Economy and Jobs

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is the shadow Chancellor aware that 25% of posts in the national minimum wage compliance unit are lying vacant? Is that not one reason why minimum wage compliance is so weak?

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman currently chairs the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, which I previously chaired, and we have campaigned on that point for seven years. If we cannot staff up the unit that is meant to carry out inspections and ensure compliance with the minimum wage, how can we expect the minimum wage to be paid fairly?

Let us look at the desperate state of our public services. How can anyone in government take pride in the fact that spending per pupil is set to fall by 8% by 2019-20? More than 46,000 children’s operations have been cancelled over the past four years. Police numbers have been cut by 20,000 since 2010, firefighter posts have been cut by 10,000, and 20,000 soldiers have been cut from the Army. A record of pride? I don’t think so.

So we have a Government who cannot feed their people, house their people adequately or protect their children and older people from poverty. They cannot ensure that when people go to work they earn enough to live on, and they cannot maintain our basic public services. They are a Government who do not deserve to remain in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The debt is still rising, but next year, for the first time in 20 years, we expect to see it beginning to fall as a percentage of GDP—a remarkable achievement after the trashing of our economy by the Labour party in government.

[Chris Stephens]

On tax revenues, was it appropriate—during a general election in which four political parties represented in this House were campaigning against HMRC office closures—for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to negotiate a contract during purdah for new regional centres?

[Mr Hammond]

If HMRC has negotiated a contract during purdah, it will have taken advice on whether that was compatible with purdah and will have received guidance from the Cabinet Secretary. It perhaps says something about the way that the purdah rules work that I was not aware of that until the hon. Gentleman just mentioned it, but I can assure him that HMRC will have taken proper advice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will take that as a representation for all those many fans wanting to go to Cleethorpes to watch football.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Can the Chancellor confirm that HMRC takes eight months to fill a vacancy in the national minimum wage compliance unit? If that is so, what will he do properly to resource that service so that workers can get a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work?

[Jane Ellison]

I will look into the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I want to make it very clear that HMRC investigates absolutely every report of national minimum wage violations. We take the matter very seriously, and we do enforce it.

HMRC Estate

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, as a Bradford girl, I would never do anything to harm Bradford. Equally, however, as a Bradford girl, I make the extremely short commute between Bradford and Leeds many times a year. I do not think we would wish to lose any experienced staff or expertise from the Bradford office, but the commute from Bradford to Leeds is possibly one of the shortest that any transferring HMRC staff would have to make.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Obviously, there will be an economic impact on many towns and cities that will lose their largest employer, but has an equality impact assessment been made in respect of staff, particularly those with disabilities, who have been asked to move 100 miles away?

Does the Minister not believe that the loss of local expertise will apply not only to tax evasion but to non-compliance with the national minimum wage, which, according to statistics, is on the increase in this country?

[Jane Ellison]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we announced more investment in tackling non-compliance with the national minimum wage in the autumn statement. In fact, activity in that regard has been stepped up considerably, as I said when answering a parliamentary question this week. He may wish to refer to Hansard for the statistics. As for his wider point about losing expertise, of course we do not want to do that. We want to do as much as we can to help people to move, because it takes a long time for them to reach their highest level of skill, and we want to retain them when they are at the peak of their professionalism. I will write to him about the equality impact assessment.

Points of Order

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

To some extent, the hon. Gentleman has obtained his own salvation in airing his discontent on the Floor of the House. The relevant Minister is not in a position immediately to reply so that the hon. Gentleman would be able to establish some facts on the ground that are to his advantage. I was not familiar with the point of detail that the hon. Gentleman highlighted about two matters being the subject of consultation rather than the full eight. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that that really is not a matter for me. I cannot be expected to get into the interstices of the system, but it is normal in matters of this kind that affect constituencies for the Members affected to be given the courtesy of advance notification rather than having to read about matters in the newspapers. It may well be that some rather greater discipline within ministerial offices is required to avoid a repetition of that rather unfortunate occurrence.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On yesterday’s decision about jobcentre closures in Glasgow, my understanding is that ministerial criteria determine whether or not a closure goes to public consultation, and there is some dubiety about at least two of these. It is my view, and that of my hon. Friend, that four of the eight should be going to public consultation. Do we have any recourse to raise that with Ministers? Alternatively, have you had any indication of whether a Department for Work and Pensions Minister is coming to the House today to discuss this matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I must confess that I suffer from some ignorance on that matter. It is an enormously important point, but not one on which I have any knowledge. The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is any recourse for him, and the answer is yes: he should table a written question, narrowly focused on that matter, to try to extract a substantive answer. He is quite a terrier and I am sure that this is not beyond him.

Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, to part 2 of the SNP Partick Thistle supporters’ day. Part 1 was led superbly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who gave a tour de force.

I want to discuss the civil service compensation scheme. May I take this opportunity to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group? I also thank the House staff for their excellent briefing on the issue, which I recommend to all Members.

