Rural Roads

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Can hon. Members leave quietly, please? We wish to start the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises an important point—which I thought she might raise when I mentioned the local Lib Dem-run council in South Shropshire. For years, and under successive Governments, rural areas have not received the correct funding. That is not right; however, this is also about how the money is used. At the moment, the local council has an amber rating and is not fixing as many potholes as it should. At the moment, it is fixing only half the number done previously.

The other thing being raised with me that although potholes are being fixed, they come out and fix them on the Monday, and if there is a bit of rain on Tuesday and Wednesday, by Thursday the road is the same again. I have photos of people undertaking different measures to fix potholes that are completely unacceptable. Those roads are as bad at the end of the week as they were at the beginning.

We need to look at prevention. As a general rule, councils across the country are fixing more potholes than ever, but we are not seeing that in Shropshire, as per the local council’s numbers that I have quoted. Shropshire council continues to spend disproportionate amounts on reactive pothole repairs rather than on planned maintenance, because the Government have not given it the necessary long-term funding clarity. Evidence from the Road Emulsion Association shows that surface dressing extends life by around 10 to 15 years and uses 75% less bitumen and 80% less aggregate. It is campaigning for significantly increased investment in preventive road treatments and the maintenance of longer-term funding for councils. Every council will have to plan and will need clear visibility on the necessary funding.

As the Minister will know, developments in areas like artificial intelligence and autonomous robots could also start to future-proof how we deal with roads. I was delighted at the beginning of the year to see—as many others will have seen—the first autonomous vehicle able to identify cracks in the road and seal them early on, before they get worse. That is also reducing the number of lane closures, time invested and cost. As the RAC has stated—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has secured a debate that has attracted a lot of attention—I have 16 Members who have put in to speak. The rules say that I must call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. At the moment, that means that those who have put in to speak will have a minute, or fractionally over. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to carry on with his speech, but I ask him to bear that in mind.

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; you raise a brilliant point.

Before I conclude, I would like the Minister to address the support or approval that local councils need for community action to go ahead to help parish councils to fix certain areas, as they have in Devon.

Residents in South Shropshire deserve better than the roads they have at the moment. The reduced funding for South Shropshire, by removing the remoteness factor and the rural services delivery grant, is beyond what is acceptable. It is having a huge impact, and I am not going to sit by and watch my residents put up with this any more.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to put a one-minute limit on speeches. If there are interventions, some people will simply not get in to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

A key point to make is that potholes are often a symptom that roads have not been resurfaced at the right time. In reality, we have billions of pounds in community infrastructure levy funds that are sitting across the country, often just earning interest. They are not being invested in resurfacing roads or our drainage system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can better spend that community infrastructure levy money and ensure that it is put into roads? That often means making sure that—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I noticed that the hon. Lady arrived very late to the debate. It is not allowed, particularly in a massively oversubscribed debate like this, to come in and intervene.

[Olly Glover]

Councils certainly can do more to better spend the community infrastructure levy, but that partly takes account of the wildly complicated planning system and the negotiations that are needed with developers for both that and section 106.

Perhaps the Minister could share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair. From my travels in, for example, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, potholes are either unknown or very rare. If I can briefly deviate from my usual tendencies towards pessimism and cynicism, and lead my colleagues to wonder about my wellbeing, in an ideal world I wonder whether this debate shows that we should try to move away from pretending that the main issue is who, from a party perspective, runs our councils. It is far more about central Government versus local government, how our local government is structured and funded, and unsustainable local government expectations, given the funding that they are provided. We need significant reform on that, so that we can get our roads in a better place.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing an incredibly important debate for all of us who represent rural communities. If there is one issue that unites motorists across our country, and certainly across Buckinghamshire, it is that our roads are simply not good enough.

In rural areas, roads are not a convenience; they are a necessity. They connect people to work, school, healthcare and family, yet too often, as we have heard this afternoon, those roads are deteriorating before our eyes. The national picture is stark. As others have said, the backlog for road repairs now stands at £18.6 billion. Local rural roads are resurfaced, on average, only once every 90 years. That is not maintenance; it is neglect.

The AA recorded over 613,000 pothole-related call-outs in 2025, an average of 1,679 every single day. The Royal Automobile Club has reported a sharp surge this year, with February alone seeing more than 6,000 pothole-related breakdown reports. Meanwhile, compensation claims to councils have risen by over 90% in just three years, yet the vast majority are rejected. Motorists are paying twice: once through their taxes and again through their repair bills.

First, we must recognise the growing strain on our road network. Much of our local infrastructure, particularly in rural counties like Buckinghamshire, was never designed for the volume and type of traffic that the roads now carry. Many roads began life as literal cart tracks, without the deep foundations needed to withstand modern use.

