Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker.

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

The words of Benjamin Franklin are as resonant and appropriate today as they were when he uttered them, especially in relation to this Government and their mismanagement of the public finances. The Government are failing to prepare our country by implementing, by their own parliamentarians’ admissions, short-termist policies that risk failure in the long term. They continue to unravel the fabric of our society by pursuing their relentless austerity agenda.

As we come to the end of the Budget debate, there is much to reflect on, particularly after a weekend of turmoil for the “party of Government”. As the Tory party tears itself apart over Europe and its horrible benefits cuts, the most-affected people of our nations have a painful wait to find out how they will be affected by the Tory cuts. The IFS has warned that British voters should “all be worried” about the risk of job cuts and lower wages amid growing concerns of another economic downturn. The Chancellor’s cuts have even been criticised by his own leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson. That the party of Government has the temerity to self-style itself the party of working people is an absolute joke. It has a target to increase the number of disabled people working, yet it cuts employment and support allowance and other supports that enable people with disabilities to find employment.

It is good to see that the Chancellor is taking a lead from the SNP Government in Scotland by cutting business rates, showing that while the Government often lag behind in reacting, they occasionally listen and do the right thing. However, it is important that the system is easy for business to understand and navigate. I have already heard some businesspeople raising concerns about the complexities of working out the rates reduction. Similarly, support for the oil and gas industry is welcome, but the time taken to reach the decision was woeful. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs and investor confidence is faltering. Quite frankly, it is too little, too late. Both the SNP and the industry have called for a proper strategic review of the tax regime for the North sea and our wait continues.

The apprenticeship levy is allegedly designed to help the next generation to get into work, but we are still waiting for clarity on how it will be implemented. I have raised the double-charging of industries such as oil and gas, but we continue to wait for a response.

The Guardian reported after the Budget that IPSE chief executive Chris Bryce described the move to abolish class 2 national insurance contributions as a

“long overdue and welcome step.”

However, he also said:

“The Government missed the perfect opportunity to back self-employed mums by giving them the same maternity pay as employees. This measure was recommended in the recent self-employment review.”

The Chancellor has failed to achieve his own targets on debt, the deficit, trade and exports and has stubbornly failed to listen to calls to invest in the economy.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can appreciate that parts of London would want to come forward as a zone. For example, some of the evidence shows that, in the west end alone, that could be worth almost £400 million a year for the economy, with 2,500 jobs being created. However, it would be for areas to bid to be one of the pilot areas.

London is actually a really good example of how the market drives these things. Even on the days when shops can open for as long as they like, Members may find that, if they wander to the west end in the middle of the week, shops do not open particularly longer hours, so that, by the time we finish in this place, they are not open. Businesses can make that choice; what we want to do is make sure that they have that choice, that it is locally driven and that local residents have a choice as well.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

For the purposes of clarity, will the Minister tell us how the proposals, which we have not yet seen, will assess the impact on premium pay not just in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Brandon Lewis]

I would say to the hon. Lady and to colleagues around the House that, as we put these proposals forward, it is important that we make sure that the key performance indicators that will come back to the House a year after the pilots—we will run the pilots for 12 months—cover a whole range of issues. She makes a fair point, and if it is one of the points she and her colleagues want looked at in the pilots, I am very happy to make sure it is. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asks from a sedentary position whether I am going to use up the entire time, and I would gently say to him that, no, I will not. I am about to conclude, but I would just point out to him that I have been spending much of my time taking interventions from his hon. Friends. I find his comments slightly surprising, bearing in mind that this is not an issue he felt needed voting on in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to make some more progress before I take any more interventions.

The larger retailers that open longer will have to find a way to reduce costs, which means removing the premium for shop workers. Given that the major retailers operate UK-wide, a change in pay and conditions in England and Wales will mean changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. Premium pay on Sundays is viable across the UK because large retailers in most of the UK are restricted to six hours’ opening. The time and a half paid to many shop workers will be under threat to make up for staying open longer across the UK, which, of course, is why this is a UK-wide matter and why it is entirely appropriate that Members from across the UK have a vote on this very important proposal.

Removing time and a half would cost shop staff who work an average shift in Scotland £1,400 a year, which in anybody’s money is a very significant hit, particularly for those on low pay in the retail sector. The proposed changes in England in Wales would have a profound effect on workers in Scotland, and I am glad that the SNP recognises that Scottish workers will be hit. I was a bit surprised when the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) told us in Committee that, while her concerns focused on Scottish workers, the SNP welcomed the additional employee protections in the Bill, which she ascribed to

“the strong and principled action of the SNP”.––[Official Report, Enterprise Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2016; c. 322.]

We will come to how those protections will not do what the Government claim they will, but I am glad that the letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, has had the desired effect. I welcome the SNP’s confirmation that its Members will vote against the Government, and I look forward to them joining us in the Lobby.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I don’t have a choice, do I?

[Hannah Bardell]

On a point of clarity, the hon. Gentleman can read the record for himself, as can members of the public and Members of this House, but we have been very clear. We engaged with all sides of the argument up until the point where we took a decision at our group meeting as part of a democratic process.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. All I will say is that I am glad that she and her colleagues came to the right decision in the end; it does not matter how they got there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak because if I said this in an intervention, I would test the patience of the House by speaking for too long.

When I first arrived in the House, I was told by a veteran that in the House were good men, clever men and those with good grace. I want to pay tribute to the Minister, who has somehow managed to climb the greasy pole while embodying all three qualities. As Members on both sides of the House know, he is an incredibly hard working Minister for Housing and Planning. When were in opposition, I was always quick to praise Labour Ministers, including those who once held a similar position. I will forgive him for the fact that he is sending notes to love bomb the waverers.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). It would have been a shock, from what I know of his 11 years in the House, if he had not led on this amendment today. He is a man of huge principle. Those of us who have been in the House during those 11 years and have heard him speak with huge conviction on such issues will understand why he has led on this amendment and why so many of us support him.

This whole issue is rooted in devolution, the natural direction of which is towards localism. Therefore, at the risk of sounding like the Leader of the Opposition, I want to speak on behalf of my constituents. Mr Kishor Patel was shortlisted for retailer of the year last year. He came to the House of Commons and was the runner-up. He runs Nisa in Toddington in my constituency, where he has opened a number of stores. He is an amazing small retailer. He recently took a derelict pub in my constituency and turned it into a restaurant. He says that he does not want me to support the proposal in the Bill; he wants me to vote against it. His pub is at its busiest, with families enjoying themselves, on Sundays. He is incredibly worried that, if the proposal goes forward and bigger stores can open for longer on Sundays, pubs like his will not stay open for longer, but will fail. It is the business he does on Sundays, when families can enjoy themselves at the local pub, that makes the difference between its being profitable and not profitable.

Mr Patel also does not want me not to support the proposal in the Bill because of the impact on his small high street shops, which are valued by local communities. In my constituency, it is not particularly easy to get out to the big stores, so people depend on small high street stores. However, the situation would be quite different if the big stores were open all day, because people would make the effort to go out to the bigger stores or to travel into London, and that would have a huge impact on local shops in Mid Bedfordshire.

I want to declare an interest in that my family owned a local shop. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned the Trafford centre. When that opened and got busy, the family local shop stopped opening on a Sunday and began to suffer as a result. It is a known fact that small high street shops must constantly go the extra mile to compete with the big stores. They do not have the resources to man their stores seven days a week—and seven nights a week, because the paperwork, the ordering, the PAYE and so on is done while the shop is closed, not when it is open.

This proposal was not in our manifesto. The Bill began in the Lords, not in this House, and the policy has never received sufficient public discussion. If we want to do this, let us put a measure in the Queen’s Speech and let the public know about it properly, and let us have a full consultation and a public debate.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the extension of Sunday trading hours. Since the original proposals were withdrawn by the Government, my colleagues and I have been engaging widely with people and organisations on both sides of the debate. Contrary to media speculation and the misinformation peddled by Government Front Benchers, the SNP has, as we said we would, reached our conclusions on the basis of the evidence that has been presented to us.

There are a variety of views across this House and across the country. I intend to outline my concerns about the effect of the UK Government’s proposals on workers’ rights and benefits in Scotland and the UK. However, I should say at the outset that my SNP colleagues and I have no objection to the principle of extending trading hours on Sundays. After all, in Scotland, as has been said many times, we already enjoy unrestricted trading hours on Sundays. It is important to note that in the past, restraints on Sunday opening in Scotland have existed, but they have largely been social rather than legal. There are, of course, areas of Scotland where there is greater religious observance and Sunday opening hours are more restricted but, in general, the practice of longer opening hours on Sundays, particularly in retail, is now well established throughout Scotland, and some evidence suggests that that has been the case since the late 1980s.

The UK Government’s proposals represent the uniform deregulation of trading hours restrictions across these islands. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but without adequate legal protections, which we and others have called for, the employment protections of workers and their remuneration would be threatened.

