Affordable and Safe Housing for All

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

As the Prime Minister has made clear, the future beyond the pandemic is not about restoring the status quo; we can and must do better, and last week’s Queen’s Speech set out our ambitious and comprehensive plan to do just that. For my Department, this means building back fairer and building back safer.

I welcome the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to the shadow Front Bench, the third shadow Housing Secretary I have debated with across the Dispatch Box since I became Secretary of State. Shortly after becoming shadow Housing Secretary, her predecessor got off to a bad start by admitting to a journalist that the Labour party had no housing policies, so I would like to congratulate the hon. Lady on a noticeable change of approach. I say that cautiously, as in her first TV interview she implied that it is now Labour party policy to oppose the building of more homes, a position that she herself has advocated for many years even in her central Manchester constituency, with all its brilliant opportunities for growth and regeneration.

We are told that the Labour party is under new management—well, at least for now—and it seems that its maxim is “Tough on homes, tough on the causes of homes”, but we are going to take a different approach. It seems from the hon. Lady’s opening remarks today that the Opposition accept there is a major problem, which is welcome: they accept that there is a generational problem that we need to come together to tackle, but it does not seem that they are yet willing to support any of the policies that will actually change and improve the status quo. We cannot wish more houses to be built; we have to make it happen, and we have to accept some of the difficult choices that are required. Despite the hon. Lady’s rhetoric today, we consider this to be an issue beyond party politics; we do want to work together, as I said when we spoke the other day, and I do welcome her appointment.

No reasonable person in this House, or indeed across the country, can credibly make the case that we should not be building more homes, because all of us in this House aspire to be or are already homeowners, and we aspire for our own children and grandchildren to be homeowners as well. The property-owning democracy is one of the foundations of this country—the belief that home ownership should be achievable for all who dream of it, and that young people, irrespective of where they are born, should be able to own the keys to their own home. For too many, this uniquely British dream has proved to be out of reach, and we face a generational divide between those who own property and those who do not. By the age of 30, those born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1965. Too many young people are being locked out of the benefits of capitalism. As we work hard to level up the country and to bridge this home ownership divide, we must do everything we can to make home ownership accessible to even more people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The scheme the Secretary of State has on the mainland here is called shared ownership. We have a similar scheme in Northern Ireland in which, with £80,000, people can go on to co-ownership. It is a really good scheme; my son is in that scheme. But the Secretary of State will be aware that house prices are going through the roof. In my constituency, in the last month alone prices have been going up by 16.7%, so what extra help can be given to first-time buyers who just want to get on the housing ladder?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and many of the policies we are pursuing are UK-wide. They include, for example, the mortgage guarantee that is enabling young people to get on the housing ladder with 95% mortgages, which will benefit his constituents as much as it will benefit mine. Through these schemes—such as the 95% mortgages, our reformed and more consumer-friendly model of shared ownership, and the Help to Buy equity loan—we are helping more people on to the ladder. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the First homes scheme will ensure that there are 30% discounts for first-time buyers, those on low incomes and key workers such as our NHS and social care workers, veterans and young police officers to get the keys to their own property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

When it comes to the issue of land that has been banked for development, some 1 million homes are set aside for that purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be a timescale on when that land can be dealt with? Does he also feel that, within the land banked development plan, there should be provision for social housing for people who cannot afford housing by going for a mortgage?

[Tim Farron]

I agree with all those points. It is vitally important that land that can be used for housing is made available for affordable housing—for homes for local people that they can afford.

It is worth bearing in mind that there are other problems in the planning system. In my part of the world, south Cumbria, we have three planning authorities—the district council, the Yorkshire Dales national park and the Lake District national park. One problem there is not the overweening power of the planners, but the overweening power of developers to be able to run rings around the community. The viability assessment, for example, allows a developer to get planning permission for developing, let us say, 30 or 40 houses and then, having agreed to build a dozen or so affordable homes, to tell the planners, and indeed the local community, “We’ve changed our mind; we’ve found a few rocks, so we won’t go ahead as we had promised.” The planners’ lack of power to ensure developers do what the community wants them to do undermines local democracy and undermines the ability to deliver affordable homes to local communities.

One hugely worrying aspect of the Government’s proposals is that developers will be able to build up to 50 homes without any affordable homes among them whatsoever, which will be massively ruinous to a community such as mine where the majority of developments are smaller than 50 houses and where the average wage is less than a 12th of the average house price. I heard the Secretary of State’s offer earlier about first homes and I will take him up on his offer. In the South Lakes we will offer to be a pilot for first homes, on the understanding that it is not a replacement for the existing provision for affordable homes through the planning system. I am all ears because we need to do everything we can to ensure there are local homes for local people.

I mentioned in an intervention a desperately worrying thing. People talk about an increased number of homes being available, but in the past 12 months we have seen a reduction in the number of homes available for local people in south Cumbria, and other parts of the country as well, as second home ownership has rocketed, in part fuelled by the Government failing to think through the impact of the stamp duty holiday. Eighty per cent. of homes purchased in Cumbria in the last 12 months have gone into the second home market. They are not lived in. What does that mean for the local community? It means we are robbing that community of a permanent population.

People can talk about levelling up, but it does not look like levelling up to me when we see a school closing because there are not enough permanent homes locally to send children to that school. Levelling up does not mean very much to us in Cumbria if there is no demand for the bus service, so the old person who wants to attend a GP appointment 10 miles away cannot physically get there; and the post office shuts down because there are not enough homes in the village to sustain the post office all year round. That does not look like levelling up; that looks like the Government deciding to ignore the plight of rural Britain, including my part of Cumbria.

Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to look at my early-day motion, which has the backing of the Lake District national park and the Yorkshire Dales national park, calling for councils in England to be given the same powers they have in Wales to increase council tax on second homes, but also to intervene to change planning law to protect first homes in communities such as mine, so those places do not become ghost towns. It is deeply troubling that there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that allows us to tackle the explosion of second home ownership, which is undermining community in places such as mine.

I want to say a few words about the Building Safety Bill. That is an opportunity for those of us who care about those who are the victims of the staggering unfairness of the cladding scandal to seek to address it, but it would be even better if the Government were to do a U-turn now and decide not to lay at the door of those people who are blameless the price incurred by those who are guilty of recklessness and lethal decisions in both the development side and the Government regulation side of the development of properties over years. It is outrageous that we are apparently about to penalise the innocent for the failures of the guilty.

We must protect our environment, create a planning system that listens to local people and protects our landscape, and make sure that we have homes that are available and affordable for local people, so that our communities in the likes of the lakes and the dales remain sustainable. My great fear is that the Secretary of State’s plans are all about listening to the people with the power and ignoring communities such as ours, which are in desperate need of support.

Antisemitic Attacks

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Yes, there certainly is. As the father of three young Jewish girls, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the British Jewish community feel protected, feel safe and feel that they can continue to thrive in this country. They are our longest-established religious minority. They have added so much to this country over the generations, and I hope that they will do so for many, many generations to come.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am unashamedly a friend of Israel, and I condemn the antisemitic attacks in London over the weekend and welcome the police response that the Secretary of State referred to. However, does he not agree that headlines such as “Israel launches airstrikes on Gaza Strip after Hamas rocket attacks” may prevent readers from understanding that Israel launched rockets in defence and not first? Does he agree that no resolution will be found if the media continue to stir tension with biased reporting? Further, will he confirm once more, to make it very clear, that Israel has a right to defend herself, and that while we may ask Israel to enter into peace talks, we will never disregard her right to defend herself against any attack?

