Vicky Foxcroft
MP for Lewisham North · Labour · United Kingdom
“The commission gathered evidence from academics, youth workers, educators and, most importantly, young people themselves. It showed how many different factors influence a young person’s life.”
“Young people are our future. They are the future politicians, technicians, writers, sportspeople, physiotherapists or whatever they want to be. The laws, policies and funding that we put forward must help in building their future.”
“Strong mentors and trusted adults can deliver a change in attitude and get someone on the path towards a better future. Access to sport, youth activities and culture, improves a whole variety of outcomes. However, Government must go further with their ambitions.”
“I declare an interest: I have not smoked for more than a decade, and I vape. Does the Minister agree that we have to be careful that the language we use does not discourage people from changing from smoking to vaping? Vaping has been shown to be successful in getting many people to stop smoking. The health benefits are there.”
“Q10. Housing is one of the biggest issues in my constituency. Lewisham council is working hard to improve things, and is bringing its housing stock back in house.”
“I completely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has articulated so well. At the time, some saw this as a controversial topic for a private Member’s Bill—I am sure there have been more controversial topics since. [ Laughter.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Vicky Foxcroft, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“One of my constituents and his partner have two young children, one of whom has a medical condition. In August last year, they were charged £778 for gas and electricity—18 times the bill of £43.15 from the previous February. My constituent is living in fuel poverty and struggling to feed his family. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that families requiring high energy usage medical equipment do not fall into fuel poverty?”
“My office deals with outstanding asylum cases week in, week out, as I am sure do those of many MPs up and down the country. Despite promises that the situation would improve, we are still waiting an unacceptably long time for updates from the Home Office. Why is there nothing in the Bill to address the fact that 160,000 people are currently awaiting a decision—a 60% increase on the previous year?”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and I have asked numerous written questions about the shocking 461% increase in the number of personal independence payment claims disallowed for the non-return of the AR1 review form between 2017 and 2021. The Minister, sadly, has no idea why the increase has happened, or by extension whether vulnerable people are being left struggling to manage, as the Department does not collect information on the reasons for the non-return of the AR1 form. So I ask the Minister again today: when will he take action to investigate this issue?”
“I hope the Government will continue to build on this legislation and, more widely, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to deliver a strong, co-ordinated cross-Government approach to domestic abuse.”
“The Government must do all they can to equip them with the tools they need to move forward with their lives, including on the vital issue of financial stability. I will finish on a quick point about enforcement. Currently, very little appears to be done in cases where the paying parent does not meet their obligations. In cases of domestic abuse, that may leave already vulnerable victims and their families destitute. Although that falls slightly outside the direct scope of the Bill, I would be grateful for reassurances from the Minister in this area. Despite those continuing concerns, I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye wholeheartedly on getting it through to this stage.”
“More widely, I call on the Government to ensure that victims of domestic abuse feel as safe as possible when using the CMS. Organisations such as Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse have called for statutory guidance to set out the training CMS staff receive on domestic abuse, and in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley pushed the training point. The Minister responded with robust promises that CMS processes and procedures have been strengthened substantially and that caseworkers are equipped with a toolkit to support customers experiencing abuse. I am sure we have all dealt with domestic abuse cases in the course of our constituency casework and seen at first hand how difficult it can be for victims to leave.”
“Member for Hastings and Rye stated: “The aim is to produce evidence requirements that are sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse victims and that have been carefully evaluated and tested.” She went on to state that she had received assurances that the Department will work with colleagues in the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and others “to ensure that the definition of domestic abuse is consistent…across Government.” –– [ Official Report, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2022; c. 4.] I take this opportunity to stress, as we have at all stages of the Bill, that it is vital for Ministers to get the evidence requirement right, as the effectiveness of the Bill hinges on it.”
“9.] That is encouraging, but I again stress our view that victims of domestic abuse should be exempt from paying the 4% fee. I am aware that they are exempt from paying the £20 application fee, which is absolutely right, but they are then effectively penalised every month simply for using a service that stops them having to have contact with their abusive ex-partner. I hope we can all agree that that is grossly unfair. Colleagues have mentioned the evidence requirements, which will be set out in secondary legislation. In Committee, the hon.”
“This will, I am absolutely sure, come as a huge relief to many. However, the Opposition remain concerned that there is still outstanding work to be done. On Second Reading and in Committee, Opposition colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed the Department on the 4% charge payable by the receiving parent where collect and pay is used, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) has also raised that issue. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the Government are “willing to consider…where exemptions may be appropriate”. –– [ Official Report, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2022; c.”
