Budget Resolutions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Year after year, I have risen in this Chamber as the Government watered down their commitments on levelling up, transport and living standards, and now it seems there is nothing much left to water down. Every year I have called for urgent action to prevent the collapse of our national health service, and now the Prime Minister admits that his plans have failed. The Government profess that they stand for law and order, but systematic cuts have seen confidence in our justice system plummet. Just as poverty peaks during this Government’s cost of living crisis, they have created months of uncertainty over the household support fund for vital services such as foodbanks.
Today’s Budget reaches the pinnacle of 14 years of cynical short-termism under this Government. From levelling up to healthcare, the Budget fails to deliver for the people of Bradford South. Last week, the Prime Minister went on a so-called levelling up tour, claiming that:
“levelling up is about providing people with better opportunities to work, travel and feel proud of where they live.”
In 14 years, what opportunities have this Government given to people in Bradford South? Network North is a shell of the broken promise that was once proudly hailed as Northern Powerhouse Rail. In Bradford, rather than being offered new high-speed rail lines and enhanced connectivity, we are told to celebrate the announcement of a new platform at Bradford Forster Square. That is not the ambitious and transformative Northern Powerhouse Rail that was promised no less than 60 times by this Government. Despite all the talk, Bradford South has not seen a penny from the levelling-up fund. The opportunity to level up this country has been squandered.
With the Government having betrayed the north with their failed levelling-up agenda, what has become of the self-professed party of law and order? The Prime Minister continues to argue that the Government’s plan to make our streets safer is working. Recent reports show that across half the country not a single break-in case was solved—that is no convictions in half the country. Let me be clear: that speaks to the systematic underfunding of our police. The Conservatives are failing on a basic requirement of government to protect our homes. The police should be fighting crime, not fighting for funding.
If our streets are less safe, what are the Government doing for the national health service? More than 34,000 people across Bradford are now on NHS waiting lists for treatment, and the Prime Minister has admitted that he has failed on his pledge to cut waiting lists. The NHS is crying out for funding, but today’s Budget does next to nothing. Just two weeks ago, I visited a Yorkshire Ambulance Service station in Bradford South. I spoke to the mechanics who work miracles on an old fleet, keeping ambulances on the road for up to 10 years and far beyond their recommended lifespan. Fixing those ambulances is not always possible, and it often leads to skilled paramedic crews being stranded and unable to do their job of saving lives. The ambulance service is crying out for increased capital investment, but new ambulances, just like the 40 new hospitals, are an illusion under this Government. We need a healthcare service that is fit for the future and will care for everyone from the cradle to the grave. Today’s Budget will do little to help the NHS.
Over 14 years this Government have presided over persistent decline. Just think about what Labour achieved when we were last in government: the shortest waiting times in history; crime down by a third; the cancer guarantee; half a million children taken out of poverty; the national minimum wage; the winter fuel allowance; record results in schools; and peace in Northern Ireland. That was a record that Britain could be proud of; that was Britain under a Labour Government.
Girlguiding UK: British Overseas Territories
Judith Cummins Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his good sense in securing this important debate, which cuts to the heart of our sense of collectivity, particularly for young people.
I tabled early-day motion 212 on this subject and have written to Girlguiding UK to ask it to reconsider this important decision; I thank many hon. Members here who have already signed that early-day motion and my letter. Many organisations from overseas territories have written to me expressing their dismay at the decision, which they do not understand and were not involved in. There are currently 618 Girl Guides and 182 volunteer leaders in the overseas territories. The decision was taken without consulting them and seemingly without good reason.
The history of girl guiding was recognised by Girlguiding UK when it announced the decision for the overseas territories: it said that guiding for girls who live in British overseas territories has been
“a valued part of Girlguiding UK for much of our 113-year history”.
What has changed to make Girlguiding UK make this rash decision? Decisions like this should not be made just because things are difficult or challenging. Let us overcome the challenges. I ask Girlguiding UK to reconsider its decision and to see the good sense in the arguments that have been made today. I am interested to hear the Minister’s remarks, because I trust that he will have the good common sense to see the value of girl guiding in our overseas territories, particularly in the British bases.
I stand here as a former brownie; I think I was a pixie. I also remember, as a former Girl Guide, the joy and pride of earning badges and the hard work that went into them. There was a sense of working together with my friends in a common endeavour to achieve something greater than ourselves. I remember working for the entertainment badge—I cannot remember what it was called—and I remember my mum being very proud of me when I got the highest marks for safety in the home. I got a special award, and she got a phone call from whoever was the head of the brownies. It was one of her proudest moments as a mum—I remember that with great joy and great pride. I know how much girl guiding can do for young women and girls, how it can develop skills of leadership and how it can show that people working together can achieve great things. That is what today’s debate is about.
