Childcare: Affordability and Availability

Debate between Stephen Timms and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the affordability and availability of childcare.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am eternally grateful to have secured—to have been granted—this debate so that we can address the important issue of childcare affordability and availability, because the simple reality is that this Government are seriously failing children, parents and businesses through the chronic lack of affordable and high-quality childcare in our country. My Slough constituents are far from impressed. Indeed, the reason why I put in for the debate was to express their anger and to try to express to the Chamber just how frustrated many individuals, not just in my constituency but across our country, are. As far as I can tell, Ministers have little interest in doing something substantial and radical to rectify this. However, the Government’s usual lack of effort and ambition, as frustrating as it is, does not mean that we should not at least try to persuade them that they need to up their game.

We know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are integral to their development, and evidence shows that improvements in children’s outcomes in both the long and the short term are strongly associated with the quality of their early childhood education and care. The Local Government Association has told me that by the time disadvantaged young people, in particular, sit their GCSEs at the age of 16, they are about 18 months behind their peers, and about 40% of that gap has emerged by the age of five. It is therefore crucial that we provide the best possible environment in which to bring up children.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the case that my hon. Friend is making, and congratulate him on securing the debate. Has he seen the report published today by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on support for childcare costs in universal credit? It highlights two big problems. One is that people claiming universal credit have to pay the up-front costs of the first month’s childcare; they have to pay the first month’s childcare costs themselves and are reimbursed later. For some people, finding such a large sum of money is simply not possible. Secondly, the cap on monthly childcare support is the same as it was in 2005; it has not been uprated, so it nowhere near covers the costs of full-time childcare support.

[Mr Dhesi]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, not only for that impressive intervention but for his tireless, persistent work in this area to try to shine a light on the injustices. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Government will look closely at the findings in the Select Committee report and take action accordingly.

Since this Government came to power in 2010, parents of children under the age of two have had to deal with a 60% increase in the cost of a part-time nursery place. Average earnings have grown at only half that rate over the same period, putting ever greater pressure on already squeezed family budgets. As one Mumsnet user wrote:

“When we started using nursery 9 years ago it was £45 a day. Now the same nursery we use for our…3 year old is £90. He gets 30 hours free in January but they…will also be putting fees up then. Honestly when he goes to school we will have £1,000 extra”

to pay

“a month. It’s more than our mortgage.”

That is not an isolated case. A joint survey by Mumsnet and Pregnant Then Screwed found that close to two thirds of parents are spending on childcare as much as, or even more than they spend on their rent or mortgage. Shockingly, one in four parents is cutting down on food, heating or clothing in order to afford sky-high childcare costs.

What are parents doing in response? Increasingly, they are being forced to take themselves out of the labour market. Under this Conservative Government, a day’s pay is not worthwhile for a parent needing childcare.

Sadly, women are often hit hardest by the Government’s failed childcare system. Only three in 10 mothers with a child aged one work full time, and three in 10 mothers with a child under 14 say they have reduced their working hours for childcare reasons. The Office for National Statistics found that the number of women who are not in work in order to look after family has risen by 3% in the past year alone. That is the first sustained increase in at least 30 years, reversing decades of reduction. Women who are reducing their hours, forgoing promotions or even leaving work altogether due to unaffordable childcare suffer lasting financial consequences, and that widens the gender pay and pensions gaps.

This is also a huge issue for business. At a time when so many vacancies are going unfilled, this motherhood penalty equates to 43,000 women dropping out of the workforce in the last year alone. It is no wonder that even the Confederation of British Industry is calling for reform, highlighting that childcare costs in the UK are now some of the highest in the OECD and that our economy is suffering from losing £28 billion of economic output every year, because women are being forced to choose between their careers and their children. We could add a whopping £57 billion to our GDP simply by increasing female participation in the workforce—something that greater childcare provision would help achieve.

On this Government’s watch, the childcare system is failing families, women, businesses and our economy. I would therefore think that addressing it was a priority, especially given how formative these early years are for our children, so why are the Government not taking decisive action to fix this mess? They tried to convince us that they were by announcing the 15 and 30-hour free childcare entitlement, alongside their commitment to the tax-free childcare scheme. As with so many other Conservative policies over the past 12 years, even this small stepping stone towards improving the accessibility of childcare has failed to deliver the bare minimum. As I pointed out last month in the Chamber, the Government, not satisfied with hammering parents, women, businesses and the economy, have set their sights on making it too expensive for childcare providers to operate by consistently underfunding the 15 and 30-hour entitlement by more than £2 an hour, thus forcing providers to use their own resources to plug the gap and further driving up the cost of childcare. Meanwhile, Ministers have spent a whopping £2.37 billion less than they allocated for their flagship tax-free childcare scheme in the past four years alone.

