Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

We are delighted that we are introducing the draft relief to support the on trade for people purchasing drinks in pubs and hospitality venues. We will consult on the details, including keg size. We will also bring forward the technical changes to small brewers relief, which my hon. Friend asks about.

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

The pretence has to stop. The Budget was climate-illiterate, with just £7.8 billion of new money given to climate and nature mitigation to reach the 2024 target, when £62.9 billion is required. How will the Chancellor close that gap, or is the Prime Minister’s performance at COP26 simply a façade?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady is not doing justice to what the Government have committed to. We have the £30 billion net zero strategy just the week before this fiscal event, and clearly we have had a number of announcements during COP already, including today’s on forests. That is clear evidence of how this Government are moving to ensure we double down on our international commitments and show the rest of the world the way to deliver on net zero.

Brexit: Opportunities

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend could not be more right, if I can put it that way. Those who were naysayers and gainsayers, those who were so relentlessly negative, are clearly wrong. They now know they are in the wrong. They were saying that nothing could be done to improve this country’s position post Brexit. That is clearly wrong. Britain can lead the world. It is leading the world in many areas and will continue to do so under this Government. We are liberated and we are continuing to liberate our industries, trade and services from the shackles of bureaucracy. We will continue to do that, while at the same time, as he ably says, levelling up the whole of this country.

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

I listened carefully to the Paymaster General’s statement. A significant amount of legislation has come from Europe to protects workers, whether it is health and safety, workers’ rights or equalities legislation. Will he guarantee that under this new bonfire of regulation he will not diminish any of those workers’ rights, which have been hard-fought for by working people across Europe?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, this is not about negatively affecting health and safety. This is about supporting workers. This is about supporting business. It is about making life easier for people and building the economy of this country. That is what it will do.

Demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The proposed demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria is the first proposed demutualisation of a major financial services business since the financial crash. If the demutualisation goes ahead, it will see controversial United States private equity giant Bain Capital given ownership of a British customer-owned business with considerable financial assets. The tidal wave of private equity money apparently available for purchases of British firms prompts the inevitable question of whether this proposed demutualisation is a one-off or whether it is the start of another wave of demutualisation.

The all-party parliamentary group for mutuals, which I am fortunate to chair, conducted an inquiry into the proposed demutualisation earlier this year. We interviewed Mark Hartigan, who is the current chief executive of Liverpool Victoria, as well as Matt Popoli of Bain Capital, the regulators, the Association of Financial Mutuals and representatives of other mutuals, and we received submissions from individual consumer-owners of Liverpool Victoria. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the noble Lords Curry and Wrigglesworth, and Viscount Trenchard for their assistance and support. We have written subsequently to the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, and I have also written to the Pensions Regulator.

We concluded that it was very difficult for an individual member of LV= to be able to assess whether the proposed demutualisation was in their interests, given the scarcity of information with which they had been provided. We agreed that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, the leadership of LV= had not been open and transparent with members about its intentions for their business. Indeed, we felt that there had been a notable disregard for the interests of members and a cavalier attitude towards the member governance of the business.

We concluded, too, that the plans would damage the diversity of financial services providers in the UK, and that there had been insufficient policy attention on mutuals in recent times, particularly on the need to be able to raise capital. Lastly, we concluded that regulators needed to have a fundamentally different approach to the threat of demutualisation. Indeed, we were staggered that no lessons had been learned from the pre-crash wave of building society demutualisations.

I believe now that Alan Cook, the chairman of Liverpool Victoria, has a series of questions to answer about the proposed demutualisation and sale to Bain Capital. Earlier this week I formally invited him to Parliament to enable him to do just that.

Since our report was published, and despite many invitations to do so, the leadership of Liverpool Victoria have thus far refused to provide a more open and transparent explanation of their motives and their intentions. First, there has never been a clear, easy-to-understand explanation as to why demutualisation is needed. The business is well capitalised—indeed, it recently sold its general insurance business for over £1 billion—and it has raised significant sums on the capital markets. Both the chairman and the chief executive were arguing that the business was in very good financial shape right up until their plans for putting Liverpool Victoria up for sale were leaked to the media.

