Funding Higher Education

Debate between Gary Streeter and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Streeter]

If an individual sets up their own business and still owns it then it is up to them what they pay themselves, but other than that I tend to agree about large salaries at the top justified by being in a marketplace and having to compete with other organisations. The charitable sector is another one where we have seen massive chief executive officer salaries. I imagine that if many people knocking on doors raising money for charities really knew what was going on, they would not be so happy. There is a job to be done in all these sectors, perhaps sparked by the Government, to have more reasonable levels of pay at the very top. The gap to those at the top must be very dispiriting for those humbly working day in, day out for not very much money. I recognise that we need to do more about that. The Government have talked about it, and I support them.

I have three specific proposals before I sit down. There are two quick ones, and one where I will go into greater depth.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need the Government to look at sustainability in the sector? The briefing for this debate said that the forecast surplus for the university sector is only 1.3% this year, so it is not a bloated sector. It does not mean there is a differential outcome for various institutions. In fact, university budgets are under threat from Brexit, from the cuts in research funding, from the fall in part-time students, and from a possible fall in international students, not to mention demographic trends in our country. We have to be careful to ensure a sustainable funding system.

[Mr Streeter]

I agree. When the panel reports its findings, I hope the Government take action to help us put in place a system that is both fair and sustainable. We have a world-class university system in this country that we must not in any way seek to undermine. It is hugely important that, as young people increasingly compete with people from other countries, we keep our highest university standards.

UK Nationals in the EU: Rights

Debate between Gary Streeter and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call Roberta Blackman-Woods—30 seconds, please.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think that what the hon. Lady describes is a challenge to the Minister.

As I was saying, many of our constituents are very worried that they will have to uproot their families by the end of March 2019. That is only 18 months away and it is completely wrong that people’s lives are still being negotiated over, which is causing this amount of concern. I hope we get some reassurances from the Minister that the Government are making progress and that we will get details of a reciprocal agreement very quickly, so that we can put at rest the minds of our constituents and those of UK citizens in the EU.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Gary Streeter and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Streeter]

I do not agree because it is important that these schemes are given the kind of Government backing that the amendment would ensure. Developers will not need to negotiate and explain their case to every individual planning authority, because they will know that they have the backing of someone as significant as the Housing Minister. If that wording is included in the Bill it will give those schemes a flying start and help us to meet the Government’s challenging targets.

In conclusion, I believe that this amendment is a win-win, and I hope the Minister will think seriously about adding it to the Bill. If that cannot be done on Report, I hope that serious thought will be given to including it in another place. I do not see a downside to this; I see only more young people meeting their aspirations to own their own home in our country in years to come.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 31 to 35, 37 to 39, 40 to 45 and 46, although given the time available, it is most unlikely that I will get to speak to them all. I start by welcoming new clauses 1 and 2. They seem to be sensible measures and I hope the Minister will take them on board.

Amendment 31 would

“change the purpose of the Bill to one that would enable the supply of more housing across all tenures rather than just starter homes.”

As we argued continually and strongly in Committee, the Bill is a huge waste of an opportunity to get the housing that we so desperately need across all tenures to solve our housing crisis. The Government have so far dismissed evidence from charities such as Shelter, which has said that these measures are unwise, but perhaps they will take note of The Economist, which argued that this policy would have “unhappy distributional consequences”, and fewer homes to rent for low-income families—the same families who cannot afford the deposit on so-called starter homes. As a result,

“poor households may find it even harder to find a place in Britain’s affordable housing market.”

Child Benefit

Debate between Gary Streeter and Roberta Blackman-Woods

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

There is obviously a lot of interest in this important debate. I have the power to impose a time limit, but I will not do so from the outset—let us see how we get on. However, a little self-restraint by colleagues would be most appreciated.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank Gingerbread, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the House of Commons Library for producing excellent briefings for today’s debate.

Eleanor Rathbone, the great advocate for family allowances, which we now know as child benefit, entered politics in 1909. It is extraordinary that, more than a century later, we have once again had to secure a debate in Parliament to champion the basic principles of child benefit. There have been threats to child benefit before, but since 1945 when family allowances legislation was introduced—a watered-down version of the child support that Eleanor Rathbone and others had campaigned for—only the coalition Government have introduced legislation for the demise of the principle of universality that underpins child benefit.

Not everyone on the Government side is happy with the proposed changes, as demonstrated by the lack, bar one or two, of any Back Benchers on the Government side who wish to take part in this debate. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) pointed out that the Government’s proposals ask those on higher incomes with families to contribute more, while those on higher incomes without children are not asked to contribute more. I do not see how that can be fair. I do not usually quote from the hon. Gentleman, especially in agreement, but he has hit the nail on the head.

I would like to concentrate on two issues: the destruction by the Government of the universal principle, and the unfairness and unworkability of the proposed changes. The principle long established and supported on a cross-party basis is that society as a whole should contribute towards the upbringing of children, because we all share in the benefits of a properly supported future generation. Arguing for family allowances, Eleanor Rathbone captured that exactly:

“Children are not simply a private luxury. They are an asset to the community”.

The logic of accepting that view is that in a properly functioning society transfers are made to families with children—not away from them to pay for tax cuts to millionaires.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recently put out a press statement on the proposed changes, which told us that the Government’s plans for changing child benefit are legal. I have been in the House for a number of years and I am not familiar with Government Departments telling us that policy changes are legal. I can only imagine that it must reflect a measure of concern about the Government’s incompetence that Departments have taken to doing so. My concern, however, is not about the legality of the proposed changes, but that they are wrong and should not happen.

The CPAG has summarised the benefits of child allowances. They achieve horizontal distribution between families, from those without children to those with children, life-cycle redistribution—most people have children at some point and we want to help whenever families are most pressed—and intergenerational redistribution, and they place a value on all children. For those reasons and many others, the benefit should be kept in its universal form. The changes are grossly unfair and probably unworkable.

The ICAEW has branded the legislation seriously flawed in principle and in practice. It points to many problems and I will highlight a few. HMRC will be using the tax system to claw back from one individual a benefit paid to the other, which could be extremely difficult as families in similar situations will be treated differently. Despite the introduction of the taper, the changes could still lead to a huge disincentive for individuals to earn more. The worst aspect of the proposed changes is that a family with a single earner who has an income of more than £60,000 is significantly worse off through the withdrawal of the benefit, while two-earner couples with incomes of up to £50,000 each will not lose the benefit.