Tag: Stella Creasy

  • Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the requirements of the community sponsorship route to Britain for refugees are; and when she plans to establish that route.

    James Brokenshire

    As set out in the Home Secretary’s Conference speech, we will compile a register of people and organisations who can provide accommodation to those who come to UK as refugees and develop a community based sponsorship scheme, learning from schemes operated in countries like Australia and Canada to allow individuals, charities, faith groups, churches and businesses to support refugees directly.

    The Government will develop the options in discussion with interested parties, including faith groups and NGOs. It is important that we take the time to develop an effective scheme which best meets the needs of the vulnerable individuals resettled in the UK. The Government will provide Parliament with further detail in due course, following these discussions.

  • Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2016-09-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many passenger interviews were undertaken with people of each (a) ethnicity, (b) religion and (c) nationality by UK Border Agency officials at each UK airport in the last five years; and whether each of those passengers was permitted to continue their journey after that interview.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    Data on the number of interviews carried out at port is not available centrally. However, there is information already in the public domain on those who are subject to an intervention at the border and refused entry ie not permitted.

    This information can found via the link below: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2016/list-of-tables

  • Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent estimate he has made of the number of employees who receive payment of service charges, tips, gratuities and cover charges through their employer; and in what industries such employees work.

    Nick Boles

    The Government has not made a recent estimate of the number of employees who receive payment of service charges, tips, gratuities and cover charges through their employer.

    The Government launched a call for evidence in this area which closed on 10th November. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will analyse responses and make public the key findings in due course.

  • Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will publish (a) how much spending has been committed from the public purse, and on what, (b) the outcomes proposed and (c) the outcomes achieved to date as part of the joint intervention fund agreement of September 2014 with the French government to combat illegal migration between 2015 to 2020.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The September 2014 Joint Declaration committed the UK to a £12 million contribution to upgrade port infrastructure across the juxtaposed ports in northern France and to ensure effective measures are taken to protect vulnerable persons such as victims of trafficking.

    The migrant situation has developed significantly since the September 2014 Declaration and further investment has followed, in line with the Government’s aim to reinforce border security. We continue to work closely with the French authorities at both political and operational levels on a package of measures to further bolster security at ports in northern France. This includes not only physical and personnel security measures but also wider work to tackle criminal gangs involved in people trafficking. The UK has also part funded a project, run by a French non-governmental organisation to identify and direct vulnerable people to protection, support and advice within France.

    The investment in security by the UK, the closer coordination of our law enforcement response and the significant investment in police resources by the French Government has led to a significant improvement in the situation at the ports in northern France. The UK and France regularly review security at the ports to ensure the new measures are maintained and remain effective.

    Furthermore, at the UK-France summit in Amiens on 3 March, the Home Secretary announced that the UK will contribute £17 million to joint work with France to ease migrant pressures in the Calais region and further strengthen the UK border. Most recently, the Home Secretary and French Interior Minister reiterated at their meeting on 30 August that both Governments are committed to working side by side on a range of issues in northern France.

  • Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2015-11-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what meetings he has had with (a) the Low Pay Commission, (b) Which? and (c) members of the Trade Union Congress to discuss the payment and administration of service charges, tips, gratuities and cover charges on the income of employees.

    Nick Boles

    The Government’s Call for Evidence into tips, gratuities, cover and service charges closed on 10 November 2015. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has received formal or informal evidence from the named bodies. Where any clarification is required or the Government wishes to seek further information, we will request further discussions with these bodies, where appropriate.

  • Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2016-10-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what records her Department holds of (a) children currently in Europe who potentially qualify for resettlement to the UK under the Dublin III convention and (b) children currently in Europe who potentially qualify for resettlement to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 who do not have a family member in the UK; and what the (i) dates are and (ii) source is from which such records were received since 1 January 2016.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Dublin Regulation is the mechanism to transfer individuals to other Member States for consideration of their asylum claim, rather than a mechanism for resettlement. The number of unaccompanied children in the process of seeking asylum in other Member States is a matter for individual Member States. However, our secondees in France, Greece and Italy are working to identify and assess eligible cases, and transfers are underway.

  • Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stella Creasy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2015-11-06.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the (a) number of employees paying tax through PAYE and (b) amount paid by such employees on service charges, tips, cover charges and gratuities administered via workplace payrolls for each financial year from 2010 to 2014.

    Mr David Gauke

    1. The information requested is as follows:

      2010-11 = 42.6m

      2011-12 = 42.6m

      2012-13 = 42.6m

      2013-14 = 43.7m

      2014-15 = 44.7m

    2. This information is not held by HMRC.
  • Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stella Creasy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stella Creasy on 2016-10-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the letter from the Immigration Minister to all local council leaders of 8 September 2016, if she will publish the number of places pledged by each local authority area for those unaccompanied refugee children as identified by section 67 of the 2016 Immigration Act to date.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    There are currently no plans to publish the number of places pledged by each local authority area for those unaccompanied refugee children as identified by section 67 of the 2016 Immigration Act. The Home Office publishes the number of asylum claims from unaccompanied children as part of the quarterly immigration statistics release. According to the latest release, in the year ending June 2016 there were 3,472 asylum claims from unaccompanied children. The full statistics can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2016/asylum#unaccompanied-asylum-seeking-children

  • Stella Creasy – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    Stella Creasy – 2022 Speech on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill

    The speech made by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    The “Levelling Up” White Paper set out a mission that by 2030 the number of primary school children who were achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and maths would be increased. That cannot be done without investing in early years. We already see the impact of the failure to do that, with children from disadvantaged backgrounds being 11 months behind their peers in terms of development by the time they get to primary school. Investing in early years is what bridges the gap.

    We know that our early years sector is in crisis. Since 2019, 500 non-domestic early years childcare settings have closed, 300 in the last year alone. Some 65% of those closures took place this summer. In total, there are 5,500 fewer providers of early years services than there were just a few years ago, and 95% of those providers say that it is the current levels of funding and investment that are driving them out. Crucially, that is happening most in the areas that need that provision most: 15% of closures are happening in deprived areas.

    I really hope that the Minister will listen to the case I make today, because it should be a no-brainer. It is not just about seeing children as part of our future and it being worth investing in them as infrastructure. Some 64,000 more women of working age are out of work today than were last year, and 35,000 of them say that caring commitments stop them going to work. I tabled amendment 2, because our economy cannot afford not to realise that childcare is infrastructure. We must realise that making sure people have the right roads and resources to get to work must include ensuring that their children can be cared for.

    A report by the Centre for Progressive Policy shows that if women had access to adequate childcare they could increase their earnings from £7.6 billion to £10.9 billion. What would that mean for the Exchequer, which should be here supporting this amendment? The Women’s Budget Group estimates that 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on work for childcare reasons. That costs the economy £28 billion a year. Amendment 2 and unlocking resources for childcare would be a win-win for our economy and for our communities. It would be an investment that would save us money. It is also right that developers should play their part.

    Comparing Ofsted and Office for National Statistics data shows that since 2014 the rate of population growth outstrips the growth of the childcare sector in 116 out of 149 local authorities, including 15 of the 20 areas with the highest population growth. The National Childbirth Trust now tells parents to put their not yet born children on the list for childcare providers, because there are not any and getting one is almost impossible.

    I see the problem first hand in my local community. The brilliant Walthamstow Toy Library is about to be yet again kicked out of its building because developers want to turn it into flats. Those developers looked completely blank at the idea that they would invest in providing a space for that service because it has such an impact on our local community. That is happening across the country: vital resources that help parents get to work and to develop our children are not getting the funding that they need. The Minister could change that if she would just make it explicit that the provision is not about educational settings. The list that she has now covers nurseries that are attached to schools, but what we are talking about is any form of childcare and revolutionising the funding that is available.

    David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

    The hon. Lady has done an excellent job in highlighting this issue in the context of the debate, but I have some sympathy with the Government’s position on this. Does she recognise that the Department for Education guidance on this matter in November 2019—and it is a DFE matter, not a DLUHC matter—explicitly states that early years and childcare is something that local authorities can use in seeking a section 106 contribution from a developer? It is already in the regulations, which I was not aware of when I put my name to her amendment. Does she also acknowledge that, while we are all sympathetic to her point about maintaining affordable childcare, developer contributions are as a rule capital only for the provision of buildings and facilities, and may not be used for the ongoing support of day-to-day services?

