Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I never thought I would be in Committee lecturing the Conservative party on the needs of British business, but we are where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made the point very well that we are creating not simplicity but an extraordinarily high level of uncertainty, and uncertainty is costly to the British economy. I am sure we will discuss the costs of the Brexit process during the Bill, but the Government could be handling the Bill better. They could have come up with the immigration White Paper long before they did, and we could have spent time in the past two and a bit years since the referendum discussing that very thing, but they have held off and postponed—and here we are now. People have no real idea what situation EU nationals will be in after the end of March. That is utterly intolerable.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does she agree that the result is that businesses are already experiencing labour shortages, because the uncertainty means EU nationals are already choosing not to come to this country to work? I was told the other day by a food processor in my constituency that there is particular pressure now in the haulage sector.

[Alison McGovern]

I hear the same evidence that my hon. Friend does. We represent constituencies in the same region, so that is not unexpected. Many people will respond that it should be fine, as there are plenty of people in Britain, and plenty of British people can do those jobs. However, unfortunately, that is to misunderstand the labour market. We have an ageing population. What, as we heard in evidence to the Committee, is the answer, according to those who want to put up the border and stop people coming here to do the decent and dignified thing by working in our country? It is to raise the pension age and ask people to work into their 70s. That is all right for people who do a desk job that is not physically taxing, but I do not really want to ask nurses whom I represent to work until they are 71 or 72. I do not think that would be appropriate. My hon. Friend made a good point.

My hon. Friend also talked about lack of simplicity in the new system. The Minister mentioned simplicity several times and the Law Commission will look into it. That is a good thing—and it is not before time. However, the fact is that free movement, like it or not, provides people with rights that are simple to understand and exercise. If we are to replace that system with a new one we had better have a good idea now—today—how we will give people an equal, or hopefully better, level of simplicity. For all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, making people’s lives simpler in that way is vital. It is the best way to make sure that the economy can innovate and move forward. I find it hard to understand why the Government should move clause 1 at this point, without a guarantee of an equally simple, or even simpler and better understood system.

[Kate Green]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is about simplicity not just for business and our economy, but for families who will now not be clear about the basis on which family members can come to this country to live with them.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I never thought I would be in Committee lecturing the Conservative party on the needs of British business, but we are where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made the point very well that we are creating not simplicity but an extraordinarily high level of uncertainty, and uncertainty is costly to the British economy. I am sure we will discuss the costs of the Brexit process during the Bill, but the Government could be handling the Bill better. They could have come up with the immigration White Paper long before they did, and we could have spent time in the past two and a bit years since the referendum discussing that very thing, but they have held off and postponed—and here we are now. People have no real idea what situation EU nationals will be in after the end of March. That is utterly intolerable.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does she agree that the result is that businesses are already experiencing labour shortages, because the uncertainty means EU nationals are already choosing not to come to this country to work? I was told the other day by a food processor in my constituency that there is particular pressure now in the haulage sector.

[Alison McGovern]

I hear the same evidence that my hon. Friend does. We represent constituencies in the same region, so that is not unexpected. Many people will respond that it should be fine, as there are plenty of people in Britain, and plenty of British people can do those jobs. However, unfortunately, that is to misunderstand the labour market. We have an ageing population. What, as we heard in evidence to the Committee, is the answer, according to those who want to put up the border and stop people coming here to do the decent and dignified thing by working in our country? It is to raise the pension age and ask people to work into their 70s. That is all right for people who do a desk job that is not physically taxing, but I do not really want to ask nurses whom I represent to work until they are 71 or 72. I do not think that would be appropriate. My hon. Friend made a good point.

My hon. Friend also talked about lack of simplicity in the new system. The Minister mentioned simplicity several times and the Law Commission will look into it. That is a good thing—and it is not before time. However, the fact is that free movement, like it or not, provides people with rights that are simple to understand and exercise. If we are to replace that system with a new one we had better have a good idea now—today—how we will give people an equal, or hopefully better, level of simplicity. For all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, making people’s lives simpler in that way is vital. It is the best way to make sure that the economy can innovate and move forward. I find it hard to understand why the Government should move clause 1 at this point, without a guarantee of an equally simple, or even simpler and better understood system.

[Kate Green]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is about simplicity not just for business and our economy, but for families who will now not be clear about the basis on which family members can come to this country to live with them.

Syria

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

We do not know, and we should not engage in crystal ball gazing over matters that are so serious.

