Charter for Budget Responsibility

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Can I just press on a bit further before I give way again? I am sure there will be plenty of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the former Chancellor missed every target in his first charter, so he brought in a second. He was on course to miss the targets in that second one, so he then brought in a third. In September last year, he presented his 2015 update. The current charter for budget responsibility sets targets for an overall balance on Government spending inside five years, with debt falling in each year of the Parliament. However, the Government knew last summer that the vast majority of economists who were asked had criticised the approach, as had the Treasury Committee. Almost without exception, the Labour party agreed with the macroeconomic profession that the approach was likely to prove misguided. We were defeated in the Lobbies that day, but our warnings have been proved prescient.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor will know that any critique of the Government should be accompanied by a coherent alternative strategy. On that basis, is he embarrassed that the Leader of the Opposition’s economic adviser Richard Murphy described the Labour party’s approach as having

“no policy direction, no messaging, no direction, no co-ordination, no nothing”?

[John McDonnell]

He is not the economic adviser and never has been, because we doubted his judgment, unfortunately. He is a tax accountant, not an adviser. He is actually excellent on tax evasion and tax avoidance, but he leaves a lot to be desired on macroeconomic policy.

Turning to the Government’s performance, their charter for budget responsibility lacked credibility from the moment it passed into law and has now lost what shreds it retained this year. Since last September’s debate, every target in the charter that could have been missed has been missed. By the time of the March Budget, the OBR announced that the Government were on track to miss their target for the welfare cap for every year of this Parliament. The charter also insisted that the debt to GDP ratio would fall in each year of this Parliament, but the OBR said in March:

“We now expect the debt-to-GDP ratio to rise between 2014-15 and 2015-16”.

The Government managed to stay on target for its 2020 surplus only through some accountancy that might best be described as imaginative. The writing was already on the wall and then in June the then Chancellor used the backdrop of his fiscal charter as the pretext for threatening British people with a further austerity Budget should they vote to leave the EU.

UK Economy

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

We had better fix the problems caused by the Brexit decision and then, if we find ourselves unable to secure our place in the EU by any other means, the hon. Gentleman will be more than welcome to scrutinise whatever plans are brought forward.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point, but he is totally wrong. I have to set fire to his straw man. A general election, where a policy programme is presented and a party is ready to take over with a fixed platform of policy, is different, as he knows, from a referendum. The referendum result is an instruction to the Government to deliver, and they should have been ready to take that instruction.

[Stewart Hosie]

We are now seeing the consequence of the lack of plan. The expectation that those who campaigned to stay in should be preparing the work for those who wanted to leave is preposterous in the extreme.

We back the motion also because the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. We have shown ourselves to be a modern, outward-looking and inclusive country, and I share the view of others. We look on in horror as community cohesion is under threat as the racists and the bigots think the result of the referendum is a green light to abuse anyone from any other background. It is not, and we unreservedly condemn that racism and that bigotry.

Let us understand what happened in Scotland on the day of the referendum. The people there made it clear that they see their future as part of the EU: 62% of the Scottish people—a nation—voted to stay in the EU, compared with 48.1% across the UK, and 51.9% across the UK voted to leave; only 38% in Scotland chose to do that. Over 1.5 million people voted remain. Each and every one of the 32 council areas voted to remain—the only nation in the UK with a clean sweep of local authorities voting to stay in. At a little more than 67%, the turnout was the second highest of any referendum held in Scotland, even higher than the 1997 referendum on devolution. So while I understand what the Chancellor said about respecting the will of the UK people, I hope that the same will apply to respecting the will of the Scottish nation, who have clearly said that they intend to stay in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It is the case that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are, at our prompting, ensuring that they have got registers of beneficial interests. It is also the case that the UK is co-operating, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, with other jurisdictions. I hope we move to a position whereby public registers are the norm, but even before we get to that point, clearly we will look at the opportunities for the information on the central registers to be shared among co-operative economies and jurisdictions.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I remember the good old days when the Chancellor regarded Treasury predictions as so discredited that he established the Office for Budget Responsibility instead. I cannot think what could have changed. The GDP projections in his dodgy dossier are predicated on breaking our manifesto commitment on immigration, while the cost implications of his new policy of mass migration for school places, housing, health and transport are not made explicit in the document. Why is that?

[Mr Osborne]

We are having a referendum, and people are going to take different views on the prospects of the United Kingdom as we go forward, but the public want facts and information. We have set out in the analysis produced by the Treasury what we think the likely impacts on the economy will be, and this analysis has now been supported by the London School of Economics. It gives out a similar message to that provided by the Bank of England on the economic shock that would come if we leave. Then there are bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and others saying a similar thing. The weight of evidence and the weight of opinion is clear: there would be an economic price if we left the EU. Some regard that as a price worth paying, which is a perfectly respectable argument, but it is not one that I agree with.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Banks are de-risking very aggressively at the moment and we need to inject some proportionality into their actions. I believe that the new clause will go some way towards achieving that.

New clause 9 inserts into the Bill a process of adjudication. If a politically exposed person believes that they are being treated unfairly—being denied access to banking services—they can take their concern or complaint to the FCA, which can then adjudicate. The FCA can decide whether banks are interpreting the directive over-aggressively and, if they are, levy a fine on them for doing so. The new clause has nothing to do with reducing accountability; it is about increasing proportionality, which is the right thing to do.

Why is new clause 9 needed? It is needed because it is clear that in interpreting the fourth money laundering directive, banks are making no distinction, when determining who is a politically exposed person, between PEPs drawn from the corruption hotbeds of Nigeria, Russia and parts of the subcontinent, and those drawn from developed democracies such as ours that have high levels of scrutiny and accountability.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I put on record the thanks of all of us in the House to my hon. Friend for his diligence, focus and tenacity in bringing this massively important issue to the attention of the Government and for what we hope will be a satisfactory conclusion today? Does he agree that the collateral damage of some of the precipitous action of the banks has been a big impact on people’s families and, as a corollary, their future credit worthiness?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said, the banks have acted very aggressively, and I shall return to that point in a few moments.

May I thank the Economic Secretary for her time and patience in dealing with this matter? I have been speaking to her about it for four months, and I admit that I have got a little over-excited on occasions. However, she has always maintained high levels of good humour and patience, for which I thank her. It is important to put that on the record.

At this late stage, without the intervention of new clause 9, the directive risks blighting the lives of decent people. They are not just people working in public life and service but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) pointed out, their partners, spouses, children, parents, siblings and in-laws. The directive is not proportionate.

Even more worryingly, the directive covers the close associates of politically exposed persons. I am aware that one such close associate is a member of the press lobby. He had some problems with an individual savings account and was subject to close questioning by his bank. When he asked the person on the other end of the phone why the bank was conducting itself in such a way, the response was, “Because we understand that you are an associate of the Prime Minister.” Even the media are caught up in this directive, or rather the banks’ de-risking in preparation for its introduction.

The Financial Action Task Force, whose guidance underpins the directive and is repeatedly referred to in it, states:

“For close associates, examples include”—

the House needs to listen carefully to this because it is quite an odd paragraph—

“the following types of relationships: (known) (sexual) partners outside the family unit (e.g. girlfriends, boyfriends, mistresses); prominent members of the same political party, civil organisation”—

that could be the National Trust—

“labour or employee union as the PEP; business partners or associates, especially those that share (beneficial) ownership of legal entities with the PEP, or who are otherwise connected”.

My fear is that, without clear Government-backed FCA guidance, as provided for in new clause 9, the banks, in their rush to de-risk, will continue to draw on the work of the Financial Action Task Force. The Financial Action Task Force states in paragraph 37 of its 2013 guidance:

“there should be awareness that middle ranking and more junior officials could act on behalf of a PEP to circumvent…controls. These less prominent public functions could be appropriately taken into account as customer risk factors in the framework of the overall assessment of risks”.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Budget was a story of missed targets for the Chancellor and missed opportunities for our country and, like the Budget of 2012, it is rapidly turning into a total mess. I am pleased to see some of the U-turns, but much more is needed.

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. He spoke powerfully about the importance of rebalancing our economy. That is greatly needed, especially after some of the numbers we saw in the Budget last week. As a result of the lower productivity, the lower exports and the other things my hon. Friend spoke about, economic growth has been revised down for every single year of this Parliament. A staggering £71 billion has been knocked off our tax revenues. As a result, the Government are now set to borrow an extra £38 billion over the next five years. That is why, after breaking his promise to clear the deficit in the last Parliament, the Chancellor has now broken his pledge to bring the debt down as a share of GDP in this Parliament as well.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Would the hon. Lady’s argument not have a lot more weight and credibility had her party—as she well knows because of her position on the Front Bench—not opposed every single one of the £83 billion-worth of welfare cuts that had to be made in the wake of the 2010 fiscal inheritance?

