure than the affirmative.”

You would create what we call a strengthened scrutiny procedure, which is in essence Committee scrutiny work. It is not just sifting; sifting is one element of that super-affirmative, but it potentially involves the ability to table conditional amendments as a Committee, and the Government being obliged to listen to those recommendations. That was the Committee we wanted to see—a Committee with teeth. At the moment, we do not think the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee go very far, and we would like to see more amendments tabled to the Bill, particularly in the Lords, that would give that Committee more bite, in keeping with strengthened scrutiny procedures.

[Nic Dakin]

Q What is your view on the Henry VIII powers in this Bill and their impact on this area of legislation?

Joel Blackwell: It is a good question. Referring back to Ms Blackman’s question, I think all Henry VIII powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure unless the Government give a compelling reason, and we do not think that that has happened in the Delegated Powers Committee note. The six Henry VIII powers contained in this Bill are not as wide as clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill or the clauses we have seen in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Public Bodies Act 2011. They are constrained merely by the fact that this Bill is focusing particularly on taxation, border trade, customs arrangements and what-have-you. So I think, in keeping with the views of the Delegated Powers Committee, that the affirmative procedure would be sufficient in this context.

However, parliamentarians, particularly in the House of Commons, have made it clear over the last few months that there are issues with the scrutiny of delegated legislation—more so than they have since we have been doing our research. In particular, there seems to be a view that they would like to have more meaningful and effective oversight over Brexit SIs. The sifting committee was intended to be part of that, but at the moment the sifting committee will only look at clauses 7,8 and 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and will not touch the other Brexit-related Bills. If it is still the view of the House of Commons that they would like to look at all Brexit-related SIs then you could, for example, insert into Standing Orders that the new European statutory instruments Committee looks at clauses 42, 45, 47 and 51 of this Bill if it so wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Q On the point of infrastructure, which you raised before—interestingly, you raised a point about state-owned ports—our ports are fully privatised. That makes it more difficult in a sense for the Government to control their development, which is understandable. Have you got any evidence that the Government have taken proactive action to improve the infrastructure around the ports in the light of the potential challenges you are facing? I say that as a Member of Parliament who has a pretty big port in his constituency.

Richard Ballantyne: As you know, the ports industry in the UK is market-led and market-driven. We have three types of port: local authority-owned ports, which operate on a commercial basis in competition with private ports; full private sector ports, or equity ports; and the trust ports, which are Dover, Aberdeen, London and so on, and they are still run on a private basis and pay corporation tax on any profits they make. Significantly, all of them are financially and strategically independent of Government decisions. That has worked. Effectively, the Government have delegated the authority to run the ports because they understand that you need technical experts to manage such things as safety and the commercial arrangements.

In terms of what is going on at the moment, the Government do influence the connections to ports. Ports have publicly owned road and rail connections. Following a lot of lobbying from my association and others, the Department for Transport is undertaking a port connectivity study, which is not about spending any money on connections but about assessing the state of the road and rail connectivity of the UK ports industry, and how we get ports more on the radar when big investment decisions like the road investment strategy and rail strategies are made and Treasury spending budgets are allocated. It is about us, perhaps, rising up. There has been a lot of big-ticket passenger-focused spend, such as HS2, Heathrow and Crossrail. Freight has felt a bit of a poor relation. We are working to improve that, but unfortunately freight does not vote, so it is a challenge for us.

[Emma Hardy]

Q I am so delighted that you said that. I am completely biased, coming from Hull where there are major problems with port connectivity. Is that something you have already given recommendations to Government on, or is it something you are working on now?

Richard Ballantyne: The Department is considering a lot of feedback from the ports. I know Sir John Randall, a former Member of this House, oversaw that as an independent chair. The officials are now working on the final detail. I hope it will make a number of recommendations, and it should be out within the next month. As I say, I think Sir John went to visit Hull.

[Emma Hardy]

He probably got stuck on the way there. That is good news, thank you.

