Oral Answers to Questions
Gill Furniss Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. By raising the primary threshold to £12,500, we have ensured that the first £12,500 that anyone earns is completely free of national insurance and income tax. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it
“the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system”.
That is what this Government are about.
Gill Furniss
The cost of living crisis is causing immense hardship for my constituents in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, many of whom have been struggling for the past 12 years of this Government’s austerity policies. Can the Chancellor look me in the eye and tell me that he is doing everything he can to prevent my constituents from falling into a never-ending cycle of poverty, particularly given that the Prime Minister admitted last week that he believes the Government have not done enough?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about the record of previous Governments over the past decade but, as I have mentioned to her previously, the number of people living in absolute poverty has fallen by more than 1 million since the Conservative-led Government were elected in 2010. That is a record of which we are very proud. She talks of austerity and, to bring her up to date, public spending over the course of this Parliament is growing at a record rate, both on investment and on day-to-day spending, so we can support strong investment in all the public services on which her constituents rely.
Household Energy Bills: VAT
Gill Furniss Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on an issue that is already causing so much distress to my constituents.
The covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the stark inequalities in our society. The poorest families are the most likely to feel the greatest impact, whether that is in seeing their incomes shrink while on furlough or struggling with increased data bills to ensure that their children can continue learning. Those families were already suffering, even before the pandemic, from the effects of a decade of austerity, insecure work and stagnant wage growth.
Those same families are now being hit hardest by the cost-of-living crisis. That crisis calls for competent leadership, but the Government have failed to step up to the challenge. In the face of soaring inflation and families struggling to put food on the table, what did the Government do? They took £20 a week away from those who needed it most. It comes as no surprise that the Government have turned their heads and looked the other way while the UK hurtles towards an eye-watering 50% rise in energy prices in April.
Only a few months ago, I stood here and raised the impact that the cruel cut to universal credit and the tax rise are having on my constituents in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, but the Government refused to listen. Now we stand in the midst of yet another hammer blow to working families as energy costs soar.
It is not just Labour that sees the devastating impacts that Government policies are having on working families; economists have warned in the Financial Times that inflation will outpace wages this year and that, at the same time, high energy costs and tax rises will hit those on the lowest incomes the hardest. Covid has of course affected all nations, but decisions by this Government have meant that we are on track to see living standards lag behind those of our European neighbours.
Many constituents have contacted me because they simply do not know what they will do if their energy bills rise by those monumental amounts. On their behalf, I ask the Government a simple question: how are families who are on the breadline, already making choices between heating and eating, supposed to find an extra £600 a year to pay their bills? How are they supposed to put food on the table when the cost of their weekly shop continues to rocket upwards?
Those are the questions that so many families are now having to ask themselves. It should bring shame to us all that in 2022, people are still making choices that we should only expect in a Charles Dickens novel. That is the impact of this Government’s policies on my constituents.
It is not too late to avert that crisis, however. The Government can and must step in to protect people from the energy price rise in April. Labour’s fully costed and common-sense proposals would be a crucial step to support my constituents on lower and middle incomes. By scrapping VAT on domestic energy and expanding the warm home discount, many households in my constituency would see their energy prices rise by only £5 a month in April, instead of more than £50 a month.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but that is just an empty phrase without the policies to back it up. My constituents need Ministers to step up to the plate and stop burying their heads in the sand in the midst of this cost of living crisis. I urge the Government and Conservative Members to act now before even more families are plunged into never-ending poverty.
Working People’s Finances: Government Policy
Gill Furniss Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I would like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition for securing this important debate. I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer)—I would if she were in her place—on her maiden speech.
Many of my constituents in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough are facing a winter of immense financial difficulty, particularly given the cruel £20 a week cut to universal credit that Ministers are pushing through, against the wishes of this House; I welcome this opportunity to bring to light their hardship. After a decade of Tory mismanagement, poverty and inequality run rampant in our country. Council budgets have been cut to within an inch of their lives, leaving local services in tatters. Schools struggle to give kids the education they need and deserve. Emergency services are stretched beyond any reasonable expectation. People have been left to fend for themselves. The same families who have borne the brunt of austerity are set to face a winter in which they choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table.
In Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, 15,000 families are in receipt of universal credit or working tax credit—that is three in every five families. The planned cut will take £15 million from families that are already struggling to feed themselves. It will bring more hardship for those who are already struggling. It will come in October, just as the furlough scheme ends and the energy price cap is set to rise, which could see prices rise by up to £153 per year. Research by Sheffield citizens advice service has found that 28% of households in which someone received universal credit are behind on their energy bills. That is seven times the rate for those who do not receive that benefit.
Cutting universal credit now shows just how out of touch the Government are with the realities of working people’s lives. Some Government Members like to believe that poverty is a thing of the past—a product of Victorian Britain—but in today’s Tory Britain, the cut will affect 6.2 million families. On top of all that, the Government are now planning to raise taxes on millions of hard-working families. The rise in national insurance is the biggest tax rise on families for 50 years. Already, constituents have been contacting me because they do not know how they are going to be able to afford basic necessities after they are hit by the double whammy of a cut to their universal credit and a rise in their tax bill.
I wish to speak briefly about one of my constituents, whose name is Shaun. Shaun is a young man with serious mental health needs. His single person’s universal credit barely stretches to cover the costs of caring for his four-year-old son. What is Shaun supposed to do when he finds himself with £1,000 less each year? What choices will he be forced to make to get through each month? What will he and his son have to give up to get through each day? Shaun will not get answers to those questions, because Ministers will not look Shaun in the eye and listen to how the cut will plunge him into debt or how he worries about the impact it will have on his mental health.
Let us call these policies what they are: cruel. Labour knows it, the public know it, and dozens of charities and campaign groups know it. I would like to think that, deep down, even some Government Members know it. The cut to universal credit in particular is so cruel that the charity Human Rights Watch has said it would breach the UK’s international human rights obligations.
The Government’s policies are regressive and will hit working families the hardest. They lay bare the reality that the levelling-up agenda is no more than empty rhetoric and a new name slapped on a Government building. We cannot level up by taking money out of the pockets of those who need it the most. Not only that, but their policies are a sucker punch to businesses up and down the country which, after barely staying afloat during covid, will see their revenue streams run dry as consumer spending falls because of the fiscal squeeze. I urge the Government to listen sincerely to the concerns of Members from all parties. I hope they will see sense and reverse these decisions before yet more families are pushed into a never-ending spiral of poverty.
Public Health England Review: Covid-19 Disparities
Gill Furniss Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if she will make a statement on the Public Health England review of disparities in risks and outcomes related to the covid-19 outbreak.
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement.
As a black woman and the Equalities Minister, it would be odd if I did not comment on the recent events in the US and protests in London yesterday. Like all right-minded people, regardless of their race, I was profoundly disturbed by the brutal murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police. During these moments of heightened racial tension, we must not pander to anyone who seeks to inflame those tensions. Instead, we must work together to improve the lives of people from black and minority ethnic communities. It is in that spirit that we approach the assessment of the impact of covid-19 on ethnic minorities. If we want to resolve the disparities identified in the PHE report, it is critical that we accurately understand the causes, based on empirical analysis of the facts and not preconceived positions.
On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care confirmed to the House that Public Health England has now completed its review of disparities in the risks and outcomes of covid-19. The review confirms that covid-19 has replicated, and in some cases increased, existing health inequalities related to risk factors including age, gender, ethnicity and geography, with higher diagnosis rates in deprived, densely populated urban areas. The review also confirmed that being black or from a minority ethnic background is a risk factor. That racial disparity has been shown to hold even after accounting for the effect of age, deprivation, region and sex.
I thank Public Health England for undertaking this important work so quickly. I know that its findings will be a cause for concern across the House, as they are for individuals and families across the country. The Government share that concern, which is why they are now reviewing the impact and effectiveness of their actions to lessen disparities in infection and death rates of covid-19, and to determine what further measures are necessary.
It is also clear that more needs to be done to understand the key drivers of those disparities and the relationships between different risk factors. The Government will commission further data research and analytical work by the Equalities Hub to clarify the reasons for the gaps in evidence highlighted by the report. Taking action without taking the necessary time and effort to understand the root causes of those disparities only risks worsening the situation. That is why I am taking this work forward with the Race Disparity Unit in the Cabinet Office, and the Department of Health and Social Care, and I will keep the House updated.
