Autumn Statement 2023

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it would be churlish not to admit that the Government have faced some very difficult headwinds with the Covid pandemic and Ukraine. That is, of course, the economic background to the Autumn Statement. But this Autumn Statement is rather like a Christmas gift from an eccentric aunt—I have really tried to like it, but I just cannot. To paraphrase Walter Mondale in 1984: “Where’s the beef?”

It is very much an incremental Budget and does not seem to have a coherent, long-term narrative. I cannot work out, in fact, if it is the apotheosis or the coda of social and economic liberalism. Yes, there are some good parts—the 110 growth measures, the work capability assessments to get people back into meaningful work, the increase in the national living wage, pension fund reforms and the permanent full expensing of capital allowances—but that is against the background of huge demographic change, low productivity, low growth and a lack of meaningful reform after 13 years in social care, housing, planning, the National Health Service, government and the Civil Service. Of course, stagnant real wages are the largest reduction in living standards since the 1950s—under a Conservative Government.

Indeed, there are other good measures as well, such as the national insurance contribution changes, but even that is a sleight of hand by frozen allowances and fiscal drag. It is actually giving a tax cut via further borrowing, which was deprecated just a year ago when the same people criticised Liz Truss and her Administration. Debt will remain high, at 93% of GDP by 2029. On tax, we will be bringing an extra 4 million people into income tax in that period, and 3 million into the top rate. On public expenditure, our proportion of GDP will still be approximately 43% by 2028-29.

I will just challenge the Minister on a specific issue. The Resolution Foundation maintains that the spending power of unprotected departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, will be cut by 16% in the next five years. I think that is unsustainable for the delivery of public services, and I say that as a Thatcherite Conservative. Just today, the OBR said that there were no public spending plans beyond 2025, and that is a very worrying issue for any Government who are elected. Perhaps the Minister will answer that point later.

Economics is about the efficient allocation of resources, so I will mention three sins of omission and commission when we are talking about tough choices. The first is the triple lock. Paying 8.5% in pensions to people, many of whom have a very high disposable income, and uprating in line with inflation—effectively bribing a cohort with £30 billion—and making a capital transfer of funds from young people to older people is unfair, unsustainable and, frankly, cynical politics. I think that the Chancellor will look at that issue in the Budget in 2024.

I also need to make the point about immigration. We have increased the number of people in England and Wales alone by 3.3 million in the last 11 years. The most damning statistic in the Green Book is that per capita GDP is actually going down this year because we have so many people coming into the country, sharing the admittedly modest increase of 0.6% of GDP. That cannot be right. Immigration is important and is to be supported if you have a plan, but the net immigration figures of 672,000 announced last week are not a plan. The figure in 1997 was 107,000, and even in 2010 it was 294,000.

We must do something about the liberalised international student regime. There has been a 40% increase, to over 200,000, in work visas given to dependants. The definition of skilled work is now meaningless. Even the Labour Party is ridiculing this Conservative Government for the salary threshold policy, which is completely wrong. Yesterday, S&P Global research showed that less than a quarter of those coming to this country in the last year or so have come seeking work. It is an unsustainable position.

I know big business is addicted to cheap foreign labour, but it embeds welfare dependency, destroys social solidarity and cohesion, and is corrosive of democratic legitimacy when you have stood for election saying that you are going to reduce immigration. It kills incentives to train resident workers, to innovate and to improve productivity. If uncontrolled, unmitigated immigration is such a great thing, why is growth so flat and productivity so poor? There is no evidence that the level of immigration is anything other than cost-neutral. Most new migrants, particularly recently, are in fact net recipients of public expenditure and not contributors. They are an overall net fiscal cost. I certainly welcome the prospect of emergency legislation to address these issues urgently, but it may be too little and too late.

Previous speakers have mentioned welfare. Our system is broken. We will be spending £30 billion on universal credit in the next five years—a 40% increase. There will be 3.4 million people on sickness benefits. In 2010, 3,000 people each week were found by work capability assessments to be unable to work. That figure is now more than 35,000 a week; it is an unsustainable position. Demographic change and the triple lock mean that the system is creaking and falling apart.

In conclusion, whatever Government are elected next year, immigration and welfare must be a priority for tough choices to save our economy and public services from being overwhelmed. This Autumn Statement could have been a catalyst for those long-term decisions, and I hope that they will be taken into account in the Budget. It pains me to say that this was a very sad missed opportunity.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 241B, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I declare at the outset for full transparency that I am a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union. To be fully topical, I am also a graduate of Royal Holloway, which has been in the news today along with the noble Baroness on similar free speech issues. We debated this matter in the Chamber earlier.

This is a very gentle nudge by way of an amendment. Like the debate we had earlier this month on politically exposed persons, in this case, we see that a regulatory regime does not work and that we sometimes need a legislative nudge by way of something like this amendment. We could have a sterile debate about EDI/ESG and woke and cancel culture, but that is perhaps for another day. My concern is that untrammelled free speech should not be a monopoly; it is a relative concept because we have laws in this country to prevent egregious offence against certain people who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Free speech within the law cannot be the preserve of a plutocratic, wealthy elite as represented by big financial institutions and big tech companies.

I never thought I would quote the comedian Jack Dee but, when the decision was taken by PayPal on 15 September last year to throw off the Free Speech Union, the Daily Sceptic blog and UsforThem, he quite rightly said:

“Big Tech companies that feel they can bully people for questioning mainstream groupthink don’t deserve anyone’s business.”


The offence of UsforThem was to question the efficacy of a policy of the teaching unions and, by inference, the Government not to force or even encourage children to go back to school. UsforThem felt that there was a serious public policy issue around that; it was well within its rights to debate that on the basis of empirical evidence and a well-argued case but PayPal took against it and threw it off the platform for breaching its rather Orwellian-sounding “acceptable use policy”. I do not think that is at all right.

The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made is right. In a competitive market where you have perfect competition—that is, lots of participants and allowing people to enter and leave the market—people can pick and choose which banks and tech companies they go to. However, when there is an oligopoly, as in this case, with a small number of providers of technical applications, perfect competition falls down. There is effectively a situation where people have no choice. That is why people who are not exactly conspiracy theorists, including me, worry about the idea of a cashless society because it puts absolute power in terms of business into the hands of the powerful, the influential, the wealthy, the well-connected and those who believe in and articulate groupthink.

The other thing that slightly worries me is not necessarily the overt idea of censorship, which is itself very worrying in an advanced liberal democracy such as the UK and the United States, but the concept of self-censorship—that is, you do not debate these important issues of public policy that might push against vested interests because you know that the battlefield is so asymmetrical that you do not have the funds to fight big tech or to engage civil litigation, and you run the risk of criminal penalty and sanctions should you do so. That is important. You cannot afford to take the risk so we get into this cul-de-sac of self-fulfilling beliefs and views, which were represented by PayPal.

I am glad that PayPal capitulated and surrendered, and said that it was wrong, but it did a lot of damage to the Free Speech Union, its membership base and its cash flow. Not surprisingly, Toby Young, the founder and CEO of the Free Speech Union, made it absolutely clear that he would not go back to PayPal because it had egregiously ruined his business model.

However, that is not as important as the general principle that, unless you have a bit of stick with these tech companies, they will not voluntarily eschew the concept of EDI and their fixed beliefs. Only the power of legislation can force them to comply with the basic tenets of a decent, liberal society: that free speech should be available to everyone; and that people should be able to voice unfashionable opinions. The mark of a mature and sensible society is that we allow people with whom we vehemently disagree to have a say in the public square.

To an extent, this a probing amendment, but my noble friend the Minister—incidentally, she has done extremely well in a very long and difficult Bill; I give her that plaudit, having given her a hard time the last time I was before this Committee—should reflect on it and come back with some sanction to defend the long-standing commitment that all of us, as parliamentarians and legislators, should have to the concept and practice of free speech.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for raising the important issue of freedom of expression and, within that, the role of payment providers.

Following PayPal’s temporary suspension of some accounts in autumn last year, to which both the noble Baroness and my noble friend referred, the Economic Secretary met PayPal and the FCA, as well as interested Members of Parliament. He subsequently set out the Government’s position on this matter on Report during this Bill’s passage through the Commons.

The Government fully recognise the importance of protecting free speech and the crucial role of payment providers in delivering services without censorship. The Government are committed to ensuring that the regulatory regime respects the balance of rights between users’ and service providers’ obligations, including in relation to protecting freedom of expression for anyone expressing lawful views. My noble friend made that distinction in his remarks.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the letters from the Economic Secretary, the Financial Conduct Authority and PayPal regarding this issue, copies of which have been deposited in the Commons Library. The letter from PayPal explains that it re-evaluated and reversed its decision in a number of the specific cases raised. It made clear that it was never its intention to be an arbiter of free speech and that none of its actions were based on its customers’ political views.

While welcoming this clarification, the Economic Secretary expressed his concern about the importance of protecting free speech and recognising the crucial role of payment service providers in delivering payment services without censorship. As a result, he pledged to take evidence on the adequacy of the existing legislative framework through the statutory review of the Payment Services Regulations. This was published on 13 January 2023; the Government look forward to responses from all interested parties. I note for the Committee that that consultation is open for 12 weeks, meaning that it will close on 7 April. The Economic Secretary will promptly update Parliament through a Written Ministerial Statement following this review. He has committed that, if it emerges that there is a problem with the existing regime, the Government will act swiftly to address it.