[Peter Dowd]

Q I want to ask a question, Chair, but I am conscious of the interruption that may come. This question is specifically to Mr Windsor, on the information you provided to us. In that document you said,

“It has been commented that the Bill is not as precise as Members would have hoped for”—

I suspect you were a diplomat in a different life—

“in terms of either the areas covered by the legislation or in certain cases the powers vested in the authorities. Also from our understanding this document will have to be read with other documents such as CEMA and secondary legislation which still has to be written which has the potential to cause confusion and thus perhaps hinder compliance from Trades perspective.”

To what extent will compliance be hindered? How extensive, how comprehensive, how problematic will that compliance be?

Robert Windsor: It is always more difficult where you have more than one source to draw the compliance requirements from. One of the things that my members have been used to are the codified laws and regulations that have come from Europe, in particular customs codes and things like that. They got more complex as time went on. Basically, there was a single point of reference, so people would go to that and at that point they would pretty much know what was written, how it could be interpreted in different member states—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

Q I will be brief. That has been enormously helpful for clarifying some of the situation. One of the issues that came up in the previous panel was around the lack of measures in the Bill generally relating to the distorted economies. Obviously, they would be covered by some of the measures that we have been talking about to a lesser or greater degree, but I wondered whether you had any suggestions about whether there should be more explicit recognition of the problem of distorted economies within the Bill or any measures taken beyond those that we have just been talking about.

Dr Laura Cohen: Particularly on the methodology, I will suggest two provisions that are not mutually exclusive; the UK needs to alter the Bill to include them both. The first provision is how the dumping margin will be calculated in highly distorted economies such as China. The UK should be stating clearly that there should be a special methodology for non-market economies. That would allow the UK to keep that option open for China until the WTO jurisprudence is clear. Indeed, that needs to be in place anyway for countries such as Tajikistan and Vietnam.

The second provision is a methodology that constructs what is called a normal value wherever price distortions occur. That is the EU’s new approach, which takes into account a number of price distortions, including several non-market economy indicators and an absence of labour or environmental standards. That can be used against a country, including former non-market economies such as Russia, which I know has been a problem in the chemicals sector. Indeed, the pasting in of EU legislation is an important principle of Brexit, as is being done in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, and this part should be done as a default.

Gareth Stace: In the EU, that became law on 20 December. The UK Government are saying that they will broadly follow it. It would be the easiest thing to say, “That is what happens in the EU on those sorts of economies, and we will do the same”—done! They do not need to invent anything else.

Ian Cranshaw: It is a theoretical debate that we have been having with the DIT about where the risk is. Is the risk in following the new methodology that the EU is introducing or in the approach that the DIT are now taking in going with something that we have been delivering for x number of years, so that they believe they are following something we already have? The EU is moving in a different direction. From our industry the concern was that many of our companies here are EU-based or EU-headquartered, so they want something consistent. Then you have the political debate that we are leaving the EU because we want more flexibility. That is more of a political decision.

[Emma Hardy]

Q This is more of a clarification question, so forgive me if you have answered it in other ways and I have not taken in all the information you have just given me. You are talking about the economic test and the public interest test. How would you propose improving those systems of tests as is set out in the legislation at the moment?

Dr Laura Cohen: First, do you need them at all? It is not compulsory under the World Trade Organisation. Secondly, we should definitely have the text that is in the EU: weighing and balancing the competing interests, and special consideration to the need to eliminate the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition. That would help.

[Emma Hardy]

To put that into the Bill.

Dr Laura Cohen: Into the Bill. Can I give an example on the tiles review? This goes back some of the evidence given this morning. The European Commission contacted more than 1,000 known importers and users of tiles. Only 11 companies replied to the sampling form. No user or user association came forward. After the review was published, the Tile Association, which includes UK retailers and tilers as well as overseas manufacturers, published in its magazine an article saying that when they had surveyed their members a year ago,

“A sizeable majority of respondents were in favour of the tariffs continuing and also believed that the level of tariff was about right.”

