Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend soon to discuss that. Labcorp is a major global corporation whose investment in the new clinical pharmacology site is vital. It is in such companies that we need to be investing to drive private investment in research and development.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Time and again I have raised with the Government the opportunity to invest in BioYorkshire, which will create 4,000 jobs for my constituents, upskill 25,000 people, and deliver £5 billion in gross value added to the Government. Will the Minister meet me to discuss it? COP26 is just six weeks away, and not pursuing projects like this is holding back the improvements that we can make to our environment.

[George Freeman]

As I have said, I am wholly committed to ensuring that science innovation drives levelling up and regeneration, and I should be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I shall be on my way to County Durham on Thursday, so perhaps I can meet her next week or the week after.

UK Gas Market

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend knows that coming up with a fleet of small modular reactors cannot be done overnight. It takes about 10 years to develop the technology. As I have said repeatedly, it is a key part of our nuclear strategy and is the third point of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I frequently speak about this to Warren East, the chief executive officer of Rolls-Royce. As a consequence of the spending review period, it is something that we hope to be able to commit to on the UK balance sheet.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The question my constituents will have today is what the cost will be to them. As we know that serious costs are coming on to some of the poorest people in our constituencies, will the Secretary of State commit to speaking to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about cancelling the cut to universal credit and will he speak to the Chancellor about putting additional measures in place to avert fuel and food poverty?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that I speak to colleagues across Government all the time, particularly in respect of alleviating and lessening the burden on very vulnerable constituents.

Charity-funded Medical Research

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is pleasure to serve under you, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) on securing today’s timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting such a debate.

“A statistic will never truly capture the devastating impact research cuts will have on all of us. Research is hope. Research is more time with your loved ones. Research is improved quality of life. Its value is immeasurable.”

Those are not my words, but those of Aisling Burnand, the chief executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities. We have heard much today about the investment the AMRC has put into lives of so many of our constituents. Some 151 charities, which have joined together with the public through their fundraising efforts, have spent £14 billion over the last decade in funding 17,000 research staff and driving 213 clinical trials, advancing the frontiers of medicine and enhancing lives as they go. As we have heard in today’s debate, they also bring resources back Not only does every £1 invested bring 25p back into the economy on a permanent basis, but charities save our NHS so much money through their early interventions and by advancing the frontiers of medicine.

However, covid-19 has disrupted the incredible story of how charities play a central role in advancing science and the UK’s global excellence in this field. That partnership really makes its mark in advances in medicine.

[Chris Green]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she share the view that there is immense collaboration with the private sector, universities and research institutes, as well as the charity sector, and that that ecosystem, which is so often talked about, is key to our position in the world and our contribution to the world?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The interdependence of the various sectors in coming together really puts the UK in a unique position in the way it advances so much medicine. Over recent months, in response to covid-19, we have also seen the incredible work of all the sectors, which have come together to try to beat this virus. Charities play that crucial role, and they are playing it today as they try to support individuals through this difficult time.

We know that a £310 million shortfall in funding will have significant consequences. Cuts always do. As we heard, it will take about four and a half years to recover from the downturn. Tragically, that will all be too late for some. This year alone, it is predicted that we will see a 41% decline in research spending. Many PhDs, fellowships and other opportunities will be denied, cutting vital skills in medical research. If postgraduate researchers do not have the opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge, we will be at risk of losing a generation of medical research. That is why significant investment is needed to save the sector.

With 34% of staff furloughed, clinical trials have been paused and delayed to protect research in the longer term. Without additional funding, there is little hope that those trials will restart. That means that families, such as that of a constituent who came to me, will never see the opportunity to extend their lives and to have a quality life for longer.

The sector is rightly calling for a life science charity partnership fund to fund the research part of its work. That would be built on a match funding principle and would start with a three-year programme of investment into research. The Medical Research Council is seeking a commitment of £310 million in its first year to match the funding it has lost this year due to the lack of funding resource. Not only will that research-driven approach help with economic recovery in the wider field and reduce unemployment, but it help us to continue to lead advances in medicine.

