Self-employed Persons: Financial Support

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend wants us to get on with it. I refer him to the meetings and the considerable work being done to allow us to get on with it. As a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, he well knows that many policy ideas start with the simple but then the devil is in the detail of delivery. I recall many an interview that he has given to draw attention to simple schemes that were then less simple in their delivery. It is worth bearing in mind that a small number of self-employed people—a very small proportion—might be doing quite well in the current climate, while many others are suffering, but that is not what we are focusing on now. The question that we are seeking to address is how we target our measures at those who are most deserving, which is what the attention of the House is focused on, and we need to ensure that the scheme that is brought forward does likewise.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Years ago, I read in the newspapers that there was a red Ed in the House of Commons; I did not realise that it was the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).

I, too, will try to strike a conciliatory tone in talking to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Obviously, there is very real concern. Like other hon. Members, I have been bombarded with emails from people who are self-employed. When this crisis is over, we should really sort out who is self-employed and who should be directly employed, but that is a debate for another time. Countries such as Norway, Denmark and Belgium have come up with schemes for the self-employed; is he looking at those international examples? Surely what works in those countries can work in the UK. There are 330,000 self-employed workers in Scotland, working in areas such as the creative industries, agriculture, forestry, fishing, construction, and as taxi drivers. Are the Government looking at increasing weekly sick pay from £94.25 to the equivalent of a week’s pay at the real living wage? Are they considering removing the lower earnings limit for qualification for sick pay to ensure that everyone can access it? Are they looking at ending the five-week wait for universal credit, so that the first payment is a grant—a real payment—and not a loan?

[Steve Barclay]

On the issue of advance payments and universal credit, the Chancellor has increased the standard allowance. That is not the total quantum that people will get; I referred earlier to those with children, housing needs or a disability, who would get more. We have also made changes to access, so that people can get payment quickly, from day one, without face-to-face meetings. Concerns about subsequent repayments have often been raised in the House, but clearly, the £20 a week increase in universal credit that has been announced eases some of the repayment issues; it means that there is more in the allowance with which to address the issue of repayments. There has been a significant increase in universal credit, in part to address those issues. There is some operational complexity around a shift to a grant system because of the way that the universal credit IT system has been set up. We have sought to address the concern to which the hon. Gentleman refers through the increase, and of course an advance can still be offered.

Changes have been made to facilitate statutory sick pay being paid from day one, and changes have been made in respect of employers with 250 or fewer employees; the Chancellor set out measures to support those businesses with those costs.

The hon. Gentleman made a point relating to what I said about simplicity in a previous answer. Let me clarify the point that I was making. The vast majority of people who are self-employed are suffering; we recognise that. We are looking at how we can design a scheme that addresses the operational challenge that Members have spoken about.

Let me give an example. Part of the merit of the scheme that the Chancellor set out on furloughing members of staff, which is, I think, for many people a new concept, is that it gave clarity about delivery of the scheme. In answer to the previous question and the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are looking at what is operationally deliverable quickly; what recognises other challenges in the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere; and what will not result in support going to a small proportion of people who should not be getting this targeted action, and instead allow us to focus it on the much larger cadre of people who deserve that help.

Loan Charge 2019: Sir Amyas Morse Review

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Let me first congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on his brilliant introduction to this issue and on standing up for the victims of this scandal—and it is a scandal. I am a proud member of the all-party parliamentary loan charge group.

Two constituents, Fraser Kennedy and Jason Millington, have been in regular contact about this issue. Indeed, one Monday morning, as I was travelling down to Westminster, I got the fright of my life when I saw the number of Twitter notifications I had. It surprised me because it had been a quiet weekend, so I knew I had not said or done anything particularly controversial—at least not that particular weekend. It was a tweet from Jason Millington, who said that what had kept him going was that he had the support of me and so many other MPs in fighting this injustice.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on avoiding controversy and recommend that for all Scottish National party MPs.

I have had two constituents get in touch and I have tried to make representations on their behalf, because they found themselves in a situation that they absolutely did not intend to be in because of the information that they were given. Does this not show the importance of constituents getting in touch with us? I understand from the people running the all-party parliamentary loan charge group that there may be more such constituents out there, and it is very important that they contact their MPs so that we can give them tailored advice and support.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is right; that is very sound advice. Everyone who has spoken so far today has been a credit not just to the House, but to their constituents, because there are far too many people—such as my constituents, his constituents and others—who are in despair because of this issue.