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me be perfectly clear: the UK Government believe that Israel has a right to self-defence. The UK Government believe that that must be exercised proportionately and with due regard to civilians. We will ensure, as far as we can, that both sides engage. If there is any route now to bring this to a peaceful resolution, it must be sought, and we are doing that at the United Nations and in every forum that is available to us. But we will also condemn any form of antisemitism that we see in this country. Jewish citizens are citizens of the United Kingdom. They are not in any way responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government, whether good or bad. They are citizens of the United Kingdom; they deserve our complete support, and they have it today.

National Minimum Wage Enforcement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing today’s important debate and, indeed, his tenacity in supporting and representing his constituent. I am proud to serve as the Minister responsible for the national minimum wage, the national living wage and workers’ rights, among my other responsibilities. I very much value his generous words on the benefits of the national minimum wage to make sure that we can encourage people, as he rightly says, and ensure that work pays. We must protect people on the lowest pay grades, but make sure that they stay in work and have a fruitful career.

The Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, we continue to ensure that the lowest paid in society are rewarded fairly for their contribution to the economy. In April, we increased the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91, which is the highest ever UK minimum wage. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual earnings rise by over £345. That amounts to a total increase of more than £4,000 since the national living wage was announced in 2015.

We have lowered the age threshold for the national living wage to 23 and, as a result, 23-year-olds and 24-year-olds will get a 71p increase. We have increased the time for which employers must keep minimum wage records from three to six years. That means that workers will get more of the historical arrears that they are owed. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who fail to pay the national minimum or national living wage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for introducing the debate. I am always encouraged by what the Minister says, and it is encouraging to hear the things that have been done. However, there are loopholes that allow the hours of casual workers not to be recorded and an appropriate minimum wage is not enforced, so does he not agree that they must be closed? Do his Government intend to ensure that employers will begin doing the right thing instead of being able to avoid it, as they can at the moment?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important, twofold point. First, on anomalies, ignorance is no defence when it comes to paying the national minimum wage, and secondly, that is where enforcement comes in. I shall expand on that in a second. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, to make sure, as I have said, that companies are not balancing their books on the poorest paid in their workforce and in society.

We relaunched the minimum wage naming scheme on 31 December, naming and shaming 139 employers, including some of the UK’s biggest household names, for failing to pay the minimum wage. We have also more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance since 2015. There are now over 400 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dedicated to ensuring compliance with the minimum wage.

I should like briefly to share the results of HMRC’s work in the 2020-21 financial year. As we have heard, it was a really challenging year for the whole country. Many of HMRC’s investigations are carried out face to face. Its officers can arrive unannounced at business premises to check minimum wage records or to interview employers and workers. Those face-to-face visits clearly had to be limited in line with covid restrictions, and with many businesses closing their doors. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the pandemic is no excuse for failing to pay staff correctly, especially in sectors such as social care and retail, which have provided invaluable services over the past year. I am pleased that HMRC continued its enforcement and compliance work, prioritising desk work where possible and expanding its educational work with employers and workers.

Despite the pandemic, in 2020-21 HMRC closed over 2,700 cases, securing more than £16.7 million in arrears for more than 155,000 workers. It issued 575 penalties worth over £14 million. HMRC also contacted more than 770,000 employers and workers to improve awareness of the minimum wage. As part of this, it sent over 400,000 texts to apprentices regarding the risks of underpayment from unpaid training time. It wrote to nearly 200,000 employers and workers. HRMC produced a variety of webinars and educational videos that accumulated nearly 20,000 views. One of those webinars is aimed specifically at the social care sector, covering travel time, waiting time and breaks. About 12,000 letters are being sent to Care Quality Commission-registered providers of home care service to highlight that webinar.

The Government acknowledge the particular challenges in enforcing the minimum wage in the care sector. We estimate that approximately 27,000 social care workers were underpaid the national living wage or national minimum wage in 2020. That represents just over 3% of all workers in the sector and is in line with previous years. All workers deserve the wage they are legally entitled to, but particularly key workers in the current context of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government therefore asked HRMC to focus on the sector in its targeted enforcement activity. We have also recently published comprehensive revised minimum wage guidance for all employers. That includes guidance on the recent Supreme Court judgment on sleep-in shifts, where we now have clarity after years of revolving court judgments.

But I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about social care workers. We met late last year, as he outlined, to discuss the issue of care workers providing care to individuals with direct payment arrangements, also known as personal budget holders. I appreciate that the situation with personal budget holders is particularly tricky as they are vulnerable individuals, but in minimum wage terms they are often the employers of their carers. That means, under minimum wage legislation, that any enforcement action by HMRC for underpayment of their care workers can only be taken against these individuals. I would like to give some assurances on how enforcement works in practice in such cases. Where complaints are received, HMRC works with all parties to ensure that personal budget holders receive the necessary help and support while also continuing to protect the rights of workers. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a duty of care under the Care Act 2014 to give personal budget holders clear advice about their responsibilities as an employer. Local authorities must also be satisfied that a personal budget holder is capable of managing direct payments, and should put in place an effective monitoring process related to those direct payments. Crucially, this involves checking to ensure that the individual is fulfilling their responsibilities as an employer. I understand that there are examples of local authorities stepping up to financially assist personal budget holders where minimum wage cases are brought against them. I strongly encourage this, and it is in line with the local authority’s Care Act duties, but ultimately HMRC needs to protect the rights of any underpaid worker.

Where arrears have been repaid to the worker, HMRC has discretion on whether to issue a formal notice of underpayment. HMRC rightly makes limited use of its discretion in practice, but cases brought against personal budget holders are instances where I would expect it to consider using that discretion. I therefore urge workers who care for personal budget holders and who believe them to have been underpaid, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, to complain to HMRC or contact ACAS for advice. I understand, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that this is clearly an issue—although I cannot comment on his individual case in detail—that is a good few years old. As I say, I admire his tenacity in working with the council as well, pushing the council to do more and also speaking to my predecessor as well as to me. I know that my hon. Friend is calling for HMRC to be able to enforce directly against local authorities in such cases, but HMRC can enforce only against the employer—that is laid out in primary legislation.

It is right that there is a clear line so that employers are always clear about their responsibilities and workers are always clear about their rights. Any change could call into question the other scenarios in which multiple parties are involved in employment, such as in respect of agency workers, umbrella companies or contractors. That could lead to protracted court cases to determine who is responsible for paying the minimum wage, which would only delay workers getting the pay to which they are legally entitled. We therefore have no plans to change the minimum wage legislation.

We are extremely proud of all our health and social care staff and recognise their extraordinary commitment, especially during the covid pandemic. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation, especially during the pandemic. Putting social care on a sustainable footing where everybody is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges our society faces. There are complex questions to address and we want to give them our full consideration in the light of current circumstances, which is why the Government are committed to the sustainable improvement of the adult social care system. The Department for Health and Social Care will bring forward plans for workforce reform later this year.

We are providing an extra £341 million for adult social care, to pay for infection, prevention and control measures and to support rapid testing to the end of June 2021. That will bring specific funding for adult social care during the pandemic to almost £1.8 billion. We are also providing councils with access to more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided over the past year to support the sector in dealing with covid-19.

My hon. Friend talked about the single enforcement body, which is indeed something we are consulting on and working through, not least as we move towards the introduction of an employment Bill. We are taking the time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned from the covid-19 situation—the baked-in behaviour changes to work practices in the wider sense of the employment Bill—and the single enforcement body will be a really important part of that. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions to the debate when we introduce forward legislation to bring that new body into existence.

