Catherine McKinnell
MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North · Labour · United Kingdom
“The family of a terminally ill constituent contacted me in desperation last month after trying to resolve the pension issues of their family member since January. She died yesterday, with her pension still unresolved. Can the Minister be more specific for that family about what will be done to resolve this issue?”
“As the UK trade envoy to Italy, I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the GCAP funding in his statement. As MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I add my voice to those who want to see this as an opportunity to genuinely spread investment and opportunity that will build strength and resilience in our people right across the UK—they a…”
“This report is welcome, but that does not make its existence any less tragic. Far too many mothers and babies have been failed, including mothers like my constituent Amie, who late last year was turned away repeatedly, despite reporting reduced movements. Her baby Seren was born stillborn.”
“Failures to address these issues have significant effects, both on the public finances and on the most vulnerable people in society, and, indeed, they are issues that are often reflected in our constituency mailboxes. I was contacted recently by a young woman who had reported child sexual abuse to the police last year.”
“Her husband was the victim of an assault by the defendant, who had raped his wife. They were forced to wait four hours for the trial to begin. They were eventually told that the defendant would arrive and that the delay to his delivery was causing the delay, but it had a knock-on effect on additional days in court.”
“Friend has said, we need a court estate that is fit for purpose in order to maximise the use of these additional days. I too have visited my local court, in this instance Newcastle Crown court.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,961 lines we hold for Catherine McKinnell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 100.
“Estonia may be small, but its determination to defend its hard-won independence is compelling, and it highlights the best of what we can achieve when we work with our partners and our allies. Today, Members have pointed out many of the shortcomings in our defence capabilities, which means, I think, that some of that partnership working is the way forward to ensure that we can meet the growing challenges that we know the world poses. The Government must answer the growing clamour of questions surrounding the UK’s ability to meet our NATO obligations. The delays to the new defence Command Paper are frustrating, because many want to see how things will look going forward. The stakes are simply too high for any wavering in our commitment and any weakening of our capabilities.”
“We also visited the NATO centre of excellence on cyber-defence, an interdisciplinary hub set up shortly after Russia launched its damaging digital attacks against Estonia in 2007. But Estonians do not fear Russia. They stand supported by NATO allies and they have a powerful will to resist. Ukrainian flags fly everywhere in Tallinn. The two countries are intimately linked, and both need our unequivocal support. As the NATO Secretary-General has repeated, Labour wants to see Ukraine on a path to join the alliance, but, to achieve that end, we need to support Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty now. I am proud that Labour has been unshakeable in supporting NATO members in their contributions to Ukraine.”
“That is why Estonia’s support for Ukraine is so steadfast, but it is also why it must think about its own defence; the costs of losing freedom are understood all too well. Indeed, the Estonian Prime Minister’s grandmother was sent to Siberia as a baby during that brutal occupation. Estonia lies between Scandinavia and Russia. It is a vital strategic position on the gulf of Finland, at NATO’s eastern edge. As my hon. Friend said, during that visit we spoke to politicians from all parties, as well as meeting the country’s defence select committee. Their analysis of today’s Russia was bleak but unanimous: they see a ruler lumbered with a lethal mindset of brutality and conquest, and an outlook that is deeply embedded in the wider leadership of the country and unlikely to change soon.”
“Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who also mentioned it. It was a telling visit, because, as many Members will know, Estonia is a country painfully aware of the threat Russia poses. Estonia is a proudly independent nation, but because it has not always been independent it has suffered much in the last century. It had a narrow escape from the Russian Bolsheviks, when it was supported by the Royal Navy, but it then faced occupation under the Soviet Union and the Nazis, and decades of suppression under the Soviets after the war. The occupation stretched for 50 years, from 1940 to 1991, and the daily atrocities that the Estonians faced are well documented in Tallinn’s museum of occupations and freedom—my visit there will stay with me always.”
“First and foremost, in the name of keeping our nation safe and protecting our citizens, which is a duty we all share, I want to pay tribute to those who serve in our armed forces, whether here in the UK or around the globe, and to the vital work they do to that end. I also want to say clearly how important it is that we stand with our allies in support of Ukraine. Unfortunately, we have in the past been too slow to see the dangers to our security and that of our allies. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought a destabilisation of peace in Europe, it has deepened the famine in east Africa and it has fuelled energy and food price rises that we are now all feeling. It is a wake-up call to us all. I recently joined an Anglo-German fact-finding delegation to Estonia, with my hon.”