I want to touch on the rationale for the decision and the negative impact that it will have on the girls concerned. A range leader in the Falkland Islands wrote to me to say:
“They will be effectively be barred from the worldwide sisterhood of girl guiding…This is particularly impactful given our remote location and the complications of our geopolitical location.”
That is absolutely true, but why do we not take that risk and rise to the challenge? The world moves on, and girl guiding should be part of that. Its future in the overseas territories and on army bases cannot be put on the “too hard to deal with” pile.
I am proud to support this important debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that the decision is incomprehensible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view and seeing whether he can work with us to provide a solution to ensure that girl guiding in the overseas territories and on the army bases has a future.
Menopause
Judith Cummins Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) stepping in to lead it so ably, showing that menopause is not just a woman’s issue, but a health issue that affects more than half the population. As such, it should be of concern to us all, as was so ably highlighted by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), whom I am pleased to follow in this debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for all her hard work in this area, which is well known right across the House. I congratulate her on securing this debate. I am only sorry that she is unable to be in her place today, but I know how dedicated she is to this issue and I am sure that her important work will be reflected throughout the debate, because, as many of us know, there is no stopping her when she gets going.
This is a timely debate, which I will use as an opportunity to draw attention to the link between osteoporosis and the menopause. The menopause is an important time for bone health. When women reach the menopause, oestrogen levels decrease, which causes many women to develop symptoms, such as hot flushes and sweats. The decrease in oestrogen levels also causes loss of bone density, so the menopause is an important cause of osteoporosis.
While one in five men develop osteoporosis in their lifetime, half of all women over 50 will have to learn to live with it. This summer, the all-party parliamentary group on osteoporosis and bone health, which I chair, has worked in partnership with the Royal Osteoporosis Society to run the Better Bones campaign. Our campaign calls for a timely diagnosis for the 90,000 people—most of them women—who currently remain undiagnosed and untreated. I am calling on the Government to introduce universal access to fracture liaison services, the world standard for fracture prevention. We know that osteoporosis is one of the world’s most urgent health issues. Seventy five per cent of 90,000 people missing out on anti-osteoporosis medication are women. That is why the Fawcett Society and the British Menopause Society are among the many charities and organisations supporting the Better Bones campaign.
Everyone loses bone density and strength as they get older, but women lose bone density more rapidly in the years following menopause, often losing up to 20% of their bone density during this time. With this loss of bone density comes reduced bone strength and a greater risk of fractures. When treated, people can expect to live normal, healthy lives. Sadly, as it currently stands, a quarter of women have to endure more than three fractures before receiving the diagnosis that they so desperately need. Placing osteoporosis at the forefront of menopause care is paramount to ensuring that women maintain good health throughout the menopause period and beyond.
In 2021, the all-party parliamentary group produced a report highlighting the benefits of fracture liaison services in ensuring quick diagnosis and access to safe, effective medication, which can then strengthen patients’ bones. Their proven success is why the FLS model is the world standard for fracture prevention, used in more than 50 countries. However, in this country, only 57% of the eligible population have access to fracture liaison services. I am using this debate to call on the Government to provide 100% fracture liaison service coverage for people living in the UK, ending the postcode lottery once and for all.
In August, the Health Minister publicly stated that the Government would make an announcement on establishing more fracture liaison services by the end of this year. Then in September, in the other place, a Government Minister stated that the autumn statement would include a package of prioritised measures to increase the number of FLSs and their quality. I understand that, since then, there has been a walking back on this commitment, but, on behalf of the 90,000 people missing the life-saving and life-changing medication, I ask the Government to hold their nerve and to act quickly.
Full FLS coverage would cost £27 million per year in additional funding, with a total benefit of £440 million over five years. FLS delivers a return on investment of more than £3 for every £1 invested, and 100% FLS coverage would also prevent 74,000 fractures within five years, releasing 750,000 hospital bed days. Therefore, placing osteoporosis at the forefront of menopause care is essential for the future of women’s health in this country, ensuring that women going through menopause can continue to live healthy and fulfilling lives.
The decision to provide full FLS coverage in England not only is fiscally responsible and right, but would be an historic leap forward in women’s healthcare in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I join my hon. Friend, a great champion of Bosworth, in congratulating Caterpillar on 70 years and 1,300 employees. That is fantastic. I look forward to going along and having a go on the electric diggers.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises an important point. There is certainly, as part of the administration process, an obligation on the administrators to look at the circumstances that led to the demise of that company and report to the Insolvency Service. I am sure that she, like I, will be very interested in the outcome of that investigation.