The state-mandated transition to battery electric cannot be divorced from infrastructure realities. Electric vehicles are significantly heavier than their petrol and diesel equivalents, particularly in goods vehicles. The physics is simple: as weight increases, the damage inflicted on road surfaces increases exponentially. Yet there has been very little acknowledgement from Government of how the increased wear will be managed, or how dealing with it will be funded.

We must also consider the impact of major infrastructure projects, of which we are seeing the misery at first hand in my county. High Speed 2 has brought thousands of additional heavy goods vehicle movements on to rural roads that were never designed for such use. The result is roads being churned up at an alarming rate. Too often, the burden of repairing that damage falls on local authorities and local taxpayers, which cannot be right. Where infrastructure projects cause damage, they must fix it. It is incumbent on HS2, as much as other projects, to fix what it breaks. We have seen that it can be done: projects such as East West Rail have resurfaced rural roads where construction traffic has taken its toll. HS2 must follow that example.

On the question of funding, in Buckinghamshire there is a £210 million road repairs backlog, alongside significant financial pressures on the council. Despite that, the council carried out over 30,000 repairs last year, and even released additional funding from reserves to try to tackle the problem, finding a highways repair budget of £120 million. But that is not sustainable as the Labour Government take £44 million of spending power away from Buckinghamshire.

The situation in Buckinghamshire is not unique. As we have heard from places such as Oxfordshire, councils across the country are repairing millions of potholes each year, yet the backlog continues to grow. Even with increased national funding, the gap between what is needed and what is delivered remains substantial. We cannot continue to pile pressure on to a system that is already at breaking point, so what is needed is clear: we need honesty about the scale of the challenge and sustained long-term spending that matches the backlog, not short-term sticking plasters. We are beyond pothole repair and into an era when we need full resurfacing.

We need fair funding for areas facing significant infrastructure pressures; all too often it is rural communities that are being let down. We need accountability so that those who damage our roads pay to repair them. For my constituents, and rural communities across the country, driving today feels less like a journey and more like navigating a patchwork obstacle course.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, if you could, please leave a minute or so at the end of your contribution for the Member in charge to wind up.

Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. I have seen the research and will refer to it later in my speech. That was a timely publication.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being generous on this important issue. When she spoke about the contribution that family businesses make, she could have been talking about J. W. Lees, a brewery in my constituency that has a nearly 200-year history of making contributions to the local community and brewing very good beer, or to Joseph Holt, which is on the edge of my constituency. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that the proposed changes to business property relief will lose the Government nearly £1.9 billion. Does the hon. Lady agree that before the Government go through with the changes, they should have a consultation that looks at the impact on tax and local family businesses?

[Susan Murray]

I completely agree: it appears that there are many factors the Government have not taken into account.

The situation was brought home to me by a local company in my constituency: Archibald Young Ltd Founders and Engineers, a family-run foundry that has been operating in Kirkintilloch since 1959—not quite as long as the business mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer). I thank Ian Young for sharing his company’s position and highlighting the vital role that it plays in defence by producing high-precision critical components. Since it was established, the company has grown steadily over three generations. At one time, Scotland had over 260 foundries; it now has 12, of which 11 are family-owned, and all are third generation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. To reassure her and her constituent, one of my priorities as chair of the HMRC board is to improve HMRC’s day-to-day performance. We have seen the percentage of telephony adviser attempts handled go from 59% last March to 80% this March. It will remain a priority for me to modernise and digitise the service.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

T8. The European emissions trading scheme has a carbon price that is 50% higher than the UK’s. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the impact of joining the scheme on inflation in this country?

[Rachel Reeves]

As my hon. Friend knows, sometimes the UK carbon price has been higher, but sometimes it has been lower than in the EU. This deal will ensure a bigger market that, on average, brings prices down. We are confident that the deal secured yesterday will bring more good jobs and bring down bills for consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will know that the Government have entered negotiations with our counterparts in the European Commission to improve trade between the UK and the European Union. I had a great meeting to discuss these issues last week in Cardiff with Finance Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive as well as from Scotland and Wales, and noted that we have given a record-breaking increase in funding to the devolved Governments, so that they can get on with such projects, working in partnership with us where we still have responsibility.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

6. What steps she has taken to increase regional growth in England.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

16. What fiscal reforms she has made to help increase economic growth in Cumbria.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Graham Stringer. [Interruption.]

