Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

Thanks to a combination of national insurance cuts and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, the average worker on £35,400 will pay more than £1,500 less in personal taxes this year. In addition, maintaining fuel duty rates at their current levels represents a further £13 billion benefit to households over the three years since the introduction of the freeze.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady’s first comment was correct: everyone in this House recognises the extreme cost of living challenges over the past few years, and that is precisely why the Government have adopted the strategy of a laser focus on inflation, combined with tax cuts and, recently, national insurance cuts. We have a very constructive and positive relationship with the EU, and are always engaging with it on a variety of matters.

[Paul Blomfield]

In the run-up to last week’s elections, the Prime Minister never stopped talking about national insurance cuts, and the Minister talked about them again today, but the Government have been giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Does the Minister recognise that according to the Resolution Foundation, the combined impact of all the Government’s tax changes leaves workers who earn less than £26,000 a year worse off? Will he apologise to workers in South Yorkshire, whose average earnings are close to that level, for misrepresenting the position?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

Well, it is not, because it is actually growing faster than France, Germany and a bunch of other countries. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned 14 years, because we can look at what has happened under 14 years of Labour in Wales, where unemployment is higher, NHS waiting lists are longer, school standards are worse and growth is lower. What is Labour’s reaction to that terrible record? It has just promoted the Economy Minister to First Minister.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

Thanks to the combined impact of national insurance cuts and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, an average worker on £35,400 in 2024-25 will pay over £1,500 less in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done. These national insurance contribution cuts were possible due to the significant progress we have made in combating inflation.

[Paul Blomfield]

I heard what the Minister has to say but does he not recognise the OBR’s assessment of the interplay between the Government’s threshold changes and NICs? The OBR concludes that for every 5p gain per year there is a 10p loss, particularly for those on lower wages. Does he accept the OBR assessment?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully, he will see that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in society. He will also have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) explain the circumstances as to why we have higher taxes than we would desire. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that Labour party policy is to change the thresholds, perhaps he can have that conversation with the shadow Chancellor, who can explain how she would pay for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt]

I would be delighted to do that. The independent Resolution Foundation said that, because of measures that this Government have taken, pensioners are £1,000 better off in real terms than in 2010. We did two things specifically in the Budget: we put £6 billion into the NHS, which is used more by pensioners than anyone else; and we backed workers’ tax cuts to support growth in the economy, which means that we can continue to fund the triple lock for many years to come.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T6. One of my constituents wrote to me last week about her son Fred. He has Down’s syndrome and severe learning disabilities, is profoundly deaf and has an autism diagnosis. His parents and grandparents did the right thing and put money into a child trust fund for him. Fred will be 18 next month, but he lacks the capacity to access his money and there is no easy way for his parents to do so. Will the Chancellor work with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to unlock the money for Fred and an estimated 80,000 disabled young people?

[Bim Afolami]

I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the precise circumstances of his constituent’s case. In general terms, it is a priority for us to ensure that people get access to that money if it is due to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I absolutely will; that is a core part of the levelling-up agenda, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, since we started on that agenda, two thirds of all new jobs created have been outside London and the south-east. We will continue to look at any proposals he may have in that respect.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T8. The Government have deliberately created a funding model for universities in which they are dependent on income from international students. Does the Chancellor share my concern about ensuring that nothing is done to undermine that income?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)]

The university sector is one of the jewels of this country and I am proud that we have four of the world’s top 20 universities. I am happy to look at any individual proposals from the hon. Gentleman.

Cost of Living: Support for Young People

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

As I said earlier, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Ali, in spite of the interruptions. I shall continue where I left off an hour and a quarter ago.

The fact that the Government still have not committed to increasing universal credit in line with inflation is shameful. If universal credit rose in line with wages, young people would receive just £7.42 extra per month. If, however, it rose in line with inflation, they would receive an additional £21.49 per month. Given the huge difficulties young people are facing at the moment, does the Minister think that failing to commit to an inflation-linked increase is morally acceptable?

The stark reality of this crisis could not be clearer for Jack, who attends YMCA sessions in Leeds. Jack is not his real name, of course. Jack is 10 years old and lives with his parents and two siblings. He has been quoted at YMCA sessions as saying that

“we’ve got no food at home.”

The fact that a child as young as 10 has been put in this position is unforgivable. It is a humiliation for our country not only at home but abroad. With wages squeezed more than ever, Jack’s family also receives support at school, through the uniform exchange, because they cannot afford to buy new school uniforms. The pressures of the current crisis are now causing issues between family members at home.

I commend the activists in Leeds for pioneering school uniform exchanges across the city, but it is outrageous that their brilliant work is even necessary in modern Britain. I ask the Minister what he would like to say to Jack and his family after yesterday’s day of shame for the Government, when the Prime Minister and her new Chancellor effectively gave the green light for energy bills to go up to a predicted average of £5,000 a year for most households from April.

The failure to provide cost of living support to young people often affects their parents as well. A report released by UNICEF today states that 59% of parents with children under five say that they are struggling with their mental health, and 66% have been negatively affected by the rising cost of living. That amounts to a total of more than 2 million families in the United Kingdom. The status quo is simply unacceptable, and this crisis will only deepen as we approach winter and enter the new year. Among parents feeling the pinch from the rising cost of living, the report also found that just under half have already cut back on their electricity and gas usage, with one in 10 unable to adequately heat their home as winter approaches. As we know, that will be hugely detrimental to the development and education of young people.

