Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)]

I would be delighted to have a meeting with my right hon. Friend and her constituent.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

T4. The Government have thus far been reluctant to consider the fair transitional arrangements for the WASPI women, who have been unfairly disadvantaged by the changes to the women’s state pension age. What action is the Secretary of State taking at present and what changes does he propose?

State Pension Age: Women

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I thank SNP Members for bringing forward this debate, and I pay tribute to the WASPI women and their supporters up and down the country for their tireless campaigning on this important issue in the face of an obstinate Government who refuse to listen to their very rational arguments about the need for better transitional protection and arrangements for this group of women.

Most of all, I want to pay tribute to the WASPI group in Durham, which was formed after a visit to Parliament in June. I attended a meeting it held in my constituency on 10 November. I wish that the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) and indeed the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) had been there to listen to what the women had to say. Most of them had until recently been simply unaware of the changes to their retirement ages, and most of them will now have to wait years to receive their pension. Most of them had already had two significant changes made to their pension age. These women described in great detail the strain that their current situation was putting on them and their families. Many of them had planned to retire in order to care for family members, and were now having to balance social care needs with full-time work often across a range of different jobs. All were job-seeking.

One point that the Secretary of State did not acknowledge earlier was that for an older woman, trying to get a job in a depressed labour market is extremely difficult. Nor did he recognise that it does not matter how many older champions women have. If no jobs are available in their local labour market, women of any age will be unable to find employment, but it will have a negative impact on older women in particular.

Furthermore, the Secretary of State did not acknowledge two important factors: the regional disparities in the ages at which women will remain fit and active enough for work—especially if they have been involved in more strenuous occupations—and the differing ages of mortality across regions and, indeed, within specific areas. None of that has been factored into the Government’s thinking, and that, in my view, is also pretty atrocious.

One of the things that I was asked to do by the women whom I met on 10 November was to write to the Secretary of State, and I did so on their behalf. I must say that I was pretty appalled by the response that I received. It answered the case relating to the equalisation of the pension age, which was not the issue that had been raised.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

The hon. Lady was right to say that equalisation was not the issue. The issue is the fairness, or rather the unfairness, of the transitional arrangements. We have heard that there are transitional arrangements, but they are unfair.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Absolutely, and that was the point that was being raised. It concerned the way in which the changes were being implemented and the lack of proper transitional arrangements, rather than the equalisation issue itself.

I am pleased that Labour Front Benchers have come forward with an answer, or a partial answer, to the problems highlighted by the WASPI campaign. I am pleased that they have announced that we will not abandon those women to live in poverty, and that under the Labour plan, pension credit will be extended to those who were due to retire before the chaotic pension age increase introduced by the Conservative-led coalition Government and supported by the previous Conservative Government. Labour’s proposal is to return eligibility for pension credit to the state pension age timetable of the 1995 Act. With the qualifying age continuing to increase to 66 by 2022, that policy would cost the Government only £860 million rather than the ridiculous £30 billion figure to which they have referred; they say that they cannot do anything because of that huge figure. The Landman Economics report, which has already been mentioned today, outlines some other policies that they could adopt.

It is simply not acceptable for the Government to say that they are not going to do anything. The message that they need to hear from us this afternoon is that we will continue to support the WASPI women and their campaign—we will continue to raise questions and initiate debates in the House to support them throughout the country—until they do the right thing by those women, and introduce proper transitional arrangements that will protect them from the hardship that they are currently experiencing.

State Pension Age: Women

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing the debate, which is very timely. The most recent changes to the women’s state pension age will have a direct impact on around half a million women across the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman outlined the historical issues extremely well.

It is estimated that in Northern Ireland around 80,000 women will be affected. A number of weeks ago I, like other Members, presented a petition to the House containing the signatures of hundreds of residents of my constituency who are concerned about the unfair changes to the women’s state pension age. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Wilma Grey, who lives in my constituency and is the co-ordinator of Women Against State Pension Inequality in Northern Ireland. She tirelessly campaigns on a voluntary basis to raise awareness of this issue.