Rather than ensuring we have even more childcare providers to meet the significant demand for childcare across our country, the Government have created an environment in which 4,000 childcare providers closed between March 2021 and 2022—that is 4,000 providers in just one year. We have childcare costs rising twice as fast as wages and businesses struggling to fill vacancies while women who want to work cannot because of childcare. Despite the demand, thousands of childcare providers are closing while the Government underfund the sector. That is this Government’s record.

As a country, we can and must do much better. The Government must recognise that families need support from the end of parental leave right through to the end of primary school. While more investment is needed, surely as a minimum the Government should stick to their original commitments. I ask the Minister to commit to investing in the childcare system the more than £2 billion her party has pledged. During this cost of living crisis, families are already struggling, so when will the Minister step in to ensure that parents are not forced to sacrifice a meal or a night of heating over the winter months to pay for their child’s care? Maybe the Government would be in a better position if they had developed a long-term plan. With five Education Secretaries this year alone, the Minister is probably just happy to get through the year without any more chaos. However, families across our country should not be made to suffer because of the Government’s continued incompetence.

Parents need the introduction of universal primary breakfast clubs for every primary-aged child in England, which I look forward to hearing more about, I hope, from the shadow Minister. That would help disadvantaged pupils, in particular, to access additional support from staff and friends, allowing them to catch up on learning. Where is the Government’s commitment to that? Instead of cutting hundreds of Sure Start centres, the Government should be investing in local children’s centres and helping parents with young families in some of the most disadvantaged areas in our country to get them the best possible start in life. Why aren’t they?

Kenyan Civil Service Pensions: Non-payment

Debate between Stephen Timms and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I must say, I think my constituent has received inflation increases. There does seem to be some variability about who has received them over the last couple of decades. Who knows what the reason for that is?

I was just reading a written answer from 2013, which concludes:

“British high commission staff in Nairobi asked the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about public sector pensions on 2 July 2013 and are awaiting a response.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 143W.]

That was seven years ago. Whether any response was received at that time, I do not know, but I certainly do not think any Member here has seen a response to any of these questions, which clearly have frequently been asked.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this late-night, niche, but important debate on the non-payment of Kenyan civil service pensions. In addition to the other examples raised, I want to highlight the case of my Slough constituent Amrik Singh Banse, who was a former civil servant in the teaching profession and whose pension sadly stopped without notice over a year ago. He has also informed me that, astonishingly, he has received no increment since 1992. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is simply unacceptable that individuals who have worked so tirelessly throughout their career are being left high and dry in such an egregious manner, and that is why our Government must intervene?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no dispute at all that our constituents are entitled to these payments. A promise has been made to them, and the Government of Kenya need to honour their promise to his constituent and to all the others.

Coming forward to this year, last month, I co-signed a letter to the Minister with my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Feltham and Heston and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who I see in his place, asking that the Minister meet us to discuss what further steps the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will take to ensure that these pensions are reinstated and uprated in line with inflation. The Foreign Secretary confirmed to me in Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions last month that he would look to arrange the meeting, so we look forward to that.

I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the following tonight. First, how many people living in the UK does the Foreign Office think are affected by the non-payment of Kenyan pensions and, perhaps separately, by the issue that has been surfaced in this debate about the non-uprating of some of those pensions that have been in payment?

Secondly, can the Minister tell the House what recent discussions he has had about this with his Kenyan counterparts? Clearly the Foreign Office has asked about this on quite a few occasions. Has it received an answer from the Government of Kenya to any of its inquiries? What does the Minister make of it all? Why is it that our constituents have not been paid at all since the spring of last year? Lastly, what is the Department’s plan should the Kenyan Government continue to withhold these payments to which our constituents are entitled?

Our constituents have not received the pension that they are entitled to for almost two years. Some have been waiting longer. Many, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has said, are elderly. They are entitled to their pension, and there is an issue of dignity here. These people have worked and they are expecting to receive the fair pension that they are entitled to.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Debate between Stephen Timms and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We took evidence this morning on that very point—the need to improve universal credit and change some of the problems. Unfortunately we were told that, because of the IT systems, there is very little that can be done in the short term.

