Easter Adjournment

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Before I start, I want to add my tribute to the many others that have been paid to Keith Palmer, who lost his life protecting us; and to his colleagues, who went straight back to work protecting us. Our thoughts are with all who were injured and bereaved in the incident last Wednesday, and our gratitude goes to those in the emergency services and the many others who responded so quickly. It was also helpful to get messages of condolence from our faith leaders, including our local Muslim leaders.

It is almost two years since I was elected to this House. It has been an honour, and it has sometimes been hugely rewarding, but too often it has not been a pleasure. Sadly, too much of my constituency casework has been about dealing with the impact on my constituents and their families of this Government’s deliberate decisions. I and my small and overstretched team have dealt with more than 20,000 requests for help or support in the last 22 months. Although many people who contact me do so to seek my views on everything from Brexit to animal welfare, a very large—and growing—number of people turn to me because they just do not know what to do to get the change that they so badly need. That includes the many people who are dependent on council services and other services, or on disability or bereavement benefits that are being withdrawn or rationed because of Government funding cuts.

In the short time that I have available, I will touch on some local examples that illustrate the Government’s lack of interest in, and compassion for, my constituents and people across the country. First, though, I have been wondering why the Government hold children in such low regard. Children who have lost their mother or father, and whose family will lose bereavement benefits; third and subsequent children in families who benefit from tax credits, who will no longer be entitled to benefit for those additional children; and children in school, whose schools already face cuts and will be cut further when the national funding formula comes in, are just some of those who will be affected by this Government’s policies.

The Prime Minister started her term of office by expressing concern for those who are just about managing and are worrying about paying the mortgage. In my constituency in west London, most people not already on the housing ladder worry about paying the rent, and having a mortgage is a distant and unlikely dream, given that the average sale price is two and a half times the average salary. The rent of a modest two-bedroom flat in Isleworth in the middle of my constituency costs three quarters of the take-home pay of an average Heathrow worker or even of a teacher. As such a family are considered to be adequately housed, they do not have any hope of getting a council house or a housing association flat. The income of those constituents is way below that needed for any of the so-called affordable housing schemes—shared ownership, starter home or 80% market rental—promoted by this Government.

I want to move on to the confluence of policy and bureaucracy, starting with the roll-out of universal credit. For those of my constituents who are on low incomes or who are unable to work at all, universal credit has been torture, on top of the punishment of ever lower benefit caps and the cutting back of support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. I do not know whether this Government are consciously driving through the enforced destitution of those on low incomes and the slightly better-off families who do not have benefits to fall back on, or whether civil service cuts mean that there is just no one to implement the system properly, but that means claimants have no money at all for weeks and families whose members are working have enough to buy food but worry about whether the money they are due for their rent will ever come through. There is the sheer bureaucratic mess: one form was on its 54th iteration when we last looked at it.

Sadly, crazy bureaucracy led by mendacious policies are not confined to the Department for Work and Pensions in my experience as a Member of the House. Over 40% of my constituents were born overseas, and I have lost count of the number of people in my weekly advice surgeries who have told me that their application to the Home Office has been turned down without Home Office staff even looking at their paperwork. For example, there was the woman whose application was refused on only one count of the many she had to pass. She was told she had failed the English test, despite the fact that the certificate stating she had passed with distinction was right there as part of her application. There was the French citizen whose application for UK citizenship was refused because she failed the test of permanent residency. Why? Because she had had the temerity to go on a two-day break abroad exactly three years to the day before the date of her citizenship application. Both these cases illustrate how those affected and their families feel that they are victims of the rule about getting net immigration down to 100,000—a pledge dreamed up by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary. The last example leads me on to Brexit. I supported remain, and 60% of my constituents agreed with me because of what it means to their family, their work, their business, or their hopes and aspirations for the UK. For many, it is personal. The French national I have mentioned—her family had a referendum vote, but she did not—is worried for her future. She has now retired, but has lived here and paid taxes continually for 30 years. She has married a UK citizen, and has two UK children. She applied for UK citizenship, which she had never wanted to do, because, like 3 million others, she has been given no assurance that she can stay here and claim the pension—and, if needed, the social and health care support—that she has paid for throughout her working life in the UK. She would not of course be eligible for any of that support if she were forced to return to France.

I want to finish by mentioning the concern of our communities about the impact of the third runway at Heathrow. Heathrow is the major driver of our local economy, and it is and will continue to be vital to UK plc, but until we develop glider passenger planes, the expansion of Heathrow will mean more noise for many more people—300,000 people—in and around London.

I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a peaceful and happy Easter recess. I hope you will accept my apologies, but I have to leave before the winding-up speeches in order to chair a community meeting about station overcrowding.

Low-Cost housing

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under you again, Ms Gillan. I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing the debate.

I wondered whether there had been a mix-up by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who decides on these debates, but knowing him and understanding the process as I now do, I know that that is not possible. Hon. Members may have attended this debate and people may have watched it in anticipation of a debate on low-cost housing, perhaps hoping to hear some more detail about the White Paper that the Government released yesterday or some more meat put on the bones of the essential topic of low-cost housing. Instead, this debate has been about a small proposal to tweak the planning system.

I will address the proposal from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in a moment, but first I will address low-cost housing, which is the topic of the debate and is what I expected to be speaking on. Of course the overall supply of housing—which the hon. Gentleman states it is the intention of his policy to address—is important, because we have a shortage of housing in this country, as the Secretary of State said yesterday. In a pure supply and demand curve, one expects more supply to mean lower cost, and the obverse—shortage of supply—means higher cost, which is exactly what has happened in the open market; so housing becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more people.