The Government’s impact assessment, which was published only this morning, identifies more than 450,000 retail workers across the UK who receive premium pay, but in the 44-page assessment, the Government dedicate just one paragraph to that and dismiss out of hand the concerns of workers and of USDAW. Even now, faced with defeat, the UK Government refuse to offer assurances about premium pay. They engage in ping-pong politics, looking for ways to get the numbers through the Lobby.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend rightly underlines the point that we have always made about the long-term erosion of premium pay. A sham of a pilot has been offered, but does my hon. Friend agree that that cannot address the long-term erosion of premium pay? Nobody participating in a pilot is going to take away premium pay—they will have to wait until the pilot is finished.

[Hannah Bardell]

I entirely agree.

My SNP colleagues and I made it clear in November last year that we would oppose the UK Government’s proposals, and we oppose them now. We challenged the UK Government to think again about how they could provide the necessary guarantees and safeguards to shop workers in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I was pleased that the Government tabled a new schedule in Committee—it now forms part of the Bill, although it is threatened with removal—that sought to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give more explicit protection to shop workers opting out of Sunday work, including protections against such workers being discriminated against. Our Labour colleagues have referred to the legal opinion that they obtained.

SNP Members welcome the extra protections for workers. They show that the UK Government can, when they want to, listen and, on occasion, act to do the right thing. The SNP commissioned its own legal opinion from a leading Scottish silk to examine the protections in detail. We are satisfied that they represent a significant increase in employment protection across the UK, and those protections would not have materialised without the SNP’s opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that if these proposals are passed, they will increase protections for workers in Scotland? Will she also confirm that the arrangements in Scotland and England would be identical, meaning that she will be voting against arrangements that already apply in Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

As I have just said, employment protections will increase, but no Minister has said anything about pay protection, which I shall speak about later.

Low-paid workers might lose out even further if they lose their premium pay. USDAW has expressed significant concern that when universal credit is rolled out in May 2016, any loss of Sunday premium pay by families working in retail would trigger the end of their transitional protection at tax credit rates and they would be transferred to the far lower rate of universal credit. That is an extremely important point.

It is an interesting phenomenon that a greater proportion of lone parents work in retail on Sundays than on any other day of the week, yet if one of those lone parents was to lose their premium pay and to be transferred to the lower rate of universal credit, they would have over £2,000 less in their pocket. I and my SNP colleagues are not prepared to gamble with the pay packets of some of Scotland and the UK’s lowest-paid workers.

Moreover, it is an obvious point, but the erosion of premium pay as a result of Sunday trading hours is a real threat not just to Scottish workers, but to shop workers across the UK. We said ahead of the 2015 general election that the SNP would be a progressive force in Westminster and that we would work with others to pursue progressive policies and protect the most vulnerable—and not just in Scotland, but across the UK. In voting against these ill-conceived measures, that is exactly what we are doing. We in the SNP do not just write our manifesto commitments down; we actually deliver on them.

Although the crux of our argument is about the erosion of premium pay, there is a wider debate going on. We should focus our minds on the wider issue of fair pay. In my maiden speech, I spoke about the importance of decent pay for decent work, and about my own family heritage, being from mining and shop worker roots. My grandfather was a miner and believed firmly that no worker should have to seek overtime to make ends meet. Therefore, while we must protect the premium pay of the lowest paid, we should also be continuing the fight for fair pay for the lowest paid in our society. That means a real living wage, not the fake one dreamt up by this UK Government.

We have challenged the UK Government to give assurances and to provide safeguards for the provision of premium pay in Scotland, and they have failed to do so. There is not a single clause in the Bill, or any sentence that any UK Government Minister has uttered in our proceedings on it, that is significant enough a reassurance that Scottish shop workers, and indeed shop workers across the UK, will not lose out because of a lack of protection for their traditional rates of pay. We will oppose anything that puts in doubt the premium payments that lower-paid shop workers in Scotland have for Sunday working.

[John Stevenson]

The hon. Lady is banging on about fairness. Is it fair for a business in Scotland potentially to have a competitive advantage over a business that is 9 miles away?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. What is not fair is for the UK Government to bring in provisions that will have a knock-on impact on Scottish workers and reduce wages. It is on that basis that we oppose them. The UK Government have had time to bring forward the necessary safeguards and guarantees that there will be no detriment to shop workers in Scotland or the rest of the UK, but they have failed to do so.

There is a fundamental point about process and respect for Parliament, its Members and the constituents we represent. We owe it to our constituents to do our business in a manner that is fair, open and transparent. The Secretary of State and the Minister should listen to that. The way in which the provisions have been shoehorned into successive Bills as a last-ditch slapdash amendment is appalling. The Government should do their business better if they want to command the support of the House or the UK public.

The UK Government have left it to the last possible moment to publish the impact assessment and the family test, and they would not devolve employment law to Scotland. For that reason, and for the good of shop workers across Scotland and the UK, and the 450,000 of them who receive premium pay, my SNP colleagues and I will support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) to remove the Government’s proposals from the Bill.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 19, which I suggest is a workable compromise. As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I met Treasury Ministers to try to understand the reasons why the Government wanted to change the original compromise of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I was told that there were two principal reasons: first, to address the demise of the high street; and secondly, the need to remain competitive with neighbouring countries, notably France.

Online shopping was cited as the principal cause of the recent demise of the high street, but longer-term competition from out-of-town shopping centres has also caused that demise. I doubt very much that keeping shops open longer on Sundays will stop people shopping online. Anyone who has been shopping with their teenage or young adult children will know that they go to the shops to look, and say, “Mum, we won’t buy it here because there’s an online discount.” Rather like Canute, we will find it very difficult to turn back the tide.

Small Businesses: Tax Reporting

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I hope that hon. Members agree that we have seen a coming together across the political divides on a number of issues today. There are many shared views about the concerns that are out there.

I pay tribute to Paul Johnson, who created the petition, which, when I last looked before leaving the office today, had nearly 110,000 signatures. That is a sign of the strength of feeling to which hon. Members have referred. It is also important to pay tribute to the work of the Petitions Committee in ensuring that there are opportunities for the public to respond to and feed into Government policy. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) mentioned the engagement on Twitter; the more we can open up our politics, the better.

It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that it is Burns night tonight and, for those hon. Members who did not know, Robert Burns worked in the Excise—

[Rob Marris]

He was a socialist.

[Hannah Bardell]

Yes. What we have heard today is a call for the Government to reflect on the plans and on the pace of development. I am able to find a Robert Burns quote for every situation, and he once said:

“Dare to be honest and fear no labour.”

I commend those comments to the Government.

The contributions to the debate, across all political parties, have been insightful and thought-provoking, but while the Scottish National party supports digital transformation and recognises that it is absolutely key in all aspects of our society, we believe that it must be done in parallel with a simplification of tax policy. We feel that the Government’s lack of consideration about how the changes will work in practice flies in the face of the commitments they have made to simplify tax for small businesses. I believe that the Chancellor said that his “dream” was

“that people might actually understand the tax laws which they were being asked to comply with.”

Some time ago, the Government also said:

“We need to reduce the complexities in our tax system and the coalition is committed to delivering that goal.”

I hope, and assume, that the Government are still committed to that goal, but I think we have heard from hon. Members across the House today that people are not convinced about that.

I highlight again that a key concern across rural parts of Scotland and, I am sure, the rest of the UK, is weak digital infrastructure and connectivity. We appreciate that there has been significant investment by the UK Government, and we commend them for that. In Scotland we have also made a significant investment—£115 million, to be spent in the next year—against a challenging financial backdrop. The overarching issue for us is that we want small and medium-sized businesses to thrive and develop in rural parts of Scotland, but connectivity and infrastructure are not developing apace with that potential and with the proposed changes. Along with people from across the political divides, I urge the Minister and the Government to include that issue in the consultation and map out the weak areas of connectivity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is not here today, recently highlighted a grave concern in his constituency. Thousands of houses and premises there lost connectivity over Christmas, which affected their businesses. If that were to happen regularly, one can only imagine how the changes might affect people. To give an example, a good friend of mine owns a bed and breakfast in the port town and fishing village of Mallaig. For some time he had a satellite on the side of his house—I do not know whether he still does—which provided mobile coverage to Rum, which is one of the Small Isles. There happened to be a storm one winter, and the satellite was knocked off. The whole island lost connectivity for a number of weeks. That is a small but important example of how connectivity is delivered in some of the rural parts of our United Kingdom and across the isles.

Many businesses and groups have argued that the proposals for digital accounts and quarterly reporting will make the requirements on small businesses more complex. The Federation of Small Businesses has condemned the UK Government’s failure to publish initial options for the form that the quarterly return will take, which has not been defined. A number of Members have mentioned that. The FSB has said:

“As such, the announcement runs completely contrary to evidence-based policy making, which only serves to undermine businesses’ confidence that Government is determined to tackle the administrative burdens of small business.”

