Public Sector Pay 2024-25

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing this debate. It is always brilliant to hear her talking about the important issue of low pay. I echo her comments about Tony Lloyd. He was a very principled public servant, not only as an MP for many years, but as a police and crime commissioner. My thoughts are with his family. He will be sadly missed.

The statistics on public sector pay and the associated graphs and figures all starkly outline the dire state of pay for those who dutifully work to serve our communities, but nothing paints a better picture than the experience of frontline workers themselves. I want to read an anonymised quote from a DWP worker. When they were asked about the conditions in their workplace, they said:

“Every day felt like drowning, getting upwards of 60 messages from claimants to deal with, on top of all the other work. I’ve been in my role for several years and this was the worst it has gotten. It worsened my mental health to the point of severe burnout, with constant headaches when I am at work and bad anxiety. At its worst, it pushed me to self–harm and heavy contemplation of suicide.”

That worker is not alone in those feelings. PCS recently published first-hand testimony from the workforce in the DWP. The reports in that document are shocking, and they almost all point to low pay as the source of the recruitment crisis in the DWP. No one wants to work for an employer that they feel undervalues them and the skilled job they do. It is ironic that we hear a lot about competition in the private sector, and yet do not see competitive pay in the public sector.

The link between poor recruitment and pay is also abundantly clear in the health service. Nursing, which has already been mentioned, has a vacancy rate of 10.36%. The number of district nurses has decreased by 44.4%. School nurses are down by 32.6%, learning disability nurses by 46%, and health visitors by 31.1%. Just the other day, I was in the Chamber debating provision and funding for special educational needs and disabilities. All the nursing staff I have listed are critical to delivering that service, so it is no wonder that SEND provision in the UK is broken. Pay is at the core of a lot of these recruitment crises.

It is the same story again and again. Last year, the TUC found that one in three public sector workers—1.8 million workers—has attempted to leave their profession and get a job in another field. As alluded to earlier, the crisis in health and social care is even worse; there, the proportion rises to 50%. Of all the workers the TUC asked, 52% cited low pay as a cause of their wanting to leave the sector.

The pay for our public servants reflects the esteem in which we hold our public services, and the value we place on supporting some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Given the Government’s measures on public services, those have clearly hit rock bottom. We should all reflect on that.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

How does the Minister square the language that he has just used about how great the UK is with two major banks that are based here providing £107.44 billion to the top 50 companies expanding upstream oil and gas? Is that not exactly why we need some of the sustainable finance amendments that have been tabled?

[Andrew Griffith]

I beg to differ with the hon. Lady, because it is important to finance the transition to achieve a just green financial future. While we are making all these efforts and coming forward with things such as the taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures, we will therefore make sure that we are not defaulting to divestments and boycotts, because that is not our view of the way that the Government will finance the clean energy revolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). As she said, it would prohibit payment service providers from refusing to supply a customer based on the customer exercising their lawful right to freedom of expression.

On 15 September, PayPal notified the Free Speech Union that it had closed its account with immediate effect. The reason given was that the Free Speech Union had breached the company’s acceptable use policy, but no further information was forthcoming. The accounts of UsForThem, the Daily Sceptic and the journalist Toby Young were also terminated. It is still not entirely clear why PayPal closed the accounts, but the apparently common theme among those organisations and individuals is that they have each become prominent champions of free speech, expressing critical, non-conforming opinions and asking challenging questions.

The effect of PayPal’s decision was to temporarily disrupt the ability of those organisations to operate. In some cases, their accounts were frozen, thereby denying them access to their funds. In the light of that, 42 peers and MPs wrote to the then Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and to the Minister currently on the Front Bench. PayPal then restored the accounts of UsForThem and the Free Speech Union. Although PayPal’s actions may seem unjustifiable, payment providers and high street banks may terminate the accounts of groups on the basis of lawful speech, so long as adequate notice is given. As the law stands, the only thing that PayPal did wrong was not to give sufficient notice of the closure.

