Health and Social Care Levy

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

There are two tests for the package announced yesterday. First, does it fix social care? Secondly, is it funded fairly? The answer to both those questions is no. It is a broken promise, it is unfair, and it is a tax on jobs. At the general election less than two years ago, the Prime Minister said to voters:

“Read my lips, we will not be raising taxes on income or VAT or national insurance.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not sure where he is today—went further and solemnly said:

“Our plans are to cut taxes for the lowest paid through cutting national insurance.”

The Government have broken their legally binding promise on international development, they are breaking it again on the triple lock, and the country is now littered with Tory broken promises torn from the election manifestos of all Conservative Members—promises that they made to their constituents and their country. Promises used to count for something; today the Tory word, and guarantees from the Prime Minister, count for absolutely nothing at all.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he can tell us what he put on his election leaflets.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I remind her that the Conservative party won on the basis of its election manifesto, and the Labour party lost. In the interests of fairness and for the people of this country who voted for her party, will she outline to the House what the Labour party’s plan is to fix social care, because so far we have heard nothing?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will come on to that in a moment, but that sums it up. You went into the election with a set of promises, and now you are breaking them one by one.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should resume their seats. This is an emotionally charged debate—I fully appreciate that—but as Mr Speaker has pointed out, Members must not use the word “you” unless they are referring to the Chair. Please remember that.

[Rachel Reeves]

I will clarify: Conservative Members are breaking their promises one by one by one. The Government will claim that that is all down to the pandemic, but in March this year—a year into the pandemic—the Chancellor promised that national insurance would not go up. He said,

“this Government are not going to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT…Nobody’s take-home pay will be less than it is now”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]

Another Tory promise up in flames. That was not before the pandemic; it was a year into it, and a matter of months later this bombshell on work to fund social care is a broken promise. It is unfair, and it is a tax on jobs.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making the right sort of points. Government Members do not like it, but they need to listen to it. Does she agree that when the Prime Minister signed the guarantee on the tax lock in the 2019 general election campaign, he also told the country that he had an oven-ready plan for reforming social care, prior to the pandemic? He cannot have signed the tax lock, as well as having a plan for social care, if one of those things was not exactly true.

[Rachel Reeves]

I would go further than my hon. Friend: neither of those things were true, because the Government have no plan for social care and we have a tax increase. The sad truth at the heart of this so-called health and social care levy is that it will not deliver on social care for at least three years from now, and even then it is uncertain when the Government might allow some money to trickle down. Under the Prime Minister’s plan, many will still face the threat, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition set out today, of selling their home to fund care. Many of those with a house worth £186,000—that includes many constituents of Conservative Members—will still have to sell their home to fund £86,000, within the cap. That is before the costs of living in a care home. How does the Minister expect his constituents to pay for care without selling their home? I will happily take an intervention from him—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

Perhaps the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will explain what he put in his manifesto to his constituents.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was delighted to sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—the Chair of the Committee is in his place now—during its joint inquiry with the Health and Social Care Committee. Some 24 Committee members, 12 of whom were Opposition Members, recommended a solution based on national insurance. The shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also proposes a solution based on national insurance. Why does the hon. Lady now say that that is the wrong option, and what is her plan if it is the wrong option?

[Rachel Reeves]

We should be looking at all forms of income, not just income from people who go out to work. A landlord who rents out a number of properties will pay nothing, whereas his tenants in work will. That is not fair, and that is why we cannot support the motion this evening. The Minister told us three important things today.

[Jesse Norman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I would be very happy to.

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady has accused the Government, who have published a plan, of having no plan, when in fact the Labour party has absolutely nothing to offer on this topic. On the question she raises, the Resolution Foundation said in its report that the cap will offer support that will recognise higher care costs in different parts of the country, and the increased generosity of the means test will have relatively more impact in lower-wealth regions, in the north-east and other parts of the country.

[Rachel Reeves]

With all respect to the Minister, I asked how he would suggest that one of his constituents with a house worth £186,000, and no other savings, will pay £86,000 for their care without selling their home. It is clear that he does not have an answer to that question, because there isn’t one.

[Jesse Norman]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

The Minister has had a chance and he did not manage it. I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant]

Seventy per cent. of my constituents own their own home. The average house price in my constituency is £98,000. My constituents on lower than average wages in the country will be asked to contribute more in national insurance. Is it not manifestly unfair that they will still have to find £86,000, and the only place they will find that is out of the £98,000, so as to fund millionaires in south-east England to pass on the whole of their inheritance to their children?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. People will still have to sell their homes to pay for care under these plans. There were three important points—

[Jesse Norman]

Will the hon. Lady take an intervention?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have already taken an intervention from the Minister, and he did not answer the question. [Interruption.] Okay, I will take the intervention on the basis that he answers the question that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have asked: how on earth does someone pay £86,000 when their house is worth £98,000 or £186,000? Let’s have the answer.

[Jesse Norman]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not recognise the point about geographic impact that I made in my last intervention, but let me just point out that the Government have published a Build Back Better plan, which contains specific case studies of the impact of this measure. That is where she should look for an answer to her question.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Minister is wasting the House’s time, because he is not answering the question.

There were three important points in the Minister’s opening speech. The first was that it is impossible to say what the impact of these proposals will be on waiting lists. The second was that spending for local authorities will be considered in the Budget. There is no detail at all about what money local authorities will get, and we are being asked to vote for a tax increase without a plan to fix social care. The third point the Minister made, in answer to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), was that councils will pay this levy as employers, so they will face increased costs but without any guarantee that they will get additional money to fund care. This is not a plan to fix social care.

There is no plan for care workers, who were underpaid and undervalued before the pandemic—before being sent out on to the frontline by this Government without the personal protective equipment that they needed. Some £8 billion was cut from social care by Tory Governments in the years before the pandemic, ignoring the rising demand, with care workers paid less than they can live on. This Government are not interested in bringing employers and unions together for a positive plan for the future of social care. They are not interested in making the care sector a career of choice, with decent pay and conditions and proper investment in skills.

We know that half a million care workers are needed by 2030. There were 100,000 vacancies in social care before the pandemic. That is only set to increase, with the GMB predicting 170,000 vacancies for care workers by the end of the year—one in 10 jobs unfilled. Labour’s plans will prioritise older and disabled people, shifting the focus of support towards preventive early help, and our guiding principle will be “home first”, because that is what the overwhelming majority of people want.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Just a second ago at the Dispatch Box, the Minister referenced a plan. He was asked repeatedly by those on the Government Benches how this money will be spent, and in response to every one of their interventions he said, “Wait for the forthcoming White Paper. Wait for the forthcoming Bill.” Is this not the biggest blank cheque that this Government or any other have ever asked us to pay, and would it not be irresponsible for us to do so without their telling us how they are going to spend it?

[Rachel Reeves]

The truth is that the Tories are all tax and no strategy. When it comes to the NHS and social care, last year the public clapped them; this year the Tories tax them. There are far too many outstanding questions, with no detail published yesterday. What other tax rises on working people are set for further down the line, given that the Prime Minister refused to rule them out yesterday? Will council tax have to rise to make the sums add up? How will the Government relieve the burden on councils and care homes? Again, there was no detail on that yesterday, and there is no detail today.

Mike Padgham of the Independent Care Group said:

“It’s not clear how the money is going to…the front line.”

That means that providers will be squeezed, and working conditions and pay impacted. This just does not add up.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

We all recognise the significant crisis in the social care system, but is that not just another broken Conservative manifesto promise? They pledged to approach this in a manner of cross-party consensus. The manner in which they are bringing forward these out-of-the-blue taxation measures on some of the poorest working people in this country does nothing to build that consensus; it just broadens the gap that we know many families face in meeting the costs of social care.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Conservatives walked out of cross-party talks in 2010, and despite offers from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), they have never resumed.

So much for the plan; what does this mean for ordinary people funding it? The Chancellor’s tax on jobs does not just let down those needing care or working in the care sector; it is a tax on all those in work. As daily covid cases continue to climb, the only shielding that the Government are interested in is protecting the wealthiest few from paying more tax. As I said, a private landlord owning and renting out multiple properties will not pay a penny more, yet their hard-working tenants who work for a living will be hit hard. It is deeply unfair.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the question on everyone’s mind is, “When is my operation going to happen?” The Health Secretary does not seem to be able to answer that basic question. When will the waiting list be over? When will we stop having to wait for crucial operations?

[Rachel Reeves]

That is exactly the question that all our constituents ask, but as the Minister has failed to say today when the backlog will be cleared, we have to wonder whether this plan adds up, and when any money at all will be available for social care.