[Rachel Reeves]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman still thinks we should go ahead with the cuts to personal independence payments. It certainly sounds like it from those remarks.

Let me deal with the specific issues surrounding personal independence payments and the impact that this Government have had on disabled people. While the fiasco is unfolding around us, let us remember the broader points. This is a Government—the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—who forced through the bedroom tax, affecting 500,000 people, the majority of them disabled, by about £700 a year. This is the Government who forced through the closure of the independent living fund. This is the Government who forced through cuts to employment and support allowance only last summer, affecting 500,000 people and worth about £30 a week or £1,500 a year. The U-turn on personal independence payments, although welcome, deals with only a fraction of the damage and the pain that the Government have caused to disabled people in all our constituencies.

Let us be clear what this U-turn means. The new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions came to the Chamber yesterday and said that the Government are not going back to the welfare bill and to disabled people for further cuts. But in the course of yesterday’s statement, that was watered down a little. The Government now have “no plans” to come back to the welfare budget and disability benefits. That is reminiscent of when they had no plans to increase VAT and all the other things they had no plans to do, until they did them and until they hurt the people who least need to be hurt.

When the Chief Secretary winds up the debate this evening, I would like to hear whether there are no plans, or whether the Government can guarantee that there will be no further cuts to the welfare budget or to the benefits of disabled people. We know that there is a black hole of £4.4 billion in the public finances. If it is not the wealthy and not disabled people, who is going to pay the price? Are there going to be further cuts to education, health, defence and our police? Will there be further increases in taxes—on VAT and taxes for ordinary working people? Something has to give and we need some answers about the black hole in the Budget that we are voting on, although we do not know what it means. What does it mean for all those different groups of people?

As the Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility told us at the Treasury Committee meeting this morning, the issue is not just that there is a £4.4 billion black hole in the social security budget, but that the Government have failed to meet their welfare cap. They are going to fail in every year of this Parliament, by a staggering £20 billion—£20 billion more on social security spending in this Parliament than the Government set out, a further black hole in their public finances. Why did they get into this mess in the first place? It is because they wanted to cut taxes for the wealthiest in society. They wanted to cut capital gains tax, increase the threshold before people started paying the 40p rate of tax, and increase the ISA limit from £15,000 to £20,000 so that we can all save the full £20,000 a year tax free. That is great for those who have the money, but most of our constituents are lucky to earn £20,000 a year, let alone put it away in savings. That is why the Government raided the social security budget yet again to give tax cuts to their friends, the wealthiest and the most privileged in our society.

Last week’s Budget could have been different. For example, the Government could have put more money into infrastructure investment. In my constituency, we are paying a heavy price for the floods on 26 December. The Chancellor said earlier that I should have welcomed the money for flood defences, but in 2011 the Government cancelled a flood defence scheme in Leeds worth £135 million. Last week, they announced £35 million for Leeds. Well, I am sorry for not thanking the Chancellor, but an offer of £35 million rather than £135 million is not really worth the thanks, and the businesses in my constituency will pay a heavy price if the rains come again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) made a strong case, but, unfortunately, it is desperately flawed. As she knows, the fact of the matter is that, in the 13 years of the Labour Government, the gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% widened. During her party’s period in government, we had record numbers of children in workless households, and unemployment, including youth unemployment, rose.

[Graham Evans]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. During 13 years of Labour, many gaps were created, but particularly the north-south divide. Does he therefore welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of the High Speed 3 line from Manchester to Leeds, which will significantly cut train times—by 30 minutes?

[Mr Jackson]

I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is that this Government are taking the difficult decisions on infrastructure—on things such as nuclear power and airport capacity.

[Wes Streeting]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will not at the moment, but I might later.

The previous Labour Government, in very benign economic circumstances—mainly driven, of course, by debt and borrowing—failed to take those decisions.

I welcome the Budget in general terms—of course, I took issue with the Chancellor’s comments about Brexit, and I think the OBR’s anodyne comments on Brexit were misrepresented. However, there were some good things in the Budget, which was not a redistributive Budget from poor to rich, but largely a redistributive-neutral Budget, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies said.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will not at the moment.

I welcome the lifetime ISA. I welcome the tax crackdown on offshore property developers and transfer pricing. It was good to see the changes in the personal allowance, which will take many of my constituents out of tax.

Indeed, my constituency is in a very fortunate position, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for delivering nothing short of a jobs miracle. We have seen the largest reduction in youth unemployment in the history of my seat—and probably in England as a whole—at over 70%, and there has been a more than 60% reduction in adult unemployment. We also have record numbers of apprenticeships. That is taking people out of poverty. That is the great record of this Government.

The decision to resile from the commitment on PIP was absolutely right. There is a moral, social equity issue—[Hon. Members: “A U-turn.”] It is a U-turn—that was well spotted by Labour Members. However, it was absolutely right to make that decision. It was right for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) to point up the juxtaposition of tax reductions for well-off people and the change in PIP. However, it ill behoves Labour Members to lecture the Government, when they voted against every welfare change in the last Parliament. What would they have done, and what would they do now? It is incumbent on the Opposition to come through with a coherent, comprehensive alternative on fiscal policy, public expenditure and tax.

Let me raise two issues that have caused me some concern with the Budget. The problem the Government have encountered, which we have discussed over the last few days, has given rise to a proper debate about intergenerational fairness. We need to look again at pensioner benefits. We cannot discuss welfare without looking at things such as the triple lock and pensioners benefits. I rarely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), but he is absolutely right that we cannot see these things in a vacuum, and it is important that we look again at means-testing and pensioner benefits. It is morally wrong to make large transfers of wealth from the young to the old. There has to be a consensus on this issue.

One suggestion I would make is that, if we are going to means-test pensioner benefits, we should perhaps link that to the most acute societal issue we have at the moment, which is adult social care. We should have co-ordination and integration between acute district hospitals and the provision of care and housing for older people. I think there are older pensioners who would understand that, and it is something the Treasury needs to go forward with and look at very seriously.

The second concern is that, as we speak, Cambridgeshire County Council—it is not my local authority, because Peterborough City Council is a unitary authority—is looking at the devolution plans for East Anglia. At the moment, those do not stack up. We have not had enough information—in some senses, I am reprising the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) yesterday—and we need more. The proposal has been rushed to get it in the Budget statement. It needs to be finessed. We need to carry businesses with us. Neither local enterprise partnership agrees with it. The majority of councils are, at best, ambivalent, and that includes Cambridge City Council, which has rejected it. We need to look at this proposal again.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will not at the moment.

It may be that there are synergies between Lowestoft and Peterborough, or between Norwich and Ipswich, but I have yet to see them. Let us have more information about funding, governance, infrastructure spending, the role of an executive mayor and what will happen to the existing local government structure. I am not against this in principle, but we cannot promise £30 billion of spending over the next 30 years without more facts. We need to see those, and that is the challenge I give to those on the Treasury Front Bench.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

If my right hon. Friend will be patient, the purpose of my speech is to explain the reasons why I oppose the Government. We need to look at where the Government are taking us, even though they are trying to get there through a permissive, devolutionary approach. It is based on the premise that the deregulation of Sunday trading is good for small businesses, families and workers. We need to look at that premise. Deregulation is a one-way valve that local authorities would have the option of taking. I know that many Conservative Members are pure localists, who might want the decision about whether to restrict or deregulate Sunday trading to be a purely local one. The Government make the case that this is good for small businesses, but I object to that. I want to look at the way in which the Government have approached the question and carried out the consultation.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and his strong leadership on the matter. Does he agree that the Government’s case would be more compelling had they abided by the undertaking that the Minister has twice given to publish the impact assessment, which we are led to believe is positive and favourable? So far, the Government have not done so.

[Mr Burrowes]

The impact assessment has been published today. That is important. The Bill has already received some scrutiny in Committee. The Sunday trading proposals were introduced in Committee; they were not in the Bill on Second Reading. The Bill started not in this place but in the House of Lords. Therefore, the Sunday trading measure received no scrutiny in any of the stages in the House of Lords.

Following the consultation, we were promised that the impact assessment would be published, as we would expect with any measure, not least such an important and controversial one. The impact assessment was published today, and it includes several paragraphs about the family test, for which I and others have asked for some time. Back in October, I asked when the family impact test would be published, and I was told that it would be published before the Committee stage. In February, I asked again when it would be published, and I was told that it would be published alongside the Government’s consultation response. That did not happen. After that, I was told that it would be published shortly. It has been published today. I do not think that is acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

The issue about tourists is not for me. I will leave my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) to make such a case in relation to her amendment 19.