In terms of going further to protect the importance of free speech, we have to understand that the Government do not believe there is evidence of a potential issue with payment services regulation beyond these few PayPal cases. The existing legal regime includes statutory minimum notice periods, rights of appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the FCA’s principles on fair treatment. Users of payment services, in common with all UK citizens, benefit from a safety net of legislation such as the Human Rights Act, criminal law and court decisions, which balance the rights of people to express their ideas in a public space with the necessary limits of a democratic society, for example, to protect people from hate speech. More specifically, the Equality Act 2010 prohibits service providers in the UK denying services to users on the basis of their beliefs, including philosophical as well as religious beliefs.

Noble Lords talked about going further in this Bill. The Government’s view is that making legislative change just for payment services would not be proportionate or correspond with the requirements placed on other essential service sectors. The Government need evidence if there is a problem given the existing protections in the current legal regime for payment service users. Today I am aware of the concerns raised in relation only to PayPal, which re-evaluated and reversed its actions in several cases. The FCA has explained that it has the tools to regulate in a further specific way through its authorisation processes if there is a problem.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

When the Minister analyses the results of the review which is concluding next month, will he also look at the slightly wider issue of barriers to entry and the possible oligopoly behaviour of payment services? That is a linked issue which is pertinent to the debate we have had today.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. I will certainly feed that back to the department in terms of the review.

To conclude, the Government already have the means to act on this issue and have made a clear commitment to do so if necessary. We are clear that we first need public consultation and an evidence base before determining the right course of action on this matter. I therefore request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I may have had the unique experience among us here of having to chair the committees that did some of the anti-money laundering directives. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, points at the origins and the fact that we have carried through some things that were not necessary.

We have to go back to where it all began. He was quite right that it was with the Financial Action Task Force, which related to foreign nationals. We had a problem in the EU with what that meant—foreign vis-à-vis the EU—and tried hard to construct ways in which we could exempt the whole of the EU. There were words that would do that, but they did not get past the civil liberties committee people. We kept running up against being told that we could not discriminate. It was very difficult, because two committees were involved—my committee, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and the civil liberties committee. Most of the time, because we were a bigger committee, we managed to outvote the civil liberties people, but there were one or two places where they had unique responsibility and, unfortunately, things such as discrimination were theirs, not ours.

I am telling this story because, if we want to solve this problem—if we say, “Okay, now we’ve had Brexit, we don’t need to stick to the rules that were made in the EU”—what can we do? Can we actually do what FATF said and discriminate within the UK against people who are in the UK but foreign? Where does that leave us with our discrimination laws? I cannot solve that, but I wonder whether the Minister knows the answer—because if the answer is that we are not hidebound and can do what FATF said, let us do that and put the focus where it should be.

It is very difficult to do a risk-based approach. I am all for it, and I think that the banks should do more of it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has explained, it is costly. In fact, these things are outsourced; you fill in all the forms, somebody somewhere else ticks the boxes and the bank jolly well does not know its client any better. Then two or three years later, they ask you for all the same forms again, and they do not notice if you have done it exactly the same.

When the anti-money laundering regulations first came out, we seemed to get up to speed in the UK very quickly, and we started getting all this rubbish very quickly. I got the Belgian versions, because I still had Belgian bank accounts. I got a nice little form with tick-boxes on, so I photocopied that and started sending it to some UK banks, asking them why they could not do the same thing, although it did not get me anywhere. Recently, all the EU banks have stepped up, and my son has had a lot of trouble with the Irish banks, because he was working in Ireland—and he had even more trouble once he was no longer working in Ireland and came back to the UK, even though he has Irish nationality. He has had to close his accounts, because he just could not operate them.

So there are some issues here that need to be handled. I thought, going through this and trying to remember the discussions we had, that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, got the closest by saying that if they are already having some check, such as through the tax authority, then that is a proper and non-discriminatory way to take people out of it. It is hard to think of anything better than that, other than just taking everybody out.

It is true that these regulations were really meant for catching politicians in dodgy countries who had access to ways to bypass the normal systems and checks for moving large sums of money between countries—for pilfering it. It is very difficult to talk about who they might have been without having carefully prepared your notes—although I know we have parliamentary privilege. They were not meant to affect ordinary people. Under the FATFA provisions, it was never meant to be ordinary people or ordinary politicians in generally law-abiding countries, shall we say, where politicians are not given extraordinary access to start siphoning off money from the central bank and suchlike. I do not think there is anyone in our central bank who can do that—perhaps the chief cashier; I have not thought about that—but that is who they were meant for.

Like others, I do not have confidence that our regulators will necessarily break cover and do something dramatically new if we ask them to revise this. It will be a problem that they are entrenched in the rules they have and the thinking of the other regulators who they keep meeting when they go places. It needs something very clear in legislation—something like the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, if we can check out the point about discrimination. It is very difficult for us, as PEPs, to vote on things such as this, but it is causing a lot of distress to a lot of people. It is potentially devastating when you cannot complete on your house purchase and such things, and when things are happening randomly. It needs to be attended to. I really do not see why the Government cannot put their foot down and say to the banks and regulators that this must be done in a way that truly reflects who the targets are.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Moylan and those spoken to by my noble friend Lady Noakes. All noble Lords have spoken very well, and there is clearly consensus here. The specific issue here has trundled on for 10 years. I remember that when I served as treasurer of the 1922 Committee, this was an issue taken up by both the then chairman and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, by Sir Charles Walker. I naively believed that we had resolved this issue by about 2017-18; obviously, that is not what happened.

This is about the limits of a permissive regulatory regime. It is clear that the Treasury and the regulatory bodies involved have not taken a blind bit of notice of the cross-party support in Parliament. This is not a niche issue that affects just us. In my case, I was affected because I was told by my mortgage provider that I was not going to be permitted to make mortgage payments, let alone make any withdrawals from a bank account. But this is also an issue of the civil liberties of our family members and extended family members. On that basis, we must take a very tough stance.

I come back to the particular point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about what we have the ability to do now that we are outside the EU—although my noble friend Lord Kirkhope is right that we must not recapitulate the arguments about Brexit. The noble Baroness’s point was astute, in that there is no proper risk analysis and risk assessment of all of these individual cases. A generic policy is applied across all individuals.

Frankly, let us be honest: the UK is one of the most open and transparent political systems in the western world. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right that people are not attracted to public service if the fallback position is, “You’re a liar, a cheat, a crook and a thief if you go into public service”. It is important that, after 10 years, we make that appropriate point.

If we do not adopt my noble friend Lord Moylan’s rather benign amendment, a future Government may well take a much more draconian approach to this, both for the regulators and for the individual financial institutions. On that basis, they have a vested interest in sorting this situation out because, when the Financial Action Task Force proposals were published in 2012, they were not about asking people like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to produce a premium bond certificate from 1957—I scarcely believe that it was 1957; I thought it might be a lot later.

This is an opportunity, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister makes, or at least commits to, those changes. This is not the first time that I have been compared to a brothel keeper—although that is normally in the other House—but my noble friend Lord Moylan makes a good point. This is an opportunity to right this wrong. This is not about us and it is not a niche issue: it is about civil liberties, decency, honesty, openness and transparency. We need action from Ministers on this.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, after so many very good speeches, I will be short. My personal experiences vary wildly. I remember a four or five-page document for a credit card, and I remember the bank that most of my money is in ringing me up and saying, “What’s this extraordinarily large amount of money that has just come into your account?” I said, “You’re not going to believe this, but it is my son paying me back a loan”, which he had. I heard nothing more from the bank. That gives an insight into the disproportionate ways in which various institutions react to this, and much of the problem is in that behaviour.

Let us not get away from the problem: money laundering is serious. If you believe all of the thoughtful reports on it, it is serious in our City. It is absolutely valid that we take it very seriously. I understand from the professionals who regulate us that it is very subtle: a lot of it is done with seemingly innocent accounts moving relatively modest amounts of money in a highly managed way. It is a profession that is, sadly and unfortunately, probably absorbing some good brains in an evil trade.

One has to accept that getting the regulations right is very challenging. I take the general view I hear today that the regulations need further improvement. Clearly, that has to go in law. Therefore, I urge those who have put forward amendments to try to address the problem and put together a common amendment that may attract support across this House and the other place. Of course, it would be much better if the Minister came forward with her own solution.