Nobody would disagree that rationalisation of pensions is necessary, but it must be sustainable and ready for an ageing population who are living longer. If pensions are not properly funded and addressed, they have the potential to be a millstone around the neck of future Governments. We accept that, but few things are so clearly deserved in life as the state pension. I reiterate the promise that if someone works hard their whole working life, the state will take care of them in their old age. That ideal has underpinned our society for more than 70 years, but the promise is precisely why I am deeply worried about the manner in which the Government have decided to equalise pension ages.

This is the key issue: women who were born in the 1950s were made a promise and the promise is now being broken. Worse still, the changes are being made with little to no notice. These women, who have rightfully been considering and planning for retirement, now face uncertainty that threatens what should be the most relaxed period of their lives. Today’s national insurance contributions pay for today’s pensions, and many of these women believed that when they started paying national insurance contributions—some of them at the age of 16—they were entering into an agreement with the Government to retire at 60.

Raising the retirement age may be a necessary evil. With life expectancy climbing, it is unavoidable that we must work longer and retire later. However, the problem is that although that principle may be sound, the reality is somewhat different. When Her Majesty’s Government introduced the Pensions Act 1995, women were supposedly given 15 years to prepare, as the women’s pension age would not begin to equalise with men’s until 2010. However, no one who was aged 44 or over would have been affected at the time. It is therefore understandable that any discussion of pension changes was viewed as irrelevant.

The Government at the time should have made a concerted effort to publicise the changes widely and to spell out the implications for the women affected, but that was glaringly absent. To compound that, the Pensions Act 2011 increased the overall state pension age to 66 by 2020, accelerating the rate of increase for women. Because they had not been notified previously, it was only at that point that many women learned of the changes to the state pension age, with some women reaching state pension age at 66 when they had anticipated drawing their pension at 60.

It is therefore no surprise that the women affected by the changes are frustrated by the implications for their post-retirement planning, both financial and otherwise, and by the fact that the Government have substantially moved the goalposts without effective communication. That unfairness must be addressed and the Government must now consider the introduction of appropriate transitional payments.

Social Security

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

I may come later in my short speech to a few of the points that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised. First, however, on the detail of the legislation, I want to make it clear that the Ulster Unionist party supports the benefit cap, for example, because it is important that we keep people in work. People are better off in work than totally relying on benefits, so we do support a raft of these issues.

We are still concerned that the split cap level between London, where it is £23,000, and the rest of the UK, where it is £20,000, represents the most significant non-conformity in the UK’s social security system. It will need to be watched closely, and the issue is obviously with the reserved Government here at the moment. Clearly, that is where the watching brief must be, and I am sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive will also make representations here.

It had originally been planned to introduce universal credit in Northern Ireland from 2017, but that has now moved to the autumn because the development work on the Northern Ireland changes to the universal credit information and communications technology system has been delayed. The deadline still remains June 2018. As such, the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland has now found itself with the unenviable task of trying to implement one of the biggest shake-ups in a generation over less than 12 months, but I am sure it will manage that with the help of others.

We still do not support the abolition of the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance for new claimants from April 2017. However, the debate has been held, and the Government have not taken that on board, so we must progress with what we have. We must now move on to identify all the additional support and help that claimants need to help them return to work.

On a more principled issue, there is huge frustration that, first, this measure has had to come back here to be implemented and, secondly, that it has taken so long, at a huge cost to organisations such as the health service and the education service, where there have been delays after delays. A lot of this has just been grandstanding. I fully accept the point that some people just did not want to vote for this in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. Let us be blunt about it: Sinn Féin was the biggest proponent of that, assisted to some extent by the SDLP. The reality is that this issue could have been resolved many months—in fact, years—ago. The delays have been at a huge cost to the people of Northern Ireland—the ordinary people who needed that health care and that education.