The EU—an example similar to Gareth’s—as part of its calculation had said that this would add about €1 to a square metre of tiles. It is not a large amount.

Gareth Stace: We do not have any detail of what that economic interest test is going to be. It could be there on the face of the Bill in primary legislation; it could be wishful thinking that it might be elsewhere. It cannot be that the Government do not know what that might be. We set out in July in a paper here exactly what we felt the economic interest test should be and the weighting it should apply to producers, users and importers and so on. We set it out in firm detail there, so there is no reason why it could not have been in the primary legislation.

[Graham Stuart]

Q Laura, thank you for your evidence; it has been helpful. You said definitively that we will have much lower duties than the EU.

Dr Laura Cohen: We could have much lower duties.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (First sitting)

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Julian Sturdy]

Q I understand about the agreements, but if that existing means did not continue what implications do you feel that would have on potential trade?

Anastassia Beliakova: The intention of the Department for International Trade is now to roll over existing EU trade agreements, most of which accept preferential certificates of origin as a means of showing that the goods come from the EU. If in the future those agreements are not rolled over and there is not the same provision for the same means of declaring origin, that means that companies will not be able to get the reduced duty rate when they export to that market—or, indeed, import from it.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Good morning—it is nice to see you all here. Earlier this week, the director general of the CBI said that the UK should seek to negotiate a comprehensive customs union with the EU. Having listened to all the complications that you have just outlined, would you support that proposal?

William Bain: The BRC is less concerned at this stage with the means of delivering frictionless and tariff-free trade with the EU, but what we do see is the overwhelming priority of the Government to focus on securing that. Our biggest market is the European Union, and it is likely to remain so for many decades to come.

To put it into perspective, our members say that 79% of food imports come from the European Union. That shows the sensitivity of sourcing contracts and supply contracts. For example, some retailers offer ready meals with cheddar from the Republic of Ireland in them, so it is used as an ingredient in products. If we do not get a deal that ensures tariff-free trade with the EU, the tariff on Irish cheddar is 44.5%. On beef from Ireland, it is 38.9%. On Dutch tomatoes, it is nearly 29%. That will have a serious impact on consumers, which is why we have said that, above all, by whatever mechanism they achieve it, the Government should aim for frictionless trade and zero-tariff trade with the European Union. Otherwise, consumers will face a big hit to their living standards.

Anastassia Beliakova: The same principle of having as little friction as possible in future trade with the EU is, of course, very critical for our members. On the specific question of the customs union, we are currently surveying our members—literally as we speak, or at least in the next few days—so, as and when those results are available, I will be very happy to share them with the Committee.

Peter MacSwiney: All the efforts over the last few years have been to remove bureaucracy. SITPRO made it its mission in life to try and simplify trade, and now we are introducing an inhibition to trade in the form of a customs entry. Taking what William said, of course duty plays a part, but even if there is a duty-free element you still have to do a customs entry, and it is hard to see where the benefit of that is. So, I would say that some form of customs union would be useful and beneficial.

Gordon Tutt: From a systems point of view—obviously, we are a vested interest here—the more declarations that are done, the more money for our members. That is why we take a very neutral position on this. But clearly, as my colleagues have said, there are a whole range of issues here, particularly in the movement of goods, which traditionally posed no threat. That goes in both directions—both into the UK and leaving the UK. We need to find a mechanism to allow those goods to move freely, without hindrance and without additional cost to trade.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q Can I follow up Kirsty Blackman’s question about statutory instruments? Is it helpful or unhelpful to business confidence, including the confidence of your members, that so much of the detail—some people estimate that there will need to be about 1,500 statutory instruments—is left to secondary legislation? Is that helpful or unhelpful to business confidence?