[Richard Fuller]

On the importance of Members of Parliament speaking up, is the hon. Member concerned, as I am, that effectively, HMRC is smearing constituents as tax dodgers and adding to their mental anguish, rather than trying to assist them through this process?

[Chris Stephens]

I am not only very concerned, but angry about some of these actions and what I have heard today about what HMRC is up to. I will speak more about that.

When constituents such as Fraser Kennedy and Jason Millington come to us to discuss this issue, three immediate things leap out at us. This has come up in the debate, including in a fantastic example from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). In this Parliament, we really need to deal with the relationship between an employer and a worker and their status in the workplace, because it really is time to end the bogus self-employment that we have heard about in this debate and in other examples. This needs to be addressed because what this issue has proven is that the wrong people are being targeted.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that when people first come across this issue, it looks like some sort of tax avoidance scheme, and I think it is perfectly natural for someone to think that when it is first explained to them. In the back of my head, when I first heard about it, I thought, “Well, maybe I will approach HMRC as an MP and try to get the same sweetheart deal that Google got only a couple of years ago,” when it paid the equivalent of 4% corporation tax. It seems that there is a disproportionate way that the people who have been caught up in the loan charge are being dealt with compared with other people who can get a sweetheart deal. That is how I thought I could try to deal with it, because if the answer is, “Yes, it is tax avoidance”, then the people HMRC should really be going after are those who contrived and promoted such schemes, because they are the ones who are directly responsible. They should be pursued and punished, and there should not be the blunt instrument that is being used for those caught up in the loan charge.

The third conclusion is, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, that there have been disproportionate actions from HMRC towards the individuals who have been caught up in this and how they feel. My constituent, Fraser Kennedy, sums it up well. His employer, Winchester, assured him and HMRC that it had paid all the tax and moneys, but he is still getting chased by HMRC. He feels bullied and harassed, and is suffering from stress and anxiety because of how it has handled the matter. He believed that it was settled a year ago, but he is still getting correspondence.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member’s speech perfectly sums up the problem for many of my constituents in Eastleigh. So many times, they get a letter and desperately try to get through to HMRC, but there is no constructive dialogue with HMRC. Does he agree that we need a better bespoke team to work with the people affected by these measures?

[Chris Stephens]

I entirely agree. The hon. Member’s constituents in Eastleigh and my constituents in Glasgow South West will have the same feelings about this matter and how they are being treated.

Jason Millington emailed me his thoughts last night, because he knew that the debate was today. He said that he when he was advised of the changes in 2016, he stopped immediately and put his affairs in order, totally unaware that HMRC was looking for back taxes. The requests that are being made are entirely unreasonable. The stress of not knowing how he can ever repay what HMRC is looking for is having a serious impact personally, and indeed professionally. I do not remember the tax avoiders such as Google complaining publicly that they were feeling bullied and harassed, or that they were under stress or feeling anxiety. It seems appropriate to point out, as many hon. Members have, that if the law on tax was changed in 2017, that is when the law should apply from. Going back to 2010 is entirely unreasonable. I support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. All he needs to do is attend to the detail of the Morse report, in which Sir Amyas Morse goes through the efforts made at that time, before and after 2010, in some detail. That is the basis for the judgment that he reaches about the appropriate relief.

[Chris Stephens]

The Morse review also suggests that the main people responsible were the creators of such schemes, who do not seem to be getting chased up to the same extent as those who appear to be the victims of the schemes.

[Jesse Norman]

I take it that the hon Gentleman rightly refers to the enablers and promoters of such schemes. As he knows, I take that extremely seriously, and I have insisted on that point ever since I became Financial Secretary. I will say more about that shortly.

I return to the point that such schemes were contrived tax avoidance schemes that were typically run through an offshore vehicle. A person would receive a monthly amount of pay, often deliberately set at or around the level of the personal allowance to maximise the tax avoided, and above the national insurance lower earnings limit, so as to qualify the person concerned for the national insurance contributions required to receive a state pension. Of course, that did not reflect the person in question’s true earnings because, alongside that payment, they would receive a further top-up payment described as a loan. In many cases, the top-up payment far exceeded—often by a large multiple—the salary element declared for tax purposes.