I want to turn to the substance of the issue, which is first of all about process. This is a controversial matter. No one who has been around for a while and who has listened to people’s concerns will deny that it is controversial. That is plainly the case given that it divides opinions so much in this House.

[Mr Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to make some progress.

Normally, as I understand it, the guidance for a Government consultation on a controversial matter is to allocate a full 12-week period for the consultation. However, the consultation that has led to where we are now not only lasted just six weeks, but happened right in the middle of the summer holidays at the start of August. This particularly important consultation ran for two weeks in the central period of the holidays. Why did that happen? Was there a rush to get the measure on the statute book immediately? The Government took some five months to respond to that rushed consultation, which nevertheless managed to generate some 7,000 responses, which is extraordinary, given the time constraints. If such a controversial measure elicited that number of responses, all parliamentarians must ask why it did not get the full scrutiny that it deserved in both Houses. There was an attempt to tack it on to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, and now it has been tacked on to the Enterprise Bill, after that has already been through the Lords. Someone who was cynical or suspicious might say that that limits the scrutiny of an important measure.

These are not just my concerns. When we last had the opportunity to discuss this matter, which was during the passage of the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill in 2012, it did receive full scrutiny. The then Minister, Lord Sassoon, underlined the temporary nature of the proposed change. As many hon. Members have said, we had assurances from the Government that that was not a precursor to a further deregulatory move. Lord Sassoon also gave an assurance that there would be full parliamentary debate if there were ever another Sunday trading legislative proposal, but we have not had that. Unfortunately, that promise has not been kept. That is to the detriment of us all, as it would have allowed us to consider matters such as tourist zones and pilot areas, about which we will probably hear later. All those aspects need time for proper scrutiny.

[Mr Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend nail the myth that the measure is designed to assist town centre retail trade? Some 53% of local authority chief executives said that they would use the new liberalisation to boost out-of-town shopping centres, but that cannot be what many hon. Members want.

[Mr Burrowes]

Indeed. The knock-on effects of the measure need careful thought and attention.

The consultation showed that 76% of local authorities, large and medium-sized business respondents and business representative organisations were in favour of the proposals, but while the Government told us that those organisations and local authorities were in favour, they failed to tell us about the proportion for individual responses. We all have a right to respond individually to Government consultations. We all have a voice. It is not just the big corporate bodies whose response counts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I duplicated a question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ask what number and what proportion of respondents to the Department’s consultation published on 5 August responded yes and no—it is a simple question. The first question in the consultation asked whether people were in favour of the proposal, so surely it is possible to publish the number of respondents. That question was, “Should local areas have the power to extend trading hours on Sunday?” and that is the question that we are debating today, so it would be useful to know how many individuals who responded to the consultation were in favour of the proposal.

The answer that my hon. Friend and I received from the Minister is one of the most extraordinary that I have seen in my 10 years here. It stated:

“The Department does not hold full data from this consultation broken down by specific question as a large portion of respondents chose to respond in their own words”—

I assume that they were English words and there was no problem of translation—

“rather than addressing the consultation questions directly, and/or did not indicate the type of organisation they represented.”

That is unacceptable. There should be a proper, accountable process that enables us to judge the response to the consultation on the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) makes a strong point, and she has been consistent on this matter. She makes a clear, passionate and strong point on the importance of family values and of our social fabric. If she will bear with me, I will touch on that matter in just a moment.

I would say to Opposition Members that we need to think about where we are with Sunday trading. Let us be very clear: none of us would put up with a Government banning cinemas from opening on Wednesday evenings, so why on earth would we put up with a Government telling us when we can and cannot open our businesses and run our shops, and telling us how we should be spending our time if we want to go shopping on a Sunday?

[Mr Jackson]

The Minister is fielding a difficult case very well. He is an excellent Minister with whom I have had the great honour to serve on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee. However, on the specific issue of employment rights, he will know that as a result of work commissioned by the Christian Institute, John Bowers QC said on 25 February that he considered the Government’s proposals for employment rights “inordinately complex”, and that they would offer

“no protection from detriment or dismissal for people who object to working on Sundays during the opt-out notice period.”

That is the issue, and that is what the best legal brains have told us about the Government’s proposal.

[Brandon Lewis]

I have a similar admiration for my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic colleague to work with at all times, but I disagree with him on this matter. We know what the Government lawyers have outlined, and the strengthening of rights as set out in our amendments goes beyond anything that Labour did while it was in government to increase workers’ protection. This is an important part of the package. Inconsistency from the parties on the Opposition Benches is one thing, but killing off jobs is entirely another. Given Labour’s unemployment record and its Maoist take on economics, however, I should perhaps not be surprised. The SNP and Labour did not even raise an amendment or a vote on this issue in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Family is reason enough. We have debated the family here on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister himself has said that he wants to run a family-centred Government. For this reason alone, we should oppose the change and support the amendment.

[Mr Jackson]

I rise more in sorrow than in anger. I have made my views known to the Minister. I am disappointed that I shall have to support not the Government but the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I shall not support the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) because I think what can be classified as a tourist area is a moot point. People might come to Warwickshire near her own constituency and visit Stratford, yet she has Chelmsley Wood in her constituency, which some might describe as a brutalist horror, yet it could be reclassified as a tourist attraction. It will be difficult for lawyers to prove what is a tourist area and what is not. This makes it difficult for the amendment to stand.

This is not an economic issue or even a faith issue, although I pay tribute to the very good speech by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is about what kind of country we want to be. It is a conscience issue. My understanding was that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was subject to a free vote on what was regarded as an issue of conscience. Why can we not do the same now?

I find it pretty shocking that a manuscript amendment appears on the Twitter feed of Sky News at 2.4 pm before Members have had an opportunity to look at it. I have to tell the Minister that five or six weeks ago, I said to no less important a figure than the Prime Minister that what we needed was a competitive regime in which local authorities could come forward and offer to be pilots, yet that was dismissed. Indeed, Ministers were not talking to Back Benchers about this issue until 48 hours ago—in fact, even less than that. [Interruption.] I mean on the specific issue that we have put forward.

I am not an uber-liberal and I am not a social liberal. I think we have a social contract and a bond with our constituents. We should regulate some behaviours. That is why, for instance, we voted to ban smoking in vehicles with children in them. “Devil take the hindmost” is not the right way in which to pursue this issue, especially given that in 2014 the Prime Minister, no less, said on the BBC news that families should be the prism through which we should decide policy. Indeed, as my hon. Friend pointed out in April 2015, during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister wrote to the Keep Sunday Special campaign saying the same thing.

It is not acceptable that there has been no proper scrutiny and oversight in the House of Lords. It is not acceptable that the Whips packed the Public Bill Committee with people who were likely to be sympathetic. It is not acceptable for the Government to use the relevant section of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to stifle debate by hiding the number of consultations that have taken place—and we saw the ridiculous answer that my hon. Friend was given by Ministers.

Why has there been no family assessment? Why has there been no impact assessment? Those are important questions that the Government have not yet answered. The issue is important to me because 32% of the economic activity in my constituency takes place in the retail sector, and there will be a domino effect. Decisions will be taken naturally. If Peterborough were to deregulate and adopt a different retail regime, Fenland would want the same, and so would Huntingdonshire, Corby and other local authorities. I think it foolish and naive to assume that will not happen.

What am I asking Members to vote on today? I am asking them to give the Government some breathing space. We know that this proposal has been driven not by the superb ministerial teams in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—I do not always agree with them, but they are very good at their jobs—but by the dead hand of the Treasury. The Treasury has been taking the media flak for this, and the Treasury is putting out the lines to be taken. An obscure Back-Bench Tory MP who votes the right way today is likely to get a brand-new bypass, or perhaps become a special representative to some warm and exotic place of which he or she has never heard.

The fact is that this is an issue of principle, integrity and conscience. I defer to no one in my admiration for the Government’s work in important areas such as the reform of education and welfare, but they are now engaging in a needless and egregious conflict with their own Back Benchers. They do not need to do that. There is no authority for this proposal, because, as we know, it was not in the Conservative manifesto. I have already said that the legal case is threadbare, and I have cited the legal opinion of John Bowers, QC.

I am very fond of the Minister, but only a week or so ago he said that the Government were proceeding on the basis of what was in the Bill after the Committee stage. Today, he waxed lyrical at the Dispatch Box about the fantastic idea of launching pilot projects to open up retail across the country. That does not stack up; it is close, but no cigar. If it was such a good idea, why was it not taken up by senior Ministers weeks ago, when I raised it personally with the Prime Minister? I think that that is a fair question.

