Social Media and Screen Use: Young People’s Health

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I think that is a brilliant idea. I completely support the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and would be happy to work with him to ensure that it happens. The opportunity for us across Committees to challenge and question Ministers and ensure effective action is a valuable one.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I, too, commend the Committee and its Chair for this excellent report. I have not yet had the chance to read it, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, is he aware of the excellent work being done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and the all-party group on social media and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, which he chairs? It recently held an inquiry into social media and young people’s mental health, which will be published in March, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take note of that.

The second point is about the potential for social media to be a force for good in relation to young people’s health. I chair the all-party group on children, teenagers, and young adults with cancer, and we are keen for good health messages to go out on social media because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, young people today see no difference between the online and offline worlds, and social media is potentially a powerful force for good. Would he consider holding a further inquiry, if necessary, to explore that issue?

[Norman Lamb]

I would be happy to work with the all-party group to ensure that our collective learning on this issue feeds into decision making by the Government, so that we get the legislation right and as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady makes the important point that social media is often a force for good. It is important to have a balanced view of this issue, and although we must recognise the powerful potential good impact that social media can have, we must also recognise its risks and harms and take action to protect children from those harms, while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Homelessness among Refugees

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for opening the debate. Many people have been shocked by the recent report from the No Accommodation Network, which found that 28% of guests of its night shelters were refugees. But that statistic is not surprising when we consider what this Government have done to restrict and dispossess refugees in this country.

I am not surprised by the statistics, since asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on state support of just £36.95 a week. I would be unable to live on that and I suspect that many people present would be unable to live a decent life on that, either. When claiming asylum, refugees are given no choice of accommodation or location; they are nearly always placed in hard-to-let properties where other people do not want to live and conditions are poor—damp and mould are rife. They are not the kind of conditions in which I, hon. Members or members of our community would expect to live, so why on earth do we put some of the most vulnerable in those kinds of properties?

The Home Office gives those newly granted asylum fewer than 28 days to start a new life, to leave accommodation and find housing, benefits, employment and a national insurance number. I am not surprised by that, because this Government have a hostile environment policy. The report found a direct link between this Government’s failed move-on policy and the high amount of homeless refugees in the UK. There is a direct link between this Government’s inaction and the more than 17,000 people who approached the charity Crisis last year with nowhere to live after leaving asylum accommodation. That figure has more than doubled in the three short years since 2015.

I am not surprised by the report, because the end game of this Government is an immovable commitment to the politics of restriction. Restrictive policies are designed to prevent and deter individuals from seeking asylum, and to be less welcoming and deny safety to those who need it most. It is precisely because of those policies that we need to have this debate. Why do refugees account for 28% of those in night shelters for the homeless, when refugees account for just 0.25% of the population? Why do refugees deserve less?

Some people claim that refugees do not deserve the same rights as British-born people. Some people say that refugees present a threat to our sovereignty and our security, because anyone who reaches the border is clearly a threat. The reality, however, is that it is the dangerous fanatics who are a threat, so why are this Government pursuing policies that those fanatics would applaud? Rights are not claimed by virtue of being British born or even of having citizenship, but by being a human being. The UK has signed up to commitments that we must fulfil. As a human right, the right to a decent place to live is no exception.

The Government must take steps to ensure that the Homelessness Reduction Act can be extended to refugees and that it is properly enforced, particularly in respect of support for an extra number of days. The Government’s inaction is drastically out of sync with the efforts of certain Departments to prevent homelessness and reduce rough sleeping in other parts of the population. How can we claim we have made progress if we have not supported the most vulnerable in our society? Refugees escape war, torture and see the most horrific things imaginable. They deserve to be welcomed and to be given decent accommodation.

Under the last Labour Government, the refugee integration and employment service offered 12 months of support for refugees’ access to housing, education, social security and the job market.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the last Labour Government’s refugee integration strategy and the comprehensive plan for employment and support. Is he aware that that strategy was cancelled by the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition Government in 2010?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Exactly—it was cancelled by the Conservative-Liberal coalition, to treat some of the most vulnerable in our society worse. The refugee integration and employment service was not perfect, but rather than building on it and improving it, the Conservative-Liberal Government scrapped it entirely, in a disgraceful move. I add my voice to those asking the Minister: will he ensure that people who are granted asylum are given the 56 days outlined in the Homelessness Reduction Act to find accommodation? If he commits to that today we will have started to take decent steps forward.