I support the continuance of this measure. There are some changes that I would have liked to see that did not happen, but we are where we are, so I support the progression of this measure. Clearly, however, we cannot get into another mess like the one we have been in for the last couple of years; otherwise, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly will be back to a very difficult position and, once again, to stalemate.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott). I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said very powerfully about why we are here today debating this statutory instrument. It is important to emphasise that this is not a situation that we on these Benches wanted to see. We want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly legislate in those areas that are devolved, although it should be noted that the Scottish Parliament, with the extensive powers it has, does not have responsibility for welfare. This is an area where Northern Ireland took responsibility, and those who negotiated the 1998 Belfast agreement decided it would be a good idea to devolve welfare to Northern Ireland, with the massive cost that comes with that, although the vast bulk of it, as my hon. Friend said, comes from direct payments and not out of the Northern Ireland block grant. As a former social development Minister back when devolution began in 1999, I remind the House that the understanding was that there should be parity, because if we deviated from that, then Northern Ireland would have to pay for it out of the block grant. Areas such as hospital spending, education, the environment and housing would all have to suffer cuts to pay for any deviation.

This comes to the crux of the arguments that took place in the Northern Ireland Assembly in recent times. People in certain parties—notably the SDLP, and at times Sinn Féin and others—would say, “Let’s deviate, let’s do our own thing—we’re not accepting these welfare cuts.” Their proposal to try to get something for Northern Ireland was to say, “Let’s set up a committee, go and knock on the door of the Treasury, and demand that Northern Ireland receives hundreds of millions of pounds extra,” which was never going to happen.

Had this measure not been introduced—had the “Fresh Start” negotiations that took place primarily between the DUP and Sinn Féin not had a successful outcome—then by now we would have had full, untrammelled direct rule from this place. That is the reality of it. We would have had welfare changes in Northern Ireland that were exactly the same as those in England and Wales. There would have been none of the mitigations—none of the changes that we implemented, and wanted to see implemented. So the consequence of the approach of members of the SDLP and others who opposed a sensible compromise would have been full, untrammelled welfare changes of the sort that they say they oppose.

[Tom Elliott]

Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us, because I have not got to the bottom of it, on why Sinn Féin has done such a somersault on this? It totally opposed it for years, and then all of a sudden it seemed to come to its senses and accept the principle of it. Can he shed any light on that?

[Mr Dodds]

It is for Sinn Féin to explain its own position. It is not for me to speak for it, especially when its Members do not come to this House. Certain Members are often seen about the corridors. They are here to collect their allowances—their political representation money and their constituency office allowances—but that is all they do; they do not take part in any other parliamentary processes. I will therefore leave it to them.

The reality had to dawn on people in Northern Ireland that we were facing the collapse of the political institutions. It is a bit like a local council in England or Wales, or anywhere else, being told, “Here’s your financial settlement—here’s what you’ve got to work within,” and the leading party there saying, “Sorry, we’re not going to accept that. We’re going to set budgets that are way beyond that, we’re going to just ignore the financial realities, we’re not going to make any compromises which will safeguard the most vulnerable”—

Social Security

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I shall contribute briefly to the debate. I welcome what the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said about wanting to move Northern Ireland forward, building the economy and creating peace and stability in Northern Ireland. We have common cause in that. That is precisely why we believe that the fresh start agreement, including this welfare element, is so important. Without it, Northern Ireland would have gone backwards. We would, in effect, have gone back to direct rule. It would have taken many years once again to get devolution up and running, with all that would result from that.

There is no point adopting the self-indulgent, luxurious position of wishing that circumstances were different. That is the fact of the matter. We had to address a very difficult situation. The rule of parity was implemented by Ministers when I first because Social Development Minister back in 1999. I remember that the first thing we discussed with the civil servants was the issue of parity. Revisiting this point, it is interesting to note that it is cited specifically in the Belfast agreement, which the SDLP was instrumental in agreeing. That principle is enshrined in section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Parity is important. Without maintaining parity, the Northern Ireland Executive can make changes. The Northern Ireland Assembly can depart from legislation and provisions passed here, but on the principle that any additional costs would fall to be met by the Northern Ireland Executive out of the block grant. To close our eyes to that reality and pretend that things are otherwise and wish them so is simply not sensible, rational politics.

We faced up to the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) eloquently set out, we voted against but we also clearly supported some elements because we believed that they were best for the Government’s welfare agenda. We opposed others and then made a strong effort in the Assembly and in direct negotiation. I pay tribute to Nelson McCausland, the previous Department for Social Development Minister, for getting mitigations, which the Government accepted. We then put those forward in the Assembly. The Bill was first introduced in October 2012 and reached its final stage in May 2015. It still did not get through because of SDLP, Sinn Fein and Green party opposition.

