Tag: Speeches

Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

It is a real pleasure to speak in the debate because I obviously have a particular interest. I commend the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for leading the debate so knowledgeably and for setting the scene so well. What a pleasure it is to follow my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). The tag team is back together—I follow him or he follows me—and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Unashamedly, I will tell hon. Members about some of the small businesses in my area—not all of them, because that would take me an hour and a half and, Mr Robertson, you would say, “Sit down.” I will pick out some of the smaller ones that I have known over the years. There are many.

As we approach Christmas, it is important to recognise the important role that local businesses play in our economy, including the family-run businesses that have served our local towns and villages—in some cases, for decades. I do not intend to wax lyrical about how great a place Strangford is—everybody already knows that—but I am more than happy to encourage everyone to make a journey to Strangford at some time in the future, as many in this House have done, including Ministers and other hon. Members, who have enjoyed it. At this time of year, we must take time to reflect and acknowledge that businesses are the backbone of our constituencies—they certainly are for mine. Some 99% of businesses in my constituency are small and medium-sized enterprises, and the pattern is similar across the whole of Northern Ireland.

There are many benefits that come along with family-run businesses and ultimately contribute to their long line of success, and there are so many success stories that I want to mention. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who will follow this speech, and I have been working together, and she and I were just saying how we will unashamedly tell everyone in this House about our small businesses. I look forward to what she is going to tell us in a few minutes as she namechecks every one of those businesses, and I will probably do the same.

Strong commitment and common values are some of the successes of small businesses. When an enterprise is built on familial lines, people are more likely to put in extra hours and go the extra mile to ensure success, and the stability of the family structure has been pivotal for long-term family professions. One that always sticks in my mind is N.G. Bell & Son. I am probably the only person present who knows about N.G. Bell & Son, but I will share its success story. It is a family-run business specialising in timber, building, electrical and plumbing supplies, and it has become one of Northern Ireland’s leading building merchants. Norman and Elsie Bell came to Ballywalter from west Ulster in 1950 and bought an existing grocery and hardware business. On the untimely death of Norman Bell in 1973, his son Graham took over the running of the business at the early age of 19. He and the family have built the business, making it a complete success, and their business park in Greyabbey Road is at the centre of that.

The story of N.G. Bell & Son in Ballywalter resonates with me, because my own parents ran a shop in the same village from ’59 to ’79, and many of the relationships I built through the shop as a child remain strong to this day. I am minded that Margaret Thatcher, who was the daughter of a shopkeeper, said we were a nation of shopkeepers. I am pleased to be the son of a shopkeeper, and I am also proud of my roots. I understand at first hand how central the local shop can be to community life. My mum and dad owned a shop in Clady, south of Strabane. They also owned one in Ardstraw, and then they moved to Ballywalter in 1959. They owned the first V G Store, which was part of a chain of shops that are now run by the SPAR group and owned by the Henderson Group in Northern Ireland. It is an example of how a local business has grown—again, it is good news.

I am sure that I have mentioned before the importance of family businesses to our high streets. Newtownards is one of the main towns in the Strangford constituency and has many great businesses, most notably Wardens of Newtownards, which has been a presence in the town’s high street since 1910. In 2002, Wardens celebrated its 125th anniversary. As part of the celebrations, the store ran a competition to find the oldest receipt from the shop. A local farmer came forward with a receipt dating back to 1890s—not the 1690s, Mr Robertson, but the 1890s—which is just astonishing. There are still family members who work there today, and hopefully they will do so for many generations to come. For anyone who is curious—many are—Wardens has also had videos go viral on TikTok. I am told that the store has an account—I do not know how to use one—that has gained over 180,000 followers and millions of views. Again, it gives an indication of what a small, family-run store in Newtownards can do when it comes to promoting itself.

H & J Carnduff butchers in the square in Newtownards employs 55 people and is a local business that has done extremely well. It farms its butchery business out to other shops across the whole district.

Margaret Ferrier

Cafés are important businesses for local communities. To name a few in my constituency, we have the Tea Bay, Stacks, Niu Cafe, Vin 18 and Café Gelato, and they provide a place for people to meet, chat and come in out of the cold. Does the hon. Member agree that small, family-run cafés are often the highlight of local towns in providing that atmosphere?

Jim Shannon

I certainly do. Again, the hon. Lady says many things in her interventions that I absolutely subscribe to, and I thank her for that. The Regency is such an example of where people come together. I have a fry there every Saturday morning—it is my wee treat for the week as a diabetic as I try to be careful about my eating. Corries meats in Newtownards town is a family business that has grown to own a chain of half a dozen shops, and Knotts Bakery is another family business in the town.

The people of Strangford love a bargain—who doesn’t? My mother is a 91-year-old who loves going shopping and always wants to tell me about the bargains she has got. One place where bargains are guaranteed is Cotters, which is a family-run business that has been in the town for 20 years. My two youngest staff members have what they call their monthly “Cotters haul” where they get new cleaning supplies, bits and bobs for the office and, most importantly for two young girls, crisps because they are always a special price in Cotters—that is probably the attraction.

Loyalty and stability are two qualities of successful family businesses. That success allows for “beanstalk” family businesses where often four generations of a family have been involved. The hon. Member for Torbay referred to such a company in his constituency. The director of SME business at Ulster University has indicated that 74% of Northern Ireland companies are classed as family-run, which is amazing in being unique and serving the Northern Ireland economy in a different way.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to bank managers. I have a story about a bank manager, although I am not sure I have the time to tell it as I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is following me. When I visited my bank manager for a loan when I was much younger, the discussion we had was not the same that people would have with their bank manager today. I told him I would pay the loan back as quickly as I could, and I paid it back in one year. That probably meant a lot of scrimping and saving, but I did it. Those were things that would not be done with a bank manager today because of the rules.

When I think of Warren Patton of Patton’s Bakery in Newtownards, which is a family-run business that I have known for nearly all its days, his sense of community spirit is so evident in his charitable donations and discounts for fundraising community events, and that deserves recognition. He employs some 76 people in his business. It is often much easier to get a donation for the local fair from the local bakery than the large supermarkets, and that is another reason why local businesses are a vital cog in the community machine. Warren Patton is fully immersed in everything in Newtownards. He is community-minded. He is the chair of the Ards football club. We are all keen to see them get their new ground, which is at an advanced stage. The land has been identified, the agreement has been done and now we are pushing for some grants to make it all happen. He is also in the Loyal Orders—the Orange Order and the Royal Black Preceptory, which I am in in Newtownards. Those organisations are part of the culture and history of our town. I say that because Warren Patton is one of those local success stories. That business started from nothing and he has it today.

The support provided by the public to keep these enterprises open is incredibly important, and we do our best to help and support all the businesses that make our economy what it is today. The former Minister—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst)—came to visit the high street in Newtownards. She enjoyed her time there, but more importantly she was able to engage with local businesses in a constructive and helpful way. Newtownards has won the best town centre in the whole of Northern Ireland in the past and was featured heavily last time as well. I say this without fear of being quoted wrong: Newtownards truly is the best trading town for businesses, opportunity, variety and family-owned businesses. Looking at the special nature of family-run businesses and their contributions to my constituency, I can only say to people: if you have any time before Christmas, come shopping in Newtownards in Strangford.

December 20, 2022
Kevin Foster – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

The speech made by Kevin Foster, the Conservative MP for Torbay, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow my good friend, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and hear his experiences of business. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing the debate, which is a timely chance to highlight the role that family businesses play in Torbay’s economy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle reflected, family businesses make a major contribution to the UK economy overall. Oxford Economics estimated that there were 4.8 million family businesses in the UK in 2020, making up 85.9% of all private sector businesses. Those businesses employed 13.9 million workers, or 51.5% of all private sector employment, and contributed £575 billion to the UK economy. These are big numbers overall, despite most family businesses actually being small firms—something like three quarters of all family businesses in 2020 were sole traders with no employees. A further 21% have between one and nine employees, although I understand that the estimates were based partly on data collected the previous year.

It is interesting to note that those numbers represented a decrease. The number of family businesses decreased in 2020 from 5.2 million in 2019, when they employed 14.2 million people and contributed £637 billion to the economy. If the Treasury was here, it would be interested in the fact that such businesses paid £205 billion in tax receipts. Some of that may reflect the impact of the pandemic, not least given that the typical family business many of us think of is a shop or a guest house, both of which were affected by that period.

Many family businesses are not just sources of economic activity, but mainstays of the local community. A 2021 survey of family businesses conducted by PwC found that the vast majority of UK family businesses also continue to engage in some form of social responsibility activity. Some 74% of family businesses surveyed contributed to their local community, and 47% participated in traditional philanthropy or grant-based giving as a company.

Dr Cameron

The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points. Given that family businesses are such a focal component of our communities, does he agree they have a key role in reducing the disability employment gap, and are often the businesses that promote disability inclusion in our communities?

Kevin Foster

I completely agree. The type of support a family can provide to someone with disabilities—even in their own family, for example, by extending the care and support offered to their loved one and supporting them in the workplace—can be vital. Many families have rightly shifted their expectations of what a family member with disabilities will be able to do. To be honest, past attitudes might have been, “Could this person work?” or “Perhaps they shouldn’t, perhaps they won’t ever work.” Thankfully, there has now been a big change in many businesses. The hon. Member is right that family businesses can help to lead that charge.

The economic and social impact of family businesses can be seen clearly in Torbay, and it is important to reflect on this positive aspect. I will start with Rew Hotels. The Rew Hotel Group was founded in 1970 by Mrs Sylvia Rew, and is still family managed. Positioned right on Torquay’s seafront are the two hotels it runs: Livermead House and Livermead Cliff. The family are not just quiet owners but part of the frontline delivery of services to customers. It is a good example of a family business where the family has been able to develop two distinct offers while making the business a family in itself, with several senior staff members having started waiting tables or behind the bar, and then been given opportunities to develop their career within the hotel and the business

Susan’s Flower Shop has been trading at the heart of Paignton, Devon for over 50 years; the business itself has become a family, given that it has been trading for such a lengthy period. Brian and Susan, who are the leading figures, are involved in many aspects of local community work and supporting the bay as a whole.

