Homelessness among Refugees

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing this debate. As we have already heard, those who have been granted refugee status are given 28 days to receive the required identity documentation, to secure a source of income and to find somewhere to live before any current support from the Home Office is terminated. For most, this proves absolutely impossible and, sadly, the majority of people without children become homeless. As we have heard, if someone has claimed asylum and been given refugee status, asylum support will stop 28 days after the decision and in the case of section 4 support it could stop as early as 21 days after.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), and of others, who have stated that the 28-day period is simply not sufficient and that a review of it must be undertaken.

I will also touch on the comments about the support that the Home Office provides. The outsourcing of that support—asylum accommodation—to private companies could have made the process more seamless, on the basis that there would be more opportunity for different types of accommodation to be provided. In reality, the system does not work quite like that. That has meant, for example, that local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which had expressed an intention to submit a bid, realised that the system was far too unwieldy and the tender process would have made things impossible. Essentially, we are stuck with exactly the same providers and a very similar model, despite the criticisms of the system in a Home Affairs Committee report last year.

Move-on support has been mentioned. Too often, those who are granted refugee status are evicted from their asylum accommodation and simply left to get on with things. To anyone, that would be challenge enough, but to someone who is an asylum seeker or who has been granted asylum in this country, simply having 28 days to start to review their life and to bring everything together is undoubtedly a challenge.

The Government should be providing more extensive support with a new scheme called the warm handover, but in practice this scheme does not appear to be working. Also, it takes a long time before the handover to the benefits system actually happens. We have heard instances of constituents who have waited for three to six months, or for even longer, and that is simply not good enough. For those who are unable to work, because the right to work has not been granted, that delay can leave them in destitution and potentially in dangerous situations, either living on the streets or relying on temporary accommodation.

The Home Affairs Committee recommended that the 28-day move-on period to transition between Home Office support and housing to mainstream benefits should be extended, and that view has been echoed throughout the Chamber today. It is a sensible suggestion, particularly given the delays in benefits such as universal credit being sorted out; it is the only way in which people can move forward in their lives.

At the end of the day, refugees are people and they deserve to be treated with respect. Discretionary leave and humanitarian protections are eligible for allocation from a council to refugees, so they can get the help they need if they become homeless, including helping them to claim housing benefit. Obviously, however, that is constrained and across this country local authorities are doing the very best they can, but ultimately people are reliant on the third sector—the charity sector, faith communities and others—and the good will of people generally to ensure that they are not left homeless or destitute.

That means that many who are seeking asylum or are in a period of move-on support are often heavily reliant either on local government or on charity sector providers such as Refugees at Home and Room For Refugees. Those organisations offer help in finding a spare room, volunteered by a member of the public, to those who have been granted refugee status following a successful asylum application but then have only the 28 days, those whose application for asylum is ongoing, and those who have been refused asylum and are appealing.

The reality, as outlined by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), is that those who have not been granted the right to work or who have been caught in the bureaucracy of the process are stuck in that limbo for longer than anyone would wish them to be. It is a mantra of the Government that everyone should want to get back into work, but there are people who want to work and provide for themselves but are not being granted the ability to do so, and that is a barrier to progress and integration.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), the poor conditions of the accommodation and the limited financial support is seriously damaging life chances and opportunities. Room For Refugees, which has hosted a total of more than 61,000 nights of shelter and has transformed thousands of lives, has seen a 279% increase in the numbers hosted in the last year, which alone should tell the Government that there is a problem they need to do more to address. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined, Northern Ireland has led the way with the transition guide provided by its law centres. That could be rolled out nationally and be one way in which to signpost people through, whether it be the 28 days or a period voluntarily extended by the Government, giving people a step for a hint about where to start.

The asylum process is complex and its causes often extreme. It requires the difficult task of collecting convincing evidence of an ongoing threat to life or freedom in a person’s country of origin. During that period, many who have sought humanitarian protection, due to circumstances such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation, domestic violence and human trafficking, live in fear of being returned to their country. They are often traumatised, and some have experienced torture, rape or imprisonment. Many have lost family, homes and livelihoods and some have serious physical and mental health problems. They are granted asylum and are then forced into myriad bureaucracies. It is simply untenable to say that in 28 days they can turn their life around. Facing refusal and subsequent homelessness and destitution greatly exacerbates their difficulties, as they become unable to meet basic needs. I challenge anyone to try to live on £37 a week—it is unrealistic. How torturous must it be for those who have been stuck in the system for a long time, knowing that they want to work, and could work, but are simply not allowed to?