Over many years, Conservative Governments have given in to the demands of their populist right and the UK Independence party. They peddle the same myths and scare stories about migrants, refugees and people who claim asylum. Let us have an end to that. Why do the Government not stand up to that today? Last year we gave 10,000 people refugee status. Every minute that they wait in poor accommodation is a minute too long. We need change and we need compassion. We need to enable refugees to contribute to our society, and the way to do that is to contribute to their wellbeing and provide decent housing. It is not too much to ask. I beg the Minister to take action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and others who have all made such great contributions. I will not repeat what others have said. I will move on to a specific aspect, which, I am afraid to say, is possibly outside the Minister’s area of responsibility. None the less, it is entirely relevant to the topic under discussion: the right to work.

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is chair of the all-party group on migration, for securing this important debate and for working so closely with me as chair of the all-party group on refugees. We work closely together and I am very pleased about that.

I launched the “Refugees Welcome?” report just before the general election last year. The APPG on refugees produced it after an inquiry of many months. We took evidence from refugees, refugee organisations, local authorities and health organisations. There are copies available: my office has paper copies, but it is also online. We looked at various things, some of which the Government have now taken up. I am pleased about that and I thank them for doing so. For instance, the issue of national insurance numbers—my hon. Friend mentioned their inclusion in documents—was holding up many refugees needlessly and pointlessly, but that is supposed to have been sorted out now. I am still getting evidence that it is not completely fixed, but at least the intention is clear.

On the 28-day move-on period, we kept finding more and more egregious examples of how it ended up turning into destitution and homelessness. The impact of detention and the two-tier system between the resettlement scheme and refugees who come via the asylum route have also been mentioned. That is not directly relevant today, but some of the things we picked up had a specific impact on homelessness. As my hon. Friend has said, the 28 days turns from delirium to despair. The news that someone is being given refugee status should be a day of joy and celebration, but for many refugees it very quickly turns to despair when they realise that they will become either homeless or destitute—or both—within 28 days, for reasons that others have mentioned.

Our report recommended a move to 56 days, which would be coterminous with the universal credit timetable, so it makes sense. I urge the Minister to urge his colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to reconsider the matter, because that would be most useful. I must thank Jon Featonby, previously of the Refugee Council but now of the Red Cross, for his help with the report, particularly the careful drafting.

On the right to work, I thank Forced Migration Review for its June 2018 edition on refugees and economies. Such a focus would really help to prevent refugee homeless. Even though the issue is a DWP competence, it is relevant to the Minister’s work at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I also refer him to the fact that the integration strategy—it is not a refugee integration strategy, which I would like—is part of MHCLG’s competence, and I want him to re-examine that strategy’s specific impact on refugees.

The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees affords refugees the right to work. I want to be clear: our legal obligations require us to give refugees the right to work. When we give refugee status, they are able to work. However, there are problems with waiting until that point. Nearly half of the 145 states that are party to the convention declare reservations in applying the right to work. Even those that do apply the right to work usually impose conditions and limitations. There is very little consistency in implementing the right to work and there are significant variations among those countries.

We should consider some examples of good practice in order to help prevent refugee destitution and homelessness. Jordan, a non-signatory country, provides a quota of work permits. Turkey is not a particularly wealthy country, but it has 3.3 million refugees and they can apply for work permits after six months. In Chad and Uganda, refugees are allowed to settle in host communities and some are granted arable land for agricultural purposes. In Ethiopia, the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Government of Ethiopia collaborate on an out-of-camp policy, which relaxes conditions of residence and movement so that refugees can work. They can set up their own businesses both inside and outside camps.

In Kenya, community organisations help refugees with language classes and links to employment and support. In the UK, various businesses are active, including Starbucks, Ben and Jerry’s, IKEA and, I am sure, others. I declare an interest, because I hosted a dinner recently for Starbucks to discuss its refugee employment programmes. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to consider the role played by private industry. When private industry wants to take a responsible role, we should welcome that, and I do.