For example, one thing the Government have agreed to do is reduce the maximum deduction from people’s standard payment of universal credit. There are deductions for people to pay back the advance they receive up front and for other reasons. There is a case for suspending those deductions for the time being, but that is not the Government’s intention at the moment. They have agreed that the maximum deduction will be reduced from 30% of the standard amount to 25%, but they tell us that they cannot do that until October 2021 because of the problems with the IT system.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for reminding the House that, years ago, we were all told that this was going to be done in agile, precisely in order that changes could be made quickly. I am afraid that those promises have not been fulfilled. We were assured time after time that all the problems of the old DWP systems would be solved by adopting the agile approach. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. Despite that, I am going to press this afternoon, as I and the Committee did this morning, for changes to universal credit. A way has to be found to overcome some of the problems and to get these things done much more quickly than is suggested will be the case.

I very much welcome the fact that the headline rate of universal credit and working tax credit has been increased, although only for a year. Given the long freeze in the rates of benefits, there is a case for making that increase permanent rather than temporary. That is something we will no doubt come back to in the months ahead.

When it comes to universal credit providing much needed support to the self-employed, people who come off zero-hours contracts and freelancers, there are some serious problems with the way it works at the moment. The Trussell Trust has found that people on universal credit are two and a half times more likely to need a food bank than people on legacy benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance.

There is a remarkable article in this month’s issue of The Lancet Public Health about universal credit, which finds that

“an additional 63674…unemployed people will have experienced levels of psychological distress that are clinically significant due to the introduction of Universal Credit”.

It goes on to estimate that more than a third of those people

“might reach the diagnostic threshold for depression.”

A little further on, the article states:

“When the policy change was introduced, the prevalence of psychological distress started to increase among those eligible for Universal Credit; however, the prevalence remained constant for people not affected by the change”.

Lastly, the article states:

“We also tested if there was an increase in the number of participants transitioning from unemployment into work in the intervention group after the introduction of Universal Credit relative to the comparison group; the reform had no effect on employment”.

There are serious problems with the way universal credit is working, and we are now forcing—understandably—hundreds of thousands of additional people on to this benefit. What is the problem? Why does it cause so much more difficulty for people than jobseeker’s allowance and other past benefits? A big part of the answer is the fact that people have to wait five weeks after applying to receive their first regular benefit payment. That is inevitably pushing people into debt with the Department for Work and Pensions. A lot of people are then choosing to say, “In that case, I’d better not pay my rent for a bit,” and they are getting into rent arrears. The National Housing Federation is reporting that people on universal credit are significantly more likely to be behind with their rent than people on jobseeker’s allowance, both in the past and currently. This is a problem that will affect very large numbers of those who are now applying for universal credit.

It seems to me that it cannot be a good idea—given the boldness and generosity and the welcome characteristics of the package for employees that was introduced last week— to force self-employed people, by contrast, on to an arrangement where they do not get a substantive payment for five weeks.

[Mr Dhesi]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that many of the individuals on universal credit and jobseeker’s allowance are having to go to food banks, and at the very time that we need support for food banks, many food banks are unfortunately having to close because of the age demographic of the volunteers, who are normally a lot more mature? That is why, within this package, we need more support for food banks and the charitable sector.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I very much agree about the need for more support for charitable organisations. I spoke yesterday to the chief executive of the Trussell Trust, who told me that of its 1,250 food banks, two have closed so far. One of them is reopening and some other arrangement is being put in place for the other one instead. It is a remarkable tribute to exactly the people that my hon. Friend refers to, who are running those food banks, that despite the potential risks to them, they are carrying on. The whole House will be grateful to them for their extraordinary effort.

Leaving the EU: Data Protection

Debate between Stephen Timms and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics, my hon. Friend is in a very good position to understand just how important this is for our economy. He is absolutely right: if we open up that uncertainty in our regulatory arrangements, it will be harder, perhaps impossible, to achieve the adequacy agreement that we need.

I am grateful to the Minister for committing himself to seeking that adequacy agreement. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), I was slightly concerned about what he meant when he referred to something “akin to” an adequacy agreement. What we need is an adequacy agreement that is formally defined. We need that declaration from the Commission, so that UK businesses can continue to exchange personal data with businesses in other EU member states.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some very pertinent points. Many tech firms and other companies in my constituency are concerned: we need to have such agreements in place—in particular, on data protection—and not having them in place will have a hugely detrimental impact. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Stephen Timms]

The firms in my hon. Friend’s constituency are absolutely right. If we do not achieve that adequacy declaration, it will become illegal for personal data to be exchanged between the UK and the countries of the EU, and there will no longer be a lawful basis for large swathes of businesses in the country to continue to operate.