Fire and Rehire Tactics

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. As you all know, we will need to get to the Front-Bench speakers a little over half an hour before the end of the debate, at around 3.28 pm, but I will not put a limit on speeches as it does not seem that we need one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Tempted as I am to get into the niceties of devolved powers, what I will say instead is that the people of this entire country need a strong Labour Government that will bring back employment rights for everyone.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the scrapping of the employment Bill, which has been promised by the Government on no fewer than 20 occasions, is symptomatic of a Government that do not see this issue as a priority. Does the Minister accept that a code of practice, even a statutory one, will not be of any use if it comes after the event? Does he accept that it would simply be another factor for employers to bake into their calculations? And does he agree that it will not stop fire and rehire happening again in the future?

I ask all those who oppose the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, which was unfortunately blocked, to put themselves in the shoes of one of their constituents. That constituent might have worked for the same company for 10, 20 or even 30 years, giving loyal service and going the extra mile, and only asking in return for stable terms and conditions that remain constant throughout. But then, out of the blue, even though their job has not changed and they have performed their duties well for their employer, who is still turning a healthy profit, they are told that their contract is ending and that, if they want to remain employed by the company, they will have to work the same number of hours, doing exactly the same job, for 20% less pay than they receive now—and if they refuse, they are out of the door without even a redundancy payment. Is that not an injustice? Is that not an affront to the respect that someone who has served their employer for so long deserves? Is that not something that we in this place ought to be looking to end?

We often talk about the cost of living crisis and how wages have not kept pace with inflation for well over a decade now. The obscenity of fire and rehire makes that difficult situation even worse. We know that if someone is fired and rehired and gets a 20% reduction in their pay, they will not be able to get a 20% reduction in their mortgage or their rent, or in their other household bills. What does the Minister say to people who find themselves in that situation? What should they do?

The destructive combination of weak employment laws, opportunistic employers and an indifferent Government is currently allowing hard-won benefits to be stripped away, with a descent into weakening terms and conditions. It is a race to the bottom, which I am afraid has been accelerated by coronavirus. It is time that race came to an end. The Government say that they are on the side of ordinary working people and that they want to level up the country, but how can they do that if time and again we are shown that an employment contract is not worth the paper it is written on?

I wonder sometimes about the level of understanding in the Government about how modern workplaces operate. Some recent examples of their ignorance include starting a petition asking the Leader of the Opposition to call off industrial action commenced by an independent trade union; leaving notes on civil servants’ desks asking when they will come back in—Cabinet Ministers think that if someone if working from home, they are not really working—and, of course, the obscenity of security staff and cleaners in Downing Street being abused for pointing out that lawbreaking was going on. When it comes to employment rights, this Government are as clueless as they are vindictive.

We do not have to accept that this is the norm. We can return stability and respect to the workplace, we can reward loyalty, and we can end the cruel lottery of fire and rehire. We just need a Government committed to doing those things. But let us not stop at ending fire and rehire. I want to see this country becoming a leader in employment protections, not lagging behind the likes of Kosovo, Estonia and Mexico. Let us end the obscenity of British workers being easier and cheaper to get rid of than workers in just about all the rest of western Europe. Let us end the disgrace of this country always being at the head of the queue when a multinational is looking to make redundancies.

Let us end the mindset that as long as someone has a job, that is job done. It is not—security, prosperity and stability are all under threat from this lopsided legal framework. It is in all our interests that we have strong workforce protections. We grow as an economy and a country when we have secure employment. It is one of the cornerstones of a civilised society, and if this Government do not want to legislate to make that happen, then they should step aside for a Government who do want to.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind him that the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) will need a couple of minutes to wind up at the end.

Covid-19: Requirements for Employees to be Vaccinated

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day]

I thank the hon. Member for making that very good point. As I say, it is on a very different scale. It also takes no account of the fact that vaccines do not prevent viral transmission or infection.

The Government’s response puts the position in England out of step with the other UK nations. It is probably the most contentious part of today’s debate, and it is where I find myself very strongly in agreement with the petitioners. By contrast, the Scottish Government have pursued an “educate and encourage” strategy in their vaccine roll-out—a strategy that has resulted in a higher vaccine uptake to date. In Scotland, the covid vaccine is entirely voluntary, and the Scottish Government have no plans to change this position for healthcare staff or anyone else. The Scottish approach advises companies to bring staff along with them and to encourage vaccination rather than require it.

