Budget Resolutions
Debate between Meg Hillier and Seema Malhotra(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I should declare an interest in the Budget as a leaseholder in a block that needs cladding removing, although, happily, in my case, the developer is footing the total cost. Would that all were so responsible!
The Budget is optimistic—that is the polite way of describing it. It is a mix of old announcements repackaged and a very long wish list, and of course the devil will be in the detail of the delivery, which I and the Public Accounts Committee will be examining. It is a privilege to chair the Committee, although it also ruins me in terms of making cheap political promises, and it means I can spot a cheap political promise a mile off. There are missed opportunities in the Budget, on housing, education and social care, and it comes against the backdrop of a looming spending review—supposedly in July, though we understand that coronavirus could delay things—in preparation for which Departments are already facing 5% cuts on normal business.
Let’s not pretend, then, that a wave of a magic wand today and a flurry of promises means that what is being promised will be delivered. There are particular issues that may be quite problematic, which I will pick up on later, but I want to talk first about the proposals on statutory sick pay for coronavirus. I welcome the intent, of course, but so many people are on zero-hours contracts that this serious issue of coronavirus is underlining a systemic problem in our society. We have a two or even three-tier employment system, with too many people not even able to get statutory sick pay. In my constituency, we also have many self-employed people—a rising area of work—and the idea that a claim for benefits will be quick and easy is not realistic. I had the privilege of visiting my local jobcentre and meeting the fantastic team. They are working hard on a personal level to deliver for the people of Hackney on benefits. I did not get the chance to ask them about the Budget, but I think it will be quite hard to set up a scheme in which a load of checks would have to be waived, in which everything would have to be done over the phone, and in which a lot of the normal processes would have to be suspended. That will lead, I fear, to fraud, and particularly to the scourge of overpayment, because it will be difficult to do the necessary checks to make sure that people are getting what they should.
Zero-hours contracts are a growing issue. The Office for National Statistics labour force survey tells us that from October to December 2019, there were 974,000 workers on zero-hour contracts, which is 3% of the workforce. That is a record in both percentage and absolute terms. If we look at younger people, 9.1% of people aged 16 to 24 who are in employment—nearly one in 10—are on a zero-hours contract. The Government trumpet the new jobs that are being created, but we need to be mindful that many of them are part time, low paid and very insecure. It is not surprising that over a quarter of people on zero-hours contracts want an additional job, or a replacement job with additional hours. That is a big concern, particularly in the social care sector, where about a quarter of the workforce are recorded as being employed on zero-hours contracts.
We heard nothing, except in the Chancellor’s peroration, about social care—no solution for that sector. People in the national health service know that without investment in social care, any money thrown at the health service will have limited effect. Given the current situation with coronavirus, it is particularly vital that we protect social care.
Meg Hillier
I will not, I am afraid, because of the time.
Another issue that I am very concerned about is housing. Money for housing may be a start, but it depends exactly where it is going. According to the Red Book, the money is for an affordable housing fund, but my definition, and my constituents’ definition, of affordable housing is very different from the Prime Minister’s when he was Mayor of London. In high-cost areas such as Hackney, it is vital that housing be properly affordable. I have so many constituents living in really difficult circumstances. As of August last year, there were over 13,000 households on the housing register in Hackney. That is a 33% increase over the past five years, and responsibility for that lies firmly, squarely at the Government’s door. The wait for new housing is life-changing. The wait for a two-bedroom property for someone in the “urgent” band is seven years. For those in the “priority” band, it is three years, and it is six years for those in the “general” band. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine waiting six or seven years to get your child and your family into stable accommodation? I have rafts of examples of people in temporary accommodation who are living in one room in a hostel with their children.