As I said earlier, the cost of living emergency, coupled with covid, will amount to a disaster for many families up and down the country, especially young people. Public Health England data shows that across the first three quarters of 2021-22, nearly one in three children aged between two and two and a half were assessed as having missed out on reaching their expected level of development. That contrasts with around one in six in the first three quarters of 2019. A recent YouGov poll pointed to the fact that over a quarter of people aged between 18 and 24 feel unable to cope with the cost of living crisis owing to the stress that it is causing, so I ask the Minister what plans are in place to ensure that the mental health problems in parents and elder siblings do not have a knock-on impact on younger people and children.

I turn now to university students, who have also missed out on learning because of the pandemic and are currently facing huge financial problems, but who risk being a forgotten group of people suffering from the impact of the crisis.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am glad that he is including students. There will be mixed experiences in terms of students’ ability to fall back on family support, but is he aware that recent research conducted for Universities UK indicated that over half of students were considering whether they would be able to continue with their studies as a result of the pressures they are under? Does he recognise that university students cannot draw down the support that is generally available through the council tax system, because they do not pay council tax? Is he aware that other countries, such as Germany, are treating students in the same way as other low-income groups—for example, pensioners—by giving them additional grants? Does he recognise that the Government need to make some sort of national intervention on this issue, and not rely on a patchwork of different measures that are being introduced by some universities and some councils?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a very old friend of mine and has a great reputation for standing up for students and universities—certainly in this place and before he came into the House. I was not aware of many of those facts. I did not realise that half of students were considering giving up their courses, and I can only imagine the detrimental effect that it will have not just on their futures, but on the future of our whole country.

From my time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I recall visiting South Korea and asking people how they could account for their massive success since the second world war. That was 15 or so years ago, and since then South Korea has become even more successful and has risen higher up the scale of G20 countries to become one of the most powerful industrial nations in the world. The Korean Education Minister at the time said to me, “It is one very simple fact. We took a decision after the Korean war that the only future for our country, as a rural agrarian economy, would be to invest in our young people, and educate them to such a level that that education would follow through in terms of our industry, our scientific research, our know how and our intellectual property.” We can see that that has happened.

A country that relinquishes the potential of its young people to develop, not just themselves but the economic future of that country, is one that is in trouble. I do not want to see that happen to this great nation—it would be absolutely tragic. I think we can learn from our economic, social and geopolitical partners, in countries such as Germany, as to how we can handle a crisis like this. They have the right idea. Not everything that happens in Europe is bad, believe it or not; there are some really good policies there. I think we should learn from those, and I hope that the Minister will begin to address that question.

Those university students who have missed out on learning because of the pandemic and are currently facing financial problems risk becoming a forgotten group of people suffering from the impact of the cost of living crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has said, it has serious implications for the long-term job market in the UK. Recent polls suggest that 55% of those who felt concerned about managing their living costs were worried that it might prevent them from continuing their studies. That rises sharply—up to three quarters—for those students who are severely disadvantaged or from poorer backgrounds. We simply cannot afford for more than half of our young people to drop out of university before graduation. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what support the Government are providing to universities, centrally, to tackle the issue before it is too late.

It is increasingly clear that urgent action is needed to prevent more young people from sliding into poverty. In a recent Barnardo’s report, one young person was quoted as saying that

“mentally, it’s taken a massive toll. I was thinking of seeing a counsellor, but I don’t want to because of the fear of how much it would cost. I haven’t been able to get the correct help”.

I am the president of Leeds UNICEF, and through that group I have heard first-hand about the horrific experiences of my young constituents, as well as of the many people across the city of Leeds who are struggling.

I conclude by strongly urging the Minster to look closely at extending free school meals, at improving mental health provisions for schools, and at backing the Labour party’s call for a breakfast club in every primary school in England and Wales. Those measures would at least give parents and young people some of the support they so desperately need.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It gives us an opportunity to shine a light on young people, who are often overlooked. In my short remarks, I will focus on students.

The last decade will have a long and significant impact on the younger generation. Many entered their youth in the throes of the financial crisis, went through the pandemic in their formative years and are now experiencing the full force of the cost of living crisis. The latest economic shock is presenting a new set of challenges for young people, particularly students.

I recently met a group of students from Bath Spa University. They are hugely worried about the financial pressures that rampant inflation is placing on them, and their concerns are not unfounded. UK students have seen a 7.5% cut in their maintenance loans. That has had severe consequences: research by the National Union of Students shows that a third of UK students are being forced to live on £50 a month after paying rent and bills. Some are having to choose between feeding themselves and carrying on with their education; many are holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet. Mercy In Action, a local charity in Bath, has seen a fivefold increase in the number of young people and students who need to use its food pantry. Inevitably, students from the poorest backgrounds are disproportionately affected.

The cost of living crisis goes far beyond a purely financial hit. The Bath Spa students I spoke to described how the crisis was causing them considerable stress and anxiety. The Student Value Report showed that nearly two thirds of UK students felt their mental health had been negatively affected, while two fifths of students thought that their physical health had been affected. That is no way to go through a demanding course of study, or to sit and prepare for exams. The Government claim to view economic growth as a priority, but growth is not sustainable unless we support our young people. The students of today will shape our future, and should have ample opportunity to do so. The Prime Minister talks about equality of opportunity, yet she is not giving students the opportunity they need to achieve their potential.

