Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a dubious honour to be called to speak in this Budget debate—not because I am not keen to speak on behalf of my party and my constituents, but because so many things about it still upset me deeply. I raised the issue last week, but I have yet to receive an answer on the provision set out at the top of page 88 of the Red Book. Specifically, what kind of system will the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduce to ask women who have been raped to prove it in order to qualify for child tax credits? I still seek clarification on that appalling clause, and I hope that the Secretary of State will eventually be able to give it. I know how hard my constituents and people across these islands will be hit by the Budget. I stand here on behalf of my party to do my best to represent them and fight their corner today. I will speak first about the impact on communities, and then I will discuss investment and city deals.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions once claimed he could live on £53 a week. I am not clear whether he tried, but I know that more than 480,000 people signed a petition asking him to do so. As Members of this House, we are comfortably off. Even if we were suddenly to lose our jobs, as so many hon. Members’ colleagues in Scotland did in May, I suspect that none of us would starve. That is not the daily reality of life for many people across the United Kingdom today. Even when people are in employment, they do not earn enough to live more than hand to mouth. We in this House do not have the right to pull up the ladder and leave them behind. Let us be in no doubt—this is not because our lowest-paid do not work hard enough. Many work extraordinarily hard for long hours doing difficult, dirty and dangerous work. They need our support and they need our respect. Most of all, they need fair pay— a real living wage, not some hastily badged imitation—and access to Government support mechanisms such as tax credits to help them live with dignity. This Government should apologise to the Living Wage Foundation for stealing the campaign it has worked so hard to build.

I was glad to hear of the shadow Secretary of State’s conversion, because an Opposition who oppose opposing are no good at all. I urge all Labour Members to remember the toil of many people in our country struggling to make ends meet when they consider backing the Tories’ Budget. Those people elected Labour Members to stand up for them, not for the Secretary of State.

This Tory Budget has been assessed by groups such as the Fawcett Society as being disproportionately hard on women. The Fawcett Society considers that this Budget gives with one hand and takes away with two, stating:

“Women are going to be pushed further into a poverty trap following a Budget that offers little to help them increase their income…We fear that many more will find themselves in a low benefit, low wage situation that is increasingly difficult to escape.”

The House of Commons Library says that, since 2010, 85% of the £26 billion-worth of cuts made to benefits, tax credits, pay and pensions has been taken from women’s incomes. That is unacceptable. I ask all feminists in this House to consider it very carefully.

The communities I know best are resilient. They look out for one another and make sure their neighbours are okay. They collect for food banks. They donate what little they have to ensure that their vulnerable neighbours are looked after. The sharp increase in food banks in this country is a stark example of a community response to crisis. Visits to food banks increased from 25,899 in 2008-09 to 1,084,604 in 2014-15, according to the Trussell Trust’s figures. This speaks to a crisis in our policies in this nation and a very human response by ordinary people to that crisis. We should not have a requirement for food banks in a wealthy nation such as ours. Being ahead in our GDP and our status is not important when people are starving.

What shocks me most is the role of our social security system in forcing people to use food banks. The Trussell Trust’s figures show that just shy of 30% of people are using food banks because of benefit delays: families cannot feed themselves because of an administrative problem. That is absolutely unacceptable and shameful. Twenty-two per cent. of people use food banks due to low income. These people have jobs, but because of their pay and the uncertainty around zero-hours contracts they do not earn enough to eat. This is not right. We must act and not accept the Tory narrative, shake our heads, and throw up our hands.

The benefits statistics from advice agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux show further evidence of an unfair system that exacerbates the poverty in our communities. In the category of benefits, tax credits and national insurance advice, one single citizens advice bureau in the Bridgeton area of my constituency saw an increase in its caseload from 4,092 in 2011-12 to 7,266 in 2014-15. Its evidence shows that delays are built into the social security system at every stage, through application, mandatory reconsideration, and appeals. When people are supported by agencies such as the CAB, they are far more likely to be successful in those appeals. That clearly speaks to a system that is off-putting and difficult to navigate; it is not people-friendly. On Friday I learned of a person who waited over a year for his personal independence payment case to be processed—a whole year, for someone who needed support more than most. Who picks up the pieces? Neighbours, friends, churches, and community organisations filled the gaps when this Government forced citizens to the brink. The Government’s Budget undermines people’s sense of community and puts unsustainable strain on the vital services so many rely on.