Like all charities, medical research charities have not been served well during this crisis. In fact, that has been a major oversight on the part of the Government. Medical research charities provide not just research but crucial support to their beneficiaries. Over the last six months, I have met many research charities, which have told me about the work they are undertaking, and that work has expanded during the pandemic.

Many organisations provide support services to the people and families who depend on them. The NHS is less accessible, so people have turned to the charities they know and trust for additional advice and support. Regular therapeutic interventions have often not been available on the NHS because of its focus on covid-19—we all understand that—and appointments have been cancelled. People have turned to the charities they know and the relationships they have to seek advice on issues such as where to get food, shielding, what protections they have for their health, and how to support relatives and family members at such a delicate time.

Other organisations, which would normally provide psychological support or respite support or perhaps fund parents to stay near their child as they receive treatment, have also been under great strain. Many of these organisations have described demand for their helpline more than doubling as people turn to them for support. However, they have not received additional support from the Government in response to covid.

Yes, the Government did provide £750 million to all charities, although we must remember that 168,000 charities have had to share that money. However, I must stress that that money was for additional support directly relating to covid-19. Of that money, £2 million went straight to the hospice movement, and rightly so, although that money is now spent, and more is needed. The rest is being divided between the larger charities, and there is a pot for smaller organisations. However, the majority of charities have not received anything over this time, and we have heard today that medical research charities certainly have not had their share.

This was all a direct response to covid, and we have seen more demands being placed on charities, as I have set out. That has also meant that more investment is needed by those organisations. Charities themselves may have direct funding for funded spend, but they are really struggling with their core costs. If their core costs are not met, the charities cannot deliver the specific outcomes we all know so much about from our constituents. It is vital, therefore, that the Government step up tomorrow with a package to address those core costs. Charities have already lost £10 billion in the last six months, and they predict they will lose 60,000 staff. Some 20% of charities will not be there if the Government do not make that investment. They say they value charities, but charities need valuing with resources, and without those resources, they will not continue.

We know that fundraising opportunities have all but dried up. We know that retail, which has been successful since its return, has now been locked down yet again, and therefore the income of organisations is in a perilous situation. That is why the Government need to step up at this point. Many charities did not qualify for the grants that were available, and of course have struggled and still have bills to pay. As the charity sector says itself, rightly and proudly, it has never been more needed, but I would add that it has never been more in need. That is why it is vital that, after today’s debate, the Minister goes back to the Treasury one more time to make the case for research charities and all charities, to make sure they have the research support, funding and investment they need.

Charities are not an optional extra. We know that because, as we have heard during today’s debate, the outcomes they deliver—in not only research but care support and civil society—transform people’s lives. Some 7 million people every year generously donate to medical research charities, often as the result of personal experience or the loss of a loved one. The paucity of the response compared with the public contribution needs to be addressed. Charities stretch their pound further than any other sector, and they provide the highest standards in research and care. They are essential, yet in just a few months’ time, they may no longer be there. We need a robust response from the Minister today, and we need a financial response from the Chancellor tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), my near neighbour, on securing this extremely important and well-timed debate. We have heard some good and compelling speeches from across the board, from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). We are all making similar arguments.

By way of opening, we have heard many debates over recent weeks, both here and in the main Chamber, about the sectors and parts of our society that have been drastically hit by the consequences of the covid-19 crisis. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd on bringing forward the debate because it is an area that has had a lot less attention than some others.

As others have said, as we are all making similar arguments, medical research charities carry out vital work that helps us to understand diseases and find new ways to treat, manage and prevent conditions. They provide that hope and support for many that would otherwise not be there. As the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd clearly outlined, we have a world-class sector in the UK. From state-of-the-art brain imaging, which helps us learn more about the earlier stages in diseases such as Alzheimer’s, to the development of novel techniques to help revive and repair donor kidneys before transplantation, and to the study of data to help speed up cancer diagnosis, medical research is changing lives, especially with some of the rare diseases that we have discussed today.