There is also Conroy Couch, which is one of the oldest established businesses in Torquay and one of the oldest jewellers in the UK. It was first opened in 1863 by Mr Conroy Couch, and such was the quality of its initial fitting that the shop front has altered very little since, with the height of the entry doors serving as a reminder of a time when men commonly wore top hats and would be wearing them when they attempted to come through the door. Towards the end of the last century, the shop was taken over by the Rowe family, who are well-known and respected jewellers in Torquay. Today, David and his daughter Michelle still hold the values that the original founder of the business held dear: it is an active part of supporting local Rotary appeals, and works to ensure that Torquay high street has an annual Christmas lights display.

A larger example of a family business is Beverley Holidays, which operates three holiday parks in Torbay. It has been a family-run business for over 60 years, and during that period its owners have seen some dramatic changes in Torbay’s tourism sector. A caravan holiday might conjure up images from the past of putting coins in meters and sleeping on a sofa, yet many caravans in those parks offer standards equivalent to executive hotel suites, meaning that as a family business Beverley Holidays can compete with the large national chains on both price and quality.

Family business is not just about retail and tourism—we have heard some examples today. In that context, one company that particularly jumps to my mind is Casting Support Systems, or CSS as it is commonly known. It is a family business that was established by Ted Head, and produces a range of products for the distribution, aerospace and automotive industries. Earlier this year, it won the Queen’s award for enterprise for its export achievements and relocated to a brand new, purpose-built factory in Paignton. To give the scale of the impact of that family business, between 2018 and 2021 its exports rose from £267,000 to £1.7 million.

Another sector that can be overlooked is one that is often seen in our local communities, and one to which family businesses are integral: travelling fairs. The name Anderton and Rowlands is synonymous with funfairs and bank holidays in Devon and Cornwall. That business started back in 1854, when Albert Haslam, a variety artist, set up on his own, giving magic exhibitions. His tutor was one Professor Anderson, and upon his death, Albert assumed the name of Anderton. In 1903, the show first travelled under the name of Anderton and Rowlands, the name that has been in existence since. Since the 1950s, the firm has continued to expand, and the name Anderton and Rowlands is now in its fifth generation. It is currently owned by the DeVey family. George DeVey—who was born in a showman’s wagon travelling to a maternity hospital back in 1937—Simon DeVey and Simon DeVey Jr are key parts of it, and it is now the biggest fairground operator travelling in Devon and Cornwall.

Finally, I should mention Bygones in Torquay. Back in the 1980s, Ken Cuming’s obsession with railwayana was starting to outgrow his house; I understand that the final straw for his wife Patricia came in 1986, when he purchased a 27-tonne steam railway engine from Falmouth docks. As fortune would have it, the couple spotted that an old cinema had become available in St Marychurch, and bravely took the plunge of turning their hobby into a family business. Over the next year or so, with the help of an excellent mason and carpenter, and many friends, the family recreated a Victorian street scene, and on 23 May 1987 Bygones was opened to the public by the then mayor of Torbay. Sadly, Ken Cuming passed away in June 2017, but his wife Patricia, son Richard and daughter Amanda are still working daily in Bygones, which is a popular attraction that also supports veterans.

I could be here all day listing great family businesses in Torbay, and it has been good to recognise some of them in my speech. I am sure that many Members will be thinking of businesses in their own constituencies; we have already heard about some. However, family businesses are not immune to changes in our economy, especially on the high street. Sadly, it has been a long time since Rossiters department store in Paignton was bustling in the week before Christmas. Rossiters was part of Paignton for 150 years. Father Christmas often arrived there in dramatic style—one year on a turntable ladder, and once in the late 1980s even by parachute jump on to Paignton Green—but changing shopping trends and competition from online and out-of-town retail sadly led to it closing its doors in 2009. Even yesterday, we read that the future of a 106-year-old family business, Shaws the Drapers, which has stores across Devon, including one in Torquay, is under threat. Managers of the family-run company have admitted that it must change to survive, and, sadly, signs outside its shops state that all remaining stock is now on sale.

There are many positives to a strong family business sector, but what might inhibit its future growth? Family businesses are often based in and synonymous with one area. That means that the decisions of local councils can either boost or severely dent their prospects. Take, for example, the recent decisions of the coalition of Lib Dem and independent councillors that runs Torbay Council. Earlier this year, the coalition decided to close Torbay Road in Paignton to traffic as part of a pedestrianisation pilot. Torbay Road is a busy shopping street, and many businesses along that stretch of road and nearby are family owned. They have reported that trade has fallen off dramatically over the last three months. At a meeting last week, Conservative councillors requested that the coalition review the impact, but a review was decided not to be urgent enough. Similarly, the coalition’s decision to sign off a request from a developer to close Brixham Road for three months is unlikely to help many family businesses across our bay.

We must return to a familiar subject to me: business rates. Take Susan’s Flower Shop, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a family business that has been trading for just over 50 years. There is not a strong incentive to expand or maintain premises where business rates are concerned. Its shops are below the £12,000 rateable value, so no rates would be payable if it traded out of only one shop. As soon as a small family business has a second shop, rates become payable on both. That is a disincentive for family-run small businesses such as those in the floristry trade. Many shop owners would like to open a second shop for a family member to run when they are old enough. There is a reason why we see businesses called “Jacksons” or “Fredericksons” in our areas; that is a nod not just to a past surname, but to a time when a father might have set his son up in business after having taught him—Jack’s son—the trade. I am sure that many more empty shops would be filled by family businesses if that tax disincentive were removed.

I hope that the Minister will set out his thoughts on the following. First, how will the Government ensure that local councils pay attention to the needs of local family businesses when making decisions? Secondly, what consideration will be given to the position of family-run businesses in the long-awaited business rates review? Thirdly, not all members of a family have the skillsets required to grow a business, so they may need to recruit from outside the family for the first time; how are the Government supporting them to do so? Finally, what is the vision for family-owned businesses, from the Minister’s perspective? How does he see them being encouraged and nurtured by this Government? Knowing his own background and passion in the area, I expect that he will be particularly keen on that.

Family businesses are not just part of the economic output of our country, but an integral part of the social fabric. Without them, we would all be poorer, not only in the sense of the jobs and economic activity they create, but in the sense of the social responsibility that many show simply by wanting their businesses to be positive parts of the communities they are proud to call home.

December 20, 2022
Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Situation in Ukraine (20 December 2022]

The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

Today marks the 300th day of what was supposed to be a “three day” operation. As this calendar year draws to a close, I want to update the House on the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the brave defence of the Ukrainian people.

Since it began its offensive on 24 February, Russia has failed to achieve its strategic objectives. Not one single operational commander then in place on 24 February is in charge now. Russia has lost significant numbers of generals and commanding officers. Rumours of General Gerasimov’s dismissal persist as Putin deflects responsibility for continued military failure in Ukraine, high fatality rates and increasing public dissatisfaction with mobilisation is growing. More than 100,000 Russians are dead, injured or have deserted. And Russian capability has been severely hampered by the destruction of more than 4,500 armoured and protected vehicles, as well as more than 140 helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, and hundreds of other artillery pieces.

The Russian Battalion Tactical Group concept, for a decade the pride of their military doctrine has not stood up to Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s deployed land forces’ combat effectiveness has dropped by more than 50%. The Russian Air Force is conducting tens of missions per day as opposed to 300 per day back in March. And Russia’s much vaunted Black Sea Fleet is little more than a coastal defence flotilla. Kremlin paid mercenaries are faring no better. Hundreds were killed by a recent strike on a headquarters used by the paramilitary Wagner group in the Luhansk region.

Behind the scenes international sanctions, including independently applied UK sanctions, have handicapped the Kremlin’s defence industry. Russia is running out of stockpiles and has expended a large proportion of its SS-26 Iskander short range ballistic missiles. It is now resorting to stripping jetliners for spare parts. Its inability to operate independently is underscored by its reliance on Iran’s Shahed drones.

President Putin’s failure to marshal recruits and machinery is translating to battlefield defeat. At the maximum point of its advances in March, Russia occupied around 27 percent of Ukrainian land. Ukraine has since liberated around 54 per cent of the territory taken since February. Russia now controls around 18 per cent of internationally recognised areas of Ukraine. Last Monday the Kremlin cancelled its annual press conference for the first time in a decade.

Almost a year on and the conflict now resembles the attritional battles of World War I. The Russian army is largely fixed in place not just by Ukrainian fire power but by its own creaking logistics system and barely trained troops. Soldiers occupy networks of waterlogged trenches and a vast frontline stretches for 1200 km – the distance from London to Vienna. Despite intense fighting in Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions, Russia can barely generate a fighting force capable of retaking lost areas let alone make significant operational advances. Russian public opinion is starting to turn. Data reportedly collected by Russia’s Federal Protective Service indicated that 55 percent of Russians now favour peace talks with Ukraine, with only 25 percent claiming to support continuing the war. In April that latter figure was around 80 percent.

Alongside Russia’s litany of failure is an expanding rap sheet of reported war crimes. According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, since 24 February, some 6,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed and nearly 10,000 injured. Every day more allegations emerge of rape, arbitrary detentions, torture, ill treatment, deaths in custody and summary executions. Unrecorded group burial sites have been discovered in former occupied area such as Mariupol, Bucha and Izyum. Industrial facilities such as the Azovstal steelworks and the Azot chemical plant have been targeted – risking the release of toxic industrial chemicals. And the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant – the largest in Europe – has been indiscriminately shelled.

At the start of this invasion Russia planned “kill lists” of civic leaders, show trials and sham referenda but the international community has not been fooled by such tricks.

Russian soldiers have exhumed the bones of Prince Potemkin, the legendary confidant of Catherine the Great. They have looted priceless artefacts from museums. And, according to UNESCO, they have either partially or completely destroyed more than 200 Ukrainian cultural sites. More sinister still they are splitting up families through forced relocation or ‘filtration’ into Temporarily Occupied Territories or Russia itself.

Numerous open-source reports show this morally bankrupt activity is not the work of rogue units or of corrupt individuals.

It is systemic.

Today Russia is weaponizing winter with ongoing and widespread missile strikes targeted at Ukraine’s energy and water infrastructure. More than 40 per cent of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has been struck. However, Ukraine’s resilience has meant that a significant proportion is back up and running. Such behaviour is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict. We are doing everything we can to support the Ukrainian authorities and the International Criminal Court as they investigate.