The incomes of working people just are not of interest to this Government. I asked the excellent staff of the Library to examine the impact on a typical worker in constituencies such as mine in Leeds West, the Minister’s in Hereford, and the Chancellor’s. Let us imagine that our worker is a new police constable—a single mum with two children, earning £26,000 a year. She rents her home in the private sector. She is eligible for universal credit. What have this Government done for her? [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh, but they will not be laughing when constituents come to their surgeries and ask why this Government are taking money away from them.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

No, I think the hon. Lady should listen to this. What have this Government done for that worker and her family? The Chancellor has frozen her pay this year. The Chancellor has frozen her income tax personal allowance. The Chancellor is taking £20 a week away from her and her family in universal credit, and her council tax bill has gone up by £80. Now the Chancellor is coming back for more and asking for 1.25% of her income in national insurance. Why do this Government keep coming after the same people time after time, asking ordinary working-class people to pay more of their incomes?

If we add it up, the total cost to that worker and her kids—this is all of our constituents—will be an extra £1,234 next year. That is not just a one-off. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that 2.5 million working households will be hit by the Tory double whammy of cuts to universal credit and an increase in their national insurance. Put that on your leaflets at the next election.

[Katherine Fletcher]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way to the hon. Lady. I will be interested to hear what she is going to say to her constituents at her surgery.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I would be interested if the hon. Lady would let us know at which point “massive global pandemic” appeared in any of the commitments made during the 2019 general election, and whether the Labour party would continue to have unfunded promises for which we would have to borrow from the market or whether they would continue to kick the can of a gnarly problem down the road. Constituents of mine have been worried about social care all summer. It is a problem that people have ducked for generations. We are doing it in a way we can afford.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure what the constituents of South Ribble will make of that, but I know what they will think after seeing less money in their pay cheques time after time because of decisions by this Government. There are choices, and they are difficult ones. This Government are choosing to tax ordinary working-class people. Labour would ask those with the broadest shoulders—the wealthiest in our communities—to pay more. This Government make a different choice; they can justify that to their constituents.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Betts]

I bring my hon. Friend back to paragraph 36, which I asked the Minister about, which seems absolutely key. There is no clear money coming from the levy to social care. That is what the Government said. I think the Minister said it would all be revealed in the spending review. Paragraph 36 states:

“The Government will ensure Local Authorities have access to sustainable funding for core budgets at the Spending Review. We expect demographic and unit cost pressures will be met through Council Tax, social care precept”.

On top of all the other hits that working families are going to get, can they expect an above-inflation rise in their council tax next year to pay for the Government’s failure to fund social care properly?

[Rachel Reeves]

I think many councils and the people who work for them and provide social care at a local level will be incredibly worried about what they are hearing from this Government, which is that council costs are going to go up while they are getting no additional money.

[Jake Berry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way again in a moment, but I have taken a lot of interventions—a lot more than the Minister.

In contrast, who has been shielded by the Chancellor? Which types of income will be paying no additional tax after today? They include those who get their income from financial assets, stocks and shares, sales of property, pension income, annuity income, interest income, property rental income and inheritance income. Well, fancy that. I do not doubt that the champagne glasses were clinking in Mayfair last night toasting the Chancellor, but not in Mansfield, not in Middlesbrough, not in South Ribble and not in Thirsk either. Some 95% of the revenue the Government plan to raise from this tax bombshell comes from employment. What a contrast.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Let me just make this point.

What a contrast. Yesterday, Amazon reported an additional £1.9 billion-worth of sales, but it is paying only £3.8 million more in corporation tax, with much of its profits diverted to Luxembourg. Yet with the changes announced yesterday, a graduate on a typical entry-level salary will now pay a marginal tax rate of almost 50%. And not a word from the Chancellor or any of his Ministers about any of that. Politics is about choices and there are other ways to raise this money. The Chancellor wants the country to believe that—[Interruption.] Sales on property or on financial assets such as stocks and shares—there are no additional taxes on people who get their incomes in that way, but plenty of additional taxes on ordinary working-class people.

The Chancellor wants the country to believe that this is the only way to do it, but the point is that it is not. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have deliberately chosen to go after those who are working hard for their money. Labour understands—I understand—how hard people work for their wages. I do not believe that the Chancellor considers the lives of people outside this place in any detail before he takes decisions like this. The Government, as was mentioned earlier, are rushing this through without publishing a proper analysis of the impact on jobs, on different parts of the country and on different incomes. They are not even allowing proper amendments. Members will know that we are limited in how we can amend the motion this evening. That is why we have put forward what we can: an amendment calling for an assessment of this tax on jobs—an assessment that the Chancellor is unwilling to provide.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way just twice more: to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and then to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott).

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

In my constituency and in my hon. Friend’s constituency next door, we have many people right at the start of their working lives paying, as she says, nearly 50% in tax after this change and very high rents in the private rented sector. They effectively have no disposable income. Their dreams of ever owning a home are being destroyed by Conservative Members. Does she not agree?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks well of what our constituents in Leeds North West and Leeds West will be facing with that double whammy of universal credit and the national insurance increase, in addition to the other tax increases from this Government. I will take a final intervention and then I will start to wind up.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. There is an obvious precedent for this national insurance rise to raise money for the national health service, which is from 2003. Were Labour wrong to raise national insurance for the national health service in 2003?

[Rachel Reeves]

We had a clear plan to bring down waiting lists, a plan that this Government are sorely lacking. The economic circumstances are different, too. The Government’s tax on jobs comes at the worst possible time. Businesses create jobs and will drive our recovery. Labour is a party that is pro-worker and proudly pro-business, too. I am proud of the decisions that the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor made that brought down waiting lists to their lowest ever level—targets that have never been met under 11 years of Tory Government. We want business to succeed, to invest more, to employ more, to pay more and to create more wealth.

These are still precarious times, with many businesses in all our constituencies not yet back to full capacity and others considering how they are going to repay the loans taken on during the pandemic. What do the Chancellor and the Minister think the effect of this tax rise on jobs will be? That has not been set out. It could mean an attempted squeeze on wages and conditions, even higher prices for customers, or the scaling back of recruitment and growth plans. It will affect people and it will affect the Exchequer, too. It is a false economy. The Chancellor and the Minister do not need to take my word for it. The British Chambers of Commerce described it as:

“a drag anchor on jobs growth”

and believes it will

“dampen the entrepreneurial spirit needed to drive the recovery”.

Make UK says it is

“ill-timed as well as illogical”.

The CBI says that it

“will directly hurt a business’s ability to hire staff at a time when businesses have faced a torrid 18 months.”

The Federation of Small Businesses says that

“this increase will stifle recruitment, investment and efforts to upskill”.

They are joined by the trade unions. The TUC says it is wrong to hit young people and low-paid workers

“while leaving the wealthy untouched.”

We agree with businesses and we agree with our trades unions, too. They are right. This is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on the economic recovery and we will not support it.

Let us go back to the key questions that need answering. Will this plan deliver what is promised for our health and social care sectors? No. Will it clear the NHS backlog by the end of this Parliament? No—and the Health Secretary says no. Will it give social care the resources it needs for the next three years? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Is there a plan to reform social care? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Will it create more and better paid jobs in the economy? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Is it fair across the regions? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Will people be prevented from selling their homes to fund their care? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Will this tax bombshell help our economic recovery? No. Is it the last tax increase in this Parliament? No. This whole thing is unravelling. No wonder that Ministers are in a desperate rush to get it through. The Chancellor is absent today. Perhaps he has gone for a swim.

Covid has tested the people of our country like nothing else in any of our lifetimes. After the last year and a half the country deserves a much better future, a recovery that enhances and enriches all our lives and in all parts of the country. Social care is a huge challenge and there are other challenges coming too. We need to do things differently. Labour’s test is simple: does it fix the problem and does it do it in a fair way? The answer to both of those questions is no. That is why Labour will vote against this unfair, job-taxing, manifesto-shredding tax bombshell this evening.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue, which I know is of particular importance to her and her constituency. I assure her that I have spoken to my team about it and, as part of the spending review, we will further those discussions with the Department for Education. I look forward to the Chief Secretary and she and I talking about this issue again.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s plans to increase national insurance will hit workers and businesses hard at the worst possible time. The British Chambers of Commerce described it as a “drag anchor” on jobs growth. The Federation of Small Businesses stated:

“If this hike happens, fewer jobs will be created”.