During the covid crisis, charity funding has plummeted, which has had a stark and immediate knock-on impact on medical research, as we have heard. Charities are projecting that it will take more than four years for spend to return to pre-crisis levels. With a big chunk of around half of all medical research coming from charities, we must not underestimate the impact that will have and continue to have on the health and wellbeing of our country for many years to come.

The UK sector is facing an existential crisis, yet, like so many other sectors, it has unfortunately so far been excluded from specific Government support. Medical research charities predict a shortfall in spend over the next year of at least £310 million. Research by the IPPR reveals that medical research charities expect this year to lose 38% of fundraising income, and over 25% next year. The thinktank estimates that there will be a cumulative £7.8 billion shortfall in health research and development investment between now and 2027, or 10% of all UK health R&D.

What does that mean in practical terms? As we have heard in the debate, there is, first, the immediate impact on medical trials and research and on patients and all those affected by disease. Almost three quarters of clinical trials and studies funded by AMRC charities were either scrapped or mothballed during the first lockdown, and although some have been picked since, many have not. Medical studies to be cancelled or stalled include those tackling the UK’s biggest killers—dementia, coronary heart disease and cancer—which could have long-term consequences. The Stroke Association states that three quarters of its funded research projects have been suspended because of the pandemic.

In the long term, less money for medical research means fewer trials and studies and fewer patients able to participate in this life-changing work. Last year, 213,000 people took part in 1,200 clinical trials or studies funded by medical research charities. Medical research charities have played a key role in breakthroughs over the past century, and we heard about some of them today.

The second impact is on researchers and the skilled workforce. Medical research investment is used to fund PhD students, fellowships and other early career researchers. Last year, 17,000 researcher salaries were funded by AMRC charities. Less money simply means fewer of them; fewer of them means losing out on their skills and talents, and on the important scientific progress that they could make in the years ahead. It will also further accelerate the unemployment crisis we face. Sadly, a recent AMRC study found that four in 10 are considering leaving research altogether, owing to funding concerns. The same survey found that 61% of charities have had to cut or cancel support for early career researchers and the skilled research roles.

The third impact is on health R&D funding and the wider economy. Nosediving research and development will affect the whole economy. As we have heard, every £1 invested in medical research delivers a return equivalent to roughly an extra 25p on that investment.

Charity research funding stimulates investment from the private sector, as we have heard, and from universities, further boosting our economy and research sector. It is an ecosystem and it relies on all the system being able to play its part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, it can and does play a key role in reducing some regional inequalities and, with more than half of medical research coming from charities outside London and the south-east, in the so-called levelling up agenda by contributing to regional economic growth. Charities have a better record in this respect than Government research funding, under which about 80% goes to the golden triangle. There is definitely an opportunity to switch that balance.

Despite the importance of medical research charities to scientific progress and to people’s lives, and despite the significant role they play in our economy, unfortunately the Government have not given them the support they needed during this difficult time. I understand that there are many pressures on the Government’s finances and many calls for help, but only 3% of the country’s medical research charities were eligible for the Government’s charity support package—just five out of the 152 medical research charities. More than 150 were ineligible, and that included those researching conditions such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, breast cancer, hearing loss, bone cancer, liver disease, meningitis, Crohn’s, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and many more. This is a huge blow to patients who rely on breakthroughs in those treatments.

Fortunately, given the well-timed nature of this debate and where we are today, there is an opportunity tomorrow for the Government to rectify that. The Opposition hope that, in the spending review, the Government will consider the proposal for the life sciences charity partnership to help plug the funding gap. This is now critical and urgent, and in the week when the Oxford vaccine for coronavirus has made such brilliant progress, what better way to support the life sciences in this country and recognise their contribution than to support this partnership fund? It would be a partnership arrangement and there would be matched funding. In the grand scheme of things, £310 million would be an investment well made. It is not a huge amount of money.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the powerful points that my hon. Friend is making. In the light of the amount that has been spent on covid-19 and the fact that people have not been able to access regular services in the NHS, does it not bring into scale how £310 million could make a significant difference?

[Lucy Powell]

It really does, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I urge the Government to see it, not as day-to-day spend, but as an investment in the future health, resilience, wellbeing and economic viability of the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that we hear some good news from her today.

Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson]

I do accept that point, and it is important that some of those grants have been in place. I would far rather have seen some of the large sums available through CBILS and the bounce back loan scheme made available as grants, as opposed to loans, which add to the debt burden on business.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Ninety-four businesses in my constituency have taken out a CBILS loan, but they are really concerned now about their ability to pay it back, even with the new measures put in place. Does he share my concern that we need to see some underpinning and underwriting in order to secure these businesses for the future?

[Owen Thompson]

I absolutely do and I hope that some of the points I will make later will address the hon. Lady’s concern.

Although improvements were made, the mechanics remain flawed, and take-up is not helped by the fact that the state guarantor is only for 80% of the loan, so risk-averse banks are the gatekeepers to lending decisions. Initially, banks were cherry-picking the very best—the blue chips and the big corporations—while lending to the rest was far harder to find. Now we see a second wave of banks becoming less willing to lend as the uncertainty of the crisis continues and worries grow about the ability to repay. We need the Government to step in to fix that. Of course getting cash to smaller firms was aided by the launch of the bounce back loan scheme in May, and again I commend the Chancellor for taking the action to introduce that. It is a faster process, with a far greater take-up, accounting for about two thirds of the total loans received, with about two thirds of those reaching small and medium-sized enterprises. That is aided by the Government guarantee of 100%, the capped interest at 2.5% and the lender agreeing not to charge fees. That is far closer to what I think CBILS should be if it cannot be a grant. It is a pity that bounce back loans remain limited to up to £50,000, which is nowhere near enough for the needs of many businesses around the country. I hope the replacement for CBILS will take account of the mechanics of the bounce back loan scheme.

By contrast, the commercial companies approved for CBILS can set the rates for business interruption loans, with massive variation in what is offered, averaging around 6% but going up to almost 15%. One local business told me that the initial rate it had been offered was 34%. That may bail out companies in an immediate cash-flow crisis, but it will lead to crippling debt in the longer term when the taxpayer support ends. As The Sunday Times reported this week, some CBILS-accredited lenders are not only charging double-digit interest rates but are charging arrangement fees of up to 5%, a considerable sum to any business. Some are apparently marketing the loans as ways to fund management buy-outs or to refinance existing debts. It looks like some of these loans are less emergency support and more picking the bones of companies in trouble.

Covid-19 has certainly brought out the best and worst in our society. We have seen the very best in the public spiritedness of our communities, essential workers, volunteers and small businesses struggling to keep things moving supporting the vulnerable and saving lives. The very worst, though, are those who see the pandemic as an opportunity simply to make a quick buck on the back of other people’s struggles, whether through price gouging on hand sanitiser, creaming off cash from shadily signed Government contracts for personal protective equipment or, in this case, hiking up fees and interest on loans to desperate companies. There are always people out there who see a disaster as an opportunity to make money, but they should not be able to do so with a Government badge of approval.

Many companies are not taking on CBILS or BBLS loans because having more and more debt around their necks is the very last thing they need. Small and medium-sized enterprises in Midlothian told me that it was an absolute last resort, and that the schemes were far better suited to big players. They say they needed a short-term financial injection, not a loan, but businesses were being pushed towards debt as the only option. One local business that contacted me put it far better than I could have put it myself:

“Business owners are being unfairly expected to shoulder a massively disproportionate share of the burden. Many SMEs have been built up over years of toil and are supported by personal guarantees of directors who are being pushed into positions of potential or actual insolvency which can lead to personal bankruptcy. This is at the bequest of people in authority who are at no personal risk at all. Are they aware that these businesses are where the tax receipts come from that will be needed to pay back the debt now being built? Many of them took years to build into the position where they pay and collect a good level of taxes and if these companies are forced to fail it could take many years to build their replacements”

I hope the Treasury Bench will take note of those comments.

In May 2020, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast a likely 10% default rate on the loans. By July, that was updated to 40%. In September, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s annual report went even further, estimating losses ranging from 35% to 60%. TheCityUK recapitalisation group’s report estimated that UK businesses will have £100 billion of toxic debt by 2021, with £35 billion of that related to the Government schemes. The report warned that up to 3 million jobs across the UK, and 780,000 SMEs, are at risk if urgent action is not taken to tackle that projected £35 billion of unsustainable debt from covid loans.