At the beginning of this year my aim was to help Ukraine resist and give their citizens hope that the Europe they aspire to be part of would support them in their hour of need. And the International Community has not disappointed.

As Russia has changed its tactics throughout this conflict, so we have changed the type and level of our support in the UK. For example, it is Britain’s expertise and advice that is helping Ukraine better coordinate and synchronize its air defence. Our advice helps Ukraine target incoming Russian/Iranian kamikaze drones. We always make sure our support is calibrated to avoid escalation. The House should be under no illusion that it is Russia that is escalating its attacks on Ukraine. And I have made this point clear to my counterpart Minister Shoigu in Moscow.

I wish I could say to the House after 300 days of almost daily defeats Russia would have recognised its folly. Sadly, it has not and there is no let up for the Ukrainians. As we have seen by the weaponization of energy there is no let up for us here in the UK and across Europe from Putin’s war. Therefore, this will require our continued support to Ukraine in 2023 building on our lethal aid, training, humanitarian support and international coordination.

That’s why, as the mercury drops further in Ukraine the UK is doing what we can to help Ukrainians endure the harsh midwinter. The UK has donated over 900 generators to Ukraine and has sent approximately 15,000 sets of extreme cold weather kits to the Ukrainian Armed Forces including cold weather clothing, heavy duty sleeping bags and insulated tents. We anticipate a further 10,000 cold weather kits will be delivered by Christmas. Across the international community, around 1.23 million winter kit items have been donated.

Alongside our global partners, we have implemented the most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. Simultaneously, we have galvanised efforts to raise funds to support Ukraine. I chaired my first Ukraine donor conference on 25 Feb and have attended three since then. The UK has been instrumental too in bringing our Northern European neighbours together in solidarity under the auspices of our Joint Expeditionary Force – whose unity was apparent in the meeting in Riga yesterday.

Together this has ensured a steady supply of lethal and non-lethal aid to sustain Ukrainian resistance.

As the threats to European security rise, the UK has also been leading efforts to shore up regional security deploying a number of units across Europe. President Putin wanted to see a weaker NATO. NATO will be even stronger with Finland and Sweden’s decision to accede to the Alliance and I will do all I can to ensure their swift entry into the alliance.

Although our populations continue to struggle with the cost-of-living crisis, the global community must hold its course on Ukraine. The price of Putin’s success is one none of us can afford. We must ensure they maintain their commitment to the Black Sea Initiative which has so far transported 14.3 million tonnes of grain from more than 500 outgoing voyages. We must stop their reckless shelling of nuclear facilities. And we must hold their enablers to account. Iran has become one of Russia’s top military backers. In return for having supplied more than 300 kamikaze drones, Russia intends to provide it with advanced military components, undermining both Middle East and international security. We must expose this deal.

Make no mistake Mr Speaker, the UK’s assistance to Ukraine will remain unwavering and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his continuing support. We have already committed to match or exceed the £2.3 billion in military aid we will spend this year. We have secured a major deal to keep up the ongoing supply of artillery rounds and will continue refreshing their stocks of air defence and other missiles. Where we have equipment to gift we will replace from our own stocks and where we have no more to gift then we shall purchase alongside our Allies. The UK has been joined by the US in its huge level of support, as well as that of EU members. And, in particular, Poland, Slovakia and the Baltic States.

We are also determined to maintain and sustain the Ukraine equipment pipeline for the longer term. Our International Fund for Ukraine co-chaired by the UK and Denmark has to-date received pledges worth half a billion pounds and it has just concluded its first round of bids for capabilities we plan to rapidly procure in the new year for Ukraine.

Our Armed Forces are doing everything possible to develop the battle skills of Ukrainian men and women. Having put almost 10,000 through their paces in the UK in 2022, my ambition is for our Armed Forces – alongside our allies – to at least double the number trained in 2023. I would like to place on record my thanks to Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Australia for their contributions of troops to help train Ukrainians.

Finally, we must help Ukraine rebuild and the reconstruction conference we host next year will accelerate that process.

Mr Speaker, throughout this year I have kept-open communication channels with my opposite number, Defence Minister Shoigu, in order to avoid miscalculations and reduce the risk of escalation. Through written correspondence and a phone call on 23 October, I have repeatedly stressed that Russia must stop targeting civilians, end its invasion, and withdraw its forces from Ukraine.

This year the Ukrainians have been fighting not only for their freedoms but also for ours. We must be clear that three days, or even 300 days, is not the maximum attention span of the West.

The UK and the international community’s dedication to help Ukraine is solid and enduring, and will not let up through 2023 and beyond.

We cannot stand-by while Russia sends these waves of drones to escalate its attack on innocent civilians.

And, just as the UK has evolved our support as the conflict has unfolded; we are doing so again now for this latest phase of Russian brutality, developing options to respond in a calibrated and determined manner should their escalation continue.

Because if the Kremlin persists in its disregard for human rights and the Geneva Conventions, we must insist on Ukraine’s right to self-defence and the protection of civilians.

Mr Speaker, the next year will be critical for all of us who believe in standing-up for freedom, international law, and human rights. I commend this statement to the House.

December 20, 2022
Jamie Stone – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

The speech made by Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

As a Scot myself, let me say that it is a pleasure to hear a canny Scot—the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson)—taking us through this important subject; I always think a gentleman from Aberdeen would have a particularly good grasp on the vital need to make ends meet and run a tight ship.

I ran my family business for eight years, and my brother runs it now. It was a cheesemaking business that grew out of small dairy farm on the shores of the north Firth. For eight years, I had to juggle the profit and loss account and know how to do a VAT return—I had to do all that stuff, and it was invaluable experience. I will not go any further, because I cannot plug a family business too hard, but my brother continues in the same vein and I am very proud of him.

Let me expand on the points made by the hon. Member for Carlisle. The local contribution of family businesses is crucial. They tend to use the local bank: businesses in my constituency deposit large amounts of money in the local branch and help keep it open. They mostly use a local solicitor, and that equates to jobs in the local area. They use a local estate agent if the need arises, and local shops. They rely on their reputation, as the hon. Gentleman hinted at; local businesses do not want to make a mess of things locally, because it is on their own doorstep. Those are the key things they bring to their areas.

No local business will survive if it cannot balance the books and get it to work. That expertise, as the hon. Gentleman said, makes a huge local contribution, in terms of the chamber of commerce, local government and so on. As a passing aside—this is as much about my party as any other party in this place—we could do with more local businessmen in the House of Commons. If we go back 100 years, there was a time when many Members of the House of Commons had made their fortune and knew what they were talking about when it came to the big issues. That would be no bad thing. But that criticism is not directed at any one party; it includes mine.

John Stevenson

The hon. Gentleman makes a really interesting point about getting people with business experience here. Does he agree that, although traditionally important local businesspeople became members of the council, we do not see that today, and that is a big loss to us all?

Jamie Stone

That is a very apt point. I was elected to Ross and Cromarty District Council in 1986, which was a long time ago, and I have seen the sort of people who become members change dramatically in my lifetime. When it comes to local government finance, to have hard heads on the finance committee does not half help things.

Nurturing local businesses sits within a wider framework, which the hon. Gentleman touched on. He mentioned advice and access to finance as and when needed. Many of us feel that the day of the local bank manager has gone—the man or woman who could talk to the businessman and say, “Okay, that is a good idea. I’m willing to offer the following finance.”

In my part of the UK—my very far north constituency—a local business will do well and thrive if it has the support to which I alluded. We have an organisation called Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which was conceived by the Wilson Government in the 1960s, and did much good work over the years. I am sad to say that it is not what it was all those years ago. It is weaker, through no fault of its own; it is a small organisation and does not have the ability to offer advice and target finance as and when necessary. A lot of other infrastructure is required in our constituencies—in my own case, an airport, rail links and road links. A hardy perennial is the NHS, and I often raise the issue of maternity services. If any one of those vital key support networks is not up to standard, that sadly makes life harder for local businesses, particularly when it comes to recruitment or expansion.

I will close with an example. In Caithness we have an engineering firm called JGC Engineering, which is owned by the Campbell family. It is a third-generation firm that grew out of a blacksmith business, and it makes clever stainless steel stuff for the nuclear industry, Dounreay and others. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I have often talked about the potential of a space launch coming to my constituency—and I think it is just around the corner. A company such as JGC Engineering can use that but, if it does not have the infrastructure links, the back-up and so on, it will be harder for the company when the big day comes and it can go for those contracts. It is a basic point, and I make no apology for emphasising it again and again.

It remains only for me to wish all right hon. and hon. Members the compliments of the season, a very happy Christmas and a prosperous—in the business sense—new year.

December 20, 2022
John Stevenson – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

The speech made by John Stevenson, the Conservative MP for Carlisle, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of family businesses to local communities in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the importance of family businesses and their contribution to our national economy, our local economy and our communities up and down the country. I appreciate that this might not be the best week for this debate, given that we are approaching Christmas, but this is a really important time of the year for many businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, and an important time of the year for family businesses to succeed.

I want to put on the record my thanks to the Institute for Family Business for its support and the research that it has carried out into the success of family businesses and also the challenges that many of them face. The institute is the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group for family business, which I chair, and it has been very supportive for all the time that I have been chairing that APPG.

I want to start the debate with a simple question: what exactly is a family business? There are many different definitions and people will have their own interpretations. The Institute for Family Business set out its own definition in its most recent report, but for me it is quite simply the involvement of family in a business. This can be a sole practitioner—an individual who has set up their own business and is effectively a one-man band. It could be a husband and wife team. The wider family and children could be involved. It could involve other members of the family such as cousins, and of course it could involve different generations. But it is also about the level of control.

When we look at a corporation, we look at the shareholding of that company—how many shares are owned by the family and how many are external. We look at who effectively controls that business. A family business might not always be run by members of the family. It might have independent management or a mixture of family members and outsiders. Each can be equally successful. They all have their own challenges, but that does not detract from the fact that they can be just as successful as a purely family-run business, or as a mixture or with outside control.

The real challenges come when there is third or fourth generation involvement in a family business. They all present different concerns. There are intergenerational matters, and shareholding or ownership of a business can be widely spread among many members of the same family.