Whatever actions we choose, we ought to do so in a way that promotes humanitarian principles in this country and everywhere else in the world. While actions taken in the name of humanitarian principles have not always been perfect, and we must always know and understand our own history, we cannot drive looking only in the rear-view mirror. We have to face what is in front of us and try to apply humanitarian principles in the most careful way that we can, with the benefit of past experience, rather than in an attempt to address issues passed. I ask all Members for the next three hours, whatever their view, to just focus on Syria. Do not the Syrian people deserve that from us?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will make a little progress and give way in a moment.

Because of what has happened, the international community is now seized of the importance of Syria, so it is important that we make the most of this window. The Prime Minister’s actions so far are open to debate, but I ask that we use our time now not just to review what she has done, but to task her to do more.

Let me turn to what I believe the UK’s role can be. As I said, Jo Cox asked—I ask again today—for the Government to bring forward a comprehensive strategy to protect civilians. What does that mean? In short, we need to get aid in, get desperately injured people out, deter further violence, defund Assad and demonstrate our commitment to the victims of war. All that must be done alongside a search for progressive partners around the world who wish to rebuild the consensus that saw the responsibility to protect passed in 2005. The UN needs reform—we know that—but the deadlock in the Security Council has meant half a million people dead on Syrian streets and the biggest movement of refugees since 1979. That is clearly wrong. There must be a better way, and we have to find partners who will help us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way in a moment, but I will come back to others first.

In addition, surveillance and reconnaissance assets can conduct monitoring and reporting of attacks against civilians. The UK and its coalition partners should be providing protection and support to the UN. It is within the coalition’s gift to establish a favourable air situation so that we can ensure the safe delivery of humanitarian aid. We have to get the right supplies in, and I simply ask the Government to go back and find what more they can do to open humanitarian corridors and get aid in.

As a guarantor of the rules-based international order, the Government must now ask all parties to the conflict to permit the unrestricted delivery and distribution of that aid. This has to be put in as simple and stark terms as possible. We have to articulate what we see as the next stage for accountability and whether there is a role for other routes through the UN and the International Criminal Court. The Government ought to say what they think now. The French Government recently made a number of suggestions, and I ask the Government to look at those and work with the French to see what can be done.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on the case she is making. Like all hon. Members, I have had contact over the last few days from constituents who are very concerned about the plight of the Syrian people. Does she agree that what she is describing is not the kind of one-off event that occurred over the weekend, for reasons that I understand—immediately to degrade chemical weapons—but a long-term and sustained diplomatic, political and, if necessary, military response? Part of that must be a communications strategy to ensure that the public in this country and more widely understand what we are seeking to achieve.

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes an important and wise point, as she does normally.

We have been coming back to this place after each horrific event and asking ourselves, “How did we let this happen?” Let this time be different. Let this be the moment when we decide to take a long-term view and bring together all the best efforts of everybody in Britain to secure peace.

Women and the Economy

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right about that. Of course the public services, too, traditionally have had a better record in many respects on promotion for women and other groups with protected characteristics, such as black and minority ethnic workers. There is certainly a concern that cuts to public sector spending will have an impact on women’s employment, and on their employment prospects, and that those cuts are part of the reason why unemployment has remained higher among women than men.

As I say, many of the Chancellor’s policies that are harmful to the interests of women are still, sadly, in place: the freeze and cuts to child benefit, universal credit, local housing allowance and tax credits; the cuts to the family element of tax credits; the changes to disregards, tapers and thresholds; the disincentive for second earners, often women, in universal credit; the benefit cap; the two-child policy in child tax credits; increased parent conditionality; and an alarming rise in lone parent sanctions. Even the free childcare offer is shrouded in complexity and uncertainty, is delayed and is apparently more limited in scope than had previously been planned for.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

As ever, my hon. Friend is making a persuasive case; very few people know about family incomes like she does. May I draw her back to local government—not just the local government workforce, but those who work in services commissioned by local government? I am referring to care, where women work and are low paid.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that care is one of the sectors in which low-paid women’s jobs are concentrated, whether we are talking about direct employment through our public services, or commissioned services for local government. It will of course be helpful over time to see the national minimum wage—the so-called living wage—increased for those workers, but if local authorities are not funded to meet the costs of that welcome pay increase, we can expect to see pressures elsewhere in the system and, most likely, on the quality of care provided. That, too, will have an impact on women, because they typically provide that family care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Exactly. I hope the Minister will take a little more time in her speech to explain which part of the present Government’s apprenticeship strategy addresses gender inequality.