Of course, failing to support students has a knock-on effect on local economies. Student spending supports over £80 billion of economic output: that is crucial for places such as Bath, where over a third of our population is made up of students. If students are struggling, the local communities in which they live will lose out too. To prevent the devastating effects of student poverty, the Government need to tie student support to inflation, as we have already heard, and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them.

[Paul Blomfield]

I know that the hon. Member regularly takes up student issues and is a strong advocate for her student constituents. Does she recognise that students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, went into this crisis already at a disadvantage, not least because the salary threshold for eligibility for maximum loans in England has been frozen at £25,000 since 2008? Does she agree that a simple measure the Government could implement, and should not necessarily rule out, would be to adjust the threshold so that those from poorer backgrounds are more able to access those loans in England?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for that remark—I have to admit that I was not totally aware of the detail, but I fully support what he has said about what needs to be done. It is clear that young people, including those who are now in their 30s, have already lost out because of the financial crisis. We need to support that younger generation, but we also need to support the young people who are coming through now, those who have been at a disadvantage as a result of covid. The least we can do is listen, and the Government need to listen to the recommendations that have been made today and act on them urgently.

As I said, the Government need to tie student support to inflation and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them. The cost of doing so would be low compared with other recent Government spending commitments. It would support the vital economic growth on which this Government tell us they are uniquely focused. While I applaud universities that have provided hardship funds, those institutions do not have enough means adequately to protect students in need: that is the responsibility of central Government. The Prime Minister has talked regularly about equality of opportunity and about growth. If this Government are serious about growth, they need to invest in people, especially young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Yes I can. The fundamental point is that we are investing in young people. Many businesses wish to invest and add additional costs for training and support to tap into those skills, so that people can earn higher wages later on. It is because companies have the incentive to invest in young people that young people can then earn more. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should recognise that the national minimum wage is not a cap on what people can be paid but a floor. If companies invest in young people to get those skills, they can earn more.

Our youth offer provides guaranteed foundation support to young people searching for work on universal credit. That includes 13 weeks of intensive support to help new claimants into suitable opportunities and provision. Youth hubs are co-delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions and local partners, and youth employability coaches are available for those with complex needs.

We will always encourage labour market participation and make it pay to work. Through universal credit, the Government have designed a modern benefits system that ensures that it always pays to work and that withdraws support gradually as claimants move into work, replacing the old legacy system, which applied effective tax rates of more than 90% to low earners.

Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Bath about free school meals and breakfast clubs. The Government spent more than £1 billion on delivering free school meals to pupils in schools. Around 1.9 million disadvantaged pupils are eligible for free school meals, as well as an additional 1.25 million infants who receive a free meal under the universal infant school meal policy. The Government are also providing an additional £500 million toward the cost of extension, which has come via a six-month extension to the household support fund.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about breakfast clubs. The Government are providing over £2 million a year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, which provides free holiday club places to children from low-income families. The Government are providing £24 million over two years for the national breakfast club programme, benefitting up to 2,500 schools.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central and others asked questions about support for university students. He may know that the Government have increased maintenance loans every year, meaning that disadvantaged students now have access to the highest ever amounts in cash terms. He may know that the Government have made £260 million available through the Office for Students, which universities can use to boost their own hardship funds. He may know that many students also benefit from the wider package of cost of living support, and he will know that maximum tuition fees will be frozen until 2025. He mentioned one particular idea on thresholds, which I would be grateful if he could write to me about.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will write to the Minister on that point. It is all very well saying that the maximum loan has been increased, but people cannot access it because the threshold has not changed. I think there is some serious work to be done by the Government on that. It could make a very real difference to some of the most hard-pressed students.

[Richard Fuller]

I would be grateful for his insight on that issue. I want to close on the issue of mental health and young people, which is an issue close to my heart. We are all aware that the response to covid had a dramatic effect on the mental health and wellbeing of young people more than others. The Government appreciate the importance of responding to the significant demands on children and young people’s mental health. The Government are delivering record levels of investment in mental health services. These investments are part of the NHS’s long term plan and include an extra £2.3 billion per year for mental health services by 2023-24. This will give an additional 345,000 children and young people access to NHS-funded services or school-based support by 2024.

It has been an interesting and pithy debate. It is clear that we owe it to the next generation to deliver higher wages, new jobs and improved public services. We owe it to young people to deliver stability and a strong economy on which they can build their future securely. We must make sure they have the safety net they need now. The Government will help them with the cost of living today and continue to invest in them for the future; that is what young people will benefit from, and that is what the Government are focused on delivering.

The Growth Plan

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that the level of tax is immaterial, I do not believe that we can just tax our way to prosperity in the way that the socialists claim, and I absolutely reject the idea that tax does not incentivise economic activity.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

After 12 years of Conservative economic failure, the Financial Times reported earlier this week that those on the lowest incomes in the UK are much poorer than their counterparts across the rest of Europe—20% below Slovenia, for example—while those at the top are among the wealthiest. The Prime Minister has said she does not believe in redistribution. The measures announced today suggest she does—but in the wrong direction, taking from those who have the least and giving to those who have the most. Does the Chancellor not recognise that the British people will see it exactly for what it is?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What I do recognise is that socialism and high tax do not work. The hon. Gentleman and others have stood four times on a socialist platform and the British people have rejected them four times, and if they go back to their socialism, they will be rejected once again.