[Graham Stringer]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was nearly as shocked when you called me as I was when listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Radio 4 talking about economic growth. She said there had not been a new runway built in this country since 1945. Manchester airport would be very surprised to hear that, because its new runway has been operating for nearly 25 years. I was shocked by that but not really surprised, because I think many officials in the Treasury who advise her show a startling ignorance of the English regions, and that leads to a certain prejudice in the formula they use to calculate whether a scheme should go ahead. Can the Minister and the rest of the Treasury team provide coaches to send Treasury officials around the English regions to talk to people who know about growth? Secondly, will he look at the formulas that decide where economic growth happens, which are biased against the regions?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions; I will do my best to answer them. I can confirm that Treasury officials routinely engage with local and regional officials across the country, including frequently in Manchester with Mayor Burnham and his team. I would point my hon. Friend gently to some of the announcements made by the Chancellor, including support for the Old Trafford development in Manchester. I congratulate the operators of Manchester airport on running a successful business, which we will continue to support in the normal way.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

It is good to have a proper debate. I certainly think that if we want and seek good government—which, like the human condition, is not a perfect state, but a state that we should seek constantly to perfect—the highest levels of transparency and the very important exercise in Government publishing of impact assessments when they make material decisions, as required by Cabinet Office guidance, are things that the whole House should join hands and agree on. It is one of the reasons why I asked my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), whether the Government had published an impact assessment on their callous decision to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from so many pensioners. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will well know that the process of trade deals undergoes extensive scrutiny in this House, and I took one of those trade deals through that process of scrutiny in a former life.

I will conclude, because I simply want to alert hon. Members to what they are potentially doing as they seek to support this Bill. It is not for partisan or political advantage, but about the important role of Parliament, which has been litigated many times in this Chamber and in debate.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Unsurprisingly, I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speeches on a number of occasions, and I agree with quite a lot of what he is saying about transparency. Does he agree that the burden of his argument is that we cannot make a Government behave better or govern more effectively by quango? This quango was set up by George Osborne to trap an incoming Labour Government and restrict and slow them down, and it is an odd thing that we see this quango being gilded.

[Andrew Griffith]

As ever, the hon. Member makes an important and weighty contribution. He is exactly right about the direction of travel. On both sides of the House, we will all find our own particular point on the envelope when it comes to the balance around organisations that can hold us to account and, in particular, hold a mirror to Government and ensure that this House acts with the best, most accurate and well-meaning data.

My core point is that we are sent here by our constituents. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough, who has been sent here on behalf of his constituents and has given a fine speech today, but I do not believe—he may intervene and correct me—that the citizens of Loughborough, whether they voted for Jane Hunt or for him, intended that one of the very first actions he and we would take as legislators would be to award more of our powers and place more fetters on ourselves. This is the right Chamber for accountability. We should hold ourselves to account; we have a number of ways in which to do that to ourselves. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) makes a very real point about quangos, arm’s length bodies and how we hold ourselves to account.

That is my point. I understand that many colleagues wish to get in. I support the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham, because it is quite right that we have rules. I was an accountant by training, and the first thing we learn—whether someone is an accountant or in performance sport—is that we play by the rules as they are; we do not seek to rig the rules in our favour.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments that I have tabled are intended to probe the legislation and the concept of “fiscally significant.” Amendments 6 and 7—and indeed amendment 8, although it was not considered in scope for selection—are about how we hold ourselves to account for the impact on future generations. I am not here to make a maiden speech; I am essentially the old guard now because I have been here for 14 years—[Interruption.] I know, it is very sad—my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby) is looking at me in horror.

[Graham Stringer]

You are not as old guard as some.

[Ms Creasy]

Yes. But in that time, many of us have had persistent concerns, and one of mine has always been the private finance initiative. The Government are asking all of us to make and support some very tough decisions because of the economic mess that the country now finds itself in. My view is that we must look at all outgoings in that process. If somebody came to a constituency surgery because they had multiple outstanding loans and could not pay their rent, we would look at the debts that they held. That is the challenge with private finance: it is the legal loan-sharking of the public sector. Amendments 6 and 7 are about the process of getting a grip on our debts and ensuring that we learn from the damage that private finance has done.

Let us be clear: nobody can absolve themselves from private finance. Governments of all persuasions have sought to use that process—the ability to put only the repayments on the books, rather than the substantial cost of borrowing. That started under John Major; yes, there were multiple PFIs under the previous Labour Government; and indeed, the previous Conservative Government continued to use private finance until 2018. That is why, as of February this year, there are still 700 PFI schemes representing a capital value of £57 billion, but for which we will pay back £151 billion in the years ahead. We are asking pensioners to pay more for heating their homes, but we should be asking how we can pay less for the private finance debts that we have built up.

Private finance was about being able to build things such as schools and hospitals. Anybody who has an outstanding PFI debt in their constituency, or a school or hospital that urgently needs rebuilding, such as Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency, understands the importance of being able to access private finance. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying through my amendments that we should never work with the private sector; I am saying that PFI was a catastrophically bad deal and that, cumulatively, it would meet the legislation’s targets of 1% of GDP, so it is a fiscally significant policy. My amendments are about trying to understand how we will deal with cumulative debt and cumulatively fiscally significant policies.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. As a member of the even older guard than hers—

[Ms Creasy]

The original OG!