What about the sector that the business is involved in? It is estimated that there are around 5 million businesses in the United Kingdom, all of varying sizes. Family businesses make up 85% of that 5 million, so effectively our economy is dominated by such businesses both at the national and local level. I will come specifically to the local level in due course.

The size of the businesses varies enormously. Most are microbusinesses—small one-man bands or small family units. Equally, there are some enormous businesses that have grown from small start-ups. Warburtons is a good example. Historically we could look at Mr Barclay or Sainsbury’s as examples of small businesses many years ago that became huge conglomerates and very large and successful businesses.

Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this extremely important debate, because family businesses are the bedrock of our local economies. In my own constituency, Glencairn Crystal started as a local family business. It won the Queen’s Award and went on to develop the iconic Glencairn Crystal whisky glass, which is now internationally renowned. Does he agree that, with the correct package of support, financial innovation, contribution and development from Government, family businesses can become iconic and international successes?

John Stevenson

The hon. Lady is right. It is always lovely to hear Members promoting family businesses and demonstrating their success. She also highlights an issue that I will come to about how we can ensure they get the support that they need to be successful.

I have talked about family businesses being small or large, but we must also remember that there are some huge international businesses, including Mars and McCain. An interesting general observation is that many large, international family businesses are invariably owned from North America. That indicates that family businesses are not just part of our economy but part of international economies across the world.

Family businesses are involved in all sectors. The obvious one is transport, with large transport businesses up and down the country displaying their logos. They are also in retail and manufacturing. One particular area that features a lot of family businesses is the food and drink sector. That is a very popular sector in which to set up and grow a family business. That has a knock-on impact on the hospitality industry, which has a large number of small family businesses.

Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

Last week I went to the opening of a state-of-the-art factory by Equi’s Ice Cream in my constituency. That business has been around for a century, with its ice cream sold locally as well as in a number of supermarkets such as Morrisons, Co-op and Asda, and even as far away as Texas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such family-owned businesses not only contribute to our communities but are great ambassadors for them?

John Stevenson

Absolutely. It is always lovely to hear individual businesses being highlighted by Members of Parliament. That demonstrates that family businesses are not just in one constituency but spread across the whole country. We need to be behind them in our local communities as well as nationally.

From our perspective as Members of Parliament, the importance and contribution of family businesses should not be underestimated. They matter to our national economy. Family businesses employ nearly 14 million people; over 50% of all private sector employment is in family businesses, so the majority of people are employed by a family business. It is estimated that they account for 44% of our GDP. Just think of their contribution to the Treasury, which is vital for our public services.

Family businesses are clearly the backbone of local economies up and down the country as well as nationally. Think of a small family business and the contribution it makes to the Exchequer. If it employs five people, that means five families supported by that business. The contribution goes beyond that, with the payment of national insurance for those five employees, and of corporation tax. It will probably collect VAT for the Exchequer and pay business rates at the local level. It makes a vast contribution, not just to the local but to the national economy. That is replicated up and down the country.

Carlisle is a good example as the home of national and international businesses which employ a lot of people and make headlines locally because of the number they employ and their brand names, such as Nestlé and Pirelli. But drilling down, what matters in many respects is the local family businesses. Story Construction is a first-generation business now moving into the second generation, employing in the region of 500 people. It was set up in the last 30 to 40 years and makes a significant contribution to local construction and to the rail construction industry. Pioneer Foods, a food hospitality business, is into its third generation of making a contribution to Carlisle’s economy. Thomas Graham is in its fifth generation of local leadership.

We have those international brands and companies, but I have just highlighted three individual businesses at the heart of our local economy that employ a lot of people making a vital contribution. They are now into their second, third and fifth generations. The individuals who lead those businesses are also vital to our local communities. They provide leadership. They are often respected, and local people will look up to them and may aspire to be similar to them, and to set up their own businesses in due course.

Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

My hon. Friend mentions the contribution of small businesses to the local community. What I often see is something that is almost invisible. Does my hon. Friend agree that business owners often support community events, such as the recent Christmas tree festival in Aldridge?

John Stevenson

My right hon. Friend is getting ahead of me. She is absolutely right, and I will come to the contribution that such businesses make to local communities. There are, of course, similar factors for family businesses at the national and local level: the high employment levels in family businesses, the investment that we want to see, and the tax contribution that they make both locally and nationally, which I have already highlighted. I have set out what I think is a powerful demonstration of the importance of family businesses; however, some people would ask what the difference is between a family business and other corporations. Are they not in many respects just the same? I accept and recognise that they face many similar issues.

At present, energy costs are obviously affecting many businesses, both those that are family run and those that have other structures. It is a serious issue right now. On taxation rates, what corporation tax is set at matters to both family businesses and others, although dividend tax and capital gains tax can have a particular influence on family businesses, because of the way they structure themselves and the way the families take profits out of the business. Skills matter to any corporation, as does getting the right staff and ensuring that the right training is in place. That also matters to a family business, which needs to recruit in exactly the same way as any other. Regulation affects different sectors in different ways. I have already highlighted the importance of the food and drink sector, on which regulation clearly has a huge impact.

There are, however, a number of issues that in my view are unique to family businesses. The obvious one is succession. Passing the business on to the next generation, or indeed between families, can be a challenge. Who should inherit? Who takes over? Can the older generation let go and allow the next generation to take the reins of the business? If there are cousins, or two or three generations, involved, how is that dealt with? Those are some of the principal challenges for family businesses, and the Institute for Family Business spends quite a bit of time helping to support family businesses with them.

There are additional challenges with financing and growing family businesses. How do we ensure that a family business can grow in exactly the same way as other corporations? In my view, family businesses have a real strength, in that they can draw financial support from members of the family, which can help with that growth. It can also be a weakness, because they need to attract external finance to grow. Family businesses must be willing to accept outside help and allow external influences to support the business in its attempt to grow. Families have to accept the risk that they may be taken over, or that their influence in the business will be diluted by external investment from other parties.

Family businesses also have some key strengths, such as resilience. They often deal with recessions better than most other businesses. They are flexible and more adaptable in terms of hours of work. A person is more likely to want to work longer hours in their family business to ensure that it will cope with any bumps on the road. Family businesses also take the long view. It is not just about the next set of financial figures; it is about the next generation. That can lead to long-term investment, rather than a short-term view about making profits here and now. The stats suggest that often staff are loyal, and remain with such businesses for far longer than they would otherwise. Also, family businesses are invariably very loyal to their staff, who in many cases have worked for them for many years. That creates a real element of stability.

Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend agree that family businesses showed that loyalty to staff during the pandemic? For example, a number of tourism businesses in Torbay decided that the family would take no wages to ensure that staff could be paid, which we would not see in many other corporations.

John Stevenson

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We saw that in the pandemic, and we often see it in recessions as well. Family businesses are more resilient and stay loyal to their staff, and that gets them through in a way that many other businesses would not necessarily tolerate. Another interesting aspect of the research from the Institute for Family Business is that there is more female involvement in family businesses than in general in business; we should research more why that is the case.

Family businesses are often the start of something. They start as very small businesses, then continue within the family, or at least owned or controlled by the family, but with external management; or they dilute and float on the market. I do not think that selling out is a negative, as the business—what the family have created—is successful and can continue to thrive but in a different environment and under a different structure. Life does move on.

I am a solicitor, and work in a practice that was set up in 1805. Until 1916, three generations of the family were involved. Since then, there has been no family involvement, but the business is still going strong today and it had that family involvement for those three generations.

Where I think family businesses provide an extra layer of benefit is in terms not of the economy but of the community. Family businesses are often embedded in their community. The children go to local schools. The business employs local people. The families want the local area to succeed because they live in it and socialise in it—they are part of it. They often get involved, as school governors and in charities and other community organisations. If they are brave, they may even get involved in local politics; they may get involved in other things, such as the local enterprise partnership or the chamber of commerce. They are invariably respected leaders in the community—people want to emulate them. That support to their local areas is a real strength of family businesses and the leaders within them; that element does not show up in national statistics, but it is vital to the success of our communities up and down the community.

I am very conscious of the lack of Government recognition for the importance of family businesses. I think everybody here would recognise that they are the backbone of our economy and a source of strength for our communities. Is there more that the Government could do, on the growing of these businesses, and in understanding their nature, the challenges they face and how we can ensure the investment and finance for them so that they will grow, expand and become the big corporations of tomorrow?

There is also the skills agenda. Training opportunities can be difficult, as many of these businesses are small or micro businesses that find it challenging to train staff and to get the skills they need. What can the Government do to support them?

There is also a need for general advice, for not just financial but succession planning. Quite often, family businesses feel they are operating in isolation. That is why organisations such as the Institute for Family Business are so important, because they help with that sort of advice, but many businesses do not get it. I wonder whether the Government could do more to help.

There is also the issue of profile. Leaders in the community, as I have already said, often come from family businesses. Some, though not many, have a national presence. Sadly, trust in business is at a low ebb right now, but family businesses often have a far better reputation. It may be that the Government should be seeking to exploit that in a positive way. We need businesses to succeed. We should celebrate their successes. I think people often feel more comfortable celebrating the success of a family business than the success of what they perceive as a faceless corporation. Maybe the Government need to associate business more with the family side of things, demonstrating the importance and the vital contribution family businesses make to our society, as well as to our economy.

In society, families really do matter. In business, family businesses are absolutely vital. Let us celebrate their success, but let us help them more than we do to ensure that they continue to be the backbone of our country and central to our communities.

December 20, 2022
Barbara Roche – 1999 Speech at the Inter-Forum Conference on E-Commerce
The speech made by Barbara Roche, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 11 June 1999.

Introduction

I am absolutely delighted to be speaking at today’s conference on e-commerce.

Importance of e-commerce

Technology is changing the world more quickly than we could ever have imagined. And no more so than in the business world, especially to small and medium sized enterprises.

Let me give you some examples. The 98 year-old family that is selling home-fed dry cured bacon and black and white pudding across the Internet to Hong Kong, Japan, South Africa and Venezuela. They are expecting Internet trade to be the main source of their business by next year. And there’s the Aboriginal tribe in the Australian outback selling paintings to dealers in New York.

E-commerce opens up a wealth of new business opportunities for every single business in the United Kingdom. It means access to new markets – by next year, it is expected there will be over 300 million Internet users worldwide.