So why, really, is this plan being pushed? Why can Liverpool Victoria not survive as a stand-alone business in its own right? Its members, I believe, have a right to know. If, for a moment, we take at face value the idea that the new chief executive spotted a major flaw in the business model of his predecessor, so great that significant investment was needed for Liverpool Victoria’s customers to continue to enjoy the fruits of their investment with LV=, then why did they not choose another mutual? Indeed, there are persistent rumours that a major mutual offered more money than Bain Capital offered. The consumer-owners of Liverpool Victoria have a right to know whether that is true and why, if so, it was turned down.

Secondly, it is difficult to see how the members or owners of Liverpool Victoria will benefit from the demutualisation. Previous demutualisations have always been driven by the chair, chief executive and board, who usually benefit from significantly enhanced remuneration packages. It is time for the board to be honest. For example, by how much more will the chairman and chief executive benefit if this deal goes ahead? Thirdly, the way in which Liverpool Victoria’s chairman and board have gone about the process of demutualising raises the question as to whether—I say this gently—they knowingly misled the regulator and their customer-owners about their plans.

The board of Liverpool Victoria successfully persuaded their members to approve Liverpool Victoria’s conversion from a friendly society to a company limited by guarantee. At the time, they proposed this to their members, the chairman, Mr Cook, explicitly assured members that this would mean no change to the mutual status of Liverpool Victoria. With that assurance, the consumer-owners of LV= approved the conversion to a company limited by guarantee in May 2019. The real significance of that change in legal governance only emerged much later. In LV=’s rulebook, to demutualise, it needs a 50% turnout of the membership in any such vote and 75% of those voting to vote in favour. In short, practically, it is impossible—deliberately so. It was a rule put there to protect future consumer-owners of LV= against the greed of carpetbaggers and directors.

Given the assurances of Mr Cook, the board and the chief executive, one might have assumed that LV=’s mutual future would continue, notwithstanding the change from a friendly society. Under the rules governing companies, however, boards can approach our courts to ask for a scheme of arrangement for permission to ignore a particular rule in their constitution. That is not currently within the friendly society rules. Assuming there is even a small majority voting in favour of demutualisation, this is what LV=’s leadership are now determined to do. Revealingly, in February this year, in a webinar for LV= customers, Mr Cook noted that his plan to demutualise and sell to Bain Capital would not have been possible if they had not converted to a company limited by guarantee. It appears—again, I say this advisedly—that Mr Cook, the chairman of LV=, has been determined to demutualise for some time and has not been straight with the consumer-members of LV=.

What has added to that sense is that the previous chief executive of LV, Richard Rowney, left the organisation in December 2019, and it is difficult not to think that he was fired for not wanting to demutualise. His replacement, Mark Hartigan, was announced just 10 days later, and within less than three months Liverpool Victoria was up for sale—this at a time when assurances of Liverpool Victoria’s continuity as a mutual were being given. Frankly, it is stretching credibility to believe that the decision to sell was the unexpected decision of a strategic review landed by an incoming chief executive with no experience of working for a mutual and after less than three months in the job. What is also remarkable is the decision of the Financial Conduct Authority not to investigate whether members of LV= were deceived into supporting the conversion to a company limited by guarantee.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is making. Benenden Health is a significant mutual in my constituency, and it has serious concerns about the ramifications of this demutualisation for the whole mutual sector and its reputation. How does he believe that regulation could be tightened to avoid this kind of situation occurring again?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend and Benenden are right to be concerned about whether there are wider implications and we will see other businesses demutualising. The current vice-chair of Yorkshire Building Society sits on the board of Liverpool Victoria and appears to have been actively involved in the demutualisation plans, prompting a rather obvious question about the future of Yorkshire Building Society.