We have to think about the other agents here: the banks and financial institutions. Sadly, they seem to work like many large institutions do. They take views about spending money and about their duties; frankly, all too often their duties are not to their customers. The moment a piece of complexity is built in, they end up with algorithmic solutions and basic statements that some algorithm has been offended here or there, and they take draconian solutions: they close or block accounts. This is absolutely unreasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I believe that it aimed to get relevant information from all those involved and take a holistic view. I appreciate and agree that we need to ensure that, when these measures are put in place, they are proportionate to the risk faced, so it is entirely right to interrogate that risk assessment. I also appreciate that it is a slightly frustrating process when the sensitive nature of some of these issues means that we cannot always go into all the details noble Lords want at this time. I have tried to explain the context as to why domestic PEPs are viewed as having sufficiently high risk so that enhanced due diligence should still apply. I have the FCA guidance in my pack but I will not go through it, but it is also true to say—this is another point that I checked—that although the risk is sufficient to have enhanced due diligence measures, it is lower for domestic PEPs than for foreign PEPs. That assessment still applies.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Minister is doing a very good job on a very sticky wicket. I am not surprised. Notwithstanding what she said about risk assessments and how that has to be, of necessity, a discretionary issue, the problem we are identifying, which the Government should address if they come forward with an amendment at Report, is the opaque nature of identifying these individuals and the offence against natural justice, because when people have accounts closed they are often not told why, who made the decision, on what basis and using what methodology. That is a serious issue and, after 10 years, one that the Government should address, if necessary by a government amendment.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I absolutely take that point. It comes back to the appropriate and proportionate enforcement of these regulations. I know that that is something noble Lords have raised previously, but we need to continue to work to ensure that it takes place.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

Yes, of course that is the hon. Gentleman’s belief. However, if we go back in history, I seem to recall Tory Chancellors singing in the bath as the pound collapsed and we were jettisoned from the ERM. I seem to recall crisis after crisis, including one Tory Chancellor who left a note saying, “I’m sorry I’ve made such a mess of it, old chap.” I do not think it is quite as the hon. Gentleman remembers. I would say that the Minister’s claims on borrowing are about as reliable as the Chancellor’s reputation for competence proved after the shambles of his Budget.

Like many others, I would like to know what bad news is coming down the line. Why is it, after five public refusals to call a general election—after assurance after assurance that there would be no election before 2020—that the Prime Minister now needs one? What does she know that the rest of us do not know? I suspect that what she knows is that the NHS is in chaos, our schools are in chaos, the Brexit talks are in chaos, and the economy is heading for the doldrums. That is what I suspect is happening. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) would like to rise and say that for the benefit of Hansard.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am inordinately fond of the hon. Gentleman, but we have heard this—“24 hours to save the NHS”—so many times for the past 20 years. It is a fact that the Conservative party spends more on the NHS, is more committed to the NHS, and delivers better patient care than Labour has ever done.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I have no doubt whatever that these people are all our people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about cross-party support and about the appropriate action that the Government need to take. He said that policyholders were still being short-changed. He, too, talked about the restoration of trust and confidence in the system, and referred to the WASPI women. He said that the erosion of confidence could cost more in the long run, and that justice delayed was justice denied. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) talked about her now elderly constituents who are in distress, and about the failed and toothless regulatory system. That saga cannot continue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about his constituency and looked to the Minister for solutions, saying that people are justified in their pursuance of full compensation.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically erudite speech. Does he agree with me, and possibly the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir), that it is important to redouble our efforts at the opposite end of the spectrum? It is imperative that young people receive financial education so that they understand the long-term benefits of securing a long-term and sustainable pension income.

[Peter Dowd]

That is an excellent suggestion—I would expect nothing less from the hon. Gentleman—but if people do take out a pension, they must have confidence in the system.

The Minister has heard the clear and unambiguous views of many Members from across the Chamber. The Opposition will not make any cheap party political points on this matter. We give credit where credit is due to the coalition Government for setting aside £1.5 billion in a compensation fund for those who invested in the Equitable Life Assurance Society, most of which was invested in pensions. The compensation scheme was set to close in 2014, but the previous Chancellor extended it to December 2015, with the fund set to close mid-2016. EMAG—the group that represents the policyholders—has called since February 2016 for £2.7 billion of additional compensation, arguing that that is the shortfall, and many Members have made the same point today.

The Conservatives committed in their 2010 manifesto to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders, and the debate continues about what that amount should be, but £4 billion is the generally accepted figure. In the previous debate on this subject, the then Minister, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), stated:

“The improvements our economy has made since 2010 are greatly to be welcomed and show that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but the plan is not complete and we have some way to go to fully restore the public finances.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 1186.]

The current Minister will also note that. The Chadwick report of July 2010 concluded that relative loss should be defined as those who have suffered financial loss, pointing out that the Ombudsman recognised that losses in policy values were only partly due to maladministration and that the backdrop to cuts in policy values was a sharp fall in world stock markets that all life insurance companies were forced to respond to. Similarly, the report also argued that compensation should be assessed on the cost of maladministration as opposed to the size of investor losses. However, we are politicians and we can make different decisions and choices, and the Minister has been asked to consider carefully whether we want to make different decisions or choices.

I want to make an important point that has been pushed time and again about regulatory failure. There is a broad consensus among the parties that compensation should have been paid out by the Government for maladministration, which has happened to a degree, but we are unsure whether regulatory failure continues to exist. We have to ensure that the regulatory frameworks that operate in this country are continually stress-tested and reviewed again and again. The regulatory organisations need the appropriate resources to ensure that proper regulation occurs. We have to consider that 100 or 150 people are looking at 200 insurance companies. I am not suggesting that there should be more staff; I am saying that we should take the resourcing of regulatory authorities into account.

This scandal does not relate to one particular Government. As Members have said, it was ignored by regulators throughout the ’80s. With the knowledge that the regulatory system did not work, however, it is all the more important that we continue to check it. The second ombudsman report states:

“The central story of this report is that this robust system of [financial] regulation was not, in respect of the Society, implemented appropriately—that is, consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected—by the prudential regulators and those providing assistance and advice to those regulators.”

That is absolutely salutary. We have had scandals in the past, such as with PIPs and the 1980s endowment scandal, and we must always keep a lookout for them. There is the growing concern about the sale of leaseholds and some new properties, which we should not allow to become a scandal. There is even the problem of airlines refusing to pay people compensation for delays, so it is important to keep looking at the regulatory system.

I want to conclude by pushing the question about confidence in the regulatory system. What efforts are the Government making to trace policyholders who have still not been found after the scheme has closed? Can we have an update on the number of people who have received compensation from the £1.5 billion? How many policyholders does the Minister estimate are still affected? I know that this is a moveable feast. What are the broader steps that the Treasury has to take to restore faith in the financial regulatory system? In summary, it may be that the Government are not legally required to pay the compensation, but many Members have pushed the moral imperative, and the Government will have to consider that matter today and in the coming months and years.

Budget Resolutions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

Having taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the suggestion that I am frit is a bit silly.

The truth is that the Labour party will want to put up taxes on not just the super-rich, but low and middle-income families. Frankly, that is fantasyland.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget statement is about not just arcane statistics and numbers, but societal change for the better? Did he notice, as I did last week, that the number of families in which no one works is at an all-time low under this Government? We have therefore delivered economic stability and positive societal change.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The key thing the Government can do is to create the conditions for record levels of employment, with real wages rising, and with inflation—yes, it needs to be looked at—stable and under careful control. Even on the worst-case scenarios that have been forecast, inflation would rise above 2%, but come back down shortly thereafter.

The reality of this Budget is that we have a Chancellor and a team of Ministers grappling with difficult decisions at a sensitive time, when there is a degree of uncertainty because of the referendum result, and coming up with a sensible, measured package. We have the Labour party talking about printing money and £500 billion of spending commitments when it has no idea where it can fund them from, and we have a Government who are committed not to tilting at socialist windmills, unlike the leader of the Labour party, but to building a better Britain—not only an enterprise economy but a meritocratic society for our children—and to making sure that the most vulnerable, and particularly the elderly, have the social care they need. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) would like to intervene on me rather than chuntering in frustration—more in frustration at his own party, I suspect, than at me—I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

We are here to consider the Budget that the Government have put forward for the country. I want to speak about its impact on my constituents.

Like the rest of the country, Croydon is experiencing a social care crisis. Older and disabled people regularly visit my office to say they cannot get home care and that they do not get adequate support when they leave hospital. Local charities are telling me that the funding that they need has dried up as well.

After the Chancellor ignored the social care crisis in his autumn statement, we were hoping for better this time. Although £2 billion extra over three years is a welcome start, it goes absolutely nowhere near resolving this crisis. These services have already been cut by £5 billion since 2010. Some 26% fewer people receive help today, even though there are more older people needing such help. The King’s Fund projects a £2.8 billion funding gap every year by the end of this decade, but only £2 billion is being made available over three years, so all I can say to my older constituents and the disabled people who come to ask me what the Government are doing to help them is that the Chancellor has responded to their plight by imposing yet more cuts.

It is galling to see the Department for Communities and Local Government offering Surrey County Council a sweetheart deal that is denied to Croydon and people living in every other part of the country. It is not only Surrey that has this problem to deal with, but every local authority. Every community is struggling with it. I regret immensely that the Secretary of State failed to answer my question about whether he knew in advance about the letter that was sent from his Department to Surrey County Council offering it a sweetheart deal. We need to know whether he knew about that in advance of its being withdrawn. If he was party to it, the House needs to know that that is how he is attempting to operate within his Department and, if he did not know about it, the House needs to know that he has no grip on what his officials are up to. His constant evasion of the question will not suffice. We need answers from the Secretary of State; I am sure that in time we will get them.

