Author: admin

Chi Onwurah – 2020 Comments on Investment in Life Sciences

Below is the text of the comments made by Chi Onwurah, the Shadow Minister for Science, Research and Digital, on 10 July 2020.

Investment in the life sciences is a critical part of our response to this pandemic and the health challenges we face as a nation. But our investment doesn’t reflect regional science capacity or health needs as the IPPR analysis makes clear.

The North receives less than half of the life science investment per head that the South of England does even though it has great teaching hospitals and significant health inequalities.

We need to see that change as we invest in science to beat the pandemic and create new jobs across the country.

09/07/2020
Bridget Phillipson – 2020 Comments on Rishi Sunak’s ‘Deadweight’ Comments

Below is the text of the comments made by Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 9 July 2020.

The Government have had months to prepare for the end of lockdown and design targeted support to protect jobs – but instead we have an on-the-hoof fix that the Chancellor himself admits risks wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money.

Hard-pressed sectors where thousands of jobs are at risk, like aviation, oil and gas, and tourism, will be missing out on the help they need while companies who are returning to normal get public money they don’t.

The Chancellor should be targeting support on those who need it, not handing it out aimlessly to those who don’t. It’s not brave to admit the Government plans to waste billions at a time when others are crying out for support.

09/07/2020
Jo Stevens – 2020 Comments on Free TV Licences for Over-75s

Below is the text of the comments made by Jo Stevens, the Shadow Culture Secretary, on 9 July 2020.

The refusal of the Government to fund this vital service after promising to do so is nothing short of betrayal.

Many over-75s have spent months at home with TV providing an invaluable source of company during the pandemic. For the Government to blame the BBC who are having to contend with huge cuts is simply passing the buck.

09/07/2020
Lucy Powell – 2020 Comments on Job Losses at Boots and John Lewis

Below is the text of the comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Minister for Business and Consumers, on 9 July 2020.

This is deeply worrying news for staff at John Lewis and Boots and the travel hubs and town centres these stores are in. These announcements underline the dangers facing our high street, as many businesses struggle to survive through the Covid-19 crisis and the necessary public health measures which limit capacity and demand.

The Chancellor’s statement was a missed opportunity to protect jobs with properly targeted support for the businesses and people that need it.

Ministers must acknowledge that different parts of our economy face very different challenges in the months ahead and come forward with a real plan to protect jobs in sectors fully closed or only partially reopened, and develop an urgent programme to boost retailers and save our high streets from becoming ghost towns.

09/07/2020
James Cleverly – 2020 Statement on Prisons Under Sentence in Bahrain

Below is the text of the statement made by James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, in the House of Commons on 9 July 2020.

The UK and Bahrain continue to have a close and important relationship. We benefit from an ongoing, open and genuine dialogue in which we work together on mutually beneficial issues while also raising points of significant difference with one another.

It is because of this long-standing partnership that we are able to have candid conversations about matters of importance to the UK—in particular, our human rights concerns. Our relationship allows us to raise sensitive and difficult issues, both privately and publicly, in a constructive manner in order to uphold our moral responsibility on human rights issues. We have raised and will continue to raise the cases both of Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Moosa at senior levels with the Government of Bahrain.

On 8 January, British embassy Manama officials attended the final session of the Court of Appeal for the retrial of the two men mentioned. Both individuals were convicted of terrorist charges and given the death sentence again. On 8 January, the former Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), publicly stated our deep concern that death sentences were again handed out, and the UK’s position has not changed on this matter. We continue to actively monitor these two cases as they are taken to the court of cassation for final review.

The UK’s position on the use of the death penalty is long-standing and unequivocal: we oppose its use in all circumstances and in all countries as a matter of principle. The Government of Bahrain are fully aware of our view. This was made explicitly clear by the former Minister to a senior Bahraini counterpart last year. It was then reinforced by my noble friend Lord Ahmad in the other place, who issued a public statement expressing the UK’s opposition to the use of the death penalty, in response to actions taken in Bahrain.