Gordon Tutt: Having experienced some of the European legislation in recent years, particularly the way the UCC was written, I do not see that the current UK proposal is any more onerous than what we have seen coming out of Brussels—in fact, in some ways it is a lot clearer. And we do have the confidence here in the UK; again, I can only speak on behalf of my members. We have a very good rapport with customs and with other Government agencies, in that we can actually discuss the detail and get clear understanding, and intervention where it is necessary. So, I am not unduly concerned with what is being proposed.

Peter MacSwiney: I think of the point we made earlier. As Gordon has just said, the engagement is good but the timescales are not.

William Bain: The key point, Mr Dakin, is that obviously companies want to know what the impact on them and the wider industry will be. Having legislation with an impact assessment is very helpful, in being able to explore the pinch points—whether on customs, VAT or the staffing implications. The retail industry wants to see this legislation as early as possible, and to engage with Government about it. We know that this legislation is not amendable in this House or in the House of Lords, so it is even more important that industry has a very strong engagement with it at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Emma Hardy has a quick, mini-supplementary, four people want to ask another question, and we have 14 or 13 minutes—just to give you an idea of how to manage the time.

[Emma Hardy]

Q A quick question. You talk a lot about the need for clarity and time. Even if you were given the clarity you needed in the next couple of months, how long would you need a transition period to be to swap over to any new system?

Peter MacSwiney: It is hard to see the transition period being less than five years, in all honesty, based on experience of introducing systems over the past 20 years. Introducing a system is one thing, but educating the trade and getting the processes in place really does take a long time. It is hard to see that being done in much less than that.

Gordon Tutt: I would support Peter on that. We should not make the same mistakes as with the UCC. There are elements of that that cannot be introduced, even within the current transitional arrangements. We need to be mindful that it takes a long time to get the systems in place and, more importantly, to make sure that they have the connectivity to other trade systems around the world that are often providing this information. Five years sounds awful—and that is the worst case scenario. But if you work on a basis of five years, you can introduce elements much quicker, but some elements could take up to five years to introduce.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q I will try to be brief. The fundamental issue for this Committee is that we must have a Bill that will cope with any scenario we face. It is unfortunate, but one of those scenarios could be a relatively hard border around UK and a big increase in friction in our trading relationship with the EU. If that were to happen, listening to the very good evidence you have given, will this Bill give us the powers and framework required to deal with that and then try and reduce as many of those barriers as possible? Alternatively, will some of these many known unknowns need to be addressed in our proceedings if we are to do that?

Peter MacSwiney: I think it would probably do the job. I have said it before and I will say it again: on this side of the channel, we will get our systems and processes sorted out, because that is what we do. I do not think it will address the issues on the other side of the channel. That is likely to be a bigger problem than what happens in the UK.

William Bain: The key issue for moving goods between the rest of the European Union and the UK is partly customs, but also regulation. The Bill puts in place different eventualities on customs, but it does not answer the questions on the regulatory framework, so that has to be dealt with. Also, these other issues about what happens to the common transit convention, to security agreements and to haulage permits and driver permits all affect the flow of goods. If those are not dealt with in this Bill, we encourage the Committee to explore how they can be dealt with otherwise.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely. We have heard a lot about Marxism and some filibustering speeches, but the real people watching today are interested in cuts to services such as children’s services. That is why I am speaking about them.

We know that two thirds of councillors from 101 local authorities that were surveyed said that not enough money was available to provide universal services such as children’s centres and youth clubs. How does the short-sighted and drastic cutting of the funding that children’s services need help the children and families of tomorrow? This short-term, household budget-style approach will leave a generation of communities bereft, isolated and without the many essential services that are so needed by parents and children.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I wish to support Labour’s new clauses 1 to 3, which call for a review of the change in the scope and rate of the bank levy, the funds from which should be invested in young people’s and children’s services. Given the desperate state of young people’s and children’s services across the country, I am surprised that the Chancellor has chosen to reduce the bank levy, effectively depriving the Government of funds that could be spent on those vital services.