Legislative Definition of Sex
Judith Cummins Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that petitions being debated indirectly relate to two ongoing legal cases in the Scottish courts. Those cases are ongoing and are therefore open to sub judice. Mr Speaker, however, has agreed to exercise the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the sub judice resolution to allow reference to the cases, given the issues of national importance that are raised. I also remind Members that this debate will be conducted with courtesy and respect.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 623243 and 627984, relating to the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I am pleased to open the debate on the petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. One petition calls on the Government to update the Equality Act 2010 to make the characteristic of sex refer to biological sex, and the other petition calls on the Government to commit to not amending the Act’s definition of sex.
Opinions about the relationship between biological sex, gender identity and the law divide organisations, political parties, and even family and friends. Many people have told me that this is something that they are afraid to speak of, and some say it should not be discussed at all. Others have told me of how they are relieved and happy that we are finally discussing it in Parliament.
Tonia Antoniazzi
When the hon. Member listens to my speech, I think she will understand the compassion with which I speak. She will also understand that we are in a difficult position: we are legislators, and where there is something that needs to be addressed, as there is in these two petitions, it is down to us to stand up and make that change and have the conversation. It goes with the job, I am afraid.
Members from all parts of the House can model the respectful, adult conversations that are needed across society. We can demonstrate, here at Westminster, that we can freely express and listen to different opinions. This is a set of issues on which views are held profoundly and with good intentions. The nature of this debate means that those views differ across the House, and even within our own respective parties.
I was in education for 20 years before coming to this place. My priority has always been the wellbeing of those in my care, be they adults or children. I am afraid that asking probing and difficult questions to get through issues and problems is in my nature. I will not be cowed when looking out for my constituents, be they lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans. The conversations that I get the most out of are the ones where I explore, learn and am able to disagree agreeably.
It is a mark of adult politics not to pretend that we are in perfect agreement on every issue, and Westminster Hall debates like this offer the opportunity for us to explore issues, free from the usual pressures of votes and the instructions of the Whips. This is a debate that will explore the difficult interrelationships that exist between rights, and it will mark the difficult lines between which individuals’ and collective rights are drawn. However, it is for the House to decide the way those rights are formed and how they are interpreted. We are holding this debate on behalf of individual people facing discrimination, and in support of service providers and public servants who have a deep commitment to reducing discrimination and to providing safe and welcoming environments. Our task is to make decisions on the boundary of rights and to take responsibility, rather than passing it on. We may draw different conclusions from historic debates on the legislation, but our responsibility is to make our decisions on what would be the right law to have now.
In order to prepare for the debate, the Committee Clerks arranged for me to meet the petitioners and organisations supporting these two petitions. I thank them all for their time and input. The House of Commons Library has also produced a debate pack that covers the complexity of the legal issues behind the two petitions. I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken to me, because there are two broad positions. Those who support the petition to update the Equality Act say that the law should be clear about the two sexes, and that it was never the intention of the Act to make it difficult or impossible to have sports that are for biological females only; to protect services that are for women, such as domestic violence refuges; to assure an elderly woman or a woman getting a smear test that, when she asks for a female carer or nurse, she has the right to be treated by a biological woman; to provide single-sex spaces where women are undressing and washing; for same-sex-attracted people to have opportunities to associate with each other; and for the public sector equality duty to consider the needs of women separately from those of trans women.
Kate Barker from the LGB Alliance and Julie Bindel and Tamara Burrows from the Lesbian Project, who support the clarification of the Equality Act, explained to me that the protected characteristic of sexual orientation is contingent on the definition of sex as biological, and that the Act did not intend to remove the rights of association for same-sex-attracted lesbians. I heard how, for the lesbians I met, biological sex is fundamental to understanding their rights as same-sex-attracted people, so the grey area that we have is creating ongoing problems for lesbians. If we do not say that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, we may as well scrap the protection of sexual orientation. They said that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment exists. Trans people are able to hold their own separate groups under the protected characteristic and can also associate with lesbian groups already open to them; so the question posed was: why cannot lesbians organise lesbian-only spaces?
The Lesbian Project is an organisation that wants to research and study lesbian lives and survey lesbians. If trans women are included, it renders the research meaningless and pointless. This is not, I was told, about being anti-trans; it was about the bedrock of being a lesbian, and a lesbian is a female attracted to females. It was highlighted that there must be protections for trans people, but not at the expense of women’s rights. It is becoming a barrier to lesbians in coming out, which is a huge problem for them. The question for many is: should women be allowed female-only associations? Should it be easy and straightforward for women to be able to undress, shower and use a toilet in female-only spaces?
