Finance (No. 2) Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), principally because I can say how wonderful it is that the Scottish people have enjoyed the benefits of this great British vaccine success. It has been enjoyed by the entire United Kingdom, and funded by our deep commitment to UK life science, which comes from the United Kingdom Government. The great Scottish cluster benefits from that hugely. I was surprised not to hear the hon. Lady accept and regret the fact that, had the Scottish Nationalist party succeeded in persuading the people of Scotland to leave, they would not now be enjoying the vaccine security that they currently are. It is a wonderful thing. We are stronger together in health as we are in economics.

As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary put it so eloquently at the start of this debate, covid has been not just a health catastrophe, a global pandemic on a scale that none of us in this generation has seen before, but an economic catastrophe. It has been an economic shock to this country and to the global growth engine, which is not yet over. It is a sign of the generosity of the Treasury’s support that it will be only when the furlough programme, which has been rightly extended, ends in the autumn that the beginnings of the full reveal of the economic damage will strike us all. It is for that reason that the measures in the Finance Bill and in the wider relief that the Government have put in place are to be so welcomed and are so important.

I will, if I may, start by echoing the comments of others and by thanking the Chancellor and his teams—both his ministerial and official teams. It is not that common to praise Her Majesty’s Treasury in this Chamber, and particularly not for moving with speed, compassion and an instinctive desire to spend money on behalf of the health of the British people. This happened both in the economic crisis in the crash, when the Treasury moved at pace over one weekend to put in place a phenomenal package to prevent the meltdown of the City of London, and in this crisis. Indeed, it is barely possible to think that, a year ago, the Chancellor stood here and took the nation by surprise with the pace, compassion and speed with which he announced his package. The fact that more than 1 million jobs have been furloughed and protected and £800 billion has been spent in immediate relief is an absolute cornerstone of the fact that the economic recovery that we are now beginning to see is so strong.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between the Treasury’s response to the covid crisis and the Treasury’s response to the last financial crisis. I wonder, therefore, whether we ought to be blaming the enormous deficit and debt now on Conservative profligacy or whether we will finally accept that, in 2007-08, as now, the Treasury did exactly the right thing to prevent the economic situation being even worse than it would otherwise have been.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point that I relish responding to. My praise was for the Treasury in moving at pace to solve and sort a crisis incubated by the last Labour Government in leaving this country deeply vulnerable as a result of a whole series of measures put in place during the Blair and Brown years, not least the smash-and-grab raid on our pensions and the foolish and reckless deregulation. The Treasury moved quickly to solve a crisis, but I am not claiming, at the same time, that the Government of the day were not responsible for incubating that crisis. They are different points.

Black History Month

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing this important debate. I count myself privileged having grown up in the east end of London and then, like many communities, having moved further out towards the constituency that I now live in and represent.

My upbringing was shaped by diversity. I was lucky to go to school with pupils from a wide range of backgrounds, but predominantly white working-class or Bangladeshi communities. I was lucky to go to an inner-city state school here in London, just up the road, where children were drawn from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, but particularly black African and Caribbean communities. That made me not only entirely comfortable with the diversity of our country, but actively welcome it. I really feel that I benefited from an education that exposed me to people from a wide range of backgrounds, faiths and cultures. We cannot understand what it is to be human unless we understand the diversity of humanity and different human experiences; that is the whole purpose of education.

If I may say so, some of the debate around black history, whether in this Chamber or out in the country, only serves to underline the shortcomings of our history curriculum. From some contributions, it might be thought that people had never read English or British history, that black history is something else, or that, even more bizarrely, talking about Britain’s imperial, colonial past is somehow rewriting history.

Having been educated in some great state schools in this city and in diverse communities, I do not recall even being told about that history, yet it is a central part of our island story, of explaining the diversity of the country that we are today, and of understanding the strength of our international, bilateral and multilateral relationships. We should be more confident about the country that we are today so that we can confront some of the darknesses of our own past.

Why are we as a country so insecure about ourselves and our identity that we feel we lose something by telling an accurate story about our country’s island past? We do not lose anything from that. I do not feel that I lose anything, as a white working-class British kid, English kid, Londoner, from hearing the stories of other people’s journeys to this country. When we look at the story of disadvantage in our country today, particularly educational disadvantage, and at the over-representation of minority communities, particularly black communities, in our criminal justice system or in low pay or underemployment, we find that these are entirely entrenched with existing baked-in inequalities in our country, which we understand from a deeper understanding of our past. We cannot correct these injustices and put our country on a path to a better future unless we fully understand how we got to where we are today.

There are plenty of inspirational stories to tell, but if we are serious about educating out prejudice and about raising ambitions and aspirations, it is important that we tell the whole story. It is important that people see role models from backgrounds such as theirs. That is one reason I was proud to be working, before being elected to this House, for one of the country’s leading LGBT rights organisations, Stonewall, on exactly this issue, so that children growing up can understand the diversity of the country and world they are living in and might see role models of the kind of people they want to grow up to be, whether business leaders, politicians—God forbid—creatives or entrepreneurs. This is also true for black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities, who too often go through our education system without seeing themselves and their own family stories reflected in the curriculum they are taught. How can that be right?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman refers to what he was taught when he was young, but is he aware of what is taught in the curriculum today? It seems as though he is talking about a completely different curriculum from that which children today are being taught. Does he not know of any of the modules that cover these issues?

[Wes Streeting]

I am so grateful to the Minister for that question, because, after my slight rant, it brings me back to the issue I wanted to talk about, which is schools. In 2008, the last Labour Government said that black history should be made compulsory within the curriculum, but let us look at what we see today. Of the 59 GCSE history modules available from the three biggest exam boards, Edexcel, AQA and OCR, just 12 explicitly mention black history—only five mention the history of black people in Britain, and the rest are about black people in the US, other countries or the transatlantic slave trade. Only up to 11% of GCSE students in 2019 were studying modules that made any reference to the contribution of black people in British history. No modules in the GCSE syllabus for the most popular exam board, Edexcel, mentioned black people in Britain. A survey of more than 55,000 people conducted by Impact of Omission found that 86.2% learned about the Tudors, 72.1% learned about the battle of Hastings and 72.6% learned about the great fire of London, whereas barely a third, 36.6%, learned about the transatlantic slave trade, 9.9% learned about the role of slavery in the British industrial revolution and 7.6% learned about the British colonisation of Africa. I just do not think that that is an accurate reflection or a proper telling of our history.

Of course history is contested and education is a battle of ideas, but why are we so afraid of just telling the story, letting history be what it is and giving young people the critical capacity to draw their own conclusions? That is where we have to get to, and it is a matter of great regret that in 2020 the Department for Education said that teachers

“can include black voices and history as a natural part of lessons in all subjects”.

It was not “must” but “can”—“should” would be nice. Just saying that they should do so would be an improvement, but I would prefer it to be “must”.

Finally, I wish to single out one of my heroes, as I do not think she has been mentioned. I refer to Baroness Valerie Amos, who was the first black woman in government; the first black woman in the Cabinet; the first black woman to be the Leader of either of the Houses of Parliament; the first black Lord President of the Council; the first black woman vice-chancellor—of SOAS, the School of African and Oriental Studies—in 2015; and the first black person to be master of an Oxford college, in 2020. What I find so remarkable about Valerie’s experiences is not that she is the first or that she is a trailblazer, because that should come as no surprise to any of us; what does surprise me is that it took a black woman in this country so long to get to where so many other black woman doubtless should have been. That is the story of the country we are today. Let us be proud of our history, but let us tell it properly, educate future generations and learn from the worst of our history to shape the best British future.

Productivity: Rural Areas

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here for your debut in the Chair, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this very good debate. I also congratulate all those Members who were elected for the first time at the most recent general election—not for the election victory, I hasten to add; we would rather that had not happened—on having already learned the fine parliamentary art form of squeezing a five-minute speech into two minutes. As a result, we heard a wide range of important points.

When I read the room, I was not sure about whether I should have more trepidation about addressing this gathering as a Labour MP or as a London MP. I want to explain why both of those things are complementary to what we have just heard. First, the regional imbalance in the UK economy is not working for London and the south-east, either. This city—one where I am a suburban MP—is overheating and overcrowded. It is in the interests of London and the south-east that we are rebalancing the economy across England and the rest of the UK. The concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in London and the south-east does not work for London, for the rest of England or for the rest of the UK. I hope we can achieve genuine consensus about how we redistribute power, wealth and opportunity from London and the south-east to the rest of the UK to create a genuinely balanced economy that benefits everyone and strengthens our country as a whole.