That has happened in the last seven years. Under David Cameron, the UK built fewer homes than under any peacetime Prime Minister since 1923. The number of home-owning households rose by a million under the 1997 to 2010 Government, but it has fallen by 200,000 since 2010, and this shortage has meant that the price of buying has risen and risen, putting homes out of the reach of even well-paid young people. Members here today may have watched “Newsnight” last night, in which there were reasonably well-paid young professionals who could not get on the housing ladder. In my constituency in west London, working people earning reasonable salaries cannot even afford to rent, and if they can just about pay more than 50% of their income on rent, they have no money left to save up for a deposit. The market is not delivering affordable homes to rent or to buy, except in some economically deprived areas, where there are more homes than there are people who want to live in them.

In most of England, because house prices have risen, more and more people need some kind of subsidised low-cost housing. Since 2010, however, Government funding for all types of affordable housing—there were eight definitions of affordable housing in the White Paper—has been withdrawn, except for one, which is for first-time buyers. The level of new affordable house building has still managed to hit a 24-year low. The number of shared ownership homes and other low-cost home ownership homes being built annually has fallen by 66% since 2010, to just 7,540 homes a year, meaning that 34,170 fewer affordable homes have been built since 2010 than in the last six years of the last Labour Government. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) clearly described the problems—and the potential solutions—of delivering truly affordable low-cost housing.

For social rented housing, official statistics show that the number of social rented homes that were started in 2009-10 was almost 40,000, but in 2015-16 the number of social rented homes being delivered was less than 1,000—a fall of 98% and the lowest figure since records began.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said yesterday in the main Chamber that private house builders, housing associations and councils need to fire on all cylinders to build the homes that we need, and councils need to be allowed to build homes again to meet the needs of local people. At the moment, they are not allowed to do that.

[Dr Huq]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I agree with what she is saying, that this “Pile ’em high, sell ’em cheap and leave it to market forces” solution does not sound like it is enough. When it is left to market forces, in a place such as Ealing, people seem to use these high-rise homes that are going up as a very expensive piggybank; they are not even living in them. Obviously we need more social housing to counteract all this.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I have experienced that in my own constituency. We still have newly built homes that are never let, because they are seen as nothing more than an investment, and many of them are very high in price.

As I have said, the latest affordable housing statistics have fallen to their lowest levels in 24 years. Of course I welcome any credible initiatives to provide low-cost housing, but where is the evidence that this well-meaning initiative to extend permitted development rights, which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has discussed today, will actually deliver low-cost housing?

Between February and April in 2016, the Government consulted jointly with the Mayor of London on proposals to deliver more homes in London by allowing a limited number of additional storeys on existing buildings through a permitted development right, local development orders or development plan policies, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is seeking. That was part of the Government’s commitment to explore how more homes could be built on brownfield land, in order to reduce the pressure on greenfield or metropolitan open land. The Government summary of the responses that they received to that proposal says:

“More than half of those were not supportive of the proposal, with a one-size-fits-all permitted development right approach considered unworkable. While it was noted that it could support town centres and deliver more homes, it was recognised that the complex prior approval that would be required to protect neighbours and the character and amenity of an area would result in a permitted development right that is no less onerous than a planning application.”

Specifically, a couple of the consultees—the Planning Officers Society and Historic England—did not support the proposals. I am well aware that the British Property Federation welcomed them.

[John Penrose]

I just wish to clarify something for the hon. Lady. I have read the document she is quoting and learned of the concerns surrounding the proposed permitted development right, which has been consulted on already, but my proposal is different. It starts from the same place, but is designed to avoid the criticisms that were levelled, which she has rightly pointed out. I have endeavoured to modify my proposal in a way that will allow it to sidestep those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Nevertheless, with any consideration of extending permitted development rights, there are always unintended consequences. That is why the Planning Officers Society, Historic England and other organisations did not see the merit of, and therefore did not make the case for, extending them. In fact, it was not only permitted development rights that were considered, but other methods.

As I say, the British Property Federation welcomed the proposal for an extension to permitted development rights, but even the BPF said that

“it is unlikely to deliver a significant amount of new homes”,

which, as the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, is one of his key aims.

What are the reasons to retain the status quo, which is what I am suggesting? Proposals to develop upwards can go through the planning application process. What is wrong with that? A planning application provides notification, consultation, transparency and accountability, whereas extending permitted development rights does not. If any proposal to build higher makes sense in a town or village centre; if it works with neighbouring buildings; if the space standards and design provide good quality housing in which people will thrive, it should be granted planning permission. However, to deny a community or a parish council the ability to comment, to deny planning officers the ability to negotiate improvements to a proposal, and to deny locally elected councillors the opportunity to determine the application would just open the gates to unpopular, unwanted and possibly bad developments.

If a local council makes a bad planning decision—possibly in the face of fierce local opposition to an application—there is always the opportunity to appeal to the impartial Planning Inspectorate. Nobody denies that enabling more homes to be built in a town or village centre is a good thing for the life and vibrancy of that place.

[Dr Poulter]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. However, is it not very difficult for the types of people my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has spoken about today—people who want to carry out small extensions or build small buildings—to bring the sorts of planning appeals that she just talked about? Sometimes bad decisions are made because around the time of elections, planning issues can become very contentious in local authorities.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Having been a councillor myself for many, many years, I am well aware of that pressure, which is why we have the appeals system—it is why we have that check and balance. Let us remember that one can only get away with refusing a planning application if the refusal is made on good planning grounds. Officers are there to advise councillors, and if councillors ignore officers, the application will go to appeal, and, if it is a good application that was refused for the wrong reasons, the Planning Inspectorate will overturn the refusal and the application will be granted.

The planning system is there for a reason. It is there to protect communities and ensure good development. It ensures that there are appropriate facilities, amenities, space standards, parking provision and so on. When permitted development rights are extended, a lot of that is lost. I am sure that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare does not want to see a load of high-rise buildings going up that do not meet basic standards and do not provide a basic quality of life for the people living in those dwellings and in surrounding dwellings.