I have seen the impact of cuts to local government over the past few years. During that time, the Scottish Government have done their utmost to protect local government from the worst of the cuts it has faced, but decisions have already resulted in significant detriment to services. Cuts were made to the flesh, with efficiency savings, reductions in office costs, and the need to work smarter. Cuts were then made to the muscle—to the staff—

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Lady with interest. Does she believe that there is any room at all for reform of the benefits system or the welfare approach to encourage more people to get into work, or support them into work, or is everything perfect in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

When the powers this Government have force people into poverty and do not help to support them at their time of need, I say that that is a crisis and that we are hamstrung in our ability to help people. This Government expect the Scottish Government to mitigate the worst of their policies, but we should not exist to do so. Give us the powers, and we will do what we can.

Cuts have now come to the bone. Service provision has been removed, including things that make no logical sense to cut because such low-level interventions save money down the line. Sheltered housing services, which keep the elderly active, and services such as the Glasgow Association for Mental Health, which prevents those with mental health problems from slipping into crisis, have had their funding removed. This makes no sense: we can spend to save by investing at a certain level, but the cuts now mean that local government has to make such choices.

I do not know what the full impact will be of cuts that are starting to amputate huge chunks of our local bodies, but I very much worry that they will threaten the life of the patient. Local government serves both a social and an economic purpose, and the shrinking of public services takes well-paid and useful jobs out of areas and damages small business. In the past few days, the Local Government Association analysis has suggested that a £3.3 billion cut in 2016-17, or some 12%, will mean potentially devastating choices in many areas. These are not arbitrary cuts or figures on a balance sheet; they affect lives.

The proposed housing changes will have a significant impact. In Scotland, we take the attitude that a house is a home. That does not vary depending on whether someone’s house is a bought house or a rented one. I know from my case load that a social rented home in Glasgow is very desirable indeed. The huge numbers on housing waiting lists highlighted by organisations such as Shelter certainly seem to bear that out.

A lot of what has been said in the Budget seems to assume that markets will take care of the housing crisis in this country, but I would turn that contention on its head. The commercial rental market has driven up rents to the point at which people on average or even generous wages cannot afford to live, particularly in this city.

[Richard Fuller]

The acting leader of the official Opposition has said that their goal is not to oppose just for the sake of doing so. The hon. Lady has not mentioned anything in the Budget with which she agrees. Does she disagree with the acting leader of the Opposition?

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman will find that the Scottish National party takes its own stance on many issues and does not follow the Labour party.

The problem with market rents is not, as the Red Book implies at paragraph 1.154, with social rents. I believe that, by and large, council and housing association rents are fair, not subsidised. I was glad that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned the proposed pay-to-stay policy, and I agree with a lot of what she said on that. The policy will drive people out of the communities they call home, push out key workers on modest salaries and all but ghettoise swathes of our towns and cities. The proposals are unfair in that local authorities will not see the benefit of the policy, because their share from increased rents will go back to the Exchequer, while local housing associations get to keep the funds. If the Government insist on pursuing this daft policy, they should at least give an even playing field to all housing providers to allow them to invest in new housing.

I note that there is a proposal to end so-called lifetime tenancies. Long tenancies can contribute positively to the fabric of our communities by ensuring that people stay and make their lives in an area and that they belong to it. They are part of what makes renting with a housing association or a local council attractive, as opposed to the uncertainty of the private sector, where people have to move all the time.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Lady is making her case, but is there anything in the Budget with which she agrees? Does she support the new national living wage and the cut in rents for housing association tenants?