It has now been 26 days since the Chancellor delivered his Budget—his second Budget, and the 10th since the Tories took office in 2010, which is now nearly eight years ago. By coincidence, it is also nearly eight years since my baby was born, who is still my baby despite being eight years old. Every parent wants the best for their child and wants them to have every opportunity to fulfil their potential, but for the almost eight years of her life, we have seen her opportunity rationed and funding for children’s and young people’s services slashed. Sir Roger, I will quickly—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, Mr Owen.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Sir Mr Owen.

[Emma Hardy]

You have been promoted, Mr Owen.

I want quickly to draw the House’s attention to the funding cuts to Hull City Council’s children’s services budget since 2010 and to argue that rather than reducing the bank levy the Government should be properly funding children’s services. The headline figures for Hull City Council are as follows. Spending on children’s and young people’s services is down by £19.5 million, with more than a quarter of its spending power cut since 2010. That is just half of the £37 million that the council has to cut before 2020. The time taken to get a diagnosis of autism is up, with the average waiting time now at 14 months. The number of Sure Start centres in the city is down since 2010. Those centres were instrumental in supporting me when I had my two girls.

[Karin Smyth]

Is that not simply incomprehensible at a time when productivity is such a major issue for our economy? Is not the proven, evidence-based value of Sure Start early intervention with children at the youngest age one of the biggest drivers for improving productivity, and is not cutting that totally detrimental?

[Emma Hardy]

I completely agree. The Education Committee has been looking into fostering. We know that in some of the most deprived areas of society the number of looked-after children is increasing, and we know that one of the reasons is that there is no money for social services departments to support families and give them the early intervention that they so desperately need. It is a false economy to pull funding away from early intervention, saying that that will save money. It will not; it will cost a lot more in the long run.

Those horrendous headlines do not tell the whole story. They do not tell of the worry experienced recently by breastfeeding mothers in Hull who panicked at the possibility that their peer-to-peer doula support would be cut because the council could not afford to pay for it. The council is having to make impossible choices. If it supports those breastfeeding mothers, it will have to pull funding from somewhere else. That is simply not fair.

Those headlines do not tell the story of the child in need who has fallen behind at school and finds it difficult to catch up again because of Government cuts in Sure Start’s speech, language and communication services. The Minister recently published an article in a newspaper complaining about the fact that children were starting school before they were school-ready. Why do the Government think that that is happening? It is happening because there is no money for the early intervention and Sure Start centres that are so desperately needed. Again, more potential is being missed and more opportunity wasted.

As I said in my maiden speech, I do not want a single child to have their life story written on the day they are born. Can we really say that the Bill will create the conditions in which all children can be given the support that they need and the opportunity to fulfil their potential? Does it, as the Prime Minister said on the steps of Downing Street just after taking office,

“do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you”?

Until we can answer yes to those questions, a reduction in the bank levy is a luxury that we cannot afford. I urge Members to back Labour’s new clauses 1, 2 and 3, because the future of our economy, and our children, depends on them.

[Mel Stride]

We have had a very wide-ranging debate. On occasion, we even touched on the matter at hand—the bank levy.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) was very generous in giving way, but less generous and less forthcoming in his answers. He was asked whether he recognised that we would be raising more tax from the banks. He said he would come back to that, but I do not think he did. He was asked why Labour had voted against the bank levy in the first place. On two or three occasions he said he would come back to that, but I am not sure he did. When he was asked whether he supported the overthrow of capitalism, he declined to answer. When he was asked by how much Labour would increase corporation tax, he told his interlocutor to go away and look it up. He was asked whether he was a Marxist. He was swamped by red herrings at one point, which caused my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) to say that he was the victim of too many interventions “on the trot”—boom boom!

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) stressed the importance of a fair playing field, which is exactly what the Bill is introducing for the banks. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the importance of less risky behaviour by banks. I certainly subscribe to that, which is why the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee has been conducting the stress tests to which I referred earlier. They have all been very successful, including one that is based on a no-deal Brexit scenario.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk also took us through the amount of tax that has been raised from the banks under the Conservatives. He slightly ruined it all by saying that he had once written an article for The Guardian, and that he was, indeed, a closet Marxist at least.