[John Penrose]

I repeat that I am not proposing huge high-rise dwellings at all; I am proposing things that can be built up to the height of the local treeline, for example, which is four or five storeys at the most. I gently say to the hon. Lady that if the planning system works so bleedin’ brilliantly, we would have four or five-storey developments in market towns and seaside towns around the country, but we do not. I doubt very strongly that that is because communities everywhere have roundly decided that they cannot live with anything taller than two storeys. I suspect that it is because there is a chilling effect. People are being discouraged from putting such applications in because of officialdom knocking them back all the time.

[Ruth Cadbury]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe he was in the same meeting as me last week, where we talked about converting empty space above flats into residential. In that interesting and informative roundtable, we heard that there is a whole host of barriers to converting empty space above shops, and the same applies to the proposal to increase heights. The planning system was not suggested as the main barrier. There are other barriers, such as structural ones, security ones, issues of funding and whether it is worth the cost. Except in very high-price property areas, such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and I represent, it is just not worth landowners’ while to do it. There is a range of barriers.

No one denies that enabling more homes in town centres is a good thing for the life and vibrancy of those town centres. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, but the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could do better than blaming the planning system for the lack of delivery. The planning system can deliver what he wants now. He has brought no evidence that this little tweak of the planning system will deliver more housing, let alone more affordable housing. He has made circumstantial links between more supply, of which the proposal would provide a tiny amount, and a crashing fall in housing prices. There is no evidence.

We have seen problems when permitted development rights are extended, such as with the coalition Government’s policy, which has now been enshrined permanently, of allowing employment space to be converted into residential without planning permission. In Hounslow—I represent half of the borough—we have seen poor-quality housing, poor space standards, inadequate parking and issues with everything from refuse disposal to access. That policy is not providing good-quality housing or affordable housing.

The other extension of permitted development rights that was enacted under the coalition Government allowed homeowners to extend the rear of their homes by 6 metres, rather than the 3 metres it had been previously. Those developments have a massive impact on the neighbours. That is why we have to be careful about extending permitted development rights, and the Opposition do not support such extensions.

Building can be done at height with good design, but there is no reason why that cannot be done through the normal, transparent and accountable planning application process. In the years I was a planning committee member—some of those were as chair—we granted many applications for increasing the height of buildings and homes or for building new higher ones. We refused some terrible applications. The system allows for that to happen. We have a massive housing shortage in west London, but the prices are high enough that it is worth the developers’ while. We saw the applications; we approved the good ones and refused the bad ones. The market in west London is doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman desires.

[John Penrose]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way yet again. She is being very generous and kind. I gently say to her that the London economic microclimate is not typical of the rest of Britain. I am rather reassured by some of the things she has said about what is happening in parts of London and how these things are being handled, but I do not think those incentives, processes or habits of mind among councils and council officials are broadly spread across the country.

[Ruth Cadbury]

In which case, the hon. Gentleman is effectively admitting that it is not the planning system that is the problem, but the state of the property market and other barriers to development. The market in west London is doing exactly what he wants, and I suggest he looks elsewhere for the cause of the problem and, therefore, for the solution.

The hon. Gentleman wants beautiful buildings; that is why a planning system is needed. He is proposing a solution that removes local oversight, but there is no evidence it will work and it could create unintended consequences. Furthermore, his proposal does not address the subject of the debate: low-cost housing. I am almost inclined to dissent when the Question is put at the end of the debate as to whether we have considered low-cost housing, but I will leave that for then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with his point about right to buy. We are firmly committed to it. We want to encourage the aspiration for everyone to own their own home. We want to enable that, and right to buy is very much a part of it. He made very thoughtful remarks in his earlier contribution, and we have answers. We are firmly committed to making sure that, for every additional home sold, another social home will be provided—nationally. There is a rolling three-year deadline for councils to deliver the affordable homes to replace right to buy. We must also remember that when someone exercises their right to buy, the house is not removed from the stock. They still have a housing need. Again, the issue comes back to making sure that we increase the supply of houses.

Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman a little more comfort. It was said by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth that councils were not building more homes. Actually, they are. Some councils are showing considerable imagination in unlocking new homes. They are establishing local housing companies and we are encouraging them to do that. We see local councils as part of the partnership to help to increase supply.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that I said councils are not building new homes. They are building new homes, but they are having to use other resources now that there is no Government funding. They could build an awful lot more if they could be released from the borrowing cap. My own council is building about 400 new council homes. The problem is that councils are losing their own stock at a faster rate through the right to buy than they can build new council homes. They are building them using capital funds that could also be used for other infrastructure such as schools and so on.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am not sure I entirely accept that. Certainly local authorities have the powers to borrow using their general power of competence, and they have established local housing companies to do that. There is an obligation to replace one for one, following the right to buy being exercised. Ultimately, we see local authorities as a partner in delivering more housing. That is the message I want to press home today.

Our broken housing market is one of the greatest barriers to progress in Britain today. If we are really serious about building a fairer society for everyone, we need to tackle that. We need to fix this to make sure that housing is more affordable. As has been mentioned, many people spend significant amounts of their income on rent or mortgage payments. Building more homes will slow the rise in housing costs so that many more families will be able to afford to buy a home or enjoy the benefits of lower rents.

To summarise and put what the housing White Paper proposes in context, first, we will insist that every area has an up-to-date plan, because development is about far more than just building homes. This is where the challenge is for local authorities. The planning process and building a vision of where new homes will be built and what the future will be for a local economy is so important. It is about getting community buy-in. It will help to tackle some of the cultural prejudices that we discussed earlier in the debate. If communities have ownership of a local plan for their local area, they will get the attractive homes that they want and need. My challenge is for local authorities to step up and deliver. We are all aware that there are far too many local authorities that have not risen to the challenge of identifying where houses are needed. There are still too many councils that do not have a local plan, and they need to show leadership and deliver.