Those facts are not genuinely in doubt, and all Members who have taken part in the debate have rightly condemned tax avoidance, but I put them on the record again because they highlight how contrived that form of tax avoidance typically was. They also go to the root of the problem.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden raised the issue of thesauruses and dictionary definitions. Let me remind him of the difference between a dictionary definition and a thesaurus. A thesaurus gives an alternate word of supposedly the same meaning. A dictionary definition tries to explain exactly what it is that is being talked about.

The dictionary definition of a real loan is,

“an amount of money that is borrowed…and has to be paid back”.

That accords with our natural experience, as hon. Members will discover if they try to take out a business loan from a bank and not pay it back. If they try to take out a mortgage and not pay it back, they will find the same to be true.

Those loans, however, were not designed to be paid back. They were rather different from loans that might be made to employees that then get written off, on which tax is typically chargeable. They were not designed to be paid back. They were employment income in disguise, so they were subject to tax.

Economic Update

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

That would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who is actively engaged in making sure that we can increase the capacity of our health service to cope with the next few months and is considering a range of measures, but we will do whatever it takes to make sure that we have the capacity we need to help those who fall sick at this time.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Government effectively discouraged UK citizens from entering sectors of the economy that traditionally offer low-paid and precarious employment. Is it the Chancellor’s intention, when he talks to trade unions and business over the next few days, to enter into those discussions with the principle that the wages of those who jobs are under threat, whose shifts have been cancelled and whose hours have been cut will be protected?

[Rishi Sunak]

The Government telling people not to visit those places, or to hold back from them, was based on the advice of scientists and medical experts to ensure that our health as a country is protected. The measures we announced today directly go to help those in those industries to protect those jobs. As I said, we will work urgently with the unions and businesses to see what further measures can be put in place.

Budget Resolutions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for his generosity in giving me those 33 seconds.

It is becoming clear that this will be the first Budget of this financial year. I do not mean that as any criticism of those on the Treasury Bench, but it is clear that events are moving fast. The Government will want to introduce emergency legislation and may seek emergency powers, and it is clear that even the Budget announced last week has already been overtaken by events. However, let me make couple of remarks about it.

First, we will have a wider debate about the loan charge on Thursday, but I was disappointed that there were no more concessions for those caught up in that scandal. It amazes me that people who were caught up in it, rather than those directly responsible for it, are being chased for money. I hope the Government will also be a bit more specific about the measures they want to introduce to tackle the promotion of tax avoidance. I am not the only Member who is concerned about the reduction in staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the past 10 years.

Secondly, the Government committed during the election campaign to maintaining the free TV licence. Given that we are in a period where the main source of information for many people, particularly the elderly and those who live on their own, is television, the Government need to move quickly to take back control of that power from the BBC and give it back to the Department for Work and Pensions and maintain the free TV licence. Over the next few weeks and months, elderly people will need that box in the corner of their living room to get vital information on tackling coronavirus.

[Peter Grant]

The Conservatives have already changed their promise on that. In the 2017 manifesto, they promised to keep the free TV licence. Now they are promising to keep it as long as everybody else pays for it. Surely that is a bit like saying the Government will provide free bus fares for everybody, as long as the bus companies pay for them?

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.

There are a number of challenges that the Government now face. I am not the only Member over the past few days who has had constituents contact them to say they have already seen their hours reduced and shifts cancelled. They are being advised by employers that there will be no work for them, as people are being discouraged from going into nightclubs, bars and restaurants. The work in this sector is traditionally low paid and precarious. I hope the Government will now look at the models introduced by Denmark and Norway to address those issues, and sit down with trade unions and business to come up with a financial model that ensures wages are maintained for those who are low paid and in precarious work, including those on zero-hour contracts. In particular, I hope the Government are considering, as Norway has done, issues relating to the self-employed and carers.

On statutory sick pay, I have been contacted by constituents who are alarmed that some employers, including some large multinational employers, do not pay company sick pay from day one. Some pay it on day four and some pay it on day seven, leaving the state to pick up the tab. Because of the different schemes by different employers, some individuals will find themselves receiving only statutory sick pay from day one, which is not topped up by employers and their particular sick schemes. That will lead to a situation where some people—I am sure I am not the only Member to hear this—feel they will have to make a choice between public health and poverty, and their wages. We really need to look at the rate of statutory sick pay. If there was a European league table, the UK would be either in the relegation zone or not too far away from it. The statutory sick pay of other European countries far outstrips what is on offer in the United Kingdom.

