Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I have heard that argument a lot recently, and there is no evidence to support such a contention. It is nice to believe that were we to reduce the amount of money people have—withdraw the subsidy, as the hon. Gentleman would say—some employers would increase their payments to people and wages would go up, but I do not suggest that that is true or that any evidence supports it. Tax credits have been a necessary subsidy for low wages, and I welcome and applaud the decision by the Government to increase the national minimum wage. That is the right thing to do, which is why Labour called for it before the election—the Government could get on with it a little faster and stop spinning it as a national living wage when we know it is not, but it is a welcome step. There is no evidence to suggest that if we withdraw the subsidy at a stroke, employers will think, “I’d better put up wages for my workforce because they will struggle to survive on what they earn.”

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Surely the answer to the first question from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) is that tax credits must ensure a decent, reasonable standard of living. Such standards have been defined over many years by large numbers of people in research institutions—I will not trouble the House with those matters now, but they are well understood.

[Owen Smith]

Let me be clear: tax credits are a success. They have kept people in work in this country, and we have seen a shift in the volume of single parents in work.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

The problem with welfare reform, as all who have wrestled with it well know, is that we either have a large number of people facing a moderate rate of withdrawal or we have a more limited number of people facing a high rate of withdrawal. All the time that we have means-tested benefits—our system is still riddled with them—means that we will have to make that difficult choice about whether there is a fast move off benefit when people’s income goes up or a slower move. That will mean we either have fewer or more people affected by the taper. Labour never solved the problem of the taper. The Labour Government had lots of difficult tapers and high marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal.

That brings me to the second fundamental pillar of the Government’s strategy, which I support, after the promotion of work and better-paid work: taxing people less, particularly those on lower incomes. Both the coalition and this Government have worked away at that, by trying to get more people out of paying income tax. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor thinks about his pre-Budget judgment and his autumn statement judgment later this year—he is rightly in listening mode—I trust he will think about the tax element in his policy mix, because the more he can do to take people out of tax or to lower the tax rate upon them, the more he will succeed in promoting prosperity and the more he will offset the impact of benefit changes.

[Hywel Williams]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about prosperity, but he will know as well as I do that small businesses are one of the chief drivers of it. How does he square that with the cuts to small businesses and single earners’ income from their self-employment?

[John Redwood]

The Government are trying to encourage people to earn more in self-employment—that is the whole point of the policy. The idea is to create better incentives so that it is worth while people working more and longer hours if they have not had sufficient hours of work and not a sufficient income, and they keep more of the money they make by being in self-employment. That is true for them as well as for people in employment.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman has had one go and I am sorry he messed up his question.

Tax Credits

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

When tax credits were first brought in, people were often overpaid. They would then receive a demand for an end-of-year repayment. I fought many of those cases, but Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would engineer the perfect excuse. Deep in its standard letter demanding repayments was this astonishing sentence:

“Even though we told you that your assessment was correct, it was not reasonable for you to believe it.”

That is how I view the Chancellor’s proposals—even though he tells me that there will not be any problems, it is not reasonable for me to believe him.

I have no problem in principle with removing low wage subsidies so long as we ensure a decent living wage; family support to make up for the variation in income when people have families of different sizes; proper affordable childcare provision available universally, particularly in deprived and rural areas, which are currently very poorly served; and support for small businesses to enable them to earn and to pay a living wage.

When tax credits were introduced, I asked the then Labour Treasury Minister what pilots had been carried out. Essentially, she said that none had been carried out. I fear that we are in that same position with these proposals. We know what happened then: chaos, over- payments, underpayments, misery to families and the damage to the Government’s reputation. The impact of these changes has not been thoroughly assessed, and I fear that we will all regret that at our leisure.

Tax Credits

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady is making a ridiculous argument and once again trying to pretend that there are people on welfare and people in work whereas in reality—as illustrated by the tax credit system—many thousands and millions of working people are dependent on benefits because of low pay. That is the key issue in this debate. The Government are attacking low-paid workers, just as they have over the last Parliament, while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society. The deep cuts to the incomes of the poorest families that the Government are trying to enact today will only exacerbate the inequalities we already have in our society and push opportunities even further out of the reach of those who already lag behind.

The most bizarre claim that has been made for the Government’s austerity measures is that they will encourage people to work harder. I think that we should reject the rather insidious implication that people in low-paid jobs somehow do not work as hard as people in better paid jobs, because that is simply not the case. We must remember that those low-paid jobs are often far more physically demanding, and many people who are set to see their incomes cut under this measure are already working very long hours in exhausting and often pretty unrewarding roles.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Lady also reject the glib answer from those on the Government Benches that low-paid workers can somehow just take more hours, because clearly those hours are not available?

[Dr Whiteford]

In various parts of the country unemployment is still unacceptably high. Whether someone can easily pick up extra hours depends on which part of the country they live in, which sector of the economy they work in and what caring commitments they might have, whether for children or other family members. It is not so straightforward when lots of parents are chasing part-time work between the hours of 9 am and 2.30 pm, when their children are at school. A lot of part-time work needs to be done outwith those hours, when parents have real difficulties accessing childcare.