Sadly, the actions of PayPal in September were not a one-off. It also closed the accounts of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance and Law or Fiction, both of which are opposed to lockdowns, and it has not reopened either of them. It is therefore hard to avoid interpreting PayPal’s actions as an orchestrated, politically motivated move to restrict certain views within the UK. This is unacceptable.

In an increasingly cashless society—we have heard a lot about the merits of cash today—access to a digital payment system is not a luxury, but a basic requirement for participation in society. No campaigning organisation can function without the ability to perform financial transactions. Imagine if the suffragettes had not been allowed to have or use cash, or if those campaigning for Brexit had been refused a bank account. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are foundational to democracy, and there can be no meaningful freedom of expression without the ability to conduct financial transactions.

It is of course right that in the UK private companies can choose which customers they do and do not want to do business with, but this is based on the assumption that there is a functional marketplace with healthy competition and that companies are regulated by, and compliant with, UK law and regulations. PayPal is eight times larger than its nearest competitor. It is a Californian company with its European headquarters in Luxembourg. Are we happy to delegate important powers relating to freedom of speech and expression to unaccountable global tech firms?

Of course, unlike socialists, conservatives want markets to operate freely, without unnecessary bureaucracy and state control. But as conservatives, unlike liberals or libertarians, we understand that there must be limits to this freedom, because without limits, human beings and organisations will sometimes—perhaps often—put their own interests before the best interests of customers and societies. As UK national conservatives, we believe that the proper bodies to set the bounds of free speech and political opinions in the UK are the UK Parliament and UK courts. That is why we must act to legally prevent payment providers from closing accounts of the basis of political beliefs, because if we do not, big global companies will put their own interests—financial, reputational and political—before any moral duty to act fairly.

The principle of using law to protect free speech is well established. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religious or philosophical beliefs, but this protects individuals, not organisations, which is why it cannot be used in this case. The Government are also acting to protect free speech in universities, and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is today making its passage through the other place.

The PayPal saga identified a gap in our free speech protection that must be filled with appropriate legislation, which is why I support new clause 27. I thank the Minister for his engagement on this issue, which I know he takes very seriously—I was delighted by his opening remarks and commitment to work further on it. I very much hope that, following the evidence that he will gather, he will legislate if it is appropriate to do so. I appreciate his assurances on that.

I want to finish with a recent example of what happens when free speech is threatened. I know we do not want to think back to covid, but we had lockdowns and school closures. In fact, UK schools were closed for longer than those in almost any other country in Europe, and our children missed more face-to-face learning than those in any country other than Italy. The effects on children have been absolutely horrendous and will last a generation. They include lost learning, an increase in eating disorders, self-harm, a loss of socialisation, exposure to domestic violence—I could go on and on. [Interruption.] But I will not, because you are clearly telling me not to, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Government now say that doing that was a mistake and that there was not sufficient evidence, but one reason that schools were reopened and children were eventually protected was the effective campaigning of the group UsForThem, which—unlike so many—stood up for children and their welfare. Its views were unpopular and it was said to be spreading misinformation. Imagine if its bank account had been cancelled two years ago—where we would be now? We need this protection. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment and I look forward to working with him further.

[Olivia Blake]

The Bill is important because it presents an opportunity to set out a new, responsible and green vision for the City and financial services, but the Government are squandering that opportunity. That is why I rise to speak in support of amendments that would enshrine climate protections and harness the power of the City to act as a force for people and planet.

Let us look at the resources in that sector. Globally, privately invested financial assets are expected to reach $145.4 trillion by 2025—a 250% growth in less than 20 years. In the UK, pension assets amount to a staggering £2.7 trillion. The financial challenge for decarbonising the economy is significant. The UN has estimated that, globally, we require £90 trillion of infrastructure investment by 2030 alone. In the UK, private investment in carbon-cutting activities needs to grow by an extra £140 billion over the next five years to reach our net zero goals. We should mobilise the huge resources in the finance system to meet the existential challenge of the climate crisis. Instead, financial institutions are adding fuel to the fire, as I mentioned.