In 2013, the Government also said that they wanted to encourage more women to become business owners or entrepreneurs. There has been a significant increase in the number of self-employed women—between 2008 and 2011, more than 80% of the newly self-employed were women—but that may not always be by choice. Increased conditionality and lack of suitable employment mean that self-employment is an economic necessity for some, and yet the average income of a self-employed woman is just £9,800 per annum, according to the Women’s Budget Group, compared with £17,000 for a self-employed man. Self-employment is not a route out of poverty for those women.

[Alison McGovern]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

I will make some progress, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I hope that she will speak in the debate, because her contributions are always useful.

Overall, the Government’s strategy for women at work is simply insufficient. That is not just bad for women; as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) noted, it is bad for our economy. The Government’s own consultation report, “Closing the Gender Pay Gap”, which was published this year, states that equalising the level of women’s productivity and employment with men’s could add almost £600 billion to our economy, while equalising participation rates could add 10% to the size of the economy by 2030. Action is urgently needed.

Meanwhile, women are also seeing their rights in the workplace attacked and eroded. The introduction of tribunal fees means that few can now afford the £1,200 to pursue an equal pay claim. The number of maternity discrimination cases has nearly doubled, while the number of cases going to tribunal has fallen by 80%. So much for the Government’s commitment to economic equality.

Cuts to spending on public services also hit women hardest. There are 763 fewer Sure Start centres than in 2010. The care sector has been affected badly by the 31% cut in local council budgets. The additional £3.5 billion earmarked in the autumn statement fails to compensate for the drastic cuts that have already taken place, let alone adequately meeting future need.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. Does she agree that one crucial value of the future jobs fund intervention was that it broke the trend into long-term youth unemployment—a trend about which we should be particularly concerned? The lesson of the 1980s recession was that if young people did not get a start in the labour market at the very beginning of their working lives, they never really got themselves established. That is what the future jobs fund successfully intervened to disrupt.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having grown up on Merseyside in the 1980s, I know it was only when I studied economics later in my life that I found out that there was a word for the thing I always knew happened—that people got punished throughout their lives for being unemployed when they were young. The economic word for that is hysteresis. The labour market has memory: if someone fails to get a job early in life, it stays with them, scarring not only the person’s career prospects, but the economic prospects of the locality. We know all about that and the previous Government worked to stop it happening when the economic crisis hit. I would like to see this Government take that problem seriously, introduce measures that will bring real work to young people and deal with some of the problems we face, which are getting worse.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Like colleagues throughout the House, I welcome putting the Office for Budget Responsibility on a statutory footing and the opportunity that it offers for independent forward financial forecasting. That will enable us to see clearly the impact of policy decisions on the public finances, and it will set the context for, and inform, future policy choice. However, as has been pointed out, the OBR and its forecasting mechanism do not of themselves correct or reshape policy mistakes. It is the Government who set the fiscal mandate, and the OBR is there to say whether that mandate has been met. There is no requirement on the OBR to offer any critique of that mandate, or to judge whether it is fair.

We cannot examine only whether the Government have achieved their forecasts. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who suggested that there was a larger context to address—whether the Government’s policies reflect the right policy ambitions and produce the right social outcomes, and whether the spending on them is effective. To that extent, I am particularly interested in Ministers’ comments on the relationship between the OBR and the other organisation highlighted in the Bill, the National Audit Office.

Like my hon. Friends, I am concerned about the Government’s current mandate to eliminate the deficit within four years. We are concerned to critique not just the mandate but the policies that will bring about the achievement of it. We are extremely concerned that those policies will have a harsh impact on the lives of the people across the country whom we represent, and we are concerned about their impact on growth, employment and intergenerational fairness. That last point is specifically highlighted in the draft charter, and I would be interested to hear the Exchequer Secretary explain how the OBR will judge and assess long-term intergenerational fairness. It is not sufficient simply to say that we cannot pass on to tomorrow’s children the deficit of today, because today’s children are bearing the burden of the policies that the Government are adopting to address that deficit. I would welcome an explanation of exactly what Ministers mean by intergenerational fairness and how the OBR will assess it.

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend think that in addition to that, the Government ought to consider the effect of unemployment on a person’s long-term career, and therefore on their family, as part of intergenerational fairness?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some superficially appealing terminology has been bandied about in relation to the Bill, but we need to know the substance of what Ministers understand to be fair.