Additional research has shown that on average, businesses pay £3,600 a year to comply with tax arrangements. The additional burden could have a significant impact.

The FSB has provided us with comments that its members made between 15 and 17 December last year in response to the proposals. One said that instead of making the lives of small business owners as simple as possible,

“HMRC should be pursuing the large businesses that do so very well out of not paying the taxes they are due!”

That is particularly resonant given the urgent question earlier today. Another member said:

“This is my worst nightmare come true. I am going to be spending more time filling out tax returns than actually running the business. I fear it may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

An accountant said:

“I totally disagree with your comment that ‘it’s good for accountants’. As a professional accountant nagging those late clients to bring in their records and other information to beat the January deadline, having to do this now 4 times a year would be our worst nightmare come true. It would be January four times a year with no doubt penalties and interest for those that are late in filing the quarterly returns.”

I hope the Minister will take those comments on board and think carefully about them.

Many bodies have echoed the concern about the additional workload that the new reporting requirements will place on businesses. Chris Jones, the president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said of the quarterly reporting requirement that he was

“struggling to reconcile this with the announcement by the Chancellor…that the annual cost to business of tax administration will be reduced by £400m”.

Similarly, Anthony Thomas, chairman of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, has said:

“We gave a cautious welcome to the new digital tax accounts on the basis they might simplify matters for some low income taxpayers, although we remained very concerned that a significant proportion of the population, often the most vulnerable, remain digitally excluded.”

That applies for a number of reasons. People on lower incomes who start businesses, particularly women, may well be excluded and unable to navigate the new system. A number of Members have referred to the roll-out and cost of training and development. I hope the Minister will refer to how that will be done and assessed, because that is important.

Business for Scotland surveyed 278 of its members, and 92% of them felt that the changes would cost them significantly more and said that they already had enough to deal with. The majority are concerned about increased stress and fear that accountancy fees will be increased and that they will be constantly preparing for the next tax return. I appreciate that some of those fears may be allayed, but there is an issue of public perception, as we have heard today. It is about how the Government communicate and consult with business, which is key.

The SNP has significant concerns about HMRC’s ability to implement the changes in light of budget cuts and the closure of HMRC offices. It is predicted that many small businesses will need to seek advice on how to meet the extra requirements of quarterly reporting. James Hoare of PricewaterhouseCoopers has said:

“Digitising the relationship between business and HMRC is desirable and inevitable, but the scope and timescale of the proposed changes raise important questions, such as whether training and support will be provided for those less familiar with digital reporting.”

HMRC has had its budget cut. Its departmental expenditure limit will fall from £3.8 billion in 2016-17 to £3.1 billion in 2019-20, which is a cut of more than £700 million across three financial years.

We are all aware of the proposed closures and the devastating impact that they will have, particularly in Scotland, where offices are going to be centralised to the central belt in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Much has been said about how that will be a positive move, and it has been said that minimal numbers of jobs will be lost, but that is not what we are hearing on the ground, where there is a real fear that we will lose much of the expertise of offices and their staff, and that there will be an inability to collect tax efficiently.

The centralisation of offices has led to other issues being raised, include travel, particularly in my constituency of Livingston. One of the offices there was purpose-built for HMRC. It is not old or dilapidated in any way, and the local workforce have impressed on me the number of areas of expertise that they feel will be lost, and the real-terms cut in salary that will result from increased travel costs. Livingston, as most Members will know, is placed right between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and connectivity is very good. I cannot imagine what things will be like for those who are considered to within one hour’s travel.

The key themes are public and business confidence, and the development of broadband infrastructure and connectivity at pace. The burden must not fall largely on small businesses, because, as a number of Members have said, entrepreneurship and the people’s desire to start their own business may be reduced if the administrative burden is put on them. As we have heard, HMRC is already struggling to answer calls and deal with the current workload, so we need to understand the effect of the various changes and cuts coming down the line. In some respects, it seems like a perfect storm of service closures, reduced budgets and a greater burden on the service.

I hope the Minister and the Government will think carefully about all the issues that have been raised, and that they will extend the time for consultation and roll-out, as Members from all parties have asked for. Otherwise, there is significant fear, not only in the House but in small businesses across the country, that the burden will be greater for small businesses and damage could be done to them.

HMRC Office Closures

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the proposed closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and throughout the UK; believes that this will result in a reduced service to the public; is concerned about the potential loss of tax yield; is further concerned at the loss of jobs and expertise in local communities; further believes that this will undermine efforts to reduce the tax gap which currently stands at £34 billion; also believes that this proposal will undermine the ability of SMEs to access information and advice and that the proposed closure programme is flawed and counterproductive; and calls on the Government to halt its programme of HMRC office closures.

The UK Government’s recent announcement of the planned closure of 137 local Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices across the UK is part of their continued drive to rain down a regime of austerity cuts on our family of nations.

HMRC employs 8,330 people across Scotland, which represents 13% of all UK HMRC staff. Although we do not have the full information from the Government on how many jobs will be lost, the BBC has reported—

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a democratic outrage that the Government produced a statement on this matter during a parliamentary recess, and that a Government statement was not made at the Dispatch Box of this House?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is yet more evidence of this Government’s lack of respect for Scotland and for Scottish workers.

Following the announcement, the BBC reported that more than 2,000 jobs could be lost in Scotland. As yet, we have no detail. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will list the offices that are set to close across Scotland to highlight the scale and impact of the decision: one office to close in Aberdeen by 2021; one office in Bathgate and Livingston, my own constituency, by 2020; one office in Cumbernauld by 2020; two offices in Dundee; three offices in East Kilbride; three offices to close and consolidate into one large office in Edinburgh; and two large offices to close and consolidate into one large office in Glasgow.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to say that I support the motion. The motion also refers to HMRC offices throughout the UK. Does she have statistics for the whole of the UK as well as for Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

I do not have them to hand, but I would be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman’s specific views and discuss them with him.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

rose—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I am going to make some progress.

An office is also going to shut in Inverness, and offices in Irvine and Glenrothes are also in the process of closing. Those closures are distressing news for the employees, their families and the communities affected, including in my constituency of Livingston. We must remember that behind every closed office and every job lost are individual folk, some of whom I and my colleagues have met in recent weeks following the announced closures. Many of them have proudly worked for HMRC for 10, 20 or more than 30 years. Many have spent their whole careers in their local HMRC offices and are fiercely proud of the work they do.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I am going to make some progress. Three of the Scottish centres announced for closure—those in East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and my constituency of Livingston—employ staff who issue specific guidance to the public on access to and eligibility for tax credits. With the prospect on the horizon of the Chancellor returning with his tax credit cuts, it is unthinkable that that support will be withdrawn from our communities.

The budgets of Government Departments and public bodies will suffer as a result of the austerity measures. They will be reduced by the Chancellor, who continues to cut despite the advice of many academics. Indeed, only yesterday, a report by City University said:

“George Osborne could be forced to borrow billions of pounds more than forecast by 2020 if he sticks with spending cuts that will hit economic growth”.

Two academics from City University projected that by 2020 the Government will be forced to report a £40 billion deficit instead of the planned surplus, undermining the Chancellor’s fiscal charter, which dictates that the Government borrow only in times of distress.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Despite the context set out by the hon. Lady and the very difficult economic circumstances, will she welcome the jobs that the consolidation and new office plan will create in Cardiff, the capital of Wales?

[Hannah Bardell]

New jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will, of course, be good news for his constituents, but I want to know what the Chancellor has to say to people in Scotland and other parts of the UK who are going to suffer and lose their local tax offices.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

Let me make some progress. The City University report is proof that this Chancellor’s attempt to run an absolute surplus is not working and is not credible.

SNP Members were elected on a manifesto that offered an alternative, fiscally credible plan for a modest 0.5% increase in public spending, which would have injected £140 billion into the economy. The proposed closure of HMRC offices will have a disproportionate effect on Scotland, because the vast majority of the UK Government’s ring-fenced Departments lie outside Scotland.

[David Simpson]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me some time, I would like to make some progress.

The most recent proposed closure of local HMRC offices will result in Scotland being left with no HMRC offices beyond the central belt of Scotland. The plans fail to understand or take into account the diversity and needs of the Scottish economy. There are a wide range of industries beyond the central belt of Scotland, including farming, fishing, whisky, tourism and, indeed, oil and gas. Many of those industries rely on the ability to work with their local tax offices, given the complexities of their businesses.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Callum McCaig]

I do not know why people are upset—I have not spoken yet. As a former resident of the great city of Aberdeen and a former worker in the oil industry, my hon. Friend will understand the complexity of an industry that relies heavily on contractors and the need for specialist tax advice. Will she explain to hon. Members the distance between Aberdeen and Edinburgh? They are not just down the road from each other, but those making this decision seem to think that that is the case.

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am aware of the complexities of the oil and gas industry, but I am afraid that the Government and Conservative Members do not seem to appreciate them.