Britain is a financial giant and is the biggest net exporter of financial services in the world. I support new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), because we need a strategy for how we use that influence to reshape the system in accordance with climate priorities. However, those climate priorities are not the priorities in the Bill. Rather than making it a statutory aim of regulators to ensure compliance with our net zero aims and protect our natural environment, the Bill makes the main aim of regulation growth and competitiveness in the sector. In fact, although it is supposed to represent the Government’s vision for the future of financial services, it does not mention “nature” once. That is why I support new clause 25, which aims not for growth and competitiveness on its own, but for a regulatory regime designed for long-term economic resilience, climate safety and nature restoration.

The science is clear: complying with our net zero and Paris agreement obligations means keeping dirty fossil fuels in the ground, so we should encourage divestment in fossil fuels and put an end to fossil fuel extraction. New clauses 21 and 26 have my full support because they rightly restrict and provide disincentives for that kind of harmful investment. We need not only to incentivise fossil fuel divestment, but to ensure that investors make demands of companies on climate action.

I tabled new clauses 8 and 9 because we need to raise the bar on stewardship rules, putting ethical engagement with companies on the climate crisis and much more at the heart of investor activity. I support amendments 23 to 27 because they would reinstate the position limit rules on the kinds of awful things that we have seen relating to speculating on food and betting on hunger. We should stand firmly against that, especially given global heating.

I will finish by saying a few words about fraud. My constituents have been frustrated by the lack of accountability in the financial services sector. Some fraud victims are passed from pillar to post in trying to access justice, so I welcome new clause 1, which tasks the Government with creating a national strategy on preventing fraud. Although these will not be pressed to a separate vote, I draw the House’s attention to my new clause 26 and my amendment 20, which make clear the responsibility for reporting fraud and compensating victims. I also express my support for new clause 2, which would ensure that everyone has access to essential in-person banking services.

We need financial services that work for people and planet. As the clock ticks on climate action, now is the time to pull every lever and seize every opportunity to decarbonise our economy and society. However, the Bill has presented us with more of the same agenda—deregulation and lip service to climate goals. As the slogan goes, we need “system change not climate change.” I am afraid that without significant changes, the Bill will deliver the opposite.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I declare an interest as chair of the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group. I welcome the Bill as a great opportunity to cement the UK’s position as a leading market for financial services.

The London insurance market alone is bigger than all its competitors combined. That is great news, but it also means that it is a target and that it has the most to lose, so it is really important that we get this key legislation right. I thank the Minister for his engagement at earlier stages; I know he is keen to make the Bill a big success, as I am, and I really appreciate the conversations that we have had.

Greening the Financial System

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of greening the financial system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone. Before I begin, I would like to thank the numerous organisations, especially ShareAction and the WWF, that offered advice and briefing in the run-up to this debate, which is on quite a technical subject.

This is a very important area of debate. Not only do we face the twin climate and nature crises as possibly the greatest existential challenge of our era, but to meet them we will have to engage every part of economy and society, especially our financial system. Globally, the volume of privately invested financial assets is expected to reach $140.4 trillion by 2025, a 250% growth in less than 20 years. In the UK alone, pension assets amount to almost £3 trillion. Across the globe, investment in pensions constitutes half of all the money in the world.

An estimated £32 trillion of investment is required to decarbonise the global economy. In the UK, private investment in carbon-cutting activities such as home insulation and electric vehicle charging points needs to grow by an extra £140 billion over the next five years to reach our current net zero goals. It is therefore not only right but essential to mobilise these vast global and national resources to tackle the climate and nature emergencies; however, our finance system is not serving the interests of people or planet. Just 100 of the richest companies are responsible for over 70% of all global emissions. The world’s three largest asset managers have a combined £300 billion invested in fossil fuels, including money from private savings and pensions. In the five years since the Paris agreement, the world’s 60 largest banks have financed fossil fuel projects to the tune of $3.8 trillion.

Britain is a financial giant and the biggest net exporter of financial services in the world. Our weight in the global financial system means we have the influence to reshape it for the better, but we remain part of the problem. If the City of London were a country, the emissions it finances would make it the ninth largest polluter in the world. Between 2016 and 2021, UK banks HSBC and Barclays provided $107.44 billion to the top 50 companies expanding upstream oil and gas.

