Breathing Space Scheme

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is rightly talking about the consequences of debt. In Sheffield this week, there has been a crackdown on the growth in illegal money lending. It has revealed a world in which physical violence and rape is used to intimidate those who are not paying back money. Does she agree that there is a depth and unpleasantness to the options that are available to people who do not have the opportunities that an initiative such as breathing space would provide?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

It was truly terrible to hear of those practices in Sheffield this week. I completely agree: an opportunity to implement a breathing space will allow a regulated, clear way to enable people to go to legal credit agencies and deal with charities, so that they can borrow and deal with debt in a managed way, without having to seek help from organisations such as the hon. Gentleman refers to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am afraid that is my experience. I want to stress that that has been a serious problem for my constituents. In preparing for the debate I recalled that in recent months in my surgeries there have been three individuals who have all been pushed into dire financial situations specifically by the recovery of benefit overpayments, including one situation in which someone had to borrow money from family to feed their children. I have also found one of the fastest growing problems is council tax arrears, which affected 36% of the clients helped by the charity StepChange in my constituency in 2015, up from 20% of its client base in 2012.

As per previous announcements confirmed in the spring 2017 Budget, the Government intend to shift collection of certain overpaid tax credits from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the Department for Work and Pensions, with its enhanced collection programme projected to collect £520 million by 2022. The recovery of that sum is likely to have a substantial impact on the individuals concerned in the next few years, so a breathing space scheme that includes that type of debt would be enormously helpful in alleviating some of that pressure.

[Paul Blomfield]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend would echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) that the Government have indicated some sympathy for the proposals but seem to be kicking the issue into the long grass. If the Minister says nothing else in his response, will my hon. Friend share my hope that he will give a commitment of a date for when a review could be undertaken and completed?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and in my closing remarks I will ask for exactly that commitment.

There needs to be clarity over how participation in a debt arrangement scheme will impact on an individual’s credit rating. The rationale behind avoiding bankruptcy is partly down to the future impact of that on an individual’s borrowing capacity and financial position, particularly when their financial affairs may stabilise in a matter of months. Individuals struggling with debt in the short term may be hesitant to enter into a scheme if they feel that would damage their long-term ability to secure finance or if it would serve as a black mark on their credit history, should they wish to obtain a mortgage in future.

The key priority now is to see some progress and movement. The Government initially promised to put forward the review of the scheme—[Interruption]

Scottish Devolution and Article 50

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Gray.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on securing this debate, on focusing our attention on a really important issue and on setting the tone for the debate in a way that has been reflected in a number of serious, thoughtful and challenging contributions for the Minister to consider.

The hon. Lady was right to ask questions about the Government’s plan for Brexit; I have to say that it is not just Scotland that is being kept in the dark. She is probably right when she says the Government do not really know. It is not necessarily that they are hiding their secret plan; it is so secret that they themselves are not aware of it. Indeed, there were reports this morning in the papers that a battle is going on inside No. 10 about how much the Government will tell the EU about their plans for Brexit when they start the negotiations, and that battle has yet to be resolved.

In the winding-up speech by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the point was made that we really do not want to be here; none of us do, but clearly we are. Over the past few weeks, we have been talking very much about process and it is important that a debate such as this one takes place, because it begins to shift our attention back to substance. There are some very real issues on which we need to hold the Government to account in—let us not forget—what are the most important negotiations this country has faced since the second world war.

All our attention needs to be on that task, without distraction, because the Government’s approach so far really cannot fill us with much confidence. I do not know whether other Members have caught up with this story, but apparently this morning the Brexit Secretary told the Exiting the European Union Committee that the Government have not carried out an assessment of the economic impact of leaving the EU without a deal. I am not sure, therefore, on what basis the Foreign Secretary said that would be a good thing for Britain, when even the International Trade Secretary, who is a bit cavalier about these things, has warned about the risk of crashing out without a deal.

Those sorts of conflicting statements, as well as the lack of certainty and the lack of the type of information that hon. Members have been seeking, is causing huge uncertainty, which the Government must be aware of. We hear all the time from people who are wondering whether to build their lives here, what their future is for their businesses, and so on.