Particularly painful to my constituents will be the planned hike in national insurance contributions for the self-employed. Croydon North is one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in the country. Unfortunately, unemployment is particularly high among many minority communities. Their desire to work and their strong enterprising spirit means that many people from these communities set up their own businesses. Self-employed people work as taxi drivers, van drivers, hairdressers, plumbers, decorators, childminders—all sorts of jobs. They work very long hours, often for very modest pay. In Croydon, well over one in 10 workers are self-employed. It makes no sense whatsoever to clobber them with new tax rises. They need help and support, not further barriers to work.

[Mr Jackson]

So what does the hon. Gentleman say to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies and the much respected Resolution Foundation, which are today stating specifically that the measures that he identifies are progressive and ameliorate inequality in the tax system between people on pay-as-you-earn and those who are self-employed?

[Mr Reed]

Perhaps Conservative Members, including the hon. Gentleman himself, should have thought about that before they stood for election on a manifesto that said absolutely categorically that there would be

“no increases in...National Insurance contributions”.

It does nothing for trust in politics when politicians say one thing to persuade people to vote for them but then, once they are elected, do the polar opposite. They are helping to further break trust in this House and trust in politics. This is not down to the IFS; it is down to Tory Central Office, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and—dare I say it?—the hon. Gentleman himself, if he is going to vote for the proposal. Given all the uncertainty about Brexit—it is shocking that the Chancellor had so little to say about Brexit in his statement—small businesses and the self-employed need reassurances, not broken promises.

I now turn to those in employment, because this Budget has very little to offer them either. Low pay and stagnant wages have become endemic. Most people have seen no growth in household incomes in the 10 years since the global financial crash; indeed, many have seen a real-terms cut. The British economy might be getting richer, but British working people are getting poorer. Ours is the only advanced economy in which wages fell while the economy grew between 2007 and 2015. In Croydon, average earnings have fallen by 7.6% in real terms, and today more than one third of my constituents earn less than a real living wage. So where has the money gone? Who has taken the proceeds of that growth? It is not the vast majority of people in Croydon or across Britain who work around the clock to pay the bills and put food on the table, but the shrinkingly small number of the super-rich whose interests this Government really represent. Wages are stuck and household debt is soaring, but the Chancellor had absolutely nothing to say about any of it.

[Mr Reed]

That is absolutely shocking, but it reflects what we are seeing in our constituencies and what our constituents are telling us.

Once upon a time in this country, there was a covenant between people and Government. People gave their consent to the system in return for a fair reward for the work they put in. There was an understanding that if people worked hard, they would do well. They could expect a decent home, security for their family, and healthcare when they fell ill or grew old, and that if they could not work, they would be looked after with dignity and respect. But today that covenant is broken. The unfairness and inequality that this Government stoke has bred resentment that has catapulted us out of the European Union and over a cliff edge into uncertainty.

[Mr Jackson]

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to propagate this myth. The gap between the poorest and richest 10% of our population was the highest that it has ever been under a Labour Government. This Government, I am proud to say, have delivered something that was never delivered in 13 years of a Labour Government: a national living wage to assist the poorest members of our community who are in work.

[Mr Reed]

This Government have absolutely divided the country. They have divided different parts of the country and communities from each other. I will give a statistic that shows how they have done it. Since they came to power in 2010, the 10 poorest councils in the country have experienced cuts 17 times bigger than those faced by the 10 richest. If that is not divisive, I do not know what is. This is happening on top of the fact that jobs have been lost to automation, factories have moved abroad, British people are denied the investment, skills and training that they need to compete in a global economy, and wages are stagnating. The Tories have made all this worse by targeting the poorest communities for the biggest scale of cuts. They have put the greatest burden on the weakest shoulders, and they have done so as a deliberate political tactic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The right hon. Gentleman and his party are experts in broken promises. It is important that we are seen to be fair and reasonable in this process, and that we encourage people to become entrepreneurs. That is the key element.

I now move on to funding for social care. The Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I have the honour of serving, recommended that the Chancellor make available £1.5 billion to fund adult social care. I am delighted that the Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion for adult social care. I am also pleased that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed today at the Dispatch Box that that money will be added to local authorities’ baseline budgets, and that he confirmed the formula by which it will be distributed. I think that that will be warmly welcomed by local authorities up and down the country, and it is a continuation of much needed funding.

I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be able to clarify in his winding-up speech one or two points in the Red Book that are slightly confusing for me and may be so for other Members, if they have looked at them. Line 9 of table 2.1 on page 26 mentions a spend of £1.2 billion on adult social care in 2017-18, which is more than the Chancellor announced yesterday in his speech. I hope that that can be clarified. However, the extra £1.2 billion does not appear to have been added to the CLG items in the table on page 21. It is not clear whether the money is ring-fenced for adult social care—I hope it is—and how the Government will ensure that it is spent in the intended manner. The funding was clearly needed, and I am delighted that it has been announced. It shows that the Chancellor and the Treasury are listening to concerns raised by hon. Members from right across the House.

I am equally pleased to see the additional funding that has been introduced for the national health service, particularly capital funding to provide much needed A&E improvements. Those improvements will take some pressure off A&E departments by allowing for the triaging of individuals who turn up at A&E when they should have gone to their GPs in the first place. That will clearly take the pressure off our health service, and it will be warmly welcomed across the country. I trust that we can get on with implementing those capital schemes as fast as possible, so that next winter A&E will not face the problems that it has experienced over the last couple of years.

I note that the Chancellor has allocated an extra £325 million of funding for sustainability and transformation plans. However, the estimated requirement is £9.5 billion. I just wonder where the extra money will come from to support that. The extra money for that in the Budget is welcome, but there seems to be rather a shortfall by comparison with the demand created by the various STPs.

On business rates, we all welcome the relief for pubs and the reinstatement of a three-year revaluation cycle. If we have learned nothing else from the process, we have learned that a seven-year revaluation period is ridiculous. Although many businesses across the country will be warmly happy about the fact that their business rates were effectively frozen for seven years, after the businesses are revalued they will almost face a cliff-edge. The implementation of a three-year revaluation period has to be the right approach.

I warmly welcome the £300 million given to local authorities to grant discretionary relief on business rates. My only concern is that we know that a large number of appeals will be lodged against the revaluations, and some local authorities may therefore be hesitant about granting relief while appeals are going on. In London and other parts of the country where 100% of business rates are devolved, that may have a huge impact on local authorities’ income. That is my one concern.

We need absolute clarity on what will happen about the billing of business rates and the reliefs that will be offered thereafter. Businesses up and down the country will receive their bills without necessarily knowing what reliefs they will get. In terms of cash flow, that will be a serious concern. The additional money to provide businesses with relief from the increase in business rates is extremely welcome, but the devil is in the detail, and we must resolve businesses’ uncertainty as quickly as possible.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is, as I am, a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Does he agree that there is probably a case to be made for introducing a regional aspect to non-domestic or business rates? The potential difficulties in Greater London and the south-east are not replicated throughout the rest of the country, where bills are being reduced. That speaks to a need to look at London as a unique entity.

[Bob Blackman]

As we move forward, and before we get to 100% devolution of business rates across the country, we must resolve the conundrums that have arisen in relation to business rates. Equally, we have to recognise that business rates raise in the order of £25 billion a year as a tax, so changing its basis could be extremely cumbersome and might lead to hikes for some businesses, which would not be welcome, as well as reductions for others. We should look at that in the round and make sure, following the consultation that we are going to embark on, that the new policy works for all businesses and business people.

On education, the funding for the 500 free schools, including the new free schools, will be extremely welcome. Certainly in my constituency and across my borough, the reality is that we need an additional four new schools immediately. We have expanded every single primary school to its capacity and built on every piece of land available to provide new school places—all with Government funding, allocated under the coalition Government, which was extremely welcome—but we still need additional schools. I am delighted that a new faith school will be opening soon in my constituency, which will be the first state-sponsored all-through faith school in the country for the Hindu community. We will still need additional schools, however.

I have real concern about the principles of the fairer funding formula. The reality is that if the money coming into the formula is flat, then when some people are gaining, others will be losing. The current estimate is that 75% of the schools in my constituency will have not just a reduction in real terms, but a real cash-terms reduction in the funding available to them per pupil. They cannot increase the number of pupils, because the schools are full, so the only alternative is to cut staff and implement a worse service for the children in my constituency. I place it on the record right now that that is unacceptable.

I welcome the investment being made in skills and vocational studies. For far too long, academic skills have been recognised and applauded in this country, while vocational skills have not received the investment they deserve. I welcome what the Chancellor is doing to make that happen, using the funding to drive forward such a process, which must be the right way to encourage young people to develop their skills. If they have academic capabilities, that is wonderful, but if they have vocational skills, we desperately need them in the construction industry, our services industries and right across the board. This is one of the areas in which, for far too long, we have not had such investment, so I welcome the change that is taking place.

I also welcome the new deal on London devolution. I note that the Labour Mayor of London has welcomed the Chancellor’s decision to devolve such money. I have not heard that from Labour Front Benchers, but there is clearly always a disconnect between the Labour Mayor of London and his own Front Benchers in this House. We warmly welcome such a devolution. Local authorities in London, as well as in other parts of the country, will keep their business rates and have the opportunity to make local decisions for local people.