The Opposition not only not disagree with so much of what we heard in the debate but strongly support it. We understand the diversity of the rural economy in this country. Jobs and businesses in farming, forestry and fishing are important for the people who work in them, the communities who benefit from them and, of course, the consumers who enjoy them too. However, they are not the grand total of rural businesses; in fact, 85% of rural businesses are unrelated to farming, forestry and fishing. It is really important that public policy makers, whether in Government or around the Westminster village, understand that point and think about the diversity of the rural economy and how we support those businesses to succeed.

It is also a really important point that, in the context of the productivity challenge we have in the economy as a whole, rural economies in the UK are less productive. The hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point well that that reflects not on the workforce but on the conditions in which those businesses operate. It is also true that employment is generally higher in rural areas but pay is lower. We heard some illustrations of why that was, with people holding down a number of jobs—in fact, running a number of businesses—to make ends meet. That point was made powerfully during the debate.

What are the conditions in the wider environment that are causing some of these challenges? Of course, some challenges arise out of business size and density, and there are not the same conglomeration effects as in urban areas.

We have heard contributions on the challenges of accessing finance and the closure of bank branches. We ought to think, in the context of the connectivity that we have had to create during the course of covid, about how to better connect rural businesses with each other. We need to make sure that we are investing in our people, which is about access to skills and making sure that people do not need to leave the places where they grew up in order to have a successful career or to build a successful business. It is important that we invest in infrastructure, whether that is buses, rail or other forms of public transport. There are also ongoing issues of digital connectivity—this country is a digital laggard. We only have to look at the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to see that we are so far behind other European countries on digital connectivity.

Notwithstanding all the other challenges that our country faces at the moment, I really hope that, as we think about how to break the back of this covid crisis, we think about how we build a better, stronger, more resilient economy beyond the crisis, making sure that we invest in rural communities and their people, businesses and infrastructure. I hope we can build a cross-party consensus in this area to generate good ideas for the next Labour Government to take forward.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

If the Minister can conclude by 5.43 pm, that will give enough time for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) to wind up the debate.

Draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 General Committees

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Although no one believes that huge exit payments from the public sector are right, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed, we are concerned about the way the Government are implementing the regulations. They are unnecessary, premature, unhelpful, place burdens on the public sector that are disproportionate to their purpose and, in some cases, present perverse disincentives, too.

I will outline those points in more detail. The Minister referred in particular to regulations implemented on a similar basis by the Scottish Government. Committee members will be aware, particularly if they were in the Chamber last week, that when it comes to challenging the Scottish Government, I certainly do not pull my punches with the SNP, but it would only be fair to acknowledge—as the Minister ought to have done—that one of the big differences between the approaches of the Scottish and UK Governments is the exemption of pension strain payments from the cap, which, as we have heard from many representations by trade unions and representatives of chief executives in local government, is one of the key problems and challenges when it comes to implementing the regulations.

Of course, that is not the only challenge. Without index-linking, the threshold will slowly reduce in real terms, catching more and more public sector workers within its scope. That sets in motion a steady ratchet on public sector workers. If the cap is necessary—the Minister has outlined the case for that on many occasions—it would be right for it to be linked to public sector pay, so that there is no erosion of the level of cap in real terms.

The provisions are presented as an attempt to exercise restraint on payments to the very highest paid public sector workers. However, as highlighted by so many of the responses and representations made by trade unions—who are not, by the way, famous for defending excessive levels of high pay, but are absolutely steadfast in defending public sector workers who receive ordinary or, in some cases, modest levels of pay—this is not something that will simply affect the highest-paid workers. It will catch an awful lot of ordinary workers on ordinary levels of pay, as a direct result of including pension strain payments in the cap. If the Government’s intent is simply to prevent higher-paid workers being paid large severance payments, a simple index-linked earnings-level exemption would provide that without most of the problems that the waivers create.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, there is no equality impact assessment for the scheme, and the list of included and exempted bodies also causes concerns. Why is the judiciary exempted, but not staff of the Crown Prosecution Service? The staff of those elements of the justice system have very different demographic profiles. As we heard very strongly from the TUC, the decision not to undertake a comprehensive equality impact assessment gives serious cause for concern. The TUC is of the view that the Government may well be in breach of their obligations under the public sector equality duty. The union GMB argued at the time that the Treasury’s 2016 equality impact assessment was seriously deficient. It is now also out of date. GMB is also concerned about the public sector equality duty.

The Minister mentioned the waiver process, which seems cumbersome and overcentralised, as all decisions by local authorities need approval from the Treasury. I would have thought, given some of the examples of public sector waste and profligacy as a result of Government incompetence and the bad management of contracts that we outlined this morning, that the Minister would welcome some of his time being freed up to ensure that more taxpayers’ money is more wisely spent. Maybe the regulations might keep his eyes focused on the wrong issue, so that we end up in a position whereby the Treasury is penny wise but billions of pounds foolish when it comes to some of the spending commitments and priorities that the Treasury has outlined in recent weeks and months. Although it is the Labour online conference week, I will not dwell too much on that, Sir Christopher, because you will no doubt rule that it is out of the scope of the regulations, and rightly so.

To go back to the ongoing consultation—led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —on changes to the local government pension scheme that are necessary to give effect to the provisions, if the Committee approves the regulations, local government employers will find it difficult to agree redundancy packages with staff and unions in the meantime, because of concerns about the legality of the exit payments. A £95,000 cash payment and no access to pension is not permitted by the regulations governing early access to unreduced pension in the local government pension schemes.

There is also a wider point about local government unions. I should say, having been in local government as an elected member, that I am also a member of Unison, which represents members of local government. Local government unions have in their collective bargaining on pay and conditions deliberately favoured positive pension concerns and priorities over other issues. Local government workers have given up other benefits to keep those pension terms. The regulations are an arbitrary attack on terms that have been secured through agreement between unions and employers.

The regulations also provide inadequate recognition of contractual notice periods. Although they exempt up to three months’ pay in lieu of notice, the Government will know that some public sector staff are contractually entitled to six months’ notice. COT3 settlements, which are ACAS-arranged compromise settlements, are mostly included in the scope of the cap—but not employment tribunal awards. That will have the utterly perverse effect of incentivising people to go to tribunal, and flies in the face of the Government’s push towards early conciliation, creating a much more costly process for everyone.

It would be helpful, particularly given the intervention made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, to clear up the issue about settlements in discrimination cases, and how they are treated. It would also be helpful if the Chief Secretary would elaborate on why health and safety settlements are not exempted from the cap. They are unlimited if people go to tribunal. The Government need to clear up the issue of where they stand on settlements in discrimination and health and safety cases. Both are treated as unlimited if people take them to the employment tribunal.

As we have already argued, the inclusion of pension strain costs means that long-serving workers on lower salaries, and not just the highest-paid, will be caught out. The Local Government Association has given figures and examples showing how, on its estimate of the methodology for calculating pension strain costs, the cap of £95,000 would, as a result of the pension strain issue, hit certain people leaving with a severance payment. They would include a woman leaving the scheme at age 55 on 31 March 2019, after 35 years’ service, earning £23,500—not a particularly large amount of money—with a severance payment based on statutory weeks multiplied by actual weekly pay, multiplied by 1.5.

Moving on to people leaving with a redundancy payment, the LGA highlights the example of a woman leaving the scheme at age 55 on 31 March 2019 after 35 years of service, earning £25,100, with a redundancy payment based on a maximum weekly pay of £525. Therefore, the idea that it is only the highest-paid public sector workers who are targeted simply does not hold water.

There are some basic questions about fairness and impact. It is no good Members standing on their front doorstep clapping the public sector workers among their fellow residents on the street, and getting their mobile phone out to enjoy a few retweets, if in the middle of the pandemic we arrive back in Parliament to attack the conditions of the very public sector workers who are supporting our country through the crisis. For those reasons we cannot support the Government. We shall oppose the statutory instrument and it is a source of deep regret that the Government have listened, as the Chief Secretary said, to some concerns, but that they have not addressed some of those fundamental concerns we have raised this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

The reality, without wanting to stray into the issue of litigation, is that this is a cap on payments, so a body representing members may have concerns about that. The issue before the Committee is what constitutes value for money for the taxpayer. I remind the Committee of the fact that payments can be more than six times the national living wage and four times the average earnings. During the time of coronavirus, those are very substantial payments. You will be familiar with, Sir Christopher, some of the payments that were read out on the Floor of the House—those of NHS managers for example, who receive very large payments and then reappear elsewhere in the NHS very shortly.