A lot of these issues could have received a positive response in many of the amendments that were tabled to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, but the Government’s obsession with having a clean and unamended Bill has added to the lack of clarity, not just on the issues we have faced this week on the final vote and on EU nationals but on the attempt by the Labour Front Bench to require the Government to consult regularly the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to put the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing, and to consult it at least every two months.

I hope that the Minister will make up for that uncertainty by responding to requests from hon. Members and explain exactly how the Government will not talk but listen to, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the people—not only people in Scotland but around the country. Can he say how he and the Government will ensure that there is a strong voice for the nations and regions of our country in these negotiations? That matters, because although people voted to come out of the EU, they did not vote to be shut out of decisions, and there are a range of related issues that many Members have commented on and about which we need clarity.

Above all, it would be useful for the Minister to confirm whether there will be a presumption that any powers in the devolved areas that are repatriated to the UK following Brexit will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and other devolved Assemblies. What is the starting point for the Government’s thinking? Other Members have mentioned funding, which is important not only for agriculture but for structural funds and university funds. What sort of clarity can the Government give about their intentions? Will they seriously consider Scottish Labour’s suggestion about bringing all the peoples of the UK together in a constitutional convention, so that at this profound moment of change for our country we can bring in a new settlement on all these issues for the benefit of all the regions and nations of the UK?

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Percy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have never raised a point of order in five and a half years as a Member of this House, which I hope reflects the seriousness of the issue that I put to you.

This follows on from the question that I put to the Prime Minister yesterday, which was on the appropriateness of this Committee considering the regulations. You will be aware that the matter was raised by the shadow Leader of the House in an exchange with the Leader of the House on 10 December, and in reply the Leader of the House, who speaks for the Government on the business of the House, said:

“On student finance regulations, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that if he wants a debate on a regulation in this House all he has to do is pray against it. I am not aware of any recent precedent where a prayer made by the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Cabinet colleagues has not led to a debate in this House.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1154.]

A prayer was subsequently laid. It was signed not simply by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet but by 80 colleagues from seven parties and one independent, so there is no precedent for this matter to be debated in Committee. Would it therefore not be in order for you to suspend this sitting and return to the Leader of the House with the proposal that we debate the matter in the Chamber so that all MPs have an opportunity to contribute?

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his first point of order and for giving me the opportunity to respond to my first. He has put his case strongly, and it is on the record. He will be aware, however, that as Chair of this Delegated Legislation Committee, I have no authority to suspend the sitting in the way he wishes or to require the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. All I can say is that he has made his case and has put it on the record very clearly. I encourage him to pursue that further through the appropriate channels.

Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, I point out that this statutory instrument has been the subject of a report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was published this morning. I have arranged for the relevant extracts of the report to be made available in the room this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Mr Percy. I will respond to your injunction to be brief. I will not repeat the points that others have made, although I do support them.

Let me start on a consensual point. I have some sympathy with the Minister. In a moment, he will be defending a policy he cannot really agree with. He has the university sector at heart. He is doing some good work on opening up the debate on undergraduate teaching quality. I am sure he cannot be happy with the proposals he is having to defend. I guess they were forced on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills by the Treasury—probably as a punishment for miscalculating the resource accounting and budgeting charge, or at least in an attempt to recoup the money. Unfortunately, it is not simply the Department that is being penalised—it is the half a million students who will lose maintenance grants.

On another consensual point, I would like to talk about one of the Minister’s predecessors, whom I also have high regard for: David Willetts. When David was shadow Education Minister back in 2009, he was keen to challenge the then Labour Government on the importance of maintenance grants. On 3 November, he said:

“The Minister tells the House about broadening access to university, but does he not recognise that it is students from the poorest backgrounds who are most desperate when they cannot get their maintenance grant or loan?”—[Official Report, 3 November 2009; Vol. 498, c. 737.]

That is absolutely right—that was a Conservative Opposition spokesman.

Subsequently, I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North was protesting outside the House while we debated the coalition Government’s proposals inside the House. Again, David Willetts was keen to argue for maintenance grants—as the justification for the changes that were being made. Maintenance grants were the progressive flagship of the policy that the Government were putting forward. He said:

“Our proposals are progressive, because they help to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university, because of the higher education maintenance grant”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 940.]