There is, however, a gap in that the Chancellor did not talk about the funding needed to replace the EU regional funding schemes. The schemes have been used for particular purposes right across the country. We clearly do not need to make such a decision now, but the Chancellor must consider this in the future, because these funds are vital right across our regions.

I welcome the provisions on alcohol duty in the main, but it would have been sensible for the Chancellor to maintain the policy of not increasing beer duty. [Interruption.] I am sure that is warmly welcomed among Conservative Members, and I declare an interest in that it is my favourite drink. The cuts in beer duty in previous Budgets have been an appropriate way to encourage people to drink lower-strength beers rather than higher-strength alcohols, which is important.

On tobacco duty, which is significant, I welcome the changes that the Chancellor has made, but I think he could have gone further. If he and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary want to increase duties on something, let us increase them on tobacco. The fact is that there is a straightforward translation: the less people smoke, the less demand they will make on the national health service.

[Bob Blackman]

Quite clearly, anything we can do to encourage people to give up smoking has to be good for their health and for the national health service overall.

[Mr Jackson]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from vices, does he agree that the Red Book shows that there is only a commitment to consult on white cider and other high-strength ciders? Given the argument that they cause disproportionate harm—with policing, health and so on—is there a case for increasing the duties on such high-strength alcoholic products?

[Bob Blackman]

The position is quite clear. In particular, I want the Treasury to look at the differential duties on licensed premises compared with those involving off-sales, because such an approach could make a quite massive difference.

My one concern about what is proposed for tobacco duty is the possibility of driving individuals away from normal standard cigarettes to hand-rolled tobacco. Young people might be encouraged to switch to hand-rolled tobacco, which is even more harmful to their health than smoking cigarettes. The duty on hand-rolled tobacco should be looked at, so that we can discourage that.

I was disappointed—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will know what I am about to say—not to see further compensation for the victims of the Equitable Life scandal. The Treasury believes that the scheme is closed. It is quite clearly closed to new applicants, but there is still the burning injustice that people who saved for their future and their future pensions have not received the full compensation due to them. I am very proud to say that the Government allocated funding in early 2010, which has helped to compensate some of the victims of the scandal, but a total of £2.8 billion or £2.5 billion—it depends which figures one looks at—is still owed to the victims of the scandal. Those individuals are getting older and more vulnerable, and if we give them any money, it will go straight into the economy because they desperately need it for their old age.

I hope my hon. Friend will look at that again in the round. I understand how difficult it is to balance the books, particularly at the moment, but this is clearly a debt of honour. As the economy recovers, we should look at increasing the compensation, not saying to individuals, “That’s it. That’s all you’re going to get.” If we do that, we will suffer the consequence of people’s mistrust.

The housing White Paper has demonstrated large elements of what we need to do to increase the volume of housing. There was a great deal of comment in the autumn statement on funds for housing, but there was no mention of that, or of the further measures we need to undertake, in the Budget yesterday.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, my private Member’s Bill is progressing through Parliament. It is in the other place at the moment and, I hope, will become law very soon. It aims to reduce homelessness in this country, but the most important impact we can have on homelessness is to build more homes. I trust that the Economic Secretary will consider measures to encourage local authorities, housing associations and private builders to build low-cost housing that is relatively easily affordable for the people of this country, so that we can combat homelessness once and for all in our civilised society.

The Budget must be looked at in the round. I have been critical of certain areas. It is our duty as Back Benchers to be critical friends of our Front Benchers to make sure that they keep abreast of what is going on, particularly when the Opposition do not seem able to critique the Budget. I welcome the overall thrust of the Budget and trust that we can look at ameliorating some of the areas I have mentioned. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is making typically lucid points, but is it not incumbent on her party, given that there is a broad consensus that we need to fund social care better—the Chancellor announced an extra £2 billion —to identify where that money would come from? If she does not want it to be raised through national insurance contributions, where else will it come from?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That leads me very nicely on to my next point, which is that the Chancellor claims the Government have no choice but to raise national insurance contributions. However, he has somehow managed to find £70 billion in tax cuts for the rich and for corporations, including £1 billion for the Government’s pet concern, inheritance tax. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her work on this. From next month, the inheritance tax threshold for a couple will start to rise from the current £650,000 to £1 million. Over the past two years in my Bristol East constituency just 17 homes sold for more than £650,000, and not all of them would have been subject to inheritance tax. My constituents are paying the price for a tax cut that will benefit only 0.04% of the people, many of whom live in the far more affluent constituencies of Cabinet Ministers.

The Chancellor also managed to find funding for the Prime Minister’s grammar school project, despite a dearth of evidence to support the policy. It baffles me why he thinks this is more important than helping the schools we have at the moment, which face a £3 billion shortfall. What good will new grammar schools do for children and teachers at Bristol Met, where half of all pupils are on free school meals but their funding is being cut by 21%, or at Begbrook Primary, which has seen a 16% cut in per pupil funding between 2013-14 and 2019-20? West Town Lane academy has seen a 16% cut and Waycroft academy a 14% cut. I could go on. The Government’s chaotic approach to children’s education is emblematic of a Budget incapable of joined-up thinking or long-term planning. The funding is there when the Government want it to be, but not when people need it to be.

The Government seem incapable of looking beyond the short term and of recognising that cuts have consequences. Ministers are denying 18 to 21-year-olds housing benefit, but if just 140 young people are pushed on to the streets the policy will cost the Government more than it saves. Centrepoint estimates that about 9,000 young people will be put at risk of homelessness by the policy. That is not just short-sighted; it is—if you will permit me to say so, Madam Deputy Speaker—gross stupidity on the part of the Government. It is too high a cost for the sake of making very short-term savings.

I referred to the success of Bristol as a city, but that success comes at the price of a booming housing market that means homes are increasingly out of reach for Bristolians. On average, tenants are having to spend 64% of their disposable income on rent. Our Mayor has created a multi-disciplinary housing delivery team and a city office that has been working hard to try to get more affordable housing built and to find temporary beds for the homeless. They will not be helped by cuts to housing benefit and Ministers’ preoccupation with £1 million houses. I urge the Government to consider our Mayor’s request for the power and support necessary to tackle the housing crisis. It is not enough just to devolve the responsibility; the resources and the money have to go with that if he is to do what he is being asked to do.

On housing, just as on social care, public health, funding cuts and tax increases, the Government’s instinct is to pass the buck to local authorities. Bristol’s funding has fallen by £170 million over the past six years. Over the next five years, we face a £104 million funding gap as costs rise. The further 30% cut to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s budget suggests Ministers are oblivious to the difficult decisions councils are having to make. There is no recognition of the long-term costs of neglecting our infrastructure and key services. A temporary sticking plaster next year will not rescue our social care system or relieve the burden on council services.

The situation will only get worse with Brexit. Bristol City Council received £22 million of EU funding in the 10 years to 2015. The city’s two universities receive over £20 million a year from EU sources. I pay tribute to all the work my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) is doing with universities on Brexit. The European Investment Bank facilitated initiatives such as Bristol Energy, the council’s energy company. Two thirds of exports from Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth go to the EU, which is far higher than the average for UK cities.

The Chancellor claimed there would be no complacency, but neither is there any strategy. The Government have no clue about what will replace that EU investment or how to guarantee our exports market. Blithely pretending everything will be fine and dandy is not a legitimate plan. Ministers are rushing headlong into a hard Brexit and abandoning the single market, ignoring how trade with the EU is a major driving force for our economy. Turning us into a bargain basement tax haven may be what some Ministers have always wanted, but it is not what Bristol or the country needs.

The Chancellor boasted of infrastructure projects, but my constituents are fed up with broken promises and bad management. We have endured disruption because of the electrification of the Great Western line and the taxpayer has had to cope with the spiralling cost. Now the programme has been delayed indefinitely—at a cost of £330 million. The people of Bristol do not know if they will ever see the benefit, but we have already paid the price.

Time and again, Ministers do not bother to consider the bigger picture. Environmental regulation, for example, is dismissed as red tape. I have given up hoping that some Conservative Members will see the environmental necessity of so-called green crap—apologies again, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I had hoped that some would see the economic potential. The Government have chosen not to engage, or to take a very half-hearted approach, with the EU’s circular economy work, despite its potential to create half a million jobs and support a genuinely forward-thinking industrial strategy that is fit for the future. The Chancellor promised us skilled jobs and meaningful training, so I hope he will go back to his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and look at how a genuine focus on the green economy can support that and ensure Britain really is world-leading. That would reassure me and my constituents that the Government are capable of working with cities like Bristol to help everyone to achieve their full potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just taxi drivers. More than 10,000 people in my constituency are self-employed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East rightly pointed out, those people do a range of trades with a range of challenges and additional costs, and very few employment rights and protections. Why have they been targeted by the Chancellor in this Budget?

While I am asking about priorities, why can a Tory Chancellor always find tax giveaways such as the cut to inheritance tax for the 26,000 wealthiest estates in the country, at the expense of the strivers, the makers, the builders and the creators, who account for Britain’s 5 million self-employed people?