Those who receive a positive decision on their application —which is after appeal in about 50% to 60% of cases—are then permitted to work and must move on to find their own accommodation. That sounds laudable in reality, but if they have already had to go through an appeal process how much longer will it take them? Without support, it can be a difficult process, and it can be one of the reasons refugees find themselves homeless.

The purpose of this debate is to consider homelessness among the asylum community, but those who are seeking asylum and are refugees require support and encouragement and the Government could do more. Ultimately, this is producing costs in many other areas. I hope that the Minister will take on board all the comments from across the House and consider what further action can be taken.

Good Parliament Report

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

With you in the Chair today, Mrs Moon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) stated, the report, which we are grateful to Professor Sarah Childs for and to Mr Speaker for commissioning, outlines some clearly much-needed change in this place.

I stress at this point that my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and I were each elected as councillors—young, female councillors, and some of the youngest female councillors in Scotland. There is no shortage of talent in our local authorities, and the job does not end here in this Parliament, because we must continue it in local authorities too.

I was probably the most unlikely candidate ever to find myself in this esteemed institution. I had no desire to be here for a great many years, and in fact it will come as no surprise to Members that I actively campaigned against this institution. None the less, we are here and we are part of the UK for now, so it is worth stating that as a young LGBT woman who was a young carer, getting into an institution such as a university even to get into the door of this place was one of the biggest challenges that I faced. I faced those challenges, so I know that young men and women up and down this country face the same challenges every day. For so many people even to get into this place is inconceivable and unimaginable.

I stress that I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee, the first ever Women and Equalities Committee. It is long overdue for this Parliament to have a discussion about equalities—not only for women, but for every single protected characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010.

I want to take this opportunity to summarise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, because there is no better way to make them. Sadly, this place is still full of middle-class white men, 10% of whom are Etonites. That is apparently a good place to go to school. However, there are many children up and down this country who did not have the benefit of such privilege and such an esteemed education and will never enter this place. This is their Parliament, and they deserve to have their voices heard.

It is worth also saying that this place’s job is to be representative. It is hard to believe that when we witness middle-aged white men waste time by filibustering their way through debates in the Chamber. I distinctly remember that happening during a debate on marriage. That sends a message to young people at home that this place is out of touch and has no grip on reality. [Interruption.] The summary of the report sets out standards of behaviour; the Government Members who are chuntering from a sedentary position could learn some decorum. Clearly, whether we deal with standards of behaviour or gather data, we should ensure that new parliamentarians get more than one minute to sum up in a debate after the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has waxed lyrical in his ever-entertaining way about how much he adores a former Prime Minister. Trust me—we know that.

The report has some practical implications. Gathering data to ensure that this place is representative is a start. We must consider how we measure the success of the work that we do. The proposed procedural requirements and changes would be helpful. Remote voting would make a great difference to those who have just had a child and simply cannot make the journey—and why should they? We should modernise the dress code. It’s 2016. Hello—no one wears top hats anymore. There is no cost to enhancing the crèche facility and allowing people to access this institution. This is their Parliament and they should be able to access it. It is not for the privileged few, and it is not only for Etonites.

I am conscious that I am running out of time, so let me say honourably that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central has been an absolute champion on issues such as breastfeeding, the tampon tax and the rape clause. To me, she is an award-winning MP. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is also a role model and champion for gender equality. He is the father of two daughters, and I would welcome the opportunity to have a Daughters of the Vote style initiative here in Westminster; such women rightly deserve to take a seat in our Chamber. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and would love to see the report take legs, because Professor Sarah Childs’s work deserves to be heard and acknowledged.

Concentrix: Tax Credit Claimants

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is right that we need to focus on the responsibility of the Government, because that is what we Members of Parliament can most influence. The first lesson for the Government is that payment-by-results contracts should be avoided. Concentrix staff were under pressure to perform—we are told that they were expected to open 40 to 50 new investigations a day—so they regularly proceeded on totally flimsy evidence.

I spoke to Concentrix about the source of the evidence it received, because I could not really believe that a company would proceed on the basis of such information —“Somebody else once rented this flat”, “The electoral register has this person on it”, “Someone has had their post sent to this address,” and so on. The director of Concentrix told me:

“HMRC provide Concentrix with the claimant cases that they believe qualify for review.”