On universal credit, we need to move away from an arrears-based system. The five-week wait, which other hon. Members have mentioned, needs to go now. The first payment should be the first payment. The DWP receives £50 million a month in advances returned from claimants. How much does that cost the Department to administrate and how much time are DWP staff taking on that when they could be processing online journals and other claims? I agree with hon. Members that there should be no evictions for rent arrears during this period and that there should be no sanctions.

I want to end by saying that the Treasury will now need to consider, over the next few days and weeks, whether there should be a people’s bailout. The amount of money the state had to spend on the bankers’ bailout will probably be similar to what it may have to spend to alleviate poverty and to get through the current crisis in the weeks ahead.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

First, I pay tribute to the work the right hon. Lady did, particularly through her chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee, on a cross-party basis to bring transparency to these issues. A key driver behind measures the Government have taken in recent years has been a desire for more international transparency, which is at the forefront of many of the concerns the House has had in the past.

Thanks to UK leadership, more than 100 jurisdictions, including—[Interruption.] I will come on to that. Within the right hon. Lady’s point, and within many of her questions, which I have sat and listened to many times, was a desire for transparency, so it is germane to her point to draw the House’s attention to the UK’s leadership in securing the commitment of more than 100 jurisdictions, including Switzerland and all the Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres, to automatically exchanging financial account information under the common reporting standard. HMRC now automatically receives the details of offshore financial accounts held by UK taxpayers. As I understand it, when the PAC looked at many of these issues, that information was not available to HMRC.

We have also increased the penalties and consequences for those who devise, enable or use tax avoidance schemes. I draw the House’s attention, for example, to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, the general anti-abuse rule and the system of follower notices and accelerated payments, the last of which alone has brought in over £8.7 billion[Official Report, 3 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 6MC.]. Since 2016, HMRC has had a dedicated fraud investigation service to ensure that no taxpayer can get away with tax fraud. I am sure that service will be keen to pick up on points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate.

We are also seeking to ensure that more firms get their tax right first time, because the £35 billion tax gap is not simply one of evasion; as I say, it also includes a significant amount of error. Since last April, businesses have been using the making tax digital service for VAT, which has many benefits: it helps firms to get their tax right first time; it saves businesses time and inconvenience; it cuts the cost of government; and it makes it easier to tackle fraud, error, evasion and avoidance. The impact of Making Tax Digital is forecast to deliver an additional £1.2 billion to 2023-24. Clearly, this plays an important role in reducing that £10 billion element of the £35 billion overall tax gap.

We have also strengthened HMRC with the extra £2 billion invested since 2010 to tackle tax avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

On HMRC’s resources, can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury therefore explain why its wealthy unit currently has 961 members of staff, which is a reduction in 80 posts from its 2018 figure? That would suggest that HMRC could have more resources piled into it to tackle this issue.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member picks up on a point the shadow Chancellor made in his opening remarks about the total number of staff, but the key issue is how staff are deployed and what technology we are using. I was just referring to Making Tax Digital. If tax is being filed through the Making Tax Digital platform, the number of staff that HMRC uses will change; that profile will change. We now have about 25,000 staff dedicated to tackling tax avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance, and the proof of the staffing levels is reflected in the fact that we have a near record-low tax gap—far lower than for many years under the previous Labour Administration.

Since 2010, our criminal investigations have prevented the loss of more than £15 billion and resulted in more than 5,400 individuals being criminally prosecuted and convicted. In 2018-19, HMRC investigations secured nearly 650 criminal convictions for tax and duty fraud, resulting in numerous custodial sentences. HMRC has used billions of pieces of data, combined with analytics, to identify where tax is most at risk of going unpaid and to make tailored, targeted and proportionate interventions. Technology and capabilities have moved on, therefore, but, as I am sure the Financial Secretary will mention later, what continues is the dedication of staff within HMRC, who share the House’s desire to close the tax gap and ensure that people do not evade their responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

First, let me congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) on her maiden speech. I particularly enjoyed her contribution on West Bromwich Albion and the three trailblazers she mentioned. Cyrille Regis and others did blaze a trail for many in our society, but they obviously had to combat some racism too. One organisation that I am involved with in Parliament is the Show Racism the Red Card all-party group, and I hope that she will consider joining it. Again, I congratulate her on her maiden speech.