So far, efforts to change the system, such as through the Government’s green finance strategy and new benchmarks such as the TCFD—Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures—recommendations, have emphasised greater reporting, transparency and information. Initiatives have often been sector-led. However, while they are necessary, they are certainly not sufficient. We also need action and regulation, not only to shift financial flows away from carbon-intensive areas and towards climate-friendly investment, but to ensure that financial institutions play their own role in tackling the systemic problems in the sector.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. Does she agree that a very important part of the issue to be resolved is the impact of financial investment in countries and organisations involved in deforestation, and that it is important for the City of London and our financial services sector to face the same kind of due diligence requirements that the Government rightly put in place for retailers in the Environment Act 2021, in terms of forest risk products? I encourage the Minister to consider that as an important next step in our battle against the loss of ecologically important forests around the world.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I completely agree: deforestation is a massive issue, and finance plays a huge role in it.

As I was saying, we need financial institutions to play their own role in tackling the systemic problems in the sector, alongside the overarching role. The Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is due back in the House next week, was an opportunity to do that, but the Bill has sent the wrong message. Take the priorities that the Bill sets out for regulators: that they should aim to enhance the competitiveness of the sector, but should only “have regard to” the Government’s net zero target.

That undermines the Government’s green finance strategy, which has two objectives:

“To align private sector financial flows with clean, environmentally sustainable and resilient growth…and to strengthen the competitiveness of the UK financial sector.”

A principle does not have the same force as a statutory aim. The Bill, therefore, represents a significant downgrading of the first target of the ambition set out in the green finance strategy.

The Bill was also an opportunity to move more rapidly on instituting mandatory net zero transition plans for financial institutions, but they are so far missing from the legislation. Plans are important, because they move us away from simply reporting and sharing information, to concrete climate action. We should also be doing much more on investor stewardship and fiduciary duty.

We need not only to encourage and incentivise fossil-fuel divestment, but to ensure that investors are engaging with and making demands of companies on climate action. That means raising capital requirements on fossil-fuel investments and raising the bar on stewardship, so that climate and nature form critical points of engagement with companies. That should also mean expanding the concept of fiduciary duty. The purpose of a pension is to provide a standard of living to the beneficiary when they retire. We need to shift the concept of fiduciary duty away from gaining returns at any cost, to thinking about the kind of world beneficiaries will retire to, or the world in which their children will grow up. Pension investors have a duty to their customers to ensure that the world is not wracked by flooding, flash fires, famine and freak weather, all driven by the climate emergency.

It is clear that the Financial Services and Markets Bill does not go far enough; it may even exacerbate some of the results of the climate crisis. Global heating has made our food supply even more insecure. In dumping the MiFID II regulations, the Bill makes speculation on food even more likely, driving up prices and worsening the consequences of the climate emergency.

However, the issue is not just regulation: so much needs to be done to create markets for green investment. In the green finance strategy, the Government set out their approach to leveraging private investment in five key areas: power, homes, transport, environmental land management and business energy use. On power, we have seen an effective ban on onshore wind, blocking of oven-ready new solar and nothing on tidal. On homes, since the Government “cut the green crap”—I am quoting—in 2013, home insulation has flatlined.

On transport, unless we are talking about building more roads for cars, the system is ravaged by underinvestment. In my constituency, people can wait more than an hour for a bus. On environmental land management, the Government appear to have scrapped or delayed environmental and land management schemes, and are now umming and aahing about their replacement. On business energy use, I repeatedly hear of small and medium-sized enterprises that want to do much more about their emissions, but do not feel they have the support to monitor them and cannot afford the upgrades to do anything about them.

I have long argued for a green new deal, and it is obvious from what I have just said that we are desperately in need of one. One way to kick-start that would be to re-examine the mandates of public financial institutions, such as the British Business Bank, offering discounted financial products to SMEs to make green investment in their business.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. There is a real role to play for public finances—contracts for difference and national funding—but we also see private finance coming in. If we had regulation, for instance on carbon offsetting or through the green investment bank, private finance would flow into this area. Even that is not happening with the Government. Would a better regulatory environment create those green financial opportunities?