We are finally getting to discuss this issue in the Chamber. After at least three business questions, a point of order, early-day motion 310, which, as of yesterday, has been signed by 109 Members, including representatives from seven political parties and two independent Members, and many requests for a debate, it is a pleasure finally to represent the voice of those who contribute to our public services and who find themselves, through no fault of their own, losing out financially.

On 22 September, the Government set out their formal response to the consultation on the civil service compensation scheme, including proposals that radically reduce that compensation. The issue will affect thousands of loyal civil servants, whose jobs are now at risk as departmental budgets continue to be cut and hundreds of Government offices are earmarked for closure. Areas affected include Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which are experiencing cuts.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

There are thousands of civil servants in my constituency, 750 of whom are residents. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of suggestions that civil service managers are encouraging staff to take redundancy on current compensation terms to help with the downsizing of the civil service, or lose out under the new proposals?

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to highlight that issue, because that is exactly what is happening. It takes away from our efforts, because we are both opposed to HMRC office closures, but the Government are forcing people to go on older terms rather than the new, drastically reduced terms.

For the benefit of those watching these proceedings, let me provide some background. The civil service compensation scheme is a statutory scheme that provides compensation for loss of office for reasons including compulsory and voluntary redundancy. In July 2009, the then Labour Government set out proposals to reform the scheme in order to control costs and to address elements that may be age-discriminatory. In broad terms, the existing scheme provided severance for those under 50 and early retirement for those aged 50 to 60. The civil service unions opposed the proposed changes on the grounds that they represented a reduction in terms for most members; that they did not adequately compensate those faced with compulsory redundancy; and that they compared unfavourably with other public sector schemes.

In February 2010, the Cabinet Office announced a modified set of proposals on which it had reached agreement with five of the six civil service unions. That agreement limited the maximum payment on compulsory redundancy to three years’ pay, where that led to a payment of no more than £60,000, and to two years’ pay for high earners. Additional protection was provided for those who were closest to retirement. The civil service compensation scheme was amended accordingly. The largest trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, opposed the changes and applied for a judicial review. On 11 May, the High Court ruled in favour of PCS and the amendments to the scheme were quashed, with the exception of certain changes designed to address elements that were considered to be age discriminatory.

On 6 July that year, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government said that they would legislate to cap payments at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and 15 months for voluntary redundancy. They hoped to negotiate a permanent and sustainable agreement with the civil service unions, at which point the caps would be withdrawn. The trade unions objected to the proposed caps because they were less than those in other public sector schemes, where a limit of two years’ pay was normal.

The current announcement about changes to the civil service compensation scheme comes just five and a half years after the then Minister Francis Maude imposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme in December 2010, promising that those changes were fair, affordable and right for the long term. It is hard to see what has changed so radically since then to justify this fresh attack on civil servants’ terms and conditions.

The changes can be summarised as follows. There is currently one month’s salary per year of service, but after the proposed changes there will be three weeks’ salary per year of service. There is a cap of 21 months’ salary for voluntary redundancy and voluntary exit, but there would be a cap of 18 months’ salary for voluntary redundancy and 15 months’ salary for voluntary exit if the trade unions were not to accept the offer that has been put to them. There is a cap of 12 months’ salary for compulsory redundancy, but the Government propose to change that to nine months’ salary. There is employer-funded access to the early pension option when individuals reached the minimum pension age of 50, but access to that option will now start at age 55.

The Government propose to cut the cash compensation payment, which means that they will reduce the rate at which compensation accrues for each year of service from one month’s salary, as it is currently, to three weeks’ salary. That will affect those with short and medium service, cutting redundancy payments by 25%. The Government also propose reducing the cap on payments, as I have said, which will drastically reduce payments, for some by as much as 30%.

In addition to changes to compensation payments, the Government propose restricting employer-funded access to early pension. That option is currently given to staff in voluntary redundancy situations who have reached minimum retirement age, which is 50 in the classic and premium schemes and 55 in the nuvos and alpha schemes. Staff are offered a compensation payment based on their salary and length of service, or they are offered the option to take their pension, with the employer buying out any actuarial reduction resulting from drawing the pension early. Cabinet Office statistics show that the average value of compensation for the 50 to 54 age group will fall dramatically, by more than 50%, under the new proposals. That demonstrates the profound impact that the reform could have.

Early access to pension has been a popular alternative to the cash lump sum compensation payment for those with long service who are nearing retirement, because it provides a level of security. That is important, because it has been shown that those aged over 50 often find it harder to get a new job, and that if they do, it may be for fewer hours and/or lower pay. We are all concerned, therefore, that restricting that option will create hardship and distress. In some cases, it will result in people relying on benefit payments.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that civil servants in admin and assistance jobs—the ones who are on the front line doing the UK Government’s dirty work—are already paying a high price for Government austerity, having seen pressures rise while headcount has fallen by 37% since 2010?

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is clear that the civil service is reducing. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, is now half the size it was 10 years ago, which is important to note when it is dealing with tax avoidance and all those other issues.