I can assure the House that our efforts to raise these cases, and also the broader issues of the use of capital punishment, with the Bahraini authorities will continue. Bahrain is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights priority country, in part due to its policy surrounding the death penalty. We continue to monitor developments on all matters that relate to human rights within the country. We remain absolutely committed to the promotion of universal freedoms and upholding human rights globally. That has been made clear only this week with the introduction of the UK’s first autonomous human rights sanctions regime.

09/07/2020
Luke Hall – 2020 Statement on Park Homes

Below is the text of the statement made by Luke Hall, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 8 July 2020.

I am today publishing the Government response to our consultation “Mobile Homes—a fit and proper person test for park home sites”. I am placing copies of the response in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will also be available on gov.uk.

As part of our ongoing commitment to improving protections for park home residents, the Government undertook a two-part review of park homes legislation in 2017. In the response published on 22 October 2018, we committed to introduce the fit and proper person test, subject to a technical consultation. This consultation was undertaken between 25 July and 17 September 2019 and received 370 responses, the majority of which were highly supportive.

The purpose of the test is to improve the management of park home and other residential caravan sites. By introducing an assessment that the person responsible for managing the site is suitable to do so and of good character, this will help target and remove the worst offenders from the sector. The test will be an important tool for local authority enforcement and marks an important milestone in my Department’s work to protect residents of park homes and other residential caravan sites, who are often elderly and vulnerable, from unscrupulous site owners.

I am today laying the required regulations bringing the test into effect. They will mandate that

each local authority must set up and maintain a register of people who are fit and proper to manage a park home site in their area. A site owner, or an appointed manager, must appear on the local authority register in order to manage a site;

when an applicant applies for registration, a local authority must consider, among other details, the applicant’s criminal record and details of all sites in which the applicant has an equitable interest; and

if convicted of any offences under the regulations the site owner would face an unlimited fine. Offences include operating a site without being on the local authority register, breaching the conditions attached to an entry on the register, and providing false information in an application.

The regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so will require the approval of both Houses.

The Government are dedicated to improving protections for park home residents and these regulations are an important step towards delivering on that commitment.

09/07/2020
Ruth Cadbury – 2020 Speech on Free Travel for Under-18s in London

Below is the text of the speech made by Ruth Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, in the House of Commons on 8 July 2020.

It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) in her place, and it is a particular pleasure to see the Minister in her place and to be joined by colleagues who are concerned, like me, about the issue of children and young people’s travel in London.

I sought this debate to try to understand the Government’s decision to require Transport for London to suspend free travel for under-18s on London’s buses and trams. The removal of free travel for under-18s will impact hardest on London’s most disadvantaged young people. It is technically complex to implement and will lead to low levels of demand reduction, which is the proposal’s purported aim. I shall briefly summarise where I think we are with the issue and would then welcome clarification from the Minister on the latest position.

When the Government agreed in May to provide emergency funding to TfL—as they did to so many public services whose income streams have been decimated by the pandemic—they set a number of conditions, one of which was for TfL to suspend free travel for under-18s. The funding agreement states that the reason behind the condition was

“to optimise the use of the available safe transport capacity”—

in other words, to manage demand, especially during the morning peak.

I understand that despite many weeks of discussion between Government officials and TfL, the specific condition was raised directly with London’s deputy Mayor for transport, Heidi Alexander, only on the day the deal was agreed, 14 May. It came out of the blue without any prior assessment of its impact on London’s children or the cost and complexity of implementing it. It was the only deal that the Government offered; the Mayor of London had no choice but to accept it to keep the tubes and buses running, and if he did not, he would have been forced to issue a statutory section 114 notice—the declaration stating that TfL is no longer able to work to a balanced budget. Because the condition was imposed at the last minute, there was no time for TfL’s officers to assess the significant impact and the supposed benefit.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)

My local authority, Westminster, has told me that it estimates that between 5,000 and 9,000 children in our borough alone are affected by this issue. Importantly, it says that, given the categories of children who are eligible for assistance—children who are under eight years old, living more than two miles away, on free school meals, with disabilities and so forth—all the children who currently use public transport to get to school could be eligible. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have thought this one through?