[Wes Streeting]

Of course, it is easy to point to those examples. I wonder how the six-figure pay-off to Mark Sedwill could have been considered value for taxpayer money, and how much the wider cull of top civil servants under the Government is costing the taxpayer.

[Steve Barclay]

I was going to come to local authorities, but to address the issue of senior civil servants, that flowed from the decision to split the role of the Cabinet Secretary and the head of the civil service with that of Sir Mark’s other role as National Security Adviser, which meant that he was stepping down before the end of his tenure. It was therefore appropriate that Sir Mark was compensated in line with the civil service compensation scheme, and the sum is in line with the normal rules governing civil service pensions and compensation. Since 2015, in anticipation of the introduction of a cross-public sector cap on exit payments, any civil service exit costing more than £95,000 requires approval by Cabinet Office Ministers to ensure that it provides value for money to the taxpayer. As someone who worked with Sir Mark, particularly in my role as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I place on the record what a fine public servant he was and how much I valued working with him during his time in office.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who made a number of interventions—I hope that comment is not untoward—also raised a legitimate point about local authorities. As I say, it is something I looked at in particular. Local authorities’ ability to restructure should not be dependent on six-figure taxpayer-funded payouts. Councils will still be able to restructure and exit staff in any way they wish, provided the sum of any exit payment does not exceed £95,000. The Government accept that there might be instances where it is in the interests of urgent workplace reform to relax the restriction imposed by the regulations, so there is flexibility within the system.

Finally, the hon. Member for Ilford North raised the issue of index-linking. The point is that we want to retain the flexibility to revalue the cap both upwards but also downwards. If one looks at the economic consequences of coronavirus, ensuring that there is flexibility in the system is a prudent way to manage the public finances.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating a stellar cast of cross-party MPs, led by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), on securing this important, well-attended and over-subscribed debate, which the Backbench Business Committee granted in its wisdom.

As we have heard so powerfully, the Chancellor plans to cut off support for every self-employed worker in the country from October, no matter whether they are back at work or back under local lockdown. It is almost as if he thinks that the economic crisis that we are living through is somehow unrelated to the Government’s catastrophic failure on test, track and trace.

As we have heard throughout the debate, the people we are discussing—the self-employed and freelancers across the country—are the backbone of Britain’s economy. They are entrepreneurs, innovators, creators, risk takers and entertainers. They are not looking for a permanent handout, just the support they need to weather the crisis, get back on their feet and help build Britain’s recovery. Let us be honest: they have been an afterthought since the crisis began. Few of us will forget the despair they felt when the Chancellor promised to do “whatever it takes”, yet they found themselves out in the cold when the job retention scheme was first announced.

Without an outcry from the Opposition, we would never have had a self-employment income support scheme and more than 2.7 million people would have missed out on any support at all. Sadly, we do not have to imagine what that would have meant for those people because, if the anguish people felt when they were left out of the job retention scheme package was not bad enough, it was dwarfed by the total despair that 3 million people felt when the Chancellor announced the self-employment income support scheme and excluded them.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Many of those excluded from the schemes are in the creative industries, which contribute £111.7 billion to the UK economy. That affects not only them as individuals, but our future recovery.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is second to none in championing that issue on behalf of the people of Luton.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although many groups are affected, I want to highlight those people on repeated short-term contracts. They do not fit into any category, but they have tax records. Surely, with a bit of imagination, people with a long-standing tax record could be helped.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are practical ways through this. We do not pretend that it is not difficult, but the problems are not insurmountable if the Government would only show flexibility and willingness to listen. Millions of people’s hopes were crushed and their lives thrown into chaos and anxiety when they saw the ship was sailing and had left them behind.

I do not need to list the exclusions, but can we drop this idea once and for all that these are all super-wealthy people living it up on savings or shares? One of my constituents affected is a face painter and balloon artist. She has a simple job, which is to bring joy to children, and it is a job she loves doing, but it is a job she could not do when, like every other business, she went into lockdown and her business closed. Now, as she is trying to get her business back up and running, she finds the rule of six has once again crushed the party business. She is not super rich, she cannot do her job through no fault of her own and she has not had a penny of support since April.

We have heard other powerful examples, including from my hon. Friends the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). There are so many examples we could give, but we have so little time and those people have even less time. “You will not face this alone”, the Chancellor said. Unfortunately, that was true in only one respect: they found each other. Through ExcludedUK, ForgottenLtd and other campaign groups, they have found a support network and managed to win a hearing in the huge cross-party support they have built in this House. So why is the Chancellor not listening? Why is he being so stubborn and inflexible? Why, even now, do Ministers refuse the basic request, which is just to meet and talk with people who are willing to come forward with ideas and practical solutions? The consequences of the Government’s failure to act are clear. Before the crisis began, around 15% of the workforce were self-employed. That figure has fallen sharply during this crisis. We heard powerful personal testimony on this from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter)—people who know what it means to take the plunge, take the risk and start a business.

We have heard powerful contributions on the arts and creative industries, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), who knows how to build an audience. We have heard other brilliant speeches, too, from my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), from Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and from right across the Back Benches, from SNP and Plaid Cymru Members.

People might think that theatre is frivolous and all about singing and dancing and having a good time, but there is an important economic issue here. There is a reason central London is empty: the theatres are closed. The live music sector contributed £4.5 billion to the UK economy in 2019. We also see in the figures that some of the sharpest falls have been in construction, professional, scientific and technical services, and administration and support services. The Resolution Foundation has highlighted the sharp fall in these people’s earnings.

Labour has repeatedly called on the Government to listen to the concerns of the excluded. The shadow Chancellor has written to the Chancellor four times in recent months to highlight problems and suggest solutions, and we are always willing to meet, if only the Government were not so stubborn and unwilling to listen. The Federation of Small Businesses—experts in this area—has repeatedly called for a rescue plan for those left out of Government support. It is right to argue that those whose businesses are often suffering through no fault of their own should not be left out of support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) underlined, the Government do not understand Britain’s self-employed. As a result, they have not valued them and because of that they have not provided them with the support they desperately need.

Before I was elected to this House, I spent just a year as a freelancer. It was one of the most terrifying professional experiences of my life—not knowing if I would get the next job, or if the invoice would be paid on time; worrying about things such as my cash flow, bills, my incomes, my outgoings. It is a stressful experience. I can speak for the self-employed and the excluded in my constituency—we have heard so many others speak for their constituents too—but none of us can truly understand what these people have been through this year, seeing other people receive support and themselves left behind.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that many freelancers, particularly in the creative industries, where it is really precarious and people live contract to contract, make ends meet with casual work, but that has totally dried up in the hospitality sector, in ushering and in box office work, for example? So they have absolutely nothing, and they are desperate and running out of savings.

[Wes Streeting]

That is absolutely true. One of the things I find most worrying about the trends we have seen is that—as if the inequality that has gripped this country was not bad enough entering the crisis—there have been two very different experiences of the pandemic. If people are in a job with stable employment and have had money coming in every month, they may well be one of the households who has contributed to a record rise in savings. They may well feel that their outgoings have gone down and that they can start planning for home improvements or a decent family holiday. However, if people have lost their job, or were self-employed or freelance and their business activity went completely down to zero, this has been an absolutely terrible experience. I do not think that any of us, unless we have been in that position, can really understand what those people are going through.

In conclusion, I say to the Minister, whose task in responding to the debate I do not envy—with the notable and honourable exception of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), I think she has found herself pretty alone in this debate—that the cross-party calls for the Government to listen, even to meet, are overwhelming. The privilege of being able to govern comes with the responsibility of taking action, of seeing people through difficult times. We know that the Government have a difficult job. We would not have wished this pandemic on anyone, but so many of us on both sides of the House simply do not understand the Chancellor’s intransigence, stubbornness and unwillingness to listen on this issue. So please, I beg the Minister, on behalf of millions of people across this country who have felt unheard or excluded: it is time to act.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate.

We have heard some excellent contributions from across the House, and it has been reassuring to hear so much consensus, not just on the Labour Benches, but from SNP Members and the Liberal Democrats. We even heard a short but sweet contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and not forgetting of course the contribution from Plaid Cymru too.