So the source of the evidence is HMRC. He continued:

“These cases are selected by HMRC based on its own internal system which flags where there may be the potential for fraud or error. There were 1,497,000 cases provided from the Authority based on their initial assessment of risk or error and fraud.

Concentrix subsequently runs a further series of checks to substantiate the potential risk of fraud and error and to refine the list of cases that are then checked. In the latest campaign, Concentrix deselected 80% of the cases originally provided to us by HMRC. This means we contacted 324,000 and the remaining 1,173,000 were not worked by Concentrix.”

According to him, HMRC even pressed Concentrix to investigate cases in which it could not name the alleged co-resident.

We have been blaming Concentrix for using flimsy evidence when I think that the source of that flimsy evidence is actually HMRC. My first question to the Minister is: where is the so-called evidence sourced from? Is it the Post Office, credit agencies or out-of-date electoral registers? Is it true that the Treasury pressed Concentrix to pursue cases with so little data that the alleged co-resident’s name was not even known? When tax credit claimants were written to about the investigation of their case, the alleged co-resident was not named in that letter. Many of my constituents have said, “How can I prove a negative?”. Of course, if they had got through on the telephone, they would have been told the alleged co-resident’s name, but getting through on the telephone was not straightforward, as we all know.

I remind the Minister that section 16 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 gives the power to amend or terminate an award where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an award is wrong or that there is no entitlement. It also gives the power to request information or evidence where there are grounds for believing that the award might be wrong. That law is clear. It was confirmed in an Upper Tribunal judgment by Judge Wikeley that the burden of proof for stopping a tax credit award lies with HMRC, but that was reversed in these cases: the authorities proceeded to close claims without reasonable grounds that they could evidence. They demanded excessive evidence from applicants who sought to disprove allegations that they had claimed the wrong amount for childcare or were living with an unnamed partner.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I raised the important question of Concentrix back in February. One of my vulnerable constituents, a single mother of three, was put on trial and lost her tax credits for six weeks over Christmas, only to be informed that she had no case to answer. I ask the right hon. Lady to join me not only in condemning the practices of Concentrix, which she is doing more than capably, but in calling on the Government to renounce this terrible, abhorrent practice entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Indeed. There is an important principle in the UK’s administrative law that public authorities act on the basis of evidence and law, and that if they dispute someone’s claim, they should have a good reason. The HMRC charter says that people have a right to be treated as honest. Well, the lone parents who were targeted did not feel that they had that right. Nearly a third of claimants applied for a mandatory reassessment, and they were overwhelmingly successful. Will the Minister guarantee that in future the Government will put acting legally before getting money out of citizens who do not have any? That is the question at the heart of this debate: illegal action has screwed money —excuse my language—out of citizens and damaged their ability to do their main job, which is to look after their families.

HMRC implies that the reason for dropping the contract is a sudden decline in the level of customer service, in particular the backlog of 200,000 incomplete cases and the terrible performance of Concentrix’s telephone service. Concentrix responded by saying that the case numbers were far above predicted rates. In August this year, they were nearly five times the forecast rates, which were developed by HMRC. One contributor to the backlog was HMRC’s automatically terminating 45,000 cases—guess when? In the week beginning 8 August. Where do mums and dads go in that week? They go on holiday, because it is the only time they can take their children on holiday, because otherwise they are at school. The Government have form when it comes to sending out such letters and starting consultations at the beginning of August. If the Minister can say that one of the things he is going to do is ensure that this nastiness in August will end, I think we would all be pleased to hear it.

Why were the predictions of the number of cases so brutally wrong? Why was the letter sent out on 8 August to terminate all those cases on the grounds that they had not fulfilled their information returns? In management terms, it would be more sensible to spread such a policy across the year, so that when someone does not respond to an information return they get a notice at the time. I do not believe that all the cases were started in August. I do not believe that thousands and thousands of people made their first tax credit application in the week beginning 8 August, yet so many of their cases were terminated in that week, causing extreme chaos in a situation that was already brutally chaotic.

It seems to me that the discovery of a service failure just after I sought this debate and just after the Department was called before the Work and Pensions Committee does not bear looking at. A cursory look at Mumsnet web chats, at the Child Poverty Action Group’s advice logs or at all the letters that the Minister and civil servants have received from MPs would have made it clear that the company’s performance has been unacceptable for a long time. Will the Minister ensure that any new contracts with private companies will permit a swift end if performance is substandard and ensure that the Government get information about the standards that are achieved in a timely fashion?