“It is a genuine pleasure to respond to this debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing this important Bill to the House and on all her hard work in this area. We fully support the Bill and see it as a welcome step in the right direction. Like colleagues before me, I pay tribute to the many organisations who work tirelessly to support victims of domestic abuse and who have campaigned on this issue, particularly Refuge, Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse. As we have heard, the Bill—which I know is fully supported by the Government—will make important changes to legislation to allow the Child Maintenance Service to collect and make payments on behalf of victims of domestic abuse without the consent of the ex-partner.”
“I thank the Minister for her commitment to look into the issue and that it will be done in future. Can I press her further to give us some idea of when that might be?”
“I am worried that the Minister did not listen to concerns about the Southeastern timetable from both sides of the House. I travel from St Johns and every single day there are delays and overcrowding. The timetable changes were not consulted on. It is good that Ministers announced some changes, but why not reverse them all and do the right thing? The service was better before.”
“On 2 December, the Government announced that it would publish and consult on their disability action plan. Does the Leader of the House know when that will be published? When it is published, will the Leader of the House commit to providing a debate in Government time on this very important piece? If not, perhaps the Leader of the House might want to explain why not.”
“At my surgery, I met a constituent who is a teacher at a SEND school. She broke down in tears as she told me how they are struggling to support their pupils because their budgets are stretched to breaking point. In Lewisham, increased need is costing £5 million a year more than the council’s SEND budget. When next week—if I heard that right—will the Government finally follow up on their Green Paper and publish their plans to fix this mess? Those vulnerable children and their families need proper support.”
“With that in mind, I ask the Minister to provide an update on what the Government are currently doing with the HSE to ensure that all workplaces in the UK are asbestos-free. On a wider point, I—and others, I am sure—would appreciate an update on what steps are being taken by the Department to ensure that the HSE is sufficiently funded, especially given that it has had substantial cuts under successive Conservative Governments — [ Interruption. ]”
“Just last month, it was announced that teaching unions will be working with cancer experts on a study examining the exposure of female teachers in their late 40s to early 60s to asbestos in school buildings. Official data has already shown that female teachers and former teachers born from 1935 to 1954 have a 40% increased rate of the cancer. Researchers have now detected a possible increase in deaths among the younger age group that could be statistically significant. A 2019 survey found 80.9% of participating schools reported that asbestos was still present on their estate. Although asbestos is, of course, not necessarily a danger if handled correctly, that statistic seems worryingly high.”
“As colleagues are aware, before the dangers of asbestos were known, it was frequently used for insulation, roofing and flooring in commercial buildings and homes. Its use was banned under the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, but buildings constructed before 2000 may, of course, still contain asbestos. Those who worked in industries such as building and construction, particularly from the 1970s to the 1990s, may therefore have been exposed. It is not only those who actively worked in those industries who are affected; people who worked in buildings containing asbestos are also at risk. One notable example is teachers.”
“Both sets of draft regulations uprate the amount payable by 10.1% from April 2023, in line with the consumer price index rate of inflation in September 2022. I recognise that there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates, and I am glad that the Government continue to realise the importance of supporting people with these diseases. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that 12,000 deaths each year are linked to occupational lung disease. Colleagues will be aware of the impact that these awful diseases can have on victims and their families, and I am sure they will join me in paying tribute to organisations such as Mesothelioma UK, the British Lung Foundation, Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK, which do a fantastic job of providing ongoing support and information.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations. As he set out, the mesothelioma regulations amend the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and the pneumoconiosis regulations amend the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. Those Acts make provision for lump sum compensation payments to be made to people suffering specific dust-related diseases or to their dependants, provided that they meet certain qualifying criteria. The 1979 Act was intended to compensate people who had contracted certain diseases as a result of their working environment. The 2008 Act, however, compensates people regardless of whether they contracted the disease through work, thus covering those affected by indirect exposure.”
“As I noted, these diseases are much more likely to affect men, meaning that by default dependants are more likely to be women. I would also be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on any recent equality impact assessment carried out with regard to the disparity between payments. As always, we are happy to support the uprating of the lump sum payments in line with inflation. However, we continue to have a number of wider concerns, and I very much welcome further commitments from the Minister.”
“Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), stated the Government believe that “the funds available ought to be prioritised for those who are suffering most with the diseases—the person with the disease.”—[ Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 23 February 2022; c. 12.] It is somewhat frustrating that we continue to raise the same issues year after year and the Government, although sympathetic, take no action. I ask the Minister to again consider whether the disparity is proportionate and appropriate, given the devastating impact that these diseases can have on individuals and their families, and I request that he update the Committee on the most recent estimated cost of providing equal payments to sufferers and dependants.”
“Previous Ministers have stated they will keep it under review, and I hope that remains the case with this Minister. I continue to have concerns about the discrepancy between the lump sum payments made to victims and those made to their dependants. I will give an example from the 2023 figures. A qualifying individual suffering from mesothelioma aged 60 at the time of diagnosis will receive £50,300; however, a dependant making a claim under the same circumstances would receive only £21,774—that is significantly less than half. At the Committee last year, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) noted that the Government committed to looking at the disparity way back in 2010 and to equalising the situation. In response, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon.”
“Okay. When I spoke at the 2021 Committee on the uprating of these payments, like others before me I asked why the uprating cannot be made automatic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made the very same point last year. The Government’s response is always that that is unnecessary, as the commitment by successive Governments to uprate the payments in line with other benefits has been in place since 2004. Previous Ministers have also noted that these Committees provide an opportunity for discussion of the schemes and support for people with respiratory diseases. Although I take both of those points, it would be preferable to provide certainty to current and future sufferers of these awful diseases through automatic uprating.”
“My constituent arrived here from Syria and claimed asylum in July 2021. He is a doctor and applied to volunteer with the covid vaccination programme, but was turned down because he had no documentation. After more than a year and many interventions by my office, he finally had his asylum interview and was given a job as a healthcare assistant, but that was delayed because he had to wait for his national insurance number. The NHS is crying out for staff. When will the Government sort this out?”
“We know from the Minister and the Prime Minister that the Government have been in discussions with Egypt about ensuring the release of British national Alaa Abd El-Fattah from prison, but little progress seems to have been made. Members of Alaa’s family are in the Gallery today hoping for good news, so will the Minister commit to a meeting with Alaa’s family to discuss at greater length what the UK Government are doing to place diplomatic pressure on Egypt on this matter?”
“Our young people are our future, and we should be investing in them, so I ask the Government to end non-dom status and offshoring, and prioritise the future of our young people.”
“It might seem a modest start, but Labour’s pledge to deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, alongside our promise to remove legal barriers to councils opening new childcare facilities, will be an important first step on the route to delivering a modern childcare system. Although our schools and other breakfast club providers try to keep their costs down, as the cost of living crisis continues to bite, too many families are struggling to afford childcare. That forces many to cut back on their hours or even to leave the labour market altogether. As well as enabling parents to work, breakfast clubs have been found to be good for children’s social development and to encourage healthier choices. I am sure that we have all been told at one time or another that just having a good breakfast helps with concentration.”
“We held a series of evidence sessions in Parliament and worked with academics and practitioners to produce our full report in 2020. The early years of a child’s life can have significant long-lasting effects on their life course trajectory, affecting everything from physical and mental health to skills development. Many of the witnesses emphasised to the commission the importance of the early years, and a point that came up time and again was the importance of early intervention. Witnesses spoke at length about the links between early childhood experiences and the likelihood of being involved in serious violence later in life. One of the report’s recommendations was for further investment in programmes that help to prepare parents for parenthood and provide support in the early years of parenting.”
“In a modern society it is ridiculous that we still have so many loopholes for people paying tax. If people live and work here and benefit from our public services and our society, they should contribute fully in their taxes. As colleagues have said, the Tory Government have failed to close the non-dom tax loophole and are instead choosing to raise taxes on working people. However, I do not want to focus my time on restating the arguments already presented. Instead, I will speak about how the revenue created by the abolition of non-dom tax status would be used to benefit our young people—headline-banging stuff. As colleagues may recall, in 2016 I set up the cross-party Youth Violence Commission, and we spent the next four years examining the root causes of youth violence in our search for solutions.”
“I recall in particular one member who had MS and had to work with bank notes, which triggered her condition. Rather than looking into redeploying her to a more suitable position, the employer sought to dismiss her. To add insult to injury, she was a trade union rep herself and had often stood up for other members. Sadly, the laws this Government are seeking to water down further did not protect her.”