If Members on both sides of the House vote against the Government and in favour of my hon. Friend’s amendment, all they will do is allow the Government to consult properly, present coherent arguments, and propose measures that will protect workers’ rights and the special interests of the Association of Convenience Stores—which has raised concerns—while also taking proper note of what is said by the trade unions. They are not always the friends of our party, but they have a right to be heard, and 91% of members of USDAW have opposed the Government’s proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) suggested that new legislation could be proposed in the Queen’s Speech. I can even offer a name: the Sunday Trading (Pilot Projects) Bill. I will invoice the Minister later for that suggestion. We could then have a proper debate, because we would know what we were voting for. I must say to the Minister that this has not been done properly. There has not been proper scrutiny and oversight. There has not been proper debate and discussion. Running around with manuscript amendments at four minutes past two on the day of a Report stage is not good government.

I want to support the Government, and I want them to succeed, but I am afraid that on this occasion, with a very heavy heart, I cannot support them, and I will be voting for the amendment. I will be doing that so that the Government can come back, carry the House in a consensus, protect jobs, protect a way of life, protect family life, and look after the interests of our constituents, because, if for no other reason, that is why we are here.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and to be part of the unholy alliance that is doing so. Trust me, it is better to be part of an unholy alliance than to be called a Maoist. The reason that most of us are supporting the amendment is that we are united on several key principles. We stand in support of family life, we oppose the exploitation of shop workers, and we believe in real competition and genuine devolution, which gives fair play to our small shops and supports diversity on the high street. There is unity too because in this country we believe that it is right to keep Sunday special.

Of course society has changed, and the law has changed with it. Some people will point to the recent opinion poll which showed that there is now a bare majority who want to change the law on this matter even further. It is not that we on this side of the House are bitter about opinion polls, but actually, they do not always get everything right. But even if that particular YouGov poll is correct on that matter, let us look at some of its other findings, which show that 58% of the population fear that the Government’s proposals will affect small stores and 48% agree that longer opening hours would be detrimental to family life. Only 27% said that that would not be the case.

The family test has been discussed today, as has the little impact assessment that popped up this morning. Wherever we stand on individual policies, I do not think that any of us would seriously fault the Government’s idea that every domestic policy should be measured against its impact on family life. I really hope that that issue above all else will be taken into consideration. We have a Prime minister who speaks the language of prison reform, who deals with issues such as the stigma surrounding mental health and who, once upon a time, hugged huskies and even Eurosceptics. He himself said that he did not want to change the Sunday trading laws, so does he really want this piece of anti-family legislation to be passed on his watch?

I shall close with the words of one mother, a shop worker, who says:

“As a mother, I would not work Sunday evenings or late afternoons, yet it would be forced on us as we would need more than one manager on a Sunday to cover the hours.”

She is right, and we know that she is not just speaking for herself. She is speaking for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. That is why I believe with the deepest conviction that, whatever our party or background, we need to speak up for those people today.

EU Referendum: Timing

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

I mean the DUP. I am so sorry. I pay tribute to its long-standing campaign. If we push this matter even further into the long grass, none of the questions that I have about treaty change or about what Mr Tusk and his colleagues will allow us to bring back in terms of subsidiarity will be answered until 2017. One of my biggest concerns as a Eurosceptic is that we constantly have to ask 28 countries what they think. Trying to get three or four countries to agree to anything is pretty difficult, but getting 28 countries to agree is almost impossible, which is why I want to leave. We will not have the clarity that the Democratic Unionist party seeks today.

Although I have a slight concern about the designation process, I do think that the groups will sort themselves out. On the May elections, let me offer a scrap of comfort to those who say that the Remain campaign would benefit from an early referendum. I suggest that that campaign may be experiencing voter fatigue. Those of us who feel passionately and strongly about this matter—I add that many of our Conservative Associations feel the same way, even if some of the Members do not—have been out talking to our constituents. I did so on a market stall over the weekend and at various meetings, including one with my Conservative ladies yesterday. I will be out there to vote—it will not matter that we have had a vote six weeks before—because I feel very strongly that, for the first time, I will be able to ask myself, “Do I wish to be in this European Union as it is with all its failings and all its flaws?” My answer will be, “No, I want to leave.”

Those campaigning to go or to leave, however that is framed, will be more agitated and more wishing to get out the front door on whatever date is chosen than those who may feel voter fatigue as a result of being involved in all those other elections. In short, I am reasonably encouraged that people may feel that they have had enough of voting in local elections, mayoral elections and all the other elections and will just sit at home and watch the Romanian rugby match or whatever is on the television on the day. I do not think that we will ever get the clarity that we want. I will be sticking with whatever date is picked, because I would like to get on and resolve this matter. It is a shame—I mean not that it is shameful but that it is an issue for me—that colleagues on the Front Bench who see the matter our way will have such a short amount of air time and a short amount of time to campaign and put their case.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

As usual, my hon. Friend is making a tremendously eloquent case. Does she remember that just a few years ago—in the blink of an eye—we were told that merely having an EU referendum would lead to economic instability, threats to our prosperity and threats to jobs and growth in this country? Of course, it was all unadulterated nonsense propagated by Labour and, sadly, to some extent by some people in our party.

[Mrs Main]

Well, we have heard a lot of unadulterated nonsense already. I am amazed that we are invoking the dead. Lady Thatcher, apparently, is speaking from the grave. In her speech in Bruges in 1988, she said:

“We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

I say hear, hear to that. I am sure we will hear a lot of ridiculous comments. A lot of nonsense will be proposed—that we cannot possibly exist outside—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

You could not be in safer hands, Mr Speaker.

May I say to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) that there was a time when the Conservative party would have been more sure-footed on the designations in Northern Ireland politics? I am not making a particular point about her not knowing the difference between the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists, but that gets to the heart of the debate and to the heart of why I will support the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his Democratic Unionist colleagues.

We are told, and we were told in particular during the Scottish referendum campaign, that there were four equal parts of this United Kingdom. Now, the democratically elected leaders of three of those four parts, backed up by a range of agreement in the political parties in their Parliaments, have written to the Prime Minister saying that they do not think it is a good idea to hold the referendum in late June because it would conflict with the electoral process taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Members on the Government Benches do not seem to think that that is a clinching argument. Of course it is a clinching argument if we have a respect agenda encompassing the four component parts of the United Kingdom.

The Minister said that we were trying to tempt him into naming the day, which he would not do because of career-limiting implications. We are not trying to get him to name the day; we are trying to get him to name the day when the referendum is not going to be held. It is a question of “calculatus eliminatus”. I commend the poem to him:

“When you’ve mislaid a certain something, keep your cool and don’t get hot…

Calculatus eliminatus always helps an awful lot.

The way to find a missing something is to find out where it’s not.”

We are merely trying to get the Government to exclude 23 June because it conflicts with the important elections taking place in three out of the four nations of this United Kingdom.

When I heard the speech of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) from the Labour Front Bench, I was encouraged because I thought an element of flexibility was moving in, as opposed to last week’s rather foolish declaration of 23 June from the Leader of the Opposition. If it was a good idea for the Opposition parties, supported by many on the Conservative Benches, to combine last year to make sure that the Government did not hold the poll on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and London elections, why is it not a good idea similarly to combine now to make sure that the 10-week campaign period, as defined in the legislation, does not overlap with those elections? If there was logic in not having the referendum on the same day as the elections, why is there not logic in making sure that the two campaign periods are different as well?

[Mr Jackson]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that the people of Scotland—that wonderful country that has played such an enormously positive role in the history of the United Kingdom and produced statesmen, engineers, educators and pioneers across the world—are unable to distinguish between an election for a devolved and unique Parliament and a once-in-a-generation EU referendum? Is he saying that the people of Scotland are too stupid to understand the difference?

[Alex Salmond]

The right hon. Member for Belfast North dealt with that point well in his opening speech, to which I am sure the hon. Gentleman was paying the closest attention. We are saying that it is better to have the two campaigns distinct for all sorts of reasons, including broadcasting and the publicity that goes through people’s doors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out that there were 540 days between designating the date of the Scottish referendum and the poll. Whichever side of that campaign they were part of, people cannot argue with a 98% registration to vote and an 85% turnout in the referendum. In this European referendum, if the date is as specified in a dash to the poll, we suspect, by the Prime Minister, public engagement is unlikely to come anywhere near such a desirable figure.

There is a shabby and sleight aspect to the Government’s argument. I wrote to the Prime Minister at this time last week. I referred to his “junior” Minister, for which I apologise. I said:

“Your junior Minister David Lidington quoted me several times today in the emergency statement as pointing to the necessary 6 week period between the devolved elections and the referendum.