Ruth Cadbury

I believe that they have not. They certainly did not discuss the implications because it came, as I said, out of the blue. It is good to know that local authorities are assessing the impact.

London is the UK’s most congested city, with the lowest levels of car ownership and the greatest numbers of families living in poverty. Free travel for under-18s was introduced by a Labour Mayor, and since 2006 subsequent Mayors, including the current Prime Minister, have retained the policy.

Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this very important debate. I am particularly concerned about the impact that this will have on students who go to further education colleges. I have Richmond upon Thames College in my own constituency. We know that a quarter of college students are on free school meals, so does she agree that the policy is hitting hardest the most needy who are trying to educate themselves?

Ruth Cadbury

I absolutely agree with my neighbour’s point. My son went to Richmond upon Thames College, and many students journey from far too far away to be able to cycle. As she so rightly says, the proposal hits the poorest hardest—the very families that need all the help that they can get to ensure that their children can achieve and prosper. It is those families who are doing worst in the covid crisis. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 700,000 children in London are estimated to be growing up in poverty.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that black, Asian and minority ethnic children are particularly affected? Almost 60% of them benefit from the scheme at the moment. That is particularly important given the effect on BAME communities of the covid-19 pandemic generally.

Ruth Cadbury

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: 60% of children in London schools are BAME, and of course we know that those communities are affected the most.

Josh Brown-Smith, who is a 14-year-old student and adviser to the young mayor of Lewisham put it better than I could when he said:

“Taking away Zipcards effectively means that young people can’t get around the capital. It’s going to impact parents and it’s going to be a financial strain on my mother and others across the capital. Some families won’t be able to afford it—I know I won’t be able to afford it.”

The petition that Josh started has now reached more than 170,000 signatures.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. Does she agree, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), that this is effectively a tax on education? Many parents will already have chosen schools and have their children in secondary schools or colleges on the basis of free travel. They will either be forced to pull out or have to pay for it. This is a really significant issue for our young people.

Ruth Cadbury

One fifth of London’s secondary school children travel across borough boundaries and many travel long distances to go to the school of their choice, or even the only school that they could get into, because school places are at a premium in London, as we know, with the rising population and the gap in creating sufficient school places quickly enough.
A mother from Hounslow said that

“it’s hard to find money to put on an oyster card. I know it’s not free—someone has to pay—but the Zip Oyster card for kids did help.”

Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

The cost that we are talking about for a family with three children in secondary school is £45 a week. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about how families that have faced furloughing or lost employment, and may already be on low incomes during this covid-19 crisis, could possibly be expected to meet that additional weekly cost?

Ruth Cadbury

Absolutely. We keep hearing in this House how universal credit and the other benefits just do not keep up with the real cost of living in London. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We have covered the inequality issues, but the decision is also technically complex and costly to administer. As I say, 30% of young Londoners are entitled under national regulations to free travel anyway, and so will continue to have that right. That includes those on free school meals or other benefits, and those with special educational needs and so on. But there is currently no system in place in London for working out which children qualify. Indeed, any such system would be more complex than any in England, with seven fare zones and over a fifth of children crossing borough boundaries to get to school. Will the home council administer the scheme, or the one where the school is based, or will TfL or the schools administer it? We do not know.

Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

The hon. Lady mentions that many children will have to travel quite a distance to school. Does she share my concern that those distances will now be completed by car journeys, particularly in the outer boroughs such as ours, instead of bus journeys? That takes us backwards in our quest to reduce car journeys and emissions in the capital.

Ruth Cadbury

I absolutely agree with my other honourable neighbour. She is absolutely right, because while London has the lowest car ownership in the UK, it does not take a lot of additional cars on the road to create extra congestion. That would send all the wrong messages and be completely contrary to the messages the Government are trying to bring in about alternative travel.