[Graham Stringer]

I am certainly the old guard from the start of the previous Labour Government. That is relevant because I had a discussion at the time with the then Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, about the cost of PFIs for hospitals. His answer was succinct: “If you want the hospitals, you have to go down the PFI route.” He said that because the Treasury rules were so rigid about finding money for socially needed projects—hospitals in that case—the Government had to work around them, at what would eventually be a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is a warning there about rigid rules and not dealing with reality.

[Ms Creasy]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I agree with him not just about his football team but in his analysis. The legislation is about having better fiscal rules and tougher constraints when Governments make decisions. We saw with the Liz Truss Budget how catastrophic those decisions can be.

Many Members will have come across PFI in their constituencies, but it is worth putting on the record just how big it is, because that is relevant to the legislation. We are talking about 700 projects, but each project can be hundreds of individual buildings. One of those 700 projects is made up of 80 schools, for example, which shows the scale that we are talking about. About half of PFIs are held between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. That is how we built desperately needed schools and hospitals, but the cost is absolutely critical.

Some NHS trusts are now spending 13% of their total budget on PFI repayments—£2 billion a year for some. In practical terms, that means that some trusts are spending more to repay what is essentially a payday loan for the public sector than they are spending on drugs for their patients. It is a huge drain on our public finances. In 2020, during the pandemic, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust paid £66 million to service its PFI commitments—the same amount that it spent on lab equipment, surgical tools and personal protective equipment. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has already paid out £200 million in dividends to the company that owns its PFI, so the money is not just going to repay a debt for building a hospital; it is going out in pure profit to those companies. That is why I draw the parallel with payday lenders and buy now, pay later companies: once you are hooked in, you have to keep paying the debt.

It is not just a problem in the NHS. Hanson academy in Bradford has reached a debt of £4.16 million because of its PFI debt. It is now referred to as the UK’s “orphan” school because nobody wants to run it or take it over, given its financial position. Liverpool city council pays £4 million a year for Parklands high school, which was, again, built under PFI but is no longer needed because of falling school rolls. The council has roughly £42 million left to pay back on that contract for an empty, dead building. The equity solutions company that owns it has posted profits of £340,000 from that project this year alone.

PFI companies have made £111 million in pre-tax profit from education projects alone. That is about £800,000 per project, and the equivalent of 5,5000 new teachers’ salaries. The companies took on the risk of those deals to rebuild our public infrastructure, but the reality is that we do not let schools and hospitals go bust, so they took on the ability to print money. That is what the deals are doing. I will wager that every new and returning MP has had a conversation with someone in local government, a local hospital or a local school who talks about the damage that PFI is doing to their budgets, as if it is non-negotiable.

My amendments are about changing that culture. One challenge is that we have let those companies run rampant. That does not mean that we should not work with the private sector; it means that we should learn lessons, and I think we could learn some very simple ones. For a start, a lot of the companies are incorporated in overseas territories, which raises questions about the amount of tax that they are paying on those deals. Tax was originally part of the Treasury assessment of the deals, which was why working in that way was considered good value for money, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) was told that it was the best way to get a school or hospital.

We could also learn from payday lending by capping what the companies pay. After all, we cap the returns on defence projects. It makes no economic or ethical sense that we cap what can be earned from a military contract, but when someone builds a school or a hospital, they have free rein.

Above all, we need to know how much we owe, because even the Infrastructure and Projects Authority within Government could not get a grip on the total reality of our PFI commitments to date. That is partly because this has been done at a local government level, through devolution and in silos within companies, but it seems a very simple thing: even if those debts are being held overseas, the people paying them are very much here. In Northampton, there are 42 schools costing £30 million per annum, including £4.2 million in pre-tax profits in 2021-22, and Northampton’s budgets as a local authority are in a very difficult position right now. The firm that owns all those schools is based in Guernsey. In Birmingham, 11 schools are part of the Birmingham Schools Partnership, owned by Innisfree. Innisfree owns 260 schools across this country, as well as my local hospital in Whipps Cross. It is based in Jersey and is making millions of pounds in profit from these deals. We have never consolidated those loans to ask ourselves whether we could renegotiate them as a country and therefore claw some money back, because we do not know who we owe what to, or how much it is going to cost.