Worryingly, there are reports of banks bringing in specialist debt collectors to help lead the recovery of loans. Of course, the loans spare the banks from the credit risk, but if they cannot be repaid, will we witness thousands of small family businesses pursued through the courts for recovery before the guarantee kicks in? The National Audit Office report into the bounce back loan scheme published on 8 October stated that

“the Bank expects lenders to pursue ‘appropriate recovery processes’”

if companies default. However, it is not clear what that means, and the UK Government need to provide clearer guidance on that process. Given that funds were provided on terms set by the Treasury, it is only fair that, as a minimum, there is a clear framework for recovery, so that customers are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their banking provider. Even better, why not take the stress off the shoulders of small business and dump the debt that will only hold back recovery? There are also small businesses facing bigger debt on their loans than others, because they rushed to take out the loan when it was the only game in town. They could face a 50 or 60% increase in repayments compared with a bounce back loan. The banks do not seem particularly keen to make it clear that businesses may switch these loans, and I hope that the Government will help to get the message out there—that one simple step could make a big difference to so many companies.

As the pandemic crisis continues and companies try to adapt and rebuild, the best thing the Government could do would be to write off the outstanding debt to SMEs altogether. That would help small businesses have room to recover. The Association of Accounting Technicians called for the bounce back debts to be written off for small businesses, accounting for £40 billion of loans. It says that the “pay as you grow” scheme does not solve the problem; it just defers it, whereas writing off the debt would be a much-needed boost for SMEs and the economy.

[Rachael Maskell]

Charities have been pushed in the direction of CBILs as well, and of course that is completely inappropriate, so to add to the list, will the hon. Gentleman say that charities should have their debt written off as well?

[Owen Thompson]

Yes. Charities, who spend so much of their time having to collect from the public and are now having to adapt to new ways of doing that, are among those many who have been pushed into an impossible situation, where the only game in town is what they had to take. We absolutely need to look to see what we can do to support them, to help them out of this situation.

Fracking: Rother Valley

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a great honour to secure this debate and speak on a matter of such huge importance to the people of Rother Valley. Needless to say, I am resolutely and absolutely opposed to fracking in any form, as are my constituents. My professional background consists of working for the WWF and Shell on environmental issues among others, so I know only too well how harmful fracking can be to local communities. Many hon. Members representing constituencies up and down the country will share my views, and I welcome their support.

Before I go any further, I wish to thank a number of constituents and local groups for their constant enthusiasm and support in protecting Rother Valley from the disaster of fracking. Les and Wendy Barlow and Harthill Against Fracking have been absolute stalwarts in protecting our area, as have Richard Scholey and the Woodsetts Against Fracking group. Helen Wilks, a local farmer, has contributed much in the way of her experiences of fracking’s impact on her livelihood, on traffic and congestion and on farmers’ mental health.

For those who do not know—I am sure that we all do in this House—fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth and injecting the rock with a high-pressure water, sand and chemical mix to release the gas inside. While it was hailed in the United States as the answer to their domestic energy supply shortage, the United Kingdom was late to the party. Thank goodness we were, for we have seen the harmful effects of fracking elsewhere and we are rightfully horrified. We have had the advantage of seeing the dangers from across the pond, and we need to avoid repeating the same mistakes by opposing this backward-looking technology.

Why is fracking so bad for Rother Valley and constituencies like it? The reasons are plentiful. There are, of course, the safety arguments pertaining to contamination of local aquifers by chemicals that escape in the drilling process. Who should monitor the sites? The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive do not have the capacity to watch over every fracking site in the country, and few of us would trust the fracking companies to self-regulate and report any breaches. That is surely not acceptable to anyone.