The current contract states that if Concentrix delivers less than 97% accuracy, its commission will be reduced, but I have discovered that in this case accuracy does not mean making the right payments to the right people; it means jumping through the hoops devised by HMRC. Let us have a real definition of accuracy, which is that the right payments should go to the right people and should not go to the wrong people. We all accept that people should not be paid tax credits wrongly, but accuracy must be judged on the real results, not on some process that is extremely burdensome.

I am concerned about the fact that, as my hon. Friends have said, the burden has particularly hit women and mums. What equality impact assessment was done at the start of the contract? We know that David Cameron called such assessments “bureaucratic nonsense”, but it seems to me that this issue is crying out for one, because someone should have thought about the fact that mums would be targeted. Of course, some dads were drawn into the net, and I am not denigrating their experience in any way, but it is not acceptable for Government policy to lay a particular burden on mothers in such circumstances.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the UK Government have prioritised austerity measures? More than 80% of women have been adversely affected by this austerity-driven Government’s welfare reforms and cuts.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Not only are more women affected than men, but they are affected by more costs than men. Four fifths of the savings that the Government have made through their so-called austerity programme have been contributed by women. One thing for which I was really proud of the previous Labour Government was that they increased the amount of resource that went into women’s purses compared with men’s wallets. Through measures such as child tax credits, they dealt with maternal poverty pretty effectively. The current Government are doing their jolly best to reverse that progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I will make some progress, and if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he may well hear some things that are helpful to that question. Before I turn to those points, let me outline what we are doing.

First, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in the House last month, HMRC is not passing any new cases to Concentrix. We have been very clear that the contract will not be renewed beyond the end date of May 2017. Secondly, staff at HMRC are, as we speak, making every effort to resolve all open cases to ensure people get the payments they need and deserve. HMRC took back 181,000 outstanding cases from Concentrix and it has already dealt with more than 149,000—82%—of them. I would like to reassure everyone whose case remains open that we are making every effort to complete those cases within the next couple of weeks. It really is a priority.

[Angela Crawley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Kirby]

I will not give way.

Thirdly, anyone who does not agree with Concentrix’s decision has a right to ask for a review called a mandatory reconsideration. HMRC has allocated its own staff to carry out such reviews within 21 days of the request. It is a large organisation with flexible staffing, so it is able to deal with peaks and troughs of demand. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the issue of extra costs, but I am confident that there will not be any.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

As I said, HMRC has a large number of staff, who are flexible and deal with the peaks and troughs of demand. If HMRC, after receiving the relevant information and reviewing the case, finds that the claimant is entitled to tax credits, they can expect to see that money in their bank accounts within four working days.

Lastly, we are working with hon. Members to help their constituents who are struggling to resolve any issues. We have extended opening hours and have put extra advisers on the tax credits hotline for MPs, which is now handling about 200 calls a day. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, following last month’s drop-in session, will be holding another session tomorrow in the House of Commons Library.

[Angela Crawley]

The news that HMRC will not renew the contract with Concentrix is welcome. Those responsible for these reprehensible practices should be held to account. When these services are brought back in-house, we must ensure that the blanket, baseless accusations and sanctions that have been applied will stop and that compensation will be made for the Government’s mistake. Will the Minister take the opportunity to apologise to my constituents and the women and men up and down the country who have experienced the Government’s failure?

[Simon Kirby]

None of us in this Chamber wants anyone not to receive money that they are entitled to, especially if they are parents with young, vulnerable children. It is up to all of us to help our constituents and ensure we once again provide a fast and efficient service to everyone.

Let me turn to some of the issues that were raised. I do not have a lot of time, so hon. Members will have to bear with me. I acknowledge the points made by many hon. Members about the contract. HMRC will be undertaking a lessons-learned exercise, and it will share those lessons across the Government. It is clear that they will help to inform other contracts in the future.