My hon. Friend made some important points and I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to respond. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage, which is their legal entitlement. We also recognise that personal budget holders and individuals who arrange their own care are often among the most vulnerable in society. When complaints are received, HMRC will work with all parties to ensure that individuals receive the help and support that they need, while continuing to protect the rights of workers. I look forward to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all care workers are paid appropriately under the National Minimum Wage Act.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and wish you a very good Prorogation—or whatever the term is? Members, staff and your team have played an amazing role in allowing us to continue the scrutiny of the Government’s work and our work as a fully functioning democracy.

Redundancy Protection: Women and New Parents

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing today’s important debate on extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. I can assure her that simply going back to how things were, as she talks about, will not be the case, as I will outline. As we get through to the Employment Bill and further consultation and discussions with businesses and other groups, including Pregnant Then Screwed, I hope we will end up in a far better place to ensure that we can tackle some of those issues.

From the correspondence I receive as a constituency MP and as a Minister, I know what a crucial issue this is, and the pernicious effect that discrimination can have on both the immediate and the longer-term prospects of women in work. More generally, there is the drag that that can put on equality and productivity. Last month, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) brought a number of representative organisations to talk to me about the challenges that pregnant women and new mothers are facing as a result of covid, so I am aware of the many issues that some women face.

I will start by being crystal clear about two things. First, there can be absolutely no excuse for discrimination against pregnant women or women on maternity leave. There is no excuse for any form of discrimination; it is unlawful. It can have absolutely no place as we start to build back better after the pandemic. We cannot effectively level up if we continue to allow some groups to be treated poorly simply because of who or what they are.

Secondly, I will not hide from the fact that there is a real issue here. The research that we jointly funded with EHRC has been cited and makes for uncomfortable reading. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the key findings. Around one in nine mothers reported that they were dismissed, made compulsorily redundant when others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt that they had to leave their jobs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for setting the scene so well. From his comments, I understand the Minister is sympathetic to this issue. Overall, three in four mothers, 77%, said they had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave and/or return from maternity leave. They have an issue that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Government will respond in a positive way but even though the Government are indicating welcome measures, such as extension of time protection on return from maternity leave, there are wider aspects that need to be addressed, such as shared parental leave, and the stigma that still attaches to a father taking that essential leave. When the Minister makes his good points, will he also address that?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are plenty of wider issues to be considered, including the right to request flexible working that we have heard about. Making that a default option is something we have talked about significantly and want to ensure is at the heart of the Employment Bill, when parliamentary time allows that to come forward.

We still need to do plenty of work with shared parental leave. We have collected a lot of data through the consultation as part of the formal evaluation of the shared parental leave and pay scheme. That will give us a fuller picture of how well the current system of parental leave and pay overall is working for parents and employers. Some of the examples that we hear time and again in the Chamber and Westminster Hall indicate that it is not working, so there is plenty more that we can do.

To return to the findings I was talking about before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, if they are scaled up to the general population, it could mean as many as 54,000 mothers a year are losing their jobs, in many cases simply because they have had a child. Furthermore, our research found that one in five mothers said they had experienced harassment or negative comments related to pregnancy or flexible working from their employer or colleagues. If scaled up, again, to the general population, that could mean as many as 100,000 mothers having similar negative experiences. That can never be right.

The case for Government action is as clear as day. That is why we consulted on measures to improve redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents. Following that consultation, the Government’s formal response said that we will: ensure the redundancy protection period applies from the point the employee informs the employer that she is pregnant; extend the redundancy protection period for six months once a new mother has returned to work; extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking adoption leave, following the same approach as the extended protection provided for those returning from maternity leave; and extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking shared parental leave. We have been clear that we will introduce these measures as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The ten-minute rule Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) was raised. I am aware of calls for us to do things differently. Indeed, I met my right hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss her proposal, which follows aspects of the German approach, and my predecessors held similar meetings. It is not the objective that we disagree on but the means of achieving it, and even then we share a lot of common ground. The key difference is that the Government’s preferred approach retains and extends the current position of giving the pregnant woman or new parent preferential treatment so that, in effect, they are first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. Others suggest removing the current framework and replacing it with a comprehensive redundancy band with some very limited exceptions so that, in effect, that a pregnant woman or new mother could only be made redundant when a business is closing down. The Government have not yet been convinced by that argument.

At its simplest, taking that approach could require employers to continue to employ people even when there is no work for them to do if the business continued to exist. That burden would fall particularly heavily on small businesses. That is why we continue to believe that extending the existing framework remains the right approach. We believe that we are more likely to promote the culture change we seek by placing a slightly more flexible requirement on employers for an extended period. The six-month extension of additional redundancy protection into a return-to-work period will provide a period of up to 27 months when pregnant women and new mothers will be first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. I believe that will represent a considerable and significant step forward in redundancy protection for pregnant women and new mothers.

I have heard the arguments that there ought to be a role for state enforcement in redundancies involving a pregnant woman or new mother. We need to tread carefully when looking at state roles within those sort of areas. All redundancies should be fair, and it would not be rational to treat one group within the workplace any differently from another by giving them a different arbiter in the redundancy process. I appreciate the pressure and strain that the employment tribunal system is under and will be under owing to the covid pandemic, but none the less it has considerable strengths. For instance, it allows for careful consideration of employment disputes, which are often complex or may not be clear-cut, by those with appropriate expertise. Case law from employment tribunals allows our laws to evolve and develop to reflect changing working practices.

However, I am only too aware that improving redundancy protection only goes so far. The majority of employers report that it is in their interest to support pregnant women and those on maternity leave, with the main reasons being to increase staff retention and to create better morale among employees, but we know that many employers feel that women should declare up front during recruitment whether they are pregnant. EHRC and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research back in 2016 put a figure of 70% on this. Further, the same research found that a quarter of employers felt that it was reasonable during recruitment to ask women about their plans to have children, so clearly there is some way to go.

Tackling the challenge of pregnancy and maternity discrimination will require action on many fronts. That is why we committed to set up an employer and family representative group, which I want to make recommendations on what improvements can be made to the information available to employers and families on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Rather than focusing on the end of the process, redundancy, I want the group to look at earlier stages of the employment lifecycle, because we need to shift the whole focus of the debate on pregnancy and maternity discrimination so that employers get it right in the first place, rather than focusing only on what happens when things go wrong. I want the group to develop an action plan on the steps organisations can take to make it easier for pregnant women and new mothers to stay in work and for them to progress throughout their careers.

We are having final discussions with business and family representative groups. Indeed, only the week before last, Maternity Action wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on behalf of a number of trade unions and family groups to set out views on areas that might usefully be covered. This discussion is therefore very much a live one, and I hope to be able to announce the group’s membership and first meeting date soon.

I congratulate once again the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire on securing this important debate and for keeping this issue in the public eye. I started off by talking about how most employers realise the value of investing in their workforce and supporting them throughout their career. There are clearly actions that we need to take and issues we must address, as she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined eloquently. I look forward to working with the taskforce, seeing what it has to offer, listening to further debates both in this place and in responding to it and tackling many of these issues, as parliamentary time allows.

Question put and agreed to.

Vagrancy Act 1824

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act 1824.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am delighted to have secured this extremely important debate on repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act 1824, and I thank hon. Members present for putting in to speak. I know from my mailbag that constituents, businesses and visitors to the Cities of London and Westminster are concerned about rough sleepers and share my desire—and that of the Government—to end rough sleeping for good.