[Peter Dowd]

In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, is this policy not just another kick in the teeth to loyal civil service staff? Over the past few years, they have had substantial pay restraint, huge job cuts and a tax on pensions, on top of the previous changes to the compensation scheme, which he mentioned a few moments ago.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is being moderate when he says that the policy is a kick in the teeth. It certainly is, and we need to remember that these civil servants deliver precious public services every day, and they deserve to be treated better.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the recent numbers published by the Cabinet Office in answer to my written question? The numbers seem to suggest that a disproportionate number of the civil servants who have been made redundant describe themselves as persons with disabilities.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will address the equality impact assessment. It is worth noting that, in the Enterprise Act 2016, the Government changed the cap to £95,000 a year and, in doing so, referred to people as “public sector fat cats,” despite the evidence that civil servants with 30-odd years’ service who earn less than £27,000 a year will be caught by the cap. Low-paid civil servants are not public sector fat cats.

The combined effect of all the proposed changes will be to reduce radically compensation for loyal civil servants. With cuts to the civil service compensation scheme in 2010, the recent changes to pensions, massive staff reductions and years of pay restraint, staff are left wondering what will be next.

The Government produced an equality impact assessment only once the consultation had concluded and they had produced their final response. That runs counter to the public sector equality duty, which states that such impact assessments should start in the early stages of a review and should form part of the active decision-making process.

Once it materialised, the equality impact assessment highlighted that there is a particular impact on older workers, who face both direct and indirect discrimination in the proposals. Raising the minimum age for the early access to pension option will have a direct and significant impact on those in the 50 to 54 age bracket. Meanwhile, lowering the caps on maximum compensation payments will indirectly affect older workers because they are much more likely to have long service.

Throughout, the Government have frustrated negotiations with trade unions and undermined the consultation process. The Government have shown little regard for the impact of the reforms, as illustrated by the fact that the equality impact assessment was provided only once the consultation had concluded, despite repeated requests from trade unions and Members of Parliament. Affected groups were therefore unable fully to understand the impact that the proposals would have on them in time to feed it in to the consultation. The data provided for consultation purposes did not cost individual proposals; instead, comparisons were made between the current civil service compensation scheme and the proposed future civil service compensation scheme, which suggests that the final package of reforms was a fait accompli.

Without information on how different proposals would affect different groups of workers, it was extremely difficult to conduct meaningful consultation. The Government have taken a similar obstructive approach to negotiations. In June, months before the formal response to the consultation, the Government issued a letter to trade unions outlining a set of reforms and demanding that the unions sign up to them before negotiations could continue. Those outrageous preconditions made a sham out of the negotiations. With little of significance to address and an absence of any equality impact assessment or analysis of the consultation responses, and refusing to be bullied into accepting the preconditions, trade unions representing the majority of civil servants—PCS, Unite and the Prison Officers Association—were excluded from the talks.

After months of silence, on 22 September 2016, the Government issued a formal response to the consultation, which set out drastic cuts. Alongside this came the long overdue equality impact assessment. Despite over 3,000 responses to the consultation, 95% of which disagreed with the Government’s fundamental premise about the need for reform, the Government set out a package of reforms that were little changed from their original position. The little movement made since the initial proposals has been used as leverage to blackmail trade unions into accepting detrimental changes to their members’ terms and conditions, as I outlined earlier.

The proposals will destroy civil service morale, which is already at breaking point, and as promises are broken that leaves no assurance that further attacks on terms and conditions are not soon to follow. The proposals will hinder future recruitment exercises as years of pay restraint, coupled with worse terms and conditions, make the civil service a less attractive employer.

I want to mention the process. On 20 October, I, as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, but I have not had a response. I was told by him, behind the Speaker’s Chair during a Division, that he would meet me and other Members belonging to the PCS parliamentary group—there are 83 Members from both sides of the House in that group—to discuss the issue. However, in a written ministerial statement on 8 November, the Government announced that they were going ahead with the proposals, without bringing these matters to the Floor of the House. Such is the severity of the proposals that I firmly believe the Government should have made a statement in the House, so that all Members could question them on their proposals.

I pay tribute to the thousands of civil servants who will be watching this debate for all the work they do to deliver public services. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I ask the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the skills of the civil service. In fact, the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead can and will be adequately dealt with by our excellent civil service, which we value greatly.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister confirm that the six-figure cap will affect employees with long service who earn less than £27,000 a year, which is not a high salary? Are the Government considering how to address that?

[Michael Ellis]

It is not unreasonable for the Government to take the view that it is not appropriate to pay six-figure—£100,000—compensation payments within the public sector. We are legislating to stop that. As I have said, we must take the economic challenges and climate into consideration.

The Government launched a consultation on our proposals for changes to the civil service scheme in February and set out five principles for reform. I will not rehearse them now—they are on the public record—but it was an open consultation and we invited responses from all those who would be affected by reforms, including trade unions, employers, civil servants and other interested parties. The consultation ran for 12 weeks, but as well as that we held a series of meetings to discuss the proposed reforms with the civil service unions throughout the consultation period. Six such meetings were held during that period, attended by representatives from PCS, Prospect, the FDA, Unite, GMB and the POA. After the consultation closed in May, we gave careful consideration to all the responses we received and to the views expressed by the unions.