However, while six weeks clearance is a necessary condition it is not a sufficient one.”

I went on to point to the 10-week campaign period, which would start in the middle of the devolved elections. I pointed out the position that the Scottish National party holds on the matter. Despite that, the next day the Prime Minister quoted me and suggested that I had had thumbscrews applied to me by the First Minister of Scotland in order to change my position. The Prime Minister reveals how little he knows that lady. Thumbscrews are not necessary; one glance from the formidable Ms Sturgeon would be more than enough to persuade any politician to see the wisdom of her ways. I have never made the case for a six-week period and I am concerned about the 10-week campaign period.

Electoral Integrity and Absent Votes

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered electoral integrity and absent votes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), to his place.

In this country, we pride ourselves on having free, fair, open and honest elections, but we are wrong. In too many parts of the UK, electoral fraud means that honest people’s votes are potentially invalidated by crooked votes. Our whole democratic system is being undermined and the votes of thousands of women of all ages are being regularly stolen by their menfolk. We are turning a blind eye, in effect, to regular breaches of section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of undue influence.

In May’s general election, 9,372,449 postal votes were sent via Royal Mail. These issues are not new, and the Electoral Commission and Government know about them, but so far we have had very little by way of concerted action to tackle them. This subject has been raised in the media, most notably and compellingly by Radio 4’s “File on 4” investigation programme in March 2014, which focused on electoral fraud in Pendle, Woking and Derby. It was also brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson). With great courage and foresight, he raised the matter directly with Ministers on the Floor of the House three years ago during a debate on the Bill that became the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

Who can forget the words of the election commissioner and presiding judge Richard Mawrey, QC, after hearing the most well-known electoral fraud case in Birmingham in 2005—following events in 2004—which resulted in the conviction of five men? His written judgment referred to

“evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic”.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that of course there are the open, overt, straight-down-the-line fraudsters at work, collecting ballots that are not their own, but even where that does not happen, within the individual household the privacy of the ballot is lost where voting slips are sent to the household and no one can keep their voting intentions to themselves?

[Mr Jackson]

My right hon. Friend makes a very apposite point, which I will elucidate on and develop later in my remarks. I thank him for his intervention.

Have things really changed in the past 11 years? Mr Justice Mawrey was quoted last year as saying that our present procedures are “wide open to fraud” and that

“serious fraud is inevitably going to continue”,

enabling the manufacture of votes on an industrial scale. He also stated just before this year’s general election:

“The law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost.”

We await the details of the review commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on electoral fraud in the light of the appalling scandals uncovered in Tower Hamlets following the failure particularly of the Metropolitan Police Service to take timely and robust action. That fell instead to a number of courageous and concerned citizens, including my old friend Councillor Peter Golds CBE, via a petition to the High Court. The long overdue review is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles). It was announced in August and, as I understand it, will be published in the new year in order that we can look at what further options are available to address this continuing and, as I will make clear later, endemic and institutionalised abuse and illegality. I will touch on Tower Hamlets in particular.

For the record, I have not called this debate in the light of the Oldham West and Royton by-election result, nor even of the comments of the leader of the UK Independence party, but in his media comments in the wake of the by-election he did touch on some issues that I will raise today.

Of the 1,086 cases of electoral fraud reported to police in England between 2008 and 2013, 58% originated in just 10 of England’s 39 police areas. I speak as the Member of Parliament for Peterborough, a local authority that has featured for a number of years on the Electoral Commission’s watch list of local council areas with a high risk of electoral fraud. Regrettably, Peterborough has a recent history of criminal convictions as a result of electoral malpractice and fraud. Most recently, in 2008, there was the conviction of six men—three Labour activists and three Conservatives—for postal vote fraud arising out of the June 2004 local elections. My local authority has also had problems with personation and, to an extent, voter intimidation.

I accept that there are other serious areas of concern, which will most likely be the subject of my right hon. Friend’s review and report, that are of major import. One is the lack of a requirement for proper, valid voter identification when presenting oneself as a voter at a UK polling station. That is unprecedented and undoubtedly anomalous in a modern democracy, and there is clearly a major risk of personation. Another issue is the limit on the powers to challenge alleged personation in the confines of a polling place for presiding officers, even if they know that a person is not who they say they are. The other issue is the failure to put in place legislation to curtail voter intimidation in the environs of a polling station, which we have seen in many places across the country, including Peterborough, but which was systematic in Tower Hamlets.

I will not try the patience of the House, but Tower Hamlets was but the most egregious example of many troubling themes around abuses in our electoral system. They merely coalesced in one London borough as the most extreme and shocking example. In Tower Hamlets, supervision of the corrupt 2014 elections was led by Commander Graham McNulty, who previously had been the investigating officer on the Levy and Blair cash-for-peerages allegations and was later the officer harassed—that is the word—by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to investigate, erroneously, the late Lord Brittan. Despite Lutfur Rahman and his agent being found guilty of seven different counts of corrupt practice after the longest election petition before a court in more than a century, nobody has been charged, including supporters of Rahman named and shamed for multiple election fraud. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister will touch on that.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that it is incumbent on Ministers to respond in a timely way to the specific recommendations made recently by the Electoral Commission on the need for photo ID at polling stations on the Northern Ireland model—I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. To be fair, the Electoral Commission has raised these issues over a number of years and progress has been made, albeit slowly and by increment, on issues such as register stuffing with “ghost” voters, which individual electoral registration will mostly deal with, and the most egregious postal vote fraud methods, via the need for a signature and date of birth, but that will only half deal with the substantive issue to which I will refer later. I accept that there will always be a trade-off between accessibility to the voting system and electoral integrity. It will never be easy or simple to get that balance right.

The Electoral Commission has at least monitored trends and collected data on electoral fraud and has commissioned specialist academic research—more of that later—with an issues paper being published in 2013 and a further comprehensive and detailed report being issued in January 2014. It is a matter of regret and disappointment that the previous, coalition Government—I absolve the Minister of responsibility for this—failed adequately to address the recommendations in that report.

Where I part company with the Electoral Commission and, to an extent, Ministers is on what I see as a degree of complacency in their responses. Of course I commend the extra money for fraud prevention in high-risk areas, but I am disappointed by the blanket rejection of at least considering returning to the pre-2001 regime for postal votes and by the rather anodyne revised code of conduct for campaigners, which is frankly superfluous and lacks any real sanction in law for miscreants and those inclined to unethical or criminal behaviour—a point raised in the “File on 4” documentary.

There is much to be done to tackle electoral fraud in all its forms, but for the purposes of our debate, I will focus on absent or postal votes. It might be worth examining, by way of background, how we came to be where we are now. Postal voting was first used in 1918 for armed forces personnel serving overseas. It was reintroduced in 1945 in similar circumstances, and 1948 saw postal voting extended to certain groups of civilians including those who were physically incapacitated, those unable to vote without making a journey by sea or air or because of the nature of their occupation, and those who were no longer residing at their qualifying address.

Following recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1983, the Government extended the right to apply for an absent vote in 1985, and the rules were further refined in 1989. The exception was Northern Ireland, where there was already widespread concern about electoral abuse. In 1999, a parliamentary working group chaired by the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), recommended that postal voting applications should be simplified and allowed on demand to all voters. The Government legislated in 2000 to implement those changes, which came into effect in 2001.

In its reports on the all-postal vote elections, the Electoral Commission drew back from its earlier recommendation for all-postal voting as standard. Its research showed that a large minority of people wanted to retain the option of voting at a polling station. The Commission, therefore—thankfully—recommended the development of a new model that involved multiple voting methods, including postal voting, rather than proceeding with elections run entirely by all-postal voting.

Suffice it to say that the process for exercising one’s right to vote by post or proxy is no less complex now than it was in 1999, and turnout for general elections has fallen from 71% in 1997 to 59%—a post-war low—in 2001, rising to 66% earlier this year. That serves to refute the idea, held by those who are worried about voter disengagement, of absent voting as a panacea. Our collective obsession with electoral turnout has, surely, for too long obscured the focus on clean, honest and fair elections as the absolute priority, and that is unacceptable.

The Electoral Commission’s response to the Pickles review is detailed, thought-provoking and helpful. It will allow Ministers to access important academic research supporting a key question—perhaps the most controversial aspect of my remarks—at the heart of this debate: the reasons for the growing evidence of criminal electoral malpractice, centred on postal vote fraud, in the British Bangladeshi and British Pakistani communities and diaspora. The debate is not party political; no party has a monopoly on virtue, and all major parties have been party to fraudulent electoral activities over the last 15 years or so. We are talking not about stigmatising a particular group or community, but about protecting our democracy and the precious faith and trust that people have in the voting system.