The world of work is changing, and many people across the UK are choosing to start and develop their own small businesses. In particular, women are choosing to take charge of their own destiny and start their own businesses, many of them from home. A network of good tax support is essential to support those businesses, run by men and women, if they are to thrive.

I was recently visited by a constituent who has a farming business. He impressed on me the importance of access to local HMRC services and face-to-face support. Industries such as farming often operate a year in arrears to very tight margins, and I and my colleagues have grave concerns about the impact on them and a wide range of other sectors, not least small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I called my local tax offices today to see whether I could pop in to speak to them. For the past year they have been unwilling to allow anyone to see them face to face. People can contact them only by phone, so it makes no difference if they are based in the region or locally.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point very well.

[David Simpson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I have just got to my feet again, so let me continue. John Allan, the national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses said:

“Our members have repeatedly told us about difficulties getting practical help from HMRC when complying with their tax requirements. The current online offering is limited, often hampered by poor broadband connectivity, and the phone help line is hard to navigate, with long waiting times.

Over the long-term, this modernisation programme must bring substantial benefits and efficiency savings. In the short-term however, members will be concerned that the closure of these tax offices will simply compound existing problems.

The Government need to reassure businesses that disruption is kept to a minimum. This should be used by HMRC as an opportunity to deliver services that are easy to access, provide clear and consistent help tailored for smaller businesses and provide the certainty they need for their tax affairs.”

If the Chancellor will not listen to the SNP, perhaps he will listen to the Federation of Small Businesses.

These closures have been happening for some time. In March 2013, the UK Government announced that they were to close all of their 281 inquiry centres by June 2015, and it was reported that closures would result in the loss of 1,300 jobs. A consultation on plans to streamline HMRC inquiry and support services through the use of telephone consultations occurred in 2012, and HMRC piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013. In October 2014, HMRC announced plans to close 14 offices across the UK by December 2015. It was reported that that would affect 453 civil servants, and a further 690 administrative employees had been offered voluntary redundancy.

The Public Accounts Committee said in the first half of 2015, following the closures, that only 50% of calls from the public were answered by HMRC, down from 73% in the last financial year. Tam Dolan, the PCS branch chairman in Dundee, said:

“This decision is baffling. HMRC have trained staff doing an excellent job, receiving more calls than they can handle. For PCS members in Dundee, making these staff redundant while recruiting elsewhere sends a message that Dundee doesn’t feature in HMRC’s long-term plans.”

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is being typically generous with her time. In the sunny uplands of Scottish independence, what detailed analysis would her party, as a Government, have undertaken as to the quantum of HMRC staff and offices it would have in a newly independent Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little ahead of himself; I will come to that.

Ironically, during the referendum many argued that independence for Scotland would result in job losses in public services. It was lauded as the Union dividend, and we in Scotland were told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who sadly is no longer in his place:

“That dividend is our share of a more prosperous future. It is the money that will pay for better public services and a fairer society.”

In July and August 2014, the Scottish Labour party tweeted that 3,200 jobs at HMRC were

“just one of the reasons that being part of the UK is best for Scottish jobs…and 1,400 jobs at HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK.”

That was clearly not the case. I hope that those on the Labour Benches, who will also no doubt have constituencies affected by these closures, will reflect on those comments and think carefully about who can be trusted when it comes to jobs in Scotland.

The tax gap in 2013-14 was estimated to be £34 billion, which amounts to 6.4% of total theoretical tax liabilities. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for the largest portion of the overall tax gap—some £16.5 billion ––followed by large businesses with some £9.5 billion. We in the SNP take the view that the vast majority of SMEs actively want to contribute to society by paying tax and that a high proportion of the SME tax gap will have been lost through errors and miscommunications.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I shall continue. The UK Government’s plan to slash 137 local HMRC offices across the UK will inevitably have a knock-on impact on the ability of SMEs to access information and advice on tax.

I would like to give my personal thanks to Gary Stein and his PCS colleagues who met me, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and MSP Angela Constance immediately after the closure announcement. I know that other PCS colleagues held similar meetings across Scotland and the UK. Gary and his PCS colleagues are working hard to engage staff and management in offices in West Lothian and have made clear their concerns about morale and the range of issues that I have highlighted. It cannot remain unsaid how valuable our local unions are in this process, and I am sure that it is not without sinister intention that the Government have marched ahead with their undemocratic Trade Union Bill, which would mean that the important work that our unions do in such situations would be made ever more difficult. Never has it been more vital that we have good engagement with the workforces who deliver essential public services.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I would be happy to do so.

[Lady Hermon]

I know that the hon. Lady is storing up the best until last, but in the meantime I am grateful to her for allowing me to intervene. We have a serious issue in Northern Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land frontier with another EU member state, which gives rise, very unfortunately for HM Treasury, to fuel smuggling and the loss of a huge amount of revenue along the border with the Republic of Ireland. The announcement of the closure of HMRC offices in Northern Ireland has serious consequences, so will the hon. Lady reflect on that before she calls on someone else to intervene?

[Hannah Bardell]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, which will be shared across Scotland and other parts of the UK. My local PCS representatives spoke about what they felt was a perfect storm brewing. The greater the pressure we put on our public services and the more we squeeze them, the more likely it is that there will be major breakdowns in the system.

I am going to finish up. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) can save his intervention for speeches by other colleagues. I urge all parties across the Chamber to support our motion and ask this Tory Government in the strongest terms to think again on these nonsensical and ill-conceived HMRC closures.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[William Wragg]

I agree entirely that the practice was not restricted to RBS. The case of my constituent involved RBS, but the hon. Lady’s constituent no doubt had a similar experience with other banks.

Tomlinson said that the practices at RBS’s turnaround division were typical. Once placed in this division of the bank, businesses were trapped, with no ability to move and no opportunity to trade out of their position. Good, honest and otherwise successful businesses were forced to stand by and watch as they were sunk by the decisions of the bank. The bank could then extract maximum revenue from the businesses, beyond that which could be considered reasonable, and to such an extent that it was the key contributing factor in the businesses’ financial deterioration.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am struck by the comments made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) about Lloyds TSB. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must learn from the bitter experience of the merger of the Halifax Bank of Scotland with Lloyds—a significant loss to the taxpayer, despite a spirited challenge in the Scottish courts? Does he further agree that it is not good enough to pour taxpayers’ money down the drain by short-selling our banks in a short-sighted manner, at a time when the austerity cuts are hitting the poorest and innocent taxpayers the hardest?

[William Wragg]

If I may strip away the rhetoric from the hon. Lady’s intervention, of course I would disagree with pouring away taxpayers’ money in such a fashion.

Tomlinson’s evidence showed that the process was not open or transparent, nor was it a proportionate response from the bank. During the process, businesses were completely in the dark as to what was happening around them until it was far too late. Most worryingly, the businesses affected were often perfectly viable, and, but for the action of the bank, would have made a positive contribution to the UK economy. If the businesses concerned had had more options for moving their banking facilities, and there was more transparency before entering this process, they would have been better protected from the bank’s opportunistic behaviour through which it manipulated the businesses’ financial positions for its own gain.

The reported practices of RBS’s global restructuring group, if accurate, were, on a generous interpretation, dubious and questionable, but it may be fair and truer to say that they were unethical and scandalous. If the findings of the report that I have just summarised sound shocking or alarming to colleagues, they should do. However, consider how much more shocking and alarming it was for the victimised businesses and business owners involved—for the honest and hard-working businessmen and women and their employees, who saw their hard work and investment, often spanning years, eroded from under them; for those who lost their businesses, their jobs, their reputations, and in some cases their homes.

This, unfortunately, was the case for a business in my constituency. Pickup and Bradbury Ltd was owned by a constituent of mine, Mr Eric Topping. It was a medium- sized, family-owned construction firm operating out of Romiley. It engaged in mainly commercial construction contracts, with clients including large retailers, shopping centres, schools, HM Prison Service, several NHS sites, and a host of other local businesses. It was a well recognised and respected name in the construction industry across Greater Manchester. However, in 1998 Mr Topping and Pickup and Bradbury Ltd fell victim to exactly the kind of practices I have outlined. I shall not detain the House with the full details of the case, particularly as Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are aware of the full details, which I have passed on to them.

It may be of benefit to the House, though, if I briefly outline the example. Pickup and Bradbury was forcibly moved by RBS into the global restructuring group after the bank claimed that the business owed it a significant debt in excess of £700,000. My constituent acknowledges that the business had some debt, but it was perfectly capable of managing and servicing it. However, the crux of the case was that although the business balance sheet at the time showed assets of over £1 million, after the restructuring group process RBS placed a valuation on the business at negative £1.1 million—a discrepancy of over £2 million. The upshot was that this led to the forced liquidation of Pickup and Bradbury, costing the jobs of all its employees and forcing Mr Topping to sell his home. He contends to this day that the business was viable, and would still be trading if it were not for the actions of RBS, or if he had been given time to switch to another bank.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to his position as I move across to the business brief. From his speech earlier, I am sure the social justice team has a very talented member.