The conversion to a company limited by guarantee and the decision to pursue demutualisation are both fundamental to the treatment of Liverpool Victoria’s consumers. The FCA is refusing to consider both decisions together and to investigate, as I have indicated, whether the chairman in particular and other members of the board knew much earlier than they have been willing to admit thus far that demutualisation was their desired end point. The failure to consider interlinked business decisions in a holistic way was a fundamental failing identified by Dame Elizabeth Gloster in her devastating report on the London Capital & Finance debacle. This appears to be a clear repeat of that mistake, albeit with a very different business.

There are other concerns about the performance of the regulators, the PRA and the FCA. Together, they have admitted that they have had nearly 60 meetings to discuss the demutualisation with the board of LV=, but not one with LV=’s consumers and owners. The FCA should at the very least require the so-called independent experts who have been appointed by LV=’s board, who have been briefed by LV= and who will be paid by LV=, to set up meetings to explain the background to what one presumes will be their inevitable decision to recommend to members a vote for demutualisation and sale to Bain. Will the Minister ask the FCA to make that happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is being generous. I also want to ask about the impact the proposals will have on staffing levels. We know that staff are fearful that many could lose their jobs at this time. What guarantees have been given to staff that their jobs will be safe?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend will know that when we saw the last wave of building society demutualisations, there were large numbers of job losses. I gently warn those who work for Liverpool Victoria to be wary of any assurances they have been given about their jobs if the sale to Bain and the demutualisation go ahead.

After the financial crash, there was recognition across the House that the wave of demutualisations of building societies had been, at best, a dismal episode, that corporate diversity needed to be encouraged, and that financial mutuals in particular had a crucial role to play in maintaining competition and the interests of consumers. For the Government and this Minister in particular—I welcome him to his place, as I know he is diligent in his interest in the mutual sector—I hope that the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria will be a further wake-up call to look more seriously at the needs of financial mutuals and specifically their ability to raise capital, and to put into law disincentives to demutualise. We need protections for legacy assets, and we need a review of how financial mutuals are regulated under the Financial Services Act 2012. Certainly representations we had from the Association of Financial Mutuals suggest an urgent review to modernise that Act is overdue.

I hope that the Minister will also ask the chief executive of the FCA to revisit the question of whether the owners of LV=—its consumers—were misled when the conversion to a company by guarantee took place.

This demutualisation is proof that we need again to celebrate and enhance the position of mutuals in our markets. After all—I say this gently and reluctantly—what is being proposed in the demutualisation of LV= is the looting of nearly two centuries of legacy assets. Of course, it is being dressed up as something different, but that is money built up from the working capital of the business over years of transactions, starting with small contributions from the working people who were the original members of the Liverpool Victoria Burial Society, who set the society up to avoid the Victorian scandal of a pauper’s funeral. Over time, those small contributions became a substantial sum, and they were augmented by the funds transferred into the friendly society from a series of mergers with other mutuals. In good faith, those other mutuals brought their assets to share with a broader membership for their common purpose.

Today, we have the spectacle of a demutualisation that looks to be driven by the simple desire to appropriate this money. None of the promoters of the demutualisation has made any contribution to the accumulation of the assets, yet they want to take advantage of them. It seems that the attraction of the assets means that the executives, the board members and the private equity players will do whatever is necessary to appropriate them. Token windfall payments to members in exchange for their vote will, just like in every other demutualisation, transfer the value from those who contributed and their descendants to those who did not. I gently suggest that that can never be fair, and it is wrong that, to date, our legislative and regulatory regime not only permits that to happen but actively facilitates it.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Take no comfort, nor relief. Those things you dread will still be true. But now, poorer through life and poorer through death. Through life, you will pay. When frail, you will pay. Disabled people will pay and pay and pay. For what? None of us knows. Time and again, we have been promised that social care plan. Like the emperor’s new clothes, there is nothing to show. But, rest assured, things are about to get tougher, budgets tighter and ends not meeting. That personal debt will grow.

Two weeks ago, there was no plan. The Prime Minister tossed a coin, and this is where it has landed. Now he is rushing through this Bill with no pre-legislative scrutiny, no impact assessment and no plan to fix the care crisis for those already in the system or the 1.5 million longing for help. There is nothing for unpaid carers, and £8 billion has been cut from the system. As ever, the Prime Minister is throwing out the headlines with little thought and then moving on, leaving a path of destruction behind him for someone else to clear up and, in this case, to pay up.