Alongside those excellent contributions was a rather depressing sense of déjà vu, because just last week the shadow Chancellor warned that our country was in the grip of a jobs crisis, and she warned that the crisis would intensify if the Government failed to change course. This week, those warnings came to pass, with the latest unemployment figures. Between March and August, 695,000 workers disappeared from the payroll and the claimant count more than doubled and now stands at 2.7 million. The number of vacancies in August was almost half that we saw at the same time last year. We have warned for months that a one-size-fits-all approach risks fuelling unemployment, ruining lives and risking the economic recovery that we need following this crisis; but, instead of listening, the Chancellor seems determined to roll back one of the Government’s most effective responses to this crisis, the job retention scheme.

A total of 9.6 million jobs have been furloughed through the job retention scheme, including 17,500 in my constituency. It peaked at 8.9 million on 8 May, and most recent estimates showed 13% of all jobs still furloughed in the two weeks up to 9 August. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), in so many sectors the picture is far bleaker: 51% of those in arts, entertainment and recreation furloughed; 27% of those in accommodation and food services furloughed; and 19% of those in transport and storage furloughed.

That is not surprising. We have said consistently that there are many businesses and some sectors that are inevitably hit harder and for longer, through no fault of their own. Indeed, at this very moment more communities across the country are facing local lockdown. More businesses are facing closure or severe disruption through no fault of their own.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) reminded us, the Chancellor said at the outset of the crisis that he would do “whatever it takes”, but there are communities across this country—millions of people, in fact—who have had no support at all, who do not think the Chancellor is doing whatever it takes. In fact, a Chancellor who we were happy to support when he announced the job retention scheme is looking increasingly stubborn and inflexible, determined to roll back the furlough scheme by asking employers already to contribute more to the costs and rolling it up altogether in just six weeks’ time.

The IPPR has warned that 2 million jobs could be lost as a result of that single decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke of so powerfully, the economic crisis we are experiencing is likely to worsen if the Government continue on this course, entrenching inequality in our country that was already intolerable before this crisis even began.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) pointed out, possibly quite reasonably, that it is unusual to see a policy from a Conservative Chancellor receiving so much support and acclamation from the Opposition Benches, but there is a good reason for that. As we have already heard from other hon. Members, the job retention scheme did not fall out of the sky and it certainly was not the brainchild of the Chancellor alone. The reason it was so successful was that the Chancellor listened to calls from the Opposition for wage support and even got business representatives and the trade unions around the table to design the scheme.

There is a model there for the Chancellor to follow: one that is listening, one that is inclusive and one that recognises that if we are serious about tackling economic inequality and injustice and about getting Britain working again, we need the voice of the workers at the table. Sadly, the Chancellor has stopped listening to the voice of labour—the official voice of labour represented here on the Opposition Benches, and the official voice of labour that we heard this week at the TUC congress.

If the Chancellor will not listen to the voice of labour, if he has stopped caring about the interests of labour and workers across the country, perhaps he will listen to business voices—the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce, and businesses up and down the country—calling on him to show some understanding of the long-tail impact of this public health crisis and the impact it is having on their businesses and their ability to keep good people in good jobs, in viable businesses that just need that bit more time.

Perhaps the Chancellor will listen to the economists and the think tanks urging him to show a more flexible approach to furlough and to take, as we have called for, a sector-by-sector approach to ending the furlough scheme. If he will not listen to them, perhaps he will listen to his own MPs. An increasing number of Conservative MPs have said publicly what many more are saying privately in the Tea Room: that it is a mistake to wind up the furlough scheme and a mistake to take this one-size-fits-all approach.

Indeed, that call was reflected in the cross-party but Conservative-led Treasury Committee of this House.

We heard from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that the Government are looking at taking a more creative and innovative approach. We have heard again today, as we have heard so often from Government Members, that it would be a mistake to continue with a blanket extension of the furlough scheme. No one has ever called for a blanket extension of the furlough scheme. The fact that so many fewer people are currently furloughed tells us that a blanket extension is not necessary. However, we know that many people in many sectors continue to be disproportionately affected and it is right that the Government should reflect that in a more flexible approach to the job retention scheme.

We shall doubtless hear again in the next debate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) made so powerfully. Let us not forget the 3 million people in this country who have not benefited from the Chancellor’s one-size-fits-all approach: the excluded. Other countries show us that a different way and a different choice are possible. There have been extended schemes in the Republic of Ireland, France and Germany. In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned that the twin towns of Münster in Germany and Dijon in France have extended schemes. Our Government’s approach just does not cut the mustard.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) among others pointed out, we are still waiting for the aviation deal that was promised in March. While on that point, I must reply to the claim by Scottish National party Members that the Scottish Labour party opposes calling on the UK Government to extend the furlough scheme. Last night, the SNP attempted to rewrite a Scottish Labour motion setting out the action needed by the Scottish Government to bail out the aviation sector and provide the support it needs. I cannot say I am surprised because it is a pattern that we often see. SNP Members are happy to come here and rightly challenge the UK Government to use their powers and resources to support jobs, workers and industries across the country, but the SNP Government are not prepared to use their own powers and resources. They are good at passing the buck, but terrible at taking responsibility for their decisions.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made some powerful points about the need to get women into work. She talked about the support that should be on offer for women, particularly childcare, retraining and providing new opportunities for people who find themselves out of work. That support is not yet in place and I hope that the Government hear her call.

We are told that we should let people lose their jobs now and be released from furlough because they will find other jobs. Those who make that claim are apparently ignorant of the fact that there are no other jobs yet for people to go to and that putting people out of work now means that they are staring at the grim reality of Britain’s social insecurity system.

I urge the Government to consider the costs of not acting, of allowing unemployment to rise further, of the personal tragedies and human misery that means for families across the country, and of the further, avoidable damage it will inflict on our regional economies and our economy as a whole. Maybe then those on the Treasury Bench will go back to the Department of Health and Social Care and say that until the test, track and trace system is working properly, the economic and public health damage will be self-inflicted by the Government, and Britain will pay a heavy price, not just now but in the longer term. That will be on the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I have not seen the National Institute of Economic and Social Research analysis that the hon. Gentleman talks about, which is somewhat embarrassing, since I am a governor of the national institute—I shall ask it to forward that to me. I am pleased to say that it is independent of its governors and rightly so. I will certainly look at that.

The point I would make is that although the scheme as such is winding down, Government support is very much not. It continues across a very wide range of packages and includes, as colleagues rightly mentioned, the bonus. I think that that is much underestimated by colleagues—it is a very important element. That guarantees a one-off payment of £1,000 to employers for each furloughed employee they bring back to do meaningful work and earn an average of £520 a month between November and January, and who continues to be employed by the same employer as at 31 January 2021.

[Wes Streeting]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I have very little time—if the hon. Member does not mind, I will proceed. That bonus is an important aspect because it provides a marginal benefit to a very large group of relatively low-paid employees. Of course, we have also launched the kickstart scheme.

Let me pick up a couple of points that have been raised. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that it is very important for Scotland to have powers of its own in this context. I echo again—I am becoming like a broken record—the hon. Member for Ilford North who said that the Scottish Government are good at passing the buck and bad at taking responsibility. The Scottish Government House has tax-raising powers devolved through the Silk commission. Let it use those. At the moment, the vast majority of money spent in Scotland and in Wales is spent by and raised through local government—regional government—but raised through UK Government, and that is crucial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) rightly pointed out that the Chancellor has included many flexibilities in the design of the furlough scheme, and it is important to recognise that it has evolved over time. It has not been a fixed thing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) rightly pointed out that the unemployment drop had been much less in the UK than elsewhere and that there had been a rapid fall in furloughing. He pointed to the tapering out that that implied and he is right about that.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) was right to raise the point about the need for green jobs. The Government absolutely share that view, and that is one of the things that successive policies have focused on. I have no doubt that it will be an important part of the consideration in the net-zero review and all the other measures that are presently in place.