Economy Update

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

In general, the evidence from previous iterations shows that that does not happen, mainly because those commodities are traded at international prices, so the domestic tax regime does not change the price that is being passed on, but I am happy to take my hon. Friend’s point away.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Chancellor talked about supporting the most vulnerable, but there appear to be questions about his targeting when we look at the detail in the announcement. Everybody accepts that the most effective way to get support to those most in need would be to restore the universal credit uplift and extend that to those on legacy benefits. Why is he ideologically opposed to the action that would have made the biggest difference to the hardest hit?

[Rishi Sunak]

Again, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. We are extending the support to all those on means-tested benefits, not just those on universal credit, who account for less than half of all households on means-tested benefits. What we are doing is more comprehensive than what he is suggesting and, in fact, it is more generous, because £650 of support is more generous than uprating, which in aggregate, on average, would be worth only just over £500.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who made some important points about the need for action now, in recognition of the severity of the crisis we face.

I spent yesterday morning at a crisis meeting in a part of my constituency where incomes are lowest. We looked at how the cost of living crisis was impacting on people. The meeting involved the voluntary sector, energy advisers, food banks, debt advisers, schools, housing providers, local councillors and more. We talked about people’s real struggles to feed families and pay bills; about the impact of that on the mental health of people who had previously been just managing but could not see how that could continue; about suicide attempts as a consequence of what people in the constituency were facing; and about the re-emergence of the problem of loan sharks exploiting people’s hardship.

We discussed the efforts of all those at the meeting to try to offset some of the damage faced by families, and those efforts were extraordinary, but time and again everybody said, “What we are doing is not enough. The Government need to act.” A lot could be done, including the restoration of the universal credit uplift, a meaningful increase in the household support fund and, of course, a windfall tax so that we can cap energy bills and reduce VAT on them.

The Prime Minister knows that it can be done. Last Tuesday he opened the debate on the Queen’s Speech by telling the House that the Government

“have the fiscal firepower to help families up and down the country with all the pressures that they face now.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 17.]

The problem is that they are not going to use it. They shrug their shoulders and say, as the Chancellor did again today, “What can the Government do to solve these problems?” It is not true to say that, and they know it.

Other countries have acted. To protect consumers and businesses, France has limited energy bill increases to just 4% this year by taking £7 billion out of EDF’s profits. Spain has committed to cutting connection fees and to taxing excess profits on new electricity supply contracts to protect people from soaring prices. It is spending €16 billion on support. Germany has instigated a range of measures, including tax reliefs, a reduction in fuel duty and a monthly public transport ticket costing just €9, which will also encourage the modal shift we need in the way people move about. It is a matter of choice. The Government point to growth as the answer, and growth clearly is important, but their record shows that they cannot deliver it.

In November 2019, before we knew the word “coronavirus”, growth was the slowest that it had been in a decade. Our bounce back from the pandemic has been slower than expected this year, with the Brexit deal failing to deliver for supply chains, and the Government’s failure to insulate from the cost of living crisis limiting spending and productivity. Either they do not understand the depth of the pressures—and comments such as “learn to cook” or “work more hours” perhaps indicate that they do not—or they simply do not care. If we let people sink or swim, the problem is that too many people will sink. As we know, the money is there. The oil and gas companies have it—more than they know what to do with. What we need is action now, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said. We face an unprecedented crisis in the cost of living. We needed a Gracious Speech that addressed it. We need an emergency Budget. The Government cannot sit on their hands any longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of inflation on trends in the levels of living standards.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

8. What fiscal steps he plans to take to help reduce the impact on households of the rise in the cost of living.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to help people with the increasing cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

On providing food for those who most need it, I am pleased that the recent spending review confirmed £200 million of extra funding for the holiday activity and food programme to provide support to families and children outside term time. The national living wage, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is going up by 6.6% to £9.50 in April, putting an extra £1,000 in the pockets of hard-working people up and down the country.

[Paul Blomfield]

A constituent wrote to me recently; she is 57 and works four days a week on the minimum wage. Her energy bill is rising from £95 to £220 a month, eating up an extra 11% of her take-home pay. Weekend reports suggest that Treasury action on the cost of living crisis has stalled due to the paralysis engulfing No. 10. Those struggling to heat their homes should not pay the price for the Prime Minister’s conduct, so will the Chancellor agree to extend eligibility for the warm homes discount further and increase it beyond the pitiful £10 that is planned?

[Rishi Sunak]

Although I do not know the specific circumstances of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, it sounds like she will benefit from two measures that we have already announced: the significant increase in the national living wage by 6.6% in April; and the cut in the universal credit taper rate, which will mean that a single mother working full time on the national living wage will be an extra £1,200 better off. That will help significantly with energy and other bills, and of course the warm home discount provides a £140 rebate to those who need it.

Household Energy Bills: VAT

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to be talking about everything except the crisis facing families on the lowest incomes as a result of rising energy bills. Will he address that issue and recognise that families in my constituency will face choosing between heating and eating, as well as unmanageable debt that will break their budgets? Does he recognise that the sort of action needed—earlier he mentioned the warm home discount, for example—needs to go far further to totally offset the additional bills if those families are not to face untold misery?

[Mr Clarke]

I do not think that focusing on a jobs-led recovery is the wrong thing to do. Indeed, that is precisely what is vital to the life chances of families up and down the country. I have already set out all the measures that we are undertaking, from the warm home discount to winter fuel payments and our wider action on energy costs, which go to the heart of our programme to ensure that the cost of living remains affordable. However, it simply cannot be the case, and I do not think that even those on the shadow Front Bench are suggesting this, that we can completely offset fluctuations in the market price of energy. All we can do is provide families with targeted support, and that is what we are doing, openly, honestly and I think effectively, this winter.