Members in all parts of the House welcome the opportunity for transparency that lies within the Bill, but as others have pointed out, that transparency is potentially undermined if the OBR does not secure the resources necessary to ensure that its independence is not compromised. The OBR needs to be adequately resourced to carry out a full and proper analysis. In that context, looking at the full impact of policy includes modelling imputed behavioural change, about which the Government have so far shown themselves to be casual, including in their analysis on the introduction of the universal credit, which is one of their major policy proposals. Great claims have been made for the universal credit’s impact on increased benefits take-up and labour market participation, but the Department for Work and Pensions’ analysis of such behavioural changes to drive such outcomes is remarkably thin. How deep can the OBR dig when departmental analysis apparently does not do so?

There is two-way traffic in policy making and in analysing the impact of policy initiatives. The OBR has been set up specifically to reflect in its forecasts what we might call policy “knowns”, but as was pointed out, there are opportunities to allow for dynamic forecasting so that we can judge the impact of new policies on the public finances in future. I believe strongly that the creation of the OBR offers an opportunity to tie those two aspects of policy forecasting together, so that it is possible to verify departmental impact assessments at the time when policy is being considered—prior to its implementation—and as part of the process of legislative scrutiny and approval by the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South pointed out, there are tensions involved in ensuring that the OBR has a role in scrutinising policy making as it develops and emerges, but there is an important opportunity to enable Parliament effectively to critique, to challenge and to improve. How do Ministers see the OBR’s role in the context of iterative policy making, and how do they think that tension will be resolved?

I look forward to the ongoing process of the passage of the Bill to implement the OBR, and to its independent reports and analysis. However, it is important to understand that the Bill is a step on the way to better policy making and scrutiny rather than a job fully done. Of course, the OBR offers great potential to aid our understanding, but I am clear that it is just one element of how we judge policy cost and impact, and most importantly, policy success.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Alison McGovern

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

This is an incredibly serious debate and I would like to address what I believe are important points raised on both sides of the House. I shall deal with all three elements of the Bill—the health in pregnancy grant, the child trust fund and the saving gateway proposals—in the context of what I understand to be important drivers for this Government, such as reducing inequalities, improving social mobility and improving child outcomes. I shall also consider the extent to which the proposals meet the Government’s own fairness test.

I start with the proposal to abolish the health in pregnancy grant. There is considerable evidence to show the impact of poor maternal nutrition—during pregnancy and, importantly, prior to conception—on low birth weight, and the impact of that on a series of outcomes for child development down the line, including educational attainment and health outcomes. I certainly agree with the Conservative Members who said that a grant in the seventh month of pregnancy was not sufficiently early to achieve everything we would want to improve the well-being of pregnant women and their unborn children.

For women on low incomes, affording a healthy diet is a challenge. Indeed, women reliant on safety net benefits will, if they are under 25, have an income of £51.85 a week; and if they are over 25, £65.45 a week. Those amounts are sufficient to meet the minimum income standard determined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—£44 a week in order to afford a healthy diet. However, once we take into account other expenditure that has to be met out of those benefit payments—fuel, clothes, travel, personal items, insurance, utilities and so forth—it means in practice that women conceiving and bearing children on benefits could find themselves with as little as £10 a week to spend on food. Clearly, none of us could eat a healthy diet on that.

It is right, as Opposition Members have repeatedly pointed out, that despite its perhaps unfortunate name, the health in pregnancy grant has the potential to achieve much more than simply help with a healthy diet. It helps to meet a number of the costs associated with preparing for and coping with the arrival of a new baby. Obviously, parents across the income spectrum will be grateful for any help. Although I was rather pooh-poohed by the Minister when I suggested that such a grant is likely to be spent pretty readily so it will also help the economy, there is lots of evidence to show that if we give money to parents at a time when their costs rise, they will go out and spend it quickly—they need to; there are items that they must buy. This will make a modest contribution to our economic regeneration, although that was hardly the overriding reason for introducing the grant in the first place.

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is similar to other kinds of grant such as the winter fuel payment, which we award in cash terms to get people through what is an expensive time? It is most efficient not to cross-question what it is actually spent on, but these grants are important in recognising that people go through difficult and expensive times.

[Kate Green]

That is absolutely right on a number of fronts. First, as my hon. Friend says, this sort of grant is designed to help with specific expensive times in the course of people’s lives. It is important to recognise that specifying what it gets spent on is not necessary to ensure that it does good. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to show that if we give more money to parents, particularly to mothers, they will spend it on things that will help their kids.