This will not clear the NHS backlog. As we have heard today, the staff shortages are not being addressed, and how can they be in such a short period. Just this weekend, we were 74 nurses short in York. That is the scale of the challenge, and one that the Government have not answered.

A decade into this Tory Government, there is still no plan. We just pay up, and one day we may learn what for. For starters, if someone holds assets above the thresholds, they will still pay £86,000—the vast majority of average care costs—and will still need to sell their home. Then there will be accommodation, if needing residential care, and living costs on top, and no cap until October 2023. This is why we need a public national care service that is free at the point of use and fairly contributed to by all.

With 84% of care home beds owned by private investors, including private equity firms, who are not paying this levy and whose sole purpose is to profit—profit from the frail—it is the social care reform we need that we should be debating today. Just one provider in my constituency made a 25% profit increase ahead of the pandemic, but it will be its staff, who were promised a pay rise while clapped by the Prime Minister, who will now have to pay the levy instead. But we have been denied the opportunity to debate what this nation is paying for.

The Labour party cannot consent. We believe that those who have more, should pay more. Take the London School of Economics wealth tax commission, which reported last December. It found that a tax on assets worth over £500,000 at 5% would draw a pot of £260 billion, which would pay for health and social care and that much-needed pay rise. The tax would be assessed on individuals rather than households, with the rate of tax being 5%, albeit with a standard payment period of five years, allowing a tax rate of 1% to be paid for each of those five years. The amount raised is the equivalent of income tax at 9%. Alternatively, if the threshold was £2 million, £80 billion would still be raised.

That would start another conversation: instead of low-paid workers funding the social care of the wealthy, the wealthy would be funding the social care of all. I ask Members: is this fair? This may not be the full answer, but it starts a different conversation—one that, in rushing through the legislation today, the Government are running away from.

Health and Social Care Levy

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

No. I have already taken a few, and I will go on a bit further, if I may, and then I will take some more interventions. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman has had a fairly substantial go at points of order already, and I welcome his later intervention.

The levy will apply UK-wide to taxpayers liable to class 1 employee and employer, class 1A, class 1B and class 4 self-employed NICs. However, it will not apply where taxpayers pay class 2 NICs or class 3 NICs. It will be introduced from April 2022, and then from April 2023 the levy will also apply to those working over the state pension age. As my hon. and right hon. Friends will understand, it takes time for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to prepare its systems for such a major shift. That is why, in 2022-23, the levy will be delivered through a temporary increase in NICs rates of 1.25% for one year only. All revenues generated by this increase will be ring-fenced and paid to NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and the equivalent in Northern Ireland.

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

Does the Minister not recognise the burden he is placing on small businesses, many of which the Government completely excluded and failed to support during the pandemic, in their now having to pay this extra levy, as opposed to making a fair taxation system that falls on those who can pay the most?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that, because of the employment allowance, the bottom 40% of businesses will pay nothing and the next 40% will pay an average of £450. So this does not fall heavily on the bottom end of businesses, and of course it comes in a context in which the Government have provided over £400 billion of support to business and to the nation as a whole in the course of fighting the pandemic. In that sense it is, and it has been recognised to be by reputable independent commentators, a broad-based approach.

From April 2023, once HMRC systems have been updated, a formal legal surcharge of 1.25% will replace the temporary increase in NICs rates, which will return to their previous level. Again, this revenue will be ring-fenced in law for health and for social care only. As the Chancellor stated yesterday, this levy is no stealth tax. That is why the exact amount that each employee pays will also be visible as a separate line on their payslip. Finally, the levy will be administered by HMRC, and collected by the current reporting and collection procedures for NICs—pay-as-you-earn and income tax self-assessment.

Covid-19: Government Support

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell.