As the title suggests, this debate is not just about repealing the Vagrancy Act, but to consider what should replace it to respond to the 21st-century reasons people find themselves on the street. I believe that the Government share my wish to see the Act repealed following the response from my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary to my recent question in the House, where he confirmed his belief that the Act,

“should be consigned to history.” [Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1138.]

The Vagrancy Act 1824 is an antiquated piece of legislation originally introduced to deal with soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars. With no public services available, many ended up on the streets begging and sleeping rough. It is now used by police and councils to tackle the small minority of rough sleepers involved in persistent antisocial behaviour.

Similarly, powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including public space protection orders and criminal behaviour orders, are increasingly used. Yes, we must challenge anyone involved in antisocial behaviour, but rather than criminalising a rough sleeper, I truly believe that the better outcome for both the individual and society is to address the reasons they are on the street in the first place, and provide the help and support they obviously need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with over 50 housing and homelessness organisations supporting scrapping the Vagrancy Act 1824, the Minister and the Government must consider alternatives? They must acknowledge that many of these charities work with people experiencing homelessness directly, and that they see how it presently fails to end rough sleeping, instead pushing people into worse positions, and their circumstances must be respected and considered. The Government cannot ignore 50 housing and charitable organisations.

[Nickie Aiken]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not know a charity involved in rough sleeping and homelessness that does not agree that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed.

If we get this right, it will end the revolving door that too many rough sleepers currently experience, whereby they accept outreach help and are placed in accommodation, but too often find themselves back on the street because their underlying mental health issues or addictions have not been tackled. Even on the coldest day of the year and during adverse weather conditions brought on by the likes of the “beast from the east”, a considerable number of people chose to ignore the no-questions-asked help of a hot meal and a roof over their head, whether from a local authority, a church, a community centre or a mosque. They are so fearful, mistrusting or mentally unwell that they prefer to remain outside in below-zero temperatures, where they feel safest.

There are more than 400 beds available on any given night in Westminster alone for rough sleepers. However, we must not just offer a bed. The accommodation available rarely comes with the vital health services required to help turn a person’s life around and address often years—sometimes decades—of abuse, poor mental health and addiction. But there is a clear solution: replace the Vagrancy Act with a new approach that places the preservation of life at its core through assertive outreach, alongside social care and specialist medical support, all attached to the safety of a bed. We need addiction counsellors, psychiatric help and medical support for those who have suffered years of sleeping rough.

The Government’s Everyone In strategy, in response to the covid-19 pandemic, saw an incredible 90% of rough sleepers accept accommodation, demonstrating that when central and local government work together, we can achieve impressive results, but what about the other 10%? Throughout the first lockdown, about 100 people in Westminster refused all help and remained on the street. I saw many of them myself. They were clearly very ill, with serious addiction and mental health problems.

Having witnessed what I have, and having spoken to former rough sleepers, outreach workers and other experts, I know that it is clear that if we are to end rough sleeping for good, a fundamental shake-up of mental health services is required. Charities including The Passage, Crisis and St Mungo’s have highlighted that outreach workers today find it near impossible to secure mental health assessments for rough sleepers. Even when one has been secured, often the vital missing piece of the jigsaw is a specialist bed for that person.

People on the street with the most complex needs often lack the mental health capacity to make decisions for their own wellbeing or accept help from others. At present, a rough sleeper’s mental state has to become so acute that he or she is self-harming or at risk of doing so for the police to take emergency action, and only then might they have a mental health assessment. By that stage, it is far too late, which is why we need an assertive outreach approach. We need outreach workers working in partnership with specialist homelessness mental health teams that can undertake mental health assessments under the Mental Health Act 1983, as well as other types of assessments on the street, with rapid access to specialist bed spaces. We then need the health services required attached to the bed that the rough sleeper is referred to. I would welcome it if the Minister can address that point and consider reintroducing street-based mental health services.

Of course, none of that can happen without the backing of long-term sustainable funding. I again ask the Government to give due consideration to extending the time period of funding allocations for such service to at least three years, preferably five, rather than the current annual basis.

As we slowly and carefully begin our journey out of the pandemic, much is in flux. However, we now have a golden opportunity to build upon Everyone In, to learn from that initiative and to reshape our response, so that we have the services we need to achieve our shared goal of ending rough sleeping. The Government, I believe, are willing and able to end rough sleeping. Repealing and replacing the Vagrancy Act, longer-term funding attached to mental health services and accommodation and re-establishing street-based mental health services will do just that. I look forward to the contributions of other Members and to the Minister’s response.

Public Landmarks Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

Great British heroes such as Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson and Sir Winston Churchill, who were until comparatively recently almost universally regarded in a highly favourable light, now have their reputations besmirched.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. When we record greatness, we celebrate men and women who are inherently imperfect. When I look at Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, I honour what Churchill represented: duty, fortitude and an unwavering belief that when we British stood together, we could not be defeated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are worthy of celebration and honour today, and that by tearing them down we make no statement other than that we will not acknowledge our past, which makes me fear for our future?

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him unreservedly. I would also like to acknowledge the honour of being intervened on by him. I gather this is a rite of passage for any Member of Parliament: you are not really a Member of Parliament until you have been intervened upon by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I am very grateful to him.

Britain, a small country on the north-western edge of the European continent that led the world in the fields of science, industry, democracy, trade, law, the arts and much more besides, and that stood and fought, often for long periods alone, for freedom against European tyranny in the shape of Napoleon and Nazism and successfully opposed Soviet Communism, is reinterpreted in the woke perspective solely as a slave-owning force of oppression and evil. The slanted views of the woke perspective focus firmly on the past. Its preoccupation is with rewriting that past in order to alter the present. By rewriting Britain’s long and varied history to focus solely on slavery, without any acknowledgement of Britain’s huge role in stamping it out, the woke perspective seeks historical justification for its ideological belief that modern Britain is inherently racist, with an entirely shameful past.

Household Overcrowding: Covid-19

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for setting the scene. Obviously, I will give the Minister a Northern Ireland perspective. I know that he personally does not have ministerial responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I just want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, and to add my support to the right hon. Gentleman for what he does, and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) as well.

The hon. Lady mentioned the bridge. I understand what the Prime Minister is talking about, by the way; it is about connectivity and it is about the Union. But yes, I agree with her 100% that the money could be spent on better things. I say that very respectfully. The bridge is not what this debate is about, but if I had been asked to make any comment on it, that is what I would have said. I would have taken the Prime Minister down to the roads in Strangford and told him to spend a whole lot of money on them, to address the issues that I referred to. However, that is not taking away from what the Prime Minister is saying. But the bridge is not the subject of this debate; it is the subject for another debate.

I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings, so I have a particular interest in this issue. One of our interests in the APPG—indeed, it comes up all the time, and I suppose the clue is in the title of our group—is how we can have healthy homes and buildings. It is about homes that are suitable for today’s modern lifestyle, and how we can move towards ensuring that any new homes built are built in a style that would satisfy the needs of a modern family, but it is also about addressing the issue of homes that perhaps are not built in that style. In the past, we have had an inquiry and we have brought out the results, so it is quite an active APPG, I am pleased to say.

May I also say how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place? I was saying to him beforehand—you probably heard me saying it, Sir Edward—that he has shone in the main Chamber and now is his chance to shine in Westminster Hall.

The Minister and I have been good friends ever since he came to this House and I value his friendship; I hope that he values mine. His kindness to us all in this House is beyond doubt. Every Christmas, he is the man who brings the Quality Streets into the Members’ Tea Room; every Easter, I look forward to a creme egg, because of him. So let us put on the record our thanks to him. By the way, I am a diabetic, so I should not eat any of the Quality Streets or any creme eggs, but temptation sometimes gets the better of me.