The process is not undemocratic; remember that the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a legislative consent motion on 18 November by 70 votes to 22. The principle of devolution has been observed and the integrity of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s right to legislate has been specifically preserved. The Assembly has given its consent through that motion.

Finally, I want to put on the record the improvements and additions that Northern Ireland now has compared with elsewhere. There are the top-ups, which amount to many hundreds of millions of pounds, and the exclusion of the so-called bedroom tax. As has been outlined, we have seen the end of fines. I will not go into the figures, but those fines were having a detrimental effect on ordinary people and services in Northern Ireland and we have put a stop to them. Given their previous attitude, if the SDLP and Sinn Fein had had their way, they would continue.

We are also getting £25 million of new ring-fenced funding per year for five years to address welfare error and fraud in Northern Ireland. The UK Government have agreed that half of any savings generated in the next five years can be reinvested by the Northern Ireland Executive. Those are just some of the improvements on the welfare side as well as all the other advantages from the fresh start agreement, building on the Stormont House agreement.

We would prefer the legislation to have gone through the Assembly—of course we would. However, we faced up to the reality: if we had gone on the way we were, we would have ended up making suffer those we most wanted to protect.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

I am not arguing against the legislation by any means, but I seek clarification. The top-ups available under the disability living allowance and the personal independence payment through the Stormont House agreement are not available under these proposals—instead, they are down to the three-person panel. This is just a matter of clarity. Obviously, Sinn Fein has a different perspective from that of Stormont House.

[Mr Dodds]

As I understand it, the Executive are establishing a small working group under the leadership of Professor Eileen Evason to bring forward proposals within the financial envelope set out by the Executive, including administrative costs, to maximise the use of additional resources. The issue will be for the Executive to determine following Professor Evason’s recommendations.

I thank the Government for the expeditious way in which they have brought this matter through the House of Commons at the request of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is a good day for Northern Ireland, and I certainly support this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Elliott]

As I understand it, last December’s Stormont House proposals were accepted by the SDLP as well as Sinn Féin. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that this is a worse deal or a better deal than the Stormont House proposal?

[Mark Durkan]

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question: I think it is a worse deal. We not only have this order to transpose the 2012 Act—all the parties in Northern Ireland said they had difficulties with that legislation—but the way in which this is being taken forward means that the Government in Whitehall now have the power, by order, to transpose the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently going through Parliament. That needs to be understood, because the legislative consent motion passed by the Assembly endorsed all the welfare clauses of the current Bill, as originally tabled. DUP MLAs voted to endorse all the clauses, even though they had voted for amendments to delete some of them or to insert additional clauses. Within a period of weeks, they voted with an entirely different attitude in relation to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, hiding behind direct rule. I therefore think that the deal is worse.

We must remember that the order will not only have the immediate effect of transposing most of the 2012 Act as implemented in Great Britain, but also provides a power, simply by virtue of regulations, to change a lot of the terms and conditions of the benefits, and can almost disappear some categories of benefits in the 2012 Act. In essence, we are being signed up to that without so much as a provision stating that when this direct-rule power is exercised, there must still be a legislative consent motion in the Assembly. We have been treated to the fiction that while we have direct rule, we have not lost any devolution because all the powers still exist on paper in the Assembly. That means it will supposedly be entirely in order for MLAs to table motions in the Assembly to amend such areas or to come up with their own private Members’ Bills, so we will have the nonsense of parallel, competing legislative strands. That is the sort of fiction and nonsense to which we are being treated.

Let us be very clear that the problem does not relate to the political or legislative processes; the real problem is the potential impact on people whose benefits and living standards will be affected as a result. Let us remember that when the Welfare Reform and Work Bill goes through—it has now been endorsed by a legislative consent motion—it will change the limited work capability element of universal credit for new claimants from April 2017. It is quite clear that although the decision-making power, which the Secretary of State has under the enabling legislation that went through over a week ago, will end in 2016, the effect of the decisions made under that power will not die with the power. The changes in relation to the limited work capability element of universal credit for new claimants will come in, meaning a reduction in the value of current payments of almost £30 a week—from £102.15 to £73.10. That is why all the health charities and disability campaign groups are so opposed to clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is now sealed into that by virtue of the legislative consent motion and the measure previously passed by Parliament.