Draft Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential provisions and modifications) Order 2016

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 General Committees

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

As has been stated, the key provisions of this order ultimately deal with tackling crime as a joint responsibility of the Scottish and UK Governments, incorporating joined-up working and best practice. The fact is that victims of human trafficking and exploitation face horrendous suffering and there is no place for it in modern society. The new legislation to which the order relates will create data protections and increase the maximum penalty for those who perpetrate this serious offence from 14 years to life imprisonment. That sends out an incredibly strong signal that Scotland and the UK is a hostile place for traffickers and that we will not tolerate trafficking and exploitation.

We will continue to work in partnership on international and UK levels. The Scottish Government will always aim to make Scotland a hostile place for traffickers and to identify better and support potential and confirmed victims. I welcome the order.

Finance Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it must be a concern that the measure will lead many families not to take out necessary insurance, with those that do placing themselves in further hardship.

Those negative effects on the poor are matched by giveaway proposals for the rich. The extent of the commitment given to the rich is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the Government devote no fewer than 13 pages of the Finance Bill to inheritance tax, ensuring that many loopholes are possible for the benefit of those with high-value homes. There is even a proposal to increase the allowance each year, based on the consumer price index, and to round that up to the nearest £1,000 in case the poor dears find it hard to cope.

The fact that the Government find it so essential to make changes that benefit holders of great wealth in our society, at the same time as they cut support for the most vulnerable, says much about the moral choices that they make. There is also a wider economic cost to such choices. The combination of sucking demand out of local economies by penalising the poorest in our society, combined with the largesse bestowed on the wealthy —who will no doubt find ways of spending or saving that do not benefit local economies—makes the simple point that the Government care more about rewarding their friends than about fixing the economy.

Let me move on to the Government approach to very high earners, who for years have found ways of avoiding and evading tax. I admit that I liked some of the Chancellor’s rhetoric during his Budget speech about closing tax loopholes and ensuring a fairer return from those with high earnings—often, people who earn more than £1 million per year—but looking at the detail in the Bill, it is clear that there is still a considerable distance to travel. For example, much more needs doing to close the so-called Mayfair loophole. It cannot be right that private equity fund managers will be able to continue paying capital gains tax at only 28% on so-called carried interest, rather than income tax at 45%. It is probably not unreasonable to estimate that more than £300 million extra revenue could be gained by tightening the rules in that area alone, and that would enable at least some mitigation of the worst excesses of the Government’s welfare proposals.

The Chancellor is undoubtedly highly skilled politically in his presentation—indeed, in that regard he may have been taking lessons from my predecessor in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. As always, however, the devil is very much in the detail, and the detail leaves too many loopholes.

Let me now address measures that are necessary to tackle some of the areas contributing to weaknesses in productivity—a matter that the Minister addressed.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

If the Government are serious about improving productivity, should they not also be serious about improving capital investment?

[Roger Mullin]

Absolutely, and I am glad my hon. Friend raised a matter that I will come to shortly. Investment is critical for productivity in this country.

I am struck by how the detail of the Finance Bill suggests that, rather than addressing key issues in a positive manner, the Government present some highly counterproductive measures on productivity. I and my colleagues initially welcomed some of the changes to the banking levy and the introduction of a surcharge. However, whether through carelessness or incompetence—what I am about to say surely could not be planned—the scope of the changes now captures both challenger banks and many building societies whose practices are very different from those of the big banks. Challenger banks already face additional hurdles compared with the big banks, and as the British Bankers Association has pointed out:

“The surcharge’s disproportionate effect on smaller and challenger banks was evidenced by the resulting fall in their share prices following the announcement, in some instances of over 10%.”

Of more concern to me and my colleagues is that the BBA has estimated that:

“Our preliminary analysis based on modest growth projections across the sector suggests that the contraction in lending could be around £10 billion over five years”.

If there is anything we do not need when trying to boost productivity, it is a contraction in lending, particularly for SMEs. If that was to be the only drag on productivity it would be bad enough, but let me turn to another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of the SNP amendment and, hopefully, to persuade the House to deny the Bill a Second Reading.

Before I go into the details of the Bill, I want to deal with a question of overview. Over the years, we have grown used to hearing glib statements from the Government, and soundbites rather than substance. Many of us marvel at the fact that the Conservatives manage, without smile or grimace, to get the words “working people” out of their mouths quite so often, given that, we suspect, some of them rarely meet the working people of this country, let alone have their best interests at heart. We have also grown used to the phrase ”long-term economic plan”, although the plan has been going for five years and has so far failed to meet every single objective that was set for it by the Chancellor. The latest mantra we hear consists of six words: the Conservatives believe in “high wages, low taxes, low welfare”. That is the type of society that they want to see.