The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) talked about the importance of productivity while my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) highlighted the importance of a balanced approach to tax so that the banks could lend and stay healthy. The final two contributions were on childcare support, on which this Government have a proud record: by 2019-20 we will spending a record £6 billion per year supporting childcare. On that note, I commend clause 33 and schedule 9 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9

Bank Levy

Question put, That the schedule be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

Budget Resolutions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The additional funds put in place amount to £1 returned for every £10 that the Government are cutting from the system. This means that those claiming universal credit will now have to take their first payment as a loan, so they will face 12 months of reduced payments. What has the Chancellor offered to some of the most desperate people in the country—those who are already drowning in debt? More debt. The Chancellor had nothing to say for the people who are newly registered for universal credit and who face destitution this Christmas. Not a single extra penny, however inadequate, will be available for the new year. Some 59,000 families will be left without any support over the Christmas period. Those families include 40,000 of this country’s children. The percentage of children living in relative poverty is the highest since records began in 1961—in the sixth richest country in the world.

Local councils are being starved of the funds they need to protect the most vulnerable children in society. Charities on the frontline are clear and report solidly that cuts to parenting classes, children’s centres, substance misuse prevention, teenage pregnancy support and short breaks for disabled people risk turning the current crisis into a catastrophe for the next generation of children and families. A record 70,000 children have been taken into care this year. One in 64 children in England is at risk of abuse or neglect. There are 1,200 fewer children’s centres than in 2010, eight in 10 schools have no funding to support children with special needs and funding for early intervention to protect children is down by 55%. There was not a single penny extra in the Budget to address this emerging crisis in our children’s services. The Chancellor and the Government are failing some of the most vulnerable children in society, and I urge the Government to look again at this emerging crisis.

It goes on. Schools are facing the first funding cuts per pupil in real terms since the 1990s. Headteachers are being forced to go begging to parents for funds to pay for basic supplies. Five thousand headteachers have written to the Government, asking just for the return of the funds that have been cut. One headteacher in the Prime Minister’s constituency is asking parents for £1 a day to help to pay for stationery.

The National Audit Office says that schools face a £1.7 billion real-terms funding cut by 2020. For younger children, there are 1,000 fewer nursery places and childminders. Eight in 10 schools have been left without the funding to provide adequately for special needs pupils. This means that our most vulnerable children are deprived of the counselling or support they need, and spend break times away from their friends, alone. Their education is being discriminated against.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I was told by a headteacher in Hull that there is not enough money for post-16 special educational needs provision, because they cannot cut the number of teaching assistants due to the ratios of staff needed to care for these children. She is looking at of not being able to offer a full-time post-16 school placement for children with SEN. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is appalling?

[John McDonnell]

It is absolutely shocking when, as a society, we are looking to integrate everybody into the mainstream as best we can. It means that those children will be deprived for the rest of their lives. More than 4,000 children with an approved education, health and social care plan are still not receiving the provision they are entitled to, which confirms what my hon. Friend reports.

The Local Government Association is now warning the Government that the cuts to local government will mean schools being forced to turn away students with special needs. Yesterday’s Budget offered £177 million for additional maths and IT teachers, supposedly to make us fit for the future, at a time when just 10% of our schools offer IT GCSEs—£177 million to compensate for £1.7 billion, or £1 pound given back for every £10 taken away. Capital spending on schools is also scheduled to be cut by £600 million over this Parliament, at a time when class sizes are rising.

On the NHS, experts and health professionals are agreed that it is approaching breaking point. The NHS needs proper funding. The chief executive of NHS England has said our national health service needs £4 billion this year to prevent it from falling over. He has warned of 5 million people being left on the waiting lists if there is not additional funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the Opposition do not know what they would do. They have no idea, other than borrowing billions of pounds more and trying to bankrupt this country once again.