The importance of this debate is to show how we deal with certain issues as a society. How does a country treat its poorest and how does it treat its richest? How do we treat the vulnerable who are having their benefit payments cut? Public services are under-resourced, infant mortality rates are increasing, and life expectancy is faltering. Then, of course, there is the use of food banks and food aid provision by more than 1 million people. In contrast, there are others in society who benefit from sweetheart deals.

I intervened on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ask him about HMRC’s resources. In fact, I will concentrate most of my remarks on that issue and on how we tackle tax evasion and avoidance. There is absolutely no excuse whatever for HMRC’s wealthy unit—the body responsible for dealing with tax avoidance and evasion—to have had 80 posts cut in one year, from 2018 to 2019. Let me put that into perspective. There are 961 full-time equivalents in HMRC’s wealthy unit, as opposed to the 1,400 full- time equivalents who are hired by the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle social security fraud. Let us contrast the figures. Social security fraud is estimated at £1.2 billion, yet the Department has more resources to tackle that matter than HMRC’s wealthy unit has to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The only difficulty that I have with the Opposition motion is that it underestimates the amount of tax avoidance and evasion that takes place. A report from the Tax Justice Network and the Public and Commercial Services Union estimated that the figure could be as high as £112 billion. When it comes to the actual tax gap and what is missing from the figures, what those on the Treasury Front Bench have not mentioned is the profit-shifting that is going on. Fairly high-profile, large global companies are involved in that activity.

One would think that on an issue such as chasing a large amount of unpaid money, the Government would ensure that the Department was resourced accordingly, and that over the past 10 years, more resources, not fewer, would have been pumped into HMRC. As both the shadow Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) have said, the number of HMRC staff has reduced over the past 10 years from 105,000 in 2010 to 62,000 today—a loss of 40,000 jobs. A Department whose sole responsibility is to bring in revenue should tackle that issue and get some more answers from the Government.

The Government are engaged in the “Building our Future” programme. Frankly, it is a disastrous programme, which has HMRC reducing its offices from 170 to 13 regional centres with five specialist sites. Some of our towns and cities across the UK will lose their largest employer, so where was the economic impact assessment of that programme, and where was the equality impact assessment for employees with disabilities who are being asked to travel more than 100 miles to their new office?

Legislation and regulation are badly needed, but they can work only if HMRC is properly resourced. We cannot have a situation where 14 million people are in poverty. We need real answers and real solutions now. If there are staff reductions as a result of that programme and new staff cannot be attracted, that would suggest that there is, perhaps, a problem with pay and terms and conditions. If that is the case, the Government really need to address those problems. I hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will say a bit more about how HMRC is being resourced, and that if there are resources problems, he will say how we as a House can help tackle those issues.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Economy and Jobs

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The Chancellor’s statement was reckless. I wish him well, as always, but I caution him that the Prime Minister may well be preserving him in his job to take the hit for any trade deal outcomes that go pear-shaped if frictionless trade is not achieved.

I am aware that many new Members wish to make their maiden speeches. It is important that the Front Benchers do not take too long, so I will come to a conclusion. There is so much more to be said about the operation of our economy: about the failure of the Government to effectively address tax avoidance and evasion and money laundering, which infects our financial system; and about the failure, despite the scandals within the City, and within our accountancy and audit systems, to address our failing regulatory structures.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is the shadow Chancellor aware that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ wealthy unit had 1,046 full-time equivalents 18 months ago but now has 961? What does that say about the Government’s approach to tax avoidance and evasion?

[John McDonnell]

The whole process of cuts in HMRC over the years has been a self-defeating one, by which we remove the expertise we need to ensure a fair taxation system and to tackle tax evasion and avoidance.