Gill Furniss
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. On 2 June, Public Health England published its long-awaited review of disparities in the risks and outcomes of covid-19 for BAME communities. The review confirms what we already know: racial and health inequalities amplify the risk of covid-19. It found that those from BAME backgrounds were more than twice as likely to die from covid-19 than white people, and that BAME healthcare workers are at particular risk of infection. These lives matter, and it is time for the Government to take action on the devastating impact that this virus has had on BAME communities.
Public Health England’s review fails to make a single recommendation on how to reduce those inequalities, protect workers on the front line, or save lives. That is despite the fact that its terms of reference include to “suggest recommendations” for further action. Will the Minister urgently explain why the review failed to do that? The Government have said that the Race Disparity Unit will publish recommendations on the findings from the review. When will those recommendations be published, alongside a plan for their implementation?
More than 1,000 individuals and organisations supplied evidence to the review. Many suggested that discrimination and racism increase the risk of covid-19 for BAME communities. Will the Minister explain why those views were not included in the review? Does she accept that structural racism has impacted the outcomes of covid-19? Does she agree that it is now time to address underlying socioeconomic inequalities facing BAME communities, and will she confirm that the Government will take action to do so? BAME workers on the frontline of this crisis are anxious for their lives. Will the Minister listen to Labour’s demands to call on all employers to risk assess their BAME workforce? Coronavirus thrives on inequality, and there is no more important time to tackle racial injustices in our society and save lives during this crisis. It is now up to the Government to take action and show their commitment that black lives matter.
Kemi Badenoch
It is imperative that we understand the key drivers of those disparities, the relationships between different risk factors, and what we can do to close the gap. That way, we will ensure that we do not take action that is not warranted by the evidence. The hon. Lady is right: Public Health England did not make recommendations, because it was not able to do so. Some of the data needed is not routinely collected, but acquiring it would be extremely beneficial. As I said earlier, I will be taking forward work to fill the gaps in our understanding, and review existing policies or develop new ones where needed. It is important to remind ourselves that this review was conducted in a short period, and it sets out firm conclusions. As the author of the report said on Tuesday night, there is a great deal of background and detailed information that we think will be helpful. It is not easy to go directly from analysis to making recommendations, and we must widely disseminate and discuss the report before deciding what needs to be done.
Covid-19
Gill Furniss Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to all our key workers. They are the best of us, and I hope that we will repay their courage and dedication to our country.
I have heard from parents and schools that they have experienced issues with the free school meal voucher scheme. Many either have not received those vouchers or have been unable to redeem them, despite the scheme having been launched more than six weeks ago. Edenred, the contractor, has processed just 20% of the £234 million budget of the scheme, which has only a few weeks left.
At Firth Park Academy, a secondary school in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, 488 students—almost 40% of all students—are eligible for the scheme. As of last week, none of those children had received or been able to redeem their vouchers. A primary school in my constituency has had similar issues. It waited such a long time for the vouchers to come through and was so concerned about pupil welfare that it spent £3,000 to secure vouchers itself.
Schools have tried repeatedly to contract Edenred, with one even offering staff to help process applications. Schools Week reported that Edenred was aware of the vast scale of the task at hand when it tendered for the contract, making it more baffling that it was so unprepared. Urgent intervention is needed to address this gross injustice and ensure that none of those eligible for free school meals goes hungry any longer.
I also want to highlight the challenges faced by women during and after the covid-19 outbreak. Women make up a huge proportion of those in care and nursing roles—those at the frontline of this crisis. We have seen that even as those women battle to provide care under the hardest circumstances, their pay is often among the lowest in society. I have also heard from many women who work in the childcare sector. They have become increasingly concerned about the future of their employment, particularly following the withdrawal of funding that was initially promised to childcare providers by the Government. That not only concerns those employed in that sector but adds to the pressure on key workers, who may now fear they will be left without childcare.
Many care and childcare providers face bankruptcy as costs rise, leaving these women fearing for their own economic future. Assurances must be given that no woman should lose her job due to the covid-19 pandemic. The true impact of this crisis cannot be fully understood until the Government have undertaken a comprehensive gender impact assessment to ensure that women are not left behind as a result of the economic impact of the covid-19 outbreak.