I mentioned earlier the deadline of 3 February for NHS workers in England to have their first vaccination in England in order to become fully vaccinated by 1 April. This is imminent, and I believe there is an impending staffing crisis.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The biggest issue facing the NHS has to be the backlog of operations and appointments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sacking 100,000 NHS workers can only make that worse—certainly not better?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Member has read my mind. She makes a well-put point, which I was just about to come on to. I have a slightly different figure, but the principle is the same: it cannot help the situation.

In November, a Department of Health and Social Care impact assessment found that as many as 73,000 NHS staff in England could lose their job as a result. I do not think we will split hairs over a few thousand; we will not know the exact number until we find out how many people have had their first dose by 3 February. These Government policy job losses would come on top of the long-standing staff shortages experienced by the health service. Some estimates put the figure at 99,000 current vacancies in NHS England. If we do the maths using the figures I have just quoted, we could be looking at 172,000 vacancies in England come April. That position is not going to help the NHS provide care at this time of great pressure. It presents a very real threat—one which may put patients at risk and place further pressure on a significantly depleted workforce.

There are growing calls for this policy to be, at the very least, delayed. Pat Cullen, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, has said:

“We are calling on the Government to recognise this risk and delay a move which by its own calculations looks to backfire… To dismiss valued nursing staff during this crisis would be an act of self-sabotage.”

His reference to self-sabotage is very well put. Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, has said:

“We are in the middle of an NHS staffing crisis, borne not only from covid absences, but also long-term problems that need long-term solutions. Now is not the right time to introduce more bureaucracy.”

The BMJ has highlighted that recruitment agencies are concerned about the effect of the policy on their ability to place staff, as well as the additional bureaucratic burdens of processing documentation, which is likely to take around 45 minutes per locum. I hope that the UK Government will listen to those concerns and the petitioners, look at the example of the devolved nations and think again, before they do serious damage to workforce levels and capacity in the NHS.

On requirements by other employers for staff to be vaccinated, the Government’s response states that

“an employer who proposes to introduce a requirement for staff to be vaccinated will need to consider the existing legal framework, including the law on employment, equalities and data protection. Whether or not it is justifiable to make COVID-19 vaccination a condition of deployment will depend on the particular context and circumstances.”

Some UK businesses have declared that all employees must be vaccinated or face a review of their contracts. The legality of that has been disputed by employment lawyers and trade unions, although, of course, it may be legal if it is written into contracts. For most of the UK, power over employment law is reserved to Westminster; only in Northern Ireland is it devolved. Decisions over companies’ requirements rest with those businesses.

On legal protections for workers, the Government response states:

“In addition to contractual and common law protections, there are relevant statutory frameworks, such as the Equality Act 2010, which provides protection against unlawful discrimination. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides various general protections, including against unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. In addition, collecting, storing and using information about workers’ vaccination status will engage the law on data protection. Employers will need to ensure that they have acted in accordance with their legal obligations when making decisions on requiring a COVID-19 vaccination.”

That sounds like a potential minefield of complexity if ever there was one.

Last April, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

“Employers are right to want to protect their staff and their customers, particularly in contexts where people are at risk, such as care homes. However, requirements must be proportionate, non-discriminatory and make provision for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.”

From an employment law and non-discrimination perspective, the safest route is to encourage vaccination, not to mandate it.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I note that there are so many points that could be made in this debate but limited time to make them. I have only scratched the surface while setting the scene, and I look forward to hearing what other right hon. and hon. Members have to say. I reiterate my main point that an “educate and encourage” strategy would be a better approach and that there is still time for the Government to change tack on mandatory covid vaccination for England’s NHS workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Preliminary evidence about the effectiveness of the vaccination against the omicron variant is still emerging, with data suggesting that vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection and hospitalisation both rise after a booster and, in the case of the latter, goes up to 88%.