[Mr Jackson]

While we are asking questions, is the hon. Gentleman embarrassed about the fact that a Conservative Government have brought about a situation in which 1% of taxpayers fund 27% of tax revenues? At the same time, £140 billion in uncollected taxes that the Labour Government did nothing about have been collected in the past seven years to fund our public services.

[Mr Streeter]

We are one of the richest economies in the world. The distributional analysis published alongside the Budget by the Treasury is embarrassing. The picture that plays out across this Parliament as a result of the tax, spending and welfare decisions made by the Chancellor and his predecessors is very clear. The poorest households and, on an unprogressive gradient, those from lower income households, are absolutely clobbered by this Government.

Only the very richest decile are worse affected than the very worst paid and the least well-off. Someone who is paying the very highest rate of tax will pay more than the very poorest as a percentage of their income, but for some of those people, a tax increase of thousands of pounds a year is relatively small change compared with a £20, £40 or £50 increase for the very poorest. What would be marginal increases for hon. Members are huge for people who are just about managing to pay the bills or, more likely, people who are among the millions turning to credit cards and fuelling a record boom in unsecured household debt. That is what Tory Chancellors always fail to understand. They have no understanding and no conception of what it is like to go without, or of having to cut corners between either heating or eating. That is why, for the past seven years of Tory Budgets, those are the people who have been most left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for making that point. He will be pleased to know that I shall return shortly to the issue of Europe and the future of our economy.

[Mr Jackson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wes Streeting]

I shall return to the subject of Europe, and the hon. Gentleman may want to intervene later. I am conscious that other Members are waiting to speak. There are still a number of them on the Labour Benches, even if there are none on the other side of the House.

This is a case of all pain and no gain. If it were not bad enough that the Conservative Chancellor arrived yesterday to clobber the self-employed, he is also failing to put right the public services on which people depend. We were told that the crisis in the NHS and social care required an additional £6 billion by 2019. While the £2 billion announced yesterday may be welcome, it is wholly insufficient to meet the demands of our rising population, our ageing population, and the people who want to be able to rely on the NHS and social care when they need it most.

Having been a local councillor for nearly seven years—I will stand down next year—I have to say that the situation facing local authorities is dire. When faced with a choice between child protection and adult social care, councils will of course prioritise keeping children safe, along with keeping the elderly and disabled alive and well. However, such choices have consequences: increased council tax for people who can ill afford it, and cuts that affect the services on which people rely and for which they pay their council tax. I only wish that the Government would have the courage to accept, 75 years on from the Beveridge report, that the model for health and social care in this country is no longer fit for purpose and no longer sustainable unless it receives the funding that is so badly needed. I cannot understand why Ministers have not had the courage to ask Members on both sides of the House to help the Government come up with a plan to make the NHS sustainable for the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

The Labour party clearly has a rich vein of irony, as it is masquerading as the friend of the entrepreneur and the self-employed. Perhaps the white van man taskforce will be headed up by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who has great affinity with white van man.

The fact of the matter is that Labour Members must be living on a different plant from the rest of us, because this Budget was actually a consolidation of seven years’ work to rescue this country’s fiscal credibility from the disastrous mess left by the Labour party, including the record peacetime debt that we had in 2010. I also have to say that in my 12 years in the House, I have rarely seen a poorer Budget response than that from the Leader of the Opposition—no wonder his own MPs had their heads in their hands.

[Mr Reed]

rose—

[Mr Jackson]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, as I have to make progress.

If we are talking about honesty and being upfront, even today the shadow Chancellor is quoted as saying that within 100 days of a Labour Government, we would see the end of nuclear power. That is rather different from what was being said two weeks ago in Copeland, when the Leader of the Opposition was saying that nuclear power was safe under Labour.

The Budget also consolidates this Government’s industrial strategy, which is a recognition that many people across our country, particularly outside London, felt that the benefits of globalisation were not flowing to them, and to their communities, infrastructure, towns and cities. It is right that we address that, and this Budget does so. Those people feel that some of the forces of globalisation had passed them by. That is a wider context of Brexit, but because of my departmental responsibilities, I will not go any further into that.

We have also witnessed a jobs miracle over the past seven years. In my constituency there has been record growth in private sector jobs, a drop in the number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and youth unemployment, and an unemployment rate of 1.9% on the last figures, which is the lowest in eight years. We have also seen the highest increase in living standards in 14 years, and an increase in real wages over the last quarter or so. We have cut the deficit by two thirds—it was 10.1% of GDP under the previous Labour Government; it is now 4%. The Government have also tackled key issues relating to the skills agenda, with £500 million for skills. In my constituency, a university technical college is attracting new students. More money—£40 million—is being made available for reskilling and retraining the workforce. The Chancellor is also considering important issues such as infrastructure spending on roads and broadband.

Welfare is certainly an issue that transcends party politics, but I am proud that this Government have worked on the basis that the No. 1 priority for getting people out of the miserable cycle of poverty and welfare dependency is to get them into work. Taking people from workless households and giving them work is massively important if we are to change their lives. It does not help when Labour Members propagate the myth about zero-hours contracts. In any case, people who are on those contracts sometimes make the decision to work in that way themselves. That affects their lives, but it is their choice. In fact, 97.1% of people are not on zero-hours contracts, but we would not know that from listening to Labour Members.

I agree that the social care funding is vital. It builds on the precept that we have already put in place, and on the better care fund. However, in 13 years of benign economic circumstances, the Labour Government did nothing at all about social care. They sold the gold, they ruined our private pension schemes and they racked up record levels of debt.

We are spending serious money—£10 billion by the end of this Parliament—on schools improvement. Labour adopt a levelling-down approach, attacking people who are aspirational and ambitious for their children. They say that grammar schools are awful—that they are what the rich and the middle classes do. Actually, they are about equality, improving people’s lives and reducing those differences. It is about taking people from modest backgrounds and giving them a real stake in their future. Labour Members have always been against that. They have been against share ownership, against the right to buy and against grammar schools. For them, it is all about levelling down and sharing the misery among everyone. That is what socialism is all about.

We are dedicated to improving the living standards of all our people. As Disraeli said, the aim of the Conservative party is the enervation of the condition of the working class, and that is our watchword. This is about social progress. That is why 1 million people will get a £500 pay rise this year as the national living wage goes up to £7.50. The personal allowance has risen seven years in a row. We have frozen fuel duty for working people who need their cars to go to work. We have provided free childcare—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth says that we have not, but we are also putting serious money into research and development, broadband and tackling traffic congestion at pinch points.

Of course we have had to make difficult choices. On the specific issue of national insurance contributions, this is about the regularisation and simplification of the tax system, but it is also about social equity and fairness. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth shakes his head, but the Resolution Foundation has not always supported a Conservative Government’s fiscal measures and yet it is doing so today, as is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It is interesting that Labour Members should be against fiscal fairness. They are against us making the necessary changes to fund things like social care. I have asked questions to which I have not had an answer from their Front Bench, or from “continuity Blair” on the Back Benches. I like to see the dynamic duo from Ilford, the hon. Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). What we do not have from Labour is a coherent, comprehensive, plausible policy on tax or spending. It is just more tax, more borrowing, and more spending—more debt millstones for our children. That is the Labour party for you.

There are certain things that I would have liked to see in this Budget that I did not, such as more tax on high-strength cider and a higher tax on tobacco. I support the sugar tax. I am not a libertarian—I am a social conservative—and we should reflect the health impact caused by sugar in our diet. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I would like more help in the autumn statement on affordable housing to get younger people on the housing ladder. We need to do more on tax advantages for brownfield remediation. We need to put in place extra care facilities for older people, such as through real estate investment trusts. We need more smaller niche house builders to get back into the market and build more homes.

Some schools in my constituency are concerned about the impact of the new education funding formula on their baseline funding. It would be remiss of me not to say that the King’s School and Arthur Mellows Village College are worried about that, and I will be speaking quietly and privately to the Chancellor.

My party is proud of its achievements over the past seven years in turning this country around after we inherited the Labour party’s disastrous legacy. My party believes in social progress, prudent government and fiscal responsibility, and it falls to the Conservative party, as ever throughout history, to build a country that works for everyone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have discussed this. It is the very issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will be discussing with the BBA and the FCA, and the Government are keeping a close eye on it.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

11. What fiscal steps he is taking to increase housing supply in (a) Peterborough and (b) England.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Progress has been made since 2010, with housing starts now at an eight-year high. However, the scale of the challenge requires us to go further. That was why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement that the Government will invest £5.3 billion in housing. This includes investing £2.3 billion in the new housing infrastructure fund, which will deliver up to 100,000 homes in high-demand areas, an additional £1.4 billion to deliver 40,000 new affordable homes, and £1.7 billion to deliver a programme of accelerated construction on public land.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that supporting the off-site construction of new homes, as we have been doing in Peterborough, is one important way to get more good-quality homes built quickly?