I shall speak to amendments in this group tabled by my colleagues, particularly amendments 53, 54 and 55, which clearly state the SNP’s opposition to the Government’s two-child policy. The SNP wholeheartedly condemns the Tory Government’s intention to restrict tax credits to two children, which by definition excludes many of the poorest children in society from our social security system, going against the very principles for which it was set up. The Government’s proposals also stray into an area of policy making that I never thought I would see suggested by any Government who had a shred of compassion for their people. Hidden away in the Red Book were the words:

“The Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as the result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances.”

No detail was provided. How much disrespect can this country take?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appalling not only that that appeared in the Budget statement, but that during the consideration of the Bill there has been no explanation of how that will work in practice?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more. The two- child policy will hit more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. The Government’s own national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. Currently a third of children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps that is why the Tory Government seek to airbrush child poverty from the statute books.

It is easy for this Tory Government to espouse theories and claim that reducing financial support to just two children will make poorer families rethink their “financial choices”. That is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to financially plan for children. I am sure we are aware that that is not the case. What if a second pregnancy turns out to be twins or even triplets? What about the many families who are supported or led by kinship carers? Perhaps the Tories need a biology lesson, or a simple lesson in humanity.

Such eventualities cannot be planned for, so are we telling families across these nations to stop having children, just in case? I have raised many times in Committee, and many of my colleagues have raised on the Floor of the House, the sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the insensitive Government plan to make women justify their children in front of DWP caseworkers. Many domestic abuse charities have expressed grave concerns, and Rape Crisis Scotland has warned that the plan is “inherently unworkable”. It has asked how DWP workers will prove whether someone has or has not been raped, and said that many women would find explaining that situation extremely uncomfortable. Many women do not report to the police that they have been raped, or go years without reporting it or speaking about it, so they cannot be expected to explain it to a DWP worker.

What training will a DWP worker have to deal with rape victims? It is clear that this is an unrealistic, ill thought out and unhelpful proposal. In evidence before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, stakeholders described it as “unpalatable”, and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wrote in The Guardian recently:

“A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money”.

I could not agree more. It just goes to show that at the height of the Tories’ insensitivity, they will quite literally leave no vulnerable group untouched in their scramble to, as they put it, balance the books. The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to potentially serious emotional damage for children should they become aware that they are a child resulting from a rape. The SNP amendments would see the policy abolished, and we urge the Government to remove the two-child policy from tax credit and universal credit to ensure that no victim or child goes through the torment associated with having to justify a third child due to such an horrific crime being inflicted—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is about to conclude.

[Hannah Bardell]

If we as parliamentarians are in this place to legislate for those we represent, let us legislate well and with compassion and good conscience. The proposals do not make good legislation. They are wrong for our society and wrong for this generation, so I ask Members to think again and vote with us.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I spoke the other day about how tax credit reform is part of moving to the higher wage, higher productivity, higher opportunity economy that the Government are building. I have been talking to the Chancellor behind the scenes about welfare reform for many months, and he is listening. Welfare reform is, however, an essential part of the broad package of reform that is helping to return our nation and its people to a sound financial future. The Opposition offer no alternative.

In my professional life before becoming a Member of this House, I was involved in the pensions and savings industry. I know how important saving is in building people’s future and their economic resilience. I believe that reforming national insurance contributions and entitlements is a good way to further incentivise work, deal with the hurdles to advancing at work caused by high marginal tax and benefit withdrawal, and provide scope in the budget for transitional arrangements. That could address the impact of tax credit reform on those with the lowest regular income.

Insurance businesses work by taking premiums from people and investing them over long periods, usually in dividend-paying and other shares that grow substantially in value over time to generate returns that are then available to those who need to claim on the scheme. Unfortunately, our national insurance contributions are not invested in the same way but are spent year in, year out on the claims of those using the NHS or the state pension, or are lent out to other Departments for their spending. We should add major savings reform to what we are doing, by reforming national insurance to create a genuine low-cost defined-contribution investment scheme that people can use to supplement their entitlements under the state pension system and that can be made available, under certain circumstances, ahead of retirement age. Credits could be offered to the lowest paid even if they did not meet the threshold for payment of traditional national insurance, to kick off their contributions and get them used to saving. They could also be used to supplement some payments by employers or to provide transitional funds, which could be substantial.

The investment scheme could also be available to others who wanted to make a contribution. I believe that it should be accompanied by tapering the threshold for the payment of traditional national insurance contributions, and the rate, to make the marginal incentives to work more efficient while letting people keep more of their earnings. That could be paid for by tapers on the higher limit and rate of national insurance obligations and entitlements for those on the highest incomes, particularly the entitlement eligibility of very high income retirees. I note that the principle is already established that state pension entitlement cannot pass in its entirety from spouse to spouse, and that entitlement to state pension is not an asset. I believe that that measure could make available several billion pounds.

Tax credit reform is not an option, but is essential in moving to a higher wage economy that will better provide for the future of all of us. Reform of national insurance is a neat solution that is not inconsistent with our manifesto. Nor is reform of the working tax credit system, as part of our overall package of reform.

Finance Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and raises the spectre of a case to bring before the courts—perhaps even the European Court of Justice—on the basis of discrimination. Perhaps that would be one way of resolving this particular problem.

I am shamelessly using this example as an opportunity to make a far broader and more important constitutional point.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has admitted to his own shame, because it seems somewhat shameful to fudge the issue. We may not have all the powers to change the situation, but this House has an opportunity to send a clear message to Europe on something that is very wrong and about which so many people feel strongly. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is using that as an excuse to not support us on an issue for which there is clear cross-party support.

[Mr Jenkin]

I point out to the hon. Lady that my name is on new clause 7. I support it, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say before deciding whether to vote against my own Administration. I am sure she will understand that. There have not been many rebellions among the SNP yet. The point about being a political party in this House is that we are all individuals and we are all allowed to do what we choose. In fact, that is our responsibility.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Seventh sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. Welcome to our continued line-by-line scrutiny of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. We have some new Committee members at our proceedings—a warm welcome to you.

Before we begin proceedings, I wish to clarify the procedure on combining questions before the Committee. The usual practice is that, with the leave of the Committee, successive questions on which the Committee agrees—for example, a series of non-contentious amendments—can be combined and taken as one question. However, that does not apply if Members want to divide on the amendments. If the Committee wants to vote on a particular amendment or series of amendments, the questions will have to be put separately and individual Divisions held for each question.

I understand that in my absence at the last sitting you were all very naughty. That is trying to put things right. I hope it is clear and helpful to Committee members in today’s proceedings.

Clause 11

Changes to child tax credit

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 11, page 12, line 39, leave out “2017” and insert “2022”.

This amendment would see current arrangements for child tax credit remaining in place for children born before 6 April 2022.

I hope Committee members have all had an enjoyable recess and a successful conference. Unfortunately, the Scottish National party has to juggle a week of Bill Committees and conference, so the week will no doubt be a busy one for us.

From the outset I want to make it clear that the SNP wholeheartedly condemns the intentions behind the clause, which will exclude many of the poorest children in society from the support of our social security system, against the very principles on which that system was set up. The two-child policy, which has been much discussed, will affect more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. I cannot understand how anyone in Committee could say that that was fair, just or necessary.

The stark reality is that the Government’s national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. A third of the children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps it is for that reason that the Government are seeking to airbrush child poverty from the statute books. It is easy for the Government to come in with a clean page, to spout theories without evidence and to claim that reducing financial support to only two children will make poorer families rethink their financial choices, but that is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to plan financially for children. As I am sure we all know, that is not possible.

What if someone’s second pregnancy turns out to be twins, or even triplets? We still have no real clarity on how multiple births will be treated. Will the Minister concede that such eventualities simply cannot be planned for? Perhaps he needs a biology lesson. Are we telling families to stop having children just in case? The scenarios are not that simple.

I have raised many times in Committee and on the Floor of the House, as have my SNP colleagues, the very sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the even more insensitive plan of the Minister and the Government to make women justify their children in front of a caseworker from the Department for Work and Pensions. Many organisations have stated clearly that their staff have to train for a considerable amount of time to support women who have been raped, so I cannot understand how the Government’s proposed system and policy will work.

I therefore ask, clearly and specifically, for the Minister to keep in place the existing arrangements for children born before 2022 and to tell the Committee, before we vote on the amendment, exactly what his Department’s plans are for that. We all have to deal with constituency cases, but I am interested to know how any Government Members would deal with a woman coming to them who cannot seek benefit because she has been raped and therefore has to justify herself to the DWP. Even in evidence to the Committee, stakeholders described the policy as “unpalatable”. Does it simply show, at the height of Tory insensitivity, how out of touch the party is with reality? My view and that of my colleagues is that the Government have simply not thought things through.