I understand the concerns of Government Members about universal benefits, but this is a universal benefit. It goes to people who are financially better off as well as to those in greater need. As Opposition Members have repeatedly sought to explain, universal benefits are the most effective for reaching the poorest. They are the easiest to administer and the easiest to claim; there are no complicated cliff edges or recalculations. As such, I believe it is important to retain a range of universal benefits within the totality of support for families with children. I therefore think that the health in pregnancy grant has a useful role to play.

Even if we accept for a moment Government Members’ concerns that the benefit has been poorly targeted, that is hardly a case for scrapping it outright, especially when basic benefits are too low for the poorest women to be able to afford to eat healthily before their child is born. Surely, far from seeking to abolish the benefit, an ambitious Government who were keen to improve the outcomes of the poorest families and children would want to extend its scope or consider other ways of improving the adequacy of out-of-work benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I hope that Conservative Members and the Minister will hear that contribution in the spirit in which we all feel it. This country has a poor record on outcomes for looked-after children, who enter adult life singularly poorly provided for financially. The child trust fund was a small step towards beginning to rectify that. As my hon. Friend says—and I hope the Government heed this—if the child trust fund is no longer to be the mechanism through which looked-after children are given some sort of nest egg with which to embark on adult life, I hope that Ministers will look for another way to secure the financial futures of such children. It is not sufficient to say that we will improve education, health and Sure Start support, important though those are. Plenty of evidence shows the importance for young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—and looked-after young people most of all—of having a financial asset behind them.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who I am sorry is no longer in the Chamber, cited the briefing that some Members had received from the Save Child Savings alliance. I was struck by the numbers he shared with us: 4.5 million child trust fund accounts are open; £2 billion is under management; and £22 million a month is saved in those funds. That is a lot of money being saved and set aside for our children’s futures. I strongly urge the Government to take note of that success. The vast majority of families saving are on modest, medium or lower incomes, certainly of less than £50,000, and many of them on much less. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that, I think, 24% of families were not saving at all. He is right to draw attention to the position of those families, but I question what they will save with instead, if we remove the child trust fund. If the Government do not save on behalf of the poorest children, I very much doubt that a tax break, for families who probably do not pay tax anyway, will suddenly magic up savings for the poorest children. I ask the Government to address that point.

The child trust fund is well targeted for its purpose, which is to deliver an asset to young people as they start out on adult life. Better-off families can afford to support their children with university fees, renting their first flat, buying their first car, perhaps starting a business, having a gap year—all markers of social stability, and therefore at the heart of what the Government rightly want young people from low-income backgrounds to be able to participate in. I am genuinely at a loss to understand why a Government who repeatedly, and unjustly, lambast Labour’s record in relation to social mobility and inequality, should totally dismantle a savings vehicle that has the potential to reduce inequalities, and instead propose a savings vehicle that will widen those inequalities by benefiting only those who are better off.

I am just as puzzled by the Government’s attitude to the saving gateway. Pilots in different parts of the country have shown that, coupled with outreach and money advice, it helped to support a savings habit, provided low-income families with a cushion enabling them to cope with crises, allowed them to build up modest assets over time, and made possible additional savings that would not have been possible otherwise.

I am surprised—more than surprised; indeed, I am shocked—that a Government who are happy to extend tax breaks to savers and to maintain them on ISA savings, pension contributions and inheritance tax will not provide support to boost the savings of the poorest. I ask Ministers how that can possibly be fair.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. She is making a comprehensive and excellent speech. Does she agree that what the financial services sector needs now are additional deposits, and that offering tax breaks to those who are already saving will not be half as effective as continuing programmes which, according to all the evidence, produced those additional deposits and improved the savings culture?

[Kate Green]

I think that the Government should be very wary about dismantling a scheme that has generated additional savings, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend has given.

What concerns me most is the impact of the Bill on the Government’s commitment to reducing inequality. We already have a significantly unequal distribution of assets. Up to 20% of households have no assets at all. The highest-earning 10% hold half the assets, and two thirds of households have savings of less than £3,000. I accept that we are not handing on a proud record to the incoming Government, but I would have expected them to conduct a rigorous equality impact assessment of their own proposals as a result of their determination to do a little better than that.

The equality impact assessment that accompanies the Bill is thin in the extreme. It fails in any way to recognise the lower earning power in the labour market of women, disabled people and members of ethnic minorities: a lower earning power that translates into a lesser ability to set money aside in savings, and ultimately, therefore, into lower asset holding. Its analysis of the saving habits of members of ethnic minorities is scanty, although research from the Runnymede Trust would have informed the Government quite quickly that at least 60% of Asian and black British families have no savings at all. The fact that that is twice the number of white households in the same position should concern us greatly.