The TUC said that it is wrong to hit young and low-paid workers while “leaving the wealthy untouched”. We agree. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore explain why he is choosing a tax on jobs rather than on other forms of income?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am very pleased to see the Labour party finally focus on the importance of jobs in this House. We also agree that it is important to support companies to hire people, which is why there is no national insurance payable on those employing people under the age of 21, on most apprentices up to the age of 25 or on people who are going to be employed in new freeports. And, because of the steps that Conservative Governments have made to the employment allowance, 40% of all small businesses pay no employer’s national insurance at all.

[Rachel Reeves]

You cannot have it both ways. Cutting national insurance either benefits jobs or it does not. The Chancellor told voters at the election:

“Our plans are to cut taxes for the lowest paid through cutting national insurance”.

That promise is now in flames. The Chancellor is not cutting national insurance; he is putting it up. It cannot be right that nurses and builders are set to pay hundreds of pounds more each year in national insurance, yet those getting their incomes from a large portfolio of shares, stocks and property will pay not a penny more. Labour cannot and will not support this Tory Government’s manifesto-breaking, economically damaging and unfair tax on jobs. So let me ask the Chancellor again: why will this Government not fund health and social care in a way that is fair for families and for businesses?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us welcome the shadow Chancellor to Treasury questions.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Whether on social care, on Northern Powerhouse Rail or on tackling climate breakdown, there is a growing gap with this Government between what is promised and what is actually delivered. The Treasury’s response to the net zero review was first due to be published in autumn last year, yet it is nowhere to be seen. The COP26 climate summit begins in November. While the UK is hosting, the Government cannot lead with authority, because the fact is that we cannot have a climate strategy without a sustainable economic plan behind it. Will the Chancellor please tell the House on what date he will publish the final report of the net zero review?

[Rishi Sunak]

The net zero report will of course be published imminently, but the hon. Lady talked about last autumn. Last autumn, the Prime Minister published the green 10-point plan, perhaps the most comprehensive plan from any Government anywhere in the world, on how we will meet our net zero ambitions. Contained within that plan was £12 billion of new investment, creating probably a quarter of a million jobs when all is said and done, ensuring our leadership in industries such as offshore wind and creating jobs in places such as Teesside and Humberside, which is important to the future prosperity of this country, so I think we are doing a great job of getting on with meeting our climate ambitions and demonstrating leadership to the world.

[Rachel Reeves]

Then why not publish the net zero review, Chancellor? When it comes to this Government’s net zero strategy, tomorrow never comes. There is no time to waste, because it is the responsibility of all of us to hand on to our children and grandchildren a more sustainable planet, creating new opportunities for our pioneering British industries and investing today in the jobs of the future, whether in hydrogen, tidal energy or electric vehicles, to ensure the fair and just transition that we need to see. So, as the Chancellor still cannot give a date, months after the event, for when he will publish his final report on the net zero review, will he commit to ensuring that our net zero carbon targets are hard-wired through the forthcoming spending review, as I would do as Chancellor?

Economy Update

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Five years ago, my friend and colleague Jo Cox was murdered. There is not a day goes by when I do not think of her, and I know that on both sides of the House she is missed dearly.

All the way through this pandemic we have said that the economic and health responses must go together. That means keeping support in place for as long as the public health measures demand it. When the public health restrictions are extended, as they were by the Prime Minister on Monday, the economic support should be extended too; otherwise we risk falling at the final hurdle. Having spent billions of pounds supporting the economy, it would be tragic to see thousands of businesses go to the wall just because the Government withdrew support a few weeks too soon. We are not calling for forever support, but for economic support that matches the timetable for opening up that the Government have set. That is the right thing for business, for workers, and for our economy too.

Let us be clear about why we are here today: the Government’s delay in putting India on to the red list has allowed a dangerous new variant to enter our country. That is why we have the highest covid infection rate per person across the whole of Europe—all because the Prime Minister wanted his VIP trip to India. It was vain and short-sighted and has been devastating for public health. As well as the health impact, our assessment, using Office for National Statistics data, tells us that the delay in reopening will cost the UK economy £4.7 billion. That is money that is not being spent in British businesses at a crucial time in our recovery. That £4.7 billion would have been used by businesses to pay commercial rents, to pay people’s wages, to invest, to take on new staff, and to pay taxes into the Treasury as well.

Of course I welcome what the Chief Secretary has to say today on commercial evictions, but the truth is that if the Chancellor believed that this economic package was enough, he would be here announcing it himself. Whatever this is, it is not doing “whatever it takes” to support British businesses and our economy. Given that the Government have moved the goalposts, let me ask the Chief Secretary why Ministers have not delayed the employer contributions to furlough, due to start on 1 July. Employers are being asked to pay more when they cannot even properly open for business.

The vast majority of the 1.8 million people still on furlough are in the very sectors most affected by the ongoing restrictions: hospitality, live events and travel. On 1 July, loans to those businesses start having to be repaid. The self-employed and those excluded from financial support will be worried about their futures. Grants are ending, business rate bills are arriving and furlough is tapering off—all immediately after the Government have announced an extension to restrictions. How on earth can the Treasury justify turning off support and sending businesses new tax bills when the Government are saying that those businesses cannot even open?

On Monday, the Prime Minister told the country that we need to learn to live with the virus. Where is the much-needed plan that would enable us to do that? Where is the plan for greater ventilation in workplaces, including public buildings and schools? Where is the plan to shift contact tracing to a local level, where we know it works best—not in a centralised, Serco-led call centre? Where is the proper support for people needing to self-isolate? Those are all essential measures to save lives and livelihoods, and to avoid the stop-start approach that has characterised the Government’s response to the pandemic.

Given the WhatsApp messages from the Prime Minister about his own Health Secretary that have been revealed today—Madam Deputy Speaker, I will use more diplomatic language than the Prime Minister could manage—how can we have confidence in Government Ministers when the Prime Minister thinks that the person in charge of the pandemic response is “hopeless”?

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Not just “hopeless”.

[Rachel Reeves]

Not just “hopeless”. People have given up so much over the last year. We have pulled together and shown the best of our country. People have done everything that was asked of them and much, much more. We should not be in this position today. Businesses and workers do not deserve to have the rug pulled from under their feet at the eleventh hour. We want to see businesses make it through the pandemic and thrive again, because they are an important part of what makes our country so great and they are essential for our economic recovery. We need them and they need us today. That is why the economic support we have should match the health restrictions that are still in place, and that is what the Government have failed to deliver today.

[Steve Barclay]

May I first echo the remembrance by the hon. Lady and colleagues across the House of Jo Cox? I also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done, including with my friend Seema Kennedy, through the loneliness commission.

Let me turn to the various points raised by the hon. Lady. She said that she is not calling for support forever, but suggested that the Government were withdrawing support. The package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was designed deliberately to go long, until September. Measures such as furlough were extended to anticipate the fact that there were no guarantees on the covid road map. That was very much designed into the support, so there is no question of withdrawing support; it was in the very plan announced by the Chancellor.

The hon. Lady’s question about the delta variant was addressed comprehensively by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions, where he pointed out the timing. One can look back with hindsight now, but the issue was the timing of the delta variant becoming a variant of concern. I will not repeat the points made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising the announcement regarding commercial rents. I hope that that is appreciated across the House. I know that it speaks to a very real concern that many Members will have seen through their constituency emails and post bags, and that it will provide some extended support.

The hon. Lady questioned whether the Government are doing whatever it takes. Again, I remind the House that the Government have spent £352 billion to date. By any definition, I think that is a comprehensive package. More to the point, the plan is working. We see that in the plan for jobs, in the fact that the unemployment projections have improved and in the number of jobs there have been since November. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s plan is working. He has done whatever it takes to protect our NHS and public services, putting a further £63 billion into the NHS for covid support measures last year. The plan is having clear benefits.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the furlough taper. Labour market conditions have improved substantially since the turn of the year and will continue to do so. Indeed, demand for staff has increased at the quickest rate for more than two decades. With unemployment falling in the last four releases, there is clear evidence that the labour market is beginning to recover, but we went long in the first place to anticipate any slippage in the covid road map.



The hon. Lady had a query on business rates. Again, it is worth reminding the House just how comprehensive the support on business rates has been, with 100% business rates relief last year for many businesses, and those businesses now paying 75% over the course of this year. There is a comprehensive package of support for businesses. There is no question but that many businesses will feel strain as result of the further extension, and it is not a decision that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took lightly, but the package of support announced by the Chancellor anticipated this scenario. It went long in order to provide support and it continues to do so in a way that the evidence and the data shows is working.

Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I am proud to open today’s debate on behalf of the Opposition. I am conscious that one of the basic tenets of qualification for Government is to be trusted by the public with their money. If we do not meet that test, then none of our ambitions and none of the changes we seek can come to pass, so let me make one thing clear at the start: it is a test that I intend to meet.

The recovery from the pandemic represents a crucial moment for Britain. This really is not the time for just wallpapering over the cracks; instead, we must match the scale of the moment that faces our people and also our planet. We need a Government who back Britain, and that means an ambitious and bold plan for good jobs. We must end the insecurity and lack of opportunity that there is in our economy for far too many, and seize this moment to create a brighter future for people in all parts of our United Kingdom.

This last year has been like no other. Families have given up so much; so many have lost loved ones. Coronavirus has shone a spotlight on what matters to all of us—our families and friends, our communities, our health and our security. After a decade of Conservative government, our public services were underfunded and underprepared for the pandemic that came—a shortfall of intensive care beds; unfilled vacancies in our NHS; a fragmented and underfunded social care system; and personal protective equipment stockpiles run down, despite all the warnings. This Government have allowed the public square to become degraded, and we all now know the cost of that.

Meanwhile, the failure to increase statutory sick pay in the middle of a deadly pandemic put far too many low-paid families in the impossible position of having to decide whether to go to work and put food on their table or to self-isolate and protect public health. The Government could and should have done so much more for those people.

The truth is that for too many people wages have stalled over the past decade; household debt is rising and too many people live pay cheque to pay cheque. And many of those people do the crucial everyday jobs that keep our economy running and our public services going. They have been overlooked and undervalued. The Government have done nothing for them and nor does this Queen’s Speech.

Instead, £2 billion of public contracts have been awarded to companies with close links to the Conservative party. We are led to believe that this is all one massive coincidence that they got those contracts. How did it happen? Who knows? The Government are taking the public for fools. What taxpayers deserve is for their money to be used to best effect, not for it to be squandered on contracts that do not deliver or used to line the pockets of friends and donors of the Conservative party.

The Government say they want value for money, but they have failed to claw back the millions of pounds wasted on contracts that did not deliver for the NHS and did not deliver for taxpayers either.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady talked about people with connections to the Conservative party trying to get their favoured contractors to the front of the queue. Does she remember emailing me in the Cabinet Office to ask for one of her constituency companies to get to the head of the queue for exactly the same purpose?

[Rachel Reeves]

The job of a constituency MP, as the hon. Gentleman—a good constituency MP himself—knows, is to look out for our constituents. But I was not pocketing the money: I was not giving contracts to donors of my party, and I was not giving my local pub landlord a contract. Maybe our local pub landlords are really good at delivering contracts for the NHS, even though they have no track record of that—or maybe this one was a mate of a Conservative party Cabinet Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not really a point of order; it is part of the debate, and I do not want the debate to descend into points of order. I am sure that if the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer feels she needs to say anything further in response to the hon. Gentleman, she will do so.

[Rachel Reeves]

Two billion pounds-worth of contracts to friends and donors of the Conservative party—I will leave it at that, and let the record speak for itself.

Let us be clear about this Conservative Government’s record. They talk in this Queen’s Speech about a skills guarantee, but it was a Conservative Government who cut the education maintenance allowance; my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was a beneficiary of that and has spoken powerfully about the difference it made to her. And this Government have overseen a fall in the number of apprentices, leaving millions of people without the skills they need to thrive. They speak in this Queen’s Speech about investing in all parts of our country, but it was this Conservative Government who scrapped the regional development agencies—the very bodies designed to ensure that every part of our country could prosper.

The Government talk in this Queen’s Speech about levelling up, but it is this Conservative Government who have cut 60p from every £1 of funding to local councils, forcing them to close Sure Start and children’s centres, and to cut back on social care, libraries and leisure centres, degrading the very fabric of our local communities. The Government want the public to think that they have been in power for only a year. They have not; they have been in power for 11 years, and they need to take responsibility for their own record.

Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has pitched our health against our economy, treating it as if it were a zero-sum game, with health on the losing side. To do so was short-sighted, misguided and dangerous, and he must take responsibility for that. In a pandemic of this kind, public health and the economy are two sides of the same coin. The Government’s failure to act speedily, pushing ahead with “eat out to help out” without sorting out test and trace, and the refusal to back an October circuit break or to level with the public about the risks of mixing at Christmas, have caused huge loss and huge suffering, as well as the largest economic decline in the G7.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government seem to be railing against the incompetence of their own government, and policies that they have been voting for in the last 10 years. I would add to her list that the lifetime skills guarantee that they are now trumpeting is merely the reintroduction on a smaller scale of what existed under a Labour Government. This Government voted for these things for 10 years, and now say that they are the answer to the problems that they have created.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend puts it very well.

There is a gaping hole in the furlough scheme, meaning that several million people have inexplicably been excluded for support. The self-employed—painters and decorators, plumbers, freelance musicians and fitness instructors—all work hard and pay their taxes, but for many there has been no safety net and no support. Why has the Chancellor ignored their cries for help? Is it because they did not have his telephone number? Is it because they cannot WhatsApp him—signed off with “Love Dc”?

The revelations yesterday about the bombardment of pressure on Greensill’s behalf by David Cameron are astounding: 45 text messages—nine to the Chancellor and 12 to the permanent secretary. When the former Prime Minister did not get his way, he threatened to phone the Chancellor, “Gove” and “everyone” else. What an appalling way to bully Government officials, and what did they get? [Hon. Members: “Nothing!”] That is not true. They got access to the NHS patient records through the Earnd scheme, and access to other Government lending schemes. Government Members know that.

The Chancellor said that he would push his team, so let me ask him how they were pushed. What were they asked to do? This is not just a political row; this is about how our country is run, and for whom, and it is about real jobs and livelihoods that are now at stake. Instead of trying to help out dodgy finance companies with wheezes for making money off the back of the NHS and small businesses, the Labour party is fiercely proud of British-made goods and services, and the people who make them. We champion our industries—from manufacturing to retail, our farmers, restaurants and pubs and our great cultural sector, to businesses starting up now and during the pandemic. We want and need them to succeed.

British industry is vital to our economic recovery, and the Government should be working hand in hand with it, not scrapping their own industrial strategy.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to explain why the Government have scrapped their own industrial strategy, he can be my guest.

[Aaron Bell]

The hon. Lady is rightly praising British businesses. Will she therefore condemn the comments of her neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who in March said that business was “the enemy” and that he would refuse to meet with them?

[Rachel Reeves]

I can say that business is our friend and that we will back British businesses and British workers.

The label “Made in Britain” is a sign of quality, a stamp that marks British manufacturing as among the very best in the world, yet the Government do not make the most of our assets. Over the past decade, they have failed to support our manufacturing base: so many jobs did not return after the financial crisis; and short-term sticking plasters have left sectors such as steel and shipbuilding as an afterthought. We still have not heard a word about the Government’s vision of how we will become global leaders in manufacturing and industry outside the EU or how we will help our cultural industries. We are talking about our musicians and performers, our farmers and fishermen, who are suffering because of the huge gaps in this Government’s deal with our European neighbours. In the last quarter, exports to the EU were down 18.1%, and exports to countries outside the EU were up by only 0.4%. This Government are lacking in ambition and they are in denial about what businesses need to thrive in this new environment. For example, our automotive sector is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing, yet the UK has only one planned electric vehicle battery gigafactory. It is not yet under way, yet many are springing up all over Europe and around the world. We cannot afford to be in the slow lane, which is why Labour is calling on the Government to part-finance, in collaboration with the private sector, three additional gigafactories by the end of this Parliament, putting Britain back in the fast lane of car manufacturing. The truth is that if the batteries are not made here, the danger is that the cars will not be either. There is an irony here: in the year we are hosting the COP26 climate conference, the Conservative Government were pursuing new coal mines in Cumbria and have failed, through sheer incompetence, to deliver their own green homes grants that they promised. For the green future that we need to tackle the climate emergency we can choose to be world leaders or we can allow our communities, businesses and workers to be left behind. Tackling the climate crisis and creating the high-paid, high-skilled jobs in every corner of our country would have been front and centre of a Labour Queen’s Speech.