“I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in their entirety. The visit by President Zelensky today highlights how vital a collective approach is to our national defence and security. To that end, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we have security and defence agreements in place with our nearest allies in Europe, in response to Russian aggression?”
“It concluded that the north-east should no longer be part of the High Speed 2 network or the Northern Powerhouse Rail core network, and declined to commit to finance the north-east’s key ambition of reopening the mothballed Leamside line—a transformational project that would provide a much-needed diversionary route for the east coast main line and connect communities in South Tyneside, Sunderland and Durham to the rail network.”
“The pipeline that was supposed to relate to Network Rail control period 6—I am getting a bit rail technical here—ends in March 2024, so publishing that now would not serve much of a purpose. The Government’s integrated rail plan is the best indicator we have of infrastructure plans for control period 7, which runs to April 2029. Speaking now as a Newcastle MP, I was hugely disappointed by the lack of ambition in the integrated rail plan.”
“When major disruption occurs, it has a huge impact on long-distance passengers, who are sometimes forced to abandon trips altogether, or to make alternative plans. Most concerning is that, if it happens too often, those travellers make permanent alternative plans. That is not only bad for the economy, but for our environment, too. While the impact of poor performance costs us a substantial amount each year, it is difficult to get a complete picture of the status of planned enhancements to improve performance on the east coast main line, or anywhere on the UK’s rail network for that matter, because the Department for Transport’s rail network enhancement pipeline, which is supposed to set it out, has not been updated since October 2019.”
“Research undertaken by the consortium of east coast main line authorities found that, if the number of delays over 10 minutes were halved, it would deliver an additional £62.8 million a year to the wider economy, and more than £600 million over the next 10 years. That is economic growth that our country clearly needs. The line is also particularly prone to major incidents that cause the service to stop running for long periods. That lack of resilience is often evidenced in major overhead line dewirement, but can also be associated with other issues, such as signal failures. We all dread the messages telling us that trains have been cancelled or delayed, or, worse still, have disappeared altogether because the infrastructure is just not there to support the beautiful new fleet of Azuma trains running up and down the east coast main line.”
“The consortium is currently looking at research on changing patterns of travel on the east coast main line; the opportunities for freight, including parcel freight; and the amenities at the different stations along the east coast main line. The all-party group looks forward to working closely with our partners in local government, campaigning for investment on the line. Any user of the east coast main line knows that we have seen challenges of delays and cancellations. Those are caused by capacity constraints and infrastructure shortcomings. Frankly, they hold back the line’s ability to grow its passenger market.”
“Increasing capacity on some of the bottlenecks, particularly in the north-east, is vital, not only for serving the people in my region but freeing up those bottlenecks for the whole line. The consortium of east coast main line authorities—a cross-group of local authorities, combined authorities and Scottish regional transport partnerships—has produced an east coast investment prospectus. I believe the Minister has received a copy, and I am sure he has read it in advance of today’s debate. The prospectus describes how the route supports current and emerging industries along its length, and the investment that will be needed to future-proof the route to ensure it will be able to meet those challenges and, even more importantly, take advantage of all the opportunities that will arise from major rail investment projects in the pipeline.”
“Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the Transport Minister of State, could not be here, but I hope he will be able to reply following the debate, if the Minister here does not have all the details to hand. The east coast main line is of huge importance to the region that our group represents. We represent the entirety of the east coast main line, and it serves huge purpose to my region of the north-east. I must declare that I am wearing two hats: I am here for the line as whole, for which I will make the case, but I cannot help also making the case for the north-east, as it is of such strategic importance to our region. It is the first and last leg of journeys to and from the north-east to almost all other parts of the country.”
“The economic importance of the east coast main line is clear but, shockingly, this vital strategic rail line last saw major investment when electrification was completed in 1991. I asked for this debate to speak on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on the east coast main line, which I set up and chair in Parliament. We campaign together on improving passenger experience, capacity and reliability, as well as economic growth and the huge potential that could be unlocked in the areas served by the east coast main line. In the short time we have today, I will outline who is served by the line, its current shortfalls, and look at some of the details of the Government’s integrated rail plan. I have questions for the Minister that I hope he will be able to answer. Unfortunately his colleague, the hon.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered funding for the East Coast Main Line. It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to have been granted this debate, because the east coast main line is one of the country’s most strategic transport routes, carrying 80 million passengers on their journeys every year, and £30 billion of freight. Stretching from London to Inverness, it provides connections the length of the east coast of our island—from Scotland to the north, the midlands and London—and all the way back up again. One third of the UK population lives within 20 minutes of an east coast main line station. The economies in those communities create almost 50% of the UK’s economic output.”
