Tag: Emma Lewell-Buck

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2014-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will make an assessment of the (a) fairness and (b) viability of reforming the firefighters’ pension scheme allow members to retire on the basis of length of service rather than age.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Government is reforming all public service pension schemes to ensure that they remain fair to workers and sustainable for taxpayers. The transitional protection arrangements for the firefighters’ pension schemes are set out in the Proposed Final Agreement which was published in May 2012. The transitional protections use age to calculate a member’s entitlement to protection. More firefighters are protected from changes than any other large public service workforce.

    There has been recent correspondence with the Fire Brigades Union on the scope and timing of discussions on this issue. Copies of this correspondence can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firefighters-pension-scheme-reforms.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2014-04-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether he has (a) discussed with and (b) received any representations from the Fire Brigades Union regarding the adoption of a firefighters’ pension scheme which would allow members to retire on the basis of length of service rather than age.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Government is reforming all public service pension schemes to ensure that they remain fair to workers and sustainable for taxpayers. The transitional protection arrangements for the firefighters’ pension schemes are set out in the Proposed Final Agreement which was published in May 2012. The transitional protections use age to calculate a member’s entitlement to protection. More firefighters are protected from changes than any other large public service workforce.

    There has been recent correspondence with the Fire Brigades Union on the scope and timing of discussions on this issue. Copies of this correspondence can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firefighters-pension-scheme-reforms.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2014-06-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what research has been undertaken by or on behalf of his Department into the potential (a) benefits and (b) disbenefits to children of further delegation of children’s social care functions.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    The proposals for the further delegation of children’s social care functions build up on the evaluation of the Social Work Practices pilot set in train by the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. This identified evidence of positive change through the delegated arrangements for looked after children and care leavers in the pilot authorities. As a result, the original freedoms in Part 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 were extended to all local authorities.

    Discussions with the pilot local authorities and some other councils, supported the argument that wider delegation would, in some circumstances, benefit children.

    The proposals in the consultation document, is published online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304660/Powers_to_Delegate_Con_Doc.pdf

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps he plans to take to ensure that third party providers taking on children’s social care functions under his Department’s proposals adhere to quality standards set out in regulations.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    Delegation of children’s social care functions does not remove a local authority’s duties to meet statutory obligations. It remains a local authority’s responsibility to ensure the quality of services regardless of what arrangements it makes for the discharge of its functions.

    Delegated social care functions are inspected by Ofsted, in the same way as directly delivered local authority social care functions, as part of its local authority inspection framework. In addition, regulations currently govern the fitness of third party providers and require their registration with Ofsted.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2014-04-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what comparative assessment her Department has made of the cost to Indian nationals of applying for a (a) UK and (b) US student visa.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office assesses visa fees annually, to ensure the fees charged by the
    UK are competitive with similar endorsement types offered by other countries.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2014-04-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance her Department makes available to applicants for Tier 4 student visas on maintenance funding requirements; and what types of accounts or financial instruments count towards meeting this requirement.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office provides guidance on the maintenance funding requirements for Tier 4 student visas to applicants in Appendix C of the Immigration Rules, in
    the Tier 4 Policy guidance for applicants, and on the Tier 4 application form. The Tier 4 application form also calculates the level of funds an applicant requires and advises them which documents they can submit as evidence.

    The guidance does not specify an exhaustive list of accounts or financial instruments that can be used to satisfy the maintenance requirement. Instead,
    the Immigration Rules set out the attributes an acceptable account must satisfy. The rules specifically exclude financial instruments such as shares, bonds, credit cards and pension funds from use as acceptable evidence.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2021 Comments on Angela Rayner

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2021 Comments on Angela Rayner

    The comments made by Emma Lewell-Buck, the Labour MP for South Shields, on 8 May 2021.

    I can’t put into words how disappointed I am right now about the sacking of Angela Rayner.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2021 Speech on Equitable Life

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2021 Speech on Equitable Life

    The speech made by Emma Lewell-Buck, the Labour MP for South Shields, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2021.