Again, he was right.

When David Willetts reflected, in June 2011, on the impact of the changes that had been made and tried to defend them against those of us who were critical of them, he said:

“We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students...to make sure that institutions fulfil their outreach and retention obligations to people from disadvantaged groups.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 770.]

Yet again, in September 2012, he announced:

“we are also increasing maintenance support for students at university this year”.

He went on to say:

“The maintenance grant and support for bursaries are going up. That is why”—

I repeat, “That is why”—

“we still have record rates of application to university, and we should celebrate and remember that fact.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 216.]

Time and again, this is the consistent policy trajectory from the Conservative party. They said that maintenance grants were essential and important, but suddenly, in the July Budget, the Chancellor threw them out of the window.

I come back to the impact assessment because it is important. It took legal action—judicial review by the National Union of Students—to force the Government to carry out the equality impact assessment that we have seen. I understand—I am happy to give way if the Minister wants to intervene—that although the original impact assessment before the decision was made has been shared with the NUS, it has not been published. The Department has refused to publish it. There was an impact assessment before the version that is itself a devastating critique of the Government’s proposals. I presume, because it has not been released, that the first assessment was even more devastating. We as parliamentarians have not had the opportunity to consider it, although we are debating the issue today. That adds to the scandal layer upon layer. The matter is not in the manifesto, was not debated at the general election and was not allowed to be debated on the Floor of the House. We being asked to consent to a very dodgy process.

In view of the pressure of time—I want to hear from the Minister and to have the opportunity to challenge him—I will say no more about that and will support my colleagues in saying that we should, as I hope will Conservative Members, recognising the trajectory of the Government’s policy over the last seven years, vote against these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I need to make some progress, I am afraid. I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene shortly.

The changes set out in this statutory instrument come at a time of increased resources going to universities. Total income has risen from £24 billion in 2012-13 to £26 billion in 2013-14, and is forecast to rise to £31 billion by 2017-18. Our system supports the financial sustainability of the sector while ensuring that higher education is open to all. As the OECD’s director of education put it, England is

“one of the very few countries that has figured out a sustainable approach to higher education financing”.

He recently added that England has

“made a wise choice — it works for individuals, it works for government.”

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister makes constant reference to what has happened in the past. We are concerned about the impact of these proposals, given that his own impact assessment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South mentioned—identified that there would be a negative impact on a number of critical demographic segments. Is the Minister concerned about that? As he has not answered the question I raised previously, I will also ask him about the original equality impact assessment, which is not the one that has been published. It has been shared with the NUS. Will he make that available to Members of Parliament?

[Joseph Johnson]

We published the full equality impact assessment on 5 December, which, in reference to the earlier comments made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South, gave the Committee plenty of time to analyse it and go through it closely before today’s meeting. The Government have been fully transparent with respect to the equality impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

None the less, I repeat what I said, which is that we were accused of not publishing the equality impact assessment until a few days ago. We published it on 5 December online, and it has been available for all interested Members of Parliament to scrutinise.

[Paul Blomfield]

The original assessment?

[Joseph Johnson]

These equality impact assessments were released to the NUS. The equality duty is an ongoing duty on Government, impact assessments are refined as new evidence emerges, and we published the most up-to-date version of it on 5 December. The Committee has had well over a month to assess that impact assessment. The changes to student support contained in the regulations work in the same spirit as the last Parliament’s reforms. The Government were elected on their fiscal record, with a commitment to eliminate the deficit. This change makes a significant contribution to achieving that goal. Converting maintenance grants to loans will generate grant savings of around £2.5 billion a year, which will have an immediate impact on the record-breaking deficit that this Government inherited. We do not recognise the estimates of the economic saving cited.

HMRC Office Closures

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

I agree. There are problems with the workforce, to which several hon. Members have referred. The chief executive of HMRC wrote to me on 12 November, saying:

“We expect that 90% of our current workforce will be able to either work in a regional centre or see out their career in an HMRC office.”

That says to me that the chief executive of HMRC reckons 10% will either not transfer or will be made redundant. That is worrying.