I absolutely welcome the money that the Chancellor has committed to removal of dangerous cladding. So many of my constituents are mortgage prisoners who face bankruptcy, and whose life is on hold, so that money is a welcome step, but—there is a “but”—it is probably not as much money as is needed. It may well be that £1 billion is a drop in the ocean of what is required, and the money is only for properties over 18 metres high, yet the latest Government guidance note includes buildings over 11 metres. The Chancellor spoke quite loosely about removing all dangerous cladding; that is a very wide promise, and in the Red Book, all I see is that detail will be laid out in the spending review that is expected in July, so there is a delay in getting more details, and a further delay before the promise is implemented. If the spending review is delayed because of coronavirus, or for any other reason, people in my constituency and across the country will remain in limbo, waiting to find out what will happen.
I was glad that the Chancellor, in an almost throwaway line, pledged that the Government would pursue building owners and developers to ensure that they paid their share. That is absolutely right. Some of the estimates are high because everything to do with fire safety that has gone wrong in a building is being added to the bill. Frankly, if a developer did not put a fire door in properly, it should not be down to the taxpayer or homeowner to backfill for that; that should be down to the people who made the mistake. The track record shows that for any Government, getting money back from the private sector once there has been a taxpayer-funded giveaway is challenging. I will look closely at the detail to make sure that those who were irresponsible do not get away with it.
An area that is missing from the Budget is Brexit preparations. We are due to leave the European Union on 31 December, yet there was nothing in the Budget about how we will pay for that. On two occasions in the past year, money has been spent like water to prepare for no deal. The Public Accounts Committee has been looking at that. It is very expensive to prepare when we do not yet know what is happening. Businesses up and down the country, among others, are living in uncertain times and will need information, so there will at the very least be an information campaign. Of course, a lot of other Government work is being done to prepare, but there is nothing in the Budget for that on top of what is in existing budgets.
The Chancellor talked about capital investment in further education; I only ask how much will be used to pay off the existing loans that the Government have had to bung to FE colleges because they are so cash-strapped that they were unable to pay back the grants they were given so those grants were turned into loans. That could absorb quite a chunk of money, so I wonder how much is actually for new capital investment that will be invested in vital technical and other education to make sure that we have a workforce fit for the future.
The Public Accounts Committee has looked into carbon capture and storage. There have been two attempts to deliver it and a third competition that delivered nothing. Millions of pounds have been wasted. An £800 million bung to a sector that has not managed it so far, when there is no capacity out there to deliver it, seems to me to be good money after bad. It is a great idea—I would love to see carbon capture and storage work to make sure that our energy-intensive industries can continue—but there is a long way between promising £800 million and getting it delivered. I really do hope that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at the issue closely and actually has a plan behind the money. The worst thing is just to throw money at something for a cheap headline and not have a plan for delivery.
The health surcharge has a big impact. I have a constituency that is the world in one constituency—the world in one borough—and am proud of that. The many fees that are landing on migrants are having a huge impact on their ability to get on with their lives and become fully contributory members of our society. At £624 per annum—more than double the current rate—the health surcharge is going to mean a huge cost of more than £2,000 for a typical family. If a person applies for discretionary leave to remain, they now have to apply three times before they have the option of applying for citizenship. The fees rack up, at £800 a time for DLR and more than £1,000 for citizenship. It is no wonder that young people and older people are being deported from this country because the law currently says that if they do not have citizenship and commit a crime, they will be deported—many people would be citizens, if only they could afford the cost.
The issue with NHS pensions, which was first identified by the Public Accounts Committee in 2012, is now finally being tackled, eight years later, but at the huge cost of the loss of the experience of doctors that we now need in the NHS to deal with the coronavirus.
There are many promises, but little detail. I assure the Chancellor and the Treasury that there will be plenty of scrutiny from the Public Accounts Committee.
Health and Social Care
Debate between Meg Hillier and Seema Malhotra(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier
We have not looked at that directly, but we know that the biggest revenue cost for hospitals is staffing, which is followed, for some hospitals, by servicing a PFI deal. Early analysis suggests—I would not want the House to lay too much on this, because it comes from conversations I have had with auditors—that the challenge is that the cost of refinancing those PFI deals can swamp the potential savings. Perhaps Ministers could look into that further. A lot of technical work has been done to attempt it. The British Medical Association tells me that spreading the payback period over a longer time would reduce the day-to-day resource costs for hospitals, so that might be a way forward. However, I speak from work I have done outside the Committee Room, rather than strictly through the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office.