Amendments 6 and 7 deal with the challenges posed by the threshold of this legislation. It is absolutely right to set a threshold for what is fiscally significant, and individual PFIs would not go anywhere near a threshold of 1% of GDP, which is about £28 billion. However, when we add them up, it is very clear from what we already know about our PFI commitments that they do. As such, these amendments are intended to probe the Government about how we deal with debts and spending that might not meet that threshold individually, but might do so cumulatively, and to look at what we can do in the future to make sure that if we work with the private sector—again, I am not saying that we should never do so; I am saying that we should learn from PFI—we make better decisions. After all, this legislation is about making better-informed, independent decisions.

That is why I also tabled amendment 8, to learn the lessons from trade deals. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is right: the Government’s decision to go for the trade and co-operation agreement—the hardest of Brexits—has cost us an estimated 4% of GDP, so again, that would be a fiscally significant decision. It would be as catastrophic as that Liz Truss Budget—indeed, many of us can see that it has been—but we did not have an independent assessment. Amendment 6 and amendment 7, which is an enabling amendment, would ensure that we have an independent assessment of cumulative spending looking at these issues.

I know that the Minister is as interested as I am in what we can do to tackle the drain that PFI represents and work better with the private sector. I hope that this legislation and the concept of putting PFI on the books is the start of a conversation about better public spending, and I hope that Toad of Toad Hall will recognise that maybe this time it is good that they are in the passenger seat.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I took the precaution of researching my hon. Friend’s interest in this subject, and I note that he was issuing challenges on it 14 years ago. The Government remain—as they were then—fully committed to delivering HS2 and the integrated rail plan. This is a long-term investment that will bring our biggest cities closer to each other. It will boost productivity, and will provide a low-carbon alternative to cars and planes for many decades to come. As my hon. Friend knows, we are also working, through the IRP, on a £96 billion package to improve inter-regional rail connections, which obviously affects his constituents.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that this country’s performance on productivity has been pitiful over the last 10 years? There has been virtually no improvement in productivity, and one reason for that is our lack of investment in national infrastructure. Slowing down HS2 is a bad move when it comes to improving our infrastructure, and it is years since we agreed to a third runway at Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that if we are to improve our productivity, we have to invest in infrastructure?

High Income Child Benefit Charge

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am covering for my colleague who cannot be here today because of a constituency commitment. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for bringing forward a really important debate today. He spoke compassionately about his constituents, who are clearly struggling, and I applaud him for bringing this matter to the House. He will be pleased to know that Labour always welcomes the opportunity to highlight the significant pressures that families are facing across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency, as the cost of living crisis gets worse.

We have heard how hundreds of thousands more families are being pulled into the high income child benefit charge. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it well when he said that a lot of them are not from wealthy families, yet they are still being pulled into that charge. It is sad that hard-working people are having to pay for the chaos caused in recent months, and for 12 years of economic failure.

I want the Minister to explain the fiscal drag of freezing the threshold for the high income child benefit charge. I am sure she will make the case that maintaining the threshold at £50,000 allows the Government to prioritise the majority of families, particularly the poorest households, and that she will talk about difficult choices that have to be made and how taxpayers’ money is best spent. We all agree with that, but the truth is that the current benefits system is not working for anyone, least of all the poorest. A report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last week found that the benefit system is fundamentally “not fit for purpose” and has “trapped” millions of children and families in poverty.

Helping more people into good-quality work must be a priority of social security. Over 1 million people are out of work, despite wanting a job, and yet employers are struggling to fill over 1 million vacancies. I looked at the figures. Employment in the UK is lower now than it was before the pandemic, and the employment rate has had the biggest drop out of the major G7 economies.

A shocking 2.5 million of those who have fallen out of the workforce have done so because of ill health. We know that being out of work is bad for health. The longer someone is out of work for sickness reasons, the more difficult it is for them to return to a job. Unfortunately, it feels like nothing is being done to break that dangerous cycle. We cannot simply write people off. Only 4% of people in the employment and support allowance support group return to work each year. That is a huge waste of the potential of British people, who we know can contribute a lot to the economy.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) wanted to know about Labour’s approach. We would take a very different approach to the benefits system. We would modernise jobcentres, turning them into new hubs that focus on work progression. They would be no longer just a conveyer belt to lower-paid work, but an escalator to well-paid, secure jobs.

I looked at the figures again. Only one in 10 older or disabled people who are out of work are receiving any support to find a job. That is because the Government impose programme after programme on local areas, regardless of their local economic needs. A massive £20 billion is being spent across 49 schemes, administered by nine different Government Departments. Even that statistic sounds so confusing.

The fragmented system is wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to get people into work. In contrast, when some limited local design has been allowed in pockets of the country, such as the inspirational “Working Well” initiative in Greater Manchester, there have been real successes in helping people get back into employment. That is why the Labour party will shift resources and power to the local level and guarantee local innovation in the design and delivery of employment support services.