My own constituency has a huge waiting list. What I will say will replicate what the right hon. Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden referred to; their constituencies have not cornered the market in housing problems—we have them as well.

Indeed, we have multiple daily problems in our office back home in Newtownards with the waiting list for appropriate social housing, largely made up of people in overcrowded accommodation who cannot afford private rent, or to pay the difference between housing benefit and rent in the real world. They have no alternative whatever but to move themselves and their children into their mum’s spare room—or worse, the living room, which takes away from where everybody lives. We often come to the problem of multiple families living in houses that may have been built for a two-person family but which have maybe six or eight people living in them, which becomes difficult. To have what should naturally be two separate households living together in such circumstances makes covid difficulties clear on so many levels.

The title of the debate is “Household Overcrowding: Covid-19”. We have learned about many things from the coronavirus situation and how we have responded to it, and one is certainly overcrowding, with people living almost on top of each other. I will give an example in a short minute. If just one person in a house gets covid, everybody has to self-isolate, which has implications, including whether an employer will actually furlough them. By the way, I understand that there is some choice in whether the employer may do that.

This is not the Minister’s responsibility, and I am not asking him to answer on it, but one of the biggest issues in my constituency is securing houses big enough for families. A single family may get a four-bed house. They probably have three or four children. One of those children is autistic, and they have maybe one girl and three boys, so right away an ordinary three-bed house will not be sufficient for them because of their physical circumstances and the disabilities of their children.

Sometimes a family has more than one child who is autistic, or they might have one with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well, which means they need a single bedroom for each one. The right hon. Member for East Ham referred to some issues. Some issues that I face every day in my constituency relate to those who are disabled and how the implications of that then multiply the housing issues.

I was not surprised to learn from the Health Foundation that, going into the covid-19 pandemic, one in three households—32%, or 7.6 million; what a figure—in England had at least one major housing problem relating to overcrowding, affordability or poor-quality housing. Poor-quality housing is one issue that we are trying to address in the APPG. I see that replicated, to scale, in Northern Ireland and in my constituency.

It is clear that housing problems such as these can affect health outcomes—I believe that, and I see it when talking to people—including physical health, directly from poor-quality homes, and mental health, from affordability or insecure housing issues. I understand that the Governments both back home and here are trying to address poor-quality homes, I am pretty sure the Minister will give us some positive answers on the quality of homes and what the Government are doing, and also—I am not putting words in the Minister’s mouth—some idea of what the Government are doing on new building to address demand.

While fewer homes are classed as non-decent compared with 10 years ago, overcrowding and affordability problems have increased in recent years. The pandemic has highlighted the health implications of housing. Poor housing conditions such as overcrowding and high density are associated with a greater spread of covid-19. We have learned that, when one person gets it, we all have to self-isolate. I had to self-isolate from this House because of contact with an hon. Member, and I had to self-isolate a second time because I had contact with somebody on a Sunday, which I notified the House about. So I have had to self-isolate on two occasions.

People have had to spend more time in homes that are overcrowded, damp or unsafe. The economic fall-out of the pandemic may lead to an increase in evictions. The Government have helped a wee bit with that. The implications for people potentially facing evictions from poor-quality homes with rents that are just too expensive, and with their jobs on furlough—or perhaps even lost—are massive. We should all be worried and concerned about that.

These housing problems can be focused on in multiple ways, including the increase of supply to the detriment of other objectives and sustained reductions in housing benefits. There is not a day when we do not do a housing case for someone back home and deal with their housing benefit as well. We deal with other things, but more often than not the housing benefit comes off the back of that.

I could give examples of issues for an entire day, but I will give just one: people in low-income care jobs going to work in a nursing home and coming home to a house with two families because they could no longer afford the £750-a-month rent on their low income. It is the issue of low incomes and very high rents that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady referred to. People had no other option but to move in with someone else but it meant that two nursing homes were affected by a diagnosis of coronavirus. I know that happened back home. A number of people were working in a nursing home, but when one person came in with coronavirus, everyone in that home had to self-isolate as a result. Coronavirus therefore has effects far beyond people’s living locations. It is definitely a disease that is seeking them out.

I finish with this. Covid has merely put a lens on the problem of affordable housing that has existed for some time. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said in setting the scene that it was a problem beforehand, and it has been exacerbated by where we are. We need to take steps to address it. Mental health, family relationships and now physical health are at stake.

Mental health comes up in every debate we have because it is real and everyone deals with people affected every day. The hon. Lady asked whether the Minister was available to come down to her surgery and meet some of those people. I am sure the Minister is meeting those people in his surgery, just as we are. I do believe we must act, and I look to the Minister to see his plan of action to provide more social housing, more support for private rental and greater ability for people to be removed from unhealthy living conditions throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The Government are already doing things to tackle overcrowding, not least with our substantial investment in new house building. The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points in his speech, and I will cover some of them. He asked if we expect a new wave of investment in social house building. We need house building of all tenures, and the Government have demonstrated their commitment to increasing the affordable housing supply. We are investing more than £12 billion in affordable housing over five years—the largest investment for a decade. That includes the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which will provide up to 180,000 homes across the country; and a further £9 billion for the shared ownership and affordable homes programme, running to 2023, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable homes. The affordable homes programme will deliver more than double the social rent of the current programme, with around 32,000 social rented properties due to be delivered

[Jim Shannon]

Are the Government committed to co-ownership—to helping those who want co-ownership homes, and supporting the building projects? The co-ownership scheme enables people who have maybe 50% of the value, or a small portion of it, to get a home earlier. Are the Government committed to that?

[Eddie Hughes]

I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific scheme that he is talking about. The Government are certainly aiming to do things to help people. For example, we have 95% mortgages to make sure more people have the opportunity to buy their own home. I will come back to him on the scheme that he mentioned.

The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about prioritising the building of three-bed properties and above. When the national planning policy framework was revised in July 2018, it set an expectation that local planning authorities must put in place planning policies that identify the size, type and tenure of homes required for different groups in the community. We have not changed that, and we would therefore expect it to be a key consideration when planning housing at a local level.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about local housing allowance. During the pandemic, the Government increased the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile, which meant that 1.5 million people were able to access that additional payment, which averaged £600 annually.

Covid-19: Workplace Protection

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The last year has seen extraordinary changes in the way we live our lives, with enormous hardship, enormous heartache and enormous sacrifice for many. As has been demonstrated in this place, the way that many people work has changed. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House staff and Mr Speaker for everything they have done to ensure that Members can still do their jobs remotely and safely.

But not everyone has had that choice. For many, their jobs have not only continued as before, but the dangers and pressures associated with them have increased tenfold. Those working in health and social care are the most obvious example of that, with over 800 people sadly losing their lives so far after contracting covid, but many others have also had to face new pressures and dangers as a result of the pandemic. The Government have been too slow to recognise those challenges, so I want to use tonight’s debate to highlight those issues.

The matters that I intend to raise are a combination of issues drawn to my attention by individual constituents and by trade unions, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not all the issues raised with me are new deficiencies in workplace protection. In fact, they all follow a familiar pattern that has been given an extra dimension by covid. What they add up to is a difficult environment for workers where legitimate concerns are not addressed or, worse, are met with detrimental treatment.

I will start with self-isolation. This time last year, the Opposition identified a real issue with any strategy to deal with the pandemic that involved requiring those who tested positive to self-isolate. For many, the financial consequences of not going into work are significant. Many people do not get company sick pay, and statutory sick pay is not enough for people to live on, but perhaps more relevant to the debate is the fact that many people are working in jobs where they do not even qualify for SSP. It was not until six months into the pandemic that the Government finally recognised that by introducing the self-isolation payment. However, seven out of eight people do not qualify for it. That remains a huge hole in our defences.