But not only at the retail end of a business. The potential for efficiency savings in the supply chain is also very significant. In the US, companies are realising the productivity improvements as approximately 80% of all electronic transactions are between companies rather than between businesses and consumers.

There are, for example cost-efficiencies to be had from e-commerce. In the US, the cost of a bank transaction is $1.08 when conducted at a bank. This falls to $0.54 if conducted over the telephone, and only $0.13 through the Internet.

And it not just cost efficiencies. Because the Amazon.com on-line book store orders from suppliers only when an order is placed, it’s inventory turnover is very low – turning over a little over once every week.

Although the e-commerce phenomenon very much started in the US, it has quickly spread beyond those shores. In virtually every country across the globe, businesses increasingly trade through the Internet. So just to say abreast with our competitors, we must move quickly.

New and potentially vast markets, and clear and significant productivity improvements.

So the benefits to business are clear. But how can we, as UK plc, maximise the potential offered by e-commerce.

What the Government’s doing

The Government is convinced of the need to ensure businesses make the most of e-commerce. And we are committed to encouraging businesses to make the most of the massive opportunities that ICT technology provide.

E-commerce Bill

The Electronic Commerce Bill, which we will be introducing to Parliament in this session, is a key part of our strategy for achieving this ambitious target.

The Bill will help to build confidence of both business and consumer in electronic commerce by:
- modernising the law to recognise electronic signatures;
- removing, where it makes sense to do so, existing laws which insist on the use of pen and paper;
- building trust in bodies offering electronic signature and similar services to the public, by ensuring that minimum standards of quality and service are met.
The Government is working closely with industry and other interested parties in developing these proposals, and my colleagues in the DTI are now finalising the Bill in the light of the over 240 responses received to the consultation launched in March.

CWP target

E-commerce also featured in the Competitiveness White Paper, published last December. The White Paper made it clear the Government’s commitment to developing the UK as the best place in the world for businesses wishing to trade electronically.

The White Paper set a target that by 2002, the number of small businesses wired up to the digital economy should be trebled to 1 million.

The recent annual Benchmark published by DTI shows that an additional 250,000 businesses have already met this “connectivity” target, showing that we are firmly on track to meet the target two years early.

The Study revealed the progress that has been made by UK businesses. In two years, the number of UK businesses with websites has doubled. Buying and selling on-line has trebled. And on most measures of the ownership of IT, the UK is now close to the US.

This is good progress indeed, and the UK is well positioned relative to some European countries, such as France and Italy. But there is absolutely no grounds for complacency. The rapid spread of the Internet in Germany is just one example of how fast things can change.

There are two basic points we need to constantly bear in mind. First, it’s not good enough to be average – we’ve got to aim to match the most dynamic, most IT-literate major economies in the world.

Second, the average performance of the UK conceals a big difference between larger businesses – which are close to their peers in the US – and smaller UK firms, which lag well behind. Micro-businesses in the UK – with 10 employees or fewer – are close to the bottom of the international comparisons in this area.

The reality of the new global economy is that you never arrive. Once you get to where you are aiming for, the goalposts have moved. So we must keep on our toes and constantly strive to improve our performance.

And that is why when announcing the results of the Study, Stephen Byers set challenging new targets for bringing our smaller businesses up to the level of the international best: to reach 1.5 million SMEs connected to the Internet and have 1 million SMEs not just on-line, but actually trading on-line by 2002. And a new target aimed specially at smaller businesses, to bring their performance up to the level of the international best.

To support business in reaching this target, we announced a new programme to ensure advisers working with business are able to give high quality advice on the use of information technology.

This new public private partnership brings together the DTI and BT, Compaq, Intel and Microsoft to help train the full range of advisers working with SMEs, to make sure they are able to properly help businesses with the latest information and communications technology advice.

Budget 1999

Successful e-commerce depends not just on business having the right approach, but also an improved degree of computer literacy and access to computers right across the country in all our communities, homes and schools. And that is why in the March Budget, Chancellor Gordon Brown announced a new National IT strategy to help ensure the UK is at the forefront of the information age.

In the Budget we allocated an additional £470 million to launch a total £1.7 billion “computers for all” initiative, a nationwide effort enlisting schools, colleges and companies, public and private sectors across the board to make Britain a leader in the information economy.

The target is a national network of 1,000 computer learning centres, one for every community in Britain – in schools, colleges, libraries, in Internet cafes and on the high street.

To help employers encourage their employees to use IT more, we will also legislate so that businesses can lend computers to their staff to take home without any charge to tax. Experience in Sweden has shown how imaginative employers can use this sort of arrangement to drive IT usage forward.

We want a whole new network of computer learning with one purpose only, that the whole of Britain is equipped for the information age.

Government leading by example

The Government is looking at it’s own backyard too. The public sector accounts for around 40% of the economy and so there is scope for the public sector to embrace the benefits of e-commerce too.

In the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government looked carefully at public procurement. Each Government department has been set challenging targets for electronic procurement. Overall, the Government has adopted the challenging target that 90% of routine goods for civil central government would be purchased electronically by the end of the financial year 2000/01.

We are also fully committed to the target – that 25% of Government’s dealings with the public will be able to be performed electronically by March 2002. In the recent Modernising Government White Paper, these targets were extended to 50% by 2005, and 100% by 2008.

Electronic government also offers opportunities for businesses and government to cut regulatory burdens and costs by streamlining and opening up the process of Government. It also offers better access to information and improved accountability.

The tax departments was part of this process. Our Finance Bill this year provides the legislative basis for tax declarations to be made electronically. The first services being developed by Customs and Excise will enable business to send VAT registrations, returns and payments. A pilot this financial year will be expanded in 2000-01.

The Revenue will focus first on self-assessment and employers’ PAYE returns, and expect to be able to receive these returns on 2000-01.

The DVLA will be running a pilot scheme for vehicle excise duty relicensing over the Internet this year. Finally, to encourage businesses to make use of electronic communication with the government, we intend to offer a discount on returns filed via the Internet.

This will be another way of encouraging small firms to become familiar with IT and to use the Internet regularly, as well as helping to make the whole process of running the tax system smoother for both business and Government.

Finally, in this sphere, the new Small Business Service will offer help to small firms wanting access to information technology, and the Government will support new standards for payroll software, to help small businesses cope with the responsibilities of employment.

These are examples of the potential of IT to improve the interface between Government and business. It can make businesses lives easier by making compliance with regulation more straightforward. It is in both our interests to see this happen.

International negotiation

The effects of e-commerce is to break down many of barriers between countries. And so it is important for countries to work together to help encourage e-commerce and resolve some of the issues it raises.

In the international arena, the Treasury works with colleagues from other departments in many of the international discussions and debates on electronic commerce. As G7 and 8 presidents, we were in the lead developing the G7 communique agreed in Birmingham last May. We are also committed to the work of the OECD in Ottawa and the World Trade Organisation to facilitate greater international trade through electronic technologies.

The UK is also actively involved in negotiations on a number of e-commerce directives: e-commerce, e-signatures, e-money and distance selling. E-commerce is important in helping completing the single market, and so is in the interests of EU consumers and providers, especially here in the UK.

E-commerce also has an important international tax dimension. The UK Government is committed to ensuing that tax policy and administration keeps pace with the scope of electronic commerce and with the growth of the global market place generally. And committed to ensuring that taxation is not discriminatory and is on a equal footing with more traditional methods of trading.

Conclusion

E-commerce offers huge opportunities for everyone: business and customers alike. For business it offers the opportunity for both productivity improvements and growth through access to larger more remote markets. For customers it offers greater choice, lower prices and more efficient product delivery. But it also poses challenges too. The challenge for businesses is identifying new markets, developing new products and successively selling these in a global competitive world.

The world of e-commerce is an endless dynamic and the Government has a clear role working in partnership with business to create the best possible environment to encourage trade in e-commerce. But this, at the end of the day, is not a Government led revolution. Instead it is a revolution which is led by individual business men and women the world over turning e-commerce challenges into great opportunities.
December 20, 2022
Gordon Brown – 1999 Mansion House Speech
The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Mansion House in London on 10 June 1999.

Introduction

My Lord Mayor, Mr Governor, My Lords, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am delighted to be here this evening, to be able to speak with you, Lord Mayor, and the Governor of the Bank on the three great issues that together constitute our national economic interest – economic stability, economic reform and engagement with Europe; and to start by paying tribute to the work which the City and our financial services industries do in pursuit of our interests: the service you give, the contribution you make, the dedication and expertise you show.

As we move towards the end of both a century and a millennium, it is instructive to look back here in London, one of the few world cities with a thousand year history, on the progress, and achievements of the City of London, the key to which have always been – as the attendance tonight from round the world demonstrates – London’s global reach, forever looking outwards to the challenges and opportunities of the wider world.

So that now today the City of London and our financial services industry accounts for 7 per cent of our national income, employing over 1 million people. The London Stock Exchange is the largest trade centre for foreign equities in the world. And the foreign exchange market – with a daily turnover of around 500 billion dollars – is the largest and most important in the world. And this year you have risen to yet another new challenge – that of introducing the new euro currency and attracting the business that flows from it.

Now let me address the questions of stability, economic reform and Europe.

Monetary and fiscal stability

The events of the last two years demonstrate beyond all doubt that in a world of ever more rapid international financial flows, monetary and fiscal stability is the precondition of economic success.

Indeed in these deregulated, liberalised financial markets, growth and prosperity just cannot be achieved by the old ways, either by fine tuning or by applying rigid monetary aggregates.
- In the 1960s and 70s, the attempted trade-offs between inflation and unemployment ended each time ended in higher inflation and higher unemployment;
- in the 1980s, rigid intermediate monetary and then exchange rate targets failed, overtaken by capital market liberalisation;
- and then following sterling’s departure from the ERM, an ambiguous inflation target, in the absence of a proper long term framework, was not enough.
The way forward is for governments to consciously pursue monetary and fiscal stability – through setting clear objectives, establishing proper rules, and requiring openness and transparency – the new rules of the game. Particularly important for a Britain which has been more subject than most economies to the instability of boom-bust cycles and constantly changing policies.

Indeed, the economy of 1997 was set to repeat the same cycle of boom and bust that had been seen over the past 20 years. There were strong inflationary pressures in the system. Consumer spending was growing at an unsustainable rate and inflation was set to rise sharply above target; there was a large structural deficit on the public finances. Public sector net borrowing stood at £28 billion.