What Labour has never understood is that getting more homes built requires action on many fronts. It is the easiest thing in the world to say, “We’ll build more homes”, but it is meaningless unless we address where we are going to build them, what we are going to build and how, who is going to do the building and who is going to pay for it all.

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about where we build homes and the need to get the people to build them. Does he recognise that providing money to create maths teachers will not help with the skills shortage that we have in the building industry so that we can create the builders we need to build properties?

[Sajid Javid]

First, I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the extra investment in maths. If she had been listening to the Budget, she would have also welcomed the partnership that we are beginning with the TUC and the CBI to invest in the skills of the future, and the additional funding to get more skills into the construction industry.

Our housing White Paper promised action on many fronts, and that is what the Budget delivers, with more than £15 billion of new financial support to help make it happen. Over the next five years we will commit to a total of at least £44 billion of capital funding, loans and guarantees to support our housing market, to boost the supply of skills, resources and land for building, and to create financial incentives to deliver an average of 300,000 net additional homes a year—or to put it another way, almost three times as many as the shadow Housing Minister managed when he was Housing Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It might surprise some people on the Government Benches in particular to hear that I agree with several of the major themes of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We have worked together on manufacturing and other matters and would agree on the need for greater expenditure on our defence sector. As a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I was surprised at his conversion to passionate advocacy of employee share ownership—I perhaps did not know about his championship of the idea. There are other matters on which we do not agree.

This is my 43rd Budget so, if I am a little cynical and pessimistic, it is because I have sat through 43 Budgets since I came to the House in 1979. Some have been amazingly bold, ambitious and brave. I remember sitting on the Government Benches during what was not a Labour party-induced economic meltdown but a banker-induced global economic meltdown, when brave men such as Alistair Darling stood at the Dispatch Box and made the right decisions about getting our country through. It is sometimes very important to set the record straight.

All Budgets are usually compared to a magician’s performance. We all know what a magician is like—they take one’s eye off the main business with nice sparkly things and rabbits coming out of hats. My experience is that we can never judge a Budget until the papers hit the doormat on a Sunday morning. That is when we get a relatively mature view of what is happening. Let me give an example. We should watch a Chancellor who switches from percentages to pounds, to billions. Yesterday, I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly said that there would be £1.6 billion for the national health service, but this morning I had the House of Commons Library check what that was. It is 1.2% of the overall NHS budget. So, £1.6 billion sounds like a lot of money; 1.2% does not.

We must judge the Budget cautiously. It is the most depressing Budget that I have ever heard, and not just because of the growth figures or the dire situation that so many people in our country are still in, but because the shadow of Brexit looms over everything the Chancellor said yesterday. It could not be a Budget of passion, imagination, new ideas and real change, because he was hemmed in not only by those in the Cabinet who would not give him an inch if he made any slight mistake, but by the passionate Brexiteer majority behind him, which will not let anyone question this absolutely disgraceful decision to take ourselves out of the European Union. Not everyone on my Front Bench agrees with me, but I must confess that I will fight to the very end of the Brexit process to make sure that we stop it if we possibly can.

I want to deal with four points. First, let us start with productivity and growth. Sometimes, I hear the word productivity bandied around, and not many people know that the definition of productivity is the measure of the efficiency of a person, machine or factory system in converting stuff into useful outputs. We ain’t very good at it. Under all parties, of all Governments, we have not quite managed to become as productive as we should be.

The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks referred to managerialism in his closing remarks. That is different from competent management, and what this country needs more than anything else, in the private and public sectors—running our hospitals, our universities and our private sector businesses—is first-class management. Our universities and colleges are producing too many people with soft social science degrees and arts degrees and not enough managers who know how to run this country, run our industries and create wealth. There is very little in this Budget about encouraging managers. There are some nice things about science and maths, and I do not decry them, but we need good managers and more of them.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend mentions that we need skills for managers, but he will find that, ever since the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was Education Secretary, this Government have got rid of the development of those soft skills—teamwork, leadership and oral communication—because of his ideological focus on fact retention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I hope the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) uses his new-found freedom on the Back Benches to join me and many other Members in calling for the Red Arrows order to be brought forward to secure jobs at BAE.