I think it was the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) who, at an early stage in the debate, asked the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), whether she agreed with the general direction indicated by those six words. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Lady, but I did not hear her response, and I think that she tried to dodge the question. Well, I do not want to dodge the question. I want to say that I consider that statement to be facetious, glib and shallow, and that it is not a statement with which my colleagues and I agree.

I want to see a society in which there are high wages, fair taxes and decent welfare provision for everyone, and that is what I think we should be aiming for. I believe that prosperity is not just about what we have as individuals, and the wealth that one family gets through a wage packet, but about the things that we have together, in our society and in our communities. I believe in the whole concept of the social wage. If we know that we have well-funded, adequate, strong public services in respect of, for instance, health and education, and if we know that we have a strong system of social insurance that gives us a safety net should we fall ill, suffer disability, or find ourselves between periods of employment, we are much richer as a result. That is our attitude, and that is the philosophy in which we believe.

Let me now deal with some of the provisions in the Bill. So far, no one has discussed the tax lock provisions in clauses 1 and 2. The Government are saying that, for the remainder of the current Parliament, they will take upon themselves a legal obligation not to increase VAT or income tax. I made some inquiries about that, because I thought it a strange thing for the Government to want to do. After all, they are the Government now, and they will be the Government next year and for the following five years. If these provisions are included in what will become the Finance Act 2015, it will only take a clause in the 2016 Finance Bill to overturn them. They are therefore literally not worth the paper on which they are written. That is another example of a Government who prefer public relations to concern about the public finances.

The second detailed issue that I want to raise is that of the personal allowance. Members on both sides of the House will probably welcome the increase in the allowance and, as we are told, the ability of people to keep a little more of what they earn; but let us not kid ourselves.

[Angela Crawley]

IFS figures state that a £1,000 increase in work allowance available to a single parent earning £12,000 would boost their income by £650 a year, whereas in contrast a £1,000 increase in personal allowance would mean a family would benefit by only £70, resulting in further child poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that this will not help families?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree with my hon. Friend and was just about to make that point, which has been endorsed by the IFS and others. The personal allowance is one lever we can use to enable people to keep more of what they earn, but we should not fool ourselves that it is going to do something about the lowest paid in our society and that it is the only thing we should do. Let us compare and contrast it with action on the work allowance, for example, which is the amount of money people are allowed to earn before they begin to lose benefit. As my hon. Friend said, increasing that by £1,000 would have a much better effect than increasing the personal allowance by £1,000.

Our manifesto had a proposal to increase the work allowance to 20% to allow people to keep more of the money they earn. That would also provide a powerful incentive for people either to go out and get higher paid work or to get more work, knowing they would be able to benefit from that and would not lose benefits as a consequence. Under these current proposals, however, someone who today has a part-time job earning, say, £5,000 a year will either lose benefits or have to work less and earn less than £5,000 to keep their benefits. Either way, their household income will go down. That will make the poorest in our society poorer still, and it is a serious indictment of this Government that that is the direction they are going in.

On inheritance tax, I do not think any Member of this House would suggest for one minute that people should not be allowed to pass on their good fortune to their children. All of us believe in that, but this is the question: when doing that, should the luckiest in our society who have benefited the most, as well as passing most of what they have on to their children, also make some contribution to other people’s children and society as a whole? That is why we have taxation, after all. Governments and their policies are about priorities and this Government have shown their priority is to look after people who live in £1 million houses and make the tax burden easier for them while clobbering the poorest in our society.

I also want to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), who proposed our amendment, and ask the Minister to examine in the context of this Bill the serious value added tax anomaly that has built up in Scotland with our police and fire and rescue services. There is an opportunity to remove this anomaly whereby the forces in Scotland are the only ones in all of these islands that have to pay VAT. Police Scotland has to pay £23 million a year to the Exchequer. That is extremely unfair and it places a great burden on that service. The money would be better spent on police officers on the streets defending us against crime. Given the Government’s apparent commitment to doing something about crime in our society, I hope they will take that on board. If Ministers cannot deal with this point in today’s debate, perhaps they will at least give an undertaking to look into it as the Bill goes to Committee.