The Government expect this new system to be agreed and up and running in a matter of weeks when staff are already under huge pressure. I do not believe the Government have considered the logistics, and with no precedent for changing the concessions, there is also no way of knowing how many under-18s would still pay to use public transport. TfL expects a demand reduction of only 1% to 2% in the morning peak if these proposals were to be implemented from September, reaching only 5% by January, so the proposal is not even going to achieve the Government’s aim of reducing demand significantly.

TfL is willing and able to work with local authorities and schools on a range of measures to address demand, such as staggering start times, capping numbers on buses, and encouraging walking and cycling where possible for those who live near school, whereas this proposal, which might hit the already disadvantaged hardest, might only reduce demand during the morning rush hour by 1% to 2%.

The Minister might say that children should cycle, but even when new segregated cycle routes are in place, I challenge her to find many 2-mile to 5-mile home-to-school journeys that can be done by an 11-year-old, wholly on segregated cycle paths, including crossing major junctions or on quiet streets like in Hackney. Many boroughs are not implementing these schemes anyway. Kensington and Chelsea seems somewhat reluctant.

Furthermore, many low-income families do not own a bike, many homes have nowhere safe to store a bike and not everyone lives in a place where it is safe to walk to school. Those walking longer distances are at risk from those preying on vulnerable children. One mother said to me that the advantage of the bus is the CCTV, so the groomers and the robbers do not tend to use them. Many London children travel long distances to school, beyond the reach of the bike.

Meg Hillier

I thank my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way again. One of the benefits of this project when it was introduced was that it got whole generations of young people to realise that public transport was there and was useable. It got them in the habit. Does she not think there is another detrimental impact? It is a nice idea that everyone is going to hop on a bike instead of going by car, but it is not likely to happen.

Ruth Cadbury

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To quote the brilliant Josh from Lewisham again, public transport is a lifeline for so many of our young people.

So far, the Transport Secretary, in his responses on the issue to this House and to the Transport Committee, has paid lip service to the need to reduce demand, but seems to take delight in criticising TfL’s finances—what he claims is the Mayor’s mismanagement of them—and suggests that taxpayers elsewhere in the UK are unduly subsidising London. However, the previous Mayor of London, who is now the Prime Minister, agreed to phase out TfL’s direct operating grant. This left London as one of the only major cities in the world, and the only capital in Europe, not to receive direct Government funding for running day-to-day transport services. As a result, fares and commercial revenues have been forming just over 80% of TfL’s income. Before covid struck, TfL’s finances were in a strong place, but clearly, when tube ridership plummeted by 95%, it was simply not feasible for TfL to recuperate that income on its own. Hence it needs support.

Perhaps the imposed condition and the way it has been handled is an attempt to curb the Mayor’s powers, contrary to the Government’s professed support for devolution of powers to cities and regions. I hope not. The Government should let the London Mayor lead, and let TfL get on with the job it does so expertly every day—managing demand, providing safe journeys for children and young people, and keeping London moving.

Children and young people in Greater London, including my constituents, should not be the accidental victims of this apparent power tussle between the Government and the Mayor of London. I have some questions for the Minister.

Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

Have the Government made any impact assessment of these ill-thought-out measures, particularly the impact on the poor and disadvantaged young people?

Ruth Cadbury

If the Government have done an impact assessment on this, I do not believe that they have yet shared it with TfL, the Deputy Mayor or the Mayor of London.

I would like to pose some questions to the Minister. Why did the Government wait until the 11th hour to confirm emergency support for TfL to keep London running through the pandemic, when other sectors equally affected were given support quicker and with fewer strings attached? Why was that condition to remove free travel from London’s children and young people crowbarred into the emergency funding agreement at the very last minute? What is the demand reduction in per cent. that the Government expect to see from the change to concessions? Do not TfL’s recently introduced maximum passenger limits on buses deal with the potential overcrowding problem? Who will pay for the additional administrative burden? When does the Minister expect the system to be operational? What discussion have the Government had with local authorities, schools and colleges about the proposal? Is the proposal being consulted on, so that students, parents and schools can make their views known? Has an equalities impact assessment been done? If so, will either of those be made public? Or is it a done deal—no discussion, take it or leave it?