Those who want the Equality Act to stay as it is say that trans people are already using services for the opposite sex without concerns, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not, and that not allowing them to do so would be harmful and detrimental to their human rights. It is therefore the responsibility of society and lawmakers to ensure that people are able to access opposite-sex facilities, services and sports. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Finn McKay, Robin Moira White, Dr Paul Martin and Nancy Kelley for taking the time to speak to me and to explain the situation for that petition. Where this causes a problem is likely to be very rare, and a transgender person may be excluded on an individualised, case-by-case basis. Some of those arguing for no change to the Equality Act believe that trans women are women and trans men are men, and that therefore—
Tonia Antoniazzi
Some of those arguing that there should be no change to the Equality Act 2010 believe that trans women are women and trans men are men, and therefore that the protected characteristic of sex includes those who identify as the opposite sex. Some also feel that it is an attack on trans people to think or express disagreement with this belief.
In support of this petition, Nancy Kelley from Stonewall said that she is proud of the Equality Act 2010, that it works really well as “legal sex”, and that it works well to operate trans-inclusive or not spaces, and emphasised how inclusion should be the norm. Defining legal sex as observed at birth would see exclusion rather than inclusion.
I have also had the opportunity to talk to barrister Robin Moira White, who explained to me how this amendment was a blunt instrument; in fact, it was called a sledgehammer that was being presented as a simple solution. Robin told me that, to move forward, there was no need to change the law, but that there was a need for less toxicity and also that this amendment did not consider the anomalous position of a pregnant trans man.
I also spoke to Dr Finn Mackay, who told me about the impact that this change in the law would have on gender non-conforming people. Finn said that she would like to see more case studies from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on single-sex spaces, and she agreed with the Government position and said that the current rhetoric is dangerous. We also need to have better public amenities that work for all people, with inclusion as the default.
Both petitions received over 100,000 signatures, and we will all have constituents who are passionately engaged on either side, as well as service providers that say they badly need clarity about the law, and others who say the current situation is okay for them. It is important that we are having this debate today.
As well as supporters of both petitions, I spoke to the EHRC, whose job it is to protect everyone’s rights and to explain the Equality Act. The EHRC said that the law can be hard to implement—and don’t we know it? Its letter to the Minister for Women and Equalities states:
“A change to the Equality Act 2010 so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex could bring clarity in a number of areas but potential ambiguity in others.”
Both the Government and the Opposition welcomed the EHRC statement that the current situation merits further consideration and exploration of possible solutions. The EHRC said that
“there is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis.”
I was told—and I know—that this issue had been bubbling away for many years and was not anything new. In 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee asked the EHRC to create statutory guidance on single-sex spaces, which it published much later, in 2022. However, the guidance placed a large onus on service providers to exclude people who are legal women. It was when this escalated in 2018 that the UK Government and the Scottish Government started talking about proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which started the debate about self ID. They said that the landscape since the Equality Act had changed significantly. There are more gender identities—
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Also, those who wish to speak should have been present when the debate was opened.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I ask Members to limit their speeches to around five minutes so that everybody can get in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Miriam Cates, I have to tell Members that will we have a time limit of five minutes.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, few doubted that Parliament’s intention was that sex should mean biological sex: either male or female, recorded at birth—an immutable characteristic. However, uncertainty has since arisen, specifically as to whether or not a person with a gender recognition certificate has legally changed their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Whatever the law actually says, the extent of the confusion is such that many people now believe that when someone expresses a desire to live as the opposite sex, that person then has a legal right to be treated as if they have changed sex.
This is not an academic argument. It has significant practical and safeguarding implications, as the outstanding work of Policy Exchange’s Biology Matters unit continues to reveal. Take the example of a tribunal brought against Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust last year. A male catering employee known as V, who identified as a trans woman, was given permission to use female changing rooms. When female staff complained about being forced to undress with V—in particular, seeing him naked from the waist down—the issue was raised with V by a female manager. In response, V brought a harassment case against the trust and, unbelievably, won.
Instead of considering whether the manager acted reasonably in being concerned about the exposure of male genitals in the ladies’ changing room, the judge decided that V had been treated differently from another woman. The judge treated V as though his sex was female when the issue was the fact that his body was male. Of course, the women who complained about V were not discriminating against him because of his trans identity, but because he was male, and such discrimination is of course—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. Can I check that this is a concluded case, please?