Since the first covid cases in the UK were identified in York 18 months ago, we have been inundated by businesses that are challenged. Although Government relief has been welcome, those ineligible for it have struggled. As covid cases soar again, we worry. This last year, those denied help have seen their life’s work slip through their hands. Many self-employed directors are an example, as are those in the tourism, theatre, events and travel sectors, and those in the supply chains. Even when safe solutions were offered, the Government simply said that they were unwilling to build the capacity to implement them.

Often, it has been the inconsistencies in Government guidance and support that have caused confusion and hardship. For instance, caravan parks with shared showers were open but holiday flats with shared hallways were closed, and those running them were not eligible for support.

As restrictions lift, we are already seeing infection levels spike in York, meaning staff isolating and businesses closing. It is set to get worse, given the Government’s illiterate plans. The economy is being hit and loyal customers are retreating into their homes, once more feeling unsafe. Reality and Government rhetoric are far apart in communities such as mine. The Government have seriously misjudged things and once again businesses and charities are calling for help, both for now and the longer term. Ineligible for support, they cannot depend on this season either. They urgently need a bridge to carry them through, so that they can then grow again.

I will turn to charities. On 8 April, the Government provided support lasting just 12 weeks. Charities have been ineligible for much Government funding. Many have had nothing at all and have had to cut back, yet all the while demand for their services has increased. Understanding of this sector, which forms a crucial part of our social infrastructure, has been severely lacking from the Treasury, which fails to recognise the role that charities have played throughout the pandemic and will play throughout the recovery. Generic schemes simply do not work for them. Will the Minister at least meet the sector’s leaders and listen to their calls for the support they need right now?

Perhaps the most frustrating thing of all has been how impervious the Treasury team have been when they have been written to. We hold the future of local companies in our hands, but we have been given a stock response, often unrelated to the issues that we have been trying to resolve. Businesses have been ignored; support has been denied. Recovery funds for businesses and charities are needed. While the Government are trying to race on, covid infections are racing up. Businesses and charities that have worked so hard to cling on feel that the rope is being cut. We have called for help; we have offered solutions. All we need is for the Government to engage, to rebuild socially and economically. That need has never been greater than it is now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

If he will ensure that people who are unable to participate in work as a result of (a) home schooling and (b) following other Government covid-19 guidance have equitable access to financial support schemes.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Since their introduction, the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme have been available to those unable to go to work because of caring responsibilities arising from covid-19, such as caring for a home schooling child or caring for a vulnerable individual. Those who are unable to work from home and have been told to shield have also been eligible for these support schemes, as well as for statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance.

[Rachael Maskell [V]]

The Chancellor has let the financial burden of covid-19 fall on women. They have undertaken twice as much home schooling as men. One in five have had to cut their hours. Some 78% of working mothers have not been offered furlough and 71% of those who asked for it have been refused. Will the Chancellor recognise that once again women have disproportionately paid the price of the inequality in his policies? Will he undertake an immediate equality impact assessment and set out in his Budget how he will offer redress for these widening gendered inequalities?

[Jesse Norman]

The truth is that this pandemic has had a desperately difficult effect for the whole of the UK economy, and for families and people across our country and regions. It is appropriate to recognise the totality of the difficulty we find ourselves in. It is true that many women have found themselves in the position of either caring for home schooling or vulnerable individuals. They are supported and protected through the schemes we have put in place. Of course, over and above those schemes, we have also put in place significant amounts of support for remote education, laptops and councils to help vulnerable individuals.

Financial Reward for Government Workers and Key Workers

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to be called in this debate. I thank the Petitions Committee for prioritising such an important issue. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

We know that the petitioners have worked night and day to keep us safe over the past nine months. Although they have had plenty of claps and slaps on the back, the Chancellor’s statement came as a slap in the face, when so many looked at their pay statements at the end of the month and once again realised that they still could not make the bills pay and the balances match.

As a result, it is right that we debate public sector pay in this place, because Britain does deserve a pay rise. Although I welcome the pay rise for our NHS workers, we still do not have the remit, we do not know how that process will work, we do not know whether it will be capped by the Government and if so, to what extent, and we do not know whether the Government will fully fund it, or expect our cash-strapped NHS trust to dig deeper into the money it does not have.