The short-sightedness of the Government’s continued addiction to austerity is astounding, and the Government clearly have little understanding of cause and effect, but I hope with this speech that I can convince the Chancellor to make a proactive decision that will save NHS England money. On 18 October, I led a Westminster hall debate on transvaginal mesh. Transvaginal mesh has been used to treat stress incontinence on the NHS for 20 years and it is the most commonly used mesh implant. More than 120,000 UK women have had this in the past 10 years. Prolapse mesh has been used on the NHS since 2002, and is placed either vaginally or through the stomach. The draft National Institute for Health and Care Excellence report, expected for publication in December 2017, announces that vaginally placed prolapse mesh must only be used in a research context. We know this is surgeons’ code for “do not use”. Mesh was ruthlessly marketed as a quick inexpensive fix. However, a recent report shows evidence that about 10% of women have suffered complications after surgery.

This week, representatives of the all-party parliamentary group on surgical mesh implants met campaigners from Sling the Mesh. During the meeting, Kath Sansom illustrated the cost of mesh failure to the NHS. Mesh-injured women face the long-term costs of pain medication and removals, but no one has yet realised the extent of the increased health costs because of our fragmented NHS. Mesh-injured women are an unplanned extra cost to an NHS budget that is already overstretched: for example, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust in my constituency has a deficit of £11.5 million.

Many mesh-injured women suffer chronic pain and urinary infections; many have leg pain, ranging from moderate to severe. Some are in wheelchairs, or are using sticks to help them to walk. Risks are serious, they are forever, and they are devastating. Many of these women claim benefits. Some work reduced hours and claim working family tax credit, while others receive personal independence payments or other disability benefits.

During the APPG meeting, Kath mentioned four women in connection with the costs to the NHS. I have just enough time to mention two. Joanne is an NHS administrator. She costs the NHS £180 a month, and in 11 years she has cost it £55,000. Jemima went from being super-fit to using sticks to walk, and is in daily agonising pain. Mesh has sliced her insides so badly that she knows that, at some point, her bowel will have to be removed. She is delaying that by using a special kit to pump herself out every day. It costs £900 a year, plus prescription medication costs of £135 a month.

In her response to my Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), dismissed my call for a public inquiry and a retrospective audit. She said:

“I think it is more important that we get the treatment that is needed, but I encourage everybody to report their cases through the yellow card scheme.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 317WH.]

Most women are not aware of the yellow card scheme, and have no idea how to use it.

We need a retrospective audit on mesh so that the NHS can gather the necessary evidence of the scale of the injuries suffered by those who have had mesh fitted. The refusal to fund and commission such an audit is incredibly short-sighted. More women are having this operation every day, and the level of risk is unknown. We could be adding astronomical costs to our NHS daily as a result of future mesh failure. However, the costs of mesh failure are not just to the NHS; they are to all our public services.

How can Hull City Council provide the support that is needed both by mesh-injured women and other disabled adults when it has lost 32% of its funding since 2010? Those cuts are having an impact on its ability to deliver local services, including adult social care. East Riding of Yorkshire Council faces an increase in adult social care costs of more than £21 million, without the increased budget to pay for it. Some mesh-injured women need supported housing because of their disabilities. Many of them are suffering from both depression and anxiety, which adds more pressure and demand on our already overstretched mental health services. Our councils cannot continue to foot the bill for the Government’s failure to take the action that is needed. The councils need budgets that will enable them to provide those services for everyone.

One way in which the Government could save money for our NHS and our councils would be to fund a retrospective audit for all mesh-injured women. That would save the costs of treating and caring for them in the future.