    It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know that he, alongside the Equitable Members Action Group, the APPG, of which I am a member, and others, has campaigned extensively on this issue for several years. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate.

    This scandal will affect most, if not all, constituencies represented in this place. It has been, and continues to be, a long battle for justice and recompense for those affected. Many of the victims are now elderly and exhausted from this 20-year campaign. Some of them have sadly passed away. Many of them are former key workers—people whom we in the Opposition have always known are the backbone of our country: nurses, teachers, civil servants, factory and shop workers. They are hard-working people such as my constituent, Mr John Petty.

    Mr Petty is 84 years old and a pharmacist. He was sold an Equitable Life pension plan. At the time, he felt it was a decent and reputable firm. After a career working 70-plus hours most weeks, he sold his pharmacy in 1996, looking forward to a happy retirement with his wife. However, soon after, without warning and through no fault of his own, he lost a considerable amount of his pension. At 59 years of age, he had to go back to work. Mr Petty now has to budget every year, as living costs continue to rise but his pension does not. He said: “This whole saga has been disturbing, to put it mildly.” He is not alone. There are nearly 900,000 people still waiting for their losses to be recovered in full.

    I acknowledge that in 2010, the then Government accepted the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings in full —that, between 1992 and 2000, Government Departments and regulators were responsible for maladministration, and that victims should be returned to the position that they would have been in had that maladministration not taken place. The ombudsman also found that victims had lost £4.1 billion. However, having accepted the findings in full, the Government then failed to give adequate compensation, offering only £1.5 billion. That is the crux of today’s debate. All victims should be repaid in full, and there needs to be some transparency regarding how the Treasury calculated its payments.

    I say politely to the Minister that, at a time when trust in the Government is low, the stubbornness displayed repeatedly by the Treasury in constantly dismissing requests makes it appear either to have a lack of care or to have something to hide. I and others simply cannot understand why, if the methodology used was sound and robust, it cannot be shared. Either way, it is not a good look for the Government. We call today for the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of the payments made to victims. Surely, if that would lead to a discovery that the methodology was flawed, it would save the Minister and the Government some embarrassment if they just showed transparency now.

    We are not asking for much, but our asks would make an immeasurable difference to the victims. This is about fairness, transparency and trust. People who paid into their pensions in good faith should not be treated in this way. Those who are currently saving for their future need to know that their money is safe and that the Government will intervene if it is not. Just last year, the Chancellor said:

    “We care very much about pensioners and making sure they have security and that’s indeed our policy.”

    The Minister has an opportunity today to prove that those were not just empty words and that pensioners really are a priority. I sincerely hope he takes that opportunity.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2020 Speech on School Breakfasts

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2020 Speech on School Breakfasts

    The speech made by Emma Lewell-Buck, the Labour MP for South Shields, in the House of Commons on 14 October 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide breakfast club facilities; and for connected purposes.

    I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    Across England this morning, more than 2 million children—that we know of—will have arrived at school ready to learn with a gnawing hunger in their stomach. Their day will be marked with worry about when they and others in their family might be able to eat again. That will have a significant impact on their learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are, and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are.

    Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development, with hungry children suffering developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones. The physical and mental health consequences for those stuck in this hopeless situation are dire and long lasting. Research conducted prior to the pandemic found rising levels of hospital admissions for children due to malnutrition and a resurgence of Victorian diseases associated with hunger. Research last year also found that children who went without breakfast tended to be overweight and obese.