So we put in place a wholly new long term framework of monetary and fiscal policy based on:
- first, clear objectives: price stability through a pre-announced inflation target – a symmetrical target – and sustainable public finances through tough fiscal rules: the golden rule that requires that over the cycle we balance the current budget, and the sustainable investment rule requires that, as we borrow for investment, debt is held to a prudent and stable level;
- second, well understood rules: a new system of monetary policy-making, at the heart of which is the independence of the Bank of England, and its open letter system, and an equivalent and equally important set of fiscal procedures legally enshrined in the code for fiscal stability; and
- third, transparency in policy-making: an open system of decision-making in monetary policy through the publication of minutes, a system of voting and full reporting to parliament; and in fiscal policy the same openness and disclosure with key fiscal assumptions independently audited.
Today, two years on, by applying our fiscal rules we have reduced the inherited deficit by 32 billion pounds; budgeted well within our public spending ceilings; and brought debt down towards 40 per cent of GDP.

As a result of this cautious and prudent approach, we remain on track to meet the fiscal rules while at the same time guaranteeing an extra 40 billion pounds for schools and hospitals.

The monetary rules are well established too, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Governor, the MPC and the Bank’s Court for their successful establishment of the new system.

Transparency and openness has, in my view, led to greater public understanding of why decisions are made in ways that will make the public realise the benefits of keeping inflation low and ensure that employers and workforces see for themselves the short-termism of paying ourselves more today at the cost of higher interest rates, fewer jobs and slower growth tomorrow.

Two years ago commentators expressed fears about how monetary and fiscal policy would be coordinated. Under the old system the Chancellor announced his fiscal policy in the Budget – and invariably cut interest rates a day or two later claiming credit for the wisdom of his budget decisions. I am convinced that today there is a much more informed discussion of the interaction of monetary and fiscal policy – and as a result much better coordination.

Now the results in monetary policy in what has been a difficult and troubled period for the global economy: over the last 10 months inflation has remained within 0.2 percentage points of the 2½ per cent target and, even more important, it is expected – in future – to remain close to target.

Long-term interest rates and mortgage rates are at their lowest levels for over 30 years.

It is because inflation trends are subdued that the bank has been able to cut interest rates by 25 basis points today, the 7th cut in the last 9 months.

In contrast to the early 1980s and 1990s monetary policy has been able to respond positively at the right time in the economic cycle, and has thus been able to make its contribution to stability and growth.

Now of course I understand exporters’ concern about the pound.

But it is important to recognise that while exchange rates affect inflationary expectations the MPC has only one target – its symmetrical inflation target.

Anyone who thinks that either dropping the inflation target to replace it by an exchange rate target or running inflation and exchange rate targets at the same time is the right way to achieve domestic stability or convergence is failing to learn the lessons of the 1980s. We would end up with neither stability nor convergence.

The Bank of England was quite right to say, when publishing its latest inflation report, that the objective of British monetary policy is clear and unambiguous, with a symmetric inflation target, so that inflation outcomes below target are viewed just as seriously as outcomes above target.

So while this has been a period of instability for the world economy, we have, as a result of decisive and timely action on the fiscal deficit and on interest rates, been able not only to steer a course of stability but to lay the foundations for high and stable growth and employment.

Removing the barriers to growth

Stability is the necessary but not a sufficient condition for a successful economy.

In the last full international economic cycle (1982-1993) the growth rate in the UK averaged 2.3 per cent, whereas it was 2.9 per cent in the G7, 3 per cent in the US, and 3.4 per cent in Germany.

Our challenge is to raise the trend rate of growth in the UK, and to achieve this we must do more to encourage science and innovation, creativity and enterprise, skills and knowledge – the drivers of productivity and growth today.

First, Britain is developing a reputation for inventiveness that extends well beyond the traditional inventions for which we are famed. To let the creative talents of our country flourish, we must expand the circle of innovators from invention to commercial exploitation and manufacture of new products here in Britain.

So I lay great importance on the £1.4 billion additional funds being invested in basic scientific research; the new R&D tax credit to encourage R&D on the university challenge fund that is helping to turn British inventions into British products, businesses and jobs; and the new British institutes of enterprise that will provide management help to our inventors and innovators. Shortly we will consult on a matter I hope will be of interest to many here – new incentives to promote corporate venturing.

There is the broader question of how in Britain we can encourage and broaden new entrepreneurship. At each point we want to be on the side of business, removing the barriers to growth – improving access to start-up finance and venture capital, to export markets when going international, and widening access for all to the skilled workforces we need.

Under the new enterprise management incentive, companies seeking to recruit or retain key personnel will be able to secure tax relief for equity remuneration up to 100,000 pounds.

This is one of many new incentives for investment and growth – a cut in the small business tax from 23p to 20p, a new 10p rate, 40 per cent investment incentives for small and medium sized businesses; new incentives to encourage venture capital; a 10p long term rate of capital gains tax; and new employee share ownership incentives that allow employees to buy shares in their own companies from their pre-tax income and employers to match them, also tax free.

These are significant tax cuts and simplifications in taxation, the test throughout being what will increase productivity and employment opportunity. The same test we will apply in removing unnecessary business regulation. The internet and electronic commerce offer new scope to cut red tape. So our small business service – an open door, one stop service for small companies – will give help with running a payroll for new employers starting out, the inland revenue will offer a new business helpline and we will soon offer discounts for internet filing of tax returns.

And let me also stress the importance I attach to the extension of competition and to the Financial Services and Markets Bill in advancing our productivity agenda. With our new highly successful Financial Services Authority, under the excellent leadership of Howard Davies, an authority whose powers will be confirmed shortly by the Financial Services and Markets bill, and our robust stand defending London’s interests in the European savings directive. London’s position is one we are determined to maintain and advance.

I can confirm this evening that by working together to exclude the eurobond market we are already securing results: the ECOFIN Council and the European Commission have come to accept our case, agreed a further review and asked us to submit our proposals for excluding the eurobond market. We will not only defend Britain’s interests in this area but, if necessary, not hesitate to veto any proposal which damages our financial markets.

Stability for the future, economic reform for our future. Now the importance of the skills of people to our future.

This spring a number of landmarks have been reached.
- I can report that nearly 50,000 businesses have joined the new deal that helps get the unemployed from welfare to work;
- as a result of your efforts a quarter of a million young people have now joined for work and training;
- 100,000 long term unemployed adults have been signed up;
- and I can also report that over 400,000 more men and women are in work than 2 years ago, more men and women in work than ever before.
And we are making work pay more than benefits by cuts in national insurance for 20 million employees, reforms in employer contributions to cut the costs of hiring, the 10p rate of income tax, the cut in the basic rate of income tax to 22p and, what will be to the benefit of jobs and companies, the working families tax credit which creates the best incentives to take a job, and reward work and effort for hard-working employees.

But we have a long way still to go to make us the best skilled country in Europe. For the many companies who cannot find the highly skilled workers they need to continue growing, let me say that we are implementing a long term programme to build skills and remove skill shortages – with a rigorous approach to standards throughout our schools, with demanding targets for literacy, numeracy, school qualifications and educational attainment, not shirking from schools’ reform, demanding higher teaching standards and discipline – and as we make the investment that is essential to raise all of Britain to the standards of the best.

Europe

So we are putting in place stability and major economic reforms. We need also constructive engagement with Europe and the trading world.

No one should doubt that as a country we are in Europe and in Europe to stay.

Since half our trade is with mainland Europe the national economic interest demands that we work constructively within the European Union to achieve the labour market product market and capital market reforms essential for European growth.

Indeed British proposals to tackle structural unemployment, to complete the single market in financial services and utilities, and to tackle fraud and waste are giving Europe a modern reform agenda based on the best of British values: openness, adaptability, the work ethic, fair play and looking outwards to the world.

It is also in the national economic interest that we refuse to make the mistakes of the past by dogmatically ruling out a single currency.

Ours is the first government to say that, while we appreciate the constitutional issues involved, the test should be the national economic interest, that we should apply five economic tests – on investment, financial services, jobs, flexibility, convergence – in assessing membership and that in the interests of the public having a realistic choice we should, with the public sector leading, make the necessary preparations for that choice to be available.

Conclusion

So, my vision is of a Britain where there is economic stability, rising productivity and growth based on innovation, enterprise and skills, and constructive engagement with Europe and the trading world.

As we approach a new century the challenges are enormous and many, but by working together, applying the enduring British values – being open and outward-looking, creative, fair and adaptable to the new challenges ahead, the prize is a modern successful economy, ready to ensure employment opportunity and greater prosperity for all our people in the years ahead.

Just as the City works best when the City works together, so all of us in Britain work best when the whole of Britain works together.

And that is what I hope we will continue to do.
December 20, 2022
Lee Rowley – 2022 Speech on Child Bed Poverty

The speech made by Lee Rowley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 19 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, we are small in number, but I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the topic. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) for their contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing the debate.

As hon. Members already have, I want particularly to thank Bex Wilson, founder of Zarach. The great work her and her colleagues have done in West Yorkshire has been referenced on multiple occasions. She highlights some of the challenges that she has seen on a local level within Leeds and I accept that there are challenges in other parts of the country as well. I pay tribute to her organisation and its brilliant work to provide beds for families who are struggling, especially for those with young children.

As the hon. Member for Luton North said, we all share the same end, which is not to have families or children who need support, do not have access to beds and do not have the ability to have a good night’s sleep, which we all benefit from and often need to be able to make progress in the next day, week and month as we go forwards in our lives. It is down to all the people who work day in, day out to ensure that children can sleep safely and comfortably in their own home that we have, I hope, made progress over recent decades, whether as part of wider work to educate and support or to ensure welfare is in place.

We absolutely agree that sleep is important. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about a number of studies from China and research has also been carried out by the University of Maryland in the United States, which found that pre-teens who slept fewer than nine hours a day had noticeable differences in brain structure, mood and thinking compared with their peers who had sufficient sleep each night. Although science will always be developing in these areas, it is recognised that sleep is a hugely important part of ensuring that people are ready for the next day that they need to face.