[Olivia Blake]

I completely agree. The regulatory framework that we have here is really holding us back, when it could offer us real opportunities and help to prevent things from getting worse, which is my fear.

For example, we really need to think about what more we can do to support everything, from the bottom to the top of our financial system. That is why I mentioned SMEs, because they are the backbone of many of our local economies. However, an inability to access the financial products that I am talking about is causing a lot of harm to the future of those businesses. Alternatively, strengthening the climate commitments in the mandate for the UK Green Investment Bank while strengthening its lending power could really help to unlock some of this issue.

We could be doing so much more. I hope that when the Financial Services and Markets Bill returns to the House, Members will support amendments along the lines that I have outlined. I also hope that this debate spurs the Government to greater action, because we certainly need it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

I will address a couple of points that were made and thank the Members who took part. It was a very valuable debate. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) was right to point to the dangers of greenwashing and the green taxonomy framework. It is about ensuring that we have enforcement and concrete action, through the guarantees of investors. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer present, so I will skip him and everyone else—but we have had a really valuable debate.

Next week provides a perfect opportunity. I ask Ministers to look again at where the Financial Services and Markets Bill can be strengthened in this subject area; hopefully we will see the concrete action that we need. I have read the green finance strategy and I am afraid some of the wording in it is a bit wishy-washy, to say the least. It quite often says things such as, “We will encourage”, “We will have discussions”, “We will catalyse”. There are more than a million ways of saying we might do something, and not that we will do something. There is an opportunity for the Minister to do something—please take it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of greening the financial system.

The Growth Plan

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There are two measures that I referred to in that respect. The right to strike will not be compromised by minimum service levels, nor is it compromised by requiring union bosses to put a ballot to their entire membership ahead of a strike. Those are not measures that conflict with or in any way militate against the right to strike.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

This is a Budget, and the Chancellor should have treated it as such. It is a Budget that is lining the Savile Row pockets of the Government’s friends, allies and funders in the City. Who is paying for this? Is it the oil companies making millions and billions? Is it the mega-corporations making millions and billions? No, it is working people. Will the Chancellor admit it?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What I will admit is that the plan is a plan for growth that will drive entrepreneurialism, endeavour and economic opportunity in this country. Everybody will benefit from that.

Financial Statement

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Government spending on R&D is increasing considerably over this Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the issues with our existing relief schemes. They do not work as well as they should. We are committed to tackling them. The final announcement will be made in the autumn for effect in the spring.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Figures from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have shown that destitution has more than doubled from 197,400 to over 400,000. Destitution is defined as two single people living on £100 a week after housing costs. Is the Chancellor happy that none of the announcements today will benefit those who are in destitution?

[Rishi Sunak]

That is categorically not the case. The policies that we have announced today will help British families up and down the country in all sorts of circumstances: we are making sure that work pays; we are supporting people into work; we are cutting the cost of fuel; and we have a plan to let our people to keep more of their own money in the years ahead. It is the right way to help people, and all the distribution analysis published today supports the fact that we are doing most for those on the lowest incomes.

Community Debt Advice Services

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing the debate.

As we have heard, debt has many forms and can affect anyone. However, it is particularly difficult for those on lower incomes, who are unfortunately kept in what could be seen as a debt trap, with higher levels of credit being offered. Whether it is payday loans—as we have discussed in the House many times—or online credit when people buy online, or someone simply taking on a car and a mortgage and their circumstances changing, many things can put someone in debt. While there are many reasons behind it, the impact is the same. People feel extreme stress; as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle outlined, 100,000 people a year try to take their lives as a result of debt. That is a staggering figure and we should be deeply ashamed of it.

Considering where we are now, after the pandemic, provides important context. Since 2012, household debt has risen every year. Although we have seen a sharp decline in so-called unsecured debt through the pandemic, as savings have risen and outgoings have fallen, it is clear that those aggregated figures mask deep inequalities in our society.