Secondly, and as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) noted, we need to ensure that homes are built quickly once planning permission is granted. We will make sure that the planning system is much more open and accessible. We will improve the co-ordination of public investment infrastructure to encourage that, and we will support timely connections to utilities to tackle unnecessary delays, but the real issue is developers. We will give councils and developers the tools they need to build more swiftly and we will expect them to use them. I suspect that this is an issue that we will look at as reactions to the White Paper unfold and we consider whether there is a need for further legislative change.

We will also diversify the market. We want to bring new players in to the supply of housing. We need to give support to small and medium-sized builders and custom builders and to champion modern methods of construction to support new investment to build to rent. Those measures could be transformational. The idea of institutional investment that builds property estates or residential blocks that are specifically for rent, which people can rent for a long time, could transform the housing market and make renting much more affordable.

The White Paper also sets out how we will support housing associations to build more and explores options to encourage local authorities to build again. As I have said, we will also encourage further institutional investment in the private rented sector. Finally, because we recognise that building the homes we need takes time, we will also take more steps now to improve safeguards in the private rented sector. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in London will be particularly concerned about that.

We have seen the need to do more to prevent homelessness. I am very pleased that the Government have committed to fully funding the Homelessness Reduction Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We will provide £61 million to local government to meet the costs of the new burdens associated with that Bill over the course of the spending review period.

We could easily trade statistics, but I do not think there is any value in playing the blame game about where we are now. We need to look at how we fix it. Everybody has a role to play in that—including the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton mentioned. The Government are very clear that fixing the problem is a real priority.

We have already delivered 313,000 affordable homes in England since 2010. The affordable homes programme alone delivered 193,000 affordable homes, exceeding expectations by 23,000. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the expansion of the affordable homes programme with an additional £1.4 billion, which increased the overall budget to £7.1 billion. That is a significant investment from the Government in tackling the problem. The expanded programme also allows a wider range of products to help people on the pathway to home ownership and to continue to provide support for those who need it. Those products include shared ownership, rent to buy and affordable rent.

Opening up the programme in that way will help to meet the housing needs of a wider range of people in different circumstances and at different stages in their lives. We have to recognise that there are different problems in different areas of the country, but also different problems hitting people at different stages of their lives. We need to make sure that we have a solution for all of those.

Affordable rent was a policy introduced to get more bang for our buck in providing social rent models. It allows rent to be set at 80% of market rents so that we can unlock more supply. Those tenants will still benefit from a sub-market rent. This is a particular issue in London, where the affordable rent can be set even lower.

Home ownership, however, continues to be the aspiration for most people, which is why we have looked at the Help to Buy products, right to buy and shared ownership. Shared ownership offers a route through the part-buy/part-rent model to enable people to get on the housing ladder sooner than if they were saving for a deposit. Purchasers buy a minimum 20% share in the new-build property at market value, pay a controlled rent on the remainder and may continue to buy further shares until the property is owned outright. We will continue to use that tool to expand home ownership. Since 2010, around 45,000 new shared ownership schemes have been delivered and we will continue to deliver more.

Help to Buy has already helped more than 200,000 households to buy a home, including through the equity loan scheme, which has benefited 100,000 households—81% of whom were first-time buyers. We have also committed £8.6 billion for the Help to Buy equity loan scheme to 2021, to ensure that it continues to support homebuyers and stimulate supply. We recognise the need to create certainty for prospective homeowners so we will work with the sector to deliver that.

I come back to the issue of the planning regime and how we can speed up its ability to help to deliver the volume of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is quite right to look at tools for how we can do that. He highlighted the importance of increasing brownfield development and building to higher densities to deliver more homes. If widely adopted, that could reduce the need for green-belt development. What excites me about the idea is the ability to regenerate our high streets. I am sure I am not alone, given the way that retail is moving today, in seeing some of my high streets really struggling. The idea that we could create a new, mixed-use high street, rather than a retail-dependent one—one where people can live above the shops or behind the shops in new high-rise developments and be able to go downstairs and visit cafes and restaurants—is quite an exciting concept, which would particularly appeal to the younger generations coming through. There is massive potential, and I encourage my hon. Friend to carry on trying to open people’s eyes to the potential of this initiative.

The Department has been engaging with my hon. Friend on his work and has taken up his proposals. We consulted last February on proposals to allow limited upward extensions in London, no higher than the height of an adjoining roofline. Following that consultation, we recognise that there is potential to deliver more homes nationally, not just in London, through a change to national planning policy to support upward extensions in suitable locations. As set out in the housing White Paper, we propose to amend the national planning policy framework to make it clear that local plans and individual development proposals should address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations where buildings can be extended upwards by using the airspace above them.

In the White Paper, we have committed to reviewing the nationally described space standards, because of feedback from the sector that in certain places, space standards make it hard to use land efficiently and stop cheaper houses being built, which more people now want to rent or buy, such as Pocket Homes. We have to recognise the limitations. When we write planning law, we write it at a given time, in a given set of circumstances. When the world changes, we need to be prepared to be fleet of foot in dealing with new opportunities to address the issues we face. However, this is not a race to the bottom, and Government are clear that in assessing the options we will be looking for a solution that combines greater local housing choice with good quality and with decent places to live.

As I have set out, in the past few years we have seen over 300,000 affordable homes built in England. We now need to go much, much further and meet our obligation to build many more houses, of the type people want to live in, in the places they want to live and at a price they can afford. Doing that will give those growing up in society today more chance to enjoy the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents. I am struck by the fact that this is the first time that the future generation will be less well-off than their parents, when for many decades we have been used to high living standards. It is firmly my view that the price of housing is central to that.