My constituent, Lisa Fish, is classed as a vulnerable person. Her family have taken all the steps to shield her from the virus. The Prime Minister’s statement last night offered them no clarity, but it did cause them extreme distress. It is essential that the Government make their intentions crystal clear so that the public fully understand what is expected of them and to ensure that we keep people safe. This virus is not of our making, but it is within our power to respond in a way that protects the most vulnerable in our society.
Youth Services
Gill Furniss Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I agree. A concerted effort for our young people through long-term funding is the way forward. Salami-slicing is not helpful in this situation. I am sure that my officials will have heard that. This offer is about knowing what works, amplifying that, spreading it out, and supporting it.
Mims Davies
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) first, because she looks frustrated.
Gill Furniss
I thank the Minister for giving way. My constituency has seen a significant rise in knife crime and organised gangs. Recently, two youth workers, Fran Belbin and Lloyd Samuels, came to my surgery and explained their frustrations with the funding formula that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned. It would be fantastic if the new Prime Minister committed to a five-year strategy that gave all sorts of bodies, whether from the voluntary sector or the council, a good go at improving things for our young people, because at the moment, people are bidding against each other for bits of funding and are given very short timescales for preparing a plan. For instance, this year, people were made aware of the funding only a few weeks before the school holidays, and having been awarded the funding, they have a week to pull things together for the young people. That is not good enough.
Mims Davies
In my experience in this role, I have found brilliant projects ready to roll, and I like to think that we will have no problem finding the right interventions this summer, but I hear what the hon. Lady says. The incoming Prime Minister will find—I have to be careful in what I say—that we are committed to a youth charter, a 10-year vision for a generation. I will absolutely make the case for us to continue with that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gill Furniss Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
It is important that the House fully understands how disguised remuneration works. If, instead of paying an employee their earnings in the normal way, an employer pays them by way of a loan via an offshore trust in a low or no-tax jurisdiction—with no intention of ever repaying the loan and simply to avoid national insurance or income tax—that is wrong. As for the matter of retrospection, that model has never, ever complied with our tax code. The loans to which I refer are persisting today, not retrospectively. That is why it is right—and only fair on those taxpayers who pay the correct amounts at the right time, and on our vital public services, which rely on that money—that we collect it.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Loans of less than £25,000 to the smallest businesses are already regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Government are committed to regulating only where there is a clear case for doing so, to avoid putting additional costs on lenders and businesses, and the Government welcome the recent expansion of the Financial Ombudsman Service and the establishment of a voluntary dispute resolution service.
Gill Furniss
A succession of small business lending scandals has come to light in recent months, including from Clydesdale, the Global Restructuring Group and HBOS. This has highlighted that small businesses are still struggling to get fair access to finance. Last week, Labour set out our proposals to fix this, including plans to set up a post bank that would offer relationship banking for small businesses to improve their access to finance. Will the Minister support Labour’s proposition for a publically owned postal bank that will provide trustworthy finance for small businesses?
John Glen
I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. Lady that undertaking. I really passionately believe that we need to resist additional Financial Conduct Authority fees, product reviews, increased compliance and monitoring costs for businesses, stifled product innovation and narrower product choice for small and medium-sized enterprises, which would be the consequences if we followed Labour’s advice on this policy area.
ATM Closures
Gill Furniss Excerpts(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing this important and timely debate. I know that he is an avid campaigner in this area and that this debate follows the introduction of his Banking (Cash Machine Charges and Financial Inclusion) Bill, which is intended primarily to end cash machine charges.
Small businesses form the backbone of our economy. Over the past weekend parliamentarians and citizens across the UK had an opportunity to support our small businesses during Small Business Saturday. They are vital to our local communities, from large towns to small rural communities, but in order to survive and thrive they need the infrastructure conducive to their running, which includes a vibrant network of free-to-use ATMs.
As has been outlined, ATMs are under threat. Earlier this year LINK decided to begin a phased reduction of the interchange fee by 5% from 1 July 2018. This reduction in the funding formula has led to concerns that ATMs will become financially unviable, resulting in closure or an increase in the number of fee-charging ATMs. Despite all the discussion to the effect that we are all transforming into a cashless society, recent research by Which? highlighted that demand for cash and physical financial infrastructure remains, and that these services are important to everyday life. In a survey of over 1,200 members in Scotland, Which? found that 44% of people use a cashpoint at least once a week, that nine in 10 people said that free-to-use cash machines are important to their everyday lives, and of those, more than half described them as essential for day-to-day living, with this figure remaining similar across every age group. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) eloquently reminded us of that.