After the closure of the consultation, the Government did not stop our efforts to achieve agreement on a set of reforms. We invited all unions that had responded to the consultation to a series of further meetings. In order to give the best chance of reaching agreement, the participation of unions in the further meetings was made conditional on their acceptance that a proposed basic structure would form the starting basis of a reformed negotiated set of arrangements that could lead to a final agreement.

I am pleased to say that five employee representative bodies—Prospect, the FDA, Unison, GMB and the Defence Police Federation—agreed to take part in further meetings at that time and on that basis. The Government held a total of 13 further meetings with those bodies between June and September to discuss the detail of the proposed reforms. Those highly constructive meetings played a big part in shaping our thinking and the final offer we made to unions. However, I should make it clear that we do not in any way accept that the PCS or any other union was barred from those discussions, as has been claimed. The decision not to participate was made solely by the unions concerned and not by the Government.

Following the conclusion of the discussions with the unions that chose to participate, the Government made a formal offer of revised compensation schemes. The offer reflected the constructive discussions between June and September. As such, we proposed a number of improvements on the package of reforms set out in the consultation, including taking more account of longer service, which is only right and fair; increased protection for the lower-paid, which is also appropriate; greater flexibility for those over the minimum pension age; and improvements to the terms for inefficiency compensation. The consultation and discussions therefore worked.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister refresh the House’s memory? I did not say that the trade unions were barred from those talks; I said that they had to sign up to preconditions before them. Does he agree?

[Michael Ellis]

The arrangements for the talks were satisfactory to eight trade union organisations; they were not satisfactory to the PCS, but that is a matter for it. However, the offer reflected the points that I have made and those improvements. Nevertheless, the offer was made on equal terms to all civil service unions—all of them—including those that had not taken part in the talks.

All unions were then also given the same amount of time to consider the Government’s offer and to ballot their members. I am pleased to say that eight unions were able to make a formal response to the Government by the requested date of 31 October and I am also pleased to say that all eight of those unions responded to say that they accepted the Government’s offer. As such, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office considered that the Government’s offer had been accepted by a sufficient number of trade union organisations to constitute an agreement.

A revised civil service compensation scheme, consistent with the terms of the Government’s offer, was therefore laid before the House on 8 November and took effect from 9 November. However, I regret to say that, unlike other unions, the PCS and the POA did not feel able to ballot their members and respond to the Government within the requested timeframe.

I understand that it can take time for unions to make such arrangements. However, the PCS gave no indication that more time would be required at the time the offer was made. Indeed, the issue was not raised at all until more than half the time intended for union consideration had elapsed, and even then a formal request for an extension to the deadline was not received by the Government until some time after that. By that point, the Government did not consider any extension to the deadline to be either practical or fair on the other unions, which had made strenuous efforts to respond in time.

Since then, I understand that the PCS has balloted its members with a recommendation to reject the Government’s proposals, and that they have done so. While the Government will of course take note of the result of that ballot, that does not change the fact that the Government’s offer of revised compensation scheme terms was accepted by the large majority of unions consulted, or that the new scheme has now taken effect.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I am very conscious of the time; if I may, I will just carry on a bit more and then give way.

To summarise all that I have said so far, the Government are very clear that the reforms to the civil service compensation scheme were carried out in an open and consultative fashion. The process benefited greatly, as such processes do, from the constructive approach of the unions that chose to participate fully, and the benefits can be seen in the improved terms I have referred to, which were able to be adopted as a result. So, while it is regrettable that not every union sought to participate in a constructive manner, that is a matter for them and it will not discourage the Government from our belief that it is right to seek to reach negotiated agreements in such matters, wherever that is possible.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I will be brief. He has mentioned individual trade unions, which is fine, but I would be curious to know what percentage of civil servants those unions represent. If he could write to me on that, I would be obliged.

[Michael Ellis]

I am always very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Turning quickly to the reforms themselves, I fully accept, as I have said, that any change of this sort can be difficult for those affected and as a result will often be unwelcome. However, I am clear that the revised terms of the 2016 civil service compensation scheme represent a good deal for civil servants. The new scheme strikes the right balance in achieving the savings that are required while reflecting the nature of the civil service workforce and the benefits of reaching a negotiated agreement. Also, the new scheme will continue to meet its main objective, which is to provide a good level of support to help to bridge the gap into new employment or until retirement, where that is necessary, when exits are unfortunately required.

Because of all of that, the Government believe that these are sustainable reforms and therefore I will close by echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in his written ministerial statement of 8 November, in which he described the reformed compensation scheme as providing

“a firm foundation for the management of the Civil Service and its people for a generation”.

Question put and agreed to.

Autumn Statement

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, it will accelerate delivery of the project. As I said in my statement, and I cannot emphasise enough, I think this has the potential to be so much more than just a transport link. We have many world-famous universities, but we have two there that, more than any others, are world-famous, recognised research names. Linking them together over a 60-mile stretch of road and rail unleashes enormous possibilities for creating a new tech corridor, building on the huge success of the Cambridge science park.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

In his statement, the Chancellor correctly mentioned the scourge of tax avoidance. Has he seen the report published last week by the Public and Commercial Services union and the Tax Justice Network, which warns that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff believe that its office closure programme

“will negatively affect its staff and its ability to collect tax and enforce tax compliance”?