We will ensure that the housing market is as fair for those who do not own their own home as it is for those who do, and we will continue to look at what is happening in the private rented sector. All that is a vital part of our plan for a stronger, fairer Britain, and a critical step along the road to fulfilling the Government’s mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone.

[John Penrose]

I would like to extend my thanks to everybody who participated in this debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Minister—and Whip—for responding so constructively and helpfully. As she said, the timing of this debate was slightly fortuitous. As everyone here will appreciate, when we put in for debates we have little control over precisely when our names will come up, so I had no idea that it would take place 24 hours after the publication of the housing White Paper.

As the Minister said, I have been campaigning on this issue for some time, so this is at least partially a celebration of victory, because I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. There is a great deal in the White Paper about building up, not out, and it contains some very welcome steps. The Government deserve full credit for taking some major steps in the right direction. Therefore, my modest proposal, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it, is a final flourish or a final capstone—a residual step to ensure that it is done well and fully, rather than only partially. I think I am very close to the summit of achieving what we need to do, and I want to take this final step. This is, at least in part, a celebration of victory as much as a request for further activity.

I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments about there being a slightly miserable tone to the debate. She is absolutely right that there is no silver bullet to this problem, but it is perhaps a little reductive to say that because one particular proposal—in this case, my final step—does not solve all the complicated, deep-rooted and long-lasting housing problems that this country faces, it should therefore be opposed. If we let the best be the enemy of the good, we will get nowhere. This is a far broader issue than we can possibly cover in one debate, but I am pleased to say that we will make some progress.

I will finish on this point, which I direct to the Labour party and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth in particular. My hon. Friend the Minister said there was a cultural divide over tall buildings, but I think that in this Chamber there has been a cultural divide over the approach to regulation, too. I accept that the planning permission and planning regulation process plays an important role in preventing substandard building and inappropriate large-scale building—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was right to point all those things out. However, when it comes to regulating our fellow citizens in a free society, the burden of proof is on us to show why what we are doing to take away their freedoms is right, not on them to explain why they should have them back. Therefore, if I have a modest suggestion for an extension of those freedoms—a rolling back that will not impact on the broader points that the planning system is rightly geared to prevent abuses of—then it is up to us to justify why that should not happen. The burden of proof should be on us.

[Ruth Cadbury]

rose—

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

Can I check that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way?

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 98 goes as far as is practical. It seeks to address the matter. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will raise that point during the debate, and I will be happy to respond with further details, but we believe that clause 98 strikes the right balance.

Clause 99 makes provision for HMRC to recover underpayment of the apprenticeship levy. HMRC will be able to recover unpaid apprenticeship levy from employers and may undertake court proceedings to facilitate that. That will work in the same way that it does for income tax under the relevant section of the Taxes Management Act 1970.

Moving on to the information and penalties clauses, clause 100 gives HMRC the power to prescribe in regulations which records need to be retained by employers in connection with the apprenticeship levy. Clause 101 extends HMRC’s information and inspection powers under schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008 to the apprenticeship levy. Clause 102 gives HMRC permission to charge penalties for errors on returns, late payments and failures to return payments in relation to the apprenticeship levy. The intention is to ensure, as far as possible, that the apprenticeship levy position is aligned with that of PAYE and NICs. Clause 103 sets out that an employer may appeal against an HMRC assessment of the apprenticeship levy or other amounts. It specifies the notice period and process for dealing with such appeals, which follows part 5 of the Taxes Management Act 1970.

The final group of clauses deals with more general matters. Clause 104 applies HMRC’s information and inspection powers for tax agents who engage in dishonest conduct to the apprenticeship levy, as set out under schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012. Clause 105 amend the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 to facilitate future changes to the apprenticeship levy. Clause 106 sets out that:

“This Part binds the Crown.”

Clauses 107 and 108, which relate to clause 91, respectively set out the rules for determining whether two or more charities are connected. Those rules are the same as those set out for the employment allowance, so they will be familiar to employers. Clause 109 defines expressions used in relation to the apprenticeship levy.

Finally, clause 110 sets out the process for making regulations relating to the apprenticeship levy. Regulations will be by statutory instrument and subject to the negative procedure in the House of Commons, with the exception of the Treasury commencement order to bring into force penalties for errors in relation to the levy.

I now turn to the apprenticeship levy amendments. Amendments 22 to 25 and amendment 27 all concern the rules relating to connected companies and charities and the levy allowance of £15,000. As I mentioned earlier when outlining clauses 88, 90 and 91, the Government have tabled amendments to enable groups of connected companies or charities to share the £15,000 levy allowance. The original proposal was that, if a group of companies or charities were connected, any one of them could apply the allowance. That followed the approach of the employment allowance, which has worked well. However, in response to representations, we have considered the matter further and have concluded that that would lead to a significant increase in the employer population subject to the levy, which was never the intention.

The amendments to clauses 90 and 91 and the consequential amendment to clause 88 will, therefore, allow a group of connected employers to decide what proportion of the levy allowance each of them will apply. The group must decide the allowance split at the beginning of the tax year and it will be fixed for that year unless a correction is necessary because the total amount of the levy allowance exceeds £15,000. Connected employers must notify HMRC of the amount of allowance to be applied for their PAYE schemes, and where that does not occur, or where the total notified does not equal £15,000, the amendments allow for the levy allowance to be determined by HMRC if the employer fails to take corrective action. Employers and their representatives have welcomed our decision to bring forward the amendments and I hope that Committee members will join in supporting the change.

Amendments 26 and 28 are technical amendments that seek to clarify the definition of “company” in clauses 90 and 109 to avoid any uncertainty and to ensure that the provisions are clear. I will also address new clause 2, tabled by SNP Members. The new clause seeks to delay the implementation of the apprenticeship levy until a report has been laid before Parliament on how different parts of the UK are equitably treated when the levy is eventually implemented.