We also want to address the hindrance to work in the social security system by empowering jobcentres to help to broker flexible working opportunities for those who have caring responsibilities. Crucially, we will reform the Access to Work scheme, for which the waiting list for an assessment has trebled. People now wait months for a decision, and overall the work capability assessment regime leaves too many people trapped in unemployment.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. This is not a high-pressure debate and there is plenty of time, but the title is the high income child benefit charge. I am willing to relax and let the hon. Lady go a bit off-piste, but I think she is wandering quite a long way off the subject of the debate.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Apologies, Mr Stringer. You will be pleased to hear that I am on the last bit of my speech.

I ask the Minister to respond to the specific concerns raised today, especially in relation to the growing number of people pulled into the high income child benefit charge. I sincerely believe we need a proper plan to lift families out of poverty. We need to get our economy growing, and we need to offer opportunities for people in every part of the UK. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

Covid-19: Economic Impact of Lockdowns

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), both on her speech—the vast majority of which, if not all, I agree with—and on bringing this matter before the House. It was not only during the time of covid that we did not debate covid enough; since the end of lockdown, we have not debated the consequences of the policy decisions taken during covid.

I will just go back to what the Government said at the start of covid; it is always better to go back and examine whether those things actually happened or were honoured. The first thing the Government said at the start of the crisis was that they would follow the science. They did not follow the science. I can give a large number of examples where they did not follow the science, but I will just concentrate on two or three important examples.

One of them has already been mentioned: children losing their education. It was clear from the very beginning of this disease that it was primarily a disease of the elderly and of people with other co-morbidities. It was clear early on that there was essentially no danger to children or anybody else from opening schools, but they were not opened quickly enough. Anyone who goes into schools and knows young children can still see the damage that was done to them both emotionally and educationally because the science was not followed.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) will remember that Greater Manchester, which had a two-tier system of lockdown, was put into lockdown before Merseyside. The Government’s statistics on infection rates and the R number were higher for Merseyside than they were for Greater Manchester, but the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who is better occupied in the antipodes than he was in this House as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, decided that he liked the Mayor of Merseyside rather more than Andy Burnham, so Greater Manchester went into lockdown and Merseyside did not, even though the statistics suggested otherwise.

More trivially but importantly for those who like a drink was the decision to close pubs at 10 pm. When we questioned the Government’s chief scientific adviser and chief medical officer on the Science and Technology Committee, they openly admitted that this was a ministerial decision with no science behind it whatever. So the Government did not follow the science, and I do not think they ever had any intention of doing so.

[Chris Green]

One concern I had from the very beginning of the pandemic was that we had the Prime Minister, professors, doctors and Ministers saying, “This is the scientific evidence. This compels you to do as we are saying. We have the weight of evidence behind us.” However, not long afterwards—in fact, within days or weeks—it was clear that there was no scientific basis for the 10 pm curfew. That undermines people’s confidence when the scientific and medical establishment tells us to take the necessary precautions.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Most politicians are not scientists—there are very few; I do not think we even have an epidemiologist in the House—or scientifically trained.

Dominic Cummings came to the Science and Technology Committee and made an extremely good point: members of the Government are not experts, so when scientific evidence was being given to them, it should have been challenged, and other scientists should have been brought in to challenge it—so-called red teams. That challenge would have helped the Government to see that there was a debate. Many scientists were frustrated because they had a different view of the evidence presented—sometimes they even had different evidence—and it should have been considered. However, that internal debate did not happen in Government, and the debate in the House of Commons, as the right hon. Member for Tatton said, also did not happen as it should have done.

What did happen was that the Government decided on lockdown. My view is that once Italy, China and a number of countries in south-east Asia had locked down, the Government believed that lockdown was the politically safe thing to do. It was not scientifically the right thing to do; it was not the most effective way of dealing with the covid epidemic.

There are two reasons for locking down. The first is to eliminate the disease very early on to stop it spreading at all. That position had passed a long time before the Government locked down. After that, the reason is to stop the NHS being overwhelmed by too many infections at once. The Government’s other slogan—apart from that they were following the science—was that they were going to protect the NHS. They did that in a very simple sense, because it was not overwhelmed by covid. However, since the start of 2020, there has been effectively no NHS for many people. During covid, hospitals were empty and GPs could not be seen. The fact that deaths are now about 10% higher than normal shows the impact of people not being able to access GPs or get cancer care and of elderly people suffering from dementia not getting any support or human contact.

[Chris Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Government’s approach appeared to be to use the precautionary principle to protect the Government rather than to protect people, and to say, “If we lock down and do the restrictions, no one can blame us for what comes out from it”? In contrast, the Swedish approach was to give people good advice and take only the necessary measures.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman puts it in an interesting way, although there is another interpretation of the precautionary principle. Some people interpret it as meaning that we should be as cautious we can be, but it actually means that we should not take action until we are certain of the facts. It does not mean that we should not do anything, which is how the Government interpreted it.