“I declare an interest as a proud member of Unite the union and GMB. It is great to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). May I start by saying how outrageous it is that we have only five hours to debate this extremely important and dangerous legislation? As has been mentioned many times before, there have been well over 100 amendments tabled to the Bill, showing its numerous flaws. In the brief time I have, I will touch on a few. First, on the retention of protections against unfair dismissal, as covered by amendment 1, too many people already have very little protection in that regard. When I was a trade union official, I frequently represented members whose unscrupulous employers sought to dismiss employees because they dared to challenge their working conditions.”
“This week, there were media reports that an 87-year-old south London resident has been unable to attend her hospital appointments since Southeastern made changes and cuts to its timetable. My social media is inundated with complaints of overcrowding, cancellations and continual delays on Southeastern services. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the new timetable on reliability?”
“Today a group of nearly 100 charities and other organisations, co-ordinated by Scope, wrote to the Chancellor calling for a social energy tariff to help low-income and vulnerable older and disabled households to heat their homes. A survey for Age UK suggests that 24% of over-60s are living in homes that are colder than they would like, rising to 27% for older people with a disability. Will the Minister commit herself to giving serious consideration to targeted support for those groups?”
“Is that really the kind of Britain of which we want to be part—one in which workers’ freedoms are being restricted to the extent that they could be sacked for standing up for their rights?”
“None of them wanted to see anyone lose their lives because of their action, which was their last resort. They ensured there was a mutual voluntary agreement not through legislation, but through negotiation—something that we all know happens right the way through the public sector. Most worryingly, the Bill does not give any indication of what will constitute a minimum level of service, meaning that the Secretary of State will be able to change that at their discretion. Having stretched public services and the workforce to breaking point, the Government’s solution is to create conditions in which workers can be forced into work and are unable to withhold their labour, no matter what the employee does.”
“First, with a derisory pay offer and then— because the unions have voted to strike, rather than roll over and accept the derisory pay offer—the Prime Minister has resorted to launching a fundamental attack on workers’ freedoms. This Bill is unworkable and impractical. The fact is that minimum service levels do not stop strikes in Europe. Between 2010 and 2020, France lost almost six times as many days to strikes as the UK, and Spain lost more than twice as many. Ironically, we already have minimum service levels in place in the UK. These are negotiated between the unions and the employers. I remember when I joined a picket line with striking firemen and women, and they told me how they had agreed with their employer that, if there was any fire or any other emergency, they would jump into the fire engines and be straight there.”
“Let me start by declaring an interest: I am a proud member of both Unite the union and GMB and, prior to being elected to this place, I worked for Unite the union for over a decade. I know from first-hand experience the amazing work that trade unions do in representing their members in the workplace. Contrary to what some Conservative Members may have us believe, trade unions want their workplaces to thrive. They know that a productive workplace needs a happy, motivated workforce. They know that, when companies make large profits, they can ask for decent pay rises for their members. When workplaces struggle, they will work with the employer to ensure it survives. We all know how public sector workers kept our country moving during the pandemic. They worked night and day to keep us safe, but how does this Government seek to repay them?”
“That is democracy. Trade unions are subject to the most vigorous legislation when they are balloting and trade union money is the cleanest money in politics. Public sector workers are proud of the role they play in society, saving and protecting lives, but they need to be valued and their voices matter. When our NHS workers say they are worried about public health and the NHS, we need to listen, not curtail the right for their voices to be heard. The Government could and should have negotiated with the trade unions to get a decent settlement. They need to listen closely to the concerns that workers across the country have been raising. I thoroughly believe that, when we work together, we achieve better outcomes. Trade union rights are human rights. I defend their right to strike and I will be voting against this Bill.”
“Under this Government, an abysmal one in 100 reported rape cases results in a charge. The Government say that they want to return to 2016 charging levels, but at this rate we are never going to get there. Labour has been calling for specialist rape courts and legal advocates for victims. When will the Secretary of State finally take the action that is needed to secure justice for as many victims as possible?”
“T5. Changes to the eligibility criteria for the warm home discount mean that those in receipt of disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance can no longer claim it. I am sure the Minister will tell me that disabled people are being compensated via the two disability cost of living payments, but new research by YouGov has found that millions of disabled people are spending this winter living in cold and damp homes. What is he doing to ensure that no disabled person has to choose between eating and heating?”
“One of my constituents arrived in the UK from Afghanistan and claimed asylum in September 2021. Despite my caseworkers making regular inquiries since August 2022, we have received no updates regarding the status of his application. He tells us that the situation has made him seriously depressed. Does the Minister agree that excessive wait times can have a hugely detrimental impact on mental health, and will he agree to look at this case in further detail?”