Let us consider another national challenge. More tax gets paid by shops on the local high street than when we buy online. Some big businesses have made billions extra this year, while other businesses are on their knees. The Government must level the playing field between physical high street shops in our town centres and the online retail giants. Yet none of this is in the Queen’s Speech. The UK has lost nearly 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs, more than 7,000 bank and building society branches, and more than 1,000 libraries in the past 11 years. All of that happened under the watch of a Conservative Government, who stood by. These things matter to people, and I can tell the House that they matter to Labour. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has made that clear time and again, and I will do so too. Action was needed these past 11 years and yet there was none. It is needed even more now, yet there is none in this Queen’s Speech.

Alongside thriving businesses, we also need an economy that delivers for working people. That is what the Labour party is all about. This pandemic has shown so clearly who our country’s key workers are. After all, we were not clapping and banging pots and pans for management consultants; we were cheering the delivery drivers, posties, supermarket workers and our public service heroes, especially those in our NHS and social care. They have kept our country moving and our families safe, and they should be rewarded with a pay rise and not a pay cut. Any meaningful recovery means a new deal for key workers, with investment in their skills, fair pay for a fair day’s work, security and a voice in the workplace. The British people were promised new legislation to protect and enhance workers’ rights now that we are outside the EU, making Britain the best place in the world to work. The British people were told by this Government that there would be fairness in the workplace, better support for working people, and measures to protect those in low-paid work and in the gig economy. The Government said that they would protect

“the majority of businesses who…do the right thing….from being undercut by the small minority who seek to avoid their responsibilities”

to society. That was the absolute minimum that we were promised, yet the Government have not even delivered on that. Why is that? It is because improving workers’ rights has never been, and will never be, the priority of a Conservative Government. And who knows that more than any? Workers at British Gas. They have played a vital role in the last year, but have been fired and rehired on worse conditions. Apparently the Conservatives say that it is wrong. The Chancellor has said that today. We agree. But if it is wrong, why do they not do something about it?

Creating good jobs in all parts of our country, for all people; tackling the climate emergency; making sure that all our town centres are thriving and prosperous; supporting British industry and rights for workers—those would have been Labour’s economic priorities in the Queen’s Speech. They are clearly not the priorities of this Conservative Government. The challenges and the opportunities facing our country are great, yet what the Government are putting forward is so small. After just 24 hours, we can already see how thin this Queen’s Speech is. The foundations were not strong enough going into the pandemic, and people deserve something better than what they had before. The Conservatives have taken for granted those who have kept our economy and our essential services moving this last year, and they continue to undervalue all that our key workers do.

I believe that all our high streets, towns, villages and cities can thrive again if people have more money in their pockets and if we keep more wealth in our local communities. We need jobs that people can raise a family on, and rights that give people dignity, respect and support at work when they need it. Those who work hard should reap the rewards, not just those with access to Ministers or those who believe they can avoid paying their fair share of tax. I believe that we will only truly help our country to meet its full potential when people’s opportunities are not defined by what their start in life was, where they live, or what their accent or job is. We must be ambitious for all of our country, with real and lasting change. These should be the tests of any Government right now, and they are the tests that we will hold this Government to. But from what we have heard this week, and from what we have heard from the Chancellor today, these are tests that this Government look set to fail.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the Minister, and I thank her for the discussions we have had in the lead-up to the Bill’s Second Reading. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) on the impending birth of her baby, and I know that the whole House will want to send her and her family our very best wishes.

Let me say at the outset that the Opposition will be supporting the Bill, which is a small but welcome step in updating legislation in this important area. It is, of course, important that parents in the workplace should be supported in the challenging early months after the birth of a new baby, with the right to take paid maternity leave from their employment, whether they are in the Cabinet or in any other workplace. These changes should be made for the right reasons—because they are the right thing to do to support working parents, not because they are just politically expedient.

I welcome the Minister’s assurances that the Government are prepared to work on a cross-party basis to look at further reforms to bring us into line with best practice in this area. Further changes are indeed needed, because the proposals in their current form do not include, as the Minister recognised, any provision for paternity leave entitlement, those seeking to adopt or those on shared parental leave. As things stand, we are very much playing catch-up when it comes to parental leave.

If we are to encourage women from all backgrounds to become Members of Parliament and, indeed, Ministers, we must have modern working practices, so that it is a vocation that is open to everyone. A clear sign that further changes are needed, particularly when it comes to making Westminster a more family-friendly environment for working mothers, is the make-up of the House today. At present, 102 years after women first won the right to stand for Parliament and after reforms to sitting hours and the system of proxy voting, there are still just 220 female MPs compared with 430 men. That has to change if we are truly to reflect the country and all the experience and talent within it. I urge the Minister to work constructively with other parties and find parliamentary time to progress the further reforms that I believe many in the House would like to see.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister responded to my initial intervention, but the shadow Minister has referred to more reform, which I think is important. That reform has to look towards other elected representatives, including those in the Assembly and the councils. As an example, one of the ladies who works for me is a councillor, and she did not get the leave that she should have had, so I think this Bill is only the first stage when it comes to maternity leave. Does the hon. Lady agree that we can, and must, go further?

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Elected representatives, whether here in Parliament, in devolved Administrations or in local government, and indeed those in all workplaces, absolutely deserve maternity rights which in some workplaces, including those of elected representatives, just do not exist today. I would very much support further reform in this area.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I very much welcome what the Opposition are pushing for. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that this House has a position of leadership, in relation not only to the devolved Administrations but to the rest of the country, and that is why work towards paternity leave and, particularly, shared parental leave is so important?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Paymaster General and I have been speaking about the further reform that is needed, and in a way, the case for this Bill has shone a light on the wider reform that is necessary. We should not just be reacting to events; we should be thinking towards the future and about the challenges of combining work and family life which all of us in this place—men and women—face.

I would now like to turn to some of the challenges that women in Parliament have faced over the decades, and to talk about why it is so important that we continue to modernise some of our, frankly, outdated working practices. Without the battles fought in Parliament by the women who have come before us, I do not think we would be here today, fighting for those further changes that will make us more representative of the people we seek to represent. Pioneers such as the indomitable Barbara Castle fought for years to secure equal pay for women. There was also the independent MP Eleanor Rathbone, who successfully battled to see the Family Allowances Act 1945 become law. They both helped to build the foundations for a better, fairer society, particularly for women.

There are many other inspirational women MPs who have done so much for women’s rights. However, that often came at a high price. None of the first four women in Cabinet—Margaret Bondfield, Ellen Wilkinson, Florence Horsbrugh and Barbara Castle—had children, and it is hard to see how in those early decades they could have combined their job, and the antisocial hours it involved at that time, with having much time for family life. The first woman Cabinet member to have children was Judith Hart in 1968, a full 50 years after the first woman took her seat in this place. As the then-Labour MP for Lanark, she found it very hard to combine long periods away from her family with her work in this place, and eventually made the difficult decision to relocate her family from Scotland to London.

The first woman MP to have a baby while serving as a Member of Parliament was the former MP for Welwyn and Hatfield, Baroness Hayman, who had her first baby in 1976. However, just 10 days after giving birth, she was forced to come into Parliament because pairing had been suspended, and there was certainly no proxy voting then. She had to leave her baby in the Whips Office in order to take part in crucial votes. I also remember seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) in a wheelchair in this Chamber two years ago for a key vote, as it was just two days before the birth of her son. At least that unacceptable situation has been ended by the system of proxy voting which, because of cross-party support, now enables MPs who are new parents to nominate another MP to vote on their behalf if they choose to do so.

Despite the hurdles they faced, those remarkable women built the foundations for the work in Parliament taken forward by irrepressible campaigners such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), Dame Joan Ruddock, and the late and very much missed Dame Tessa Jowell, who all tackled inequalities, injustices and rights for women in Parliament and in the country. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham has long supported the changes that we are discussing today. Under the last Labour Government, Ruth Kelly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) had babies while serving as Ministers but had no formal provisions for maternity leave. The same has been true for Conservative Ministers in the past few years. They all watch with interest and contribute to this debate. It is fair to say that their experiences of combining their work as Ministers and their roles as new mothers were mixed, and I am very much looking forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford speak later in this debate.

I have already touched on Barbara Castle’s achievements with the Equal Pay Act 1970, which came when there were just 24 female MPs and was a watershed in the fight for gender equality. We have also had the Equality Act 2010 from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, the introduction of thousands of Sure Start centres, and the introduction of child tax credits and of free nursery places, all of which have been a lifeline for so many women and families in our country.