When the Minister responds, will he tell me just how a woman would prove that her child was a result of rape? We all know the difficulties involved in securing a criminal conviction in that respect, as well as the high burden of proof, never mind the devastating emotional impact on the victim. What exactly will be the Government’s standard? Why did the Minister, and the Conservatives generally, think it appropriate to include the issue? The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to serious emotional damage of the child should he or she become aware through the social security system that they are the result of rape. Imagine someone finding that out purely because their parents seek benefits.

Let me be clear: discussing this matter is not something I do lightly, but the SNP feels, as I hope others on the Opposition side of the Committee feel, that we must speak up. Amendment 44 would kick the policy into the long grass. Even campaigners Women Against Rape have called the policy “disgusting”, saying it will have “appalling consequences”. The SNP stands firm with that position and urges the Government to remove the two-child policy from child tax credit and universal credit provisions to ensure that no victim or child should go through the torment associated with justifying a third child, given the horrific crime inflicted on them.

Given the current economic climate, families simply cannot plan for a third child, or subsequent children. What if their first or second child was the result of rape, and they went on to have further children, but their economic circumstances changed? The Government’s failure to secure a strong, thriving economy with stable employment opportunities means that, although the members of a family may have stable and reliable jobs, there is, as we have seen, no guarantee that someone who decides to have a child will be employed for the next 18 years. To deny assistance to families who fall on hard times completely flies in the face of what the welfare system was built for.

Working people will ask why they pay their taxes when they can no longer receive support in our social security system. Will they be made to feel that their third child was a bad choice because the company they worked for made them redundant? Does the Minister have an answer for the parents of twins or other children? Could he, or any Government member of the Committee, look into a constituent’s eyes and say with a clear conscience that that constituent’s bad financial planning means they deserve no support from the Government?

The provisions in the Bill are nothing more than a move to socially engineer society into a form the Tory Government have dreamt up—one where the right to have a third child is a luxury reserved for the rich. That is not a society that I, any of my colleagues or, I believe, anybody in this country wants to live in. That is why the SNP are standing up for the poor, for hard-working folk and for children. We want to protect them when they fall on challenging times.

Child Poverty Action Group research shows that many families in receipt of tax credits are already struggling to meet their children’s most basic needs. Current levels of entitlement cover only between 73% and 85% of the cost of raising a child. Removing tax credit entitlements will only widen that gap further. Ultimately, the provision in the Bill could sink more families below the breadline, leaving children at risk of ill health and lower educational attainment.

From the heart, and using my head, I can only urge all Members to unite with the SNP today and to think of the constituents who will come to them—those with three or more children and those struggling to get more hours at work to make ends meet. Members should think of what rejecting the policy will do for those people: they will be able to look their constituents in the eye and say they did everything they could to stop the policy. If we, as parliamentarians, are here to legislate for those we represent, let us legislate properly and with our consciences. The provisions in the Bill do not make good law, so I ask Members to please think again and vote with us.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to return to the Committee, Mr Streeter.

The two-child policy—there is a list of political regimes that begins with the Vietnamese communists and the Iranian theocrats—is not going to end well. We are debating a proposal that would see the current Administration join that inauspicious rank of people who at one time or other have imposed state-sanctioned limits on the number of children a family can have. Even the ayatollahs backed away from it in recent years.

Of course, there is a caveat in the Bill that adds a layer of unpleasantness to the proceedings. The Government will impose a limit on family size that applies only to poor families. At least the other countries tried to stop all families from having more children. This Government seem to focus only on the poor. They seem to be trying to limit the number of children that the poor have.

We are not all poor always. Some of us might begin life by being quite well off and comfortable and able to make decisions. We would know we could be completely confident that we could be independent, but then things happen. That is what the social security system has always been about. I speak from personal experience. My parents were allegedly, supposedly happily married. They had three children and then one day, when I was seven and my younger brother was five and my other brother was three, my father left—he left the country and abandoned us. I remember the bailiffs came round. They were wearing bowler hats—this was the ’60s—and they threw us out of our house. We had nowhere to go and we had no money and the welfare state picked us up and gave us accommodation. They gave us a house. Nobody said, “How many children have you got? You’ve been very reckless, Mrs Thornberry, I’m sorry we can’t give you any money for the third child. Young Ben Thornberry is going to have to starve.” There was none of that thinking. It was tough, but we were looked after. Nobody looked down on my mother for having made a decision with my father to have three children. That was a long time ago, but I feel that that is the sort of Britain we ought to want to be involved in.

We ought to be able to have a Britain where we have a safety net that looks after people when they find themselves in difficult circumstances. We do not want to have a Government that tells people, “Now listen here, you look a bit rough round the edges. We don’t want you to have any more than two children. Lord knows what they will be like and you won’t even be able to look after them. Sorry, but no, that’s it.” Where will it end?

Frankly, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is shockingly bad and it flies in the face of a British value of which I have always been very proud—that we look after the weakest and poorest and have a safety net. If things happen, people will not starve. We should not say, “I’m sorry, we are now in a world where people must make choices.” The third or fourth child does not make a choice to live. The third, fourth or fifth child is not to be blamed for their existence. The sixth child is not to have no shoes because of a reckless mother who cannot keep her legs crossed. It is not the sixth child’s fault that he is the sixth child. Why should he starve? How will it make a difference? What is the evidence that the Government want to put before us that will tell us that a change to the benefits system in that way will stop people having more children?

It is interesting that there is not going to be an equality impact assessment. The Government have learned their lesson. The last welfare Bill had 20 equality impact assessments, which the Opposition revelled in, as did all the people opposing that previous piece of pernicious legislation, because the assessments showed what the effect of welfare legislation would be. I may be quoting roughly—I will be corrected if I am wrong—but one of the equality impact statements produced for the previous Bill, which the Government have unfortunately not produced for this one, said that black and Asian families were three times as likely to have more than two children. It is interesting that the Government decided not to have an equality impact assessment on clause 11. Perhaps nobody will notice that the legislation affects black and Asian families that much more.

We all know whom the Bill will affect: women—black, Asian, white or whatever. Women will be adversely affected by the Bill and will struggle to work out how they are going to afford a pair of shoes that winter for the fourth child. Mr Streeter, you may be surprised to hear this, but yes, we are against this particularly nasty piece of legislation. I do not know at this point if you wish me to speak to new clauses 5 and 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Thank you, Mr Streeter.

Let me be clear, lest there be any doubt, that this is not about limiting the number of children that people have. It is about financial support in the form of child tax credit. Child benefit, for example, will continue to go up in line with the number of children. The hon. Gentleman says, and he is right, that individual families are not responsible for the financial mess that our country found itself in as a result of the unholy combination of the financial crisis and the previous Labour Government. That is correct, but we do have a shared future, and it is the responsibility of a Government, on behalf of all their citizens, particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, to make sure that we have sound finances, that we can continue to afford to pay for our public services, that we can continue to afford to invest in our national health service and that we can give people the support that they need.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I think I will have to move on a little.

Last year the Government spent almost £30 billion on tax credits—more than three and a half times what we spent on military personnel. That level of spending on tax credits is unfair on those who foot the bill, who are, of course, other taxpayers. That is why the Government took steps in the summer Budget to put tax credit spending on a more—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley want to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I do not recall referring to the hon. Lady’s specific case or the case of anybody else on the Opposition Benches. Nor did I say that anybody should feel bad for supporting others, but there is a case for balance. It is just a statement of fact that, in any tax and benefits system, benefits paid to one group or person have to be paid for by others, and we have to make sure that that system is fair.

As the hon. Lady will recall, we had a great reforming Budget with a set of measures to move us from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a lower-tax, higher-wage, less welfare-reliant society, including measures such as the national living wage, with which we seek permanently to reform the structure of the economy and the way the system works.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I will give way one last time to the hon. Lady, and then I must progress.

[Hannah Bardell]

On the point that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury made about families in work who are on tax credits, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—which the Government have quoted on a number of occasions—has said that the increase in the minimum wage, which is not a true living wage, will not compensate for the cuts that are coming to tax credits, which will hit the poorest hardest and is a regressive policy. What does the Minister say to the IFS?

[Damian Hinds]

I say that these are major structural changes. I think you would admonish me, Mr Streeter, if I went too far down this road, because we had this debate on the Floor of the House and there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter.

We are talking about helping people through the national living wage and increases in the income tax personal allowance, but also through measures such as childcare support and, most important of all, the general strength of the economy. We see real wages rising very strongly at the moment, and we have very low inflation and very strong economic growth. Those are the things that most help families with their budgets and living standards.

In the summer Budget, the Government took steps to put tax credit spending on a more sustainable path, including by limiting the individual element of child tax credit to two children and by removing the family element of child tax credit for those who are not responsible for a child or qualifying young person before 6 April 2017. The average family size in this country has decreased over recent decades. The average number of dependent children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7.