The charity Gingerbread has today pointed out that some lone parents working full time on the minimum wage with one child will, by 2020, be no better off than non-working lone parents were in 2010. By 2020 many parents working full time will have fallen even further below the minimum income standard than they are at present, but essentially they will be no better off working full time than they would have been had they been out of work five years ago. Where is the work incentive in that? If we really want to incentivise work, we should be increasing work allowances, as my party proposed in the run-up to the general election, not cutting them. That would incentivise work and cut child poverty.

Once again, we have been told today that increases in the minimum wage will compensate for those losses, but the numbers simply do not stack up. Even if the Government proposed raising the minimum wage to the level of the current living wage, which is already £7.85 an hour—well above the Government’s proposed ceiling—the calculation of the living wage is based on not only the cost of living but the assumption that low-paid families are already receiving their full entitlement to tax credits at the current rate.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, trade unions and others have all pointed out that the proposed increases in the minimum wage, and indeed the increases in the personal tax allowance, will not make up for the loss of tax credits. The crucial point is that if we cut tax credits in the way the Government are proposing today, the minimum wage would have to rise substantially further, to around £11 an hour, just to keep incomes standing still in real terms.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

As I said earlier, I represent the constituency of Strangford, and the fishing industry is particularly important to me. We have had a cod recovery programme in the Irish sea for the past 10 to 12 years, and there are greater numbers of cod than there have ever been during that time and the fish are bigger. However, Europe restricts our fishermen’s ability to fish those cod. That is an example of why we need a new common fisheries policy that local people can control and have an input in.

[The Temporary Chair (Hywel Williams)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) will not go too far down that line of discussion.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall move on to my other points in a second, Mr Williams, but I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that if member states control their own fisheries, they will be able to stop irresponsible fishing and the plundering of fish stocks by other nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but it is a counsel of despair to say that because we cannot trust our own Government, we have to go to the European Union. I was on a march through London opposing austerity last Saturday, and there were tens of thousands of people there who felt strongly about it. Even though we may have Governments we do not like from time to time, we have the chance of pressurising them in the short term and getting rid of them and replacing them with more progressive Governments in the long term. Pressurising Governments is what I do in politics, as I think Members of all parties do. I want to see the Government elected in this country governing this country, not giving away our powers so that we are governed by a bureaucracy in Brussels or wherever.

I have mentioned spending on the CAP, aid, structural funds, regional policy and so on. If we had responsibility for those things, some of the fiscal transfers that effectively take place between the richer and poorer countries in the European Union might no longer happen. If we want fiscal transfers, the way to do it would be for us to make substantial contributions to a fund that could be allocated to the Governments of less well-off countries. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland or wherever could benefit from donations, but they would go to those countries’ Governments, who would decide how that money ought to be spent in their countries. It would not be about the European Union subsidising certain sectors in a way that may or may not be beneficial to those countries. As I said, in Lithuania, and no doubt in other countries, they are being paid not to grow agricultural products and their own food. That is nonsensical, and I wish to see an end to it. If we want fiscal transfers, let them be up front. Let us contribute to a fund that poorer countries in the EU, or in a new association of member states, could draw on. That would be a more sensible way forward.

Of course, that would loosen the bonds of the European Union. We would not have decisions about all sorts of sectors being made by the Commission in Brussels. They would be made by democratic Governments, and we would have a looser association of states within Europe, which would be a much more sensible way of operating. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, and I support her probing new clauses and her amendment 1, which we hope to be voting on soon.

[The Temporary Chair (Hywel Williams)]

I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant]

Tapadh leibh—thank you, Mr Williams. I apologise for not being able to say that in Welsh despite your attempts at tuition last night. I will keep practising.

It struck me after hearing the first two speakers in the debate that we had spent an hour and 45 minutes discussing the Bill and the only point of contention appeared to be whether the Government should write letters, and, if so, how many. If we are serious about sorting out great European institutions that are inefficient and have a lot of waste, I suspect that many of the audience of millions watching live on television will ask us to hold a mirror up to our own face. A debate such as this surely cannot be what this place was designed for.

European Union Referendum Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Precisely. If I were the Governor of the Bank of England—some might say thank the Lord I am not, though it is quite an interesting job—I would not feel I wanted to publish such a document because I would suddenly find myself in the middle of the most emotional political debate going on in the country, and that is not where the Bank of England should be. On that serious ground, I think the amendments are interesting and I hope I discover what the views of the Bank of England are. They will probably be leaked, although central banks should not leak. I do not think we should enjoin the Bank to produce what would inevitably be ferociously controversial documents.

I conclude as I began. I find all these debates a little bewildering. I have not the slightest doubt that the British public will not allow this referendum to be run on any basis other than that of reasonably fair objectivity on both sides, and we should beware of making the mistake of slipping into the Bill rigidities which, if we are not careful, will start causing totally undesirable results when the reality of the referendum takes place.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I support amendment 16 and new clauses 3 and 4 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and other hon. Members.