Will he review the HMRC office closure programme as a result of those concerns?

[Mr Hammond]

We have put £800 million of additional resource into HMRC. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statement today, he will see that we have put some more money in today. But much of the way in which HMRC operates is about having specialist units, which often have to be concentrated; it is not about the old local office structure that has traditionally been in place. If we want effective action against the most complex forms of tax avoidance and evasion, we have to be prepared to go with the recommendations of the experts.

Finance Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will speak to a number of amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 12 would require the Government to report within one year on the impact of the criminal offences relating to offshore income assets and activities created by clause 165. Amendments 167 and 168 would make it compulsory, rather than just possible, for HMRC to publish the names of those who hide behind entities such as companies and trusts when committing offshore tax evasion. Amendments 171 to 173 would expand the definition of “reasonable” referred to in clause 165 to include

“an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”,

because the Opposition are concerned that the category of reasonableness is, on its own, far too subjective. Amendments 163 and 164 would strengthen the penalty for enablers of offshore tax evasion to include 100% of the fees received by the enabler of the service—for the lawyers in the Chamber, the principle of just enrichment, as it were. The aim of that is to neutralise somewhat the commercial aspect of the tax avoidance industry.

Amendments 165 and 166 would increase the minimum penalties for inaccuracy, failure to notify a charge to tax or failure to deliver a return, in relation to offshore matters and transfers, by 15% rather than the Government’s suggested 10%. In their consultation “Strengthening civil deterrents for offshore evaders” the Government considered increasing the minimum penalties by 15% rather than 10%. These are probing amendments to find out why the Government opted for a smaller increase than the one that they initially considered.

Up next we have amendment 170, which would increase from 10% to 15% the asset-based penalty introduced by schedule 22. The Government’s consultation on this penalty cited different rates for such asset-based penalties across the world, including in Italy where the penalty is up to 15%. As I will expand on in a moment, the Opposition think that we must be world leaders on stamping out tax avoidance, so I think our penalty should be, at the very least, on a par with precedents across the world. Those penalties are a start, but I would add that in the light of the latest Government consultation on tackling offshore tax evasion, which would introduce a separate offence not covered by the Bill, there appears to be a clear move by stakeholders to suggest that even higher penalties are required. I urge the Government to consider those suggestions carefully.

I confirm Labour’s support of cross-party amendment 145 on public country-by-country reporting, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I place on record my thanks to her for the hard work that she has put into pursuing this important issue. It is testimony to that hard work that many Members across the House—including members of the Public Accounts Committee and more than 60 MPs from eight political parties, as my right hon. Friend illustrated—and organisations outside this House have supported this amendment. I will not go over the ground that she has covered, because she has put her case articulately. The enabling power contained in the amendment would give the UK scope to strengthen its influence on international tax transparency negotiations, and it would build greater consensus.

Finally, new clause 13 would require a comprehensive report into the UK tax gap, which is defined as the difference in any financial year between the amount of tax HMRC should be entitled to collect and the tax that it collects. Such difference derives from tax avoidance and evasion. The contents of the report would be as set out in the new clause, and it would have to be carried out in consultation with stakeholders. It would examine a number of areas relating to tax avoidance in the hope that the Government might review their policy and tailor it to deal adequately with such issues.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does not new clause 13 expose the idiocy of closing HMRC offices, as the Government are planning to do to 90% of them? Would it not also allow Members to look at the number of staff in HMRC dealing with tax avoidance and set that against the 3,765 staff in the Department for Work and Pensions who deal with £1.2 billion of so-called social security fraud?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The report is intended to highlight any deficiencies that might be found in HMRC’s resources or structures that affect its ability to tackle tax avoidance.

As Members who read new clause 13 will see, the part relating to HMRC goes into a lot of detail. Briefly, however, the report would be required to cover figures for the UK tax gap for the past five financial years; details of the model used by HMRC for estimating the UK tax gap; an assessment of HMRC’s efficacy in dealing with the UK tax gap; details of the tax revenue benefits for companies engaged in public procurement that are registered in the UK only for tax purposes; an assessment of the efficacy of the general anti-abuse rule in discouraging tax avoidance; consideration of the benefits for tax revenue of introducing a set of minimum standards in tax transparency for all British Crown dependencies and overseas territories; and, finally, an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of establishing a public register of all trusts located within the UK, British Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

The new clauses and amendments we have tabled are necessary now more than ever. I appreciate that we have limited time today, so we will push to a vote only new clause 13. As I have said, we will support my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley should she wish to press her amendment 145. We also support new clause 7, which has been articulately outlined by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).

On the other amendments, I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the comments throughout my speech. The Government have ample opportunity outside the scope of the Bill—if, indeed, there is the will—to implement many of my requests. I will explain the rationale behind our various amendment.