“One of the most important is the aim to increase the number of trains per hour between Northallerton and Newcastle from six, as currently, to seven or eight. That very welcome project should go some way to improving the long-standing capacity issues between York and Newcastle on the east coast main line, but it is crucial that the package of interventions is funded and delivered as soon as possible—it cannot wait—especially as it would allow us to restore any pan-northern connectivity that may be lost with the expected addition of a third Newcastle to London service in the anticipated timetable changes, which I will come on to later.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a good case on the Leamside line. I congratulate him on the group that has been set up today. He also clearly makes the cross-party case for investment in our rail infrastructure in the north-east and right across the country. The Government have been clear that they do not intend to revisit the integrated rail plan, so those of us that want to see a step change in ambition need to keep making the case for an alternative approach. We would like to see what has been promised in the integrated rail plan actually delivered. In the Government’s words, the IRP promises to provide a “significant package of upgrades” to the east coast main line, delivered in tranches to the mid-2030s.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a good case and also leads on to some other issues, which I will outline in more detail. He succinctly makes the point that if we can tackle some of the bottlenecks on the line, get the right timetable in place and secure sustainable and resilient infrastructure, we can unlock so much potential in our region. I do not think we can shout that enough in the current climate, because we all need to see more growth in the economy, and we would particularly like to see it in our north-east region.”
“We appreciate that there is probably not the time today and that the Minister present may not be apprised of all the details, so we would like to hear from the Rail Minister about coming to meet with us as a group.”
“As the Consortium of East Coast Main Line Authorities has argued, we need to see the development of a pipeline of schemes to deliver against the plan, so that we have not just short-term benefits but medium and long-term ones, and we can build confidence in investment for the future. We need timely and firm commitments to fund those schemes, because that is the only way we will see genuine transformational movement forward on our national rail investment plans. We would be really grateful—we appreciate that the Minister present probably cannot commit to this on the Rail Minister’s behalf, but we would like him to anyway—if the Rail Minister could meet the all-party group to discuss the issue in more detail.”
“What we need to know from the Minister today is when they will happen. The Department for Transport is in the process of reviewing all rail projects, so the Minister will understand that there is considerable concern about the commitments made in the integrated rail plan and about whether any of those related to the east coast main line will end up being cut back or cancelled. The plan puts a heavy caveat on the realisation of those enhancements, stating that they are all contingent on a successful business case, in line with the DFT’s usual appraisal process. In practice, that means there are no guarantees. We do not want warm words that are not delivered. We also really warn against a piecemeal approach to investment, because it just does not work.”
“Station and junction upgrades are also mentioned for Newark, Doncaster, York and Darlington, but we do not have many details and we would like to see more from the Government. Outside the integrated rail plan, the east coast main line is also getting a roll-out of digital signalling, known as the European train control system. It will go from King’s Cross to the south of Grantham, creating opportunities for greater flexibility in operation and enhancements in capacity. I am looking forward to visiting King’s Cross station with colleagues from the all-party group to see first hand how the system works. Although I was disappointed with the overall level of ambition in the integrated rail plan, there are clearly important proposals that would benefit the east coast main line, and we all want to see them delivered.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for demonstrating that this issue has cross-party support and that it is not all about the north-east. I cannot help speaking for the north-east because it is where I am from, but there are so many issues up and down the line. If an issue impacts one part of the line, it impacts all of us, so we are much very united in our desire to see a functioning east coast main line from London right up to Inverness. The issue of station enhancement really highlights the length and breadth of our demands of the Government and our wish to see the integrated rail plan fully delivered. The plan talks about extending the four-track railway to end just north of Northallerton station, rather than just south of it.”
“Work on a more detailed outline business case for the loop has begun, so in line with the north-east devolution agreement’s promise of support will the Department commit to contributing financially to the development of the business case? I would happily provide a summary of all my comments. I have spoken in quite some detail, and I really look forward to the Minister’s response. I will just say this in summary: we need an ambitious, long-term plan from the Government. It is not enough to make announcements; we need to see how they will be delivered on, we need to know when and we need to have the promise of funding that will see our east coast main line, from London to Inverness, fully functioning and meeting its full potential.”