We agree on the issue and that it exists—which it does, in certain places. We might take different views on how much it exists, and I accept the point that it is sometimes difficult to understand the level of challenge, but the question is what we do next. We all want to ensure that there is support for those who are in need, and we want to find the best way to ensure that we can cover that need. We want to highlight the amazing work of volunteers from Zarach and wherever else such work is happening in the country. I acknowledge their understandable concerns about why, at times, the system does not work as perfectly or as well as we would ideally like it to.

No system with hundreds of billions of pounds in it will work perfectly. The job of Government is not to claim that the system is perfect but to recognise that there are challenges, and try to structure that system in a way that works while ensuring that we do not change the way in which people work, operate and are incentivised where they can resolve some of the issues themselves—I recognise that not everybody can.

All that brings questions: ultimately, what do we do when we see issues such as this; and secondarily, what is it proportionate for the Government to do, and how should they respond when they see such issues? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North anticipated some of the points I am likely to make. A substantial amount of work is going on across Government to provide a system of support for vulnerable children and families, which I hope includes the ability to tackle sleep deprivation and the drivers behind it.

I will spend some time explaining how that work is broken down between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which I serve, and why, given the plethora of initiatives across multiple Departments, we do not think that a national sleep strategy is the way to go at this time. A substantial amount of work is already under way that we hope is helping in this difficult and challenging area.

I will start with the top line, which is about tackling poverty; it is the question with which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North ended her speech. We recognise that there are often multiple, complex reasons why families find themselves in poverty. The hon. Lady suggested that the Government are a mere bystander, which is difficult to evidence given what we are doing. This year, we will spend the best part of a quarter of a trillion pounds—£245 billion—through the welfare system to tackle such causes head on, recognise that there are vulnerable people out there and ensure that people have the support they need. That includes about £110 billion of support for people of working age, who are the most likely to have children.

Catherine McKinnell

I want to challenge the Minister on his statement. I did not say that the Government were a bystander; I said that they were not a bystander on this issue and they have the power to do something about it. The concern is that, for everything the Government may be doing, they are also the architect of the problem. That is my view and the view of many in this area. I appreciate all the initiatives the Minister is outlining, but they are clearly not solving the problem.

Lee Rowley

I am grateful for that clarification, and I apologise if I inadvertently suggested something that I did not intend to. I was merely trying to contextualise. The hon. Lady accepted that a substantial amount of work is going on. That needs to be acknowledged and contextualised within the wider discussion. There is such a substantial amount of work going on—I will go into that in a moment—that the challenge is knowing how best to approach things. I will try to address a number of the suggestions outlined by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

It is important to acknowledge that a substantial amount of money is going into the issue. This has been a relatively well-regarded debate and I do not seek to make it particularly political, but, given the multiple references to austerity, I have to highlight that some of the difficult decisions that we have had to take over the last 12 years have been as a direct result of pre-2010 spending. We need to acknowledge that our decisions have trade-offs and consequences, and we are still living with those consequences a decade or so later, despite the fact that in absolute terms we are spending substantially more money than we were a decade or so ago. [Hon. Members: “Such nonsense!”]

We are going to spend over £245 billion through the welfare system this financial year, and £110 billion to support people of working age. That builds on wider efforts to lift more people out of poverty and to support those who have been highlighted in this debate. There were 1.2 million fewer people living in absolute poverty in 2020-21 than in 2009-10, including 200,000 fewer children, 500,000 fewer working-age adults and 400,000 fewer pensioners. That is not to take away from the challenges we face today, particularly the cost of living, but it is important to contextualise where we are.

In response to the global challenges we are facing, the Government have provided £37 billion of emergency support this year, and we are putting in place more help over the coming months. In the autumn statement, £26 billion of cost of living support was announced as a taxpayer subsidy for 2023-24, meaning that from next year households on eligible means-tested benefits will receive up to a further £900 in cost of living payments. From April next year, we are also uprating benefits for working-age households and disabled people, as well as the basic and new state pensions, by over 10%. Benefit cap rates will be increased by the same amount.

Just today, in the local government finance settlement we have announced a further £100 million of support for people who are deemed to be the most vulnerable, including a discretionary element that gives local authorities around the country where there are challenges—whether they are to do with access to beds or something else—additional funds to be able to close those gaps and ensure people have the things they need.

Crucially, there is also a dedicated household support fund, overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions, that councils in England can use to help families struggling with essential household costs, including the purchase of new beds and mattresses. A further £1 billion is going into that fund over the next financial year. Nearly £850 million will be distributed in England, and the remainder will be distributed in the devolved nations according to the Barnett formula. That will mean we have allocated £2.5 billion of taxpayer subsidies since October 2021.

Crucially, local authorities will have the freedom to allocate funds according to the needs in their communities. Given the acknowledgement by the Opposition that this issue is difficult to assess or even find, which was one of the points made a moment ago, the best way that we can respond to challenges that are hidden or semi-hidden is to provide both funds, which we have done, and the freedom to allocate those funds in the most proportionate and reasonable way in communities, driven by representatives in communities themselves, including the kind of councils that the hon. Member for Luton North highlighted, which are setting an agenda and making important decisions for their local area.

Holly Lynch

Some of the referrals coming through to local charities in Halifax relate to families involved in providing kinship care, which is where family members—often at short notice—take over responsibility for caring for a very young child as a member of their family.

Will the Minister, as part of his cross-departmental work and the Government’s response to the MacAlister review, which looks at the responsibilities of kinship carers and the support they deserve, specifically look at the support required by kinship carers? Will he look at what else can be done to support families in such situations when financial support is not a part of the package because of a variety of barriers, so that the children in those circumstances do not go without beds?

Lee Rowley

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the hugely important matter of kinship carers, which I know all Members will have an interest in and experience of; I certainly have, having spoken to constituents at length about these issues. It is an immensely challenging area to know how to get right. Of course, ideally in the first instance there would not be a need for such care, but this is life and there always is such a need. Where there are challenges, we want to keep young children as close as possible to their families and friends, who they know and understand. That will inevitably mean people take over at short notice caring responsibilities that they may not have anticipated. There is a very difficult challenge about knowing how to balance that. I will certainly pass on the hon. Lady’s comments to my colleagues in the Department for Education, who are leading on the MacAlister review and the response to it, and ask them to consider specifically her point about kinship care in that work, where possible.

I return to the point about freedom. Twenty-three councils have already put on record that they are using their funds to provide beds, bedding and blankets to vulnerable residents. Havering, for example, has already partnered with local retailers to supply beds, white goods and other essential household items to struggling families. At the other end of the country in Blackburn, the council has been working hard on the provision of new high-quality beds for children under the age of seven. Additional discretionary support funds are available where necessary.

I will touch on the broader point about supporting families. The supporting families programme operates between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which I am a Minister within, and the Department for Education. It seeks to help councils do exactly what I have just mentioned—co-ordinate help for families to overcome multiple and complex problems. Supporting families funding is allocated to authorities based on levels of deprivation and the number of families in the local population; put simply, more deprived areas receive more funding. The programme can help with some of the drivers of financial insecurity and the knock-on effects, such as those we are talking about today. It can help to address mental health, drug or alcohol problems, or issues such as finding work and keeping children in school. There was a 40% cash uplift for this programme in the Budget, which should mean that 300,000 families are covered over the coming period.

There is a role for schools and the Department for Education, as this is not just about council officers working with individual families; schools play an important role in identifying pupils who may not be getting enough sleep at home. That is why we are here today and why Bex Wilson has set up the charity, after her experience while teaching in Leeds.

Through the publication of the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper, the schools White Paper and our response to the MacAlister review, we are creating a system that seeks firmly to work in the interests of vulnerable children and young people. We know that vulnerable children are more absent from school than their peers. In autumn last year, a third of all pupils eligible for free school meals missed more than 10% of school sessions, and nearly one in 10 pupils eligible for free school meals missed more than 10% of possible school sessions for unauthorised other reasons, compared to only 3% of their peers.

The pupil premium will provide over £2.5 billion in 2022-23 to help schools improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, which can be used to support social, emotional and behavioural needs, and approaches to improve attendance. Every local authority in England must appoint a virtual school head, who have a statutory duty to promote the educational achievement of children in their care.

I am grateful to Bex Wilson, Zarach and all those who have raised this important issue, and to the hon. Members who have spoken today. Across the House there is an absolute commitment to, and understanding of, the challenges we have debated. I hope that everybody, even if they disagree with the proposal that I put forward on behalf of the Government, recognises that a substantial amount of work has been done in the area, and there is a substantial amount of funding and taxpayer support. We all want to achieve the same ends and recognise various challenges. We are grateful for the work done by those who have highlighted this issue. I hope we can continue to make progress in the coming years, while continuing to debate the best approach.

Catherine McKinnell

I thank hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate, both from the Labour Front Bench and Back Benches. I would thank the Minister for his response, but I expected more. It is very concerning that the Government do not seem to recognise that there is an issue, nor commit to understanding the extent of that issue. All we have heard is a list of actions that they are apparently undertaking, but that are clearly not solving the problem.

One mother who spoke to me when I was taking evidence for this debate said that, as a child, she had fled with her mother from domestic violence. She remembers how traumatic that was, but when they moved she said she felt cushioned by a state that supported them into a new home. She does not remember not having a bed when she was growing up. She remembers being looked after and supported in what was clearly a traumatic situation. She has faced that again herself—she has fled domestic violence with her children—and she was shocked at how little support there has been; there was nothing for them. They managed to secure a house, but it had no furniture in it. She said they have lived with one lightbulb, which they move from room to room, and no beds for the children.

It is the charity sector that has helped them, not the Government. That is the case up and down the country. Food, clothing, housing and furniture are being provided by the charitable sector, not by the state. People in the most desperate circumstances no longer have a safety net. As much as the Government and the Minister have set out the support they might be giving, it is clearly not working. It is clearly not reaching the right people.

I did not intend to say that at the end of this debate. I have been quite moved by the evidence I have heard, but I am left not angry, but I think a bit despondent, by the Minister’s response. I hoped that the Government, of all things, would want to tackle children without beds—would want to know how many children do not have a bed and discuss how we can solve that. Obviously, whatever the Government are doing is not working, because the number is growing not reducing. But that is anecdotal; we do not actually know, because the Government have not found out or even asked the question.