Miriam Cates
It is a concluded case.
The women were discriminating against him because he was male, and such discrimination is perfectly within the Equality Act if it is
“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”,
which in this case was to protect the integrity of single-sex spaces.
I have nothing but compassion for people whose biological sex is a source of distress; they should of course receive the best evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria. But while a small number of people rightly have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, everyone, including trans people, has the protected characteristic of sex—male or female. Where those protected characteristics collide, we must ensure that everyone is protected according to their sex and that proportionate accommodations are made to assist those who do not wish to use the facilities of their sex.
We must clarify the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex and to ensure that the providers of single-sex services and facilities understand and protect the single-sex nature of the provisions. It is extraordinary that in 2023—a time of unprecedented knowledge—we are arguing about the definition of something that has been known since the dawn of time. The most contentious question of our day has famously become “What is a woman?”—a question that no previous society has felt the need to answer.
Despite the semantic acrobatics employed by some to dodge the question, we all know, instinctively and intrinsically, what a woman is. The sex binary—the biological state of being either male or female—evolved hundreds of millions years ago, before we humans walked the earth. Being able to tell the difference between a man and a woman is not a matter of acquired knowledge. It is as instinctive as being able to tell up from down. Indeed, our survival as a species depends on it; if we want to reproduce, and to protect ourselves and our children, we had better know the difference between a man and a woman.
Men and women are different physically, psychologically, sexually and socially. All civilisations are built on an understanding of these differences, creating structures, rules and boundaries to protect women and children from male violence and to preserve the dignity of both sexes. There is nothing more destabilising to society than to dismantle the legal, social and cultural guardrails that protect women and children by pretending that males become females and vice versa, and allowing that to creep into our law.
While academic elites cave in to aggressive and misogynistic trans activism, ordinary women are frightened to go to hospital, ordinary men fear for the safety of their daughters in public toilets, ordinary children are subjected to a psychological experiment in which they are told they can choose their gender, and ordinary toddlers are used to satisfy the sexual fetish of adult men dressed as eroticised women. Understanding the difference between male and female underpins society, safety and security. We must clarify the Equality Act, and give ordinary people the certainty that our laws can be trusted to protect women and children and that sex means sex.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I feel it is incumbent on me to make a point of order on the fact that trans people are being characterised as predators, and that is deeply undemocratic and deeply worrying. That is not what this debate is about. For the Member to be using such language is unparliamentary. I seek your guidance, Mrs Cummins.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
That is not a point of order because it is not a matter for the Chair.
Miriam Cates
Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. In response to the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), I was making the point that the vast majority of sexual predation is by men on women and children. That is what society has evolved to protect against.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady, but that is not a matter for the Chair. I call Dame Angela Eagle.
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
I have not declined to meet the all-party group on steel; I just said that it was subject to diary requirements. Where I have been is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, visiting the steelworks. I did notify him before we went there, but he showed absolutely no interest in accompanying me to visit the steelworks in his constituency. We are spending quite a lot of money on supporting the steel industry. We look at what has happened at Teesside and how we have regenerated the former steelworks. Those on his side of the House, however, have spent most of their time smearing the Mayor of Teesside and making it very difficult for the businesses there to continue to make the investment they need in order to help turn the sector around.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Marshalls Bakery, a small business in my constituency, has just closed its doors after 43 years of trading. The owners told me that they were unable to withstand the combined pressures of covid, rising wheat and container charges and high energy costs. They feel let down and are angry at the lack of Government support for businesses such as theirs. Can the Minister tell me what further steps he is taking to ensure that other small businesses can survive in this challenging climate to provide the certainty from Government that they so desperately need?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry to hear about the demise of that business in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Clearly, it has been a very tough time for businesses in recent years, with the covid crisis followed by the cost of living crisis. I am very happy to meet her to discuss what support we provide, which is to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. I am informed that there has been £1 billion of support to businesses over recent years. The schemes running at the moment include: the rates discount at £13.6 billion; and £23 billion has been put into helping businesses with energy costs. I am very happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend’s question was so good that I was eager to answer it early. He is right to highlight this issue, which is being dealt with as part of a wider thrust within Government work on prevention, which is how we can empower the patient. That means getting more data to patients and using genomics and screening to ensure that they are better informed and can therefore opt to take decisions on healthy eating, rather than the state trying to impose those decisions on them in a top-down manner.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I am happy for a member of the ministerial team to meet the hon. Lady, who has made a compelling case about the return on investment. We will obviously need to scrutinise it in more detail, and I am sure that my colleagues will look forward to doing so.