Reference has been made this afternoon to response times. In the first two quarters of 2015, 12 million calls went unanswered—half of all calls to HMRC. Only 39% of calls were answered within five minutes. In the third quarter of this year, after an infusion of staff, the rate of answered calls went up to 76%. That is a great improvement—except that the target is 80%, and in 2014-15 the answer rate was 72.5%. I have to say to the Government, and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a family business, that this is the worst of statism. If HMRC were a business, it would have gone bust with that appalling customer service, but because none of us has any choice but to pay taxes, it remains in business. It should not do so. It certainly needs transforming, but cutting the number of staff does not seem to me, or my party, the way to do it.

On anti-money laundering, London is thankfully a major world financial centre, but we have a huge problem with the regime set up to deal with money laundering and to counteract it. The average HMRC fine in 2014-15 for money laundering was £1,134, according to Transparency International, which I thank. That seems a remarkably low figure, although it is not helped by the fact that 14 different regulators are involved in accountancy. If that is not sorted out, HMRC staff cannot do their job properly in relation to anti-money laundering, let alone tax evasion.

As has been said, since June 2014, HMRC has not had any face-to-face walk-in centres. There are a few teams of mobile advisers—a man in a white van dashing around Northern Ireland or northern Scotland, up to Caithness or wherever—for those who desperately need a face-to-face interview, but that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and not one that encourages the taxpayer to feel confident that they are getting the service they should from HMRC. It is extremely worrying that the number of offices is being reduced from 170 to 13.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will recognise that this is a massive programme involving 56,000 staff, the closure of 140 offices and relocation to 20 sites that have yet to be acquired, all within five years. In the 2015 civil service staff survey, almost 80% of HMRC staff thought their management were unable to manage change effectively. Does he agree that there are huge risks in the programme, and that it is potentially a disaster waiting to happen?

[Rob Marris]

There are huge risks, partly to do with insufficient funding, insufficient staffing and an insufficient number of offices. I regret to say that in my constituency, Crown house—the second and final HMRC office in my constituency—will close. The only silver lining for people in my region is that the specialist office in Telford, Shropshire, down the road, will continue to be HMRC’s IT headquarters.

As a result of these relocations and closures, it is likely that HMRC will haemorrhage staff. It employs a lot of specialist staff. Unlike in many other Departments, an awful lot of staff in the Treasury are very mobile, as there is a ready outlet to the private sector, which often pays more.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). Like him, I represent an area whose heritage is in mining, steel and iron, and that has similarly warm-hearted and welcoming people. I thank him for his tribute to his predecessor, Pamela Nash, and for opening his speech with a quote from John Smith, whose premature death was a sad loss to all of us in politics. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful maiden speech that demonstrated values and passion, which indicates that he will bring a great deal to the House.

I want to congratulate the Chancellor—[Interruption.] There is some dissent among my hon. Friends, but he did well to put the issue of low pay in the headlines. He is right that we need to tackle the scandal of low pay, and he was right when he stole the words of the TUC in saying that Britain needs a pay rise. The question is whether his measures meet that challenge. Any increase in wages for struggling families has to be a good thing. That was why Labour introduced the national minimum wage.

[Robert Flello]

Did my hon. Friend spot that when the Chancellor said that the nation needs a pay rise, that did not apply to public sector workers with their 1% rises for four years?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and other colleagues have made that point forcefully in this debate.

As we have been reminded today, Labour’s introduction of the national minimum wage was opposed by the Conservatives. I am delighted that they now apparently embrace it. It ended the scandal of poverty pay, providing a safety net below which wages should not fall. But for too many people, the national minimum wage has become the norm, not a safety net, as have zero-hours contracts and part-time hours for those who want full-time work. Alongside those setting up real businesses, there has been a growth in bogus self-employment, particularly in sectors such as construction. Uncertainty has replaced job security, and it has all been aimed at reducing labour costs.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman mentions zero-hours contracts. Would he care to tell the House the percentage of the workforce who are employed on zero-hours contracts?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman that too many people are employed on zero-hours contracts, and I could cite countless examples of people in my constituency whose lives have been destroyed by them and who have raised the issue with me.

It was interesting last week to hear Ministers, almost in the same breath, expressing their concern about low pay and then condemning tube staff for their industrial action.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not at this stage, simply because other Members want to speak and I am conscious of time.