However, there is still much work to be done on improving employment conditions for women and the culture in workplaces, both in Westminster and across the rest of the country. The decision a decade ago by the former Speaker to close a bar on the parliamentary estate and replace it with a children’s nursery was undoubtedly a welcome move and has benefited many in this House and our staff, but it was not before time. I also recall that in 2015, when I was shadow Work and Pensions Secretary and expecting my second child, a Conservative Member suggested that as an expectant mum I should not be appointed to the Cabinet if Labour won the general election, as I would not be able to manage doing two things at once. I hope that he has since revised his opinions, and I am pleased that this Bill will allow Cabinet Ministers, for the first time, to have paid time off after the birth of a child.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am sorry to hear the experience that the hon. Lady is recounting. She has been paying tribute to pioneering, so I wonder whether she will join me in paying tribute to Aileen Campbell, a good friend of mine and the first Minister in the Scottish Government to take maternity leave. At that time, the Scottish Government were able to find a way of having a substitute Minister. It is not quite the same as what the Government are proposing today. Aileen and a couple of other MSPs are, sadly, leaving the Scottish Parliament because of these pressures, so it is welcome that we are making small but steady progress along the way to supporting women in politics.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which builds on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is important not just in this place, but for other elected representatives, that wherever they are representing their constituents they should be able both to continue doing their job and to bring up a family. We need in this place and in other elected forums to be able to represent the whole country. We say that we represent Britain or our local community, yet too often we do not look like the communities we are meant to serve. I hope that with the sorts of changes in the Bill, and with those in devolved Administrations and councils, we will make ourselves more representative.

Although the measures in the Bill amount to positive change, there is understandable alarm about this Government’s track record on workers’ rights more generally. It is important that while we today make changes to help women in this place, we also think about employment rights and women’s rights more generally. Just like this Bill, the Government’s new employment Bill should be an opportunity to extend and safeguard workers’ rights, not water them down. However, after a year of silence on that Bill, the Government have failed to deliver on their promise to enhance the rights of all new mums. Pregnant women have found widespread discrimination throughout this pandemic, with many left without basic maternity pay and instead put unlawfully on to statutory sick pay during the pandemic. Indeed, there is a stark contrast to be drawn between the Government’s urgent passing of this legislation, which we support, and their inaction on behalf of struggling pregnant women across the country. I hope that today the Government will reflect on what more they can do to help women in this country.

The Government should also be doing more to help the parents of babies born prematurely. Under the current rules, maternity leave of up to 52 weeks starts when the baby is born, but because a premature baby can spend weeks in hospital, mothers are effectively cheated of spending some of the leave with their new child. I raised this subject two years ago, as a Back Bencher, based on casework in my constituency and working with Bliss—the charity for babies born prematurely or sick that does such brilliant work. I called on the Government then to change the rules so that new parents of premature babies are not put under further unnecessary pressure; today, I again urge the Government to bring forward plans to ensure that parents of premature babies are given the time and flexibility granted to other parents to care for their baby once their baby is home.

At present, Ministers have no rights when it comes to maternity, paternity or adoption leave. If a Minister wants to take maternity leave, as the Paymaster General set out, the rules do not allow for them to continue to receive a Government salary along with the person providing their maternity cover. It is right that that should be changed to remove that barrier in a woman’s career. The Bill would end that anomaly and mean that Ministers would not have to face being financially penalised or forced to stand down from their ministerial role to care for a newborn. The changes would bring Ministers into line with most civil servants by providing them with a period of six months’ leave on full pay.

Last year, there was cross-party support for the change that now allows MPs who are new parents to use the proxy voting scheme, so they can spend precious time with their new child. The proposals before us today represent another baby step in what should be an ongoing modernisation of working practices to ensure that women do not get a raw deal at work due to failure to move with the times. It is a shame that it has taken the pregnancy of a member of the Cabinet—happy news though that is—for this Government to realise that improving the workplace rights of expectant parents should be a priority. This change will benefit family life, remove a barrier to career progression, and ensure that having a baby does not come with a financial penalty as well as the sleepless nights that none of us can prevent. However, we need to see far more progress by the Government on this issue to ensure that women and all workers are treated fairly in the workplace, including when they have children.

We are behind the times when it comes to adopting modern, family-friendly working practices in Parliament and in Government, and change is long overdue. I ask the Minister to make a firm commitment to review and explore, as a matter of urgency, further potential reforms that can be made with cross-party support to ensure that this “mother of Parliaments” is a Parliament that genuinely welcomes mothers. This should be the start, not the end of a journey by this Government to deliver more employment rights and to give workers in all workplaces and in all jobs the protection and support they need and deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Caroline Nokes, I want to set out the time limits that will apply. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes will have six minutes. She will be followed by another Front-Bench spokesperson. Then, from Cherilyn Mackrory onwards, a four-minute limit will apply, and that may be reduced later.

Future Relationship with the EU

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make a statement on the progress of the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU and preparations for the end of the transition period.

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House again on the progress of our negotiations with the European Union. The Prime Minister met the Commission President yesterday evening in Brussels. They, along with the chief negotiators, Lord Frost and Michel Barnier, discussed the significant obstacles that still remain in the negotiations. It is clear that we remain far apart on the so-called level playing field, fisheries and governance. However, they agreed that talks should resume in Brussels today to see whether the gaps can be bridged. They also agreed that a decision should be taken by Sunday regarding the future of the talks.

We are working tirelessly to get a deal, but we cannot accept one at any cost. We cannot accept a deal that would compromise the control of our money, laws, borders and fish. The only deal that is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty and takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. As the Prime Minister said, whether we agree trading arrangements resembling those of Australia or Canada, the United Kingdom will prosper as an independent nation. We will continue to keep the House updated as we seek to secure a future relationship with our EU friends that respects our status as a sovereign, equal and independent country.

[Rachel Reeves]

The country was hoping for a breakthrough last night, yet there was none. There is a sense of huge dismay, as we all wanted to hear significant progress, but we heard more about the Prime Minister’s meal than we did about his deal. In fact, we have not heard from the Prime Minister at all, even though he was supposed to be taking charge of these negotiations.

On Sunday, we will have just 18 days to go until the end of the transition period. How has it come to this? Businesses desperately trying to plan need to know what on earth is going on. If talks break down and the Government pursue no deal, what happens next? Will the Government look to swiftly restart negotiations, or do the Government believe there should be no talks next year or even for the rest of this Parliament? Or have the Government not thought that far ahead?

I want to focus in my question today on the security implications of no deal. The political declaration, signed by the Prime Minister, stated that there should be a

“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”

Yet despite numerous questions from the Opposition, and indeed from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), Ministers have been unable to tell us how border officers and police will be able to access security data. The Government’s “No-Deal Readiness Report” admitted that, without a deal on security and data, the UK would lose access to key law enforcement tools such as SIS II—the second-generation Schengen information system—Europol and the European arrest warrant. These databases help us to fight organised crime and terrorism. Can the Minister guarantee that the security of the British people will be in no way undermined in the event of no security agreement?

The Labour party believes that the security of our country and our people are crucial. The Government will not be forgiven for undermining those. So for our economic prosperity and for our country’s security, will the Government do the responsible thing and bring back the deal?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. First, let me assure her of the Prime Minister’s resolve, efforts and determination to secure a deal. It is one reason why she is having to endure me today and not others. We are going to do everything we can to secure a deal. The best outcome is a Canada-style arrangement, and we are going to leave no stone unturned. We will carry on in talks and carry on negotiating until there is no hope of that happening, but at the moment there is hope of that happening, even though things do appear gloomy.

I appreciate also that Members are very concerned about these matters. Ministers are always happy to come and answer questions and update as much as we can on these issues, but I would say to all colleagues, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, that calling for urgent questions or asking other questions on the Floor of the House with the express mission of trying to undermine our negotiating position by pretending we are not ready for any outcome that these negotiations might yield is not helping to secure the outcome we all want, and it is certainly not in the interests of the country. These are serious times and none of us should be doing anything that may undermine the possibility of us getting the deal we all want.

Let me turn to the issues the hon. Lady raises. We have been clear that the end of the transition period will bring both opportunities but also challenges. We have been making extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios at the end of the year, including whether it is an Australian-style outcome, and we are ready to seize those opportunities of being outside the single market and the customs union. This includes investing over £700 million in jobs, technology and infrastructure at the border and providing £84 million in grants to boost the customs intermediary sector, alongside implementing border controls in stages and ensuring that we have the necessary time to prepare.