The law on tax avoidance has been greatly influenced by the words of Lord Tomlin in the case of the Inland Revenue Commissioners v. the Duke of Westminster in 1935. Lord Tomlin decided that it was the right of every Englishman to organise his affairs so as to minimise his liability for tax. Sadly, that idea fuels the tax avoidance industry even today. In this age of so-called austerity, with pressure on the NHS, the armed forces, our teachers and our young people—the list goes on—quite frankly it is not acceptable for people to seek to avoid their taxes.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have come to agree that tax avoidance should be fought. The trouble is that this Government have failed to tackle the problem head-on, but simply tinkered here and there with piecemeal bits of legislation, and this Finance Bill is no different. We need a real commitment from this Government to an overarching strategy that provides genuine legal teeth to tackle the millionaire tax dodgers and the advisers surrounding them.

To take hon. Members on a little historical, magical mystery tour, in the 1980s, judges, not Parliament, developed a principle that put a dent in the tax avoidance industry—the Ramsay doctrine. The principle provided that artificial tax avoidance schemes should be analysed as a whole, not analysed by each piece separately. That meant that clever tax schemes could be dismantled by taking out all the artificial elements, with what was left being taxed as though the artificial elements had never existed. The effect on tackling tax avoidance schemes was huge.

Unfortunately, case law has moved on over the years, and we have now returned to a world in which tax law is considered to be entirely a matter of statutory interpretation. There are no general principles at work that can be used when interpreting legislation to combat tax avoidance in practice. In addition, our tax statutes are extraordinarily long and very detailed. That is meat and drink to tax specialists. Any Member of the House my age or above may remember the “Peanuts” cartoons. In one episode, Linus says, “Now I know the rules, I know how to get round them.” Linus could have been a tax lawyer.

Tax lawyers love playing with the rules, and we should not underestimate the expertise and determination of the tax avoidance community. In fact, one tax law specialist recently told me something really harrowing about a firm of accountants in the 1990s. A specific piece of legislation had been drafted to tax any trust that shifted offshore. An exception to that rule arose if one of the trustees died and the trust shifted offshore as a consequence. Those accountants canvassed a cancer ward to see whether the relatives of people dying of cancer would be prepared to have their dying family member signed up to act as a trustee of their clients’ trusts. They sought reassurances that the patient would die soon and promised to pay a small fee. That is an extreme case, but is an example of the depths to which people will sink to avoid paying their taxes and of how loopholes can be found in the depths of legislation.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group.

I join the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) in praising the work of the employees of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but I also want to touch on some current issues. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the commission cares for the graves of 1.7 million casualties of the first and second world wars in cemeteries and memorials at more than 23,000 locations in more than 150 countries; two of them are in my constituency of Glasgow South West. It employs just over 1,300 staff worldwide, and approximately 250 of those are on UK-based contracts. I understand that negotiations are ongoing with the Ministry of Defence to include non-war-related graves in the work of the commission.

The staff of the commission take pride in attending to the war graves. It is not just a job, but a way of life—a vocation. Many are from families who have worked for the commission for generations, and many spend their whole working lives in the service of the commission. Jobs at the commission range from gardeners, maintenance people and stonemasons to administrators, supervisors, managers, archivists and historians. It is not uncommon for staff to progress through a variety of those roles in the course of their career, retraining and adapting as necessary to the needs of the job. There is often a large element of foreign travel; indeed, the work often entails working and living abroad for years and even decades. That requires staff to uproot families and learn new languages in order to adjust. That can also have a financial impact if spouses are unable to pursue careers as a result.

Salaries at the commission have been very modest. That was recognised in the recent global grading and pay review, which found a need to uprate salaries. Although that is welcome, it nevertheless reflects the fact that salaries over the years have not been commensurate with the job. However, despite some of the sacrifices, staff at the commission remain committed to delivering a high level of service. Most recently, the first world war commemorations, as touched on by the right hon. Member for Broadland, have required staff to work over and above their normal commitments. However, that commitment has, in the view of many staff, not been rewarded.

Long-serving staff have seen the closure of the final salary pension scheme in April 2016 and a dramatic reduction in their pensions as a result. Trade unions are in the midst of pay negotiations with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and argue that staff should get an enhanced pay offer to take into account the special circumstance that staff have been put in this year. The Public and Commercial Services Union requested that the CEO of the commission meet Ministers to make that case, and the union offered to lend assistance by attending the meeting. That offer and suggestion has been dismissed by the commission.

Considering the considerable loyalty and commitment of staff, the downgrading of their pensions and the extra pension contributions that they will be paying this year, it had been hoped that they would receive a decent pay offer as some form of compensation. Instead, it seems that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is relying on, and exploiting, the good will of staff.

To recognise the special nature of the job, the loyalty of staff and the financial sacrifices that staff have made over the years, the commission had a final salary pension scheme, ensuring financial security in retirement for staff who had spent their lives in dedicated service to the commission. The terms of the scheme were good, with a low employee contribution, a spouse’s pension, a death in service benefit and lump sums based on final salary; it was a 40/60ths scheme. That reflected the fact that the pension had traditionally been one of the most important conditions of service, recognising years of dedication and loyalty.