I would like to focus on some of the issues that people have experienced with their employers when they have had to self-isolate. They do not have any protection from their employer for detrimental treatment. That detriment could be refusal to pay sick pay if they are entitled to it, or it could even be dismissal. I have heard from constituents of cases where a period of self-isolation was used by an employer to trigger a sickness absence review or was used as part of a process that was already under way. I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties that people might have if they have to tell their employer that they need to self-isolate—even more so if it is for a second or third time—so why do they have no protection for doing the right thing?

The Government could, either through guidance or regulations, state clearly that a period of self-isolation should be classed as “other leave” that cannot be called unauthorised leave, sickness absence or annual leave and cannot be used as part of any disciplinary or capability process. What of those suffering with long covid? Will the Government add that to the list of conditions classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, or will they expect people to prove that they are protected by the Act every time they want to raise an issue?

In terms of those with long-term medical conditions, we know that people with diabetes are at increased risk. Many with diabetes have been able to shield, but what workplace protections will be in place to support people who are clinically extremely vulnerable when shielding ends on 31 March? Are the Government confident that workplace risk will have significantly reduced after that date? Diabetes UK’s research shows that 69% of people with diabetes working outside the home felt unsafe in their workplace. Covid-19 is not going to go away, and neither are those concerns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A half-hour debate is probably not enough for the issues that could be raised. I know that the hon. Member has been contacted on numerous occasions by people who feel that their health has not been properly protected since the outbreak of covid-19. Does he agree that the information provided by public health agencies was slow in surfacing and that lessons need to be learnt even at this stage about the guidance given to small and medium-sized businesses on workplace protection, which is very important?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; he makes an important point. In the early stages of the pandemic, it was difficult for everyone to know exactly what the right thing to do was, but there is no excuse for that now. We have a lot more detail on how covid operates, and we know that it will be with us for some considerable time.

I turn to fire and rehire. This is not a new development—it has been around for as long as people have had jobs—but that does not make it acceptable. In fact, it shows that our employment protections are as antiquated as they are inadequate. GMB and Unite in particular have been involved in a number of high-profile examples of fire and rehire, and there is no doubt that the pandemic has seen the number of examples of this increase dramatically. The current crisis has shone a light on the imbalance of power in the employment relationship and how many people feel totally exposed to the whims of their employer. Their powerlessness does not just manifest itself in people losing their jobs. The imbalance is endemic across many workplaces. Look at everyone on zero-hours contracts, in the gig economy or in agency work—they are literally at their company’s beck and call.

Insecurity is baked into the workplace. It is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness. When ruthless employers use the cover of the pandemic to push home their advantage, it is time for the Government to step in. That people have job security in this country is an illusion for many. Even for those who are in what we might consider stable employment, any pretence of job security has been cruelly exposed by fire and rehire, which, I am sorry to say, has become almost as widespread as the virus in the last 12 months. People who face a dismissal and re-engagement, to give it its proper legal terminology, are often concerned that they are in this situation at all. Yes, they might have been employed by the same company for many years. Yes, their terms and conditions have remained largely unchanged. They may even have had them collectively agreed by their trade union. The job itself has not changed. It still needs to be done. They perform well and the company is still making good profits, so why are they suddenly being asked to come in and do the job for 20% less pay?

The answer to that lies in the destructive combination of weak employment laws, an indifferent Government and an opportunistic employer who is seizing the moment to chip away at hard-won rights. What then follows is a consultation period that amounts to nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, followed by an impossible dilemma of losing your job altogether or coming back into work the following week on less money. It is a race to the bottom that coronavirus has accelerated. It is time that race was stopped.

Of course, plenty of employers have struggled this year. We know that. That is why the furlough scheme was created, but there are some employers out there who, despite taking advantage of furlough, have still pushed ahead with fire and rehire tactics because they saw an opportunity to make a few more quid for their shareholders. I personally do not think that employers should be taking taxpayers’ cash with one hand only to be giving out dismissal notices with the other. I would like to see the Government saying to those companies that they take the money on the basis that they will support and protect people in their existing jobs, not chip away at them.

The law on unfair dismissal and “some other substantial reason” needs to be fundamentally strengthened so that the onus is on the employer to show that any such changes were essential to secure the survival of the business. That would raise the threshold for employers seeking to justify dismissal from the current test of “sound or good reason”, which we know tribunals do not examine in detail. It adds insult to injury that those who choose not to succumb to the financial blackmail of fire and rehire do not even get a redundancy payment. The Government should be looking to enhance job protection. The furlough scheme is the start of a recognition by the state that it has a role to keep people in work and keep them secure. Let us not abandon that principle now. Let us build on it.

One of the main problems has been people being asked to go into work despite being able to work from home, which is, of course, contrary to the Government’s “stay at home” message that has been in place for much of the past year. Thanks to the marvels of technology, many more people have been able to work from home, but some employers seem to have a very old fashioned attitude that unless they can see the person in front of them, even if they are just sat in front of a computer screen, they cannot be sure that they are working.

Many people have been forced to go into work unnecessarily, including people with underlying health conditions. I even had a constituent who had to go into work when they were supposed to be shielding; what was particularly of note was that the individual had been shielding from home during the previous two lockdowns and had performed their duties from home without any problem. In the third lockdown, however, that was suddenly not acceptable. That is a pattern we have seen with a number of other employers. Their willingness to support those shielding seems to have dropped off a little bit this year. It is almost as if their patience has worn thin. That has also manifested itself in the number of complaints I have had about staff without any health issues who have also been asked to go back into work contrary to the work at home instruction.

Sadly, we have come across someone who was made redundant after complaining about being required to go to work when they could have easily carried out those duties at home. They did not have two years’ service, so they could not claim unfair dismissal. It was difficult to see how they could use other health and safety-related protections, given the difficulties with that law. It is to be welcomed that the Government have just published new regulations which will extend protection to those classed as workers when raising health and safety issues, but it is disappointing that that is not due to come into force until 31 May. People need that protection now; they needed it 12 months ago. It is good that it is being extended to workers, but there are still too many people who are not classed as workers, or, in the case of Uber drivers, who had to fight a five-year court battle just to get that recognition. The Government really need to clean up and strengthen the rules in this area so that everyone in work has basic protections and we do not have the unfair, uneven and exploitative lottery that it is at the moment.

We are also getting more complaints about businesses that are not adhering to covid-19 measures and, sadly, some constituents are too afraid to tell us where they work because they are fearful of reprisals. They have raised concerns about their employer not applying social distancing, not allowing people to stay at home when they display symptoms, asking staff to come in while waiting for test results and telling staff not to disclose close contacts when they test positive. These are all real examples, and they completely undermine the Government’s attempts to restrict transmission of the virus. People need better support, and they need greater reassurance that when they raise concerns they will be addressed and, critically, that there will be no reprisals for them as individuals.

I spent 15 years before I came here representing people who had been victims of workplace injustice, and very often the reason they had been on the receiving end of that treatment was that they had raised a legitimate concern with their employer. Sadly, it seems that things have got worse rather than better in the past few years. In the past year, those concerns have increased tenfold because the number of issues an employee might reasonably raise with their employer about the inadequate level of protection they get when they go into work has increased considerably.