I acknowledge that it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the levy works for employers wherever they may operate. However, SNP Members will be pleased to know that we have already published employer guidance, which explains how the levy will work for employers right across the UK. Publishing another report will not, therefore, reveal new information to help employers, and delaying implementation of the levy would be unfair on employers who have been working hard to prepare for it as well as on potential apprentices who will benefit. I am sure that Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that the vocational skills system urgently needs investment and it is only fair that employers play their part if they want better-quality apprenticeships, which I believe they do. I also believe that they will engage with the levy to make it work for them.

The clauses on the apprenticeship levy will enable the Government to deliver their objective of increasing the quality and quantity of apprenticeships and to meet their target to deliver 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the quality of the apprenticeship scheme and I want to put down a marker that some employers, such as Brompton Bikes, which employs many people in my constituency—it was, until a few weeks ago, based there—have to pay into the levy, by the looks of it, because of the size of their operation, but are not able to benefit from the national apprenticeship scheme for the key subsection of their young staff who will be skilled braziers. That is because brazing is a specialist skill and there are too few people doing it for there to be national accreditation. However, brazing is an essential part of building Brompton bikes and giving them the quality they have. Such employers have to pay the levy without getting the benefit for at least half of their eligible workforce. They have to fund that training themselves, on top of the levy. Will the Minister take that point back to his Department?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. Our discussions this afternoon are focused on the raising of expenditure, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is leading on how that money can be spent. However, it is perfectly reasonable for her to make that point. I encourage businesses to engage with BIS on how the apprenticeship levy can be spent to ensure that it goes to the right places and creates a more highly skilled workforce. The Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), is engaging with businesses in many sectors up and down the country to ensure that we have the right set of rules in place. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that the Government amendments are sensible revisions, and that they will accept that the SNP amendment is not needed, as we have already published detailed guidance on how the levy will operate for employers across the UK.

I want to reiterate the importance of investing in apprenticeships, which are a powerful tool for enabling social mobility and driving productivity growth. They equip people with the skills they need to compete in the labour market, and enable employers to grow their businesses. The apprenticeship levy will put employers in control and give them an even greater say in the quality, value for money and relevance of the training that their apprentices receive.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 5 and schedule 1 make changes to the taxation of dividends by abolishing the dividend tax credit and introducing a new £5,000 tax-free dividend allowance. They will also set the tax rates charged on dividend income above the dividend allowance at 7.5% for dividend income within the basic rate band, 32.5% for dividend income within the higher rate band, and 38.1% for dividend income within the additional rate band. The dividend trust rate will also be increased to 38.1% and so will continue to mirror the highest rate of dividend tax. These changes will raise more than £2.5 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. As well as helping to reduce the deficit, these reforms have enabled the Government to reduce corporation tax by addressing the growing incentive for individuals to incorporate in order to lower their tax bill.

The reforms also offer much-needed simplification to an outdated, opaque and complex system. The current system of tax credits on dividends is a legacy from the days of advance corporation tax, which some Members may remember. That system was designed more than 40 years ago, when corporation tax was more than 50% and the total tax bill on dividends for some people was more than 80%. Tax rates have fallen significantly since then and advance corporation tax has been abolished. Since the dividend tax credit was made non-payable, leaving it as a notional tax credit for use only in tax computations, it has been an outdated and complex feature of the tax system. The Government, along with the Office of Tax Simplification, have worked hard to simplify the tax code across a wide range of areas, and we will continue to do so over the remainder of this Parliament. Clause 5 forms part of that agenda.

The reforms enacted by clause 5 also play their part in the Government’s long-term economic plan. Since 2010 the Government have presided over significant reductions in corporation tax in order to support investment and growth. That is a central part of the Government’s economic strategy. The strategy is working: 2.25 million jobs have been created by the private sector since 2010. Overall, cuts to corporation tax delivered since 2010 will be worth almost £15 billion a year to business by the end of this Parliament.

However, lowering corporation tax does increase the incentive for people to incorporate and remunerate themselves through dividends rather than salary. That behaviour already creates a significant cost to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that new incorporations will cost an additional £2.4 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. Without these changes to dividend tax, the OBR estimates that the cost of the new incorporations will be nearly £800 million higher a year by 2020, making these reforms an important part of this Government’s fiscal plan to reduce the deficit.

Clause 5 will spell the end of the dividend tax credit, replacing it with a much simpler tax-free dividend allowance. In practice, that means that, beyond that allowance, the headline rates of dividend tax will be the rates of tax that are actually paid. Clause 5 will also set the dividend tax rates, as outlined in my introduction, and schedule 1 will make consequential amendments required to introduce these changes.

As a result of these changes, around one million individuals will benefit from a tax reduction on their dividend income and 95% of all taxpayers will either gain or be unaffected. The new £5,000 dividend allowance will protect ordinary investors, meaning that only those with significant amounts invested in shares, or who take a significant part of their income as dividends, will pay more tax.

The Government have tabled seven amendments to schedule 1. The amendments result from technical oversights during the drafting process and will not materially affect the measure. Amendment 127 will stop tax being treated as paid on certain types of income received on shares held in an estate. That will align the taxation of that income with other taxpayers and other types of income received by the estate. Beneficiaries will be given a credit for the tax relief paid on their income. Overall, the change will not increase the tax that is due.

Amendment 128 will ensure that all company distributions received by members of partnerships will continue to be taxed on the tax year basis, rather than by reference to the partnership’s accounting period. That will provide consistency of treatment for all partnerships receiving that type of income, and remove the need for more complicated transitional rules.

Amendment 130 will ensure that the beneficiary of a trust receives full credit for all the tax already paid by the trustee. That will prevent income being taxed twice. Amendments 129, 131 and 133 are consequential amendments following those first three changes.