[Alison Thewliss]

I have made it abundantly clear that it is not a living wage; it is a rebadging of the national minimum wage, and it is not good enough. [Interruption.] Would Government Members give me a break?

Long tenancies give a degree of certainty and reduce costs to housing providers, who know that a tenant is there for the long term and do not constantly have to manage the turnover of stock. That is costly for housing associations and local councils to manage, so knowing that a tenant will stay reduces their costs. The Government should think very carefully about this policy’s impact on well-established and strong communities.

This Government seem to be making a further attack on the social rented sector and its tenants, following the distress caused by the bedroom tax. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that only 6% of affected tenants were actually able to move, and that 50% of those who did not move fell into arrears. I am glad that the Scottish Government were able to mitigate that, but it is another example of a policy built to deal with a London problem that did not exist in Scotland, and which simply punishes people for their circumstances. The Scottish Government should not exist simply to mitigate the policies of another Government. That is unfair and unsustainable.

The Government are also in real danger of undermining their own work on city deals. One of the intended outcomes of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal is to help long-term unemployed people back to work, and if the actions of this Tory Government undermine that by slashing benefits and making life harder for people who are looking to work, that will undermine the potential success of the deal. We must co-ordinate and work together. We need job-creating powers in Scotland and more than the simple power to mitigate the wrongheaded approach of this Government.

Although I say that, the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) will be glad to find that I welcome the further development of city deals in the Budget. They will go some way to redressing the imbalance in the UK economy, and not before time. Looking at the rhetoric about the northern powerhouse, I would suggest that it is perhaps a final admission of the fundamental failure of the UK economy. London is indeed the giant suction machine that the former Business Secretary spoke of, and the map on page 67 illustrates that investment in the south and east of England is focused through the prism of how best to serve London rather than to build up those areas in their own right and advance the economy.

I have attended Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates on city deals for Aberdeen and Cardiff and I listened with great interest to the debate on elected mayors. I have also followed discussions on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in the other place. I am keen to see the development of deals that meet local needs and have been disappointed in some of those debates to find that the wishes of local people seemed to rank behind the pet project of some local authorities and the requirements of business. If more powers come to cities, it should be to serve the ambitions and priorities of local people to raise their opportunities in life and to make things better according to local demands. They must also be the devolution of funding to match those powers, as devolution and the reform of local government cannot be a cover for passing on cuts.

I am of course delighted to see continued commitment to the city deal for Glasgow and Clyde Valley, which the UK Government established in partnership with the Scottish Government, each putting in £500 million, with £130 million coming from the eight local authorities involved. I hope, too, that the deal will involve listening to local people. It is early days and the work of the joint board is just getting under way. I commend the fledgling city deals for Aberdeen and Inverness, which are mentioned in the Red Book, and ask that attention be paid to potential deals in Scotland’s other cities.

In considering city deals, we must also consider how we support areas outwith large conurbations. Rural areas should not be left behind, and if they are it will only exacerbate the difficulties of rurality. The approach in Scotland has been about collaboration through the Scottish Cities Alliance rather than cutthroat competition, and I believe that that is more productive. Setting regions against one another and failing to seize the opportunities to make links will only waste money in the long run. I note with interest that an Oyster-type system is being considered for Manchester. That is of course welcome, but it should not operate in a way that builds barriers between different regions. There is much opportunity for interoperability rather than running in entirely different directions and I note with some concern the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about incentives for businesses. If we are not careful, that could lead to a race to the bottom on standards in different areas.

I would also guard against the temptation to reach for shiny prestige projects at the expense of more sustainable projects that benefit local communities and urge that further attention is paid to the importance of community benefit policies within public contracts. They were used effectively in Glasgow during the Commonwealth games and on other projects and are a simple way to ensure that local people get jobs, training and investment in every large or small infrastructure project that comes along.

A Westminster Hall debate last week touched on the fact that elected mayors had been rejected in some areas in local referendums. It would seem to me to be unwise to overrule that democratic right, but the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), said:

“I reiterate that where there is a request for the ambitious devolution of a suite of powers to a combined authority, there must be a metro mayor, but no city will be forced to take on those powers or to have a metro mayor, just as no county will be forced to make any governance changes.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 187WH.]