While people on higher incomes were four times more likely to see their family savings increase under lockdown, roughly a third of low-income households saw their savings all but depleted. Part of that inequality is explained by the hit to incomes that many people experienced through the pandemic, by either having their salaries reduced through being on furlough or losing their jobs altogether. One of the most shocking economic facts of the lockdown and the covid crisis is that the increase in the average wage was due not to actual wages increasing, but to the number of people on low wages being forced out of work.

The Government are hitting lower-income families even harder with the cut to universal credit and the increase in national insurance, all while inflation continues to soar and we see large increases in energy bills—I expect we will continue to see a sharp rise in demand for support with unmanageable debts. That is why, after engineering all this inequality, the proposal to reduce the amount of face-to-face debt advice makes absolutely no sense.

I do not need to tell Members about the huge increase in complex constituency casework that we have all seen throughout the pandemic. I do not need to even mention the importance of our constituency caseworkers or surgeries in helping our constituents. It is that detailed, face-to-face meticulous support that the new MaPS proposals will axe. As a former councillor, I know that every local authority deals with debt support differently. Some areas do not offer local assistance grants, for example. With 330 different types of local authorities, a national and regional system would struggle to understand what the full offer is in individual areas.

Some might argue that the overall spending envelope on debt advice has increased. I hope the Minister will not reach for that today, because those resources are going to national services that cannot provide the quality of support and follow-through from one-off conversations with someone in a national call centre.

I worry about access. Will the Minister confirm that calls will be free and web pages free to visit? I am concerned about access in terms of disability. As we know, some people who suffer from certain disabilities are more likely to have issues with debt. It is really important that people can access services no matter their circumstances, so I want to hear more about how the Minister will support people with disabilities and debt issues. I am also concerned about the move away from grant agreements to commercial contracts with debt advice providers. We have seen that fail repeatedly in other DWP contexts. Large outsourcing companies are very good at gaming key performance indicators, as we all know, but when it comes to providing services, the service users and staff often suffer.

MaPS needs to pause the process and rethink. Instead of handing out redundancy notices just before Christmas to some of the most highly trained staff and reducing regional wraparound face-to-face services, which all our constituents rely on, it should enter into proper consultation with debt advisers and agencies, and make sure that any future contracts are accessible at a local level. Only by including those voices and listening to organisations such as We Are Debt Advisers and trade union groups such as the Unite Debt Advice Network will we find a way forward for these services and ultimately help people in a desperate situation.

Government's Management of the Economy

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

The aftermath of the 2008 crisis saw not only weak levels of growth, but a fundamental shift in the character of our labour market. As the economy contracted and people lost their jobs, we saw low-pay zero-hour contracts in sectors where workers had far weaker trade union representation. Labour borrowing or spending did not cause the international crisis and the economic crash. No, the only organisations that could achieve that were the big banks that took huge risks in an unregulated global banking market, They did not think about the impact that such risks would have on our communities; they just thought about their profits and bonuses.

This false rhetoric about what happened has damaged towns, cities and many communities, leaving councillors with impossible decisions on what services to cut. I find it a bit insulting when I hear Members say, as some have done today, that those in the public sector have been protected from job losses. After 10 years of harsh service cuts, huge workloads and many vacancies—in nursing, for example, there are 40,000 current vacancies —a huge strain has been imposed on the hard-working public sector who do deserve a pay rise. It is no surprise that the gap between the super-rich and the poorest continues to grow.

Things are certainly not all rosy in the private sector. In 2008, 143,000 people were on zero-hour contracts. By 2016, that figure had reached nearly 1 million, and it has stayed at about that level ever since. Not only did the 2008 crisis force down wages, the insecure working conditions that it created made it harder to negotiate higher pay. Now, 13 years after the last economic crisis, total pay, adjusted for inflation, has finally returned to 2008 levels.