I would like to see the Government go away and think harder about this issue. It is about not just those individual children but a lifetime cycle of sleep deprivation that results in adult mental health issues, because if someone has not slept well as a child they will have that for the rest of their life. It will affect their education, mental health, development and wellbeing. Surely we want to put a stop to that, and ensure the basics of having a bed and somewhere safe to sleep. I hope the Government go away and think again. I appreciate that it is not all down to the Minister. The fact that we were not quite sure who was going to respond to the debate is telling of the Government’s lack of focus on child poverty as a whole.

The Department for Education has an interest in children. The Department of Health and Social Care should have an interest in children’s health and wellbeing. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and local government, should have an interest in ensuring that support is delivered at a local level. The Department for Work and Pensions looks after those households that need extra support. None of them appears to be talking to each other to develop a holistic strategy to ensure that more children do not fall into poverty, that they have a bed to sleep in and that we finally turn this around. I really hope the Government listen. If they will not, I really hope this country votes in a different Government who will.

December 20, 2022
Sarah Owen – 2022 Speech on Child Bed Poverty

The speech made by Sarah Owen, the Labour MP for Luton North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 19 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her work on the Petitions Committee and on introducing the debate so effectively, passionately, knowledgably and sensitively. In common with others, I thank Zarach as well as Crisis and Barnardo’s for their supportive work.

We may be few in number in the Chamber today, but I know we speak for many colleagues in expressing our distress over any child going without the space and comfort to sleep. As we have heard, children need sleep and a safe space to grow and learn. That is essential for neurological development, absorbing what is taught at school and building up a memory store for adulthood, a point put well by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), where at least 163 children do not have a bed of their own. She highlighted the horrific impact that that has on their education and emotional wellbeing.

Sleep is as important to a healthy lifestyle as limiting fast food and running around the park, but too often we can forget that as we get older. Bed poverty is a hidden level of poverty, and not something that parents, families or children are willing to share; it is hidden away from sight. As any parent will know, children’s sleep is crucial for our sanity too. Behaviour, along with physical and mental health, is drastically impacted by the amount and quality of sleep people get. Studies in China in 2021 found that the quality and length of sleep directly correlated with levels of depression and anxiety later in adolescence.

Salient points have been made by hon. Members throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North talked about the scale of child poverty in this country, with 3.9 million children in poverty in 2022. That should shame any Government, of any colour, into action. Bed poverty has a horrific impact on a child’s education and wellbeing that ensures that the cycle of poverty and deprivation continues. We need to break that cycle for good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) pointed out the growing levels of child poverty—we are seeing not a decline, but growing levels of child poverty. In places such as Halifax, 30% of children are growing up below the poverty line. The cost of living crisis plus the pandemic and years of austerity have created a perfect storm that allows child poverty to continue. As we have heard, there has been a constant mantra—and almost a guilting of parents—that work is the best route out of poverty, but we know that millions of people go to work, do the right thing and work all the hours that they can yet are still paid below poverty wages. That is an absolute disgrace. My hon. Friend is right to thank the charities and social workers who are the backstop for families, but it should not be that way. I cannot believe that in 2022, in the sixth richest country in the world, we are talking about children going without beds.

I invite all Members, Mr Paisley, to picture a scene: a family Christmas, with sparse food on the table, if there is indeed even a table, mum and dad worried about paying the rent, grandparents shivering in the cold and dark, kids sharing single beds, sleeping on the sofa or even on the floor or in a bath tub. That sounds Dickensian, but is in fact the prospect for too many of our constituents as they face hard times this Christmas. In 2020, Crisis estimated that 30% of families on the lowest income could not afford a bed for their child. Will the Minister provide an updated assessment of the figure as it stands now, after a prolonged pandemic, energy price rises, rocketing inflation and a catastrophic recession?

The housing crisis is nothing new, but its impacts are reaching new heights. Last Christmas, 1,300 families with children were living in unsuitable B&B accommodation over Christmas, already a rise of 3% on the year before. Given the added recession, will the Minister tell me how many more families with children will be in temporary accommodation for Christmas 2022? Is his Department investigating how many of them are living in unsuitable, overcrowded conditions, perhaps also grappling with dangerous levels of mould, damp and cold?

The gap between housing benefits and standard private rents is also increasing. New research by Crisis found that fewer than one in 12 homes advertised on Zoopla were affordable for renters receiving housing benefit, compared with one in eight just five months ago. With section 21 eviction notices still not banned three years after their election on a manifesto that promised to deliver that, the Government are only pushing more families into homelessness and more children into bed poverty. When will we see the ban on section 21 no-fault evictions? Do we have to wait for a Labour Government to finally get rid of them?

The topic of the debate leaves us all asking why, in a country as wealthy as ours, we are grappling with something as basic as children not having the space to sleep. As with food poverty and fuel poverty, bed poverty is just part of the wider scope of deprivation in our allegedly world-leading country. If a parent cannot afford to give their child space to sleep, it is unlikely they are managing to comfortably pay their bills, feed them well and provide for them as any parent would wish to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, this level of poverty leaves families teetering on the edge and still at the mercy and prey of legal loan sharks.

Children’s charity Barnardo’s set up an emergency fund in October to provide urgent support to children, young people and families dealing with the cost of living crisis. Although originally envisaged to help with food costs and energy bills, Barnardo’s has already seen a concerning demand for beds and bedding. In my constituency of Luton, our Labour council released a 2040 report with a vision for where our town would be in two decades’ time. The vision is not a shy one. We aim to eradicate poverty in our town by 2040 and build a child-friendly town. I am proud of that aim, as everybody within my local government should be. It is bold, ambitious and inspirational, and it is everything local government should be, but we have to contend with a Government in power imposing 12 years of austerity on this country. Local communities have to take matters into their own hands for the sake of their people, but they are fighting a constant battle of inflation, cuts and rising demand.

Local authorities have already lost 60p for every £1 of Government funding since 2010, but I know they will fight tooth and nail to support their residents in need, especially children. When will our Government finally take responsibility for the children they should be protecting and caring for? When will all children have a safe bed to sleep in? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s solution to the problem, as it is one we all want to see solved. I hope that not too many families in the UK will face cruel, cramped Christmases this year. Christmas is supposed to be a time of hope. I genuinely hope that this Dickensian Conservative-induced nightmare, with child poverty at the levels we are seeing, finally comes to an end before another generation is harmed.

December 20, 2022
Holly Lynch – 2022 Speech on Child Bed Poverty

The speech made by Holly Lynch, the Labour MP for Halifax, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 19 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) not only for her work on the Petitions Committee, providing time for this petition and making it a priority, but for starkly setting out the pervasive nature of this type of poverty and how it affects children. I join her in paying tribute to Bex Wilson, who started the petition.

The debate has shone a light on how prevalent and stark bed poverty is throughout the UK. According to the Department for Work and Pensions’ households below average income survey from, 26% of children have parents who want to replace worn-out furniture but cannot do so and 19% of children surveyed have parents who want to have a bedroom for every child aged 10-plus of a different gender, but also cannot afford to do so.

I recently spoke to Calderdale Lighthouse, which is a volunteer-ran charity in my constituency. I pay tribute to Diane Barker and her co-founders Donna and Emma, who do incredible work supporting disadvantaged families. As the cost of living crisis continues to bite, the charity has received an ever-constant stream of requests in recent weeks for beddings and beds for vulnerable families, in addition to the other support it provides. In one instance, a health visitor for a family consisting of a single parent—a mother—and two young children found that neither child had a bed, and they asked if Calderdale Lighthouse could provide some. In another case, Calderdale Lighthouse provided blankets, duvets and hot-water bottles to a family that had no gas or electricity and had taken to sleeping in one room in an attempt to preserve heat.

On average, Calderdale Lighthouse receives a request for beds, cots or toddler beds more than twice a week. It has seen instances where victims of domestic violence choose to go back to their abusive partners so that their children are not left cold and without beds. There has been a number of cases where families with young children with continence challenges have struggled to provide them with the beds and bedding necessary. Charities such as Calderdale Lighthouse provide an important lifeline for so many people. Many of us cannot imagine sleeping in a proper bed being a luxury, but for too many children, it is.

As well as creating unhealthy and dangerous living conditions, bed poverty has a devastatingly long-term impact. The disruption caused by not having a bed permeates through every aspect of a child’s life and development. How can we possibly expect children to learn, grow and realise their true potential if they come to school exhausted and weighed down by a disrupted night’s sleep? One of my constituents recently got in touch to powerfully explain this problem. They said,

“I currently reside in a one bedroom flat on 15th floor, which is not ideal. We are overcrowded, my son cannot develop to his full potential in this tiny flat. He also needs his own bedroom as he has trouble sleeping, meaning he’s disrupting my daughter.”

The link between child poverty and children’s outcomes is clear. Data from 2014 showed that less than a third of Calderdale pupils in my area who claim free school meals achieve five or more GCSEs at grade C or above, including English and maths, compared with nearly 60% of all pupils. Unfortunately, bed poverty is symptomatic of a wider trend of growing poverty. Under this Government, the proportion of children in poverty in my constituency has steadily grown. According to the House of Commons Library, 30% of children in Halifax live in relative poverty—an increase of more than 6% since 2015. A further 25.8% of children in Halifax live in absolute poverty. I want every child to have the chance to fulfil their potential, but the cost of living crisis on top of years of austerity has taken us back to an almost Victorian era for some families.

Under this Government, work no longer represents a route out of poverty. According to the Library, 65% of families in relative poverty in Halifax are classified as in-work families. Bed poverty is not seen by many in our society and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I frankly do not receive direct contact about it, because it is hidden. Most of the referrals to local charities like Calderdale Lighthouse come via social workers and health visitors, who are required to involve themselves in people’s lives and to visit homes. If they were not there undertaking those roles, such deprivation would probably go completely unseen, and I pay tribute to them for being in those homes, for raising the alarm and for undertaking that work day after day, which I can only imagine has an impact on them as well.

The debate has shown that children up and down the country are suffering in this way, hidden from the line of sight, in people’s homes. The reality is that many children will go to bed in insufficient conditions tonight. We can clearly see the incredibly detrimental impact those conditions are having on children’s broader outcomes. We all bring problems and injustices to Parliament—that is part of our job. However, I say in all honesty that this is one of the hardest speeches I have ever had to write, prepare for and give, so heart breaking is the reality of bed poverty.

December 20, 2022