09/07/2020
Peter Bottomley – 2020 Speech in Response to Chancellor’s Economic Statement

Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West, in the House of Commons on 8 July 2020.

I welcome the positive approach that the Chancellor and the Government are taking. Were we to ask them, I think many MPs who will not be able to ask a question today would share my view that we should be green, red and blue: green by having economically and environmentally sustainable ways of getting the economy to come back; red by watching out for things that we should not be doing; and blue by being colour blind and trying to make sure that whether they are on the coast, in the countryside or in the cities, people get opportunities.

I hope that the Chancellor will pay attention to what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said for the SNP about those excluded. The new all-party group is very concerned about those who have not been caught up by some of the support schemes. They need help and I hope that the Chancellor will find some way of bringing that forward as well.

Let me give just one example of the red—of what not to do. I am putting down an early-day motion—a prayer against Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 632, which goes under the name of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. It allows two storeys to be built on blocks of flats built between 1948 and 2018—I do not have a personal interest in this matter, by the way—which will potentially wreck the lives of leaseholders who want to get their freehold and put the price up so that people like Vincent Tchenguiz can go stuffing his pockets again at the risk of the pockets and the expense of leaseholders.
Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter and ask whether there can be a better housing adviser in No. 10 and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to make sure that they do not get things wrong again?

09/07/2020
Alison Thewliss – 2020 Speech in Response to Chancellor’s Economic Statement

Below is the text of the speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 8 July 2020.

I would usually start by thanking the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement, but today I think I might ask for a fresh printer cartridge for the heavily redacted copy, which was effectively useless, that was sent to spokespeople ahead of his statement.

Countries around the world have supported their people in this crisis, and the only UK exceptionalism is in being among the countries where the most people have died. The Chancellor has spent big over the past few months and comes with more proposals today. We support measures such as the job support schemes and encourage the Chancellor to be more ambitious and think to the future in his stimulus plans; we want a comprehensive plan to support the economy, protect jobs and incomes, and build a greener, fairer society.

We have looked to the ambitious stimulus packages of our European neighbours and urge the Chancellor to look at a package of investment with no less than £80 billion of new money, equating to approximately 4% of UK GDP, the equivalent investment to that being made by Germany. That would allow for the level of investment needed to secure jobs not just now, but for the future, because we know that Brexit is coming over the horizon.

The Scottish Parliament currently has a very restricted ability to borrow, under a fiscal framework that was not designed with covid-19 in mind. Kate Forbes, Rebecca Evans and Conor Murphy, the Finance Ministers of all three devolved institutions, have come together to seek urgent devolution of the financial powers in these unprecedented times and to be able to have the flexibility to switch from capital to revenue spending. The Scottish Parliament must have the full range of powers to deliver a tailored response and secure a strong recovery for Scotland, otherwise necessary spending on coronavirus will mean cuts elsewhere and fixed budgets. And will the Chancellor be clear on what these proposals today mean for the block grant adjustment?

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said today that UK GDP could be cut by 2.5% if the Chancellor goes ahead and withdraws the job support schemes prematurely. Roz Foyer, general secretary of the Scottish TUC, has called for the continuation of the scheme, noting that hospitality, tourism, aviation, and oil and gas are in particular need of extended support—and there was not a word about oil and gas in the Chancellor’s statement.

Those shielding and with caring responsibilities will also need ongoing support. Coronavirus is not going away, and there is a real risk that with future outbreaks, such as happened in Leicester, the support will not be there when it is needed. I hear what the Chancellor says about encouraging people back to work and about a bonus for employers who do, but for many people it will not be safe to go back to work. At the start of this crisis my inbox was full of correspondence from people worried about the safety of their workplaces, and people should not be forced to go back if it is not safe for them to do so.

Recent Treasury Committee reports and work by Excluded UK highlight the substantial gaps in the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, with between 1 million and 3 million people left with no support whatsoever. People were furious at the suggestion by the Chancellor yesterday that they have had support; they asked me to assure him again today that they have not. The SNP believes that the Chancellor must fill these gaps and extend the furlough and self-employment income support schemes for as long as each of the four nations require that, so that no one is left behind.