“Lewisham has some of the highest domestic abuse-related crime levels in London and that appears to be increasing. One of the main challenges in capturing accurate pictures of the levels of violence against women and girls in Lewisham is due to under-reporting by victims. A critical issue for my constituents remains the lack of trust in the system, so what are Ministers doing to restore public trust and increase prosecution rates? The low levels of prosecutions cannot continue.”
“Similarly, users at Blackheath station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), just over the border from my constituency, have been hit with the news that there will be no direct services to London Charing Cross during off-peak hours, and many peak trains will also be cut. I will conclude my comments. While the overall number of services might not be significantly reduced, that 1% figure in no way reflects the impact that the changes will have on individual stations and communities.”
“St Johns has had its services reduced in recent years, and the walk to nearby stations—New Cross and Lewisham—is long and uphill for many, causing difficulties for disabled people and those with young children. Lewisham in particular suffers, as has been mentioned by many colleagues, with overcrowding at peak times and a woefully inaccessible station. The situation will only get worse as further large residential developments are completed in Lewisham, as Members have referenced in relation to their own constituencies. When the remaining peak-time trains reach St Johns—the next stop on the line—they might be too full for passengers to be able to join them. There are environmental considerations, too, if people are forced to use their car when previously they would have opted to travel by train.”
“Although I can appreciate the removal of the requirement during the pandemic so that operators could bring in changes more quickly, most Members would agree that we are now at a point at which passenger numbers have restabilised. In response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the Department stated: “There will be less than 1% fewer typical weekday passenger services across the…network compared to the current timetable.” Well, I can tell the Chamber that users of St Johns station in my constituency are expecting to lose 19 services per day thanks to the rerouting of the Hayes line’s trains to Charing Cross. I have received representations from two very active local organisations: St John’s Society and Brookmill Road Conservation Area Society, as well as from individual constituents.”
“It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship for the first time, Ms Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on securing this important debate and on his speech. He has made many key points with which I wholeheartedly agree. Like many colleagues, I have worked closely with local transport users during my time as an MP, and I am here today to share the concerns of constituents who have contacted me following the publication of the amended timetable. As we have heard from many Members, it is fair to say that there has been widespread anger with the Department for Transport for allowing Southeastern to press ahead with the changes without consulting its passengers.”
“There has been quite a lot of talk about Lewisham station, which is in my constituency. I can assure the Minister that Lewisham station is absolutely rammed at times, and there have been humungous safety concerns around it and the rerouting of passengers. We have had many new developments going up in the area. In the spirit of the Minister wanting to do consultations, would he like to come and meet me and Lewisham station’s user group—who are very expert in the rail network and Lewisham station—to hear their views on what might happen as we proceed?”
“Many disabled people are having to make unimaginable sacrifices to keep life-saving equipment running in the face of huge energy bills. For instance, Carolynne Hunter’s 12-year-old daughter Freya requires oxygen for chronic breathing problems, and the bills that she had to pay to keep her daughter alive rose to £17,000. Thankfully, Kate Winslet stepped in and donated the full amount after being “absolutely destroyed” by the family’s story, but disabled people should not have to rely on celebrities to swoop in and save the day. When will the Government finally ensure that all disabled people are receiving the support they so desperately need?”
“It is simply baffling to ask the HSE to take on more following the EU exit. Will the Minister clarify what extra support is being put in place to support the increased workload? I hope the Minister will remember that this SI covers material that must be handled with care. The HSE deserves the proper support to manage the increased workload. Not doing so would leave the public at risk, and that is something I am sure we can agree no one wants. I appreciate the Minister laying this SI before Parliament. As I said, it is one that we will support, but it would be helpful if the Minister could answer a few of those questions.”
“The scale of potential disruption caused by our exit from the EU sits firmly with successive Tory Governments. I hope the Minister can also provide clarification on the extra workload. The Minister will know that the transitional arrangements requiring the resubmission of applications to the HSE have resulted in a one-off influx of simultaneous applications around transitional deadlines, and this has caused a temporary backlog of applications. One of the main reasons for this SI, as the Minister outlined, is that the HSE will not be able to meet the legal deadlines for processing authorisations set out in GB BPR. Why is the Minister asking the HSE to do more with less? In 2010, Government funding to the HSE stood at £231 million; 12 years later, it stands at £178 million. That is a cut of £53 million.”