We will not compromise on security. This has been an absolutely key part of our preparations on any outcome, and it is one of the reasons why, even in these gloomy times, I still am optimistic that a deal can be secured, because I do not believe that any European Union member state would wish to affect or compromise the security of its own citizens. But if we leave on an Australian-style outcome, we have measures in place to ensure that our citizens will be safe, and that we will be able to share intelligence and the other things we need to do to ensure our security arrangements are as they should be. I urge all colleagues, whatever their political hue or imperative, to put our nation first over the next few days, to support our negotiating team, to demonstrate our readiness under any scenario and our resolve, and to help us get a deal.

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU and preparations for the end of the transition period.

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to update the House on the progress of our negotiations with the European Union.

Intensive talks continue. In fact, the United Kingdom’s negotiating team, led by Lord Frost, has been in talks with the EU almost every day since 22 October and is working tirelessly to get a deal on our future relationship. This also affords us in this place the opportunity to show our collective resolve to get a good deal, our expectations of what that needs to look like, and what we will not accept. While there has been some progress across many areas, familiar differences remain on the so-called level playing field, fisheries and governance. Of these, the level playing field issue is currently the most difficult.

On Friday, after an intensive week of talks in London, the respective chief negotiators, Lord Frost and Michel Barnier, issued a joint statement. This outlined that the conditions for an agreement had not been met, and that talks should pause briefly to allow the Prime Minister and the Commission President to discuss the state of play on Saturday. Following their telephone call, the Prime Minister and President von der Leyen issued a joint statement. It welcomed progress, but noted that an agreement would not be feasible if the issues on the level playing field, fisheries and governance were not resolved. They agreed that a further effort should be made by the UK and the EU to assess whether the outstanding differences can be resolved, and instructed the chief negotiators to reconvene in Brussels.

We are at a critical moment in the negotiations. Teams are negotiating as we speak, and the Prime Minister will call the Commission President later this afternoon to discuss progress again. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in Brussels today, meeting the European Commission vice-president; they are meeting in their capacity as co-chairs of the UK-EU Joint Committee under the withdrawal agreement.

We are all working to get a deal, but the only deal that is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty, and that takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. While an agreement is preferable, we are prepared to leave on so-called Australian-style terms if we cannot find compromises. As the Prime Minister has made clear, people and businesses must prepare for the changes that are coming on 31 December, most of which are related to our departure from the EU single market and customs union, and not the outcome of these talks.

Mr Speaker, we will continue to keep the House updated as we seek to secure a future relationship with our EU friends that respects our status as a sovereign, equal and independent country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Last year, the Prime Minister said that to leave with no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”, so this Government must take responsibility for their failure if we leave without a deal. We will hold the Government to account for whatever they bring back—deal or no deal.

With just 24 days to go until the end of the transition period, let me ask a few basic questions about this Government’s and our country’s readiness. Trading on World Trade Organisation terms would mean tariffs on lamb exports of 40%, so what is the latest assessment of how many farms would go to the wall in the event of no deal? Tariffs on car exports would be 10%, so what is the viability of our great automotive industry if there is no deal on rules of origin?

The Office for Budget Responsibility said last week—I am surprised the Chancellor did not mention it at all in his spending review statement—that if we leave without a deal, GDP would fall by an additional 2% next year, unemployment would rise by an additional 1% and inflation would be up 1.5%. Those are not just numbers; this is about British industries and people’s jobs. The detail does matter, so will the Minister admit to the House how many of the 50,000 customs agents who the Government agreed are needed by the end of the year have actually been recruited?

Today, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa claimed that the oven-ready deal had already been delivered. If that is the case, it must have been sent to the wrong address, because the whole country is still waiting for the comprehensive trade and security deal that was promised to the British people at the general election less than a year ago.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that the former International Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), once said that a trade deal with the EU would be the “easiest in human history”. Let me finish by asking the Minister: is that still the view of this Government?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I have some sympathy with Her Majesty’s Opposition today, because although I have been involved with various aspects of the negotiations and am vice-chair of the Joint Committee under the withdrawal agreement, I have not been in the room for these negotiations, and neither has any Member of this House. I understand that we have so much invested in getting a good result, for all the reasons the hon. Lady sets out. This is how it must have been for an expectant father waiting for news outside the delivery room. I can understand the tension and frustration many Members must be feeling at this critical moment.

We are all waiting for what we hope is good news, but we are not powerless in this. We are all active players and participants, and we should all be doing everything we can at this critical moment to ensure that our negotiating team are supported, and that we get the best result for this country. That means that we should provide clarity and resolve about what we want from a deal and what we are not prepared to accept, and show united support for our negotiating team. I hope that all Members of this House will join me in sending our resolve and good wishes to Lord Frost and his team as they continue to work on our behalf. We must also provide the necessary focus to get the negotiations over the line, which many Members of this House did by ensuring that we did not extend the transition period.

Sadly, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and her colleagues on the Opposition Benches have failed to do any of those things to help us secure a good deal for this country. That is fair enough if Labour does not have a position on Brexit, but it might like to get one in the next few days.

All of us in this House must show support and resolve to get the deal that the hon. Lady articulates, and that we all want for citizens and businesses, not just within the UK but throughout the remainder of the EU. [Interruption.] I am turning to her questions; there were not that many. The tariff issues are published on gov.uk. I know that she has recently written to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who will reply to her in detail, as he always does.

What I would say to the hon. Lady, having been involved with transition preparations, is that when we have got into some of the detail—site visits and so forth, and helping ports, for example, put together their bids for the port infrastructure fund—assumptions that have been made about what we will need have been reduced. In my own local patch, for example, we were looking at having to have 10 freight gates. We now need only three because we have had greater clarity about how things will work.

We will keep the hon. Lady and all Members of the House updated on this front, but I assure her that we are making every effort to secure a deal. That is our aim. That is what everyone, I think, in this House would want, but that deal must respect the United Kingdom’s sovereignty and its integrity as a nation. We want to be able to control our own borders, set our own robust and principled subsidy control system, and control our waters. Those things are not up for compromise. We will not compromise. If the hon. Lady and colleagues want to assist Lord Frost and his team in that, that is the message that they should send them this afternoon in this place.

Future Relationship with the EU

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the fourth round of the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the European Union.

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

Negotiators from the UK and the EU held full and constructive discussions last week via video conference led by David Frost, the UK’s chief negotiator. The talks covered trade in goods and services, fisheries, law enforcement, criminal justice and other issues, in which both sides engaged constructively. There was, however, no movement on the most difficult areas where differences of principle are at their most acute, notably fisheries, governance arrangements and the so-called level playing field.

We have now reached an important moment for these talks. To make progress, we need to accelerate and intensify our work, and the Government are working closely with the EU to achieve that. It is our priority to conclude this negotiation in good time to enable our citizens and businesses to have certainty about the trading terms that will follow at the end of this year and, if necessary, to allow any ratification of agreements reached. We have always been clear that such a deal must of course accommodate the reality of the UK’s well-established position on the so-called level playing field, on fisheries and on the other difficult issues, and fully recognise the UK as a sovereign equal.

The House should also be aware that this Friday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I will be at the second meeting of the withdrawal agreement joint committee. We will be able to update the committee about the positive progress the UK is making on implementing our obligations, not least on citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland protocol, but we will also emphasise that we will not be extending the transition period, and will push the EU on implementing its obligations under the terms of the agreement.

The Government remain committed to our negotiations with the EU and the implementation of the withdrawal agreement and will continue to keep the House updated on developments.

[Rachel Reeves]

The UK left the European Union in January, and our task now is to build the best possible new relationship with our European neighbours. Our chief negotiator, David Frost, said last week:

“We need to conclude this negotiation in good time to enable people and businesses to have certainty about the trading terms that will follow the end of the transition period at the end of this year”.

We agree, but currently we are in the dark about what this new relationship looks like.

Both the CBI and the TUC are warning about the impact of chaos and uncertainty on jobs and livelihoods. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry warned this week that, as a consequence of covid-19, the stockpile of medicines has been run down and cannot be rebuilt, in terms of volume or range, by the end of this year. The Road Haulage Association says:

“We are still missing the essential practical information on all new processes and procedures”

as the Government look to introduce millions of extra declarations at the border each year. Does the Minister believe that having 50,000 new customs officers to process those declarations will add to or reduce the red tape for UK businesses?

From freight to farming, fisheries to pharmaceuticals, we need clarity. During the general election, the Prime Minister claimed time and again that the Government had an oven-ready deal. Its fundamental ingredients matter, so will the Minister confirm that the Government still, as they did in December, guarantee that there will be no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors? Leaving on WTO standards, or even a Canada-style deal, does not guarantee that. Will she also confirm that the Government will safeguard workers’ rights and consumer and environmental protections? There is much concern that that is no longer Government policy. Are the Government still committed to a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership, which is essential to bring criminals to justice? Will the Government respect the Good Friday agreement in its entirety?