A report by the Social Mobility Commission last week warned that UK child poverty is projected to increase to 5.2 million by 2022, with covid-19 adding to this problem. Now is the time to strengthen measures to reverse rising child poverty, including a £20 per week increase in the child element of universal credit and child tax credits. That will help families put food on the table and clothes on children’s backs at a time when many are struggling. These parents are not eating out. Some of these parents are barely eating at all.

The Tories must also scrap the callous two-child cap, re-establish child poverty targets, introduce a real living wage for all ages and roll out an emergency basic payment plan to protect families. We want to see investment in a national debt plan to support businesses, families and individuals who have been struggling. While I am glad to hear that the Chancellor wants to re-employ jobcentre staff, will he reopen the many jobcentres he closed in Glasgow?

We support a temporary reduction in VAT, and we are glad to see the Chancellor coming forward with plans—we have been calling for this since March. He mentioned cinemas. Will live events also see a VAT reduction in their ticket sales? Gigs and theatres would benefit hugely from being able to offer that. All this sits alongside a 2p cut we are calling for to employers’ national insurance contributions, to protect jobs and reduce the cost of hiring staff.

Our bright, talented young people are worth so much more than 25 hours a week on minimum wage, rather than a real living wage, with age discrimination baked in. For many of those young people, it will not be so much a kick-start as a kick in the teeth to be told to go to work for so little money. Those aged between 16 and 24 have bills to pay too, and they deserve fair pay for their work. I note that the Chancellor cited the higher band of pay for a 24-year-old, not the £6.45 an hour for younger people or the £4.55 that 16 and 17-year-olds get—an absolute pittance. There should be a real living wage for all.

If, as has been trailed, this plan is tied to universal credit, can the Chancellor confirm whether sanctions will be applied to those who do not take it up? What will happen to those shielding or with caring responsibilities? What will happen to those not currently on universal credit—will it be open to them? What commitment will he require from employers not to fire older, more expensive staff in favour of people on this scheme? What will happen after six months? What is open to older people to help them continue in employment? Many young people are already employed in sectors where jobs are disappearing right now. Many are already on furlough. Would it not be less disruptive to maintain that link with employers, rather than make them start over?

The voucher scheme that the Chancellor proposes for green plans is, relatively speaking, tinkering when we look at the comprehensive work that the KfW Development Bank in Germany has done to change the whole conversation around green investment. We want to put significant and sustained investment in the future at the heart of these plans and to ensure that Scotland has the widest possible range of powers to tackle covid-19. Only by doing that can we avoid the worst of this storm and protect both businesses and the health and wellbeing of our people.

09/07/2020
Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech in Response to Chancellor’s Economic Statement

Below is the text of the speech made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 8 July 2020.

Our country has been through a great deal over these past few months. Hundreds of thousands have wrestled with this terrible disease. For many months, people have had to go without being able to embrace their loved ones or even to say goodbye. Tens of thousands have died. Our NHS, social care and other workers had made extraordinary sacrifices. We owe them so much.

The Government have had to take big decisions, too—we acknowledge that—but today should have been the day when our Government chose to build a bridge between what has been done so far and what needs to be done to get our economy moving again. It should have been the day when the millions of British people worried about their jobs and future prospects had a load taken off their shoulders. It should have been the day when we got the UK economy firing again. Today, Britain should have had a back-to-work Budget; but instead we got this summer statement, with many of the big decisions put off until later, as those on the Government Benches know full well.

Labour is a constructive Opposition during this time of crisis. We will not criticise for criticism’s sake. But when the Government fall short we will speak up, and the blunt truth is that we have one of the highest death rates in the world and among the deepest economic damage in the industrialised world from coronavirus. So the very first thing the Chancellor must do is prevent additional economic damage due to the slow public health response of his Government.
As we have seen throughout this crisis, the failure to match soaring rhetoric with meaningful action has consequences for people across our country. Despite all their talk, the Government have failed to create a fully functioning test, track and isolate system. That has damaged public confidence and, in turn, harmed consumer demand. Despite all their talk, the Government have failed to produce a clear system for local lockdowns. The lack of timely information sharing has led, as we all know, to the imposition of an additional wide-scale lockdown in Leicester.