Over a generation, we have seen a shift of between 5% and 7% of GDP from wages to profits, and from profits to shareholders’ dividends. That has widened inequality and reversed a century of progress towards a more equal society, and it started with deliberate decisions in the 1980s to weaken the bargaining power of working people and the trade unions that represent them. A sensible policy response to low pay would be to strengthen the negotiating hand of working people, but instead the Government made it clear in the Queen’s Speech that they want to weaken their position further with more attacks on the trade union movement.

[James Cleverly]

Would the hon. Gentleman concede that when tube drivers, for example, go on strike, the people who are hurt the most are not those who can fire up their laptops and work from home but those who, if they cannot get to work, do not get paid for work, such as contract cleaners and those who work in the care sector? Is it not the case that when people go on strike it is the low-paid who get hit the hardest?

[Paul Blomfield]

It is absolutely true that when people go on strike, everybody gets hit, including those on strike. Trade unionists go on strike only with enormous reluctance, because of the impact on services and their wages. The uncomfortable truth for Conservative Members is that improvements in living conditions, health and safety and other workplace situations have been won through the struggle by trade unions.

The campaign for a living wage was a great response to the challenge of low pay. Members on both sides of the House have rightly praised the work of the Living Wage Foundation, but that work has been made more difficult by the Chancellor’s attempt to steal its clothes. We need to be clear. The increase that he proposes to take the wage floor up to £9 for many workers is welcome, but let us not pretend that it is a living wage. Let us call it the over-25s rate or the national minimum wage supplement, or we could just call it the national minimum wage, but he should not damage the brand of the living wage by associating his proposal with it.

We should continue to work to encourage employers to adopt the living wage and to incentivise them to do so. We need to recognise, as the Living Wage Foundation has pointed out, that the rate will need to rise to take account of the cut in tax credits. Here is the rub: although the new rate of the national minimum wage might benefit up to 5 million workers, more than half of them will be worse off—an estimated 3 million families, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—by an average of £1,000 a year because of the changes in tax credits. It could not be any other way: an estimated wage uplift of £4 billion is being offset by welfare cuts of £12 billion.

The Chancellor will argue that raising the tax threshold will benefit low-paid workers by taking them out of tax, but he knows that that is not true. He knows that lifting the tax threshold is a regressive tax measure, because it benefits everybody equally except the lowest paid. Six million workers who are already paid too little to pay tax in the first place will not benefit at all from raising the threshold, whereas Members of Parliament will get a tax break. Frankly, in comparison with low-paid workers, we do not deserve one.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Don’t take it then.

[Paul Blomfield]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain how people can choose not to take a tax break.

The hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) rightly spoke forcefully about small businesses. I do a lot of work with small businesses in my constituency. They are a driver of growth. When there is any increase in pay, they face a challenge, as does the voluntary sector. They need support, but the Government and the Budget have got it wrong. Support should not have been provided through a greater cut to corporation tax; it should have been provided to small businesses by further cuts to business rates.

The Prime Minister is right that company profits should not be subsidised by the public purse. If he is serious, why not tax listed companies that fail to pay the real living wage to recoup the cost? If he is serious about tackling poverty pay, what about strengthening labour market enforcement? We know, for example, that thousands of workers do not even get the national minimum wage in the care sector because employers refuse to pay for travelling time. We debated that in the last Parliament. Ministers admitted that the practice was widespread and said it was illegal, but nothing is happening to chase down those rogue employers and bring them to book.

[Robert Flello]

On that point, will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not because of time—I am sorry.

On the question of the care sector, will the Government find the resources to support local councils—they have been hit harder than any other part of the public sector—in meeting the cost of increasing the national minimum wage and paying workers what they are legally due?

The Government are right to respond to the need to give people a pay rise and have opened a debate, but they will need to do much more to make the difference that working families need, because this Budget fails to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Voter Engagement

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing such an important debate so early in this Parliament. She has covered, very ably and in great detail, the wide range of issues involved in voter registration and the prospective boundary review, and she struck an important note by saying that we should be able to discuss these issues on a non-partisan basis. That is certainly what I hope to do as I focus on student registration. I raise the issue as I represent more students than any other Member of this House—some 36,000, according to the last census —and because I chaired the all-party group on students in the last Parliament. I point out to anybody who is interested that we are relaunching the group on 13 July, so they can put that date in their diary.