Quickly, on the issue of fraud—if I may for a second before winding up, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is much misunderstood; the planning assumptions that were outlined in the evidence from the CEO of HMRC are just planning assumptions, and we wait to see what the final numbers will be after enforcement. He has said in terms that he does not rule out penalties and potentially criminal procedures to bring that back under control—

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, many offline businesses are also extremely effective online businesses; as Adam Smith almost said, we are a nation of virtual shopkeepers. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are committed to a fundamental review of business rates. We published a call for evidence in July and invited views on reform and on potential alternative taxes, including an online sales tax. Our intention is carefully to consider the merits and risks of introducing such a tax, and I encourage all Members, including my hon. Friend, to contribute their views.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

While a number of wealthier inner-city areas have received over £100 million each in rate relief and small business grants, many constituencies in the midlands and the north have been left behind, with some receiving barely a fifth of that support or even less—Dudley North, Rother Valley, Blyth Valley, Don Valley, Penistone and Stocksbridge, Wolverhampton North East, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Redcar, Sedgefield; I could go on. Is that what the Government meant by levelling up?

[Jesse Norman]

As the Chancellor has already highlighted, the Government’s intention has been to support vulnerable people, vulnerable businesses and vulnerable families across the country. As he has also pointed out, the evidence appears to be that we have been very successful, with the most targeted support being most heavily felt at the lower end of the income spectrum. If numbers in the aggregate do not please the hon. Gentleman, let me simply tell him the reaction of one chief executive of a retail business in this country, who said to me that without the furlough scheme, that company alone would have laid off 30,000 people. With the furlough scheme, it has been able to continue and recover.

The Economy

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It was a joy to read in one newspaper this morning that the theme of the Chancellor’s statement today would be jobs, jobs, jobs, which had a pretty familiar ring to it, as did the reports that the Prime Minister wants to bring about a green industrial revolution. In fact, I half expected the Chancellor to open his speech this afternoon by promising an economic policy for the many, not the few. These are truly extraordinary times, but in the end, history will not measure the Chancellor’s success in newspaper headlines or column inches. It will be measured by the unemployment figures. It will be measured by the strength of the recovery, and it will be measured by whether he is able to build back better, build back greener and build a brighter future for every part of our country after a decade of failed economic policies.

Just as these are extraordinary times, this is no ordinary recession. The shutdown of our economy—essential to saving lives—has delivered the biggest contraction of economic activity in living memory, with a record fall in GDP measuring three times that which occurred during the financial crisis. Every community has been affected. Between March and May, an additional 1.6 million people claimed unemployment-related benefits, bringing the total to just under 3 million. We have seen the largest quarterly fall in vacancies since records began in 1971, and 22% of businesses reported turnover down by more than 50%. While the impact has been felt across our country, we know that it has not been felt evenly. Some in our services sector have been hit particularly hard, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing a fall in output in accommodation and food of 92%, compared with 20% in professional services.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good series of points. He is right to say that there is an inequality in the support. The Chancellor has failed today to provide support for the hundreds of thousands of newly set up small businesses, self-employed people and directors of small limited companies who are still excluded from support. Is not today the day that the Chancellor should be supporting those people and helping them to keep going, ready to meet the recovery?

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree, and it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I will come on to make exactly that point.

For some people in secure jobs and on decent pay, the lockdown restrictions have been an opportunity to clear the credit card or build up savings, but for so many others—particularly the young and the low-paid—the labour market shock has been severe, and so has the impact on their pockets. Behind every one of these statistics are people—families and communities who have played their part in getting our country through this crisis, keeping our supermarkets stocked and essential services running; caring for us when we need it, from the brilliant staff who work in our NHS to the dedicated, often disgracefully low-paid and, this week, it seems, maligned staff who work in our care homes; and, with some notable high-profile exceptions, doing everything that was asked of them, staying home to save lives, looking out for their neighbours and volunteering in their communities. It is a truly national response, and it is not over yet. Coronavirus is the biggest crisis of most of our lifetimes. A resurgence of the virus remains the biggest threat to lives and livelihoods at the present time. And the health of our economy cannot be separated from the health of our country. That is why the Government’s failure to put in place an effective track and trace system is so concerning. The Chancellor did not mention it this afternoon, but he knows as well as we do that, without it, the risk to public health and to our economy are that much greater.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that while the measures to protect and promote the hospitality sector were very welcome, some people might choose not to go out to restaurants and cafés for reasons that are less about being able to bear the cost of buying meals out and more about their concern as to whether they will be putting themselves and their families at risk by doing so?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because, as events in Leicester have shown, the virus has not gone away. Local lockdowns, or, God forbid, another national lockdown in the event of a second peak, would deliver a knockout blow to so many businesses struggling to get back on their feet, and as my hon. Friend has just alluded to, those businesses will continue to struggle unless the public are given the confidence they need to go out and start spending money again.

Since the start of this crisis, the Government have been too slow: too slow to take the threat of covid-19 seriously; too slow to lockdown; and too slow to ramp up testing. Our criticism of the Government’s approach to track and trace is not unreasonable; this is not mission impossible. Today, the German embassy in the UK is tweeting to invite British citizens to download its Corona-Warn-App before visiting Germany, and British people are replying to the German embassy here in London asking if they can use it here in the UK. We are not even demanding the world-beating track and trace system the Government promised; we just want a system that works.

In a spirit of national unity and common purpose, we sought to work with the Government wherever possible. We have helped expedite emergency legislation through the House, and we have supported many of the measures taken to respond to the health emergency and to the economic crisis. Where Government have fallen short, we have suggested alternative approaches, and to be fair to the Government they have been prepared to listen. They listened when they introduced the job retention scheme, which we had called for and the TUC helped design, and later when the Chancellor came back with support for the self-employed that has been a lifeline to so many.

In the same spirit, we called on the Chancellor to take immediate action to tackle youth unemployment, and we pointed to the future jobs fund introduced by the last Labour Government as a model. Today’s kick-start announcement is exactly that, and we welcome it. In fact, the greatest compliment I can pay to the Chancellor from this Dispatch Box is that in announcing the kick-start scheme earlier he sounded like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Maligned by the Conservatives at the time, history has been kinder to them than the Conservative Opposition of the day were; their leadership is rightly recognised by the Chancellor today, and that is to his credit.

But I do want to impress on the Chief Secretary the following point before he returns to the Treasury. The success of Labour’s future jobs fund was in no small part thanks to the hard work of the third sector and local authorities in delivering it, all of which are now in a far worse position than they were when the financial crisis hit. They have already stepped up in response to this crisis. Charities have been on the frontline of responding to covid-19, at the same time as the virus has plunged so many of them into financial crises of their own. They are at the heart of community resilience, public service delivery and tackling some of the biggest challenges of our time; we need them to come through this crisis and out the other side, so that they can help our country to do the same.

Councils were asked to do whatever it takes, whatever the cost, and they did. They have delivered food parcels to those shielding and made contact with those isolated and at risk. Their workers have kept essential services running at personal risk to themselves, and they have delivered Government grants to the businesses that need them with remarkable speed and efficiency. We have also seen endless examples of their creativity and ingenuity throughout their crisis response. The Mayor of London has worked closely with London boroughs to get rough sleepers off the streets and into safe harbour, and they are working together now to end rough sleeping for good. My own local council procured step-down accommodation for covid patients leaving hospital in order to delay the immediate discharge of those patients into care home settings to help control the spread of the virus. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, provided a loan to a local business to help it scale-up PPE production during the national shortage. While the Government dithered and delayed over supports for arts and culture, the Mayor of Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, was already delivering it through his music fund and film and TV development fund. Councils such as Staffordshire County Council and Brighton and Hove City council have provided additional support to community groups and third-sector organisations, recognising the important role that they are playing in the crisis response.

Today, those local authorities are in far worse shape after a decade of cuts from Conservative Government and the double whammy of rising costs and lost revenues as a result of this crisis. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government promised to reimburse them, but so far he has failed to deliver and, after a decade of Tory cuts, they cannot afford to pay for the opportunity to sit next to him at the next Conservative fundraiser in the hope of a favourable decision coming out of the Government.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Cheap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that it is cheap. I am not sure that a seat at a Conservative party fundraiser is particularly cheap, and it is certainly a price too high for lobbying the Government, but there we are.

Let me turn now to the comments made by Torsten Bell, the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation. He said that the £2 billion kick-start scheme is “a very welcome return” to the approach of the future jobs fund, but he notes that creating those opportunities will be a huge delivery challenge. He says that it will need loads of these jobs to be created by local authorities, and he is right. The success or failure of the kick-start programme will depend on the strength of local government to help deliver it, so it is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and fund local government properly.