For most people, whether to get vaccinated is a matter of personal choice, but there are some high-risk settings in which we believe it is proportionate to take further steps to protect the most vulnerable. Throughout the pandemic, the overriding concern for the Government, the NHS and the care sector has been to protect the workforce and patients. People working in health and care look after some of the most vulnerable in our society, and therefore carry a unique responsibility. Everybody working in health and social care with vulnerable people would accept a first responsibility to avoid preventable harm to the people they are caring for. That is why, following consultation, regulations were approved last year in the House that meant that from 11 November 2021, all people entering a care home needed to prove their covid-19 vaccination status, subject to certain exemptions. Following further consultations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that anyone working in health or wider social care activities regulated by the Care Quality Commission would need to be vaccinated against covid-19. That includes NHS hospitals, independent hospitals, and GP and dental practices, regardless of whether a provider is public or private.

That policy has two key exemptions: for those who do not have face-to-face contact with patients, and for those who—as we have heard—have not had a vaccination because they are medically exempt. Uptake of the vaccine among staff working in those settings over the past few months has been promising. Since the Government consulted on the policy in September, the proportion of NHS trust healthcare workers vaccinated with a first dose has increased from 92% to 95%—an increase of nearly 100,000 people.

[Esther McVey]

I have heard it said that the mandation policy is some sort of nudging exercise, a way to get as many NHS workers vaccinated as possible, but it will not be implemented. If that is true—well, even if it is not true—as distasteful a method as that is, it does provide the Government with a get-out, so please will the Minister take back to the Government all the powerful points that he has heard today and get this policy reversed, because it is not too late?

[Paul Scully]

Clearly, the Department of Health and Social Care will be listening to everything my right hon. Friend says here and in the main Chamber, and indeed all the contributions that we have heard today. But in terms of the policy, the NHS will continue—I will go through this in a second—to encourage and support staff who have not been vaccinated to take up the offer of the first and second doses.

The science is really clear about the benefits of the vaccination. It protects those at most risk from the virus and it has saved thousands of lives so far. Every unvaccinated healthcare worker increases the risk to themselves, their colleagues and the vulnerable people in their care. It is our responsibility to ensure that we give NHS patients and staff the best possible protection.

We recognise the concern about impacts on workforce capacity and the ability to deliver health and care services, particularly over the challenging winter period. I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government, in collaboration with the NHS and the adult social care sector, are taking steps to mitigate that risk and to continue to encourage workers to take up the vaccine. For example, we put in place a 12-week grace period, allowing time for workforce planning and for colleagues who are not vaccinated to make the positive choice to protect the people whom they care for and themselves. The enforcement of vaccination as a condition of deployment in health settings will not commence until 1 April, to assist providers over the winter period and to help to minimise workforce pressures. And we have increased the number and diversity of opportunities to receive the vaccine to make getting it as easy as possible.

Covid-19: Small Businesses in Streatham

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley]

I will speak for two more minutes, and then leave time for the hon. Lady to sum up. I hope that she can come to the point that she wishes to make.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. There is no summing up.

[Lee Rowley]

As there is no summing up, I happily give way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Very briefly, we have reduced carbon emissions by 45% since 1990, more than any other country in the world. We have grown the economy by 80%. We think that net zero and economic growth go hand in hand; the Labour party does not.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

T4. Storengy is a company in my constituency that provides gas storage. It tells me that levels of storage in this country have been decreasing. Can the Minister tell me how many days’ worth of gas storage there is now on a cold day, as defined by the National Grid, and whether he thinks that is sufficient?

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend and potentially the company, but let us be absolutely clear: the issue with gas is not supply or storage, but price. Storing more expensive gas would not lower the cost of gas. We have excellent security of supply in this country—50% from our continental shelf and 30% from Norway. The issue is very much price, not storage.

Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, etc.) Bill

Esther McVey Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for his tireless work to bring this Bill to the House and, more broadly, to raise the profile and significance of the rights and remuneration of musicians in Parliament and beyond.

How do we get there? How do we get those rights and remunerations for our musicians and creatives? How do we ensure a fair payment for artists in this age of streaming? First off, we should acknowledge that streaming has completely changed the economics of music, and understand too that streaming saved the music business. It made it convenient once again for people to consume music legally, rather than through illegal file sharing and copying, as many hon. Members have talked eloquently and way too knowledgeably about today.