The idea that such companies may poison the water sources of my communities is terrifying and not a risk that the Government are willing to take. Equally petrifying are the seismic activity concerns caused by fracking. Professor Peter Styles, a geophysics expert, presented a report in the other place on the difficulties in carrying out fracking beneath previously mined areas and his findings were compelling. He pointed out that even small faults have the potential to cause small earthquakes that would trigger the seismic traffic light system threshold and therefore halt fracking.

In Rother Valley, Harthill and Woodsetts are on top of areas of historical coalmining. They are riddled with old mine workings and fault lines already severely weakened by coal extraction, right beneath where the companies intend to frack. I do not think I need to stress to hon. Members how dangerous fracking in this area would be, and how such risks simply cannot ever be taken. As if contaminated water sources and earthquakes were not enough, fracking negatively affects Rother Valley in other ways, too. Fracking is a colossal imposition on people’s lives, many of whom are elderly or vulnerable. For instance, one of the proposed fracking sites in Rother Valley is very close to a residential home, causing much distress to its residents due to the noise and pollution potential.

Fracking sites are hives of industrial activity and, as such, the traffic movement associated with fracking will peak at up to 60 HGV movements per day. This is unthinkable on narrow track lanes around Harthill and Woodsetts, which are frequented by dog walkers, ramblers, horse riders and cyclists. In some parts of the lanes they are approximately only 3 metres wide. These rural lanes simply will not be able to cope with the vastly increased traffic demand. Proposals include widening roads and cutting down hedgerows for these juggernauts to pass through, which will destroy local flora and fauna. It is clearly unacceptable that my constituents’ use of local roads would be usurped by large corporate fracking companies.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this really important debate to the House. Fracking itself holds no benefits for places of beauty such as North Yorkshire. I wholeheartedly agree with all that he says. Does he not also agree that the vast amount of traffic movement that is needed to build the networks across the constituency to transport water to and from the sites is a complete waste and really does tear up our environment?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I completely agree with her about these traffic movements. It is the effect of fracking as a whole and all the issues around fracking that have a huge impact. In Rother Valley, for instance, the residents fear that the local authority would have to impose strict traffic controls on local people to minimise congestion and to mitigate risks to public safety. They are losing out once again.

It is expected that it is the responsibility of the operator to pay for the decommissioning of a fracking site at the end of its life cycle. However, in March 2019 the Public Accounts Committee highlighted substantial fears that the taxpayer will be left to foot the bill for clean-up costs if the operator goes out of business. That is clearly an objectionable state of affairs given the wealth of the fracking companies. Furthermore, my constituents have worked hard all their lives to buy their homes, only for fracking to decimate the price of houses in the vicinity. Even laying the value of the houses aside, it does have to be asked: who wants to live next to an industrial site? That is particularly true in the case of Woodsetts and Harthill, to where many residents have moved because they want to live in a rural, idyllic location.

There is no doubt that this fight against fracking has exacted a heavy toll on my constituents’ mental health. They are faced not only with the prospect of losing access to the country lanes around the proposed fracking sites, which are used for exercise to ensure healthy body and mind, but with continuous uncertainty. One of my constituents has described this as “the great sword of Ineos” hanging over their heads—and he is absolutely right. Even though the Government have issued a moratorium on fracking, this has not stopped Ineos from circling around the sites in Harthill and Woodsetts like vultures, biding its time and waiting for the moratorium to be eased.

Exploratory drilling and acidisation are still not covered by the moratorium and we fear that fracking companies seek to exploit that. The ban needs to cover exploratory drilling and acidisation. We all know that Ineos is willing to outspend local community groups many hundreds of times over on legal fees and feasibility reports. This unjust situation is akin to David versus Goliath. The status quo is not acceptable. If we are headed towards a low carbon future, on which we all agree in this House, surely a permanent ban on fracking would send a clear and strong message to the world of the UK’s commitment?

Time is of the essence for the people of Harthill and Woodsetts: no longer can we wait nervously for the threat of fracking to pass. I speak directly to Ineos when I say, “You will never be allowed to frack in Rother Valley. Your best endeavours will come to nothing. Leave my constituents in peace to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Do not come back.”