I am grateful for the work of academics such as Stuart Wilks-Heeg, who published a paper in 2008, on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, on “Purity of Elections in the UK: Causes for Concern”; and Eleanor Hill, of the Bradford University school of historical studies, who published a paper in 2012 entitled “Ethnicity and Democracy: A Study into Biraderi”, which has laid the groundwork for more recent empirical studies.

The Electoral Commission commissioned research from the University of Liverpool and the Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity at the University of Manchester, as well as from the social research centre NatCen. In January this year, they published two excellent, compelling and detailed qualitative studies entitled, respectively, “Understanding electoral fraud vulnerability in Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin communities in England” and “Elections, voting and electoral fraud: An exploratory study focusing on British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis”. The findings supported the Electoral Commission’s stated belief that, inter alia,

“electoral fraud is more likely to be committed by or in support of candidates standing for election in areas which are largely or predominately populated by…those with roots in parts of Pakistan or Bangladesh.”

The commissioned studies suggested that

“extended family and community networks may have been mobilised to secure the support of large numbers of electors in some areas, effectively constituting a ‘block vote’”

and that

“the wider availability of postal voting in Great Britain since 2001 may have increased the risk of electoral fraud associated with this approach, as the greater safeguards of secrecy provided by polling stations have been removed.”

The academic research focused on interviews with political activists and non-political local residents in those high-risk areas, and it pinpointed the following cultural and structural trends. The reciprocal, hierarchical and patriarchal nature of kinship networks may mean that pressure is put on people to vote for particular candidates or parties, especially within family groups, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has made clear. Individuals may be made to feel as though they have no choice in the matter, or they may, in fact, have no choice. That applies particularly to young women and older women, many of whom are economically disadvantaged. It their 2014 study, academics from Manchester University found that, for instance, Pakistani women are more likely to have their registration forms filled in by the male head of the household than to fill in the forms themselves.

Other problems in those communities are: low levels of public awareness about what is acceptable campaigning and what constitutes fraud; low levels of awareness about how to report electoral fraud; low levels of literacy and lack of English skills, which exacerbate those problems; and reduced political activity, or complete lack of activity, by mainstream parties in too many areas, which gives so-called community leaders free rein to claim propriety over large numbers of families, whose votes they can marshal and direct as they think fit. That is the regrettable flipside of an understandable collective need for ethnic mobilisation and solidarity, but it gives rise to practices that are inimical to our democratic values.

In too many communities, it is regarded as quite normal for political activists to engage in “farming” of postal votes on the doorstep, or even to fill in the ballots at home once signatures and dates of birth have been added, before transporting them to the town hall or polling station. That is regarded as part of the process; it is well understood and not seen as irregular. The University of Manchester reported that the biraderi networks

“may undermine the principle of voters’ individual and free choice through a range of social pressures such as respect for the decision of the elders at its mildest extreme, through to undue influence where in some instances access to individual ballots of women and adult children can be refused by the elders.”

Mainstream tolerance of such block voting is nothing new, although that makes it no less reprehensible. Lord Hattersley wrote in his 2003 biography of his polling day experience in the February 1974 general election:

“I won with an increased majority...the well organised and invariably loyal Kashmiris had cast their disciplined vote early in the day.”

The reports produced for the Electoral Commission highlighted the insufficiency of safeguards for voting procedures. One report found that respondents believed that there was a

“lack of law enforcement around fraudulent applications for postal votes…undue influence and intimidation both when filling out the vote at home with others present, and during the handling of the vote by party activists, community members and candidates themselves”.

Much more research must be done into those issues by the Electoral Commission and others. We cannot know for certain the scale of the problem and how it impacts on elections in our country at every level.

In the interim, I suggest the following measures. Ministers must, as a matter of urgency, consider and respond to the Electoral Commission’s 2014 report and to the findings of the Pickles review. Existing polling station voting vulnerabilities around ID, personation, intimidation and the flaws in the Representation of the People Act 1983 must be addressed soon. There must be a proper review of individual electoral registration to ensure its efficacy in respect of electoral register stuffing. Funds must be set aside for local authorities in high-risk areas to bid for money to work with their local police to investigate properly allegations of electoral fraud, which are often time consuming and costly to investigate. Guidance must be issued to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure that they take a much more proactive and robust approach to investigating electoral fraud, and that they are seen to be doing so. Finally, new legislative sanctions must be established by means of criminal law in respect of compulsion and intimidation of someone to apply for a postal or proxy vote, alteration of another person’s postal vote application form and the transit of another person’s postal vote documentation. It should be a criminal offence for anyone other than an authorised person to open or alter a completed postal ballot pack—either the ballot paper or the postal voting statement—before it has been received by the proper returning officer.

Ultimately, I believe that none of those measures alone will substantially reduce electoral fraud in our postal votes regime, and that serious thought must be given to returning to the tried and tested system of application in the case of illness, infirmity, military service or work commitments. That system gave us, with the universal franchise, a turnout of 84% in the 1950 general election, and 78% as recently as 1992. Our present system has been summed up perfectly: voting, once a “private act in public”, is now, owing to postal vote fraud, a “public act in private.”

We are currently condoning the theft of thousands of votes of our fellow citizens, many of whom are women—a situation that would shame Emmeline Pankhurst and make a third-world despot blush. We need to ask: what price honesty and fair play, and what price our reputation at home and abroad as the beacon of parliamentary democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main.

I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing this important debate. All of us who are democrats and who believe in the efficacy of elections also believe that those elections must be above board and entirely fair, and that all the participants in those elections must respect their integrity. That is important in itself, but it is also important that elections are seen widely in a democracy to be fair and beyond reproach.

The various issues that the hon. Member for Peterborough has brought to our attention have to be taken very seriously. He mentioned the Electoral Commission. Indeed, the Electoral Commission, among other bodies, has taken the allegations and examples of corruption and fraud very seriously, and it has presented to the Government’s anti-corruption champion—the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—detailed measures about how the electoral system can be tightened up. Those are very positive measures.

The Electoral Commission has suggested four measures, and I would like the Minister to respond to those recommendations. Before that, however, it is worth noting that it is not simply what we have in terms of regulations and electoral law that matters. A fact that needs to be highlighted is that a lot depends on the political parties themselves to make sure that they police their own candidates, to ensure that those candidates and their supporters are aware of the law and fully respect it. That is very important. Responsibility rests not only with the Government, the Electoral Commission and others, but with the political parties themselves and the individuals concerned.

As has been mentioned, we are seeing the introduction of individual electoral registration. It is to be welcomed in principle, because one of the key aspects underlying IER is the new emphasis placed on individuals rather than the head of a household, which accurately reflects society’s changing nature. IER is more modern and also puts greater responsibility on the individual in recognising the importance of the electoral process as a whole and their role within it, although we all regret—at least, Labour Members certainly regret—that its introduction has been rushed. We have our own reasons to believe why that was the case.

The essential point I want to make is that although all of us are united in total condemnation of electoral fraud, it is important to keep such fraud in perspective. The perception among many sections of the electorate is that electoral fraud is quite widespread, which is damaging to democracy. However, it is important to make the point that that perception is not based on concrete fact. As the Electoral Commission said in the evidence it submitted to the Government’s anti-corruption champion:

“The evidence currently available to us does not support the conclusion that electoral fraud is widespread in the UK.”

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is making his remarks in a typically eloquent way, but is it not a matter of regret that the chief executive of Woking Borough Council and the electoral returning officer for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) said on “File on 4”, the programme I referred to in my remarks, that in 12 years he had never presided over a wholly clean election in that borough? I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but surely that is a lamentable state of affairs.

[Wayne David]

Elections have to be clean, of course, but quite often there is a fine dividing line between the rough and tumble of electoral politics and actual electoral fraud. When we talk about fraudulent activity, we have to rely on evidence and hard facts being presented. If in that programme and elsewhere there have been actual examples of fraud and clear evidence of it, then it is right that an investigation is made and action taken. However, I return to my central point. Yes, there is plenty of tittle-tattle, plenty of suggestions and plenty of accusations, but all too often there is very little hard and fast evidence, and we have to go on evidence.

It is important to keep our debate in perspective. Of course that must not be used as an excuse not to do anything, and of course the system must be tightened up, but at the same time let us recognise that our democracy is one of the finest in the world, and we must do everything to defend it, while at the same time making sure that it is as watertight as possible.

Finally, as we move to a system of IER, it is important that we have, above all else, the desire to encourage and to make as easy as possible the participation of our voters in the electoral system. There is a fine dividing line, but we have a system that is open and fair, and that encourages people to vote and facilitates their involvement in the democratic process, and at the same time our system must be monitored and policed effectively.