The Government’s contracts with outsourcing firms amount to almost £3 billion, but we still have not got test, track and isolate working properly in the UK, as it is in many other countries, and the Government still have not got a grip on the low value and limited scope of sick pay, risking people’s ability to self-isolate. Fear is corrosive. Fear is hurting our economy. The Government have got to get this right.

Of course, we welcome the Government’s announcement today of targeted VAT cuts on hospitality and tourism and of vouchers to be used in restaurants. Local businesses desperately need that support, and so many low and middle-income people in particular really need help right now. That is why we have repeatedly called for social security to better meet their needs and prevent people risking losing their homes. If delivered properly, these measures should help.

But the Chancellor himself said, when interviewed on “The Andrew Marr Show”, that the best the Government can do to boost demand is to give consumers and workers the confidence and psychological security that they can go out to work, to shop and to socialise in safety. So please, Chancellor, work with your colleagues so our public health response catches up with that operating in other countries. The Prime Minister asked, what have I been doing about that? My party has been repeatedly suggesting solutions to the public health problems facing our country, and we need to adopt them in the UK before this crisis becomes even more severe.

Now the Government must act not just to deal with unemployment as a symptom, but also with its cause. Research reported this week in the “Telegraph” indicates that British workers have already been the biggest casualty in the global jobs cuts. It showed that while jobs markets in many other countries have already fully recovered, in Britain it could take comparatively much, much longer for vacancy levels to return to normal. The levels of unemployment that this country saw in the past were not just an economic waste; they ruined lives. We are seeing the same impacts again—the same devastated high streets and communities robbed of their pride and purpose.

Of course the re-employment bonus announced by the Chancellor is necessary, not least because his Government refused to put conditions on the use of those funds related to employment. But, first, how can he ensure that that money will not just go to those employers who were already planning to bring people back into work and, secondly, what will he do for those firms that lack the cash flow to be able to operate even with that bonus? Related to that, the Chancellor still needs to abandon his one-size-fits-all approach to withdrawing the job retention and self-employed schemes. No one is saying that those schemes should stay as they are indefinitely; the Opposition have never said that, but we have said that the money spent on the job retention scheme must not serve merely to postpone unemployment. The scheme must live up to its name, supporting employment in industries that are viable in the long term. We also need a strategy for the scheme to become more flexible so that it can support those businesses forced to close again because of additional localised lockdowns. There is still time to avoid additional floods of redundancy notices. It is the Government’s duty to help Britain through this and stop employment reaching mass levels again.

We need action to ensure the support needed for key sectors of our economy—for our small and medium-sized enterprises and our manufacturers. While we of course welcome the long-overdue arts and culture package, we still have not heard the Government’s plans for other sectors. Many of us expected to hear them today, but we have not. The Project Birch process has been slow, tortuous and opaque. Large parts of industrial Britain need help to get through this—to keep their employees in jobs and keep their suppliers in jobs. Meanwhile, it appears that there will be no solutions for SMEs who cannot take on additional debt until the autumn. This risks many SMEs going to the wall.

Until now, the Chancellor has described a targeted, sectoral approach as the Treasury “picking winners”, but the necessary public health measures have created losers. As the Chancellor himself said just now, the Government required many businesses to shut down to prevent the spread of this disease. Supporting businesses that are viable in the long run but currently starved of cash flow is not a matter of “picking winners”: it is about protecting our country’s economic capacity for the future. Failure to do so—to make the job retention and self-employed schemes more targeted and focused and to support viable businesses—is driving up unemployment in this country. The claimant count is on course to top 3 million people in June—the highest number since the previous record in 1986. This is the Chancellor’s record, and one that cannot and must not be worsened.