Many students live in two homes, but the place where they study is effectively their primary residence. They spend more time there, and many of us who represent areas with large numbers of students make enormous efforts to integrate them into the local community and make them feel that the area is their primary home. That is as important in electoral registration as in anything else.

Members and the Minister, whom I welcome to his post, will know that prior to the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 many universities, though not all, block-registered students living in university accommodation, effectively acting in their role as head of household. I remain disappointed that the Government rejected amendments to that Act that would have allowed that block registration of students to continue, because it was an established and secure method of ensuring that students got on to the register, and that their identity was validated.

I wonder whether, in retrospect, the Government regret their decision to reject those amendments, given that in the run-up to the last election they spent an awful lot of money through the Cabinet Office pushing student registration, which I welcome. However, they were playing catch-up because they were behind the game. I welcome the fact that £380,000 was allocated to the National Union of Students, which shared it out among student unions across the country, to promote voter registration. That was a good spend; the money was used effectively, and it had a real impact on the number of students registered. We will need to look at that sort of spend in the run-up to key elections in the coming year. There will be many of them. Indeed, that applies to referendums, too; clearly, one referendum is not far away. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to continue that funding in the run-up to the elections and referendums in the immediate period ahead? I ask because that money was used effectively; it could be used again effectively, and it is certainly needed.

The Cabinet Office has worked very effectively on this issue, but I ask the Minister to consider the development of better approaches. When the 2013 Act was passed, it struck me, as someone who represents many students, that there would be an opportunity under individual electoral registration to reach beyond the number of students who registered under the old system of block registration if we could successfully integrate student enrolment and electoral registration.

Many universities have been quite willing—even enthusiastic—to promote the idea of registration, but I thought that we could take a step further than that. I talked to both the universities in my constituency—Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam University—about the ways in which that might be achieved. We agreed between us that, for the 2014 entry of students, Sheffield University would pilot an integrated system, and that we would have as a benchmark alongside it Sheffield Hallam University, which would simply point students to the Government’s portal. We did all that with a view to introducing the Sheffield University system, if it proved worth while. The project was very successful indeed, thanks to the commitment of the staff at the universities and our local electoral registration officer, John Tomlinson, to whom I pay tribute. We developed a system that went live, as planned, last September. I also thank the Cabinet Office for its support and limited funding for that process.

The system requires students, when registering and enrolling with the university, actively to decide whether they want to register to vote. It was hugely successful, with 64% of eligible students indicating their wish to register to vote in Sheffield. The system then took people to another step, requiring them to give their national insurance number. At that point, two thirds of those enthusiastic, willing voters dropped out of the system because they did not have immediate access to their NI number and did not want to delay their university registration. The situation was looking a little bit bleak, with only 24% of students registered, despite more than double that number wanting to do so.

Again, I pay tribute to the Cabinet Office, which stepped in with new guidance issued in December, which allowed electoral registration officers to use their discretion to verify an application using any data source that satisfactorily established the identity of the applicant, including student enrolment data. That is sensible, because those data are a good verifier of identity. That meant that all those students who did not have their NI number and were not on the register—some 7,000—were added during December and January. It would be far simpler if, rather than having to seek national insurance numbers at all, we had a simple system, such as that put in place by the Cabinet Office, enabling EROs to register students on the basis of their indication that they wished to register, with their identities verified by their student status. Could not we dispense with the requirement for universities to collect NI numbers? That would make it simpler for everybody, and we would still have the verifiable data.

Whatever the Minister’s answer is, it is important that we press ahead with trying to get integrated systems. I have been working, as the Cabinet Office has, with Universities UK and the National Union of Students to encourage universities to make that decision. The Minister will know that many universities are grouped together by the fact that the same system provider writes their student enrolment programmes. The largest provider covers 82 universities, Sheffield Hallam being one of them. This happens across the country. There is an opportunity to get those system providers—I think there are three in all—to rewrite their software with a simple fix, before the September 2015 entry, so that there is an integrated system of electoral registration in the student enrolment procedures. I think active consideration has been given to this, but will the Minister positively consider the Cabinet Office funding these changes, including the rewrite of the software for many universities? Apart from anything else, if that happened the Government would save a lot of money, because we would not need the kind of retrospective funding that was needed when we were playing catch-up in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

Another positive initiative from the Cabinet Office was the establishment of projects trying to co-ordinate voter registration work for the Student Forum, which brought together the NUS, Universities UK, GuildHE, the Association of Colleges, the Academic Registrars Council and electoral registration officers, nationally and regionally. That organisation did some productive work. I hope that the Minister will commit to continuing those projects and forums.