    Stella Creasy

    The hon. Member heard the words of the Minister, who called childcare a non-infrastructure item. He will know of examples, as we all do, of councils building in payments for police community support officers or ongoing maintenance as part of a development. If he is right that developers could do this, why oppose writing it into the Bill to put it beyond doubt and make sure that developers and councils know they can do it?

    Passing amendment 2 is about saying the words that my party’s Front-Bench spokesperson said and, frankly, the hon. Member’s did not: “Childcare is infrastructure. The mums listening right now who feel invisible do matter. The services that would help them get back to work do matter. Parents are as important to us as potholes.”

    Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)

    The hon. Member, the Minister and everyone in the House knows that I have campaigned for and championed changes to childcare policy. The Minister absolutely did not dismiss or dilute the Government’s commitment to changing and supporting childcare. Amendment 2 covers two separate things: childcare facilities, and whether community infrastructure levy funds can be paid for ongoing amounts. It is important to be clear about that.

    Stella Creasy

    I quote back the words of the Minister, who talked explicitly about how non-infrastructure items could include subsidising the cost of childcare. If we subsidise police offices or anti-fly-tipping activities, why would we not subsidise parents to get to work? We have an opportunity—

    Siobhan Baillie rose—

    Stella Creasy

    I am sorry, but I cannot give way, because of the time. The hon. Member will have her say too.

    Amendment 2 would put childcare on an equal footing. Why are we making this form of infrastructure second best? Why are we debating the matter when it seems that there is common agreement? We all recognise, if we have dealt with local government, the need to clarify things and put them in legislation. The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) talked similarly about waste and water infrastructure, and the Minister was happy to confirm that that was covered. We need to give councils a clear line, and that is what I am looking for from the Minister today, because I think she has actually muddied the water somewhat. We must ensure that we write things into legislation so that we put these debates beyond doubt.

    Let us do this for the sake of our children and our economy, and for all the women sitting at home right now watching the debate because they cannot get the childcare they want to be able to get back to work and pay taxes. This is a cross-party issue, but it will divide the House, and it will send a clear message about whose side we are on when it comes to those parents. The amendment would mean the world to all those parents who are struggling to find affordable childcare places right now. I pay tribute to Pregnant Then Screwed for setting out so clearly the impact that it could have, because investment in childcare pays for itself.

    I ask the Minister to rethink her words, to say clearly that childcare is infrastructure, and to write it down in the legislation in the way that she has for water and waste, so that parents and potholes get equal attention from us in this place.

  • Stella Creasy – 2022 Speech on Government for Baby Banks

    Stella Creasy – 2022 Speech on Government for Baby Banks

    The speech made by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    Children are expensive and wasteful. The amount of stuff they go through and the cost to a parent’s pocket is horrific. In this country, it should be our collective mission to put food banks out of business, because nobody should go hungry in a modern, dignified democracy. But would we have the same ambition for baby banks? What, Madam Speaker, do I mean by baby banks? I promise you that this is not about a very strange form of deposit, or loan or even withdrawal. This is about how we change the stigma that somehow says that sustainability is a middle class indulgence, because in the time of a cost of living crisis, we cannot afford to do anything but for our parents’ pockets and for our planet.

    To date, those efforts about being green have focused on things such as jobs and wind farms, but now it is time to focus on the role of give and take. I would venture that everybody in this Chamber—those who are left—probably remembers that from being a child. I was the youngest of a number of cousins. During the 1980s, I did not want for leg warmers, because I had multiple pairs of those donated to me. The truth is that for parents facing those costs of children, sharing is absolutely integral.

    Research from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that it costs around £160,000 to raise a child. For single parents, it is £190,000. Every penny matters. But it is not just about the costs; it is about the cost of carbon and the waste that it means when a parent has to buy new things for every individual child. Parents are facing a cost of living crisis as never before. Since 2020, the costs facing new parents have risen by a third, as the cost of living and inflation have pushed up the price of essential goods such as nappies. Indeed, over the last two years, the price of a pack of nappies has risen by a shocking 75%, meaning that, for most families with a new baby, the spend on nappies alone has gone up by £41 a month. The prices of other consumable goods have also gone up, with baby formula costing an extra £12 a month, and baby wipes up 16%.