That seems to make no sense and to disrespect local democracy. People can have the funding, but only if they have the mayor. If people do not want a local mayor and think that the power is better vested in their local authority and local democracy, the Government should respect that. Members might also like to note that there is no such obligation for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley plan to come with an elected mayor.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting point, but if she trusts local authorities in that regard it is legitimate to trust them to vary certain levels of taxation within an area and to increase their prudential borrowing against a revenue stream. Would she support us on such measures?

[Alison Thewliss]

Having come from local government, of course I trust it to do those things, but it should not be forced with a gun put to its head.

I will close by asking the Secretary of State to reflect on the purposes of power being devolved, and on how best we support local communities. People will be unsurprised that we in the SNP reject the austerity agenda, and the people who voted for us support our policy. That austerity agenda has already led to so much damage to the fabric of our communities, and there is only so much that people can take.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She will recall the Chancellor coming to Derby in February to launch his long-term economic plan for the midlands, one point of which was that the Tories would deliver electrification of the midland main line. The fact that they have now shelved it and there is nothing in the Red Book about when they are going to bring it back on track—excuse the pun—is an absolute disgrace and the Government are letting down the people of the east midlands.

I was talking about tax credits, and let me make it clear that I cannot support a Budget that spends £1 billion giving an inheritance tax cut to some of the richest estates in the country while cutting deeply into tax credits. In Leicester, the diverse city I represent, larger families are very typical and we are going to see further cuts to tax credits, which I fear will increase the already severe child poverty in our city.

A small change to tax credits that has not been remarked upon is the decrease in the income disregard, and I am worried about what it might mean. Conservative Members may recall that in 2002-03 this measure was brought in to deal with the overpayments that were plaguing the system. The problem might not now arise as the Government’s IT systems may have been updated, but I will be interested to know whether Ministers are confident that this small change to tax credits will not lead to the overpayment problems we had in 2002-03.

The increase in the national minimum wage—it is not a living wage, despite what the Chancellor told us at the Dispatch Box—was a bit of a conjuring trick. It was a bit of semantic prestidigitation from the Chancellor—[Laughter.] I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that we are intellectuals in Leicester—perhaps it is not the same in Hartlepool. He should just ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It was a conjuring trick by the Chancellor—I will stick to that terminology—because he said he was increasing the living wage. It was an increase in the national minimum wage for over-25s—that is a pay increase and of course we would welcome it—but it will be interesting to see what happens to the Chancellor’s gamble on whether the jobs market can withstand that increase and we will watch that carefully. That increase, however, is not going to make up for these tax credits cuts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that that is—

[Alison Thewliss]

rose—

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I hope the hon. Lady does not mind, but I am not going to give way. The IFS said that that is arithmetically impossible. So when the Chancellor tried to pretend that by increasing the minimum wage he is compensating for the loss of tax credits, it was a complete conjuring trick.

I wish to make a couple of final points about trade, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool talked about persuasively. I agree that we need to do more to increase trade. I am particularly concerned about our trade with India, because we now export less to India than we did in 2010, despite the Government’s rhetoric. I am particularly worried about the state of the global economy. Our current account deficit has widened to 5.9% of GDP, the OBR says that we have the largest annual peacetime deficit since at least the 1830s and we are £367 billion short of the £1 trillion goal on exports. Higher education is a great export of ours, which is why I am deeply disappointed, yet again, by the rhetoric from the Business Secretary telling international students that they should not come to this country to study. For a city such as Leicester, which has two universities and benefits from international students, that is very damaging. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is shaking his head, but those were the remarks of the Business Secretary so he should have a word with him.