I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a wider lesson to be learned from the experience of student registration, which shows that, with commitment, creativity and resources, IER can be introduced successfully. We can transfer the lessons of Sheffield’s system, which is aimed at students, beyond higher education to schools, colleges, housing providers, residential homes and other organisations that collect the data that the Government need to verify identity. We need to make it as simple as possible to get people straight on to the electoral roll. Much more needs to be done before we have a register that is fit for purpose, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Without that, we cannot proceed to a credible boundary review or the elections that are to take place, or to the crucial decision we will be making about our membership of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I was about to come to examples of where that has been achieved already with some success. In the case of IER, about 87% of those who were already enrolled were seamlessly moved across, without their having to do anything. They were automatically verified, and their registration was moved across straightforwardly and simply.

There is a great deal that can be done, which brings me on seamlessly to the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about other opportunities to prompt people. He used the example of students, but there are many other examples. The shadow Minister mentioned private letting agents, which provide an obvious gateway or portal. There is a prompting moment when people move house. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about universities, and the example of Northern Ireland was mentioned, where work has also been done in schools and colleges.

[Paul Blomfield]

My point was that it is not simply about the opportunity to prompt—that is what we had at Sheffield Hallam, where it produced a 15% student uptake—but the opportunity to integrate systems in which data are already being collected to verify voters. There should be a seamless process of automatic registration. That is what we did in the other university, where we got 64% registration. That applies more widely than to institutions of higher education.

[John Penrose]

I agree with most, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman says. There are huge opportunities to make it easier to verify people’s identity, to prompt them and to confirm them as legitimate voters. There are many opportunities, at points at which people intersect with other parts of Government data, when we can do that very effectively indeed.

The hon. Gentleman said that if students were asked to provide their national insurance number and did not happen to have it to hand, they would be discouraged, but there are alternatives, which were exploited in Sheffield. There are other trusted data sources, such as university enrolment data, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Providing the university has the right information—he said that there was an opportunity for software improvement—it could be used to provide the automatic confirmation of people’s eligibility to vote.

Where I gently but fundamentally part company with the hon. Gentleman—although I stay in contact with the shadow Minister—is on the notion of IER being part of a conscious choice for people to enrol. Moving away from the old system of household enrolment is a major step forward. I am sure that I am preaching to the choir when I say that the old system of household enrolment was a little patriarchal, if I can put it that way. Expecting people who want to vote to register is not a great thing to ask.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I find that I am unexpectedly more sensitive to patriarchy than the hon. Lady. That is a phrase I never thought I would utter.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not think we are really at odds. What we are saying is that the system we developed at Sheffield requires people to make a decision, but it does not direct them to what that decision is; that is the critical thing. It is about more active engagement.

[John Penrose]

We are as one on the idea that there is a great deal more that can be done. With any luck, the Electoral Commission’s report will equip us with more facts that show us which avenues it will be most profitable for us to pursue first. It will allow us to prioritise them and make progress.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury was extremely organised and asked a series of questions. I do not have time to get through them all, but I will endeavour to. Before I move on, I want to mention the comments of the hon. Members for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). I am probably misquoting the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but she said—this was a vital comment—that there should be no division between representatives of the people and the people themselves. I am sure that everybody here would echo and agree with that statement.

On the issue of whether the bands around boundaries should be 5%, 8% or 10%, the point is that constituency size must be based on registration to ensure we have genuinely equal representation in this place. The wider the bands, the less fairness there is, in terms of the power of an individual’s vote. If there was a 10% band, there could be a 20% difference between the number of people it takes to elect me and the number of people it takes to elect the shadow Minister. That would be getting too wide for comfort.