There will be a similar reduction in the amount paid to those in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. We know from hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain that that is one of the notorious vexations. We have heard about just how the work-related activity group has been treated in practice, and about some of the bizarre interpretations, decisions and procedures that people have had to go through. We are now locked into a lot of that courtesy of both the legislative consent motion and this order. We do not have reason to be happy if we take seriously what our friends in all parties across the House are saying in raising their valid concerns. That also goes for some aspects of the sanctions. The time limit on the sanctions is different, courtesy of the efforts that we all made in relation to Stormont House.

I want to make it quite clear that we were signed up for Stormont House in December 2014, because the terms of the agreement stated that the proposals would be developed and brought to the Assembly. When the Bill was brought to the Assembly, however, nothing in it had changed. That is why we tabled a series of modest amendments, which would not have shattered the Stormont House agreement in any way, and which the British Government confirmed would not have stretched or undermined their understanding of what was operable under the agreement. But no, the DUP decided to veto the proposals and, on top of that, Sinn Féin decided to vote down the amendments even though the Tories had voted down similar amendments here in the original 2012 legislation. So those were the people who decided that we were not going to take Stormont House forward on an all-party basis, as had been agreed. I want to put this on record, because I do not think that enough people have understood what happened.

I will make one concession to the Government. A lot of the wriggle room that we had in the Stormont House agreement came about as a result not only of the top-up mitigations from the Executive’s own budget but of the understanding that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury were going to allow the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland a certain amount of leeway in the interpretation and operation of some of the measures. That is one reason why the big money that it was thought would be needed to make good some of Sinn Féin’s demands was not actually needed after all. The funds did not need to come out of the Executive’s budget because of that leeway being allowed.

However, some of us recognised that the arrangement was time-limited. We were worried that the effects of the welfare cap—which is not to be confused with the benefit cap—would, over time, squeeze and reduce that comfort. We said that we had to be honest about that. The SDLP was also very clear about saying at Stormont House that we had to be up front and public about the fact that, when the next wave of cuts came, we would not be in a position to say that they could be sustained out of the Executive’s budget and that we could not make a claim on the block grant to try to make good those claims. We said that we had to say that up front so that people understood it. Sinn Féin did not want to acknowledge that fact because it was still locked into the pretence that it could say it was protecting all existing claimants and all future claimants for ever more, amen. We never joined in that pretence, but no other party joined us in making that candid declaration that we could not constantly find more and more hard shoulder to run on.

That brings me to the points that were made earlier about the fines. We were asked whether we regretted the fines. We resented those fines, those penalties, those levies, those savings forgone. We have been told by the Secretary of State that they are not fines but savings forgone. I notice that the right hon. Lady did not contradict DUP Members when they were calling them fines; it is only me who gets contradicted. Whatever they are called, we resented them because they were an exercise in budget bullying. The DUP never objected to that budget bullying; indeed, one might think that they were actually in on the tactic, and in on the threat about not renewing the computer system.

The fact is that the Assembly was being bullied. I have said before that I do not believe that the Treasury will treat the new suite of devolved capacities for Scotland in relation to welfare reform in this way. I know that Scotland’s deal on welfare is not perfect. Its operation will be problematic, but I am pretty sure that the Treasury will not resort to the kind of tactics that it used against the Northern Ireland Assembly when it comes to dealing with clear differences of view between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Government. I believe that it will take a different course.

If we are to be honest about this issue, we must be clear that there is a need to consider whether we need to realign the devolution of welfare in future so that the situation is sustainable. When the sunset clause in this legislation kicks in, and if there is some other mid-term welfare reform package in this Parliament, we do not want the Assembly to spasm into crisis for exactly the same reason.