A reduction would also lead to one in seven people being deterred from using outlets that accept cash only, placing a strain on consumers and retailers alike. Similarly, a poll of Federation of Small Businesses members found that 59% of retail businesses felt that a cash machine was useful to their business. In addition, 50% of businesses said that their nearest free-to-use cashpoint was already over 1 km away. Many hon. Friends have referred to this scandal today. Although LINK has said that it will provide funding to ensure that there is always a free ATM at least 1 km from another one, in practice this has proved difficult to implement and there are concerns that this standard does not provide free-to-use ATMs in the areas where they are needed most.
The ATM Industry Association has calculated that at least 10,000 free-to-use cash machines could be at risk—almost one in five of the 54,000 ATMs at which customers can withdraw cash without incurring fees. The organisation has found that the worst-hit regions for independent, free-to-use cash machines are set to be rural south-west England, Scotland and urban south-east England, outside London. The Which? and FSB research has shown that there remains a demand for free-to-use cash machines, that reductions could damage consumers and businesses, and that the public could be forced to use fee-paying machines if free-to-use options are reduced. Any reduction will be most harshly felt in rural and deprived areas.
There has been no significant review of the ATM market for a number of years. I know that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West would introduce a legal requirement for access to free cash through ATMs or other means, following a market review of the ATM network by the Payment Systems Regulator to establish demand. The legal requirement would create a function for ATMs to be provided where there is demand, based on the PSR’s review. Reviews could be conducted at regular intervals to monitor demand. LINK has said that it will provide funding so that there is always a free-to-use ATM at least 1 km from another one. In practice, this has been difficult to implement and there are concerns that this standard does not provide free-to-use ATMs in the areas where they are needed most, hence the need for a full market review by the PSR. Both Which? and the FSB have called for a full market review. On principle, Labour does not believe that anyone should have to pay to access their own cash.
Fee charging is the option often taken most in deprived or rural communities, meaning that the most vulnerable are often asked to pay more. We should try to prevent a poverty premium and ensure that access to cash is inclusive. By banning fee-charging machines we can focus on a funding formula that ensures that all ATMs are fully funded without there being recourse to charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) explained clearly what this means for people in many areas of her constituency.
As the shadow Minister for postal affairs, I find it particularly concerning that under this Government vital local community assets, such as ATMs, are being stripped away. The same is true of our post office network, which has seen a managed decline under the Tory Government. We must protect our local communities’ ability to do business and ensure financial inclusion for all. ATM closures have a detrimental impact on our communities and the Government must ensure that any further closures are immediately halted.
Taxation: Beer and Pubs
Gill Furniss Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
We hope, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing this debate. It was in his company and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) that last week I tasted and enjoyed many UK beers with the Titanic Brewery.
I will comment briefly on some of the contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) made very astute references to microbreweries and the tax break provided for them by the last Labour Government; I hope the Minister will tell her that that will be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made an interesting point about the valuable work that young people and students can get in the hospitality industry, including in pubs.
It is worth mentioning at this stage some of the worries of brewers and pubs in the city of London about their requirements for European labour after Brexit. We also need to look at the planning issues, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) mentioned, including permitted development rights.
The British pub is renowned around the world. Since the oldest one was established in the 11th century, the pub has continued to be a central feature of British life—a unique social hub for meetings, discussion and debate. Since then, of course, the world has drastically changed, but the continuity provided by the presence of a pub in the community remains. It is important that we work to preserve and encourage the growth of our pub industry; it makes both economic and social sense to do so.
According to the British Beer and Pub Association, the sector supports 900,000 jobs, with 42% of them held by under-25s; generates £23 billion in economic value; and provides £13 billion in tax revenues. On top of all that, 30 million adults visit the pub every month, which is proof that the British pub is not only a business but is at the heart of our communities. It brings people together and continues to be on the “to-do” list of almost every tourist visiting the UK.