We know that there is a hiatus in global trade, with commodity prices falling. In the foreign affairs debate during our consideration of the Gracious Speech, I spoke about the problems of China and warned of the frenzies on the Chinese stock market, with millions of Chinese borrowing money that they cannot repay to invest in what they think will be one-way bets. Last Thursday, the Chinese stock market came to a juddering halt. After just three weeks, investors have lost $3 trillion; there has been a 30% fall in China’s stock market, with a loss in value equivalent to the UK’s economic output in the last years. That could deter investor confidence across the Asian nations. We have also seen weakness in the US economy. Investing in China is not a one-way bet. Of course I support the Chancellor’s move to sign up Britain to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, but we will be foolish if we think that investing in China is a one-way bet.

Given these global headwinds—not just in Greece but in China—the weakness in the American economy and falling commodity prices, this Budget was a missed opportunity. In this Budget we should have seen more investment in manufacturing, in higher education, and in science and research and development. Given what we are seeing on the world stage, this Budget may well be considered politically clever for a Chancellor trying to move into No. 10 Downing Street, but I fear it has left Britain ill-prepared in an increasingly uncertain world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in a debate in which there have been two excellent maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton).

There has been much talk about the northern powerhouse, which is, quite rightly, a priority for this Government. I wish to talk about the midlands engine, another key priority, which is powering a significant proportion of the very welcome growth that is being recorded under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The east midlands has a higher proportion of its regional GDP in manufacturing and a higher proportion of those in employment working in manufacturing industries than any other region of our great nation.

My constituency and those that surround it are achieving some of the highest growth rates in the country, which is due in part to infrastructure investments and decisions made by the previous Conservative Government back in the ’80s and ’90s. The instigation of the new national forest and the development of the M42/A42 corridor have allowed my area, and many of the surrounding constituencies, to move on from our coalmining past and build a new economic model, using the huge advantage of our geographic location—at the very centre of the country—our hard-working constituents, and our minerals and other natural resources. Such advantages have seen us become a hub for distribution, which has seen rapid growth over recent years as this Government’s long-term economic plan bears fruit.

This Government, in the great Conservative tradition, are laying the foundations for growth in constituencies of the east midlands. I welcome the Chancellor’s important announcement that fuel duty is to be frozen again. When Labour was in power, it saw fuel duty as nothing more than a cash cow in its war on the motorist. Thanks to the way in which this Government have brought the public finances under control, we have kept the price of fuel down, which benefits my semi-rural constituency. We have no railway stations, so a car is not a luxury, but a necessity. The freeze provides stability to the distribution firms in my constituency, many of which operate in a hub around East Midlands airport. It should be borne in mind that more than 80% of goods are transported by road. By keeping down the price of fuel, we are keeping down inflation and the cost of living across the country.

Thousands of jobs in my constituency are dependent on East Midlands airport, and I welcome the Government’s recognition that action may well be required when air passenger duty rates are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I believe there is a case for going far further on air passenger duty. The UK has the highest air travel tax anywhere in the world, which puts the country at a disadvantage in the global race. If the Scottish Government were to cut the rate of APD by half, the rest of the UK would be left at a severe competitive disadvantage, with English companies and families paying more to do business or go on holiday than their Scottish counterparts. That would be fundamentally unfair.

[Alison Thewliss]

It will be a terrible shame if the UK Government have to mitigate the actions of another Government. Now the hon. Gentleman might know how that feels to the Scottish people.

[Andrew Bridgen]

If the Scottish Government decided to cut APD, that would be tax competition and it would behove the British Government to respond, or we would see airports such as Newcastle and possibly Manchester put under severe pressure. I will urge the Treasury to review APD rates and consider the effects that this could have on decisions made in Scotland. I will also ask the Treasury to look at the effect of reducing air passenger duty for the under-12s and under-16s next year, which has already gone through. When a tax seen as excessively high is reduced, that is often followed by an increase in activity. That reduction will not cost £70 million, because far more families with children will take holidays from the UK.

On the area around the airport, I welcome the fact that the Government are inviting bids for a new round of enterprise zones, as I believe a bid will be coming from my district and the local enterprise partnership to encourage growth and jobs in the area and to take advantage of infrastructure improvements, such as the dualling of the A453 from my constituency to Nottingham. This is a scheme that has been spoken about since before I had a driving licence—a long time ago—but has been delivered by a Conservative-led Government. I look forward to going, this time next week, to the opening of the new dual carriageway to Nottingham.