There is a desperate need to harness our economy effectively, as we will discuss at a later date, and to end our dependence on fossil fuel and to do so much sooner than the inadequate target date of 2050. We will still have some opportunity to address these issues in the run-up to the Budget, but for now let me conclude by cautioning the Government that this Queen’s Speech fails dramatically to demonstrate the sense of urgency and scale of action needed to provide the decade of renewal they promise. Our people have endured a decade of decline. On the basis of what is laid out in this Queen’s Speech and the policy direction laid out so far by the Chancellor, they face not a decade of renewal but a decade of disappointment. We already have had a foretaste of the dangerous politics that disappointment and disillusion creates. We must avoid it, and I ask Members to support our amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on her maiden speech, in which her passion for Stoke-on-Trent was noted. Indeed, I look forward to debating with her how we will get the high streets and main streets of the UK thriving again. I gently suggest to her that gentle encouragement of the Government does not always work, and perhaps sometimes a good kick is required, as I have tried to do in my time here.

I congratulate all those who have made maiden speeches so far, but it was a particular pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who reminded us that this is a Government who cannot run a bong in a brewery. I think that is something that we will find as we test the Government over the next few years.

I want to thank the good people of Glasgow South West for sending me back here with an increased majority and an increased mandate. That just goes to show that positive campaigns can win.

This debate has been marked somewhat with a sense of déjà vu, with Government Back-Bench MPs calling Opposition Members Marxists—I had not heard that for at least six weeks. They were being treated terribly. The groans from Government Back Benchers when the 1950s-born women were mentioned were pretty disgraceful. The Government really do need to address that injustice.

We were treated to a speech by the Chancellor that I can only suggest was a masterclass in Tory buzzword bingo in which all the buzz-phrases were used, rolled into sentences and paragraphs. I was tempted on three occasions to shout, “House!”, as we heard his address. The Queen’s Speech is marked more than anything else by what is not in it rather than its contents. It was very interesting that the Chancellor did not mention how the Government intend to tackle tax avoidance. Let us remind ourselves, as I said in my intervention on the shadow Chancellor, of the current figures for HMRC’s wealthy unit, whose responsibility is to chase tax avoidance by the richest in our society. Eighteen months ago, there were 1,046 full-time equivalent posts in that unit; today, there are 961. Why have 80 full-time-equivalent posts disappeared when we have a widening tax gap? Is it perhaps a recruitment crisis? If so, then perhaps we need to look at public sector pay, and the job needs to attract more people to go to that unit. Is it the terms and conditions? If so, we should be negotiating them with the trade unions. Or are we seeing the unravelling of the HMRC Building our Future programme? All the assurances we were given that jobs would be protected in HMRC are not being delivered as its staff are being asked, on some occasions, to travel more than 100 miles to go to their new workplace.

The Chancellor talked about deregulation, but there is one sector in which regulation is pursued quite rigorously, and that is, of course, the trade union movement. It is rather dangerous of the Government to pursue an attack on the right to withdraw one’s labour. The right to withdraw one’s labour is a human right. Trying to interfere with the right to strike is dangerous. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Government are targeting the transport unions. Why is that the case? Perhaps it is because they are well organised and the Government are trying to reduce their collective bargaining power.

The Government have proposed an employment Bill. I will be reintroducing my Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill. We need to tackle the scandal of zero-hours contracts in this country. As the hon. Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, we need to tackle shift changes at the last moment. We need to simplify the status of a worker. It is unacceptable for someone to turn up at their workplace thinking they have an eight-hour shift, only to be told, “No, you now only have a four-hour shift”, or, “No, we no longer need you today.” Those individuals will have paid childcare costs and transport costs to get to work, only to then be told of those changes. Likewise, people turn up to their work having been told they would have a five-hour shift, then to be told it was a 10-hour shift.

To those who think that zero-hours contracts are voluntary, I suggest that we need to tackle the universal credit sanctions regime, which allows for someone who has given up or refused a zero-hours contract job to be sanctioned. Where is the social security Bill to fix our broken social security system? It is unacceptable that people have to wait five weeks to get their initial benefit. The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I was a member, recommended that we should abolish the two-child limit on tax credits. These are the very real challenges facing people on a daily basis as they try to navigate their way through the social security system. New Members will find that their caseworkers and their constituency offices are flooded with cases in relation to universal credit problems and people trying to get state benefit that they are entitled to.

I shall be opposing the Gracious Speech because it does not address the real needs of the country and does not address the needs of the poor and most vulnerable.