Autumn Statement

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

If the hon. Lady looks carefully at the statement, she will see that I did announce significant additional funding to pursue ultra-low emission vehicles. That is an area in which the UK is already a technology leader. I have also announced today that, from next April, there will be 100% first-year allowances on all electric charging infrastructure. We know that the biggest deterrent to moving to electric vehicles is the fear of being unable to charge them. Getting a widespread charging network rolled out will allow us to meet our ambition to electrify the fleet.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Innovation and the condition of working people have always been priorities of the Conservative party. In that vein, I particularly welcome the fiscal changes in the autumn statement, especially regarding fuel duty, tax allowances and the national living wage, for which I campaigned for many years. May I just take the Chancellor back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)? Through the dispersal of public money for affordable housing, would it be possible to break the monopoly of housing associations and local authorities? In mixed tenure sites, could we bring in local providers of affordable housing to deliver the homes that we all need?

[Mr Hammond]

This is not absolutely my area of expertise, but my understanding was that there already are opportunities for other providers to deliver affordable housing and to receive grant support to do so. I will look into that matter and, if I am wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend accordingly.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this issue I recognise, that that would be a start but that much more needs to be done to address the anomalies of the political circus down the corridor. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). He is right to say that there are people serving in the Lords who are technocrats and the great and the good. These people have been appointed by the independent Lords Appointments Commission, but they are a tiny minority. The House of Lords tries to project this image of itself as inviting in the great and the good to help us with our legislation, but the overwhelming majority of the membership of that House is appointed by a Prime Minister from the list supplied by the leaders of the UK parties. That is why we find the cronies, the placemen, the donors and the failed or former MPs.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I find myself discombobulated in agreeing with some of the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. Do I infer from his comments that if the other place were to take a decision in the future with which he agreed but then set its face against the Salisbury convention and a commitment enunciated in our party’s manifesto in government, he would not support the Lords and would reiterate his view that peers are unelected and that they lack democratic accountability and authority?

[Pete Wishart]

I would support Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and their many hordes if it helped to defeat this Government. I have no issue or problem with supporting the House of Lords when it gets something right, but that does not make it any better on these issues. I have sensed the pain in the past few months of so many Conservative Back Benchers who have looked at this place and got increasingly upset that the Lords has defied its will. This Government do not particularly like to be challenged, but the fact that they are being challenged by an unelected, undemocratic House is beginning to disturb the Conservative party, and so I say join us in dealing with this undemocratic disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I will let stand on its own merits.

The Government say that they are reducing the number of Members of this House to save money. Of course, if the number is reduced from 650 to 600, savings will be made—that will happen as a natural consequence of spending less.

[Mr Jackson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that this country has centuries of history, and we should recognise that our system has evolved over those centuries. That does not alter the fact that the House of Lords has vastly experienced people from all fields of life—doctors, lawyers and the like—but we recognise, as was clear from the Conservative party manifesto last year, that it cannot continue to grow indefinitely.

We must keep the question of the size of the House of Lords in perspective. Members of the Lords are not full-time or salaried. Many peers balance professional lives outside the House with work in it, so they do not attend all the time. It is a mischaracterisation to portray it as though 800 Members were permanently in the House. In fact, when one looks at the average daily attendance in the last session—I invite hon. Members to do so—we see that it is below 500. The figure is 497, which is well short of the number of Members of the House of Commons. To use a journalistic phrase, 800 is the figure for the available talent.

[Mr Jackson]

Did my hon. Friend notice an omission from the witty and erudite speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)? He had the brass neck to complain about over-representation, but Scottish National party Members, who receive the same salary as English MPs and have Members of the Scottish Parliament in near-coterminous constituencies to take the burden off them, vote against the boundary changes that will ameliorate the situation in which massive electorates in constituencies in England are represented by just one MP.

[Michael Ellis]

I had noticed that brass neck, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on making that point. At least 61 peers are registered as living in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who expressed himself with such vim and vigour.

The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is an important motion and a proper subject for us to debate. It is something that we have been debating for hundreds of years. The earliest debate I can find for deciding to limit the House of Lords is in 1719, and we will all remember that the Parliament Act 1911 states that it is a temporary measure until a more democratic means of choosing an upper House can be found.

These problems are not new, and there are serious problems with the House of Lords. I do not think anyone would try to pretend otherwise. It is not by any means perfect and its imperfection is partly in its size, partly in its unaccountability and partly, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire so rightly said, in its Liberal Democrats. I do not say that as a cheap shot against the Liberal Democrats, though those are perfectly fun. I say it because the very large number of Lib Dems who are there, who are abusing their position in the Lords to thwart the will of the elected Government, have made a real problem for the Government and for the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords. There are unquestionably problems, but what is the solution?

What we have considered in previous Parliaments is a democratically elected upper House. That sounds very sensible in theory, but there is a fundamental problem for us in this House that if we have a democratically elected House of Lords, its powers will be equal to ours. Even if the letter of the law allows us to overrule the Lords, that will soon cease to be a political reality. A democratically elected House of Lords challenges the Commons, and if a democratically elected House of Lords is on a different electoral system, it might even claim a higher validity than we have and therefore the right to overrule us. Then we would probably have a gridlocked system like that in the United States, with the two Houses being unable to co-operate and an inability to govern and to get legislation through.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats were complicit in the failure of their once-in-a-generation opportunity for House of Lords reform by bringing forward a ludicrous proposal for a 15-year non-renewable mandate, which would have challenged the authority and mandate of this House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That was part of the problem. The other problem was that they were quite unwilling to set out what they would do between the conventions that both Houses have. If those conventions are legislated for, who is to determine whether the conventions are followed? Would that be the courts, and then would the courts interfere in Parliament? Or would the conventions be decided by consensus between the two Houses? In that case we would be back to the gridlock that I was warning about.

That is why the problem has not been solved. There is not a good democratic solution unless we are willing to downgrade the House of Commons, which I personally would be very much against doing. With our constituency-based relationship we have a wonderful system of democracy through this House. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a very powerful speech, but I disagree with him in thinking that the reform to constituencies is gerrymandering. It really is not. It is getting the numbers to be equal, which is a proper thing to do.

It would be wrong to fight the next general election on the electoral roll from 2000. That needs to be updated, and although the later the date the better—so I am not unsympathetic to the call to move it on two years later— that is not practical. It cannot be done on the absolutely last electoral roll, but by doing it every five years, we ensure that there is continuity in updating and a regular fairness in the size of the constituencies. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point and think it is important, through that constituency link, to defend the primacy of this House, which is the democratic House.

That is why I am less worried than the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about the failures of the House of Lords. Ultimately we are in charge. We can use the 1911 Parliament Act. We may decide to use that to do something on statutory instruments if the House of Lords challenges the Government on their democratically mandated implementation of policy. The democratic right overrides the undemocratic element. That gives me certainty and security that the nation is not becoming the People’s Republic of China, Lesotho or whatever other random examples have been brought up, because they do not have that democratic underpinning. Therefore, the size of the House of Lords is just a problem that we will have to live with.

In 1719, the main reason for opposing a limit on the numbers in the House of Lords was that a limit would make the Members who were already there more powerful because their power could not be diluted by adding more peers. That remains true today, because the one great authority this Chamber still retains over the House of Lords, via the Prime Minister, is not so much the 1911 Act, but the threat of creating many more peers, which was, of course, threatened in 1832 and in 1911—on both occasions to ensure the democratic will could prevail. We must maintain the ability to do that, even while recognising that the House of Lords is too big and has problems. However, this needs to be an evolutionary reform, which I would happily go into, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on another occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this very interesting debate. It is disappointing that SNP Members set their face against what could have been quite a consensual motion. I cannot support it because it conflates boundary changes with House of Lords reform, but we could have developed a consensus in the debate.

The House of Lords is of course an anachronism in a modern liberal democracy. We would not chose to invent it from scratch, were we able to do so, but we must nevertheless concede that its Members have the skills, knowledge and experience that we need. Because they have more time—they do not have the guillotine—and are not whipped so hard as we are, they can in some ways do the work of scrutiny, overview and improvement better than we can in this House.

We must also concede that the royal prerogative of absolute medieval monarchy has been transferred over the centuries from the king or queen through the House of Lords to the Executive of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, so there has been an accretion of powers. Under such an incremental approach, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), powers have been given away so that the upper House cannot vote against the Finance Bill —following the people’s Budget of 1909, and the Parliament Act 1911—and its powers have been otherwise circumscribed.

The flaw in that argument is that we had an opportunity for a once-in-a-generation change. As I mentioned earlier, because of the ludicrous proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats—the 15-year, non-renewable terms would have meant that authority was contested between the mandates of the two Houses—that opportunity was wasted, as most Government Members would never have supported them. The issue about the authority of the two Houses is still a problem. I do not buy the argument that unicameral Parliaments are therefore better. The reason why so many EU countries have them is that so much legislation, policy making and governance is done by the European Union rather than in their own countries, but that will end very soon—because Brexit does mean Brexit.

I am an agnostic on the House of Lords—I have not made up my mind one way or the other—but my concern is that it is beginning to infringe some basic constitutional proprieties, such as the Salisbury convention. Its Members have taken it upon themselves to cut across the views of the elected Government as set out in their manifesto, which is absolutely wrong and unacceptable. Of course, we have moved on in other ways. We no longer recruit the Executive from the House of Lords but mainly from the House of Commons.