The effects on the staff of the decision to close the final salary scheme should not be underestimated. Long-serving staff have put up with great sacrifice and disturbance to their family lives, such as having to move to foreign countries. Spouses and partners have often been unable to have careers as a result. The pension that staff accrue should recognise that.

Approximately 60% of those affected by the changes are 50 years old or over and likely to retire in the next 10 years. Staff within a few years of retirement now have little time to adjust their financial planning for retirement, as the alternative group pension plan will not deliver anything like the benefits of the final salary scheme. The closure of that scheme will cause significant detriment to the future pensions of UK-based staff and will cause considerable unrest among employees at a time when all employees are working hard to further enhance the reputation of the commission with the work on the 1914-18 centenary commemorations. That approach of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission seems to have been mirrored in recent pay talks, in which it has been unwilling to stand up for its staff and request additional funding from the Ministry of Defence.

My view, like that of the right hon. Member for Broadland, who spoke very eloquently about the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, is that its employees do tremendous work. I hope that today the commission will reflect on the views of the staff and address the issues of pay and pensions.

HMRC: Building our Future Plan

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) plan Building our Future which will close most of its offices and make substantial staffing reductions; is concerned that this could seriously compromise the ability of HMRC to collect tax, enforce compliance and close the tax gap; believes the plan should have been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; and calls on the Government to ensure that Building our Future is suspended until a comprehensive consultation and review has been undertaken.

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my position as chair of the PCS—Public and Commercial Services Union—parliamentary group and as an active trade unionist. I thank fellow Members from all parties represented in this House for their support in securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I hope I may be allowed to wish Calvin Thomas well on his last day of work in this place. Calvin arrived in the House in 1989, becoming a Doorkeeper in 2000, with nine years in the Members Lobby and seven years in the Special Lobby. I know that many of my colleagues are grateful for all the help that he has given us and our family members and guests over the years, and we wish him well as he returns to his beloved island of St Helena. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

On 12 November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published departmental plans for the future structure of HMRC, entitled “Building our Future”. It is important to note that the plans were issued by the Department, rather than via a ministerial statement. That is unsatisfactory, given their impact, which includes the closure of 90% of the office network and thousands of staffing reductions.

In 2005, HMRC employed approximately 105,000 staff; in 2016, the figure stands at approximately 58,000—an almost 50% reduction. The Building our Future plan seeks to close almost all the 160-plus HMRC offices and to move to 13 regional hubs and four specialist sites. It seeks to make further job cuts to bring the headcount down by 8,000, to 50,000, although some information suggests the intention is to reduce staffing levels to 41,000.

The timeline for the proposals is in two phases: in the first phase, HMRC proposes that 21 offices are to be vacated up to March 2017; in the second phase, 27 office closures are to take place between June 2017 and March 2018. HMRC will in future be based at 13 large offices and four specialist sites, where 95% of the staff who remain after the cuts will work.

On 16 February, HMRC issued compulsory redundancy notices to 152 members of staff, 70% of whom are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. That is the biggest number of compulsory notices issued in a single instance by any UK civil service department.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that 11 of the compulsory redundancy notices have been imposed on constituents of mine who work at the Glenrothes HMRC office, which is scheduled to close in June. When the closure was announced, staff got the same assurances that are being given to current members of staff, but the PCS told me that, in practice, their members—many of whom had given 30 or 40 years of dedicated service to the public—were made to feel they just did not matter. Part-time workers were asked to accept relocations that would have meant they spent longer commuting than at work. Employees with care commitments were expected to work more than two hours away from their home, where they might be called to an emergency. It was even claimed that the distance they were told they would have to travel between Glenrothes and Edinburgh was based on a straight line, but it was impossible for them to take that route unless they swam across the firth of Forth. Has my hon. Friend any reason to believe that employees who are currently being threatened with redeployment or redundancy will be treated any better than my constituents have been?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Interruption.] Well, we will call it an intervention. He is right to be concerned about some of the practices we are hearing about from trade union members and staff members based in HMRC. People are being called into one-to-one meetings where they are denied trade union representation. If an employee is having a meeting with a manager to discuss their job prospects, I would expect the trade unions to have access to that meeting, but they do not. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that. I will come later to the issue of travel times.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is my understanding from my experience as a trade union rep that it is compulsory to consult the trade unions when redundancies are announced, and that members of staff are entitled to have representation.

[Chris Stephens]

That is also my experience from when I was a trade union rep. We need to clarify that point, and I hope the Minister will do that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that some people are receiving redundancy notices by email—not even face to face?

[Chris Stephens]

That is an interesting point, given that we had a debate yesterday about e-balloting and trade unions’ right to access email for a ballot. It seems it is okay to issue a compulsory redundancy notice by electronic means. Perhaps the Government will take that into account when they discuss the Trade Union Bill.