The idea of every single song being legally available in one place is quite incredible. It is now commonplace, but it was a brave and innovative vision and move from Daniel Ek, Spotify’s founder, back in 2006. Streaming has significantly broadened access to music. There were 100 million new music subscribers in 2020, taking the total to 467 million, whereas back in 2015 it stood at 76.8 million. Each one of those subscribers is paying on average £120 a year, so we can see the growth and the enormity of streaming. Yes, it has revolutionised the industry, but it is worth a significant amount of money that needs to be fairly distributed among the writers, creatives and performers.

My focus today, however, is on these needs that must be addressed: the power imbalance between the artist, the record company and the publisher; the conflict of interest between the major publishers and the record companies; and the lack of transparency in the industry. Let us look first at the relationship and interplay between the three major record labels, which hold the master recordings, and the control they have over the three major publishing companies, which hold the song copyrights.

The three major record companies, Universal, Warner and Sony, own the three largest publishers, Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner Chappell Music and Sony Music Publishing, respectively. Obviously, concerns are raised about how those three publishers can advocate for songwriters’ interests if they are being controlled by their parent companies.

As a guide to how the revenue from music is split, the typical income earned by a master holder is about 80% and the typical income earned by a publisher is about 15%. Given that the major record labels own the publishers, it is in their interest to push for the income received on the master-sale side to be greater than on the writers-publishing side. The record companies, not the publishers, also do the deals with the digital service platforms so they can take the lion’s share of royalties from those songs.

To add to that, if hon. Members can believe it, there is even an imbalance in the speed of the payment. The record companies are paid much faster than the publishing side, because they control the supply chain. They take payments through an automated process, while the publishing side is paid through a more cumbersome manual process. Those imbalances, and the further imbalances that run from them, should be the focal point of policy makers and industry scrutiny.

I welcome the Government’s intervention in referring the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority. I have a couple of other helpful suggestions that might go some way to improving the relationship between artists, record companies and publishers. Songwriters and artists should have a direct seat at the table in the remuneration discussions and should be represented by their peers, not the record labels or publishers.

A music stream should be treated as a licence, not a sale. A licence gives the artist 50% of the royalties for a song, whereas a sale gives them between 18% and 30%. Since streaming became the main mechanism for consuming music, record companies have unilaterally decided that a stream should be considered a sale, because it maximises their profits. Artists and songwriters need to update clauses in their contracts to reflect the true nature of how their songs are consumed, which is via a licence.

Clarification also needs to be introduced to the grey area of breakage in record companies and digital service providers. A streaming is not included in any detail in most agreements and breakage is not subject to a contractual method of distribution. Confirmation is needed that all income gained in that way by major record labels is distributed fairly and appropriately. Some have even suggested a kitemark.

On the lack of transparency, for an artist to understand their payslip or royalty statement, they need to be shown two key things: how many units they sold and how much each unit sold for. If an artist wishes to inquire about the real level of sales, they will need an audit which, at the moment, is incredibly expensive and can take about 24 months to book and complete. That is not how payslip querying should be. The artist never gets to see the total amount that has come in. An online seller of goods would know the gross amounts and what needed to be deducted for services and commission, but that is not the case in the music industry. That needs to be changed.

In a final twist, if an artist manages to get their books audited to see what is coming in from the streaming service, should they ask for back-up information—in the old days, they could get the cost of CDs and how many copies were sold—in this instance, from streaming, that is covered by a non-disclosure agreement that removes the right to see how the money flow comes in, because companies say that it affects their ability to be competitive. Such things need to be changed.

Writers and artists are businesses, entrepreneurs and inventors who have created a product. We have to be on the side of those creatives and musicians, because they deserve their full dues. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) rightly pointed out, covid shone a spotlight on the area. In the past, artists could go out and earn extra money by performing at live events, but they could not in covid. They relied more heavily on what was coming in from streaming, but there was nothing there to rely on. Many of them have been left without income for a considerable period, and have therefore turned to the state for support.

It would be remiss of me, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, not to ask this question. Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill for the international giants who are not paying their contributors, creators and writers correctly? That is wrong. We might have needed to provide some extra money through universal credit, and that would be right, but these international companies should have paid their way and not asked the British taxpayer to pay those wages on their behalf.