    Schools in my constituency have said that, without this Bill, they may have to charge for or cease breakfast provision next year. Research by the University of Leeds found that children who eat a regular breakfast achieve an average of two GCSE grades higher than those who rarely eat breakfast. Not only is the Bill the morally right thing to do; it clearly makes no long-term economic sense to deprive children of this vital meal. Stories of children going to school with a grey pallor, under-nourished, rummaging through bins for food and wearing threadbare clothing are commonplace. Schools in South Shields have told me that children complain of persistent hunger and stomach pains. One little boy turned up for school having only had a small piece of chocolate for his breakfast. For some, the last time they had any food was their school dinner the day before, and for many children on free school meals, waiting until midday is too long. As one teacher said, it is three hours too late.

    We know the statistics, facts and reality of the grinding and increasing poverty in daily life for so many children in our country, and we know that this is not the fault of their parents. There is not a single mam or dad I have spoken to who is not totally heartbroken and ashamed that their child is going without, but I remind them and their children that it is not their shame; it is the Government’s, because these levels of hunger were and are avoidable.

    Last year, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights expressed so clearly how the ongoing policies of austerity introduced in ​2010, welfare reform measures and inaction on low-paid and insecure work have had tragic social consequences. That view is supported by 65% of teachers, who, when surveyed by Magic Breakfast, said they felt that the Government were not doing enough to help children at risk of hunger.

    Coronavirus has exacerbated poverty levels. In the first five weeks of lockdown, more than 2 million children experienced food insecurity. Over 1 million more children have become eligible for free school meals, and a staggering 4 million children are now living in poverty. Many are hungry every single day of the year, with no let-up in sight. When I was a child protection social worker, it was the children suffering from severe neglect who would be struggling in this way, but now we are faced with a generation of children for whom the hopelessness of austerity and poverty are becoming the norm.

    I am acutely aware that this Bill will not address the underlying causes of hunger; nor will it be a panacea for every hungry child, but it absolutely will ensure that those who currently go without that first important meal of the school day no longer will. It will make a huge difference for families such as one family in my constituency who were visited by the local Key 2 Life Food Bank; volunteers went to a bare and desolate home, where they found three children and their mam in dire need. When a food parcel arrived for them, the children began to rip at the boxes with their hands, shaking with hunger. When we think of these children, we should all be lost for words. How, as a society, have we ever allowed this to happen?

    Research has shown that the benefits of breakfast clubs go beyond food. Teachers and school staff have reported that children often make new friends at these clubs and have time to share their worries with staff, and for many, they can complete their homework using a computer and in the warmth.

    The School Breakfast Bill is a simple, costed Bill which will ensure that, when the Government’s current breakfast club programme expires in 2021, there will be enshrined in legislation a commitment to a more comprehensive, evidence-based programme of school breakfast clubs. The Bill will ensure that all state-funded primary and secondary schools in England where at least 50% of pupils are in the income deprivation affecting children index receive funding from the soft drinks levy to deliver breakfasts for every single child in the school, including those children with no recourse to public funds, who are currently, shamefully, excluded from free school meals. Additionally, the Bill will allow for any school that has demonstrated a need for the provision to request funding.

    I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place. The power of education should never be underestimated. The food that fuels the ability to learn and develop should never be understated. This Bill will make sure that socioeconomic status is not a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. It will make sure that where some of our children begin in life is not always where they end up.

    This small, simple Bill will have a profound impact on the lives of so many. It is supported by over 30 respected national organisations, Marcus Rashford MBE, Yusuf ​Islam—also known to many of us as Cat Stevens—and the Children’s Commissioner. Over 30,000 people have signed a petition in support of it, and over 70 Members across the House, including the excellent Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), also support the Bill. They all support it because they know that there is no justification and no argument robust enough to deny children a breakfast.

    I want to say a big thank you to Magic Breakfast and Feeding Britain, which have worked tirelessly to make this Bill a reality. But the people who have really made the Bill possible are those parents and children who have been brave enough to share their pain with me. Despite the challenges they face, they have taken the time to use their experiences to try to make a difference for others. Their daily struggle should be something that we are all determined to change.