The right hon. Member for Tatton made a good point about the Government’s position on lockdown. Gavin Morgan, who was a member of SPI-B, the sub-committee of SAGE, said that behavioural psychology was weaponised and that there was an exaggerated threat. We got into a vicious feedback loop: the Government frightened people, so people demanded more lockdown from the Government. That was bad for health and the economy.

That is the health side of it, and we are suffering from it now, with 6 million-plus people on the waiting lists for elective surgery. However, this debate is primarily about the economy. The Government say that the war in Ukraine is the prime reason why the economy and the Government’s finances are in difficulty.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the IMF’s estimate that £407 billion was spent on covid. Some of that money was spent really well. Some of it was spent on developing the vaccines and on the vaccine taskforce, and that work was brilliant and very effective—I congratulate the vaccine taskforce—but much of it was wasted. The National Audit Office estimated that the bulk of the £37.5 billion spent on Test and Trace was wasted because there was no communication between the centre and the public health teams. That is a huge amount to waste, and that was just the budget.

Money on personal protective equipment was wasted not only because it went to friends of the Government in pretty dodgy contracts, but because it went on pretty dodgy personal protective equipment that did not work. All that has had a disastrous effect on the Government’s finances, and therefore the economy, because it is preventing the Government from spending money where they should.

I will finish on two points. I could go on for much longer, but other Members want to speak. There was no proper debate inside or outside the Government about the science. Just before Parliament went to sleep, it passed the Coronavirus Act 2020. One would have expected that Act to be used, but it was not. The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 was the Act under which the Government mainly enacted the decisions that they had made. That Act allows less scrutiny in Parliament, and we lost many of our civil liberties for no good reason at all. I am still shocked that, when I left the House to go back to Manchester after the House had started sitting again, and I was going into Euston station, a police officer asked me where I was going. This is not Nazi Germany in the late 1930s; this is the United Kingdom of free people. I am not going to tell police officers where I am going. We need to look at that issue.

Finally, there is a great deal of hope that Baroness Hallett’s inquiry will get to the bottom of many of the issues we are discussing all too briefly today. Like other colleagues who have spoken, I have written to Baroness Hallett setting out my worry that she is disproportionately asking for evidence from people who naturally supported lockdown and not from businesses that have gone to the wall because of lockdown or from people who cannot access health services because we are still suffering the impacts of lockdown. I am worried about the way that that inquiry is structured.

I will finish on a figure from Professor Thomas of Bristol University, who has pointed out one of the issues I raised in the debates that took place when I was asking for an economic as opposed to a health analysis: poverty kills—not just covid. Professor Thomas thinks that 2.5 million life years have been lost because of the loss of GDP so far. It is a statistical factor, but it gives an indication of the economic damage and the impact that lockdown has had on people’s lives.

Government Response to Covid-19: Public Inquiry

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Fifth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of Session 2019-21, A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, HC 541; and calls on the Government to provide an updated response to that set out in the Committee’s Fourth Special Report of Session 2019-21, A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic: Government’s response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, HC 995, setting out how the Government intends to implement the Committee’s recommendations, to ensure that the administrative arrangements necessary to set up the public inquiry committed to by the Prime Minister to the House on 11 May 2021, in particular the appointment of an inquiry chair, take place in a timely manner and no later than the end of this year, and to agree: that the Government’s preferred candidate to chair the inquiry should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the relevant select committee for the sponsoring Government department.

It is a privilege to move the motion, in the name of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, into the very important subject of the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic and the promised public inquiry.

We, as a Committee, have taken evidence from some very well informed help, if I may put it that way, and we have brought our deliberations forward in the reports under discussion today. We thank our witnesses who gave evidence—Emma Norris from the Institute for Government, Dr Alastair Stark from the University of Queensland, Jason Beer, QC, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Sir Robert Francis, QC, Dame Una O’Brien and Baroness Prashar of Runnymede—and all those who submitted written evidence to the inquiry. I also thank fellow Committee members for their well-informed deliberation on these matters.

We are all used now, I think, to public inquiries as a routine part of the UK political landscape, and it is clear that the issues with which we have been grappling over the past 18 months, and the very difficult measures that the Government have taken to combat the pandemic, are very much the right subject for a public inquiry. However, although we are used to public inquiries, there is very little guidance about how public inquiries should be established, Chairs appointed and terms of reference agreed, so, in the absence of such guidance, our Committee has happily stepped into that void with a view to taking discussions forward.