In Bristol, as in countries across the United Kingdom, volunteers and campaigning groups such as Bristol Refugee Rights, Borderlands, Bristol Hospitality Network and others do fantastic work to prevent refugee homelessness and to help refugees into work in order to prevent homelessness and destitution. Yet refugees and asylum seekers tell me of their frustrations at not being able to work sooner and of the gaps that that imposes on their CVs. They tell me of the limitations on volunteering.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

While people wait for a decision, after 12 months they can apply to work but only in jobs on the shortage occupation list. Is that not one of the barriers? Should not that stipulation be dropped?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because he has saved me from making that point later. I absolutely agree with him. I urge the Minister to take that key recommendation to his colleagues. There is a 12-month limitation and then they can work but only in a job on the reserved list. That includes being a professional ballet dancer, by the way, which is not exactly a route to employment for most refugees. Without wishing to stereotype, it has not yet come to my attention that there are out-of-work ballet dancers among the refugees that I have met.

The policy is very unhelpful. It is contrary to refugee integration and, as I have said, integration is the Minister’s departmental responsibility. Good integration is in all our interests. Homelessness prevents integration. Lack of money, gaps in employment, and language difficulties all increase the risk of homelessness. The 28-day move-on period increases the risk of homelessness. Cuts to English classes make everything harder. Lack of documents increases the risk of homelessness. All of those are fixable problems; most of them fixable without a large amount of money. In fact, it would save us money. If we got refugees into volunteering, employment and training, it would be good for everyone.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the many faith-based groups that help homeless refugees? They work not only among the refugees, but with other groups such as ex-service personnel, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, to try to get them to restart and build a new life.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Like magic, he has anticipated my next paragraph. During the inquiry, when we asked Jonathan from Survivors Speak OUT whether he felt that refugees were welcome in the UK, he said that the asylum system did not make him feel welcome. He was traumatised and angry during the entire five years it took to get status, but he also said that during that time he was made to feel welcome by the people of this country. When he was destitute and homeless while stuck in the process, he was supported by a church. He was given a home by a family and was welcomed into the community. So I ask—not for the first and probably not for the last time—for this country’s systems to live up to the shining example set by this country’s people in truly welcoming refugees.

The all-party group would like the Government to improve on the following, all of which would help to end or prevent refugee homelessness. We would like a national refugee integration strategy, or, if not that, for the integration strategy as a whole to have a dedicated aspect that should be expanded, particularly with regard to refugees. We would like the restoration of full legal aid for all asylum seekers. We would like to introduce the provisions for refugee family reunion that are contained in the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I love saying the name of his constituency. We would like an end to indefinite immigration detention—28 days is quite enough, and ideally it should not ever happen to pregnant women. We would like full restoration of English language classes. Refugee after refugee told us about their sterling efforts to learn English and how hard it was when classes were cut. One told us he could not afford buses to get around London, so he walked from class to class, wherever he could go to learn English. He told us all that in immaculate English, so the method worked, but it should not be that hard.

We should reform the rules on the right to work and volunteer so that, at the very least, asylum seekers can apply to work and start to try to look for work at six months. If the Home Office cannot meet its own service standard, why should refugees have to suffer a gap in their employment, which will affect their future ability to get work? We would also like the principles of the global compact on refugees to be integrated into UK law when the process is completed later this year.

I want to end by quoting another refugee, whom I would like to speak of as a friend—Kolbassia, of Survivors Speak OUT. Giving evidence to the inquiry of the APPG on refugees, he said:

“I’m part of this country. I need to make this country great. And that is the case for most refugees who are here. We are grateful for what is given to us and we want to do everything to repay this country. But we need help and that help will come from policy makers.”

Sir Henry, what a call to action that is. If we heed it we can end refugee homelessness and make refugees feel truly welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate. The question she asked at the outset is absolutely right. Without any disrespect to the acting Minister, why has the debate been bumped to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rather than the Home Office? With the best will in the world, the acting homelessness Minister will not be able to comment on some of my hon. Friend’s fundamental points relating to the reasons why those granted refugee status find themselves without funding or housing. He cannot take action on national insurance numbers, the minimum level of expected treatment of refugees and respect for their status, the responsibility of the state for those vulnerable people who have fled war or persecution, or the post-grant appointment service. He cannot tell us what has happened to the pilot. He cannot tell us where the review is, or anything about access to interpreters to help asylum seekers and refugees navigate our systems. He cannot respond to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on work permits for refugees.

As he is unable to assist with all those things, I hope that the Minister will undertake to hold a meeting with the relevant Home Office Minister, have discussions and feed back to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston the Government’s thoughts on these important issues, or facilitate a joint meeting. It would be a fine example of the Government working cross-departmentally to tackle the gaping holes in Government policy, which will ensure that the very good Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 will not meet its stated aims. The Minister must agree that the Government’s failure of process, exacerbating a problem elsewhere in government, is ludicrous.