The insurance premium tax measure is a clear example of this Bill’s policies not being about those who can afford to pay the most and who have the broadest shoulders and are able to cope with this burden. Those who live in high-crime areas are usually in poorer households and poorer communities, and they will face heavier insurance bills—if, indeed, they can afford to buy insurance. As a result of this policy, we are taxing people who have to pay those premiums in those areas more than people in the leafy suburbs who are much better able to pay. This is an iniquitous, devious little measure, and it should be rejected.

I have two further points to make. First, there is the most interesting question of this entire debate—and we have sat here for hours now. It is, where are Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition? I was taken aback when I heard the Labour party’s representative say that it would abstain on this Bill, so I spent an hour out of the Chamber doing a little research. On 6 July 2010, the Labour party voted against the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. On 26 April 2011, the Labour party voted against the Finance Bill on Second Reading. Members may see where I am going with this. On 16 April 2012, there was a Division on Second Reading and Labour voted against the Finance Bill. On 15 April 2013, there was a Division on Second Reading of the Finance Bill and Labour voted against it. On 1 April 2014, Labour voted for its own reasoned amendment and then against Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

For five years the Opposition have voted against the Government’s Finance Bill on its Second Reading. Can it possibly be that the difference then was that it was a coalition Finance Bill put forward with the Liberal Democrats, and that, now, the Opposition find this Finance Bill, put forward just by the Conservative party, to be more acceptable? Even I would find that incredibly implausible, so I urge and plead with Labour Members, because the country needs better than this. The people who did not vote for the Conservative party—63% of them—expect it to be opposed in this Chamber, and, even if Labour Members agree with one or two things in the Bill, surely they can see that its overall rubric and intent is to penalise those people in society whom they should stand up for. I appeal to Labour Members to reconsider their position on this issue and to join us in the Lobby tonight as we vote against the Bill on its Second Reading.

My final point is this: in my country this Government have no mandate to bring forward these proposals. They got 14% of the votes in Scotland; they have one out of 59 Scottish MPs. Our country is completely opposed to the Bill, and the people have sent us here with a mandate to oppose it. That more than anything else shows the need for these measures to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament—in order that the Scottish Government can deliver to the Scottish people their own democratic wishes and the type of society that they want to see.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Some on the Opposition Benches crow that we have stolen some of their policies, but surely, with just a dash of intellectual honesty, they should welcome this Budget. Perhaps if they stole some Conservative policies, one could argue—as I think the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) did on Sunday—they might earn the trust of the British people on running the economy. Because if any of those across the Floor of the House want to know what true austerity is, they need look no further than 2008-09. This country was in recession. People found themselves without jobs, without stable incomes and without hope. That is a legacy; that is austerity.

Instead of that, last Wednesday the Chancellor told us that our economy is now the fastest-growing in the G7 and will continue to be so. We have record employment, and the deficit and debt are coming down. May 2015 marked the British people’s belief that we were on the right track; 2010 marked their rejection of “Spend now, ask questions later.” The Budget we heard was what our economy needed and what the election mandated: a Conservative Budget, and I welcome it. Hard-working people across the country welcome it. A gentle nudge to make it more stable—that is what we do when we balance something: we give it confidence and certainty.

Our economy is still too unbalanced; however, I want first to add a few notes of caution to what was said last week, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor what he is going to do to address these concerns. Our national living wage goes further than the SNP’s pledge to increase the minimum wage to £8.70 by 2020 and further than the Labour party’s pledge of an £8 minimum wage, but a number of my constituents have contacted me and said that such a steep rise will put a strain on their businesses. In particular, small shops and rural post offices will find it difficult. Many argue that the higher costs will not be paid for through redundancy, but through higher prices for the consumer. Many small and medium-sized enterprises are already working with minimal staff, and hope alone will not increase their turnover. My family-run local baker suggests that his wage bill will increase by 2020 by £2,000 a week. He is working—as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) put it, speaking from the back of the Chamber—that 60-hour or 70-hour week. Small business owners run this country and they work hard. [Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that they do pay corporation tax, if they make a profit, and we have helped them by taking it down to 19% and then 18% in 2020.

That family business has also raised concerns, as have many others, about differentials in the wage process. Things will need to be reflective in order to keep staff. It will be challenging to raise wages from £6.50 to £9, and productivity will need to increase, but—I say this to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—it is those small business owners who will make highly productive, highly well-paid jobs. They do not grow on trees. Those businesses have to start as seed organisations; they have to start from small beginnings. We cannot just magic high-paid jobs out of the air.