[Jim Shannon]

The shadow Minister is right about the role for local government and the important role that it plays. My local council of Ards and North Down has a very clear economic plan. With low rates and with the highly skilled employment that we have, the opportunities are very clearly there. All we need is that investment. I know that the Government have given so much on the Barnett consequentials and that is really important, but it is also important that we have strategy that works for both the Northern Ireland Assembly and for here as well.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Of course, the devolved Administrations can provide their own policy responses, but we know that decisions taken here on public spending have a direct impact on their ability to respond accordingly, too.

We have said throughout this crisis that we would not criticise for criticism sake, and beyond the kick-start future jobs fund announced today, we welcome the attempt to make sure that the furlough scheme gets people back to work, instead of making them redundant through the jobs retention bonus. We are glad that the Chancellor included provision to get people into training and apprenticeships in his statement, and we welcome the additional resources provided to the Department for Work and Pensions to help get people back into work. In so far as they can, we hope that the cut in VAT and the limited “eat out to help out” scheme will be of some assistance to our tourism and hospitality industries, but this falls far short of what we called for and what was promised. We were promised a new deal, but the Chancellor’s big announcement was a meal deal. The Chancellor said that we cannot have endless extensions to the job retention scheme, which was echoed by the Chief Secretary, and that we cannot allow furloughing to go on forever. We agree. We have never argued otherwise. This straw man argument does a real disservice to the concerns coming from those employers and industries that face the biggest and longest hit as a result of covid-19.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, as the Chancellor confirmed, there is still a Budget to come later in the year and that the announcements today were not the sum total of everything that the Government will do? He should continue the constructive tone that he has used in part of his remarks and say, “Now we should work together on both sides of the House to see how, in the autumn Budget, we should extend things and see what needs to happen once we understand the economic situation at that time, which will be different from what it is today.”

[Wes Streeting]

The shadow Chancellor has always been willing to work with the Chancellor and we would be very happy to engage with the Government in terms of the flexibility that we are calling for in the sector-by-sector approach. In fact, as the Government did in establishing the job retention scheme, we would encourage them to sit down with employers and trade unions to look at what support is needed, for how long and across which sectors to make sure that people come through this crisis. The challenge with what the hon. Gentleman describes is that for too many businesses it will simply be too late. When there are some businesses that are still shut down through no fault or choice of their own, it is completely unreasonable for them to see Government support beginning to wind up before they can actually open their doors to business. The public health response and the economic response have to go hand in hand. I would have thought that point would be obvious to the Government.

Part of the Government’s challenge is demand and getting consumers spending again, as we have heard, but many of the challenges are also supply side, where a cut in VAT or a £10 discount on a Tuesday night is neither here nor there. Beyond tourism and hospitality, we have seen job losses across a range of sectors in recent days and weeks. The Chancellor offered nothing for manufacturing, including for companies at risk in aerospace and automotive industries, and nothing for the businesses whose doors are still closed. We fear that the Chancellor’s refusal to accept a more flexible and tailored sector-by-sector approach to business support and job retention is a failure of judgment that will be reflected in higher unemployment figures. I would be delighted to be proven wrong on that point.

In his statement, the Chancellor said that people need to know that although hardship lies ahead, no one will be left without hope. I am afraid, as we have already heard, he offered no hope whatever to the excluded, those who have consistently fallen through the cracks of the Chancellor’s support for employed and self-employed workers. Instead, they remain forgotten. Some of this is about choices and priorities. It is not clear why many of those facing the greatest financial hardship were offered no direct financial support in what the Chancellor announced today. Those who will benefit from the cut in stamp duty will, by definition, be better off.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to this group of people. He has just been talking about extending existing programmes from which they are excluded. In addition to wanting to extend those programmes, what does he want to happen to those who have been excluded, so that that sense of being left behind no longer continues?

[Wes Streeting]

It seems to me that people who have been excluded require exactly the same sort of assistance as people who have been included, which is direct support to protect their incomes. We would be very happy to sit down with the Treasury to discuss how to bring that about.

Turning to climate change, the Chancellor promised a green recovery with concern for the environment at its heart. What we actually got today was a scaled-back ambition that fell well short of what the Committee on Climate Change and climate change justice campaigners were looking for. The Conservative manifesto promised £9 billion for energy efficiency. Today the Chancellor announced just £2 billion, which is about a fifth of what they promised people before the election. If the crisis has taught us anything, it is that there is such a thing as too late. It is this decade to 2030 where action will really count if we are to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown —not the next 30 years to 2050, but the next 10 years to 2030—so where was the green new deal? A green industrial strategy will get our country back on track to meet its climate obligations in the longer term, but it can also be the shot in the arm our country needs in the shorter term, creating new jobs and delivering improvements to our quality of life.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has been very generous. We should have a three-point test for the Government’s infrastructure investment: does it involve local firms and deliver better local jobs? Does it provide opportunities to upskill local people? Will it reduce carbon emissions and ensure that this is a green recovery that gets us back on track to zero emissions?

[Wes Streeting]

I know you are watching the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the good thing about that intervention is that I no longer have to repeat those points in my speech. I agree entirely.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wes Streeting]

I am afraid I must begin to draw to a conclusion. I remember Madam Deputy Speaker as a Chief Whip and she is not afraid to crack it.

The Chancellor has taken measures that most people would have thought unthinkable from a Conservative Chancellor. In his statement this afternoon, he said his response to this crisis would be unencumbered by dogma. We welcome that approach and we hope that others in his party were listening. In recent weeks and months, we have seen the penny drop for the champions of small state, free market, low tax economics about the limitations of their blinkered ideological dogma. As they look to the future, perhaps they might reflect on their past failures, because if we are to build a better country in the aftermath of the crisis, we have to be honest about the state of the country as we entered it.

The ideological dogma that underpinned the last decade of Conservative economic policies has made this a lost decade—a decade of low productivity, stagnant wages, rising poverty and mounting debt, the slowest growth since the war and, perhaps the most damning indictment of all, child poverty rising on their watch. More children in this country are living in poverty—and not by accident or because of factors beyond the Government’s control but because, as the Chair of the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission said,

“welfare changes over the past ten years have put many more children into poverty.”

People may not talk of their own life experiences in terms of a failed economic model or a broken social contract, but they experience it when their bills rise faster than their wages, when their public services are not as good as they were, or when they hit glass ceilings because of their class, gender, race, religion or disability. Those people who have stared into the grim reality of Britain’s social insecurity system—many for the first time in their family’s living memory—and have contemplated what life would be like on universal credit can see that broken system, too. Those living outside London and the south-east can see it, and clearly resent the concentration of so much power, wealth and opportunity in one corner of our country. Even within our capital city, between the glittering lights of the City of London and Canary Wharf, those families crammed into temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation can see the injustice under their noses. People may not always talk in terms of paradigm shifts, but they know that after this crisis, we simply cannot return to business as usual.

The Chancellor said he wants to

“heal the wounds exposed through this crisis”,

but the wounds were already there for anyone who wanted to see them. This has got to be a turning point for our country—one that tackles injustice and gives everyone a stake in success; that fixes our broken social care system, so that never again are older and disabled people left as dangerously exposed as they have been during this crisis; one that addresses the social insecurity experienced by people in precarious work and builds resilience for the challenges ahead posed by technological revolution; one where we seize the opportunity to make the recovery a green recovery with the green new deal that our country needs; and where we argue with renewed vigour and conviction that global problems require global solutions, and where we play our part in rebuilding the institutions needed to provide safety and security in a dangerous world.

For the sake of our country, I hope the Government rise to the challenge, because ours is a great country, full of promise and opportunity, one of the richest countries in the world, with world-class universities, entrepreneurialism and successful business, groundbreaking science and technology, world-renowned arts and culture and a vibrant civil society, and that is what we are fighting to save. But this is also a country of staggering inequality, intolerable poverty and wasted potential, and that is what we are determined to change. As history has shown us, when the country provides the call for change, it is in a Labour Government that they find the solutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

This is an area where I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, in addition to the fund I mentioned a moment ago, the Prime Minister also confirmed £12.2 billion of funding for affordable homes, and there is the £400 million brownfield land fund to get schemes working immediately with Mayors for exactly the reason he sets out.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Conservative manifesto promised £9 billion for energy efficiency schemes, but the Committee on Climate Change described even that as

“welcome but not enough to match the size of the challenge”.