We also need to remember the overriding context of this whole debate, which goes back to the issue we were debating yesterday evening: fiscal responsibility. That needs to be factored into this debate as well. When it comes to managing the economy throughout this challenging period, we have acted quickly, effectively and responsibly. For all that this Government have done to support families and businesses over the last couple of years—I remind the House again: £400 billion-worth of support—we cannot, and will not, abdicate our fiscal responsibilities. Our level of debt means that we are vulnerable to shocks, including changes to interest rates and inflation. A sustained one percentage point rise in interest rates and inflation would cost over £22 billion by 2026-27. As things stand, inflation is expected to average 4% this year and 2.6% next year. The good news is that we are on course for a return to target by the end of 2023, but, as I told the House yesterday evening, the fact that we have faced two “once in a generation” shocks in just over a decade highlights starkly why we must have the buffers to provide support when it is needed most, and why we must act to rebuild those buffers over the years ahead.

No one in this Government is under any illusion about the challenges that families are facing with their household finances, and we will of course continue to look closely at all the options that exist. The Business Secretary has been meeting industry representatives regularly, and we in the Government are committed to doing the best job we can to protect consumers. We have acted, not just on energy bills but in dozens of ways, to support working families. Our record on handling the economy during the pandemic and, indeed, over the last decade of recovery speaks to our commitment to see right by the British people, and that, I assure the House, is something that we will continue to do.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Age assessments

Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

-

I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 58, page 52, line 19, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the ethical committees of the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies and publish a report on the consultation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with ethical committees of medical, dental and scientific professions before making regulations in their area, and publish a report on the consultation.

The Chair

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 168.

Government new clause 29—Interpretation of Part etc.

Government new clause 30—Persons subject to immigration control: referral or assessment by local authority etc.

Government new clause 31—Persons subject to immigration control: assessment for immigration purposes.

Government new clause 32—Use of scientific methods in age assessments.

Government new clause 33—Regulations about age assessments.

Government new clause 34—Appeals relating to age assessments.

Government new clause 35—Appeals relating to age assessments: supplementary.

Government new clause 36—New information following age assessment or appeal.

Government new clause 37—Legal aid for appeals.

Paul Blomfield

-

I understand that the Government seek to delete clause 58 and replace it with new clauses 29 to 37, which provide more detail. However, the detail does not offer any reassurance; quite the contrary.

Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

- - Excerpts

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 32 makes amendment 150 superfluous, as it talks about the scientific input into age determination?

Paul Blomfield

-

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is completely wrong and I will explain why shortly.

In existing clause 58 and the new Government clauses, the Government want to introduce new regulations and a standard of proof for age assessments, to compel local authorities to assess age, to allow the use of “scientific methods” to assess age, despite widespread concerns from professional bodies about the validity or accuracy of any such methods, and to penalise children for not consenting to these potentially harmful interventions.

Children who come to the UK on their own, from countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, face a unique problem when asked to prove their date of birth. The registration of births and the importance placed on chronological age differs across the world, and many are genuinely unable to show official identity documents, such as passports or birth certificates, because they have never had them in the first place, they have had them taken away from them, they have lost them in the chaos of fleeing, or sometimes they have had to destroy them en route.

Disputes over age can also arise from a lack of understanding of the way in which dates are calculated in other countries and cultures, and associated confusion over what is being said by a child about his or her age. So, one might reasonably ask, why are the Government making so much of this issue?

Mr Goodwill

- - Excerpts

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are incentives for adults to pass themselves off as children? If the age assessment is done incorrectly, the result could be adults being placed in schools or local authority care, putting children at risk.

The Chair

I call Robert Goodwill—sorry, I meant Paul Blomfield.

Paul Blomfield

-

He can have another go if he wants.

I hear what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is saying. I remember watching a BBC programme recently—I think it was on the BBC—on the Kindertransport. The same debate was had about Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany after Kristallnacht. Some were slightly older than the age restriction of the time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this legislation would have been appropriate at that time. We could have turned them around and sent them back to the Nazis.

Paragraph 24 of the explanatory notes states:

“Since 2015, the UK has received, on average, more than 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Where age was disputed and resolved from 2016-2020, 54% were found to be adults”.

Clearly, 54% is a big number, but the data in the notes is more than a little selective.

According to Home Office statistics, for the most recent normal year unaffected by the pandemic, which was 2019, there were 4,005 unaccompanied children applications. Of those, 748 had their age disputed and 304 were found to be adults. That is just over 7% of child applicants. The problem is that that is in no way as prolific as purported by the explanatory notes. The actual number is likely to be lower, because the Home Office stats do not include decisions later overturned following advocacy or reviews by judges.

Again, the Government have a problem finding evidence to justify a proposal in the Bill. This is clearly not the first time this has happened. I see that the Home Secretary got herself into trouble with the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee today by being unable to come up with the facts to justify one of her wilder allegations about those crossing the channel. Nevertheless, the Government are ploughing ahead with their plans to use scientific methods to assess age.

I now turn specifically to new clause 32, which does not offer any of the clarity that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby suggested. Proposed new subsection (2) mentions the

“types of scientific method that may be specified”,

and that the two specified might be included. However, proposed new subsection (9) goes out of its way to state:

“This section does not prevent the use of a scientific method that is not a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment under”

the previous proposed new section,

“if the decision-maker considers it appropriate to do so”.