There are many reasons—and I say this from a Conservative point of view—why we have got to get this right. These are points of principle. We do not believe in monopolies controlling an industry; we do not believe in supersized entities at all, whether they are the state or giant companies, and nor do we believe in imbalances in negotiations or conflicts of interest. However, we do believe in a fair deal for the taxpayer, and for the Exchequer too—money should be coming into the Exchequer to pay for all the public sector services that we need—and we believe absolutely in the rights of the individual. We need to stand up for these people.

It has been argued that the record companies must spend vast amounts of these artists’ money to pay for new artists. That is questionable, if not risible. Any other business that saw such a failure rate in the new products it was bringing to the market would look at its business model and ask, “Are we getting this right?” That is particularly relevant in an age when we can spot a star by looking at the number of followers on Instagram, YouTube and various other platforms.

Moreover, the companies are reducing the money of artists who have done well. They are spending the money of artists to whom, I would say, they owe a duty of care because they have contracts with them—contracts on which they embarked on a potential, hopeful, going-forward basis. Surely the artist to whom they owe that duty of care must come before the potential artist.

I would also throw in an auditor for these companies’ books. If they are reducing profits from their artists, on their own books, that means that they are reducing the amount of tax that they pay to the country.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but I am less convinced by that last point. The system does work on the basis of “blooding” a vast number of artists, and there is no business model in existence that can accurately predict who those people are. I take on board many of the points that my right hon. Friend made so well earlier in her speech, but we need to ensure that the funding and the machinery are there. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said he accepted the model whereby they invest so that one’s artistry can reach a market. If we break that, we break the future for a young British artist, and we do so by rewarding the giants of yesterday who might want more money today. We do not want to cut off the future for the artist who wants to make it tomorrow.

[Esther McVey]

I do not have everyone’s company accounts, but I have been looking at those of Warner Music Group, and in particular at the amount that it is spending on what are described as

“Artist Repertoire costs as a proportion of recorded income”—

the money that it is investing in going out to find those new artists. I note that in 2017 the figure was 31.92%, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be surprised to learn that it went down in 2018, 2019 and 2020, to 30.13%. The amount that Warner Music Group says it is investing has gone down. As I said earlier, should these companies wish to identify an artist who could flourish, it is much easier to do so than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago: they can see what an artist’s following is online.

I end with a couple of questions for the Minister. Will he update the House on what is happening with the Competition and Markets Authority? When will we know the decisions and conclusions? Could he refer the legal contracts and this conflict of interest to the Law Society for investigation? It is time the record companies recognised the unjustifiable imbalances between the revenue they receive and the revenue received by artists, and adjusted their models to better account for the growing popularity of streaming services. For that reason I will be supporting the Bill today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The shadow Minister has indicated that she would like to contribute at this time.

Charity-funded Medical Research

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members of the changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Before they use them, Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided, which they should dispose of as they leave the room. Members should respect the one-way system around the room.

Members may speak only from the horseshoe and only if they are on the call list. Even if debates are under-subscribed, Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. They are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches, and there is less expectation now that Members will stay for at least two speeches: once they have spoken, they may leave the room.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered recognising and preserving the value of charity-funded medical research in the 2020 Spending Review.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Miss McVey. I should like to record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee and the Chairman of Ways and Means for granting time for this important debate before tomorrow’s spending review. I also thank the British Heart Foundation for its assistance with preparations for this debate.

The UK Government website states that

“our world-class research and researchers play a vital role in delivering local and national economic prosperity but we recognise that some of that research is at risk from a range of income losses as a result of Covid-19.”

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement and emphasise that we acknowledge the extremely valuable scientific and medical contributions that they make.

As I hope to set out, charity-funded medical research has lost a great deal as a result of covid-19. If its contribution to the UK and, indeed, to the world is to continue, the Government must consider further support, particularly ahead of tomorrow’s spending review.

Life sciences research and development is funded through a broad partnership between Government, universities, the private sector and charities. In 2019, charities funded £1.9 billion in UK research and development. This year, medical charities have seen the closure of their charity shops, the cancellation of fundraising events and a drop in public donations.

