Student Loans
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Student finance is complicated. With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who has been in and out of his seat all afternoon, I was able to produce a biscuit explainer today, which is available on all good social media channels.
Reforming the student finance system is not straightforward. It is a complex challenge—it is made much more difficult by the need to stabilise the economy, which is something that I obviously strongly support—but we must be clear that the task is harder because of the economic mess left behind by our predecessors: years of short-termism and under-investment that have constrained what can now be done.
Yet even within those constraints, the direction proposed by the Opposition is a bit flawed. The suggestion to scrap degrees, particularly in the arts and cultural sectors, is culturally dismissive, plainly disrespectful and insulting. It reflects a narrow view of value and ignores the real contribution of the creative industries to our economy and our national life.
Turning to the system itself, student finance is not neutral. It perpetuates an inequality. Those from less well-off backgrounds must take on larger maintenance loans simply to afford the cost of living, graduating with significantly higher debts than their peers. That undermines social mobility. Instead of higher education acting as a ladder of opportunity, the system has reinforced disadvantage. Those who start with less, leave with more to repay.
In reality, we all know that what we have is a form of a graduate tax—long-term, income-contingent and unavoidable for many—but without the clarity or fairness such a system should have. So we do need reform, but not through the Opposition’s plan; we must make a better plan. The Labour party is and will remain the party of working people, grounded in the principles of fairness, which means confronting systems that entrench inequality and replacing them with ones that expand opportunity. If we are serious about fairness, we must act—and act we will, for we will use the levers of the state to ensure fairness.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
Reducing child poverty is a moral imperative for us all, and for this Government in particular. We know that growing up in poverty damages children’s health, education and future employment prospects. We have just been discussing the number of NEETs, and many of those children could become NEETs, so child poverty is bad for the UK’s economic prosperity as well. We had not just been waiting for the strategy in December; we had already introduced the extension of free school meals eligibility, tripled access to breakfast clubs and supported the holiday activities and food programme, and we have put £1 billion into the reforming crisis and resilience fund.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 a year over the current Parliament. That reflects the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for the duration of the Parliament. Payments of both the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.8% in a few weeks’ time, boosting pensioners’ incomes by up to £575 a year.
Peter Prinsley
I declare an interest, in that I receive a state pension. [Hon. Members: “No! No way!”] We welcome the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, but some pensioners in my constituency continue to live in poverty and isolation, and are in need of food banks. What specific measures can the Government take to reduce social isolation and tackle poverty in this group of people?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—and for the shocking news of his age. He is absolutely right to highlight both these issues. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government, but it has risen more recently. That is why it is so important that, as well as increasing the state pension, we have put in place the biggest-ever take-up campaign for pension credit and focused on the cost of essentials—most importantly, energy, where new measures will come into place in the next few weeks.
My hon. Friend is also right to focus not just on poverty, but on isolation. I am sure that all Members of the House, when we are out knocking on doors at the weekend, meet some younger, but also some older, constituents who are too isolated. They might not be happy to see the Member who comes to knock on their door, but they might be. Whatever people think about politicians knocking on their doors, we all have organisations and charities in our constituencies—such as Age Cymru in Wales and, I am sure, many in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that do important work in tackling isolation among all our communities.
Neurodivergent People: Employment
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this debate. It is also a pleasure to see so many colleagues from the east of England here. That is not because we have a larger number of more neurodivergent people than anywhere else, but perhaps we care a little bit more.
It is a sad truth that far too many neurodivergent people struggle in the workplace. It is an avoidable problem, one that is unfair and unjust in its own right. More than that, it is economically nonsensical. Better support for neurodivergent people would unlock the potential of millions in this country. The technology and engineering sectors show us the way, and the tremendous impact that neurodivergent people can have.
The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on employers to provide reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent people, but the reality is that these are inconsistent and inadequate. The problem starts at recruitment: traditional methods such as application forms, timed tests and panel interviews disadvantage neurodivergent candidates. Employers should be encouraged to adopt inclusive recruitment methods—for example, allowing the candidate to see the questions in advance.
We heard about the Access to Work scheme, which currently provides vital support, but it is slow, complex and inconsistent. The Government should cast a critical eye over that process and consider how to make it more streamlined.
The problem continues in employment: rigid hours, loud workplaces, obstructive technologies and a lack of written instructions all pose significant barriers to neurodivergent people. Simple steps to address problems such as those could be quick and cheap and could have a significant impact. The Government’s own research shows that most adjustments cost less than £75. Furthermore, proper neurodiversity training for managers and HR professionals would go a long way towards ensuring that those reasonable adjustments were widely understood. Sadly, employers do not know where to start, which is why we need a national framework of best practice, co-produced with neurodivergent people.
Although there is a long way to go, it is good to see the Government making some progress. As the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I was delighted to see that the Government have allocated £9.5 million to Suffolk county council to provide employment support for 2,700 disabled people. That will certainly help neurodivergent people in our community get into work and stay in work, but there is much more to be done. Making adjustments is not about lowering standards, but about giving people the tools to meet their full potential. Surely that is our duty. Reasonable adjustments must become the norm, not the exception.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
As I have said, the OBR will update its forecast at the time of the Budget. We inherited a terrible situation, with record numbers of economically inactive people. Economic inactivity is down since the election, and employment is up. Those developments have been encouraging, but our reforms will go much further. The £3.8 billion that we are investing in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds—the biggest package ever—will be key.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we must invest in community mental health services if we are to reduce spending on mental health disability?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome the NHS 10-year plan published by our right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, which gives a new priority and commitment to mental health support. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important part of tackling the problems that we need to resolve.
Disability History Month
Peter Prinsley Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. As many people know, I am an ear, nose, and throat surgeon, with a special interest in hearing loss and ear diseases. That has been my life’s work, so I declare a big interest in this subject.
Deafness and hearing loss are invisible disabilities, but they are common—very common. They affect 70% of people over the age of 70, and 40% of people over the age of 40. Hearing aids are free on the NHS, but millions of people who could benefit from them do not have one, and many people who do have one simply do not use it—perhaps up to 5 million people. Perhaps a million of our fellow citizens cannot hear conversational speech, with many unable to contact their GP or use health services. Many deaf people do not work because the adjustments that could and should be made for them are not made. Deaf awareness among employers is insufficient.
I will talk a little about earwax. Occluding earwax, which causes hearing loss and is also caused by hearing aid moulds, is a huge issue for deaf people. The services in this country to remove it are very patchy. Before I became an MP, I was the chair of a deaf association in East Anglia, a charity that helped thousands of deaf people and had contracts from the NHS to provide ear care and hearing aids. I believe that charity is a model of community-based, not-for-profit NHS ear care to the population that could be widely copied. The charity has mobile services for rural locations and can provide ear care in residential settings with one-stop provision of wax removal, audiology and hearing aids, keeping people communicating, connected and able to work.
I also commend the work of many excellent larger charities set up to help people with hearing loss, some of which were here in Parliament this week. The RNID estimates that the cost of hearing loss to the economy is £30 billion a year due to loss of earnings, reduced quality of life and increased social care costs. The solution to much of the problem is obvious: hearing aids must be just about the most useful disability aid ever invented. Let us do what we can in this Parliament to support our NHS audiology and hearing aid services. After all, most of us will need them one day.
Let us not ignore deafness when we talk about disability. I read about a young person with hearing loss who said:
“One of the worst things is when people say something I miss…they say ‘oh it doesn’t matter’. It probably didn’t matter to them at the time, but it makes me feel I don’t matter.”
I think that matters to all of us.