Surely none of us would want to see a system in place that was as onerous as some Members have perhaps suggested, which would be a disincentive to people to go along and cast their vote. If we made the system too cumbersome, that would undermine the democratic process itself. Therefore, in the interests of democracy and democratic participation, we always have to strike a balance between what is reasonable to do in order to encourage as many people as possible to engage, while at the same time having a system that is above reproach and that is based on fairness and integrity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I support the direction of travel. The Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission are going in the right direction, but I do not think light-touch will do any more. We need more academic research and more legal sanctions. In particular, we need a proper response to the Electoral Commission’s report from last year.

I have two extra things to say. First, we perhaps need to think about disaggregating ward results in general elections. In the United States, that allows people to see obvious examples of electoral fraud. We have never done that in this country, but there has never been a reason not to, because we have ward results in local elections. Secondly, I would like an undertaking from the Minister that when the Pickles review is produced for the Prime Minister, we will have, if not a debate, then at least a statement in the House, so that we can ventilate all these important issues that we are all committed to tackling. With that, I appreciate the opportunity to raise such vital issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered electoral integrity and absent votes.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

We think that 16 is the right age, and that is why we have drawn from the experience of the Scottish independence referendum. It is a good age for participation and people pay tax at that age, although the Minister talked about six-year-olds paying tax. We think 16 is a good age to start voting.

The question of participation should always be high on the agenda of this House. We should always look at different ways to encourage more people to be involved in the democratic process. Evidence suggests that the earlier we involve young people, the more likely they are to stay involved. As the Electoral Reform Society has found, if people vote early, they vote often. Conservative Members might not like that very much, but we think it is positive.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

Not at the moment. The United Kingdom has a tale of two legislatures. On 18 June—the very day that this House struck down amendments to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote—the Scottish Parliament, which is clearly the wiser institution, passed the Scottish Elections (Reduction in Voting Age) Bill to extend the franchise to Holyrood elections. And you know what? It was passed unanimously. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) pointed out, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives has said that she is a

“fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club now”.

I welcome that, along with the fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now for votes at 16. In a rare show of unity—I hope I am not jinxing this—the most recent former leader of the UK Labour party, its Scottish leader and its current leader all appear to back votes at 16. I hope that I have not spoken too soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Electoral Reform Society has said that the

“UK Government should follow Holyrood’s example”

for the EU referendum and all other elections. SNP Members have a little bit of experience of referendums, and we should follow the gold standard set by the Scottish independence referendum. It is a shame that the issue of EU nationals has not come back to the House, but we are able to debate the vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is a shame that people from other European countries —EU nationals make such a huge contribution—will not be able to vote.

It is easy to see why politicians from across the spectrum—Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats—have been won over by votes for 16-year-olds. In the independence referendum, turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%, and 97% of them said that they would contribute by voting again. They accessed more information and were much better at accessing information than any other age group, which makes all of us much more accountable.

[Mr Jackson]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

On that point, I will gladly give way.

[Mr Jackson]

One wonders what we ever did before the SNP arrived with its 56 seats in this Parliament, but obviously we struggled on manfully. The hon. Gentleman will know that the franchise was extended to 18-year-olds in 1969. Since then, very rarely has turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds gone above 50%, although for the over-70s the percentage figure is in the high 70s. With more information available—we have never had so much information about policy and politics—why does he think that young people across the UK are so disengaged?

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman is not of course the only person who is delighted to see so many new SNP Members bringing their wisdom to this Chamber. We refer to the independence referendum because we have the facts and the evidence to show that if we include 16 and 17-year-olds in the process, they get involved. To make the argument that Westminster elections did not inspire people to get involved in elections in the past is more of a reflection on Westminster politicians than on the public at large. We have the evidence that 16-year-olds got involved. It was good that they campaigned—good for those who got involved on the no side as well as for those who did so on the yes side. It was a positive thing all round, and I pay tribute to those people.

Just as with the rest of the population, if we give young people a genuine opportunity to get involved in a meaningful democratic process, they will do so, and the European Union referendum provides us with such an opportunity. To give the Minister and the Prime Minister more of an incentive, I suspect that 16-year-olds will be better informed and give their Government a fairer hearing on the deal they are negotiating with Brussels than will their own Back Benchers.

This House has been left behind on votes for 16-year-olds. It is happening in Scotland, the Isle of Man and elsewhere. Let us not be left behind again. Let us back votes for 16-year-olds.

--- Later in debate ---

Fabian pointed out that people can influence what happens about their own tuition fees only if they are lucky enough to turn 18 at the right time. Lizzie told me that her brother went on a march against increases to tuition fees. He was told that he should not go because he was not at uni, but he said that taking direct action was his only option. Charlie told me that there was a need for young people to be represented, and I will conclude with Owen who said four little words to me: “It just makes sense”—and indeed it does.

[Mr Jackson]

I will speak briefly to support the Government in rejecting the Lords amendment. It is not unusual to be patronised by the Scottish National party, but I notice that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is not in his place. I heard a rumour that he was unveiling a statue of himself made from chocolate so that he can first admire it and then eat it.

I am not opposing the amendment because I am against the substance of the debate. In fact, I am a floating voter on this issue, and over the past year or so I have begun to consider the experience of younger people. However, we need a proper debate and legislative framework, rather than have this tacked on to a Bill about an EU referendum.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I support lowering the voting age in principle, but when we want to make major constitutional changes we do not just have a vote in the Commons, we consult the public. The same should apply to this issue. We should have a national consultation, with all the other stuff that goes with that.

[Mr Jackson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment we have a gold standard template for the franchise that we measure at the general election. Over the years we have made changes to that franchise, most recently in 1969 and before that in 1924 and 1928, when we rightly enfranchised women as a result of the campaign by the suffragettes, which we celebrated only a few years ago. We accept all that, but let us have a wide-ranging public debate, not just through the prism of the Scottish referendum but across the whole country, because people have differing views.

Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) put her finger on the nub of the issue: this measure must not be tacked on; it must be seen within the context of all the other age restrictions, and of whether young people are well-formed and ready to take big civic decisions when voting. I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) that I find it inconceivable that turnout would rise from about 45% to 75% just because 16 and 17-year-olds were included. Those figures do not stack up.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[Mr Jackson]

I cannot take any interventions from my Caledonian friends.

In conclusion, it is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords have told us what the elected House should be doing even though we have a settled view on this. They should learn their place. They must be subservient to the elected House, and it is high time that we had House of Lords reform.

Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I also draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

May I likewise draw the Committee’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q 16 Mr Blakeway, one of the biggest challenges in providing more housing is delays in the planning system. There are a number of measures in the Bill, such as insisting on local plans by 2017, simplifying overall plans and more timely decisions in planning in principle. How do you think these will work out in terms of expediting the planning system?

Richard Blakeway: We welcome all the measures that are being introduced by the Government to try to accelerate or expedite the planning processes. As you know, since the GLA’s inception, we have had a long-established strategic planning role and in particular we are keen to build upon clause 101, which gives the Mayor greater authority to exercise those strategic planning powers. In addition, we would like to be able to play a role around permission in principle and issuing development orders, as well as the register of brownfield sites and our ability to co-ordinate that. As a basic principle, we would like to see the Mayor of London exercise the kind of functions that the Secretary of State envisages exercising in the rest of the country.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 17 Obviously there is a predisposition in the Bill towards support for residential accommodation and housing in London and across the country. What impact do you think that might have, specifically in London, on commercial and business premises?

Richard Blakeway: I think that some of the issues in relation to the conversion of office to residential are actually outside the Bill. None the less, we very much welcome the Government’s agreement that there will be an exemption until May 2019 for some of the existing areas that we have sought exemptions for, such as the CAZ—the central activities zone—the Royal Docks enterprise zone, Tech City, and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs. We really welcome the Government’s move on that. Clearly, the article 4 measure allows those areas to formulate an application to extend the exemption beyond 2019 and there is obviously a window to do that.

[Brandon Lewis]

Q 18 May I take you back to the conversation a few minutes ago about starter homes? Are you able to give us an idea, even if it is a ballpark figure, of the average price paid by a first-time buyer for a home in London?

Richard Blakeway: A ballpark price would be about £290,000. I think that is based on CML data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

Q 31 Given some of the uncertainties that you have all outlined, do you think too much is being left to regulations when it should be in the Bill?

Phil Glanville: Yes.

Philippa Roe: I would say no, because the Bill is going through now, this is complex, and if we tried to rush it through too quickly now there might be unintended consequences. I would like to see proper time given for the regulations to be introduced, picking up on those unintended consequences.