    It is not just about those everyday costs when someone has a new baby; it is also about the one-off, massive purchases. Car seats and pushchairs cost 38% and 25% more respectively than they did in 2020. Yet, during the same period, statutory maternity pay has risen by only 3.6%.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

    The hon. Lady is making a good case. I wonder whether safety is a big aspect where children are concerned. If parents cannot afford to buy new all the time, the children’s safety might be compromised. That is where food banks, by providing safe alternatives, could be helpful.

    Stella Creasy

    It is precisely this issue about how parents make sure they look after their child, which is what every parent wants to do well. That is why baby banks need to become the norm; I want to put food banks out of business, but I want baby banks to become the norm.

    One of the issues for us in the This Mum Votes campaign is that we need to understand the pressures on families across the country and to join up Government action. Baby banks provide a solution by giving parents the opportunity to swap and reuse equipment, toys and clothes, as well as access to vital support networks. They are a response to two challenges at the same time: the deepening poverty we see in our communities and the need to care for our environment through the greater reuse of items. There are currently around 200 baby banks in this country. They are often run by women—by volunteers—who have recognised the need to join up the dots to help everybody share. That is as much about bringing those new parents together as it is about the practicalities and the costs that families face.

    Half of the 4.2 million children living in poverty in this country live in a family with a child under the age of five. Younger children, in particular, who go through so much stuff and need so much stuff so quickly, are expensive. That is why having the This Mum Votes perspective and understanding should be part of our policymaking. Some 1.3 million of those 4.2 million children are babies and children under the age of five. The total number of children in poverty is predicted to rise in the next year alone to 5.2 million—that is an additional 1 million children, many of whom will be of that younger generation.

    We know that investing in the early years reaps a reward, but we do not always invest in helping parents with those early years. That is why fantastic organisations such as Little Village, which supports families with children under five living in poverty across London, are such a godsend, and why I am calling on the Government to make sure that every community has a baby bank—somewhere that collects and distributes pre-loved clothes and equipment. As Little Village’s amazing chief executive, Sophie Livingstone, points out, it fixes the systems that trap families in poverty.

    Since launching in 2016, Little Village has supported over 25,000 children. Last year alone, it supported over 6,000 children, including 1,000 new-born babies. It takes referrals from across our statutory sector, because anyone working with young families knows about baby banks. In my community, we have a brilliant baby bank run by the Lloyd Park children’s centre, and I make referrals to it, as do midwives, social workers and health visitors. Baby banks aid the work of our statutory sector.

    Baby banks also help at that immediate crisis point. We have maternity wards saying that they have mums without anything and that they will not let them leave the hospital. It is the baby banks that step in to help, providing vital goods for those newborns, whether it is the nappies, wipes, creams, clothes, blankets or hats that people will not be allowed to leave the hospital without.

    Baby banks are also often a vital link for parents who are sceptical about the statutory sector. These are organisations that those parents can trust and that definitely have their child’s best interests at heart. They can also be a bridge to further services.

    This week, we have seen the worrying reports from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service of families who are watering down their baby formula to save money. Little Village’s work shows similar horror stories about what is happening right now in this country: a family that was using sanitary towels as nappies because they did not have the money to buy nappies; a mum of three who could not afford to heat her home was coming to the baby bank with her child to keep warm; a child with grade 3 pressure sores due to the extreme rationing of nappies; a parent who was reusing nappies that had already been soiled in order to save money; and a family rationing Calpol in order to get through the day.

    Despite the amazing work that baby banks do in this country to try to tackle these problems, not every local authority welcomes them. Some refuse to provide access to community spaces that are vacant because they do not want to admit that that kind of poverty exists in their local community. Space is crucial. Any parent knows that new children take up a lot of space, so just imagine a baby bank having to find space for multiple buggies, cots, baby baths and jumperoos. Having local authority support with space is crucial, as is taking into account the costs of running these places, including the costs of energy and of buying things such as nappies to hand out.