This is not just about workplace protections now. It is in all our interests that people can go about their business and go to work safely. Those who are in a trade union are able to raise concerns collectively, and one such example is from the GMB. It has raised concerns about the guidance on working in other people’s homes, which has changed during this lockdown. The union believes this is creating greater risk. The guidance now mentions meter reading specifically as being a permitted reason for someone to enter a home. The concern is that those meter readers could become super-spreaders and that they are putting themselves and the householders at unnecessary risk just to get a meter reading, which could be done in a number of ways. Unlike a plumber or an electrician, who might enter a handful of properties each day, meter readers can enter hundreds of homes each day, putting themselves and the public at risk. That really needs looking at again.

I want to say a few words on retail. Those working in supermarkets and other essential retail have been working throughout the crisis and have at times faced incredible pressure. They have played a critical role in keeping the country going and I pay tribute to them, but unfortunately not everyone appreciates the work they do. The shop workers’ trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, surveyed its members and found that 76% of them said that abuse had been worse than normal during the pandemic, that 57% had been threatened by a customer and that 9% had been assaulted. We should not be surprised that abuse has increased, given that enforcing social distancing and face coverings were reported in the survey as being two of the biggest triggers for abuse from customers, and these were not issues before the pandemic started.

This highlights a disconnect between what has been decided in this place—regarding face coverings, for example—and the reality on the ground as to how those rules, which were introduced for a very good reason, are enforced. The police cannot be everywhere, and after a cut of 20,000 officers in the last decade, handing them a plethora of new laws to enforce was never going to be realistic. This is placing those who work in retail and hospitality, to name but two, in a difficult and potentially dangerous position.

When we pass laws in this place about important safety measures to stop the spread of the virus, we also need to look at ourselves and ask whether we are setting the right example. I am sorry to say that there have been a few recent high-profile examples of Government bodies not taking the lead. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea has been in the headlines a lot recently due to the number of cases contracted in the workplace there. I understand that work was commissioned in June 2020 to look at home working at the DVLA, but that the recognised trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has not been granted sight of that report and has instead been told to go through the freedom of information route to see it.

I appreciate that this does not involve the Minister’s Department, but as the Minister responsible for the workplace, can he please have a word with the Department for Transport and point out that discussions about safe workplaces are not a matter to be pursued through FOI requests? This should involve both parties sitting down and engaging in constructive dialogue. I understand that 300-plus desks have recently been removed by the DVLA to ensure that social distancing is possible, but if that is right, how can it also be right that staff had been working in those conditions since last August? Is this lack of distancing the reason that there have been more than 550 positive cases at the DVLA since September last year? The Government and their agencies should be setting an example to other employers on how to operate safely and responsibly.

On that note, perhaps the Minister could also speak to his colleagues in the Department for Justice about the fact that court staff in London and Liverpool have balloted for industrial action because their union, PCS, says that its safety concerns have not been taken seriously, with not even a risk assessment process having been agreed between the employer and union. We really need to be doing better than this.

It is not an understatement to say that workplace health and safety, far from being a regulatory burden, is now a fundamental part of our return to normality and, indeed, key to wider economic success. That means that we need stronger regulatory interventions, and in this regard the decision to recognise covid as a “significant” rather than a “serious” workplace issue limits the options open to inspectors. I hope that that is something the Minister can look at again. A safe workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and the economy. If this pandemic has taught us anything about the workplace, it is that it is too often characterised by insecurity, imbalance and indifference to basic protections. It is time we changed that.

Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to support businesses and individuals still struggling as a result of the coronavirus crisis in the forthcoming budget by extending business rates relief for at least another six months, extending the temporary 5 per cent reduced rate of VAT for three months after restrictions are lifted or for another six months, whichever is later, helping British businesses struggling under the burden of Government-guaranteed debt by ensuring that small businesses can defer paying loans back until they are growing again, extending and reforming the furlough scheme so that it lasts whilst restrictions are in place and demand is significantly reduced, immediately confirming that the fourth Self-Employment Income Support Scheme grant will be set at 80 per cent of pre-coronavirus crisis profits and extending eligibility to that scheme to include anyone with a 2019-20 tax return and fixing the gaps in coronavirus support schemes to support those who have been excluded from the beginning of the crisis; and further calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a monthly oral statement to Parliament updating the House on these matters.

Today’s debate takes place almost a year after the first introduction of national lockdown restrictions due to the pandemic. We all know how trying events since then have been for families and businesses up and down our country, and now, thanks to the vaccine and the incredible work of NHS staff and volunteers, there is real hope that before long we can return to some semblance of normality. While there are grounds for optimism, however, we on the Labour Benches know that there are still deep worries among many businesses and working people about whether their firms and jobs will still be viable when the restrictions are lifted. So many people are concerned about whether they will have a job to return to, and millions of people who have gone for almost a year without support are questioning how they will manage to get by until our economy reopens.

What people want and need right now is clarity. They need a sign that the Government get it, and that they understand and can respond to the needs of businesses and workers who have been placed under such incredible pressure through no fault of their own. The Prime Minister’s road map provides tentative suggestions about when businesses may be able to reopen, but we did not hear how the Government will be able to help to tide them over until that time. As with almost every major announcement throughout this crisis, we have had an update on the restrictions but no update on the economic support. It is not even clear whether the Chancellor believes that there is a relationship between restrictions and additional support, or whether he believes that businesses and workers should simply be grateful for what they have got. He may not be here today—it is becoming clear that accountability is very much not part of his brand—but we should be in no doubt about the harm that this approach has caused. Our country has endured the worst economic crisis of any major economy. Throughout the crisis, Ministers have made the same mistakes time and again and been forced to play catch-up at every turn, long after the problems with support have become apparent.

Whether the Chancellor is being careless or negligent, his approach is the opposite of what businesses need, which is the provision of certainty and assurance so that they can plan ahead. Where issues exist, they expect Government action to address them; they do not expect problems to be dumped in the “too difficult” box. There are few more egregious examples of that than the Chancellor’s persistent failure to help the excluded—the people who fall into the gaps between Government schemes. These are people who have taken risks by starting their own businesses, or perhaps they were changing jobs, but through no fault of their own they have been denied support since the start of the pandemic.

For many months, Labour has called on the Government to fix these problems. At first, Ministers said that it was not practical to do so, and of course we accept that in those fast-moving few weeks right at the start, that was fair enough, but now, almost a year on since the start of restrictions, how can this possibly be justified when the solutions are in plain sight? I repeat my call to the Minister today: when are the Government going to do what is right and fix the gaps in their support schemes? Labour recognises the value that self-employed workers bring to our economy. We want to see people taking risks, becoming entrepreneurs and helping to build the fairest possible recovery and a dynamic economy. That is why we would help those who are excluded from support by extending eligibility for the self-employed income support scheme to anyone with a 2019-20 tax return, and it is why we are asking the Government today to confirm that the fourth self-employed income support scheme grant will be paid at 80% of pre-crisis profits.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I will give way briefly. I am reluctant to give way much, because of the pressure on time.

[Jim Shannon]

Is the shadow Minister aware that those who are self-employed make up some 15% of our workforce? A survey that came out in September 2020 found that 64% of those self-employed people said that they were less likely to be, or unsure whether they wanted to be, self-employed or freelance workers in the future. Does that not tell us that we will be in deep trouble if we do not sort this out right now?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As we start to emerge from the crisis phase of the pandemic, we want to encourage people to take that risk and start up their own business. The self-employed and people starting small businesses were central to driving the recovery post-2008, and we want them to be part of the answer right now, but that requires Government action to ensure that people can get through the difficult weeks and months that still lie ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

The discretionary grant is there to show flexibility. Local authorities have been charged to come up with their own plans to reflect their own local economies and their own needs in order to capture as many people and businesses as possible.