However, there are some things on which the Minister can comment. He can say something about prioritisation on housing waiting lists, and whether the systems—particularly local connection requirements for refugees—are fit and fair for purpose, from his experience and understanding of them. I am interested to know whether he recognises that some people in category 3 or 4 on waiting lists will be left there for years in limbo—usually single people and those at highest risk of homelessness.

The Minister can also say whether he believes that the Homelessness Reduction Act properly covers refugees and providers of asylum accommodation. There was very little discussion of that aspect of the Bill during its passage, with most of the consideration focusing on the roles and responsibilities of local government. Perhaps the Government intend to say that asylum seekers are covered because everyone who is homeless is covered, and that it is the local authority’s responsibility to deal with it in the best way for their local area. That would be a wholly inadequate response.

We know that the implementation of the Act will prove very challenging. Local authorities are already stretched to meet the needs of their local areas. Indeed, just before the debate I had a meeting with representatives of Centrepoint, who told me that, in the year 2016-17, 86,000 young people presented as homeless. They have concerns about how addressing that will be funded, let alone meeting the specialist needs of refugees who may be traumatised, face language barriers, and have little or no knowledge of our less-than-straightforward systems. If the Government are truly concerned about the prevention of homelessness, what action do they plan to take to tackle the immobility of people in accessing housing, and not leaving them for excessive periods hoping for a home? Will they review the funding settlement for local authorities before the expected October implementation date?

The Minister can also tell us where the Government’s rough sleeping strategy is. The Opposition heard rumours that it would be published last week. Surely it is not the intention that it will be slipped out on the final day before Members leave Parliament for the recess.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Whenever that is.

[Melanie Onn]

Indeed. Whenever that is.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) rightly said, refugees are people who have gone through the trauma of leaving their home and possibly their family. Yet rather than offering a safe haven for those vulnerable people, our current system creates further difficulties and challenges at a time when many would think that their troubles were over. Given all that, it is little surprise that there are calls from the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, St Mungo’s, the Refugee Council, NACCOM, Crisis and others to extend that 28-day grace period to at least 56 days, and to implement a number of other recommendations.

In response to the Home Affairs Committee report, the Government pledged to introduce a new vulnerable persons service. Yet data from the Combined Homelessness and Information Network revealed that the number of new rough sleepers in London with refugee status increased in the period 2017-18 compared with the previous year, and is up nearly 75% from just two years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said just how disproportionate was the number of refugees in the homeless population and that, when we do house them, they end up in sub-standard, low-quality, poor housing. The Government must recognise that and take account of it. That is consistent with NACCOM’s findings that nearly 30% of people requiring emergency sheltered accommodation last winter were refugees. It bears repeating that those people are fleeing persecution, war and possible famine. All those things often come with health complications that would make a harsh winter extremely difficult for a rough sleeper to withstand. It is not Government policy to track the deaths of rough sleepers, so we do not know how many refugees have lost their lives as a result of rough sleeping. The Government aim to end rough sleeping by 2027, but if they want to get anywhere near that target, they must realise that their current reforms and actions are nowhere near enough.

More than half the people in the Refugee Council study have endured a period in a hostel, night shelter or on the streets, and the reality is that someone who has been granted asylum in the UK is only 28 days from the possibility of homelessness. That is half what the Homelessness Reduction Act prescribes as the period after which councils must step in if someone is threatened with homelessness. Why are refugees who have been granted asylum given less state intervention and support than other citizens threatened with homelessness?

Guidance in the application and roll-out of the 2017 Act has not been openly consulted on, so I am not clear who the acting Minister has spoken to. Has he considered extending the list of public bodies with a duty to refer to include those that provide asylum accommodation? Undertaking to do that would go some way to easing the concerns of those operating in the sector.

The UNHCR definition of a refugee states that a refugee has the “right to safe asylum”. The UK has a proud history of providing that, but we must ensure that it is a genuine safe haven for refugees and does not contribute to stigmatisation through lackadaisical policy-making or an unwillingness to make things right. We need a cross-Government approach to ensure that no new refugee ends up on the streets, and I hope that the Minister will tell us how he will do that.