[Damian Hinds]

I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

The Government believe that it is fair and proportionate to limit support through tax credits and universal credit to two children per family. The measures in clause 11 will ensure that there is greater fairness between those receiving benefits and those paying for them, and will ensure that, in the future, families in receipt of benefits face the same sorts of financial decisions when they consider having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. The Government decided to implement the measures from April 2017 to give families time to make decisions about having more children. That provides sufficient time for those considering whether to have more children to make plans, while at the same time putting tax credits on a more sustainable footing.

The hon. Member for Livingston quite rightly raised some of the difficult issues. We have already been clear about multiple births, and there will be more detail forthcoming on that. We will also have a chance discuss that in debates on further amendments. The Government have been absolutely clear that if parents have twins or triplets and previously there were fewer than two children in the household, that will be treated as a single birth. In the most difficult circumstance—a child conceived as a result of rape—it is right that the Government take a careful and sensitive approach to working out how best to deal with those circumstances and support women through that situation in relation to the tax credit system. There will be more detail in due course.

[Hannah Bardell]

Should the Government not have thought that through before they put the policy in place?

[Damian Hinds]

It is not at all uncommon for a Government to say that particular aspects of the implementation of a policy are delicate and sensitive and require careful thought with external stakeholders who are experts in the field. That is what will happen in this case. I do not feel the need to defend that. It is the right thing to do because there are people who have expertise, and it is absolutely right that they should have the opportunity to be consulted.

[Damian Hinds]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The Government will continue to support larger families through child benefit, which is paid for all qualifying children in a household. There are 15 hours of childcare available to the 40% least advantaged families. Families will continue to receive 15 hours a week of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and the Government have announced that from September 2017 that will be extended to 30 hours for parents who are in work. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Livingston to withdraw the amendment.

[Hannah Bardell]

I will be brief, because I and my colleagues covered the points in our initial remarks. From what the Minister has said, it is clear that there was no consultation and consideration on the most serious parts of the Bill, including the issue of the third child and the matter of rape. We have no details, and many organisations have said that those provisions were a great surprise to them.

I cannot believe that a Government would be so insensitive as to put a clause such as this one in a Bill. On the day of the Budget, when the policy was announced and we saw it in black and white, it seemed like an afterthought. To treat people as an afterthought—particularly women who are vulnerable and who have been raped—is nothing short of a disgrace.

The IFS has been very clear that the Budget and these policies will hit the poorest in society hardest. In Scotland, the Daily Record recently reported that the

“poorest households could be more than £500 a year worse off in 2020 as a result of changes made in Chancellor George Osborne’s budget...800,000 households north of the border will have less cash as a result”,

and that the

“IPPR Scotland think-tank found there would be more winners than losers, with some 1.3 million households expected to be better off. But while the richest 20 per cent of households will gain £110 a year by...2020/21, the impact of tax and benefit changes on the poorest 20 per cent of households will see them lose an average of £520 a year.”

Getting our finances into a surplus cannot come at the cost of people’s lives, including children’s lives, and at the cost of making the poorest even poorer.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, indeed. From speaking to people who have spent many years devoted to this sector and who have tried to make our safety net as good as it possibly can be in difficult times, the attacks are coming from so many different angles, at so many different levels and so fast, that for many of us it is very difficult to know where to start. The changes are fundamental and very frightening. We know that what will happen in two or three years’ time will become manifest, and it will become increasingly obvious that the poor have got much poorer and that people have got much more desperate. That will affect children, and those born now will be disproportionately affected.

I hope that at that point, the Government will finally realise that, because I do not think that many of those on the Government Benches are heartless, but they have not thought this through. The difficulty is that their policy is based entirely on rhetoric. That is clear from some of the lines in their manifesto that are now appearing in proposed legislation. Look at the Childcare Bill, which says very little more than what was in the manifesto. The difficulty is that if you do not make policy on the basis of evidence but on the basis of rhetoric—what sounds right and what you think will work well with your focus groups—that will not work when it comes to ruling the country.

This is yet another ill-thought-out cut and change to the most vulnerable and most hard-working families, to the families in the most difficulty. Imagine spending time bringing up a child with disabilities and the continued worry of that. Those families have enough worry in terms of their child’s welfare without worrying about why the Government are taking away yet more funding and making life that much more difficult.

[Hannah Bardell]

It is a pleasure to speak again, Mr Streeter. I will keep my remarks brief and start by saying that we are more than happy to support Labour’s amendments. We offer that hand of friendship across the Benches as a form of compromise.

The amendments support the same policy intentions—although not quite as strongly—as our amendments that we have already discussed, so I will not go on too much. We support the intentions of protecting those who are fostering or adopting, households with disabled children and also, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned, kinship carers. That is something which the SNP in the Scottish Government have done a lot on in recent years. These are some of the most vulnerable children in society. We must do everything we can to protect them. Please, Minister, you must concede that we need to protect at least some of these children from the cuts. Will you back the advice of the Social Security Advisory Commission which said that there has to be a review? Will you take that into consideration in your closing remarks?

[The Chair]

Just before I call Debbie Abrahams, a number of colleagues have been using the word “you”, which of course refers to the Chair, when they really mean the hon. Gentleman or the Government. I say that to all my colleagues, both experienced and inexperienced. It is an easy mistake to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady’s points are very interesting. Does she agree that we also have to take cognisance of religious groups across the divide? In many cases, such as those of Catholics, who consciously do not use contraception—[Interruption]—these policies could well be an infringement of their human rights.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister says from a sedentary position that, in the 21st century, we should not pay attention to the Catholic view of contraception and decisions made within Catholic families. I am surprised. I say no more.

As I was saying, the Government have not provided details about what might be considered exceptional circumstances, so new clause 16 has suggested a few examples, such as multiple births, adoptions or kinship care arrangements. I recommend to the Minister an article in The Guardian today, written by Patrick Butler, about kinship adoption and related difficulties. One difficulty, among the many difficulties that people who put themselves forward to adopt children face, will be a potential cut in tax credits. If someone adopts a child who has a little brother, and the little brother then needs to go up for adoption, will that person say, “No, I can’t do it, because I can’t get the tax credits”? Are they really going to say that? Is that right? No, it is not, so will the Minister please do something about that, and will Government Members pay attention to our arguments and vote with us on new clause 16? It is entirely sensible and fleshes out the exceptional circumstances, which we think are glaring.

Those exceptional circumstances are: multiple births, adoptions, kinship care arrangements, relationship breakdowns, including, but not limited to, cases of domestic violence, and the death of a partner. The Minister says, “We are doing this in order to make sure that people make the correct choices.” I have spoken from my own personal circumstances. Frankly, my example is out of date, but unfortunately, in the last 40 or 50 years, these things have continued. People die unexpectedly and people leave unexpectedly. It is not as though someone can make a “bad choice”—in the Minister’s words—to have a third child and then take it back because their partner has died. That seems exceptionally harsh to us.

The new clause also proposes an exemption for those who become unemployed. The point here is to emphasise that, even if we accept the Government’s suggestion that families should make their family planning decisions based on the Government’s welfare reform legislation—that is a tall order in itself, although I suppose having to sit up and read the Government’s legislation on welfare reform might be some form of contraception—and even if the Government are right that people will realise welfare reform means it will be a bad idea for them to have a third child, people in work will not see that as relevant. They will make decisions because they can afford to have their children, but something may then happen, such as their becoming unemployed, and they will be hit that much harder. Therefore, even if the Government are right, which they are not, that people will make decisions on how big their family should be based on welfare reform, those people who are in work at the moment, making decisions frivolously to have four children, will find themselves in great difficulties if they suddenly become unemployed. That is unfair, as I am sure the Minister will recognise. We need to acknowledge the realities of life, particularly in the 21st century job market. People work in an insecure market. People can lose their jobs. Hopefully, they will get back into work, but it is unrealistic to expect parents to make decisions about their jobs and income with 100% certainty over an 18-year period. It is just not right. There are also abusive relationships. Women should not be expected to make decisions based on the possibility that they might become victims of domestic violence.

The new clause raises the serious issue of a couple’s penalty. Couples with more than two children will be given an incentive to separate just to continue receiving the support that they need to feed their children. That will happen. It is especially ironic that measures of child poverty are being replaced by measures of family breakdown, among other things. The Government are to measure child poverty on the basis of family breakdown, yet their social policy seems to pressure families into a form of breakdown so that they can continue to receive the benefits and tax credits that they need. The Tory party used to be the party of family and marriage. Why is its social policy dividing people? The irony is especially acute given the Secretary of State’s claim at the Conservative party conference that this Government’s reforms are

“all about making families stronger”.

Clearly, they are not.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in today’s debate, during which we have heard many excellent maiden speeches. Since being elected to serve as MP for Workington, I have been privileged to meet many young, hard-working people who only want to do well in life and make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live. For example, this coming weekend I am proud that I am going to be presenting the awards at the Gen2 graduation ceremony, celebrating the achievements of students in engineering and other technical disciplines.