I speak to Rotherham Council directly when I say, “This Government have been unequivocal in their opposition to fracking.” The then Communities Secretary declared in a statement in May 2019 that paragraph 209(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework, which concerned the benefits of shale gas, had now been quashed and was therefore no longer relevant for planning purposes.

I say to Rotherham council: “Stop wasting taxpayers’ money and your time and resources conducting traffic management plans and surveys on proposed fracking areas. There is no prospect of fracking taking place in Rother Valley, so you must now move on and focus your efforts on providing vital services for residents.” Many of my constituents feel that the Labour-run council is not listening to what the Government are saying on key issues such as fracking in our areas, so I say to Rotherham council, “Keep fighting the frackers! Do not support them by granting permissions of any sort.”

From a national perspective, fracking has no future in the United Kingdom. Prices for fossil fuels such as oil have completely collapsed, the Prime Minister has announced a green energy revolution, and around the globe there is consensus that renewables are the way forward. Even the Communist People’s Republic of China has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. We have our own net zero target of 2050 to meet, and we are hosting COP26 in Glasgow next year. Why on earth would we give the go-ahead to a fossil fuel industry practice that contributes to climate change and has no longevity?

Fracking is the technology of the past and is a retrograde step. We must not waste any more time looking back; instead, we must look to the future. Last week was Climate Week, which presents us with an opportunity to look ahead. Hon. Members will know that I have campaigned stridently in this House for the UK’s green recovery and I am particularly enthused by hydrogen as the fuel of the future, which will power our cars, buses and homes. I am supporting the opening of a hydrogen electrolyser factory on the border of Rother Valley and urging the Government to adopt a bold hydrogen strategy. I am also engaging to push the Government to issue green bonds and to set up a green development bank, in a bid to make Britain the biggest green economy on earth.

I have always said that UK plc must steal a march on our competitors by exporting our green technology and knowledge to the rest of the world. By leading the green revolution, we shall create jobs, turbocharge business and rejuvenate our left-behind communities. We must act decisively or risk losing out. I envision this new industry being centred in Rother Valley. I want, for example, renewables plants in Dinnington and Maltby and specialist training colleges in Thurcroft and Aston. I want hydrogen factories in Orgreave and distribution networks in Hellaby.

The possibilities are endless, and my ambition for Rother Valley is limitless too. Our area has the industrial heritage, the expertise and the desire; we just need to be given a chance. We should not be focusing on yesterday’s technologies such as fracking. How poetic would it be if Rother Valley were to transform from a centre of dirty fossil fuels to a hub of green renewable energy? That is the future I want for my constituency and the people who live there, and I am sure this Government will provide it.

As I draw to a close, I thank the House for its support and praise my wonderful constituents in Rother Valley for their tireless activism on the issue of fracking. I trust we have made it clear today that fracking has no future in Rother Valley or in the United Kingdom, and I look forward to leading the charge as Britain embarks on its green recovery and green economic revolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

What plans he has to promote a green economic recovery after the covid-19 outbreak.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What plans he has to promote a green recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

What plans he has to promote a green recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady asks a very pertinent question. The Chancellor set out a £3 billion programme, and of course it will take time before that money is fully deployed. As well as the green homes upgrade, we have committed £320 million to the heat networks investment project, which is very relevant to the kind of work that she has described.

[Rachael Maskell [V]]

With the Government having committed to invest in the bioscience sector in York, making it the heart of the green new deal, they are now trying to make that conditional on a local government reorganisation that is not only deeply unpopular but is also, frankly, unworkable. In the light of comments that York’s economy will be the second-worst hit in the country, with unemployment rising to as high as 28%, will the Minister instead now bring forward that investment, to prevent mass unemployment in my city, to prevent unnecessary economic pain and to kick-start investment in green-collar jobs?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As the hon. Lady knows, we are absolutely committed to creating green-collar jobs. Today, we have 460,000 of those jobs across the UK; by 2030, we have stated our commitment to have 2 million such jobs. No one can deny our commitment to creating green jobs. I would further add that we are also committed to making the UK a science superpower, and we will make innovation central to our green recovery. That is absolutely front and centre of what the Government are trying to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I thank my hon. Friend for sticking up for small businesses in her constituency. Large suppliers of consumer products, especially those who are leaders in their field, have a responsibility to treat retailers fairly and transparently, regardless of their size. If they think they are being unfairly treated, they could go to the Competition and Markets Authority. Contractual arrangements are between two private companies. However, we will support our high streets through the towns fund and the establishment of the high street taskforce.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Coronavirus is impacting on every aspect of work, from the cost to employers to the cost to workers. The Health Secretary has said that employers should view isolation as sick leave, but the law does not state that. Even if that was so, those on zero-hours contracts and in insecure work are unlikely to have sickness cover, and statutory sick pay does not pay for the first three days, meaning that those with little means have to choose between health and hardship—an issue I raised with the Health Minister a month ago. So what discussions has the Business Secretary had with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that workers are financially protected to stop the risk of spreading coronavirus?