“On digital signalling, it is welcome that investment is going into the southern section of the line, with the business case proven. In-cab digital signalling is clearly the future, and Network Rail tells us that it is more efficient and cheaper than traditional alternatives, so does the Minister agree that any future renewals should not be like-for-like but should instead bring modern, digital signalling to the northern sections of the line? In January, the strategic outline business case for the Washington metro loop, produced by Transport North East, was submitted to the Department for Transport. The Minister will be aware that that forms part of the wider project for the Leamside line, which we have already mentioned.”
“Will the Department commit to delivering the integrated rail plan interventions for the east coast main line in full, and will the Rail Minister attend a meeting to discuss progress on that? Why has the east coast main line timetable change stalled? What is holding it up? Is it funding issues? Are there currently enough trains to operate a revised timetable? Will the Government ensure that any further timetable changes are accompanied by an infrastructure plan that deals with the trade-offs that will be necessary with any long-term timetable proposals? The east coast main line’s status as a fast, low-carbon route from London to Edinburgh is hugely important, so will the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to respond to the Union connectivity review and, if so, when?”
“However, the proposed timetable created quite a lot of concerns, so we are stuck in a situation where we have these trains but are not maximising their capacity. One challenge is the chronic lack of investment in the line, which means there are some really unwelcome trade-offs. Where some areas would undoubtedly benefit from the new timetable, others would lose out on a good deal of connectivity. There were a lot of concerns about the level of cuts to stopping services in Morpeth and Berwick. I appreciate the intention to pursue the timetable overhaul, but there have been few signs of progress since it was stalled in May 2022, and no revised proposals have been made public. These are my questions for the Minister.”
“Some may enjoy the history of it, but it does create concerns as something of a relic, and it is entirely unique on our rail network. It is a severe restriction to the operation and planning of the east coast main line and limits the development of services on the Lincoln to Nottingham route. These bottlenecks are not going away any time soon. They will be put under even more pressure when we, hopefully, get the east coast main line timetable changes. Consultations on a new east coast timetable took place in summer 2021, and it was supposed to be implemented in May 2022. It was designed to optimise the service to take full advantage of Network Rail’s £1.2 billion east coast upgrade and the new Hitachi-built Azuma trains.”
“The lay-out of the station hampers the number of crossing movements required. We would like to see commitments on that. Another unresolved constraint is the Welwyn gap, where the railway reduces from four to two tracks between Digswell and Woolmer Green. This restricts service development and presents a reliability issue. Between Huntingdon and Peterborough, the track reduces from four to three, constraining capacity and impacting on reliability, often delaying already late-running services or services starting from Peterborough heading south. Newark flat crossing is another long-standing bottleneck, where the east coast main line and the slower Nottingham to Lincoln line cross each other. It is the last remaining flat crossing in the UK.”
“Long-distance services pass through far quicker than stopping and freight services, so we need extra capacity on the line to allow faster trains to overtake slower freight and local services. The independent Union connectivity review, chaired by Sir Peter Hendy, was published 18 months ago, around the same time as the integrated rail plan, yet the Government still have not issued a formal response. When is that coming? The integrated rail plan has a distinct lack of detail when it comes to enhancement south of York, aside from a reference to removing unspecified bottlenecks south of Peterborough. There are numerous issues here. Doncaster station is a major junction on the east coast main line, with a variety of local and long-distance passenger services and considerable volumes of freight passing through.”
“That has caused huge concern, and an all-party parliamentary group has rightly been established to create a strong cross-party voice here in Parliament. The Leamside line is a nationally significant piece of infrastructure that would divert slow-moving freight from the east coast main line and free up much-needed capacity. The Government recognised the importance of the Leamside line in the north-east devolution deal, but we now need Ministers to get behind the campaign. The Labour party has committed to it, and we would really like to see that commitment from the Government. In Scotland there are significant issues in accommodating levels of service between Edinburgh and Dunbar.”
“Absolutely. The way these things are calculated needs to be looked at as much as the calculations themselves. In the north-east we have long-standing challenges with the way investment decisions are made, and they hold us back from moving forward. We need to see forward thinking on where we put investment, so that it not only meets the demands of today but builds capacity and drives growth in our region for the future. That will then power growth all the way up from the south to the north and onwards to Scotland. Going back to the bottlenecks on the east coast main line, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) spoke of the Leamside line, which we would really like to see. We have seen the effective cancellation of the HS2 eastern leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail, as well as the mothballing of the reopening of the Leamside line.”