May Adjournment

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. comrade for his cheek. Yes, I do want to place on record the hard work of my hon. Friends and the staff of the SNP Whips Office.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

As we are handing out accolades to those who work in Whips Offices, I cannot remain seated. On behalf of the Opposition Whips Office, I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). But this is not a whingefest—of course not. It is the perfect opportunity for Members to place on record constituency issues before the Adjournment.

[Chris Stephens]

I fully agree.

I think that the main reason I was selected, however, was that this is the May day Adjournment and the May day public holiday is of course the workers public holiday—we should not forget that. I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about international Workers Memorial Day, which I commemorated on Glasgow green last Saturday. Many trade unions are making a clear case that this is not just a male issue and that many women workers have unfortunately died as a result of work-related disease or injury. As someone with a proud tradition in the trade union movement, I have seen a fellow Unison steward pass away as a result of an asbestos-related disease, and so, on international Workers Memorial Day, I remember my colleague and friend Tom Begley.

As we are heading into workers day, I want to mention some issues that are important to working people in this country and that I believe the Government should consider when we return. The Government’s response to the Taylor review will be an important issue in the next couple of months, but I have real concerns about their direction of travel in rolling back on employment tribunal decisions on the status of workers, as suggested in the Taylor review. I commend to the House the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, in my name and supported by every Opposition party in the Chamber. It is important that we address the status of workers in the context of the Taylor review and consider the issue of zero-hours contracts, which, sadly, are still booming in the UK. One of the simplest tests is this: if it were up to me, someone would only be allowed a zero-hours contract if there was a collective signed agreement with a recognised trade union. If there was, I think that we would see their numbers reduce.

Following on from my rather naughty intervention on the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), it is appropriate to mention not just the pay of the wonderful staff of the House of Commons but public sector pay in general. In response to a question I asked yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that the public sector pay cap had been abolished, while admitting that every other Department had budgeted 1% for its staff. Either the public sector pay cap has gone or it has not, and I think we heard yesterday that it has not.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very eloquent speech. Does he agree that the workers May day holiday would be an ideal time for the Government to stand up and say, “Yes, we will unfreeze the public sector pay cap and fully fund it across all public services.”?

[Chris Stephens]

The key point is funding, but yes it would be a perfect opportunity for the Government to say that they will fully fund a decent pay rise for public sector workers across the board. Let us not forget that these are the workers who are collecting the tax and trying to put right a broken social security system and a broken immigration system—I will come to that later.

I have always argued for the retention of people’s jobs, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, and I want to raise once again an issue I have raised in several debates: the Ministry of Defence’s nonsensical position in procuring three fleet support ships through international competition. From a written parliamentary answer I received last week, which was covered by the Daily Record, we now know that these three fleet support ships will have armaments, sensors and Phalanx guns, which will be used for defence. If that is the case, my contention is that it is a warship and these three fleet support ships should not be procured through international competition. There are enough shipyards in the UK to build these ships—to block-build them in the same way as the Aircraft Carrier Alliance does—and I hope that hon. Members agree that the ships should not be exposed to international competition. They should be built in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am glad that I am following my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He spoke about pressure on one part of the public service sector and, in particular, about the cuts in legal aid. He made the very fair point that the criminal justice system relies crucially on talented young people wanting to enter it and receiving appropriate remuneration. I want to make a similar point about the whole public sector.

I shall argue that spending is overstressed in large parts of the public sector. I shall talk about defence for a short time, and then about transport and police funding in my own constituency. This will not—I hope—be just one of a series of speeches in which Members ask for more and more public spending, because I am also committed to lower public spending. I am going to take it on the chin and argue that we cannot devote an ever-increasing part of public sector spending to overseas aid, health and social security.

Let me start with defence. I am going to make some political points. They may not be points with which everyone will agree, but I feel that they need to be made. The fact is that the Ministry of Defence is underfunded. During the cold war, we were spending 5% of our national wealth on defence; even after the peace dividend, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were still spending 3%; and we continued to do so until the advent of the Labour Government in 1997. We are now hovering around 2%, and there is a general consensus that we must increase that percentage. That will, of course, involve difficult decisions.