Today, some of the people most likely not to have been furloughed are those on low pay, or on zero-hour contracts. I was shocked to read in the latest Office for National Statistics labour market report that the net impact on recent job losses could see an increase in average pay of 1.5%. That is purely because the people on the lowest wages are the ones most likely to lose their jobs. When they do not lose their jobs, many are afraid to go off sick for fear that they will not have their hours renewed, or because statutory sick pay simply will not cover their rent and bills, or because they will not be entitled to statutory sick pay. Low pay and insecurity in our economy has created a perfect storm for transmitting the virus and the Government are failing to learn the lessons. There is a real human price to their ideology—whether it be children in poverty, food bank queues or homelessness.

Black History Month

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this debate. It is vital that we celebrate black history and the struggle for racial justice in the UK. This has been such an important debate at such an important time, and it is certainly of much importance for my constituents and my constituency, because Sheffield was one of the engine rooms of the industrial revolution. Sheffield, Hallam was where many of the business magnates of the age made their homes. They invested in the machinery and the mills that would earn Sheffield its reputation as a steel city, but those factories were not used only to produce steel or Sheffield cutlery, which we celebrate often. They were also used, unfortunately—as in many cities—for a more sinister objective: they made the tools that were used on the plantations by people sold into slavery on the other side of the Atlantic. We can see the design of those tools in Joseph Smith’s book published in 1816, called “Explanation Or Key, to the Various Manufactories of Sheffield”.

We also have our fair share of people who have sought to dismantle that legacy. In 1790, Sheffield hosted the author and anti-slavery activist, Olaudah Equiano. It also has an international connection to the great American abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, through the letters of Mary Anne Rawson, who led the Sheffield Female Anti-Slavery Society, the first society in Britain to argue for an immediate end to slavery. Ever since Equiano, Sheffield has had a tradition of campaigning for racial justice. It has played host to Malcolm X, declared itself a city of sanctuary and united in the face of far-right hatred of the Muslim community.

I know about the city’s role in making plantation tools because of the Sheffield Black Atlantic Project at the University of Sheffield. We need more work such as that at our universities and in our schools and colleges, so we do not have ignorance about our cities’ roles in globalisation and our legacy. We also need to do much more to dismantle institutional racism in our education system. According to recent figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, only 1% of our professors are black. It is not just history written in the past that is over-represented by white academics; it is happening now and we need to challenge that.

Black History Month should be about more than looking to the past; it is about struggling for a better future, too. Today, campaigners in my constituency fight for justice for Simba Mujakachi. Simba’s family moved to Sheffield when he was 14. His father applied for asylum due to persecution in Zimbabwe, but was refused. As a refused asylum seeker, he was denied work and denied access to the NHS. Last year, Simba suffered a stroke, and he now owes £93,000 to the health service, which was established to provide care free at the point of use to all those who need it. I am proud to stand with him as he campaigns for justice for himself and for all those denied medical treatment as a result of the Government’s “hostile environment” policy.

It is the same policy that led to the Windrush scandal and the deportation of black British people, a generation that contributed so much to Sheffield’s history, including our steel industry. Like Simba, those people had spent their entire adult lives in the UK and lacked only the paperwork to prove their nationality. The fact that we live in a society that demands papers from black British people to prove their citizenship or to access public services should shame us all. Black History Month is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of black communities to our culture, society and politics, but we must also remember that history is a living thing. Just as we recall the injustices of the past and those who have fought against them, we should also stand with those, like Simba, who continue to struggle today.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Our economy has contracted by one fifth in the last quarter, and it is clear that we have entered a great and deep recession. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that unemployment will peak in quarter 4 at between 9.7% and 13.2%. At 13.2%, that is absolutely unprecedented, at least according to the figures available from the Office for National Statistics, and even at 9.7% it is unlike anything we have seen for nearly 40 years. One in 10 people could be out of work. The Chancellor has said over and again that the economic challenges we are facing are unprecedented, and he is right to say that: the situation is unprecedented. The projected unemployment figures show that in black and white.

Of course, we have welcomed the job retention scheme and it has been a life support, as has been said, but why are we stopping the treatment when the economy is still sick? That is why I do not understand the reason for the blanket withdrawal of this scheme, especially after the Government’s mixed messaging and inability to implement a proper track and trace system, which is causing a second peak and local lockdowns up and down the country. The public health crisis is driving this recession, so the economic crisis will not go away until we get a grip of that. The Government need to look at what sectors are most affected and extend the scheme in those areas to keep people in their jobs.