“Like many Members, I speak for constituents who have faced more than a decade of stress and misery while seeing their personal finances and their standing in the community completely trashed by the Post Office. The Post Office is a long-standing national institution, and those sub-postmasters and the public deserve so much more than they are getting. Will the Minister be clear today that the Government accept responsibility for this situation, and outline exactly what steps will be taken to put this right? I am talking not just about this scandal but about our Post Office for the future.”
“Q10. I want to thank our police forces, who I know will be working hard across the country this weekend to support the coronation events, but police numbers in the north-east are down 8% since 2010. I know that the Prime Minister is keen on his maths, so here is a sum: if Northumbria police has lost 1,000 police officers since 2010, but gained the funding to put back 615, by how much have the Conservatives short-changed the north-east?”
“It has been a long, slow-developing catastrophe, and the Government must make up time by sticking to their previous commitments and spending their aid—our aid—wisely. If once again the rains do not come, more people will die. It is that simple. In this cold, hard reality, the urgency of this cry must be heard.”
“We can also use the UK’s £11.6 billion international climate fund to ensure sustainable, resilient food systems that are better equipped to support local people, as climate change is also being caused by the global north. Countries in east Africa are saddled with unpayable debts. The G20 debt service suspension is still hampered by the predominance of private creditors that are able to hold out from suspending debt. The UK is well positioned to help: 90% of affected countries’ bonds are governed by English law. There is more that we can do to enable these countries to focus their precious, scarce resources on relieving hunger rather than paying unpayable debt. This crisis has not sprung out of the blue.”
“We are spending increasing amounts of money dealing with the consequences of global insecurity, rather than targeting those precious resources on the causes. The international aid budget has also been cut for the past three years, which is a short-sighted approach. I want also to focus on what more can be done. Next month’s horn of Africa conference, which is being co-convened by the UK, offers us a real opportunity to advocate practical, targeted measures to make a meaningful, long-term difference to the region. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the aid must be targeted at local, resilient food systems. Local aid organisations know the needs in their areas best, and empowering them directly with international aid is a win not just in the short term but in the long term.”
“As it persists, more people will look to take that treacherous journey north and will risk falling into the hands of people smugglers. Water scarcity is linked to around 10% of the global rise in migration, and global migration from drought and famine is also set to rise, which means that it is not just the lives of those directly affected and who are making these perilous journeys that will become less secure, but our whole world. That is why the decision to spend three times more international aid in Britain than across the entire continent of Africa is baffling. In practice, that translates to the propping up of our ailing asylum system. Close to 30% of the money spent under Britain’s overseas aid budget goes on projects here in the UK.”
“This is a humanitarian crisis that could have been avoided. In 2011, when famine was last declared in Somalia, the UN said that the warning signs of famine must never again be ignored, but the reality is that those warning signs, which we were told would be acted on, are being ignored once again. Last year, the UK gave just one fifth of the aid provided to east Africa during the previous hunger crisis in 2017-18. The action then helped to prevent the spread of famine and undoubtedly saved lives, yet last week we heard that the aid budget for east and central African countries is being cut by a further £25 million in 2023-24. There are already 3.3 million internally displaced people across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia as a direct result of the current crisis.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the friends of CAFOD, I appreciate immensely the opportunity to discuss this issue today. It is a topic that we must shout about, because we stand on the precipice of an unprecedented sixth consecutive failed rainy season. The lethal combination of the global cost of living crisis, local conflict and climate change-induced drought has led to a humanitarian disaster. We have heard the figures mentioned a number of times, but standing in this Chamber today, we really cannot comprehend that one person is likely to die every 36 seconds in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya because of acute food insecurity. The UN predicts that half a million children are at immediate risk of death because of catastrophic hunger.”
“Last year, Citizens Advice Newcastle saw a 229% increase in the number of people facing disconnection and needing help with energy top-up costs. While today’s announcement from Ofgem is welcome, it will still allow those who are deemed to be at medium risk—parents of children under five, pregnant women and those aged between 75 and 84—to be forced to have prepayment meters installed. What more will the Government do to ensure that vulnerable people will not be forced to have those meters installed and to face living without heat and light?”
“Without proper funding, childcare providers will have to drive up prices, because for every hour that they provide for which there is a shortfall in funding they have to find the money to top up the rest. We must be honest here: it is parents who are picking up the tab, because the hours that parents are paying for cost far more as a result. This really should not have to be said, but crashing the childcare sector and taking money out of the pockets of hard-working parents are the absolute opposite of helping our economy to grow.”