The true value of charity-funded medical research is often under-appreciated, and to understand the gravity of the situation in which the sector finds itself we must first acknowledge the contributions it has made to society in a normal year. A 2017 report published by the Association of Medical Research Charities found that 397 unique medical products and interventions were produced further to charitable awards, most of which were drugs and diagnostic tools but the list includes a gas delivery ventilator system to help to protect long-term brain function in babies starved of oxygen at birth and new immunotherapies for cancer. These are practical benefits of research that save lives immediately, but in the medium to long term the development and sharing of knowledge is key.

Medical research charities have produced hundreds of models and more than 26,000 unique publications that go on to inform research for years to come. The production of such publications is not straightforward or free: it is largely unseen work that is essential to developing practical solutions to healthcare challenges. This knowledge, which has improved our understanding of diseases such as Alzheimer’s dementia, has also been used to inform policy making.

Throughout this pandemic the Government have outlined that their policy decisions have been guided by the science. I fully support that approach and I know that it extends to all medical and healthcare policies. The Association of Medical Research Charities reports that in 2017 there were 166 citations in policy documents which referred to research linked to medical research charities and 536 examples of researchers directly providing advice to Government. From clinical reviews to participation in advisory committees, the combined knowledge of medical research charities and their staff has critical value.

It is important to note that practical healthcare solutions and knowledge development are not exclusive to the research of major diseases. Thousands of people in the UK live with rare diseases and in 2018 alone medical research charities invested £142 million in 640 rare disease projects. Without ongoing research conducted by well-funded specialists, we risk declining health outcomes for many who suffer from all conditions, but particularly those that are less common.

Further to the expansive scientific and practical value of charity-funded medical research, there is a significant economic element. Last year, in Wales alone, 53 charities funded 289 active grants worth £89.7 million benefiting research institutions such as universities and NHS organisations. More than one third of charities associated with the AMRC projects that are being carried out are in Wales. At pre-pandemic levels, more than 17,000 highly skilled jobs were supported directly in the sector throughout the UK. It is thanks to the tireless work of these experts and their support teams that, for every £1 spent on research by public and charitable funders, there is a return of 25p per year in perpetuity. The financial value of the charitable sector is perfectly demonstrated by the British Heart Foundation, which made an investment of £476 million last year, leading to researchers leveraging £1.27 billion.

Unfortunately, as has been seen across the board, covid-19 has been catastrophic for medical research, posing immediate challenges as well as medium and long-term charity-funded uncertainties. The AMRC estimates that such charities lost 38% of their fundraising income between March and May 2020, leading to an immediate shortfall of £310 million this year. Predictions go on to warn of a 41% fall in research spend in this financial year, and reports from the Institute for Public Policy Research expect a shortfall of up to £7.8 billion in UK research and development spending between now and 2027. The British Heart Foundation alone lost £10 million in revenue during each month of the spring lockdown, and current restrictions will cost another £7 million. Because of this, the organisation has already halved its research budget for next year—a reduction of £50 million. Likewise, Cancer Research UK has been forced to cut £44 million from its research spending. Unfortunately, this approach has been necessary among many other charities, too. The current trajectory shows that it will be at least half a decade until we return to pre-pandemic levels and without a change there will be significant implications for jobs and health outcomes.

I know that many charities are grateful for the support that they have received from the UK Government through schemes such as the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has been extended to March next year, but with the overall reduction in income and consequently fewer research projects, many of those positions may not be sustainable. A survey of more than 500 charity-funded early career researchers in the UK found that four in 10 are considering leaving research due to funding concerns arising from the covid-19 pandemic. In total, half of researchers say that their funding will expire by the end of 2021. Of those, two thirds have been unable to secure funding to take them to the next stage in their careers. Cancer Research UK worries that, without support, it could be forced to lose 1,500 researchers—more than one third of its research workforce. It is worth putting on record that such jobs are highly skilled positions that require extensive research infrastructure and if we lose them, they may never return. Muscular Dystrophy UK notes that it funds new PhD students at each grant round, so without financial support not only are we damaging the industry now but there will be worrying implications for British research.

Medical research charities have, sadly, been unable to access the £750 million of additional funding made available in April to support charities providing essential services. This is despite many charities pivoting their research to support the national covid-19 effort, including Cancer Research UK labs providing testing kits and Asthma UK providing an essential post-covid hub and helpline for people left with breathing difficulties.