We cannot increase spending on defence unless we are prepared not to spend as much as we would like in other areas, such as health. I understand that certain senior people in the Government may well question whether that is politically possible—whether we could argue the case before a general election. I would argue that not only is spending more on defence in an increasingly dangerous world the right thing to do, but it is a politically sensible and popular thing to do.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so courteous with his time. He is making some interesting points, but I ask him to reflect on this. Does he not agree that cutting the spending of the Department for International Development, which he has mentioned, would be counterproductive? Would it not increase the potential reason to spend more on defence? One of the ways in which we reduce our security concerns about other countries is investing in those countries. That is in our interest, as well as being altruistic.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady leapt to her feet too soon. I am not going to argue that DFID’s spending should be cut; I am going to argue that we should spend on DFID what we can afford to spend, and what we need to spend. We should not link the arbitrary aim to spend 0.7% of GNP on aid, which is now enshrined in law, with the very different aim in respect of defence spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not join the hon. Gentleman in advocating ever-increasing levels of the tartan tax. I remain a strong Conservative, and I believe in the value of deregulation and a low-tax system. Earlier in my speech I made pleas for higher Government spending, both in Lincolnshire and on defence, so—to be fair to Treasury Ministers—how is all that going to be paid for? We cannot increase borrowing, and I would not argue that it is right to increase taxes.

There is another matter that I am really concerned about. I understand that the Government are now looking closely at a significant increase in real-terms spending on the NHS. I am of an age at which the NHS is terribly important to me and my family. I have no private health insurance. Indeed, earlier this week, I had a small procedure on my face under the NHS, which was beautifully carried out. I have no complaints against the staff, but I am very worried about this proposal, which Ministers are apparently considering, to dramatically increase the amount of money spent on the NHS in real terms.

I remember what happened during the period of the Labour Government. Of course such measures are popular in the short term, but the more we increase spending on the NHS in real terms, the lower the productivity becomes. I have spent quite a lot of time talking to consultants and doctors—I am at the age where I do that—and they all, to a man and a woman, bewail the level of bureaucracy and incompetence in the NHS. They are not arguing for more public funding in real terms, although it has to increase by a certain amount in real terms every year because we are an ageing population and we understand all the pressures. They all say that what drives them mad is the level of bureaucracy in the NHS, and it worries me that if we substantially increase NHS spending in real terms, we will simply add to that level of bureaucracy, even though Ministers assure us that that is not their aim.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will give way to the hon. Lady. Nobody else has a solution, but perhaps she does.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous. I do not have a solution, but I caution him to be careful what he wishes for, because that so-called bureaucracy includes data, IT and back-office functions. We heard from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care only yesterday about what happens when an IT system does not have good scrutiny or governance. We must be careful what we wish for.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is a question of quality. Is it really necessary to have 30,000 people employed by the NHS, who have never been doctors or nurses and who have never met a single patient, earning over £100,000 a year? We of course need a level of good-quality management, but we must trust the people on the frontline. Whenever we talk to doctors and nurses they say, “Trust us. We are professionals.” They are the people that members of the public want to see. They are the ones with the vocation and the professionalism to look after us.

The hon. Lady makes a fair point and, like all arguments, we could take it to extremes, but in my view there are two models for the NHS. There is the traditional model that I grew up with in the 1950s and 1960s, and there is a newer model with evermore systems, targets, internal markets and the rest. My personal view—this may surprise the hon. Lady—is that the old-fashioned model probably worked better, because it put more competence and more control in the hands of nurses, doctors and consultants.

I am now going to say something that will probably be even more unpopular. I wonder why our Government are not prepared to bite the bullet and consider alternative funding for the NHS. With an ageing population, we must encourage people to put more of their own resources into their health. How are we going to do that? We could do it through general taxation and increase overall spending, but I have argued against that, or we could do what previous Conservative Governments have done. The Major Government and the Thatcher Government—I do not think the Major Government were particularly right wing—gave tax relief for people of pensionable age towards private health insurance. That is anathema to the Labour party, but it would actually put more resources into health. Most people of retirement age simply cannot afford private health insurance, because they pay for it from their taxed income. However, if we gave tax relief for private health insurance, as previous Conservative Governments have done, we would not be saying that we are against the NHS or devaluing it; we would be trying to encourage the people who are going to use healthcare more often to put more of their own resources into healthcare.