To conclude, this is not just a deal between the UK Government and the European Union. Through the course of the election, it was the basis of a deal with the British people. We urge both sides to redouble their efforts over the next few days and weeks to ensure that progress is made by the end of this month, so that the Government can honour their commitment to ensuring a good deal for Britain by the end of this year.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. At the start of her response, she made a powerful argument for not extending the transition period. If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that that would only extend the negotiations. I agree that business, our citizens across the EU, and the rest of the world, with which we are also focused on trade negotiations, want to have certainty about the future, so we must press on with that. That is one of the many reasons why we will not extend the transition period.

The hon. Lady is also right to draw attention to the fact that the covid crisis is going on. I know that she is aware of the huge amount of work that was done last year on no-deal preparations, and the tremendous work that civil contingencies and all Government Departments have been doing to ensure that supply chains remain strong, that we can quickly adapt, and that we have stocks of all sorts of goods, including the medicines that we need. These are challenging at times, in the light of what the world is facing, but they are our focus. I assure her of the incredible work that those civil servants are doing to ensure that our citizens have what they need when they need it.

I take a keen interest in those areas as a former employee of the Freight Transport Association. We will shortly be saying more about our border operations. A tremendous amount of work has gone on to improve on our communication with businesses from every part of the UK last year to ensure that is good, and that we are not just giving people the right information, but picking up solutions from the sector, because that will be key to getting it right.

On the hon. Lady’s remarks about rights, animal welfare, security, zero tariffs and zero quotas, our policy has not changed. We will of course respect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and we expect the EU to do the same.

Covid-19

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that thoughtful opening speech. We all need the Government to get this right. Labour has been clear: we will always put the national interest first. We will support the Government when they get it right but challenge them to do more when that is needed.

We all know how hard lockdown has been, especially for those who fear for their jobs and their businesses; the elderly; the lonely; and those living with an abusive partner or carer. At the moment, most grandparents want nothing more than to be able to hug their grandchildren. Thousands of people are missing out on the chance to say goodbye or even to hold the hand of the person they love in a care home. The same applies to the ambiguous situation relating to funerals and cremations, which is causing enormous pain and distress to so many families. It is in depriving us of these poignant moments—opportunities to hug, to hold and to say goodbye—that the impact of the virus causes the most distress.

There are so many profound social costs, and it all has to be balanced with the huge challenges and risks faced by people working in health and social care. We all want the Government to get this right, but, frankly, the Government’s response in the past 24 hours has been a shambles. Last Thursday, the Government’s briefings to newspapers led to headlines proclaiming that we could look forward to “Happy Monday” and “Lockdown Freedom”, the day before a sunny bank holiday weekend. When I saw those headlines, I recalled the world war two poster in my history class at secondary school that said, “Careless talk costs lives”. I wonder sometimes whether the Government pause to contemplate the health impacts of some of their briefings and statements.

Last night’s statement by the Prime Minister was a chance to provide some clarity about the situation, but it obscured as much as it revealed. This morning, the Foreign Secretary told “Today” programme listeners that they were free to see both their parents at the same time. Almost immediately afterwards, it was clarified that people may see only one parent at a time. The Foreign Secretary then told Sky News that people should return to work from Wednesday, but the press release issued by Downing Street alongside the Prime Minister’s statement clearly stated that people should be encouraged to return to work from Monday. If senior members of the Cabinet struggle to follow the advice, what are the rest of us meant to do?

A four-nation strategy is essential to ensure a coherent and consistent message. It has served us well so far, so why is England now pursuing a different strategy from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? If someone lives in Bristol but works in Cardiff, should they be going to work? What about if someone lives in Berwick but works in Edinburgh?

When it comes to Northern Ireland, the Government must also consider cross-border co-operation. Northern Ireland is unique in that it shares a land border with the Republic, so close co-operation with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly is vital to ensure a joined-up approach to effectively combating the virus, particularly with regard to contact tracing. The UK has the highest death toll in Europe. That calls for greater care, not greater risks.

The most substantive change in Government advice today is that workers who cannot work from home should return to work. We want workers to earn an income and businesses to thrive, but for that to happen, workers need to know that they and their families will be safe. Businesses want that knowledge and security as well.

Let us be clear that the biggest risk to our economic security and recovery would be decisions that led to a second peak of the virus, so it is deeply worrying that workers were asked last night to return to work today with no guidelines published with regard to safety in the workplace. If someone has been told to return to work, but lives with a partner with a pre-existing condition or an elderly parent, what are they meant to do?

What if someone has a school-age child but is now expected by the Government and their employer to return to work without the childcare to be able to do that? Can people still be furloughed? Is that at their employer’s discretion? If people cannot work through no fault of their own, will they be required to go on to statutory sick pay?

Who will assess whether a workplace is sufficiently safe? Is it up to the individual employee? I refer the Minister to section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which permits an individual employee not to return to work without risk of detriment if they reasonably believe that adequate safety measures are not in place. I hope that employers and Ministers will protect those rights.

Meanwhile, workers are told to avoid public transport if possible, but for millions of people in the UK, it is not possible to get to work any other way but by public transport. We have already seen bus drivers in London lose their lives to covid-19. People need to know that they can go to work without endangering themselves, or indeed others. If we are to balance concern for the economy with concern for public health, the Government should bring unions, business leaders and scientists together to develop a national safety standard. The safety of workers and their families is not, and can never be, an optional extra.

It is vital that the furlough scheme continues to support workers, including enabling people to work part time, particularly if businesses are unable to operate at full capacity. We need to hear more from Ministers about ongoing support until the time is right to operate at full capacity for some of the hardest-hit sectors, such as hospitality and travel. We need to support areas such as our coastal communities, which are so dependent on tourism.

The impact of the virus exposes deep inequalities in our society. The poorest areas of the country have been hardest hit. Lower earners are most exposed while the better-off are insulated from the biggest threats. Of the bottom 50% of earners, just one in 10 can work from home. At the top, it is five times that.

This crisis has shown who the real key workers are, from NHS staff to care workers, supermarket workers, cleaners, delivery drivers and bus drivers. They are often underpaid, under-appreciated and undervalued, and they have been asked to put their lives at risk while keeping others safe. Now, more working people who do manual jobs in manufacturing, food processing and construction are being asked to risk their health, and that of their family, while those doing office jobs, which are often better paid, can work from home and face fewer risks.

Black and minority ethnic Britons are disproportionately at risk. We know that black Britons are four times more likely to die from this virus compared with white people. We need a public inquiry into that, which Baroness Lawrence called for today, and we need urgent action to protect the most vulnerable from this virus. Coronavirus did not cause those inequalities, but it has thrown a sharp light on them. We must not let them deepen even further.

In our care homes the spread of the virus continues and the death toll is still too high. Half of workers in care homes earn less than a real living wage, and a quarter are on zero-hours contracts. Many have died. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister reported that 29 care workers have died since the start of this crisis, but data from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 131 coronavirus-related deaths among social care workers up to 20 April. According to the National Care Forum, just one in five care workers with symptoms have been tested, and they still lack priority testing for coronavirus. Those who dedicate their lives to caring for others, and who care for the sick and the dying whose relatives cannot be with them, are being left without adequate protection, and we are only beginning to know the real cost.

One reason why the lockdown rules are causing so much worry is that new infections and deaths are still at higher levels than when we went into lockdown. The test and trace strategy is still a mess. MPs from across the House will have constituents who have been waiting for well over 48 hours to get their results, and some who have been waiting for more than a week. We see reports of tests having to be flown to the United States because we lack the capacity here. How did we get into that position? Without a test, trace, and isolate strategy it is almost impossible to identify a new spike in infections, or to do anything about it. The Government need to sort that out. Relaxing lockdown will work only if it is sorted out.

At some point we will come through to the other side of this virus, and we will go about rebuilding our lives, our communities, and our economy. The recovery will not be easy, and it will require boldness and imagination to build something better. The contribution of the British public and all our key workers has been immense, but the crisis has revealed huge injustices and inequalities. We deserve a fairer country—that will be Labour’s mission, and I hope it will be the Government’s mission too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. There will now be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. As ever, I advise Members who are speaking from home and do not have the benefit of the clock in the Chamber to have some other method of ensuring that they do not exceed four minutes. It is amazing how many people cannot add on four, but I know that does not apply to Mr Mel Stride.