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Lady is right: this is a very serious issue, which affects individuals and challenges businesses. Those who do not qualify for statutory sick pay, including those who are self-employed, may be able to claim universal credit or new-style employment and support allowance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and I very much recognise the role of the SME market in ensuring that some of the lowest paid workers get the minimum wage, and in happily sometimes paying higher than that. As the small business Minister, my priority is to ensure not only that we enforce the national minimum wage, but that we create the right environment in which SMEs can thrive so that they continue to meet pay requirements.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is simply not good enough: a decade—a decade, Mr Speaker—of workers being exploited under this Government’s watch. So why has the Minister let the 87% of firms that break the law and fail to pay the minimum wage get away with it? What is she going to do about it and by when? One thing is clear: we, the Labour party, are the only party that will ever stand up for working people.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I would thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I wonder whether she is living in a land of fiction. It is the Conservative party that is standing up for workers. It is this party that has given the largest increase in the national minimum wage, rising to £8.72—an increase of 6.2%. As I have already outlined, our enforcement has doubled. We remain committed to enforcement, and it is a complete misrepresentation to say that in the past 10 years this Government have not enforced the national minimum wage. We remain committed to doing so, and for all the time that I am responsible, we will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What steps he is taking to implement the Government’s net zero carbon target.

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Chris Skidmore)]

We have made world-leading progress, cutting our emissions by 42% while growing the economy at the fastest rate of any G20 country since 2000—a point recognised by the International Energy Agency in its recent report. The Committee on Climate Change is clear: our clean growth strategy and industrial strategy provide the right frameworks for delivering net zero. I hope Members will welcome the recent launch of the green finance strategy as a clear demonstration of how seriously the Government take net zero.

[Chris Skidmore]

What I welcome is that our legislating on net zero—we are the first country in the G7 to legislate for net zero by 2050—marks a catalytic moment for everyone to recognise that we need a whole-of-society approach to this. I welcome all action, whether from the Climate Coalition, whom I met recently, or businesses and industries: organisations such as Tesco and Marks & Spencer, for example, have committed to net zero. We all have a part to play.

[Rachael Maskell]

In light of the Government’s abysmal progress on carbon reduction, last year the Committee on Climate Change issued 25 policy recommendations; the Government delivered just one. What clear steps will the Government take in the next six months to ensure that we get back on track for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets?

[Chris Skidmore]

On the work the Committee has taken forward in its recent report, we welcome that the Committee acts as a critical friend. Now that we have net zero in place, we must go much further much faster. We have over-achieved on carbon budgets 1 and 2, we are on course to meet budget 3, and we are 90% there on carbon budgets 4 and 5, but I admit that we must do much more. I look forward to going to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee later to discuss this in greater detail, but the net-zero commitment now gives the opportunity to move on this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. After signing the UK steel charter on behalf of my Department, I have written to several other Departments, encouraging them to support this excellent initiative.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Only a fifth of York Central development is earmarked for economic development, which will seriously curtail the opportunities for business growth, inward investment and good jobs for York. Following my discussions with the Minister and stakeholders, will he consider a new proposal for York Central?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jake Berry)]

The hon. Lady is aware that this planning decision is currently with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for determination. She has had the opportunity to meet me and make representations, and I will meet my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) later today.