    As I present this Bill, there will be children struggling to focus because their stomachs are rumbling. The persistent worry that comes with hunger will permeate their entire day. All of us in this place owe it to every single child who woke up hungry this morning and who will go to bed hungry tonight in one of the richest countries in the world to make sure that this Bill becomes law. I commend this Bill to the House.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2020 Speech on Children and Young Persons

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2020 Speech on Children and Young Persons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emma Lewell-Buck, the Labour MP for South Shields, in the House of Commons on 10 June 2020.

    With this statutory instrument, the Government are trying to do what they failed to do in 2017, during the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, and what they failed to do with their myth-busting guide in 2019.

    In 2017, the Government proposed allowing local authorities, under the guise of innovation, to opt out of protective legislation for children. The aim was to deregulate, on the back of the LaingBuisson report, making the sector ripe and ready for privatisation. After a groundswell of cross-party objection both in and outside this place, the changes, which comprised a whole chapter of the 2017 Act, were removed at the 11th hour. In 2019, the then Minister disseminated a dangerous myth-busting document advising local authorities to dispense with the statutory guidance in relation to the most vulnerable children. Again, this attempt to deregulate and wipe away hard-fought-for protective legislation for children was eventually quashed and the document withdrawn.

    Any child protection strategy—whether we are in a pandemic or not—that requires the dispensing of the law to achieve it is counterproductive and downright dangerous. I am not sure if the current Minister is aware, but the legislation that the Secretary of State so cavalierly dispensed with under this SI took decades to ​achieve and was hard-fought-for by the profession and in this place and the other place. It led to our having one of the safest child protection systems in the world.

    However, the Secretary of State’s actions have removed the safety net, because since 24 April this year, vulnerable children in care of the state, which stands at a record of more than 78,000, have lost their right to visits from their social worker when they are in placement. They have lost their right to have reviews regarding their care. They have lost their right to have temporary carers who have an existing connection with them. They have lost their right to have their complaints thoroughly investigated. These changes either substantially dilute or remove 65 legal protections and, worryingly, the expiration date can be revoked. In other words, this may become a permanent change.

    The fact that a child is in placement does not always mean that they are safe. That is why this legislation existed. Children have been harmed, even murdered, by their carers. The consequences of having no social worker oversight and no one visiting or speaking to them about their care could not be more serious.

    This SI has also seen a relaxing of the requirements that govern children’s homes, a dispensing of fostering and adoption panels, emergency foster placements extended to 24 weeks and relaxations on placements away from a child’s home area, and for children who are privately fostered, there is no longer a timeframe on when the local authority needs to check up on them in that placement.

    Despite the Government’s attempts to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny, they have also been disingenuous in stating that they have consulted key organisations about this SI when they have not. The facts are that a petition to withdraw the SI has, in a short timeframe, amassed over 7,300 signatures, and 51 organisations and over 452 individual social work professionals are calling for it to be withdrawn. Not a single local authority has publicly admitted asking for these changes. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long-Bailey), the Government are facing legal action from Article 39, because it, like many across this House who signed this prayer, has a grasp of the legislation and cares deeply about children. No social workers or local authorities regularly cite protective legislation for children as a block to them carrying out their role. What stops effective children and families social work is the constant barrage of cuts and resource stripping over the past 10 years.

    To use this pandemic as an excuse to reignite experiments from 2017 and 2019 on the most vulnerable of our children is reprehensible. The Minister has so far been unable to explain to me the rationale and demand for these changes. I would like her to explain to the House today which local authorities, organisations and social workers asked for these changes, who was consulted on them, and when they were consulted. What involvement does the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families have in these changes? On which date did the Department begin assessing these changes? Additionally, the Minister should be able to share with us today how many local authorities have actually dispensed with these protections and what the outcome of such has been on the children concerned—because I cannot imagine, having been one myself, that a single social worker would allow any child they work with to be put at risk in this way.​
    I urge the Minister to revoke this SI immediately before she and her colleagues who follow their Whips on this vote are culpable for the significant harm that children may already be suffering and will certainly suffer in future.