Given that the Chancellor is about to announce a £2 billion scheme, why are the Government scaling back their ambition when they should be scaling up to bring down people’s bills, tackle climate change and create the jobs we need to get Britain back to work?

[Steve Barclay]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer I gave a moment ago, he would have seen that we are learning from the lessons of the 2008 crash. One of the measures that was put in place then saw a fall of a third in the number of small house builders, so part of the £450 million fund is providing the finance to enable small house builders to build the schemes that Members on both sides of the House agree on. It is about learning the lessons of the schemes that Labour put in place in 2008, which led to a fall in construction work.

Finance Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting & Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the House will be aware, HMRC is often responsive and generally extremely responsive to such issues. I will happily look at any correspondence he wants to send me, and I will ensure that there is a properly engaged response to the extent that my limited powers over HMRC permit me. I hope that will be effective.

New clause 23 enables the Treasury to specify in an order made under section 135 of the Finance Act 2008 which payments of tax and other liabilities will not attract late payment interest or surcharge as a result of being deferred by agreement during a period of national disaster or emergency. It also enables the Treasury to set specific relief periods for different deferred taxes or liabilities. As the House will know, the Government have announced an unprecedented package of economic support for businesses and individuals affected by covid. The new clause ensures that late payment interest that would normally accrue automatically where tax is paid late does not apply, supporting taxpayers further and in ways in which I am sure the whole House will support. The payment deferral for VAT that we have announced provides taxpayers with a much-needed cash flow boost. HMRC is using its existing powers as set out in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to defer those payments of tax.

New clause 24 allows a refund of the additional 3% higher rate of stamp duty where exceptional circumstances prevented the sale of the previous main residence in the three-year window within which a sale must ordinarily take place. The new clause applies to those whose refund window ended on or after 1 January 2020. It is to ensure that responsible actions taken by people do not lead to negative tax implications and that those who would otherwise have received a stamp duty land tax refund are still able to receive it, despite the pandemic.

New clause 25 suspends the heavy goods vehicle road user levy for a period of 12 months, cutting fixed operational costs to the logistics and haulage industries as the economy begins to recover from the pandemic. These industries support many other industries, and temporarily easing their financial burden will support the haulage sector, reducing fixed costs as the economy recovers over time.

I turn finally to new clause 32, which makes minor changes to the existing enterprise management incentives legislation, introducing a time-limited exception to the disqualifying event rule so that EMI option holders who can no longer meet the EMI working time requirement due only to the pandemic are not forced to forfeit their options or to exercise them earlier than planned. This has the effect of protecting employees furloughed under the coronavirus job retention scheme or who have taken unpaid leave and had their working hours reduced. The measure means that affected employees will not forfeit their options or be forced to exercise them within the statutory 90 days normally required.

Since the point of EMI schemes is to help high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises recruit and retain skilled employees by giving them tax-advantaged share options, I am sure the House will understand that the measure supports a very important sector that is also likely to be important to our recovery. The changes will be effective from 19 March to ensure that employees who were furloughed or had to reduce their hours do not lose out. I hope the House will accept the need for the new clauses in these highly uncertain and unusual times. I commend them to the House.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I thank the Financial Secretary for making the case for the Government’s new clauses this afternoon. Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the Labour party has made clear as the official Opposition that we seek to work constructively with the Government in response to this unprecedented public health crisis which, as we have seen, has brought about an economic crisis to follow it. In that spirit, and to ensure the smooth passage of legislation, we have helped to expedite the progressive measures taken by the Government, and this afternoon will be no exception.

I wish to speak to new clause 29, which has been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, and other hon. and right hon. colleagues. Yesterday afternoon, I addressed the Government’s poverty of ambition on climate change. This afternoon, I want to address their poverty of ambition on tackling poverty itself.

The Conservative party has now been in government either alone or in coalition for a decade. Over the past 10 years, their record on poverty in this country and on tackling poverty in this country has been absolutely lamentable. According to the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission, 600,000 more children are now living in relative poverty than in 2012, and that is projected to increase further due to benefit changes and the obvious economic impact of covid-19. As of 20 February this year, some 14 million people were in poverty, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, including 2 million pensioners and 4 million children. We know that the impacts of poverty are felt disproportion- ately among different communities. Children from black and minority ethnic groups, for example, are more likely to be in poverty, with 45% of BAME children living in poverty, as compared with 26% of children in white British families.

We believe that the Government are failing on something that should be the most basic of priorities for any Government. That is not just our view as the Opposition party; the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission has said:

“The government should be more proactive in addressing poverty overall.”

It is worth bearing in mind that behind every statistic is a child, and 30 years ago I was one of those children in the child poverty statistics, growing up on a council estate in London’s east end, sandwiched between the bright lights of the City of London and the glistening lights of what was then the blossoming London Docklands Development Corporation land, which has become Canary Wharf. Today, they are two global financial centres at the centre of our global city. In between is a vista of poverty that was bad then and remains bad now.

One of the things I find most frustrating about the experience I had growing up in a council flat in the east end in the 1980s is that I look back, and I think about the conditions of the council flat I lived in and the embarrassment of not wanting to bring friends home from school because the conditions were not ones that we were proud of. It was a source of shame and embarrassment. I think about the experience of relying on free school meals, and the stigma that arises from having to collect a dinner ticket while other children go and pay for their food quickly—and get the best food, I hasten to add, while handing over their cash. I think about the difficulties my mum had as a single mum, balancing the challenge of bringing up a child while relying on the benefits system, and having to make compromises in choosing how she spent the family budget: the choice between putting food in the fridge or some extra money in the electricity meter.

One of the things that makes me most angry is that, when I think about my experience, which I thought was bad in the 1980s, and compare it with that of children growing up in the same circumstances today, as seen in my own constituency casework, things have got worse for children in the decades following my childhood, when things ought to be getting better. Whereas I had the stability of a council flat—albeit not a nice one—and a roof over my head, children in my constituency today, and no doubt in those of so many others across the Chamber, are growing up in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, being moved from pillar to post and living in substandard accommodation, with disruptive consequences for their education and their schooling, and the inability for them to form lasting friendships and for their families to build supportive networks and family relationships.

When I think about the enormous strides that were made, particularly by the last Labour Government, in tackling educational disadvantage, I think it is outrageous that, in this country in the 21st century, children still today arrive at school at the age of five with their life chances already limited and in many cases predetermined, because we failed to get early years right. Sure Start centres have closed, and the support for families is no longer there. As a result, children arrive at school, at five, less prepared than their peers from more affluent backgrounds. It makes me angry that, for all the difference made to my education through programmes under the last Labour Government and the impact they have had on children since—the London Challenge and Excellence in Cities—today children are leaving school at 16 at a time when the attainment gap between children from the most advantaged backgrounds and the least advantaged backgrounds is actually widening, and where the further education system in which many working-class young people go on to study has been described by the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission as “undervalued and underfunded”. This is at a time when the changing nature of our economy and the changing nature of the world of work make post-16 adult education delivered in further education settings more important, not less. We should be making progress, but we are in reverse gear.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech, which focuses us, as we should be, on this vital issue. Does he agree with me that a central part of the problem many families face is that the costs of food and of rent have risen so dramatically, with the impossibility of being able to afford a home? In my constituency in Reading, it is very difficult for many people to get on to the housing ladder. Many young professionals and young families are crammed into flats, which are hugely expensive. They are also suffering huge problems with the high cost of food. Does he agree with me that this is a very significant part of the problem?

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and that brings me neatly on to the next point I was about to make about employment conditions in our country. For my mum, as a single mum, it was difficult to hold down a steady, stable job and often she was reliant on temporary, casual, low-paid work to help make ends meet. Looking at the picture in the labour market—and this was pre-pandemic—even in households where one or both parents are working, children are still growing up in poverty. As my hon. Friend said, over the last decade we have seen the bills going up, but the wages failing to follow.

We have also seen labour market conditions that mean that, even when people are doing the right thing, as the vast majority of people want to do—going out to work, often with two, three or even four jobs in a week, and working all the hours God sends to try to make ends meet—they are still unable to make ends meet. It should never be the case, especially in a country with the wealth and opportunity available here, that when someone goes to work and puts in a full week’s work, at the end of the day they still do not have enough to make ends meet. Things are likely to become even more challenging in the wake of the economic fallout from coronavirus. Unemployment statistics from recent months have been not only jaw dropping but unprecedented, and the pace at which our economy has collapsed as a result of the necessary shutdown has been astonishing. I welcome and recognise the steps that the Chancellor has taken to try to protect people’s incomes, but unless he goes further than he has already announced, many people will face greater poverty and hardship later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but he did not say whether the Blair Government hit their target of halving child poverty by 2010. Did they or not?