We said at Stormont House and elsewhere that perhaps we should realign towards something more akin to the Scottish model of devolution. In Scotland, the burden is to take an interest in the benefits that people rely on if they have disabilities and long-term conditions. That points towards a way that we could go that would allow us to be more complete in the protections that we say we are offering people and perhaps provide a more sustainable course for the future.

That answers the point that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made about the architecture of the Good Friday agreement and devolution in the first place. There might be a need to look at realignment, as we have declared. Indeed, I declared that a number of years ago. However, we have not had any takers at any of the talks. If people want to do that, they will find that it could go ahead.

The way in which the implications of this order and the orders to follow are being sold is wrong. Remember that this is only the first of a number of orders that we will get, courtesy of direct rule. Indeed, it is more direct direct rule than we had before, because when a lot of the Northern Ireland social security legislation was passed under the old style of direct rule, it was taken through the House by Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Now, we have direct rule by the DWP, thanks to the way in which Sinn Féin and the DUP have decided it will happen.

It is wrong for parties that oppose these changes to benefits and sanctions to say in respect of making sure that these cuts and changes will happen by direct fiat and by the hand of a direct-rule Minister in the DWP, “Well, that was a good deal because we saved devolution.” Who was threatening devolution? The only parties that were threatening devolution and the institutions were Sinn Féin and the DUP. They contrived the brink and we all had to teeter on it. When they were saved from themselves in the end, they said that they had done a good job by getting concessions that were available anyway—they were not concessions at all.

That is the nonsense and dishonesty that lies at the centre of the politics of this. We are not one bit happy or content. We are not thankful to the Government for this at all. There were ways of dealing with these issues. They should have been taken in a mature way by devolution—

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

It is a privilege to be able to speak in the Budget debate. It would be remiss of me not to accept that a number of good points have been made today and I do not want to demean them. One point clearly relates to the Ulster Unionist party policy on the living wage, which the Conservatives have adopted. That will be extremely helpful, but I have concerns about how it will be implemented. There needs to be support for employers and businesses along the way, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. It may have the effect of SMEs employing fewer people to meet that living wage, so I hope the Government have a plan in place to bring forward definitive proposals to help those small and medium-sized businesses.

Secondly, I am extremely positive about the reduction in corporation tax. I come from Northern Ireland, to which the Government have helpfully promised to devolve corporation tax. The reduction here will make our 12.5% much more realistic and help make us competitive with our neighbours in the Irish Republic. We have a land border with another EU state, so I welcome the reduction set out in the Budget, which will make it much easier for us to implement our reduction. Thirdly, I also welcome the 2% year-on-year increase in the defence budget, which is helpful and will leave the UK right at the centre of world defence.

A lot of today’s debate has been taken up with tax credits. I note that 164,100 families in Northern Ireland are in receipt of tax credits and that almost 70% of them are working families. In recent months, one of the huge difficulties in our constituencies has concerned the HMRC helplines available to people making inquiries about their tax credits, and that is only going to get worse after the reduction. I therefore appeal to the Government to invest more resources to help constituents who are worried they might lose some or all of their tax credits. It is a worrying time for them. It is difficult even for us, their elected representatives, to get answers. HMRC needs to do a major job of work to provide that assistance and support mechanism. I feel that there is going to be a huge reduction in the tax credit element, which will create particular issues in areas such as Northern Ireland, where we have a lower wage base. These families, many of whom are working, cannot afford to spend up to 60 minutes on the phone waiting for answers to their tax credit queries, but that is what is happening.

I am also concerned about the effect on the Barnett formula and the Northern Ireland Executive budget. The Government will know of the difficulties around the welfare reform proposals in Northern Ireland. I noted in yesterday’s statement the reference to the Stormont House talks. I want to make it clear that there was no agreement around those talks, as we have now realised, because some parties are now reneging on the proposals. We want to ensure that the £90 million agreed for welfare reform, to be taken from other budgets, can be implemented, because it is important for those suffering in our communities, such as the most deprived and the severely disabled. It is important they have the help and support they require, so I am looking to hear from the Government how we can ensure that the people most in need can be assisted.

The Budget is a curate’s egg: there are some good parts, but there are also some difficult issues to deal with, particularly around tax credits.