In January, the Chancellor announced that a further £500 million of discretionary funding was being made available to local authorities. That is in addition to £1.1 billion already allocated back in November 2020. That business grant scheme has continued to provide business with vital funding during both the national and local restrictions.

[Jim Shannon]

One way the Government could help the self-employed is to provide some help with low tax returns for 2019-20 to be included in the SEISS claims. Would the Government, or the Minister, consider that as a possible option to help those self-employed people who are under real pressure?

[Paul Scully]

I have met representatives from ExcludedUK. We continue to talk to them, we continue to flex and we continue to work out what more we can do to help the economy and to help jobs and livelihoods. The Chancellor will set out his position next week.

In addition to the grant schemes, businesses have received £70 billion in loan guarantees as of 24 January. That has provided a lifeline to more than 1.5 million businesses across the nations and regions of the UK. We have extended the application deadline to apply for those loans to the end of March 2021.

Last year, we changed the bounce back loan scheme rules to allow those businesses that had originally borrowed less than their maximum to top up their existing loans. We also announced the pay as you grow measures, which give all businesses that borrowed under the bounce back loans the option to repay their loan over a period of up to 10 years and to access an additional six months repayment holiday as well as interest-only repayment periods.

On 8 February, we announced that these measures will be made more generous, removing the requirement to make six payments before accessing the six months repayment holiday. Businesses can use these options either individually or in combination with each other, and lenders have begun contacting borrowers to let them know how they can access the pay as you grow measures. These flexible repayment options will give businesses the time that they need to recover from the pandemic and the confidence to build back better.

The Chancellor has also announced our intention to allow lenders to extend the repayment for coronavirus business interruption loans where this is needed to a maximum of 10 years, and we have announced that more support will be available beyond March through a successor loan scheme, more details of which will be announced in due course.

From the outset of this pandemic, we have acted decisively to protect jobs and people’s livelihoods. The coronavirus job retention scheme, the first intervention of its kind in UK history, delivers country-wide support to protect millions of British workers. It has already helped 1.2 million employers across the UK furlough 9.9 million jobs. That scheme has been extended until the end of April 2021 for all parts of the UK, but the Chancellor has always been clear that the Government will keep the situation under review, adapting their approach as the context evolves. The Government will set out the next phase of the plan to tackle the virus and to protect jobs at the Budget next week.

A healthy hospitality sector is critical for the UK economy. It not only accounts for 2.4 million jobs and generates more than £59 billion of economic benefit, but underpins other economic sectors, including tourism and, indeed, our high streets. It is also an important part of our society, supporting social cohesion, cultural integration and mental health. It is a gathering place for communities, and we must continue to support it. The pandemic has hit the hospitality sector hard. I have worked extremely closely with the sector since March 2020 to understand the issues as far as possible so that we can strike the right balance between restrictions and business support.

Not only have the Government provided over £280 billion to support businesses, including hospitality, but we have provided support for commercial rents and deregulated to allow the better use of public spaces for outdoor hospitality. We will continue to keep all that support under review. I want the sector to open up. I want businesses to start to recover and thrive, but it must be done safely, led by the data, as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday.

The retail sector is vital not only to the UK economy, but to the communities that it serves, and I am grateful for the continued efforts of those retail staff who have kept this crucial service going throughout. I recognise that the pandemic has impacted on the sector in different ways and brought significant challenges, but while we have seen a welcome boost in the food sector and online sales, we have also witnessed a more challenging outlook for those not permitted to open, and I appreciate that it has been a really uncertain time for many retail staff. Regrettably, we have seen the closure of some well-known household retail brands, with resulting job losses, impacting on young people and women in particular.

The Government have acted to support as many businesses and employees as possible with that economic package worth over £280 billion, and those measures are carefully designed to complement one another to ensure that we protect jobs and livelihoods. However, as I said, we cannot save every business or job and the support can in no way fully compensate businesses for the loss of trade as a result of the restrictions. Retailers, pubs and hotels have been able to benefit from 100% business rates relief, worth about £10 billion in total, and we have frozen the business rates multiplier for 2021-22, saving businesses in England £575 million over the next five years.

I know that many businesses are eager for an extension to the rates relief beyond the current financial year. The next round of covid-19 support measures will be set out in the Budget next week, but the Prime Minister has written to local authorities in the meantime advising them to delay issuing business rates bills until after the Budget, which, hopefully is good news for businesses.

I know that businesses may be disappointed by the decision to delay publication of the final report into the fundamental review of business rates until the autumn, but an interim report will be published on 23 March, and the final report will be published once there is more clarity on the long-term state of the economy and public finances. I encourage the sector to continue engaging with Government on these important issues.

Supporting people back into employment is also a key priority. Our plan for jobs includes a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, and we are helping those who have lost jobs in the pandemic back into employment through our job entry targeted support programme. A £2 billion kickstart scheme has also been launched to create opportunities for young people, and we are taking action to help the high street to evolve. In September 2020, we brought forward over £80 million-worth of investment to support immediate improvements in 101 towns selected for deals to build back better in the wake of covid-19.

On 26 December 2020, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed £255 million for 15 areas for the future high streets fund, with a further 57 areas receiving provisional funding offers totalling up to £576 million. We are also launching a £4 billion levelling-up fund, investing in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on people and their communities and supporting economic recovery. We will publish a prospectus for that fund soon.

To date, we have provided the largest package of emergency support in post-war history. As highlighted by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England, without the action taken by the Government, the outlook could be so much worse. The co-ordinated approach of the UK’s authorities has also been praised internationally by the International Monetary Fund as one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally that has helped to mitigate the damage, holding down unemployment and insolvencies. Given the current climate, it is right that we focus on supporting individuals and businesses through the pandemic. In the past, the Government have ensured that businesses and people have that certainty by extending the furlough and business grants. The announcements at the Budget will reflect the steps set out in the Prime Minister’s road map, ensuring that the next phase of our economic support package continues to deliver tailored support for individuals and businesses.

What businesses want now is that road map. They want to able to give a safe and warm welcome back to their customers, clients and people using their services, but in the meantime, as the Chancellor will set out next week, we will continue to work with businesses and individuals to protect jobs and livelihoods as we see the light at the end of the tunnel in this pandemic.

Covid-19: Faith Groups

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Adam Holloway]

I do agree. The hon. Gentleman is being modest. He also played his part in the gurdwara when he lived in Gravesend.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, while the Church is filled with imperfect people, of whom I am one, those imperfect people want to do all they can to help others. From schemes such as ringing elderly constituents regularly, delivering shopping or prescriptions, or holding distanced meetings, the love shown by those making up so many denominations, Churches and faith groups has been heartwarming. It reminds us of the scripture text in John chapter 13, verse 35:

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”.

[Adam Holloway]

Indeed, and by thy works shall we know you.

The Gravesend Methodist church, in fact all the churches, found that many of their volunteers disappeared early on, because they were more elderly and often in vulnerable groups. So we saw the Gravesend Methodist church, under Minister Tony Graff, enable Vicki Clarke and Chris Ward to look after the homeless. Every Christian church—that I know of, anyway—handed out food to people, including the City Praise Centre and Terry with his van. I thank all of them.

There are not many MPs here in Parliament at the moment—there are an awful lot of workmen, I notice—but I say again to the right hon. Member for East Ham: thank you for calling this debate, because I know that an enormous number of Members of Parliament who are not here today are extremely grateful to the faith groups for what they have done during the past few months.