A fairer society is a two-way street: fairness to those who have little, but also fairness to those who pay—those who make the jobs and pay the wages. There must be recognition that some SMEs may suffer. It will be challenging to keep people employed, and that leads me to the question: where do we find this extra money and who does it come from? It will be from small business and large businesses; and that is what this Budget did: it encouraged them.

My second area of concern is about the delivery of adult care. Many of my constituents are elderly; indeed, one of my wards has the highest longevity in the country, but a great number of people are required to care for them. Many of these carers are over 25 and occupy some of the lowest-paid jobs in our economy. They will receive the enhanced living wage. The care is essential—it keeps many constituents in their own homes, living independently and not putting a strain on the NHS—but adult social care is feeling the strain, as are private providers, and their ability to absorb costs is challenging. Where statutory obligations place pressure on businesses, adult care and nurseries providing childcare, to name but two—

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Churchill]

No, I do not have time.

I welcome this Budget, but I also welcome the fact that its aspiration is to be fairer. We should not forget who creates our jobs and who invests. Business investment is up by 32% since 2010. About 95% of all firms are SMEs, while 90% are micros. I need them to thrive, to take on apprentices and to invest. To encourage more entrepreneurs, we need those businesses to grow, which is just what this Budget will achieve. I ask the Government to keep giving businesses their support.

Voter Engagement

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak to you as Chair of the debate, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for bringing the debate to the House. Two topics that have the utmost relevance are the franchise and voter engagement.

When we consider those issues, it is important to recognise the journey we have been on for a number of years, not least given the pivotal role that the suffragette movement played in ensuring that women not only have the vote, but are adequately represented in the great Chambers of this House. We still have a great deal of work to do to ensure that we continue to promote the most talented and capable women into these Chambers as well as boardrooms and throughout every walk of life.

Thankfully, there is more to the debate than the suffragettes and giving the franchise to women. We have moved on. However, one issue is close to my heart, and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Islington South and Finsbury and for Workington (Sue Hayman)—Cumbria’s first female Member—for bringing it up: votes at 16. In Scotland last year, that brought to light the real opportunity we have to engage our young people. We witnessed a political movement unlike any other across these islands and the securing of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds was key to opening up a real conversation on the role of politics and the part that young people can play in shaping their futures and voicing their aspirations and hopes as well as their fears. We must allow them to continue to engage.

Votes at 16 for all elections is the starting point and I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury for addressing that. If we start to give our young people a voice and opportunity, we can expect them to continue to vote and remain part of the process. They will take their vote seriously and—correctly—they will hold us to account. That is exactly what every Member should hope for and aspire to not just for our young people, but for every citizen in our constituencies.

Sadly, that right was not granted to young people for the general election and it has not been during the ongoing debate on the EU referendum. It is vital that our young people are given an opportunity to have their say on that important decision that will not only shape their futures, but have significant consequences for their lives. Their future decisions about their studies and work and their rights and responsibilities as citizens will be affected.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury spoke at great length about the disparity in engagement between affluent and more deprived areas. That is also crucial. We can begin to engage our young people, but life dictates that circumstances change. Debt can take hold of people’s lives and that can disengage them from a process that they may once have been a part of.

Most crucially, engaging all our young people may be the key to ensuring greater and continued participation in our democratic process. Young people bring dynamism and energy and they have proven that they have the ability to understand and communicate politics in a language that many politicians can only aspire to.

I welcome hon. Members’ comments on student participation. We should remember that students are mostly young people—though they are not all young—who take part in this process when in a transient position in their lives that does not fix them to an abode where they can become regular voters. We must find a way to engage with students and young people and, crucially, those who live in areas that are in the main neglected owing to deprivation and poverty and who, understandably, do not feel the need to engage with a process because perhaps at times it may be the least of their concerns.

Edinburgh University highlighted the fact that giving a vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has been a proven democratic success. It is worth noting that 4.29 million Scots were registered to vote, which accounts for 97% of the Scottish population, and 80% of them voted in last year’s referendum. If that is not an indication that by giving the widest franchise we can engage our young people and citizens in the process, I do not know what is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Ms Black), our youngest MP and the youngest Member of this Parliament, is a prime example of a young person who was engaged with the political process. She is now a product of that process who can rightly sit in her place in this Chamber. We must ensure that the views of many more people are reflected in our Chambers.