The supplementary estimate this year is worrying. The trend is going in the wrong direction for taking money out of the capital spend. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) highlighted, a lot of the transformation in the NHS will require the reconfiguration of buildings and estate. Those sorts of capital expenditures are important to save money in the long term, so the estimate really is very short-sighted.
If we look at how NHS trusts are managing with their deficits, again we see a worrying trend. At the beginning of this financial year—2016-17—NHS Improvement committed to ensuring that the provider sector deficit did not exceed £580 million at the end of the year, which is now in a month’s time. However, NHS Improvement forecast a deficit of £644 million in quarter one. Its forecast declined further to a deficit of £873 million in quarter three. That pledge did not amount to very much, and it is moving very much in the wrong direction. NHS trusts have been overspending by approximately £300 million a quarter throughout this financial year. If that trend continues into the final quarter of the year, the overspend will be close to £1.2 billion. I have laid out the reality very starkly by picking out uncertain elements in the Department of Health’s consolidated accounts.
We hear a lot of discussion about how much money the Government are putting into the NHS. The Committee had an unedifying experience at a hearing on 11 January, in which the head of NHS England came before us on the very day that anonymous briefings in the national press from sources at No. 10 criticised him and NHS England. He defended his position in the Committee but, frankly, patients do not want anonymous briefings from people to save face when the Committee is actually looking at saving lives and treating patients. They do not want to see a ding-doing about the money. They need to know that the people running our health service, and the Government overseeing and channelling taxpayers’ money into it, are committed to long-term patient care and tackling future long-term challenges.
Let us be clear that protecting the NHS England budget is not the same as protecting the health budget. As the hon. Member for Totnes mentioned, Public Health England and Health Education England are being squeezed, and social care budgets—although not a direct national health cost—went down by 10% in the last Parliament. There are some clever measures by Ministers, saying, “Put up your council tax precept and it’ll all be fine.” That is still taxpayers’ money being found from somewhere to go some way towards solving the problem, but it will not solve it in the long term. Unless we tackle social care and health together, we will have an unsustainable future. There is too much robbing Paul to pay Paul—shifting money from one bit of the budget to another in a clever way that is not transparent to most people out there because it is buried in big numbers.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and evidence-rich speech, as always. One issue that is not often talked about, but that appeared in the media again today, is the rise in physical attacks on NHS staff. The budget of NHS Protect, which deals with a lot of security issues, is also being cut. That is part of creating the perfect storm, with evidence that a lot of perpetrators of such attacks are those with mental health issues. Unless we have the resources for an environment in which we keep NHS staff safe, the issue could get worse.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend makes her point well. It is important to protect staff. I echo the comments of the Chair of the Health Committee that staff cost more than anything else in the NHS and provide the direct patient care that is so important to its long-term sustainability. I will touch on workforce planning in a moment.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Debate between Meg Hillier and Seema Malhotra(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Amendment 44 deals with the question of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. I am well qualified to speak about that, because I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the UK. About a third of my constituents are younger than 24 and just over a fifth are under the age of 16. As hon. Members can imagine, I have some interesting discussions with sixth formers in my constituency about this subject, which is debated hotly among local 16 and 17-year-olds.
Over the three years since this Government came to power, one issue that has galvanised young people about politics from a parliamentary perspective—many of them were active politically in a wider sense—is the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, and I was pleased that some Hackney sixth formers came here to speak to a Select Committee about the impact of that. About 80% of that cohort were in receipt of that benefit, so the loss of it made them feel suddenly connected to Parliament, yet disconnected because they did not have a vote.
I have met our local Youth Parliament representative a couple of times. He is very much in favour of this approach, but I have to say that support for votes at 16 is not unanimous among 16 and 17-year-olds—[Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has strong feelings about this in the contrary direction. I think we need to have a reasoned debate about the issue. Scotland is moving in the direction of at least experimenting with this as an option.