The Prime Minister has committed in principle to establishing a public inquiry, and in May 2021 he suggested that it should be established in spring 2022. The first message that the Committee would like to give is that that timetable really ought to be brought forward, for the simple reason that it takes a number of months before an inquiry can get under way in terms of establishing its secretariat and so on. I guess one issue that we were keen to grapple with is that the farther away from events an inquiry is established, the less we can learn in a timely fashion. So we would strongly encourage the Government to think about how they can be setting up that inquiry from now. It really should not get in the way of the fight against the pandemic, especially given where we are with regard to vaccination.

Obviously, we need to be very sure about the purpose of the inquiry. As a Committee, we were very keen to ensure that the inquiry should be about learning lessons, not apportioning blame. The facts of the matter are that the Government, and all our public services, were dealing with unprecedented challenges, and there can be no right or wrong answers when the evidence on which you seek to make decisions is changing before your very eyes from day to day. Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of judgment exercised at the time.

I really hope that we can enter the inquiry very much in that spirit, because although I have not agreed with every aspect of the Government’s decision making on this matter, I absolutely recognise that everyone involved in that process was doing so honourably, with the best of intentions. We are not going to be honest about lessons learned unless we can approach the inquiry on that basis. We in this place need to give some very clear messages that we are doing so in the spirit of learning.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I commend the Committee for its thoughtful and thorough report.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady just said about one of the recommendations, and I understand about learning lessons; that is often what Committees do. I would challenge any Member, particularly Members who have been in this House for a long time, to remember the lessons learned and recommendations from the mad cow disease inquiry; my guess is that nobody will.

We already know that there have been heroes and villains over the last 18 months, and I would hope that any inquiry would identify those heroes and villains. Mistakes have been made in some cases because mistakes were bound to be made, but some mistakes have been made wilfully and we need to know who was responsible for them.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, where there is wilful bad behaviour it should be exposed, but we need to set the tone: this inquiry is about how the Government and society have dealt with a very difficult set of issues. The heroes and villains to whom he refers will find a way of being outed, if I can put it in such a way, without it being the entire focus or ethos of the inquiry.

We obviously need to be very clear about the inquiry’s terms of reference, to inform what the focus will be, and about how the various themes that could be looked at will be examined. The chair will obviously be a very important appointment. This is by tradition the choice of the relevant Minister, but, again, respect for and the authority of the inquiry will be very much set by who the chair is. The Committee was very attracted to the idea of a chairman and panel approach, recognising that some of the issues that will be considered by the inquiry are broad ranging so it would be right for the chairman to have access to appropriate expertise in various areas. The Committee also felt that the appointment should be subject to a pre-commencement hearing with the relevant Select Committee, given the very high level of parliamentary interest in this inquiry. That would be an unprecedented step, but, again, in terms of setting the tone of how the inquiry will be progressed, it could be a very important innovation, and I hope the Government will consider that.

One of the issues that needs to be considered by the inquiry is of course the response by the Department of Health and Social Care in terms of management of risk of transmission and so on, but we need to consider in the round the tools adopted by the Government to deal with that, including the impact on liberties and the impact on our economy. There will be obvious consequences in the longer term for the nation’s wellbeing in the round. We also need to consider the wider behaviour of public services in that regard.

There also needs to be a way of considering the impacts in the devolved nations, including whether this should be a UK-wide inquiry or there should be separate inquiries; quite possibly there should be a combination of both.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that there are not financial constraints. The UK Government have guaranteed that the Welsh Government will receive at least £5.2 billion in additional resource to deliver their coronavirus response, including the vaccine deployment activities.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on regional economic disparities.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

The Government recognise the significant impact of covid-19 on every region and nation of the UK. I can assure hon. Members across the House that levelling up remains a key priority for the Government. That is why the spending review also announced longer-term measures to support every region and nation, including a new £4 billion levelling-up fund to invest in local infrastructure priorities.

[Graham Stringer]

It is good to hear that the Government are still committed to levelling up, but all the academic studies that have been done have shown that covid has disproportionately affected the regional economies, with Greater Manchester the third most badly affected region in the country. Those regions need more support, but Transport for the North and Northern Powerhouse Rail are being cut; is that not going in exactly the opposite direction?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I would dispute the hon. Gentleman’s claims. We have taken unprecedented steps to support people and businesses around the country. We have supported 19,100 jobs in his constituency through the coronavirus job retention scheme. Greater Manchester Combined Authority has been allocated £54.2 million from the Getting Building fund for a wide-ranging package of projects. We have also provided over £170 million for the Greater Manchester-Preston city region and Liverpool city region to improve public transport. We have also supported the regeneration of 33 towns in the north-west through the towns fund. There is a lot that is happening on levelling up. If he would like me to write to him to explain everything that we have done in his region, I am happy to do so.