One thing is for sure: we need to ensure that level of pay across the board. It is not only about our NHS workers. Our care workers, our local government workers, the people who have worked through the night trying to get people on to benefits as fast as possible, our teachers, our firefighters and our police all need that recognition. There are so many more I could mention. Curtailing their pay comes on the back of a decade of injustice in the pay system.

So many of those staff have been subject to reorganisation that has resulted in downbanding and loss of wages. We have also seen significant cuts to pensions and deferred wages for many of these workers. In the Chancellor’s statement we see history repeating itself. For a decade, the Government have not addressed the real economic crisis in our country; they have created another one, shifting the burden on to the lowest paid.

To give the lowest-paid in our country an increase of just 10p an hour is an insult after they have cared for people in their time of need over the last few months—not least those workers in care homes who have put their own lives at risk in order to support our communities. Those workers, who are mainly women and mainly black and ethnic minority, and disabled workers, are the people who are worst hit in our economy, so this is a real pay injustice, discriminating against people who are working.

The Government are always proud to talk about their national living wage, which is only £8.72 an hour. In 2015, the then Chancellor announced that by 2020 we would be on at least £9 an hour. We have not even reached that point. Of course, Labour made it very clear at the last election that we believe that we should start at £10 an hour, recognising that people have to live, survive and pay their bills, as opposed to having such pay restraint.

An increase would not be at huge cost to the Government; they could borrow and invest, which is what will make the difference to our economy. The TUC calculates that just a 2% increase would boost GDP by £1.1 billion to £2.1 billion—money that the Government could really do with at this time—and tax take would increase by up to £7 million. It is therefore not a zero-sum game: not just workers, but the Government gain.

Finally, because time is limited, we need to look again at how pay is arranged in our country. So many workers are not covered by any collective bargaining processes, and are, as a result, at the behest of their employers having additional money at the end of the year to pay them. It is completely unsatisfactory, and it is particularly the low-paid who are not part of collective bargaining arrangements.

I therefore call on the Minister to review what is happening across our pay system, and how it discriminates, to ensure that low-paid workers are not left out of pay deals. That is vital, as they are the people most in need. At a time when our economy needs such investment and our workers need to be acknowledged for all that they have done, I say to the Minister that it is time that British workers had a proper pay rise.

Future Relationship with the EU

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Second only to the outcome of the negotiations is what Labour’s position on Brexit will be. We all need to focus on the first job, which is to secure a good deal for this nation. I hope all Members of this House, whatever their political hue, will recognise the seriousness of this moment and will support the Government in securing that objective.

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

The only thing that those on the Labour Benches want is a decent deal that serves the people of this country well and supports business. There are just 18 days left for businesses to prepare, and they certainly do not have the tools to understand, digest and implement a new deal. What additional resources will the Minister bring forward for businesses across my community and others to ensure that they can be helped not only to the end of the year but beyond 1 January?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Most of the things that businesses will have to do are not contingent on these final negotiations. As I mentioned, there has been a huge amount of investment in people, technology and infrastructure, and there will be a phased approach next year. We are giving businesses, colleagues and other intermediaries who will be working with those businesses the information they need to prepare well; that includes the hon. Lady’s casework team, who will have had the pack that I mentioned earlier. If there are outstanding issues, specifics or technical matters that you need help on—I am sorry, Mr Speaker: I mean “the hon. Lady needs help on”, or indeed you, Mr Speaker—we are available to assist. Please do make use of those services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I assure my right hon. Friend that I agree with her. The Government remain committed to improving health outcomes during the first 1,001 days and early childhood. At the spending review, we confirmed an additional £25.8 million to increase the value of healthy start vouchers to £4.25, in line with the recommendation of the national food strategy, to help combat child food poverty and to give children the best start in life. I am very supportive of her review into early years health and I look forward to reading her final recommendation.

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

The Chancellor provided £750 million for charities at the start of the pandemic. However, that money has been spent, and the charity sector now faces £10 billion of debt. Many organisations are due to close, and there was no mention of support in his statement last week. What additional support will he provide to save our charities and help them do their vital work?