I put to the House this prospectus. It is not necessarily for the Government to bring forward legislation to reform the House of Lords. It is for the Lords themselves to do that—mention has been made of Lord Fowler’s views. I believe that the Lords are potentially in the last chance saloon, certainly with regard to their authority and the belief, faith and trust of the greater public in the system of which the Lords are a part. The challenge is for the Lords to reform themselves as they have done in the past. If they do not, I fear that another Government—although perhaps not one of my own political persuasion or political colour—will take drastic, draconian action. That will be damaging to the constitutional firmament and settlement of this country, in which to a certain extent the Lords have played an important role over many hundreds of years.

Finance Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

It has never seen an apple. The Minister intimated that the same is true of pears. We need to look at the fact that white cider attracts the lowest duty per unit of alcohol of any product while representing the cheapest way to consume alcohol and get drunk, and to enable addicts to continue their dependency. Three-litre bottles of high-strength ciders are available for just £3.50; people can get completely wasted on £3.50, but they would struggle to buy a bottle of some mainstream ciders for that. As a result, these products are causing disproportionate levels of harm, which is closely associated with dependent, street and under-age drinking. The Government are rightly emphasising and prioritising tackling street homelessness and putting funds into preventing homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has introduced the very helpful Homelessness Reduction Bill. We hope that, with cross-party support, he will be navigating its safe passage through this House on 28 October and all hon. Friends will attend to that.

Let me make a wider point about future Budgets, as connected to that is the need to examine the impact of duty and the evidence that price has a particular impact on behaviour.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend pre-empts the point I wished to make, and is making a typically eloquent speech. For too long, under all Governments and under generally liberal regimes, whether we are talking about salt, sugar, alcohol or fixed-odds betting terminals, there has not been a holistic approach from the Treasury that looks at the indicative costs to society. I am talking in terms of health services, social services and so on. I do not think any Government have got that right over the years: there is a cost if we do not get the fiscal policy right in trying to change behaviour across all these areas.

[Mr Burrowes]

That is a welcome intervention. I welcome the Minister to her place, as she has wide experience in this area. I understand that she was the longest-serving Conservative public health Minister. She can bring that experience to bear, not least because she has added responsibilities, given the make-up of the limited number of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, to cover those aspects of what some might call sin taxes and to create a better overall review. That can be linked up with what we look forward to receiving from the Government: the long-awaited life chances strategy. Be it on the social justice strategy, social reform strategy or life chances strategy, we must ensure that we focus on the poorest and most disadvantaged, who are particularly badly affected by high-strength ciders and other issues that have been mentioned.

High-strength ciders are usually about 7.5% alcohol by volume, they are sold in three-litre bottles and they contain 22.5 units of alcohol. That is over 50% more than the Government’s weekly limit guideline, just in a single container. The leading brands are Diamond White and White Ace. The price means that heavy drinkers of white cider can spend only a third as much on alcohol as low-risk drinkers would spend. These low-strength ciders and high-strength ciders range between 1.2% and 7.5% ABV, but we need to focus on the white ciders, because at the moment the tax is based on volume rather than strength. That has an impact on behaviours. Obviously, it has an impact on the behaviour of manufacturers. When they look at incentives and what they produce, they may say, “Let’s just go for volume. We won’t then be hit on strength.” There is not a similarity with the beer regime, which has that grading, and that has an impact, not least on what products come out. Unsurprisingly, on the high street there is much more of a market for lower-strength beer and different qualities of lower-strength beer. Meanwhile, there is a wide range of mainstream ciders, but no impact in duty terms on high-strength ciders.

In considering the impact of high-strength ciders, we should perhaps discuss Glasgow and Edinburgh where, I understand, 25% of alcohol treatment services patients drink white cider. Of those, 45% drink white cider exclusively, so this is a huge issue whether in Glasgow or Edinburgh, where there is a significant problem with high-dependency drinkers, or in London or elsewhere.

I am sure hon. Members will know of constituents who are particularly dependent on this harmful drink, which is the drink of choice for many a harmful drinker. Indeed, the chief executive of Thames Reach, Jeremy Swain, has said that 78% of deaths among his clients can be traced back to high-strength drinks such as white cider. That is a shocking statistic that needs to be out there. I implore the Minister, perhaps when she considers future Budgets, to look at what is happening, and why. Efforts have been made in relation to manufacturers and others—she will be aware of this from her previous role—to sort things out and become responsible, and it has to be said that retailers have done that: Heineken and Bulmers have withdrawn their white cider brands as they believe them to be socially irresponsible. That is to be welcomed and we should praise those companies.

Furthermore, retailers such as Costcutter, Morrisons, Nisa and Spar have acknowledged the problems associated with those products and reduced their stocking and promotion of white cider, but if hon. Members come to Green Lanes in my constituency, although they will not get near any of those established off-licences, they will see that high-strength ciders are readily available. They are, sadly, targeted at the heavy drinkers, who are more likely to have those white ciders. Also—this is based on evidence that needs wider debate and review—they are more responsive to the cheapest price for alcohol.

Those supporting such a review and such a measure are indeed those responsible retailers and manufacturers, as well as the health sector—those who see the impacts of liver disease and the changes brought about by lack of accessibility to and an increased price for such products. In addition, alcohol treatment charities, various parts of the drinks industry and dependent drinkers themselves have also made the point that they recognise the impact of having an increased price.

It is indeed time for the Government to provide additional reassurance that there will be a honed focus on the issue in future Budgets, as well as a wider review of the impact of high-strength alcohol, particularly with respect to cider duty and targeting on white cider sales. As the Minister said, we must always be proportionate in the way we handle duties and ensure that people are not unduly impacted when they either buy or go out for a cider, but these measures would not impact on most mainstream ciders of between 4% and 5% ABV.

On the issue of simplification, which was alluded to earlier, these measures would bring such products into line with the treatment of beer. Since 2011, there have been three tiers of beer duty, with low rates on low-strength beers and high rates on high-strength beers, so why do not the Government, to achieve simplicity, clarity and coherence, make similar provision in relation to ciders, particularly because of the impact of high-strength ciders on the poorest?

The Government have rightly put social justice at the heart of all they do, and that must include this area, where the spotlight of social justice must also shine in preventing harmful drinking. I look forward to the Minister perhaps adding a few words of support for a targeted increase in the price of high-strength cider, or at least agreeing to look at the issue again seriously in time for the next Budget so as to help the vulnerable and end the anomaly to which I have referred. That would recognise these proposals as part of a wider review of the important issue of alcohol duties and their relationship to harm.

Another issue has been of interest during previous debates on Finance Bills, and I wish to bring a strong focus to bear on it by speaking to new clause 3, which stands in my name and the names of 15 of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Indeed, others have indicated to me their support for a review of the marriage and civil partnerships transferable tax allowance. I want to comment particularly on low-income households, especially couples with young children. It would be very progressive if the Government were to focus on achieving more take-up—I welcome the Minister’s comments on that—and arriving at a more significant amount, which would disproportionately impact on lower-income households.

I welcome the introduction of the transferable allowance for married people and civil partners last April, so, unlike in previous debates, I will not, along with my hon. Friends, be imploring the Government to establish such an allowance in the tax system. We have that. That battle has been won and that promise has been kept. There is that recognition of marriage in the tax system, and it is evidence-based: the institution of marriage is valuable as it helps individuals to build social resilience, improves mental wellbeing and aids healthy relationships, particularly with children. I shall not dwell on that past battle because, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, she also, on behalf of the Government, is wholly committed to that transferable allowance. It is here to stay under this Government, which is wholly welcome and I very much appreciate it. If any other hands got on the tiller, I am sure that it could be under threat.

However, we must not sit back and be content. The bauble is there and we have recognised marriage, but we need to look, as we do across Government, at how that measure will impact on poorer households. Indeed, we need to consider incentives, including financial incentives, and disincentives around different couple relationships and penalties that still exist. I believe that we must prevent marriage, with its particular social benefits, which have been evidenced, from becoming the preserve of the more wealthy.

I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in not being content with the fractured society that is based around relationships breaking down. We must do all we can to support couples to stay together, particularly those with children, and consider the impact on children when couples do not stay together. Evidence states very clearly that the children of married couples, who have grown up with them, are better served by the fact that the couple stay together.

I recognise that there are different incentives and this is not all about the tax allowance. A range of support can be given to keep couples together, although that is perhaps the subject of another debate for another time. However, we can play our part through fiscal incentives. I recall a recent speech from the former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, who spoke about an issue that we often discuss. We pray in aid the fact that we are a party of one nation and that we want to build a country of one nation. Interestingly, Lord Sacks referred to the fact that there is a growing phenomenon of two nations, which he saw in terms of a failure to support marriage creating two nations with two very different sets of life chances. As the Government build on their strategy, we should not ignore this issue, and immediately the life chances strategy is published I shall be doing research on the word “marriage” and how much we are supporting marriage.

It is important to heed the words of Lord Sacks. He said:

“In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers. This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of ‘two nations’ a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer.”

We should not allow that to be the preserve of one part of the nation. We can play our part fiscally to ensure that we are not divided and that many gain the opportunities derived from couples being together.