I am worried that if this massive real-terms increase in healthcare spending happens, we will be approaching the levels of health spending per head that we see in Germany or France. The fact is—let us be honest about this—that if we are going to be ill, we would much rather be ill in Germany or France. I know that the NHS is a kind of religion for many people, but the health services under the social insurance systems of France and Germany do work better. They cost more, but the people feel that they have real control over their healthcare. They pay large amounts of tax, but they feel that they have some kind of ownership of their healthcare—some kind of right. When something goes wrong, they are not just enmeshed in a vast bureaucratic machine; they believe that they have some right to treatment through social insurance. Indeed, in Germany, they do get that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I said in answer to a previous question, the figures to which my hon. Friend refers are based on standardised trade models, not the bespoke deal that we are seeking to achieve. She asks what steps I am taking to protect her constituents’ interests. I am supporting my colleagues in seeking to negotiate an ambitious economic partnership with the EU that delivers the maximum possible benefits for both the EU and the UK.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Chancellor made in particular of the potential benefits of EEA membership for the £91.8 billion contribution to the UK economy made by the creative industries that are so important for my constituents in Bristol West?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the creative industries are one of Britain’s great success stories. More broadly, our services sector is our strategic strength in many respects. As we negotiate our future relationship with the European Union, we have to ensure that we protect not only the market in goods, but the market in services, where Britain has such significant comparative advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

There is a theme here, because I should congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government are committed to the principles of transparency. He will have noted the recent Financial Conduct Authority report on the asset management market study. Indeed, we are seeing technology—in particular, through FinTech—driving the sort of transparency to which he refers.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

T9. As chair of the all-party group on refugees, I am told by refugees that they are desperate to work once they have achieved such status, but are hindered by various fixable problems in the system. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to make it easier for refugees to have bank accounts?

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady will be aware that when the Home Office grants refugee status, it includes the biometric residence permit as proof of the holder’s right to stay, but I am very happy to discuss with the hon. Lady any further measures that she feels would be helpful.

Productivity

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent election. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham) on their excellent maiden speeches.

Across my constituency, young people are struggling to manage in working conditions that reduce their productivity and blight their futures, as well as costing the economy and the taxpayer. Low-wage, insecure and zero-hours contracts, under which an employer binds a worker to them but without offering a guarantee of work, are a negative force working against productivity. I will tell the House what life is like for a young man I met recently in Bristol West. On Monday, he gets up to a text message telling him to turn up for work, but when he gets there, he finds there is no work. He has spent money on the bus fare, so he walks home to save the £2 and so that he can spend something on food. By Friday, this pattern has continued, so he has only had two days’ work and has had to walk home every day.

This young man is tired, he is anxious, he cannot save and he does not contribute to his local economy, beyond paying rent and buying the bare minimum of food. He dare not speak up, and he does not have a trade union to represent him, because his employer has warned him against joining one. His employer regularly pays late and less than he was expecting. He does not get training and does not develop his skills, and therefore he feels no loyalty to his employer and has no motivation to increase his output. His health, both mental and physical, suffers. He contributes little to the local economy, and he barely manages to get by. And we the taxpayers are subsidising these poor employment practices because we have to top up low wages. We the nation suffer, as economic growth remains stagnant, insecure or unstable.

In Bristol West, we have employers who understand that, and there are some who invest in training and skills and do not employ staff in such low-wage, poor and insecure conditions. If the Government wish productivity to increase, they could start by encouraging, enabling or, if necessary, requiring employers to treat their workforces with respect, to pay them properly and invest in them. They could also invest in the infrastructure that we all need to ensure that employees can arrive at work on time, healthy, educated and decently housed. If the economy is picking up, as the Government claim, no business should need to resort to zero-hours contracts.

If the Government do their part and invest in transport, health, housing and education, businesses should do theirs. They should not rely on the taxpayer to pick up the tab, or on exploited workers to accept such poor conditions. That would help businesses as well, as was pointed out earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Croydon North (Mr Reed), as well as other Labour Members. I urge the Government to invest in that infrastructure, and also to draw attention to the excellent businesses—in Bristol West and beyond—which treat their workers properly, and do not use zero-hours contracts. They must encourage businesses who fail to treat their workers with humanity to change their employment practices, and help them to recognise the business benefits to their own output of doing so. That will increase worker productivity, which in turn will lead to sustainable economic growth throughout the country.

Worker productivity is directly affected by conditions of employment. I urge all businesses, and the Government, to take seriously what Labour Members know is true. Many of us have spent our lives campaigning for better conditions in workplaces. I urge the Government to end the scourge of exploitative employment practices, particularly zero-hours contracts and insecure pay.