Yet drinking establishments across the UK continue to be under severe threat. We have all seen the boarded-up pubs in our constituencies, not least because of the burden of the business rates evaluations but also because of the unequal relationships between large pub-owning businesses and pub tenants. Unfortunately, the pubs code as it currently stands has failed to deliver effectively what it was set up to do, but that is a debate for another time.
I return to beer taxation. As colleagues have already said, it was announced in the 2016 Budget that the duty on beer, spirits and most ciders would be frozen in the year 2016-17. That freeze on a typical pint of beer followed three consecutive years of beer duty cuts. On the other hand, duties on other alcoholic drinks, including wine at or below 22% alcohol by volume and high-strength sparkling cider, rose by retail prices index inflation. However, in March 2017 the Chancellor announced an RPI increase for beer too, which beer groups have called a “setback”, especially given the fragile environment that pubs find themselves in.
Can the Minister confirm what the beer duty RPI increase has meant in prices for customers and what mechanisms are in place to monitor the effectiveness of any such measure? When the beer duty freezes were introduced, Labour did not oppose them, but we asked questions about what the tax freeze meant in distributional terms. For example, the freeze favoured those who consume more of the relevant types of drinks. The equalities impact statement relating to last year’s freeze noted that
“any changes to alcohol duties will have an equalities impact that reflects consumption trends across the adult population”.
However, it failed to outline the specific equalities impact with respect to gender.
Although men are more likely to drink excessively than women, statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that wine, the tax on which was not frozen, is the most popular drink among women, while the most popular type of drink among all ages of male drinkers was normal-strength beer, lager, cider or shandy. Additionally, many trade bodies questioned why wine was singled out for a duty rise. Any future decision about alcohol levies should take that point into consideration.
Underlying this debate is a recognition of the importance of the pub as a local community hub and of the need to ensure that we do what we can to support it. That is why Labour is committed to securing the long-term future of pubs and the hospitality sector. Action must be taken to ensure that pubs are profitable and worth running as independent small businesses.
The Conservatives have neglected the needs of small business in favour of introducing tax breaks for big business that have failed to stimulate investment or create the high-skilled, well-paid jobs the country needs. Their cliff-edge approach to Brexit risks our access to the single market, and risks damaging all business by prioritising an economically damaging, undeliverable and unworkable cap on immigration at all costs.
Labour is the party of small business. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy, accounting at the start of 2016 for 99.3% of all private-sector businesses and 60% of all private-sector employment in the UK, or 15.7 million people. That is why we will end the Conservative attacks on small businesses by reforming business rates, scrapping quarterly reporting, ending the scourge of late payments and reforming employment allowance. Under a Labour Government, pubs will have the support necessary to thrive and grow.
Concentrix: Tax Credit Claimants
Gill Furniss Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
As constituency MPs, we are all aware of the hardship and suffering caused by Concentrix. By definition, people receiving tax credits are on low incomes and are not able to cope with a sudden drop in that income. Concentrix’s “Shoot first, ask questions later” approach, in which recipients have been accused of living with people they have never heard of, it takes more than an hour for their calls to be answered, and it is suggested that they get by on payday loans while Concentrix sorts out its mistakes, caused anxiety, distress and extreme hardship. In many cases, we have had to make personal referrals to food banks, so that people can feed themselves and their children. We all have examples from our postbags and inboxes of shocking cases in which families have been left struggling to make ends meet.
By way of example, I want to put on record some of the highlights—perhaps I should say lowlights—of the many cases I have had to deal with in recent weeks, and show the pattern of incompetence that has been exposed. More than three quarters of the cases I have dealt with have been of people accused of living with the previous tenant at their address. In one case, a constituent found after asking their neighbours that the person they were suspected of living with was in prison.
It is worth pointing out that with a handful of exceptions, all the cases that have come to my attention have been raised by women, and two thirds are from single mothers. In nearly two thirds of the cases, constituents found their tax credits stopped without any prior warning. When they contacted Concentrix, they were told that letters had been sent to them weeks previously but not replied to, hence the stopped payments. The occasional letter going astray in the post is one thing, but Concentrix is apparently sending letters into some black hole, never to be seen again. Advice given over the phone has been inconsistent and often contradictory. My constituents have reported that, as have my staff.