I want to draw attention to the particular and disproportionate impact the Government’s Budget proposals will have on young people—I want to ask the Minister what he thinks young people have done to deserve such a kicking. It is truly shocking that they are going to be bearing such a heavy load in these Budget proposals, which mean that they are increasingly going to be paying to support the older generations, who are better off than they are. The Budget divides young from old, as well as rich from poor, and will do nothing but drive down young people’s aspirations in my constituency. Young people are three times more likely to be unemployed in the UK than they are in Germany, and for those who are in work this new “national living wage” will be paid only to those who are over 25. That is unacceptable, as it leaves younger workers on a much lower salary for doing the same job. Young people who have children will be particularly hard hit, as their benefits will be deducted far more quickly than their earnings will be increasing.

On top of that, young people who aspire to climb the ladder out of poverty and go to university will now be thinking twice, because the student maintenance grant is going to be scrapped and replaced with yet another loan, only creating more debt for our poorest families.

Let me move on to housing. There is a crisis in housing in our country, particularly in affordable housing—both to buy and to rent. Instead of looking at real sensible solutions to support young people into their own homes, this Budget will stop housing benefit for those under the age of 21. The implications of that are enormous. I do not know whether the Government have properly thought through this policy. In my constituency of Workington, one local housing authority, Impact Housing, has estimated that it will lead to an extra 200 young people becoming homeless. My constituency does not particularly have a homeless problem, and I do not want to see the Government create one, thank you very much. The proposals talk about exempting vulnerable people, but I ask the Minister how he will assess who is vulnerable. Why should they be assessed as vulnerable?

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and I agree with much of what she is saying. Does she agree that limiting families to only two children and putting women in the position that they have to declare whether or not they have been raped to justify benefits for a third child is both dangerous and divisive? We need much more detail and discussion on that matter and on other areas of the welfare proposals.

[Sue Hayman]

I could not agree more.

The Government are interfering in how people live their lives and in how many children they should have. It is not for the Government to dictate to people how many children they can afford to have. People should be able to make that decision themselves. What if people’s circumstances change after they have had their children? How does that work?

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Unfortunately, I do not have that figure at my fingertips. What I do know is that, thanks to the tax cut for people on low incomes, £800 a year was put directly into their pockets. One Opposition Member made the point that many people on tax credits do not pay income tax. Well, that is precisely because the coalition Government raised the income tax threshold so high.

We have also heard a great deal about the cost of living, to which the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) alluded a moment ago. The fact is that wages in this country are now growing at around 3% a year, at a time when inflation is at zero. Yes, it did take time to get there, but that was because it took some time to fix the mess that had been left behind for us. The cost of living problem to which the hon. Lady referred is being alleviated with every month that passes, and that trend will continue.

I also welcome the planned increase in the minimum wage from £6.50 an hour to £6.70. That is the first real-term increase since 2008, and it will help. When we pause and consider the facts rather than the speculation, we will see that the record of the coalition Government was extremely strong in helping people on low incomes. Speaking of poverty, there are now 800,000 fewer people and 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than there were five years ago, and that is fantastic progress. Those are the facts, so let us now consider the topic before us—[Interruption.] They are the facts.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has just come into the Chamber and we know that Members cannot just come into the Chamber and intervene. It is better for all of us if they do not, and we certainly want to get to the next maiden speech, which will be from an SNP Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

The Government’s clear mission is to support working people as they strive to build security and achieve their ambitions throughout their lives. We know that most people want to do their best to provide for themselves and their families; that education and skills are the bedrock of success and security; that productive employment is the only sustainable way of delivering them; that the state should incentivise independence and self-reliance; and that when someone is working, they should keep more of what they have earned.

We need to make welfare savings so that we do not have to ask other working families to pay more, but when people need support, of course it is right that we support them. These are the principles that have underpinned our welfare and employment policies: making work pay; creating jobs and apprenticeships; improving childcare, education and training; cutting taxes, especially for the lowest paid; and, for those who need extra support, making the benefits system simpler and fairer for them and other taxpayers. On all these fronts, we have achieved a great deal, and we have done it at the same time as cutting the deficit and restoring growth.

Before responding to some of the points made during the debate, I want to make one thing clear. We have set out our commitment to reducing the deficit, which, among other things, requires £12 billion of savings to be realised on welfare, on top of the £21 billion we saved in the last Parliament. Further details, of course, will come from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in tomorrow’s Budget, and clearly I am not going to pre-empt any of that this evening.

We have had a very good debate today. In particular, we have heard three distinguished maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke of the sartorial act she had to follow, and she united the House—a rare occurrence—in sharing her pleasure at giving her predecessor a little more time to work on his wardrobe. She was also very generous about her Conservative opponent and the positive role he played in that difficult campaign. That was very much appreciated.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) spoke about her ambition to be the pinnacle, or indeed the pineapple, of politeness—a reputation she brings with her from her leadership of Blackburn with Darwen Council—and reminded us of the long historical roots of the northern powerhouse. She also reminded us of our schools days with her comments about Hargreaves and the spinning jenny. She, too, has a hard act to follow, in the shape of Jack Straw and Barbara Castle—two great parliamentarians.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) spoke about maintaining a sense of perspective. She also spoke movingly about her battle with serious illness and about how that helped her get perspective on what was most important in life. In reminiscing about the election, she also reminded us that, in our work in the House, it is not about “me”; it is about “us”.

There were some other excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) advised that we should always listen to the originator of a policy and what they intended. I am sure that in this case the originator did not intend, and never expected, that the total cost of tax credits would eventually top £30 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) talked about the uneven generosity of the Labour party in reaching that figure and about the particular increases just before 2005 and 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) spoke about the jagged edges in the welfare system that universal credit—that great reform—is set to smooth out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) spoke about the importance of productivity, which is what underpins real-wage growth and is an absolute focus for this Government. We shall hear more about the productivity plan very soon.

Today’s debate occasionally strayed into realms of speculation about what may come in the days to follow, but in a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) reminded us to focus on the facts. Some of those facts include this Government’s strong record on reducing income tax, which has already seen a typical basic rate taxpayer benefit to the tune of £825 since 2010, with that figure set to rise to £905.

Responding to some points raised by Opposition Members, I first remind them that the number of children in workless households is at a record low, which is something we should all celebrate. I say to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), that according to the most recent statistics, the number of children in low-income households in Manchester has fallen.

In contrast to what the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said about the quality of the enormous number of 2 million jobs created since 2010, there has been a 1.5 million increase in the number of people in full-time employment and a 1.27 million increase in the number of people in high- skilled employment. I remind the hon. Members who spoke about zero-hours contracts that they account for something in the region of 2.5% of the total jobs in this country, delivering an average of 25 hours’ work a week.

Even the Labour party nominally agrees that tens of billions of fiscal consolidation will be necessary over the course of this Parliament. I have to remind Opposition Members that the Charter for Budget Responsibility was passed by 505 votes to 18, and we will have to continue the journey towards balancing the budget. I hope that that is a journey we will be able to go on together.

In 2010, spending on tax credits had spiralled out of control, with nine in 10 families with children eligible for tax credits. We were taking money away from people in the form of income tax and then giving it back to them through another route. That is why we reformed the system to target support at those who needed it most—for example, by increasing the disability element while lowering overall Government spending.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I am sorry, but I am too short of time.

In the longer term, we will be migrating tax credits into the new system of universal credit, which will improve incentives to work, reduce reliance on benefits, make households better off and increase the number of people in work.

There are three key ways to help people to build success and security for themselves and their families: make sure everyone can get a good start in life; create the strong economy that sustains quality jobs; and let people keep as much as possible of what they have earned. We have been doing all three. We have increased our support on childcare and early years education by £1 billion; radically extended childcare provision; and increased funding for the most disadvantaged children in our schools and nurseries. We have created record job growth of 2 million—more than the rest of the EU put together—moved more and more households out of unemployment and supported millions of new apprenticeships. We have lowered income tax for 27 million people, including moving the lowest-paid 3 million out of tax altogether, and for the next five years, there will be no increases to income tax, VAT or national insurance contributions. These are the policies that our working people deserve—the ones they expect and have recently voted for.

The only sustainable way to raise living standards is to keep working through the Government’s long-term economic plan to build a resilient and dynamic economy. Just last week, we learned that living standards had risen again by 3.9% against the same period last year—further proof of how our long-term plan is helping hard-working families. We have reversed the system inherited from Labour, where it could be more rewarding to live off benefits than to get a job. We have cut income tax for 27 million people. We have capped benefits in a fair way and increased support for those who need it most. We have simplified the benefits system, cracked down on those who abuse it, and helped to provide millions of jobs to empower people to help them get on in life. This Government have continuously stood up for both the vulnerable and the hard working in our society, and we will continue that support every step of the way.

Question put.