New clause 32 is therefore saying: “Any scientific method that we can come up with at any time in the future will be legitimate.”

Mr Goodwill

- - Excerpts

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am worried that he is saying, “Well, we’ll give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt”, which could result in large numbers of adults being placed in settings that are appropriate for children. Surely he is aware that since the 2003 case, age assessments have been Merton compliant. Any actions that the Government take to follow through on the Bill becoming law will obviously be tested in the courts in the same way as the early years situation.

Paul Blomfield

-

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what my amendment 150 proposes. All it asks is that the Government should be required to take into account relevant scientific and medical evidence, consulting reports of the ethical committees of the appropriate medical and dental professions, on the Government’s planned use of scientific methods for assessing age.

What do the experts think? The British Dental Association called dental X-rays for age assessments “inaccurate and unethical”, which is a theme that relates to the rest of the Bill—it will not do what it says it will do. The Government apparently told some journalists that they do not plan to use dental X-rays anyway, but the Bill leaves that option open, so forgive us if we do not take casual briefings to journalists on the side as a way to determine the Government’s future conduct on this issue.

The Government are apparently planning to use wrist X-rays, which the British Medical Association tells us it has “serious concerns” about because

“they would involve direct harms without any medical benefit to the individual”,

as radiation exposure over a lifetime should be kept as minimal as possible. The BDA agrees:

“The process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit. Exposing children to radiation when there is no medical benefit is simply wrong.”

The BMA also warns that

“the evidence supporting the accuracy of the process is extremely weak”.

We are back to the same old theme: there is no real evidence to support what the Government are doing. The BMA goes on to say that the process is particularly weak where,

“as in the case of most asylum seekers, there is a shortage of appropriate age and cultural comparators.”

Yet again, Ministers are introducing ineffective proposals without any evidence, making those seeking asylum—in this case, children—part of the narrative of “Let’s assume bad faith, and let’s assume that everybody is trying to play the system.” It will not work, but it is designed to grab headlines and to make it seem as though the Government are talking tough, rather than dealing with the genuine issues on which we agree, such as stopping those who are forced out of desperation to make journeys across the channel. I urge the Minister to accept our amendment or, better still, to just withdraw the clause.

The Chair

The Public Gallery is becoming a little crowded. I encourage everyone sitting there to spread out as much as possible, to ensure social distancing.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned the skeletal development of people from different ethnic backgrounds. We are conscious that ethnic and environmental factors may have an impact on physical characteristics that may be analysed as part of a scientific age assessment. We will endeavour to ensure that the scientific method used will consider the characteristics of people of different ethnicities and the environmental factors within a person’s country of origin.

Paul Blomfield

-

The Minister may be about to pre-empt me, but I do not think he has answered the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in relation to the national age assessment board, so will he at least undertake to write to us on that issue?

Craig Whittaker

- - Excerpts

No, I have not finished yet. I am not quite ready to sit down, but I will answer that question. Basically, the board will predominantly consist of qualified social workers who, through being dedicated to the task of conducting age assessments and through training and the sharing of expertise, will achieve a more consistent and accurate approach to the task of age assessment. As Members have probably seen, such professionals are referred to as a “designated person” in the new clauses, and the board will have responsibility for conducting age assessments on age-disputed persons on referral from the local authority, as I said. Local authorities will retain the ability to conduct age assessments if they prefer to do so. If they believe that a person is actually the age they claim to be, they must inform the Home Office accordingly.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central asked whether binding local authorities’ hands is just a power grab from central Government. The answer to that question is no. If local authorities wish to carry out their own assessments, they will be able to do so—without question, that will be the case. On that basis, I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Paul Blomfield

-

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s observations. To be fair, he made a good fist of defending the indefensible, but he failed to answer the concerns expressed by me and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in relation to the way that subsection (9) of new clause 32 drives a coach and horses through all the reassurances that we have been given. His criticism of the amendment as being a bit broad and involving quite a lot of work fails to acknowledge how narrow it is. It would simply require the Secretary of State to take advice before making regulations, and I therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Processing of visa applications from nationals of certain countries

Paul Blomfield

-

I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 59, page 52, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must publish impact assessments on the effect of the provisions in this section on—

(a) nationals from countries falling within subsection (3), and

(b) the United Kingdom’s economy and trade.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish impact assessments with regard to the effect this clause might have on both nationals from countries in subsection (3) and the UK economy and trade.

The Chair

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 80.

Government new clause 9—Removals from the UK: visa penalties for uncooperative countries.

Government new clause 10—Visa penalties: review and revocation.

Paul Blomfield

-

The amendment would require the Home Secretary to publish impact assessments on the effect of clause 59 both on nationals from the countries in subsection (3) and on the UK’s economy and trade.

The Government plan to replace clause 59 with Government new clauses 9 and 10. This is a slightly more developed version of the proposal to punish the nationals of countries if the Government consider their Governments to have been unco-operative on returns. The explanatory notes for clause 59 do not explain its purpose—because it was a placeholder clause, there was no detail—so I assume it is to act as an incentive for countries to co-operate with returns, but I hope that the Minister will seek to provide some evidence of that.