Amendment 4 would require the Chancellor to report to Parliament on the impact of the dividend tax reforms on the incomes of directors of microbusinesses within six months of the passing of the Bill. That would require information from the self-assessment process that would not be available until 2018, so the amendment would be impossible to deliver in practice.

More fundamentally, small company owners have benefited from a range of recent tax changes made by the Government, including, for example, cuts to corporation tax and business rates, and the introduction of the employment allowance. The Government therefore believe that it would paint only a partial picture to examine just the impact of the dividend tax changes. Of course, the Government keep all tax policy under review and assess its impact on an ongoing basis.

It is customary at this point for me to try to urge the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps on this occasion I should not urge him to withdraw the amendment but urge the Committee to reject his amendment. That is very much in his hands.

I will briefly pick up a couple of points made by hon. Members. I was asked why we have not undertaken a full assessment of the impact on owners of microbusinesses. I would just point out HMRC does not have ready access to data on owners of microbusinesses as a specific group of firms to enable a separate assessment for this group in advance of the measure taking effect. However, the Government have considered the general economic impact of the changes. As the tax information impact note sets out, the measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way, but I hope the Committee will forgive me if I remain standing, to save me any difficulties with sitting down and standing up more often than I need to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I certainly do not want to cause the Minister any further pain; I sympathise with him about the state of his back.

Many people in my constituency run microbusinesses. I am pleased to hear that the Minister and his advisers do not believe that the measure will have any fiscal impact. However, I am concerned, and I look forward to hearing from him about the likely impact on the behaviour and choices of people running microbusinesses. We all want those businesses to succeed and thrive, and to move on to employ more people. I hope that the Treasury is doing research and is taking advice from organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Is this a Budget where those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, or is it one that cuts support for those who are already struggling, such as the parents and carers of people with learning disabilities whom I met in Hounslow yesterday, who are bearing the brunt of service and benefit cuts? The Resolution Foundation has shown that the poorest 30% of households are set to lose around £565 per annum by 2020, while the richest 30% are set to gain around £280. Is it not right to suggest, as the former Work and Pensions Secretary did, that we are not all in it together?

On housing, the lifetime ISA will, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, actually increase home prices, and it has added 0.3% in its Budget book to the level that house prices will reach by 2021. That proves that the Government plan to use taxpayers’ money to further inflate house prices out of the reach of young people, rather than to build affordable homes for rent that help people on low incomes to have a permanent home over their heads.

Let me move on to the topic of today’s budget debate: business and the economy. First, investment in infrastructure is essential for future growth, but business investment is falling, and the Government are set to spend just over half the level spent by the Government of 2010. Britain is set to slip yet further down the international rankings on infrastructure investments.

Secondly, are not skills a crucial element of our economic infrastructure? There is nothing in the Budget to help West Thames College, which, like all further education colleges, faces a 21% funding cut, resulting in a cut in courses and in the number of students being trained. There is nothing to provide the essential step change in skills that the UK economy needs.

Finally, on the 19% gender pay gap, the Women and Equalities Committee concluded today that not using women’s skills fully costs the UK economy £36 billion or 2% of GDP. There is nothing in the Red Book to address that, and nor is there anything to address the fact that 81% of the Budget cuts have fallen on women.

So, is this a Budget from a Chancellor with a track record of growth and stability, or is it a Budget that yet again has to revise his figures on growth, productivity and exports downwards? I conclude by using words from the former Work and Pensions Secretary and by asking what the Chancellor cares more about—the “fiscal self imposed restraints” or the “national economic interest”.

Financial Conduct Authority

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

First, I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for securing this important debate on the future of the FCA, especially in the light of recent perceived failings, and for his work on the all-party group on the Connaught Income Fund, series 1, which has done so much good work, without, sadly, getting this resolved so far.

It is because of the failings of the FCA that I am speaking today. The failure to act on warning signs in the Connaught Income Fund, series 1, led to a scandal that cost investors about £130. That is an unacceptable loss on a supposedly low-risk investment. In 2011, a whistleblower from Connaught went to the then Financial Services Authority, and one would think that with such risky investments and large sums of money being involved, it would act swiftly to prevent further sums of money from being invested under misleading terms. But it took five months for it to act, and even then it did very little. The body’s warning to consumers that the Connaught Income Fund material was misleading was simply not good enough. Indeed, the fund continued to receive investors until it was suspended in March 2012, by which time around £70 million of additional investment had occurred. What we saw here was a regulator failing in its duty to consumers and not using the appropriate powers it had.

The scandal did not stop there. Following the collapse of the scheme, the APPG, under the stewardship of the hon. Member for Aberconwy, worked with the FCA for eight months or so, seemingly positively, before the FCA pulled out of talks without warning to do its own investigation “in the best interests of investors”. There was no explanation as to why, and there has been no transparency since.

Since then, the FCA has been unwilling to engage with parliamentarians and, instead, has insisted on carrying out its own investigation, leaving many of us, including our constituents who have been affected, wondering exactly what is going on.

Secondly, I am also speaking today to represent the interests of a constituent who has been unable to seek redress after they were mis-sold interest-rate hedging products, despite being what the FCA would term an “unsophisticated partner”. They were a director of a company and borrowed £1.3 million from Nationwide in a fixed-rate loan. Embedded in the loan was an interest rate hedging product—an IRHP—which was supposed to protect the borrower against adverse interest rate changes. The use of such a product was common between 2006 and 2008; all major banks used it.

In reality, the IRHP exposed my constituent to a huge amount of risk, incurring fees to the bank, none of which was explained to them even though they were deemed “unsophisticated customers”. There was a break clause in the FRL agreement, but the breakage cost was ruinous and, in some cases, the fees amounted to up to half of the value of the loan. Break fees were not agreed on beforehand. It was only when the customer wanted to change the terms of the loan that those fees emerged.