[Wes Streeting]

I am delighted that the Minister asked that question, because I am about to lay out, in full, the record of the previous Labour Government. According to the London School of Economics and its Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, by the end of the new Labour Government’s period in office, child poverty and pensioner poverty had fallen considerably, in circumstances where child poverty would have risen without those reforms, and pensioner poverty would have fallen less far. In terms of absolute poverty, child poverty fell by more than 2 million from 1997-98 to 2009-10, and pensioner poverty fell by almost 3 million in the same period. In terms of relative poverty, child poverty fell by 800,000 between 1997-98 and 2009-10, and the number of pensioners in relative poverty fell by more than 1 million in the same period.

That Labour Government oversaw an £18 billion annual increase in spending on social security for families with children, as well as an £11 billion rise in payments for pensioners by 2010. Those rises were supported by other anti-poverty policies, including Sure Start, the national minimum wage, increased childcare support, and increases in education spending, which rose from £56 billion in 1996-97, to £103 billion in 2009-10—a real-terms increase of 83%. The last Labour Government pretty much eradicated homelessness and made ending insecure housing a priority, reducing the number of households in priority need of housing from 135,000 in 2003-04 to just 40,000 in 2009. They pursued the decent homes standard to boot, ensuring that children were growing up in far better conditions than I did. That is a record to be proud of—a record of a Government who got their priorities right.

It took a celebrity footballer to get this Government to do the right thing on something as basic as ensuring that children who would otherwise have gone hungry were fed this summer. It is not just that the Government do not have their head in the right place; they do not have their heart in the right place either. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on Marcus Rashford being on speed dial to get the Prime Minister to do the right thing on every occasion, and we cannot rely on the Chancellor to do the right thing on every occasion either. That is why it is important, as we have laid out in new clause 29, that we ensure that what counts is what is measured.

New clause 29 would require the Chancellor to conduct a review of the impact of this Bill—no doubt, very soon, this Act—on poverty in the United Kingdom. As with the Government’s environmental ambitions, I doubt that this Bill will move the dial on poverty much, if at all.

The Government’s own Social Mobility Commission has asked for the Office for Budget Responsibility to conduct assessments of all the fiscal statements that it usually does, but this time to look at child poverty and anti-poverty measures in particular. I urge Ministers to look carefully at this issue again. We raised it in Committee and were not successful in persuading the Minister of the case then, but I hope that we can persuade him of the case now. If Treasury Ministers and officials know that the OBR will be looking at those numbers in the same way that it does the other numbers in its assessments of Government fiscal events, perhaps it will concentrate the minds of people in the Treasury to get their priorities right.

Next week, the Chancellor will be coming before the House to deliver an economic update. After the Prime Minister’s statement this week, I think he needs to do a lot better than his apparent boss did when making a speech that was trailed as a new deal. It was not a new deal. Its ambitions were modest and much of the content was re-announcement. It certainly was not a green new deal. Perhaps when the Chancellor here next week, he can do the opposite of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister over-promised and under-delivered. Given the way in which the economic update has been trailed, perhaps the Chancellor can under-promise and over-deliver next week, because he has a golden opportunity in the wake of this crisis to think seriously and substantially about the way in which our economy works and whose interests it serves.

I hope that when he comes forward next week, he does so with the full Budget that the shadow Chancellor has called for—a back-to-work Budget that is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, that can actually tackle the gross inequalities and injustices of our society, and that puts us back on track to eradicate child poverty within a generation and to eradicate poverty for everyone because, for all the challenges of the last decade and all the challenges that we are living through now, this remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

This also happens to be a great country that is full of opportunities for so many people—in education, industry, arts, science and imagination—but those opportunities are not available to everyone. That should keep Ministers awake at night. It keeps me awake at night. But having listened to our Prime Minister only weeks ago in this Chamber, when it comes to tackling child poverty in this country, I do wonder whether his heart is really in it at all.

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 30, which stands in my name, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and of a former aviation Minister, as well as of other Members who understand the crucial role of the aviation sector in bringing a very large amount of employment and prosperity to our constituents—in my case I represent an area immediately adjacent to Manchester airport, and my right hon. Friend has many constituents who work at Heathrow airport—and the wider impact of the aviation sector on the British economy and the way it drives growth and opportunity in our country.

The deficiencies of air passenger duty are well known, and this is an argument that has gone on for many years. It was introduced originally under the guise of being an environmental duty or tax. In fact, it has simply been a way of driving revenue. It is, by now, the highest tax of its sort anywhere in the world. In normal times, it is a drag on the development of new routes and connections around the world and a particular problem for regional airports, which find it harder to establish those new, especially long haul routes. Crucially, air passenger duty takes no account whatever of emissions or the environmental impact of an aircraft, a class of aircraft or a flight.

New clause 30 seeks to ensure that a review should be held—and held quickly, to be published within three months, by 1 October—of the likely effect of changes in air passenger duty rates on the aviation sector. The Bill as it stands only provides the capacity for Ministers to increase rates of air passenger duty, but it is critical that we look wider than that at the possible benefits that could come from reductions or a suspension. That is particularly important, of course, in the context of the covid-19 pandemic and the Government’s response to it.

The House will know that the aviation sector, along with hospitality and leisure, is among the hardest hit sectors of all. The effect on aviation has been exacerbated by Foreign Office guidance, which still advises against all but essential overseas travel, and in the past few weeks or so by the implementation of a blanket quarantine proposal, a policy which I hope will come to an end in the very near future with the announcement of a large list of so-called air bridges, which I think the industry expects might take place tomorrow.

The effect over the last few months of both the pandemic itself and policy in relation to the pandemic has been chilling for the aviation sector. The House is well aware of the very large number of jobs that have already been lost in the aviation sector in recent weeks and months, and there is little doubt it will take a long time for aviation to come back to the state of health that it previously enjoyed. While this is by way of a probing new clause, I say to the Minister on the Treasury Bench that the real purpose of it perhaps is simply to flag the importance of this issue prior to the fiscal event or the statement that will be made next week by the Chancellor. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the principle set out by Colbert, who said:

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

The danger at the moment is that far from being an easy source of revenue for Government, air passenger duty, if it remains unreformed in the coming weeks and months, risks killing the goose rather than allowing the Government to extract the feathers.



I hope that the Chancellor will, before his statement, look seriously at the case for a temporary reduction or suspension of air passenger duty to assist the aviation sector to get back to where it should be. This is an opportunity to see the wider economic benefits that could come by achieving greater connectivity for our aviation sector, and particularly for regional airports. It would also be an opportunity to look at whether at the end of such a period of suspension an improved regime might be introduced that seeks to reward more sustainable aviation rather than simply to extract revenue for each passenger who flies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

If Government Members want to tell me why spending £900,000 on a plane is more important than feeding children—[Interruption.] All of it is too much. All of it is unnecessary; when there are children in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country not having food to put on the table, money spent on redecorating a plane is a shame that should stain this Government.

As I was saying, the Scottish Government have taken child poverty incredibly seriously. They have set in statute the commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2030, with concrete action in the child poverty delivery plan backed by the £50 million tackling child poverty fund. Child poverty in Scotland had fallen, but it has been on the rise since the Conservatives took over in 2010. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation directly attributes this rise to welfare policy. In addition, the policies outwith the control of the Scottish Government, such as no recourse to public funds, cause significant poverty among people who are working. Constituents come to my office who cannot put food on the table for their children and who are struggling to pay their bills. Some have come to my office several years in a row to apply for the Christmas presents fund that is run in Glasgow, because even though they are working, they are not entitled to the benefits that their neighbours get; two children may sit next to one another in the classroom but one will go without because one family has no recourse to public funds. The Government must rethink this, because we have seen through the coronavirus crisis that people with no recourse to public funds find it more difficult to support themselves through this time.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Lady is right to say that so much of the responsibility and blame for what is happening in Scotland rests on the shoulders of the decisions taken here by the Conservative Government in Westminster, but I cannot resist asking her: given that between 1999 and 2007 Labour was in government in Holyrood and Westminster, are the people of Scotland not better served when there is a Labour Government here and a Labour Government there?