“The provision offered covers only term time—38 weeks of the year—so for the rest of the year parents need to find the money to pay for childcare. The long-standing problem with the Government’s free childcare offer that is already in existence has been baked into these new provisions, with the risk that prices will be driven up even more. The Government acknowledge that we have one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world. According to the Women’s Budget Group, the current provision already falls short by £1.8 billion. The new proposals from the Government have a projected £5.2 billion shortfall—the shortfall is increasing, along with the promises.”
“Even on the Government’s own terms, the childcare entitlement falls short. If it is about getting parents back into work, why are those who want to train as nurses, paramedics, teachers or midwives, and those who want to be apprentices, not entitled to this childcare support? Parents are trapped in low-paid work and low-skilled jobs. They dare not take time out to train because if they do so, they will lose any childcare support that they might be entitled to. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I know that childcare is an issue that has been raised with us time and time again, with thousands and thousands of petitioners signing petitions calling on the Government to think again. Although the Government do seem to have finally listened, it is far from job done.”
“Some 80% of families earning less than £20,000 a year will not benefit from any of these entitlements—only one in five will. The north-east has the highest rate of child poverty in the country. One in five children live in workless households, and 38% of children live in households where someone has a disability, which might mean that they are unable to work. Yet those children will not receive any of this entitlement. We know that the poorest children are, on average, 11 months behind their peers when they start school. Leaving them out of this policy will just embed that inequality further. I fear that the policy confirms what we already know: levelling up is no more than a billboard announcement. If we scratch the surface, we find that there is very little underneath.”
“Those numbers are as true now as they were before the Budget, because although the £1 billion tax cut for people making large tax savings on their pensions comes into effect straight away, the implementation of the free childcare arrangements is still a long way off being delivered. Parents will not receive the full benefits of the scheme until September 2025; a child who is two today will not see any of that entitlement. The policy also risks embedding inequalities and widening the attainment gap. I worry that the Government are missing an opportunity to truly tackle the issues that are dragging growth in our economy, by not supporting parents into work, and are compounding the inequalities in our society, which are also holding people back from reaching their full productive potential.”
“The Chancellor heralded these proposals two weeks ago as “a Budget for growth”, and thank goodness, after 13 years of a stagnating economy and with the OECD confirming that we are the only G20 economy that will shrink this year, with the exception of Russia—what a record. It is completely shameful. I want to talk about the proposals on childcare and the extension of the free childcare entitlement, which is aimed at boosting growth and getting more parents of young children, particularly women, back into work. That is a welcome ambition. At the moment, about 1.7 million women are prevented from taking on more hours of paid work due to childcare issues, representing an estimated loss of £30 billion to the economy every year.”
“However, if they sign up with a private childcare agency, of which there are currently six in the country, all listed with hyperlinks to their websites on the Government website, they will get a double bonus of £1,200. I asked the Prime Minister why the Government are driving people to go through an agency rather than sign up directly with their local authority. The answer I got was: “I think it is a reflection of the fact that it is through intermediaries, so there are additional costs.” That rather sums up how backward this policy is; there is £10 million allocated to it, and we could get two for the price of one if we cut out the middleman. Why the Government are doubling bonuses for people who sign up with agencies, I do not know. The Prime Minister has promised to write to me with answers and I eagerly await his response.”
“of nursery and pre-school staff have said that they are likely to leave the sector if their childcare provider increases the ratios. They are already underpaid and under pressure. Adding another child into the mix will only tip them over the edge. That will not help the Government’s target of finding 39,000 extra childcare staff to meet the needs of the new provision. That explains the delay in bringing it in, because the Government face a mammoth task to build up the workforce. The only attempt I can see to tackle this—other than reducing the ratios, which people have said and I believe will have the opposite effect—is giving bonuses to prospective childminders. Here is the deal: if someone signs up as an individual, as people have for many years, they will get a bonus from the Government of £600.”
“Significant investment is required in training to enable staff to manage that larger workload. Furthermore, comparing us with other countries that have much higher regulatory and training standards for their early years education staff is just a false comparison. I urge every Member to listen to parents such as the Steepers, who, tragically, lost their son while he was at nursery. They brought a petition to Parliament to raise awareness of the danger of increasing the ratios, because they are desperate that no parent will ever face the same pain. Nobody supports a reduction in childcare quality or safety, but many warn that that is what these changes will bring. The risk is as well that it will only compound the current challenges in the early years workforce, who are leaving in their droves. Seventy five per cent.”