I welcome the progress being made on the devolution of powers, and the fact that Leicester and Leicestershire are one of the two east midlands combined authority proposal bids that the Government have received. From speaking to those involved, I know that there is great enthusiasm for and interest in this bid in both the county and the city, and I hope this can be translated into action, which will benefit all the people living in Leicester and Leicestershire.

We have a productivity gap in the UK. It should be noted that if the UK matched the productivity of the USA, GDP would be some 31% higher, equating to an extra £21,000 per annum per household. We therefore need investment in skills and infrastructure to narrow this gap, and I support the innovative move this Government are considering to deliver that. A combined authority in my county could contribute to that. Through devolution to such local bodies, we can respond to infrastructure issues and skills shortages far more rapidly and effectively than can officials in Whitehall. I look forward to funds flowing to the regions for such projects.

I welcome the Government’s actions on the development of brownfield sites and on road building, which will be of huge benefit to the building and mineral industries and the two large brick factories in my constituency.

Overall, the Budget moves us another step away from the centralised, welfare-dependent client state created by Labour Governments to a productive economy based on low taxes, high skills, high wages and devolved decision making, and it gives this Conservative Government the opportunity to institute long-term economic and infrastructure decisions in the same way as the previous Conservative Government did, which served my constituency so well and laid the economic foundations that are now being built on, ensuring that the midlands engine is firing on all cylinders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow an extremely gracious maiden speech by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I particularly noted his kind words for the staff of the Houses of Parliament, which I thought was a particularly noteworthy thing to put in one’s maiden speech, and his kindness to his namesake who took his seat on the aeroplane. The hon. Gentleman follows a man, Gregg McClymont, who was probably one of the most intelligent Members and was one of the most fair-minded, so he certainly has big shoes to fill. He has made a very good start with his maiden speech today.

For me, the test of the Budget is whether it fits with what the good people of Bedford and Kempston talked to me about during the election campaign. As mine was a marginal seat where people had a straight choice between Labour and Conservative, and obviously chose Conservative, I listened intently to what they had to say. Their first and most abiding thought was that they appreciated the need to continue with the Government’s economic policies. They appreciated the stability that those policies had brought to their lives after the tremendous fears about the economy at the time of the 2010 election, when it could have gone either way for the United Kingdom. They appreciated the need for deficit reduction and understood the fundamental point that it is unfair on our children and grandchildren for this generation to continue to live beyond its means, and that somehow, in the fairest way possible, the Government have to find their way to getting the books in balance and to starting to repay the debts. That is the trajectory that was outlined in the Budget.

The second thing that people in Bedford and Kempston told me was that they understood the need for welfare reform and benefit reform to be at the centre of the changes that would be made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) said, for many people, the idea that a benefit cap of £26,000 is somehow fair to them, when they pay their taxes—the median income in Bedford is £19,000—does not strike them as fair. People in Bedford will think that the Government’s proposals in the Budget to reduce the benefit cap, both in London and separately outside London, are fair. They will also see changes such as the limiting of child tax credit to two children, the introduction of a maximum income for staying in council housing and the changes to housing benefit as fair and reasonable.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair that a woman who has been raped will have to declare that to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions to qualify for her child to receive tax credits?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady repeats a point that one of her colleagues made in an earlier day of the debates on the Budget. We need to examine in this debate the broad range of the impact of the Government’s policies. When the Government make any change, they are moving big blocks around—that is one reason why I am a Conservative, actually. When that happens, there will be specific examples of an impact on people’s lives that the general policy was not supposed to have. The hon. Lady should raise those instances directly with Ministers, so that changes can be considered. However, we should not undermine the entire sweep of Government policy because of a particular example. I have found the Government reasonable in understanding the need for certain changes to benefit policies if they have a deleterious impact on individuals.