The explanatory notes do state that

“a very small number of countries do not cooperate”

with returns, suggesting that penalties would apply only to a limited number of states. However, a report in The Daily Telegraph on 15 October—presumably briefed by the Government, which is the way we seem to get information these days—said that

“Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Philippines”

are countries understood not to co-operate with returns. We know that the majority of those on that list have conditions that mean returns are unlikely anyway, as there are strong asylum cases from them, so we know that the deterrents will not work. So, I would like to press the Minister a little bit more on what the Government expect to achieve with these revisions.

Mr Goodwill

- - Excerpts

Surely what the hon. Gentleman says defies logic. If we are going to give visas to nationals of a particular country and we know there is a risk they may overstay, surely we can be more generous and more engaged with that country if we know that those overstayers can be removed. In the case of visas, we will have biometric data, so that there is no doubt about a person’s identity.

Paul Blomfield

-

I hear what the right hon. Member is saying, but the scope of this provision seems to go much wider than that. It seeks to introduce punitive measures, including on visa charges and so on, for individuals who may be applying, and I will develop that point. It is nothing to do with overstaying. This is about countries that are unco-operative on returns in other contexts.

I want to press the Minister on what the Government expect to achieve by this. For example, it is not in our interests to sanction doctors, nurses or engineers who have been recruited to the UK from one country with longer visa processing times or higher charges, and that would be deeply damaging for our diaspora communities. Again, it feels as if we have proposals picked from headlines, which are not in the country’s interests.

Mr Goodwill

- - Excerpts

It might help some of these countries if we did not plunder their health professionals, who have trained at the expense of that country, and actually trained our own instead.

Paul Blomfield

-

I am interested in that observation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lead the charge to persuade the Government to allocate far more resources for the training of health professionals and to tackle the crisis they have created within our health service over the past 11 years.

Amendment 151 will try to ensure that the Government are clear-eyed about the impact of their policy and the trade-offs they are prepared to make, as well as the impact on UK public services, communities and businesses. The amendment would allow the public to examine that trade-off, too. It would ensure that the Government track the impact of their policy, and are transparent with business and trade over the impact any visa penalties might have, either through reduced travel or through deteriorating relationships with those countries.

The Government talk a lot about global Britain, but through our examination of the Bill we have seen many threats to that and a lot of ways in which they plan on sowing discord with other nations around the world, damaging our reputation in the international community. I know that the Minister will not vote for clause 59 stand part, but I would welcome his thoughts on the wider impact of the replacement clauses, along the lines of my amendment. I would appreciate it if he could tell us whether any such impact assessments are being considered.

I have an important point to make about new clauses 9 and 10, to which I hope the Minister can respond. There is significant concern that these clauses will prevent people from joining refugees in the UK through the family reunion route. Let us consider the countries cited in The Daily Telegraph again: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and the Philippines. Since the start of 2019, 8,480 people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Eritrea have been granted refugee family reunion visas to join loved ones in the UK. That equates to just over half—53%—of all family visas granted over that period. Some 3,584 of those visas were for children and 5,771 for women or girls. The new clause, as drafted, would potentially apply to visas for refugees coming to the UK under one of the Home Office’s resettlement schemes, including the relocation scheme for Afghan nationals who have previously worked with the UK Government or applicants from Hong Kong for British national overseas visas.

So, if the Government are determined to proceed with these new clauses, at the very least new clause 9 needs to be amended to include an exemption for refugee family reunion and other protection routes. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether the Government are willing to do that.

Anne McLaughlin

- - Excerpts

We support amendment 151 for the self-explanatory reason that we need to know the impact of these actions. We are not saying that visa penalties should never be imposed in any circumstances, but we share many of the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and I will focus on a couple of them.

The Government say this clause will incentivise other countries to co-operate with the UK Government to remove those who have no right to be in the country, but they have presented no evidence that this will be the case. Saying it is one thing, but if they are so confident of it they should do some work and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central asks in his amendment, publish a report examining the impact on our relations with other countries.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants says that this clause will affect, among others, workers, including key workers. Have not the Brexit restrictions on key workers coming into the country taught us anything? There are also tourists and their massive contribution to our economies; performers; students—who pay thousands of pounds to study at our universities, many of which would struggle to survive without them—and academics, among others, including the family members of British citizens. Again, we are punishing the wrong people.

--- Later in debate ---

Craig Whittaker

- - Excerpts

Starting with amendment 151, I reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the penalties are there to encourage countries to co-operate. There is international precedent for countries to have the power to impose penalties on countries that do not co-operate on the matter of returns.

Both the United States and the EU have similar powers to those we are seeking. Recently, the Council of the EU decided to suspend temporarily the application of certain provisions in the visa code to nationals of The Gambia, owing to the country’s lack of co-operation on readmission of third-country nationals illegally staying in the EU. The new powers in the Bill will bring the UK into line with our international partners and ensure that we are no longer lagging behind other countries.

I assure hon. Members that, given talk of penalties and exemption, family reunion will be an exemption to the penalties, as discussed.

Turning to amendment 151, I can assure the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the power to impose visa penalties will be exercised only after consideration of the potential economic impact on the UK, and with full agreement across Government. Contrary to the hon. Member’s assertion that there is another Government leak, there is no current list: this will be done on a case-by-case basis, based on the impact across areas such as the economy, but also taking each Department into account. I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to new clauses 9 and 10, which—as we have already touched on—set out those visa provisions in more detail. I feel that this is a fairly straightforward part of the Bill, with no need for the hon. Member’s amendment.