When I talk to young people about the subject, some are nervous about it, some are downright opposed and some are very much in favour. Even those in favour sometimes admit difficulties because they feel that they do not know enough. They say, humblingly to me, “But, Miss, we are not informed enough to make decisions.” They have a laudable belief that being informed is a prerequisite to being a political representative or to voting. If every adult in this country had the same view, we would probably have an even smaller turnout at elections than we do now.
I believe that giving people the vote at 16 is the right way forward. It would ingrain voting habits early. It is a bit like learning to clean teeth from the age of two, because if people do something day in, day out, or year in, year out—or five years in, five years out for voting—they are encouraged to keep doing it, and that would be the case for voting. We all know that one reason why the Government have chosen not to touch some issues that would affect pensioners—they are not affected by the bedroom tax or cuts to council tax benefits—is the fact that people of pensionable age are more likely to vote than young people. I do not think that anyone in this place wilfully ignores young people, but we have to recognise that, beneath our national party strategists doing endless work through Mosaic and number-crunching, there is a ruthless look at how people vote. Bringing in votes for people at 16 or 17 could make a big difference to how young people are listened to up and down the country.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful arguments, and she will know that I very much support the move to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in such a referendum. She made an interesting point about whether there is consensus among 16 and 17-year-olds about having the vote. Does she agree that, as these are matters of debate about where the world is going and what decisions need to be made, it is worth looking back to when women were first allowed to vote? There was no consensus among women at that time about whether they should have the vote, but the argument was won, and it was viewed as being in the national interest. No one wants to turn back the clock now.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend’s good contribution included an interesting point about intergenerational accountability. It is our generation that is making decisions on behalf of the nation about the future—about climate change, whether to go to war and so forth—and our decisions will substantially affect the next generation. Is it right for that generation to be denied a vote?
Cost of Living
Debate between Meg Hillier and Seema Malhotra
Seema Malhotra
Yet again, we see how the Conservative Government are so out of touch and so complacent, not acknowledging any of the challenges—rising unemployment and a rising cost of living—that people in Britain are facing today; they are not taking any responsibility.
A recent report by the London assembly found that more than 95% of teachers asked in London said that children in their schools regularly went without breakfast—more than half of such instances were because families could not afford food. That is completely unacceptable in modern Britain. The health, educational attainment and life chances of these children are threatened by hunger, and the Government continue to do nothing to help with the cost of living.
Meg Hillier
Teachers and head teachers in my constituency have given me similar messages. One school has what it calls a “tack room”, where it takes in young people’s mobile phones or a deposit—little bits of money—towards a blazer or school equipment, because the children cannot afford that or their school lunches.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes a moving contribution. We have seen how schools are increasingly picking up the pieces so that children can have something to eat and at least then be able to study.
The Government are even making things worse. A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report into child poverty found that between 2010 and 2020 absolute child poverty will increase by 55%, with the IFS saying that the projected surge is a result of the fiscal and social security policies of this Tory-led Government. A great sign of weakness is not admitting when you have got it wrong, and it is a shame that the Government did not take the opportunity of this Queen’s Speech to put forward real solutions to meet the challenges our businesses and families are facing. As Labour’s alternative Queen’s Speech argued, the focus should have been on those matters that will make a real change: jobs; growth; tackling rising consumer prices; and banking reform to back our British businesses. Last month, the International Monetary Fund published figures showing that in 2012 the UK economy grew by just 0.2%. That was 0.7% less than Germany, 2% less than the United States, and 3.8% less than India. We are, of course, in a global race, in which Britain can lead, although not under this Government if the last three years are anything to go by.
The Queen’s Speech has been a missed opportunity—another chance missed to improve the prospects of Britain’s families. It is a no-answers Queen’s Speech from a tired and failing Government. They are out of touch, out of ideas and losing the global race for Britain. My constituents in Feltham and Heston deserved better. It is not too late for the Government to change course, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.