Where unemployment arises as a symptom of economic damage, more must be done to help. Labour repeatedly called for the Government to match the ambitions of Labour’s future jobs fund and Welsh Labour’s Jobs Growth Wales programme, and finally the Government have come forward with a scheme apparently modelled on them—the kick-start scheme. The Conservatives cancelled the future jobs fund, of course, and it has taken almost 10 years for them to catch up. As with their belated adoption of our call for “jobs, jobs, jobs”, perhaps this gives a new meaning to the phrase “Project Speed”. We now need to make sure that the kick-start scheme provides genuinely additional opportunities for young unemployed people. The Government must also recognise the specific challenges faced by older jobseekers, many of whom are becoming unemployed for the first time, and those based in especially hard-hit places. Reimposing sanctions now is punitive and counter- productive when jobseekers need support.

We must be ambitious for the future of our country’s economy. Our ambition should not just be to build our way out of this but to do so in a greener and cleaner way. For this, we need more than the reheated announcements by the Prime Minister last week. Of course the investment announced was welcome, not least because much of it was already committed to by the Government. However, core elements are missing. For example, £50 million to support retrofitting in social homes is just a seventh of what the Conservatives said they would be spending every year. The muddled confusions over stamp duty over the past 48 hours reflect a broader lack of strategy when it comes to house building, particularly for genuinely affordable and social homes. Overall, the UK’s green investment package barely touches the sides of other countries’ commitments. Even with what was announced today, it only equates to just over the value of Germany’s investment in one green technology alone—hydrogen. The Committee on Climate Change has indicated how far behind the UK is in the race to decarbonise. Failure to heed its recommendations is not only damaging to our planet, but it also cuts us out of leading the development of the key technologies of the future. The Conservatives are still refusing to impose conditions on investment to ensure that it contributes to the goal of net zero and that it supports local jobs, uses local firms, leads to sustainable skilled employment in local areas and prevents the use of tax havens and other forms of asset stripping.

If the Chancellor really wants to “build back better”, he must prevent a rerun of the past. From 2010 onwards, we have seen how families’ resilience has been eroded. We entered this crisis with a quarter of families lacking even £100 in savings. In a typical classroom of 30, nine children are growing up in poverty, and our economy is the most regionally unequal in Europe. Our local authorities continue to be cut to the bone, with many standing on the brink of bankruptcy as we speak, and rather than the promise that our NHS and social care services would get whatever they needed this winter—to weather a potential second wave—those words were conspicuously absent from the Chancellor’s speech just now.

Politicians in this House have gone out on our doorsteps to clap key workers, while the lowest paid have struggled to keep a roof over their heads. We must have a new settlement for the future: an end to poverty pay for our social care workers and those who clean our hospitals and deliver our groceries. We want a recognition of the value of the work of those who have been taken for granted for far too long.

There were some initial press reports that the Government were due to announce generalised tax increases or cuts to services this autumn, which were contradicted by the Prime Minister, who rejected whatever had apparently been briefed out by the Treasury—that has happened quite a few times. I say to the Government that, if they do increase taxes during the recovery and cut back on the public services that we all rely on, it will damage demand and inhibit our recovery. Labour is not calling for tax rises. We are calling for growth.

The Tory manifesto committed to no rises in income tax, national insurance or VAT, and therefore it is for the Conservatives to set out how any additional spending will be paid for. It is the Chancellor’s job to ensure that the economy bounces back from this crisis, so that there is money in the coffers to protect the public finances.

Last week, the Chancellor’s colleague, the Prime Minister, tried to claim the mantle of FDR—as we all know. Perhaps now we know why he went for Roosevelt. It is because this week the Prime Minister blamed carers for the failings in the system that his Government had underfunded for the past decades. Now we know why he went for Roosevelt. It is because the last thing that his Government would have wanted was the sign on the desk of Harry Truman, the successor to Roosevelt, which said, “The buck stops here.” If this Government had a sign, it would probably say, “The buck stops anywhere but here”. But they cannot escape their responsibilities: to govern is to choose. It is to choose to finally sort out test, track and isolate, to prevent unnecessary additional unemployment and to build the green jobs of the future. This is a moment when our country needs its Government to help Britain through.

09/07/2020