Martin Tett: I agree with Councillor Roe about unintended consequences. If you try to shoehorn everything into the Bill, there is a danger of locking in things on which you might need flexibility later. The LGA is keen to sit down with the Government, understand some of the intentions behind the Bill and try to work through the best solutions that lead to the best outcomes for not just the Government’s policies but local councils and their housing responsibilities.

Sir Steve Bullock: Going forward, the Bill is interesting in the way it proposes to create that space. I suspect that that means that if we are going to be in an ongoing process of negotiation beyond the Bill becoming an Act, local and central Government need to step up their games to demonstrate how they will make that work and how we can have sufficient transparency to provide the reassurances that people will want.

[Mr Jackson]

I was rather remiss earlier for not declaring another interest that might not be in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of the LGA, so that is on the record. That brings me neatly to Councillor Tett.

[The Chair]

Mr Jackson, it is an unpaid post, is that correct?

[Mr Jackson]

Q 32 Yes, regrettably.

If the Bill becomes law, the Secretary of State will acquire powers in respect of local development plans. With your LGA hat on, Mr Tett, why do you think a significant number of local planning authorities have still not adopted local development plans? Is there a systemic issue that is preventing them from doing as other local authorities have done?

Martin Tett: I can give a generic answer to that, but we would have to get down to some specifics as well. There is a complex answer to what sounds like a very simple question. In some cases I suspect that, quite frankly, local authorities have not risen to the challenge sufficiently. In some areas, though, I think they have made their best efforts but, during the process, have fallen foul of various requirements. The one that is cited to me a lot is evidencing the duty to co-operate to the satisfaction of the planning inspector.

There is a lot of frustration in some councils because they have been found to be inadequate and effectively have to restart the whole process. A lot of councils say to me, “Why can’t we go back to where we were found to be inadequate, rather than having to start again?” Councils in my area have failed their local plan on two occasions and are now well into their third, whereas had they been able to short-circuit that, they would probably now be well into adopting a plan. There is a variety of reasons throughout the country and it is a long-drawn-out process. In some cases, councils have not risen to the challenge; in other cases, the process itself is convoluted, complex and difficult.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 33 Is that officer capacity or political leadership?

Martin Tett: It is both. There is a variety of answers to that. In some cases, if one is honest, there has probably been inadequate political leadership, but often local councils are really struggling with sufficient professional, experienced officer capacity. One thing we have all experienced across virtually every council in the country is that experienced, professional planning officers are very difficult to recruit and retain. They are being hoovered up—I use that expression quite often—by the private sector. As the building and civil engineering industries have recovered nationally, they have been able to pay substantially higher salaries than local councils. It is very difficult to recruit and retain the experience required for the successful implementation of a local plan.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 34 May I ask the London representatives about the parts of the Bill that relate to rogue landlords, banning orders and so on? How do you see that working within the context of London boroughs?

Martin Tett: First, although we welcome the provisions in the Bill, we are not clear that they will necessarily go far enough to make the impact that we all feel is needed. For example, on the level of fines, in my borough we had a landlord who was making £319,000 a year. That is at the extreme end, with landlords who are close to being criminal. A fine of £5,000 would be a minor inconvenience to them. Secondly, we would welcome the proposed register, but it needs to be very accessible. The deputy Mayor has been talking about that. It may be something that individual or would-be tenants need to be able to access.

Philippa Roe: We similarly support the proposals. They sit alongside the tools which, as a council, we already use very effectively—for example, to do with environmental health—to pick up on landlords who are providing substandard properties. The proposals will be another tool in our armoury, which is good.

Phil Glanville: I would go along with what has been said: the proposals are positive. Sharing the tenancy deposit database with local authorities allows them to build up a better picture of landlords in a given area or neighbourhood. It is a question of where thresholds lie in terms of banning orders and the register, and where they will end up. Moving to a fine-based system rather than having to take things to a full prosecution is a positive step—though one questions whether the fines would be enough of a deterrent. In building more tools for our armoury the proposals are a positive step.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

You have sparked a great deal of interest and quite a lot of people are catching my eye, so may I ask for both questions and answers to be as crisp as possible in the 20 minutes left?

[Mr Jackson]

Q 69 May I ask you, Ms Butters, to restate your specific opposition to pay-to-stay? It seems that you might be overlooking fairness and social equity issues and the release of funds that the policy may very well give rise to. London aside, I would contend that £30,000 is significantly above an average wage in somewhere such as Stoke-on-Trent or Newcastle-under-Lyme or several other parts of your area. Therefore, apart from the administrative, bureaucratic issues that Mr Orr mentioned, on what basis do you oppose the policy?

Sinéad Butters: There are two reasons. One is the need for local housing providers to be able to make judgments about what their area needs and to reflect the points you made about affordability. An imposed national figure of £30,000 will not take account of local need and local incomes.

In Stoke, 38% of the working adult population earns £16,000, so two adults together would be above the £30,000 limit, yet that is a marginal figure for being able to pay a market rent. I accept that market rents in Stoke are low, but in other areas they are not. We had the example of a tenant in Oxfordshire whose particular circumstances could mean that her rent would be tripled from £600 to £1,800. Obviously, there are issues about tapers and how they would apply, but this national approach with a single £30,000 outside of London does not take account of local circumstances, and that is our greatest fear. For me, it is about the ability of housing associations to set rents that are appropriate for that tenant, and the freedoms and flexibilities that the National Housing Federation has talked about. That will mean a range of different choices, working with our local authority partners, on how to pitch and what is right for their area in terms of affordability. This does not allow us that flexibility.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 70 But you agree that registered providers, with the extra income that may arise from this policy—I do not know whether you have any examples; you mentioned some examples earlier—may have the authority and autonomy to ring-fence for developing other sites for social rented housing.

Sinéad Butters: Absolutely, but the point I am making is that that ability to use the additional receipts should be based upon known local circumstances—local incomes and local affordability—and not set nationally. That would allow flexibility.

David Orr: May I add something here? Rents in our sector are a shambles because of Government intervention in rent-setting for the past 17 years. Decisions that are made for short-term reasons, which do not understand the long-term impact, have created a pattern of rents that is almost incomprehensible to anyone. We would like to be in a position to relocate responsibility where it lies: with the boards of individual housing associations, to provide housing and associated amenities in accordance with their objectives and to be responsible for charging appropriate rents. The rents will be different for different people in different parts of the market. Part of pay-to- stay says, is it sometimes appropriate to charge people higher rents if they have higher incomes? Yes. Is it right for Government to be imposing it? No.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 71 That is a fair point, Mr Orr, but this is at the beginning of the process and Ministers might surprise you in a pleasant way.

David Orr: Good. I am always happy to be surprised in a pleasant way.

[Mr Jackson]

Q 72 Far be it from me to speak for the Ministers, but are you really suggesting that registered providers operate in a hermetically sealed bubble, given that the housing benefit bill has spiralled significantly over the past 20 years? The Government surely have a fiscal responsibility to make big strategic decisions in the provision of public housing when they have a spiralling housing benefit bill.

David Orr: The housing benefit bill is spiralling primarily because the number of people who need to claim housing benefit has grown as rents have grown, and because of the number of people in work in the private rented sector who have to claim housing benefit. It is not fundamentally about the growth of rents in the social sector, but, where rents have grown in the social sector, that has been a direct consequence of Government decision making. So I can sit here and say, “It’s not our fault, guv. It’s your responsibility. It’s Government decision making.” I don’t think that is acceptable. I think that local government and the public should be able to hold housing associations to account for the rents that they charge. It has been the case in the past that when the Government were setting rents, they also said that housing benefit would cover the cost of those rents. I am afraid that the decision to set the overall benefit cap at £20,000 and £23,000 means that rents that the Government have themselves set are not now, in a significant number of cases, covered by housing benefit. So if the Government want to limit their exposure by what they do with housing benefit rules, they should withdraw from rent-setting.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q 73 I want to go back to starter homes and the issues that you have touched on. A survey found that 6 million people— 5.84 million, in fact—earn less than the living wage. That is not a TUC figure; it is from KPMG. Some 23% of the labour force earn less than the living wage, and the numbers are going up. There are 750,000 people on zero-hours contracts. What is there in the Bill to address the housing needs of that substantial sector of people who we refer to as the working poor?

David Orr: There is little in the Bill that addresses that group specifically. The only real new housing or tenure product that it contains is the starter home initiative. As a component of a much wider, mixed-tenure, mixed-priced series of developments, starter homes have a role to play, but a comprehensive transfer away from social rent or shared ownership towards starter homes would be a mistake. They have a role to play as part of a broad pattern of provision, but not instead of the other things we are doing.