As well as protecting jobs, we must also protect people’s rights at work. It is disgraceful how some employers are using this crisis to drive down pay and conditions. For example, the staff at British Gas are rightly standing up against the absolutely outrageous fire and rehire tactics of Centrica, their employer, and British Airways staff are going through the same challenges. That is not about getting people back to work; it is about putting millions of people’s jobs and security at risk.

Crises such as the one we are living through should not be seen as opportunities to restructure businesses for shareholders. Instead, we must come together to ensure that, in the Chancellor’s own words, no one is left behind. Well, 3 million people have been left behind, so we need to plug the gaps in the job retention scheme for the people who have begun to work after the cut-off point before the lockdown. We also need to extend the scheme where it is appropriate to do so and to defend the rights of people in work by banning the disgraceful fire and rehire tactics that are being used to force down wages and conditions.

The Economy

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who has spoken passionately about Telford’s tenacity. Today we are debating the state of our economy, which is in urgent need of discussion and desperate need of action. As the Chancellor pointed out in his statement, covid-19 resulted in a 25% drop in GDP in April, compared with February. That is unprecedented. Technically we are not in recession yet, but the writing is on the wall: there is worse to come. We know that we will be living with this crisis for a long time.

Many of the measures that the Chancellor has outlined today are welcome, but they do not go far enough to address either the current unprecedented crisis or the long-term problems that have caused the UK to be one of the G7 economies hit hardest by the coronavirus. Before covid19, we were in no position to weather a financial storm. Ten years of anaemic growth have seen wages stagnate in real terms, and people’s rights at work have been eroded. Take the care workers the Prime Minister has clapped for on Thursdays and then scapegoated on the following Monday—on zero-hours contracts, poverty wages, and often unacceptable statutory pay. This was a problem created in the past 10 years, not six months. In my city, we have seen central Government funding cut year in, year out, with vital services stretched and starved of funding. We now face a £23 million shortfall in the council’s funding this year.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities are essential in our recovery from covid, and that local authorities have been abandoned by the Chancellor in this mini-Budget, and by this Government?

[Olivia Blake]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The work that local authorities have been doing should be commended and rewarded. The Government have made promises that need to be kept in terms of funding, and I will watch to see whether they will fulfil them.

Nothing the Chancellor has said today addresses these issues. We were promised a green new deal. The £3 billion for home retrofits and energy efficiency in public buildings is welcome, but it is not a green new deal. It falls well short of the funding we need to kick-start a faltering economy and deliver the growth and green jobs that are vital for our recovery. We will see Governments across the globe act on a green recovery, and I am afraid that this will be a missed opportunity for the UK to help with a future crisis in the wake of this pandemic. We know that we are not out of the woods yet and we may be facing further hardship as a result of coronavirus. The medium to long-term impacts could be felt for generations. We need the Government to forge a path from which we can emerge with greater opportunities and a greener economy.

I welcome the extended access to funding for apprenticeships, but we cannot escape the fact that our further education sector has been decimated. We need accessible, lifelong learning to help us to pull through this global crisis. I am shocked that the only mention of universities in this whole package is £300 million for infrastructure and labs. That undermines the fact that research in this country is completely down to the amazing researchers that we have. We have seen redundancy processes started at multiple universities across the country, and this will be harmful to gender and black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in early careers. We risk having a lost generation of researchers in this country, and that will serve only to make us weaker in the future and reduce our productivity. It is absolutely vital that we see more from the Government on this.

The scale and ambition of the economic response to the coronavirus must match the scale of the challenges we face. As we come out of this public health crisis—if we do indeed come out of it—building back better requires that we do more than provide a plaster for the damage inflicted on the economy. It means addressing the fundamental problems in our economy—low growth, stagnating living standards, and poor pay and conditions. Unfortunately, the Government continue to offer nothing to address those issues. They say they will follow the science. I may have taken my lab coat off, but I hope I have given some food for thought.