After the crash in 2008, interest rates went to zero and have been low ever since, but, thanks to the break fees, constituents were stuck paying fixed rates with no chance of restructuring. The banks have since admitted that IRHPs were mis-sold, and a redress scheme was negotiated between the individual banks and the FCA, the subsequent regulator. Approximately £3 billion was set aside, though far less than that has so far been paid out. However, this scheme was for stand-alone IRHPs and not embedded IRHPs. In the latter, the IRHP is part of the loan contract itself, and repayment is made in one amount that accounts for the interest on the loan as well as the interest-rate protection. This places it outside of the remit of the FCA as it is classed as a “commercial” loan. Many of these loans were sold to small and medium-sized enterprises, such as that of my constituent, which had no more understanding of the complexity of hedging products than an average consumer. The Financial Ombudsman has refused to investigate the case, as our constituents do not meet its definition of “consumer”, which means that they have considerably fewer means of redress than people who were sold stand-alone products.

The inability of the FCA to act in this case, and in many others, has resulted in real problems. My constituent is stuck on a fixed-rate loan in a zero-interest economy with no ability to restructure their loan. I understand that the majority of what I have covered tonight involves banking jargon, but the bottom line is clear: the FCA is currently not operating in the full interests of consumers and its conduct in the Connaught Income Fund fiasco and the mis-sold IRHPs are just two examples of many.

Like many Members across the House, I expect the FCA, as a regulatory body, to do its job, which is to regulate and to protect consumers. I support the motion, as the FCA in its current form is not fit for purpose, and I have no confidence in its existing structure and procedures. If the Government want the people of this country to have faith in the banking system, may I respectfully suggest that they act to address the sentiments of the wording of the motion tonight?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Connaught Income Fund

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to do just that.

In relation to my five questions, I think that the FCA has hidden behind its claims that, because this is a live investigation, it is not in a position to comment. Will the Minister confirm that there is in fact no statutory reason why the FCA cannot provide a progress report for those who are interested in this issue?

Finally, it is important to address the ongoing concern about the way in which the IFA community is being treated by the regulatory authorities in relation to the Connaught issue. Emails and other information in the public domain imply that the Financial Ombudsman Service, when dealing with complaints about Connaught, is instructing its caseworkers to find against IFAs regardless of the facts of the matter, and indeed regardless of the fact that there is an inquiry and an investigation into possible fraudulent wrongdoing within Connaught in the first instance.

It is entirely appropriate that independent financial advisers should be held to account for any poor advice offered. However, that would demand that each case, or each complaint brought to the FOS, is considered on merit. The instructions to FOS officials to ignore such evidence of wrongdoing and the on-going investigation into what happened in Connaught makes it very difficult for us to have any confidence in the decisions made by FOS in relation to complaints against individual IFAs.

I understand the need to ensure that both the FOS and the FCA operate independently of each other. However, is it too much to ask that they at least consider each other’s actions before making decisions that are clearly based upon only a partial understanding of the facts?

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, because I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this matter, including Anna Hughes who lost 90% of her investment and three years of interest. Is it not right that our constituents who have been affected by the Connaught scheme should have confidence not only in the process of investigation and resolution on this issue, but in the financial system and in the belief that their investments are safe wherever they put them?

[Guto Bebb]

Again, I would agree with those comments.

If blanket decisions are being made on the basis of rules that do not take into account individual cases, I ask the Minister to ask whether the FOS and the FCA are acting properly and fairly as regards their duty of care towards independent financial advisers. The debate has shown, if nothing else, that there is a degree of concern across the House. I apologise to the Minister for having over-extended my allotted time, and I will therefore sit down and allow her to answer some of the very important questions that have been raised by colleagues.

Tax Credits

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Conservative party promised no cuts to tax credits and said people should always be better off in work, and we agree with that, yet the Government are reneging on those commitments. Some 7,300 working families with children were in receipt of tax credits in my constituency at April 2015 and all will experience an income cut in April 2016. Those with more than two children will be particularly badly hit.

One couple who came to see me in my surgery on Friday will face a cut in their annual income of more than £1,500 a year, and that includes the change in the personal allowance. The couple obtained the figure from the “entitled to” calculator on the direct.gov website. He is a primary school teacher earning £26,500—well above the minimum wage—and as a public servant has little expectation of a pay rise above 1%. His partner has had pregnancy-related health complications so she is not working. They are expecting their first child. They said to me that they

“feel extremely disappointed that an honest young couple who have a child on the way and have never claimed a thing do not get any help.”

It is not right that a second-year primary teacher is struggling to make ends meet and that low and middle-income earners like this man face the brunt of Government cuts yet again.

I do not dispute that employers should pay decent wages so that working families are less dependent on the taxpayer to make up the difference, and that we should strive to be a high-skill, high-wage economy, but until the wages of the lowest-paid rise, the Government should not withdraw the benefits that allow working families to feed their children and ensure that people can heat their homes and are able to afford to travel to work.

The Resolution Foundation calculates that cuts to tax credits and universal credit next April will create an “overnight shock” to family incomes, plunging around 200,000 families into poverty, mostly working households. The so-called national living wage is not a living wage and will simply not compensate these families for their loss of income. Middle and low-income families will continue to need support, not spin.

The Government justify these cuts by saying that they need to make savings in public funds, but where is the assessment of the cost to the public purse of these drastic cuts to the income of so many low-income families? What about the greater risk of people being forced into unemployment and the additional cost to the taxpayer from that? What about the additional cost to the country of children arriving at school hungry and unable to learn? What about the greater chance of long-term illness from cold homes, and the costs of increased personal debt that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) described so clearly? Where is the assessment of the impact on local economies of these changes—the loss of £4.6 billion in the next financial year? Money spent by low-income people is spent in their community, not on playing the stock market.