Turning to new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendment 80, a key function of the Home Office is the removal of individuals who have no legal right to be here, either by deportation or administrative removal, usually to the country of which they are nationals. We expect our international partners to work with us, as they expect us to work with them, to remove such individuals, as the UK does where our own nationals in other countries should not be in those countries. This is a critical component of a functioning migration relationship, and the vast majority of countries co-operate with us in this area. However, a small number do not.

As has been said, new clause 9 is designed to give the Government the power to impose visa penalties. Countries should no longer expect to benefit from a normal UK visa service if they are unwilling to co-operate with us on the matter of returning nationals. We will be able to slow down or suspend visa services for that country, and require applicants to pay a surcharge of £190 when they apply for a UK visa. Specifically, new clause 9 sets out when a country may be specified as unco-operative and the factors that will be taken into account when imposing visa penalties. Additionally, the new clause provides detail on the types of penalties that may be applied. It is a critical step in taking back control of our borders.

Briefly turning to new clause 10, visa penalties are intended to be a matter of last resort, and must not be in place longer than necessary. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the application of visa penalties every two months and revoke those penalties if the relevant country is no longer unco-operative. This provision is a safeguard to ensure that any visa penalties applied do not remain in place by default. Government amendment 80 is consequential on new clauses 9 and 10, providing that they will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

I commend new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendment 80 to the Committee, and by your leave, Ms McDonagh, I request that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central withdraw his amendments.

Paul Blomfield

-

I was reassured by the commitments on family reunion, and I look forward to the Government’s bringing forward an amendment on that topic, perhaps in the House of Lords. I have taken the Minister’s other comments on board, so I will not press this amendment to a vote at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 59 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 60 disagreed to.

Clause 61

Special Immigration Appeals Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chair

With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 11—Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

Stuart C. McDonald

- - Excerpts

This group of amendments and new clauses is not new. It was proposed in similar words in the most recent immigration Bill by, I think, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but I may be wrong. No Bill passes through this Parliament on immigration and nationality law that does not include amendments and debate about immigration detention. Perhaps, after the last couple of years, Members are more than ever acutely aware that the deprivation of people’s freedoms is keenly felt and should not occur without evidence as to its necessity.

We are talking here about the deprivation of liberty not because people have committed a crime but, essentially, for the convenience of the Home Office. The new clauses contain measures to end what is indefinite detention in the UK, whatever the Home Office says to the contrary, and to implement a workable system that ensures detention is used only as a last resort to effect lawful removals from the UK. That is what the situation should be. The existing power to detain without prior judicial authority would be retained but there would be important safeguards: a 28-day time limit, judicial oversight by way of bail hearings after 96 hours with clear criteria for continued detention and re-detention only when there is a material change in status or circumstances.

Immigration detention has declined over the last several years, which is very welcome. Nevertheless, there is no release date for immigration detainees, which is incredibly severe, particularly in terms of mental ill health. Although numbers have been falling, the length of time that people are detained has not fallen. The fact of falling numbers does not reduce the need for a time limit. We are talking about several thousand individuals leaving detention every year who have been detained for longer than 28 days and hundreds who have been detained for more than six months. In a minority of cases, detention lasts for years rather than months.

Why 28 days? It is not a number that has been pulled from thin air. It is already in Home Office guidance, which requires caseworkers to consider whether removal is imminent and goes on to define imminence in the following terms:

“Removal could be said to be imminent where a travel document exists, removal directions are set there are no outstanding legal barriers and removal is likely to take place in the next four weeks.”

This is a recommendation that has been made by many organisations with expertise in the area, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Bar Council and the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migration.

Paul Blomfield

-

As vice-chair of the inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, may I ask whether he will add the House of Commons to the list of those bodies that have endorsed this? When our recommendation was considered on a votable motion in a Backbench Business debate, it was approved by the House.

Stuart C. McDonald

- - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members involved for their work on that report, which was incredibly thorough. We then had a Backbench Business debate and the Government did not oppose it, because there was clearly a majority in the House of Commons at that time for such a time limit.

Finally, I want to say why 28 days should be the limit. There is a body of evidence that the effect of indefinite detention on mental health in general is very negative, but that after a month the deterioration is particularly significant. We recognise that there will be a minority of cases where people will try to play the system and use the time limit to frustrate lawful removal, but the amendment allows for re-detention if there is a material change in status or circumstances. Other sanctions are also open to the Government in such circumstances.

If none of that appeals to the Government, I will briefly mention the argument that consistently over half those detained are then released into the community, so it is a completely inefficient system that costs an absolute fortune. There are alternatives that are not only better for the individuals concerned, but easier on the taxpayer. I hope the Government will give serious thought to the amendments. The issue has been championed by Members of all parties for a considerable period. It is now time to see a step change in the Government’s approach to the use of immigration detention.

Craig Whittaker

- - Excerpts

I want to be clear from the outset that this Government’s position is that a time limit on detention simply will not work and will not be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be here in the UK leave.

Paul Blomfield

-

One of the issues highlighted by the report referred to by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which had genuine cross-party engagement, was that the UK is an outlier in having no limits on detention. Every other country in Europe has a limit. Why does the Minister think it will not work here?

Craig Whittaker

- - Excerpts

Our immigration system must encourage compliance with immigration rules and protect the public. Those who have no right to be in the UK should leave voluntarily, but where the opportunities to do so are not taken, we have to operate a system to enable us to enforce removal and deport foreign national offenders who would otherwise remain in the UK.

I also want to be clear that we do not and cannot detain people indefinitely. It is not lawfully possible to do so.