The number of patients entering Welsh research studies fell by 23.8% between 2018-19 and 2019-20. At the UK level, at the height of the first lockdown, the AMRC reports that 73% of clinical studies and trials funded by charities were paused or delayed. This number remained at 43% even in September. The expectation of some in the industry is that, unfortunately, some of these trials will never restart. We must do all that we can to reverse this trend.

So what action is required? It is vital that we fund research to better prevent, diagnose and treat illnesses, a view shared by my constituent Mandy Swift who sustained two heart attacks in her early 50s and spoke out recently about the need for women to better understand their risk of a heart attack and its symptoms. Preserving charity-funded medical research needs to be a priority for the Government. We now stand at a crossroads and decisions taken in the days and weeks ahead can influence the future of charity-funded medical research for the next decade. As we reach the end of the transition period and want to retain our status as a global leader in this sector, we must provide the support that is necessary.

The Government have already pledged money through the sustaining university research expertise—SURE—package. I am delighted that, by introducing this programme, the Government have publicly acknowledged the value of our unique research and development ecosystem. However, it is unclear how charities will be able to engage with this funding. The spending review and the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow is an ideal opportunity to bring forward the further support that is much needed. I know that the charity-funded medical research sector is one of the many sectors calling for a bespoke package of support and, indeed, I am sympathetic to calls from many other industries. However, the unique contribution of medical research to our health, wellbeing and economy is unmatched. Charities fund research in every region of the UK, contributing to regional growth and the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Ultimately, this research also leads to health improvements, particularly in areas of unmet health need and inequality.

Organisations, including the AMRC, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK and the Francis Crick Institute, have all been in touch with me in the run-up to this debate calling for a life sciences charity partnership fund. This proposal centres on the three-year settlement to provide a match-funding arrangement that would contribute £310 million in year one to protect and enhance our status as a science superpower. The parameters of such a scheme could be settled upon by the Treasury in consultation with the sector. The Royal College of Physicians specifically notes that funding should be targeted to support more research activity in rural areas, such as north Wales, that often carry the highest disease burden but the lowest research activity. Some 40% of those working in rural hospitals would like to be more involved in research, and that figure is 12% higher than for reported respondents in city hospitals.

The Royal College of Physicians has proposed that, in areas where research activity is low, a trial should be programmed whereby 20% of consultants have 20% of their time protected for research. Such potential approaches are important. As the AMRC points out, during the pandemic its members in Greater London have been twice as likely to have secured funding than those outside the capital, leading to a risk that a charity funding crisis may exacerbate regional divides. Without much-needed support, more than 50% of the AMRC’s members have indicated that the impact of covid-19 on their research portfolio will have implications for the UK’s ability to attract research talent and global research leadership.

As the Government publicly acknowledge, we have a world-class research system and researchers too but, as a result of covid-19, thousands of scientists and projects are at risk. That concerns me greatly as a GP. Charity-funded medical research has been an intrinsic part of our national R&D ecosystem for decades, contributing to major scientific breakthroughs, the advancement of knowledge and economic growth. Without action soon, we risk years of poor research outcomes and thousands of highly skilled jobs being lost. Although some support has thankfully been made available, I believe that the spending review provides the Government with the perfect opportunity to extend that, ideally through a life sciences charity fund. I hope that such a plan is already in the Chancellor’s mind. If not, I ask the Minister to make him aware of today’s debate.

As the UK Dementia Research Institute notes, charity-supported medical research has been prominent in national efforts to tackle the outbreak. As attention turns to long-term impacts, we must ensure that medical research is supported now and into the future.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I plan to call the Front-Bench spokespersons no later than 10.30 am. I hope that will allow colleagues to judge the length of their speeches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I work very well with not only the Scotland Office here but the Scottish Government, and I am happy to take that up after this session.

[Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

All forms of company are registered and incorporated with Companies House. While it is a great resource if used properly, it is open to misuse, abuse and fraudulent information. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure validation before companies are registered, so that the public can have faith in the register?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

rose—

[Ms McVey]

Secretary of State, please.

[Greg Clark]

I am happy to respond to my right hon. Friend. The problem that she identifies is a real and present one. We are taking steps to require information given to Companies House, and therefore made use of, to be validated. [Interruption.]