    Ministers and people listening may think that this is a debate about poverty, but it is not just about that; it is also about the planet, because an estimated 350,000 tonnes of clothing goes to landfill every year. Even if we ended poverty in this country tomorrow, we would still want baby banks to exist, in order to tackle that problem at the same time and to promote the reuse, repair and sharing of items. Little Village gifted 26 tonnes of clothing, 26 tonnes of furniture, 3.5 tonnes of small electricals, 2 tonnes of books and more than 1 tonne of small plastics last year alone, and that is just one baby bank. That saved 85 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions , which is the equivalent of taking 18 cars off the road. More than 8.5 million new toys are thrown away—they head to landfill or incinerators—in the UK every year. There is a mountain of clothes, toys, plastic and tat that every family acquires and then no longer needs because their child has grown out of it and is then abandoned on an almost weekly basis. These things also represent a cost that a lot of families feel they have no choice but to incur.

    We saw that most clearly in Walthamstow with our amazing “swap shop” project. I wish to pay testament to it, because it shows a model of a way forward. We have been running swap shops in our local community, where parents bring items they no longer need and take the items they do need; we have helped thousands of parents since we started doing this in August, enabling them not only to take items out of our landfill and our incinerators, but to manage the costs that they face. I wish to say thank you to my local Salvation Army; The Mill community centre; Waltham Forest Council; our amazing Walthamstow toy library; all the volunteers; the 17&Central shopping centre, which hosted us so that parents could find us easily; and, in particular, the members of my team, Safa, Jess and Ashley, who helped to run that project, which meant that during the weeks it was open nothing that came into our centre went to a landfill or an incinerator.

    Failing to reduce waste and deal with climate changes often hits the poorest in our communities, as we have seen with those who have been repeatedly flooded out of their houses or from the evidence that shows that incinerators are three times more likely to be sited in areas of deprivation than affluent regions. Yet asking the public to look ahead to that green future and to be more climate conscious is impossible to do when they do not know where the next meal is going to come from for their families or they are thinking that they cannot afford to put their baby in warm clothing that evening.

    If Ministers will not listen to me about why we should make sure that every community has access to baby banks, please listen to the Princess of Wales, because she has been championing them. She has visited Little Village and she is bringing together 19 British brands to donate to these baby banks so that they have items to hand out. The Minister may be wondering and saying, “This is all very well, but what does this MP want the Government to do?” There are some simple things they could do. First and foremost, we should invest in baby banks as a way of saving money, because this country is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds every years on sending things to landfill and to incinerators. Baby banks are not recognised in this country in the way that food banks are. That is what we have to change, because this is as much about the donations and the networks that come from that, as it is about the people who need their support. The Trussell Trust does amazing work for food banks; it is an almost £60 million a year organisation. We need to invest in baby banks in every community as a way of matching that, so that it becomes the norm to reuse, repair and support your local community and other local parents in the same way.

    Little Village, the Baby Bank Network in Bristol, Save The Children and the Association for Real Change are working together to create a new national baby bank network. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s support for that process, along with a commitment to do what they can to roll it out as quickly as possible. It is not enough for these organisations to be scrabbling around for funds with which to do the work they are doing; we should be investing in them. There are some minor things we could do to raise the money, because we are not talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, and we are not talking about a state-run initiative. The brilliant volunteers do not need us to do it for them; they need us to work with them.

    If we were to make a small increase—0.2%—in the stamp duty paid on second homes to provide for our nought to two-year-olds, we could raise £880 million a year. We could invest all that and have a baby bank overnight. I know that that may not be something to which the Minister would want to commit herself, so let us look at something a bit simpler. The landfill tax is currently set at £96.70 a tonne, and is raising £660 million this year. Even an increase of a mere £4 would raise £687 million, creating an additional £27 million that could be put towards funding baby banks and could help to remove items from landfill and incinerators altogether.

    There are other things that local authorities could do with the Government’s help. For many parents, it is the size of the item that they want to donate that creates the risk of their not donating it. Those who are dealing with fly-tipping are often taking out goods that could be reused for children. We could also advertise those services. The point is that this is a win-win for all of us. Kids may be expensive and wasteful, but they are going to inherit this earth, and right now millions of them in this country are living in poverty. Baby banks are not the only solution, but they are absolutely the one investment, the one deposit, that the Government could make that would give a better future to millions of us overnight.