I hope I can welcome some clarification from the Government later on the question of holding the referendum on the same day as the elections in Scotland and the elections for the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales. An aspect that has not received much attention is that of the effects of the franchise. EU citizens have the right to vote in our general elections in Wales and in Scotland. The Government here in London propose to exclude them from the referendum. If the referendum and the election were held at the same time, one can picture the spectacle in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales when EU citizens turn up to vote, cast a vote and then are cast out. They are being prevented from voting on our future in the EU. That spectacle would cheer the hearts of despots throughout the world, from Moscow to Damascus to Pyongyang.

On the declaration of the results and the so-called quad lock, there are particular EU issues pertaining to Wales. I would say that these are national issues. On Second Reading I referred to the value that we as a multilingual society derive from membership of a multilingual and multicultural European Union. This may not figure as largely elsewhere in the UK as it does in Wales—it is a particular Welsh issue.

Wales is one of the poorest parts of Europe—it is at the same level as some former Soviet bloc countries—and we have derived much benefit from EU regional policy. Again, that is of national significance to Wales. We are also very dependent on EU agricultural support. There are other issues relating to manufacturing and demography, but I will not go into those now. All those factors might or might not decide the result in Wales—I cannot say whether they will—but they are legitimate national interests and should be respected as such.

We have a particular national interest. It might be different from the national interest of our neighbours. As the Government intend, their national interest will trump ours. I think that there are only two ways to go on the respect issue: either to respect or not to respect. The current proposals potentially will not respect, which is why we will support amendment 16.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will endeavour to be as brief as possible in order to allow other Members to speak. I will speak primarily to amendments (a) and (b) to amendment 11, which stand in my name, but also in support of amendment 11, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I thank my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the positive way in which they have engaged with the entire party on these questions. We are grateful for that dialogue. I think that absolutely proves that we are not in some re-run of previous grief. This debate is not even about Europe; it is, in fact, about how to conduct a fair referendum.

I have some experience of referendums, because I set up the “North East Says No” referendum campaign in 2004, which turned around a two-thirds majority in favour of a north-east Assembly into a 4:1 defeat. We operated under the provisions laid down by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which worked pretty well. The purdah provisions restricted what the Government did, although they are probably not tough enough. They did not prevent the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, changing the Government’s policy on what powers that putative Assembly would have only a few days before the postal votes went out. When we rang up the Cabinet Secretary to complain that the Deputy Prime Minister had breached the purdah rules, we were told, “That’s a matter for the Minister, not for me.”

That underlines the argument that the purdah rules are not tough enough, rather than that we should not have them at all, because they prevented civil servants from becoming embroiled in referendum questions, or being used by Ministers to promulgate the case that the Government wanted them to promulgate, and that is the vital protection. It is principally towards the impartiality of civil servants that I want to address my remarks, particularly given that, I am proud to say, I have been elected unopposed to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I very much hope to persuade my fellow members of the Committee to address some of these issues during this Parliament.

I am disappointed that the Labour party has abandoned the principled position it adopted on purdah when it implemented the 2000 Act, which is quite extraordinary. I ran into Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, this morning, and he was thoroughly disappointed to hear that the Labour party was backing off from supporting the constitutional legislation that it had implemented. Those ideas did not just come out of nowhere; they were ideas for a fair referendum that arose from the unfairness of the conduct of the first Welsh referendum, which were addressed by the Neil committee, which became the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the key is in the name. It was regarded as essential to have a period when the machinery of government cannot be involved in supporting one side or the other in a referendum campaign. The Electoral Commission would like 10 weeks, rather than just four weeks.

There are certain myths about purdah. The Government do not grind to a halt during a general election. Ministers even attend meetings of the Council of Ministers during general elections. However, during a general election a Minister cannot use their Department to promulgate information or to brief the press in a manner that is intended to affect the outcome. We want the same to apply in the referendum.

The letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, which the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has now seen, does not actually provide the reassurance that is required. In fact, by explaining what is contemplated, it confirms precisely the opposite. For example, it states that the Government,

“having taken a position on the outcome of our negotiations with the rest of the EU, will naturally be obliged to account to Parliament and the British people.”

There is absolutely no problem about accounting to Parliament in any purdah period about any matter at all, because it is privileged. There are no purdah rules that apply to anything that any Minister would say on the Floor of the House of Commons.

But are we seriously to believe, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) indicated, that civil servants should be used to put out press releases on matters that are being addressed by the referendum question, because that is what he is saying? That is precisely what should not be allowed. The idea that this will prevent Ministers from saying anything, and that somehow Ministers will not be able to take part in the referendum campaign, is clearly tosh. I seem to recall the Prime Minister being very vociferous in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, right to the last day of the campaign. However, he was unable to use his ministerial car, fly at ministerial expense or use the machinery of government to promulgate the messages he wanted to get across. There might have been a rather frustrating moment when he said, “I want to put out a statement”, and the Cabinet Secretary would have had to tell him, “I’m sorry, Prime Minister, but you can’t do that now that we are in purdah. You will have to do that through the no campaign or through your party.” That is exactly right. What is the point of the expenditure limits for the yes and no campaigns if the Government have 80 special advisers and thousands of press officers able to issue press releases, brief the media and organise media tours for Ministers? That is precisely what should not be available to Ministers during the closing stages of a referendum campaign.