We believe that HMRC and the Government want to send a signal using the 152 staff facing compulsory redundancy to demonstrate exactly how they will go about the mass office closure arising from the Building our Future plan. We find this to be unacceptable and not acting in good faith.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and others on securing this debate. Does he share my concern that a number of the arguments we were given in 2014 for Scotland remaining in the Union are beginning to unravel? We were told that separation shuts shipyards; that our heavy industry, such as the steel industry, would be at risk; and that a major benefit of the Union was having the civil service employees in the United Kingdom and Scotland. Now it seems that the case is unravelling on all those points.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend raises a fair point in that some workforces were told that offices would close if they voted for independence. To be fair, in my experience, workers in the shipyards and at HMRC came to an individual choice on the referendum. I do not think those scare stories were necessarily accepted by many parts of the workforce. However, again we hear the use of rhetoric around the constitution to say that places will close. We will find that it is not an independent Scotland that is closing those offices but a Tory Government.

In preparing for this debate, I came across a debate on the then Inland Revenue from over 30 years ago in the other place. A contribution by Baron Houghton of Sowerby, a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and chair of the Inland Revenue Staff Association, stood out:

“the human factor is the ultimate right…and there is no substitute for it. No computers will deal with taxpayers who require consideration and attention, and to whom some measure of discretion or of consideration may be due.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 1983; Vol. 443, c. 1199.]

Those words are as appropriate today as they were in 1983. They seem to me to be part of an ethos that all of us, across parties, should endorse as a cornerstone of public services. Sadly, those behind HMRC’s Building our Future plan are taking the wrecking ball to those foundations and not just demolishing the future of HMRC’s buildings but hammering the staff, the taxpayer, and the public. If they are allowed to proceed, towns and cities across these isles will be at the forefront of yet more ideological austerity. Hard- working and conscientious staff will once again be expected to clean up the mess, and taxpayers will foot the bill for the short-sightedness and short-termism of successive governments and Treasury Ministers. HMRC is not building a future—it is destroying it.

Fifteen years ago, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise combined had 701 offices across the country. Today we are being asked to accept that the 13 centres proposed by HMRC can possibly replicate that kind of coverage. Is there anyone who believes that the citizens of Penrith can better be served by a “super-centre” in Manchester, compared with Carlisle; those in Portlethen served better from Edinburgh than Aberdeen; or the people of Penzance served better from Bristol than Redruth? We are asked to believe that the best interests of the taxpayer and of society are met in a system that has staff in Glasgow travel halfway to Golspie to meet clients who have travelled halfway from Golspie to Glasgow, sitting down at some “neutral location” to discuss an individual’s sensitive and confidential tax affairs. I am told that one of these neutral locations is what can only be described as a hut in a public park. I am told—if I had not heard this with my own ears, I would not have believed it—that HMRC staff are advised to take a warm jumper and a bag of grit to these meetings during winter.

In truth, a look at the latest staff satisfaction survey from HMRC unfortunately makes this all too easy to believe. It would make some informative bedtime reading for those behind this closure programme. Fully 2% of staff strongly agree with the statements “I feel change is managed well in HMRC” and “When changes are made in HMRC they are usually for the better”, while 6% strongly agree that “I would recommend HMRC as a great place to work”, and 3% strongly agree that “HMRC as a whole is managed well”. On measure after measure, time after time, staff at HMRC are shown to be demoralised, demotivated, and depressed.

What other outcome in staff morale could result from the shuttering of office after office around the country? How enthused would anyone be knowing that, in a matter of months, their workplace is to be closed and that they and their friends and colleagues are to be relocated miles away? I suspect that if those behind this scheme were to be told tomorrow that their palatial offices were to be shuffled off from London to Norwich, Peterborough or Harwich—a journey that staff in these offices will be expected to do in reverse from next year —a murmur or two of discontent may well escape from their lips. Staff are entitled to ask exactly why a Government who invent catchphrase after catchphrase on regional policy—from the northern powerhouse to the midlands engine—are intent on such a centralising agenda. They may well ask why they are being shunted into sidings, rather than providing an express service to their communities.

I am sure that colleagues will touch later on the impact the closures will have on their constituencies, so I will not dwell too long on the specific towns and cities that will be hit, or on how hard they will be hit.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of service will not only be geographic? Specific services are being abandoned. For example, HMRC has recently announced the abandonment of its valuation check service for small and medium-sized enterprises, thus completely compromising employee share ownership schemes.

[Chris Stephens]

I am aware of that and I hope to touch on it later. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Middlesbrough has the third highest unemployment rate in England, and nearly 3,000 people are already on the dole in Bootle, while Derry has the highest unemployment rate of any constituency. To see those places on a list guaranteed to create job losses at HMRC and in the wider community is to see a plan that will, in the words of the Public and Commercial Services Union,

“consciously increase unemployment in areas which are already employment blackspots.”

I suspect that the word “Mapeley” will come up in the course of this debate, so let me touch on it. I referred earlier to the more than 700 offices formerly used by HMRC. Mapeley Estates snapped up more than 130 of them for its offshore property portfolio after loading itself up with debt in order to front up its side of this rotten charade with the then Government: 84% of the funding that Mapeley obtained to acquire that lucrative contract came in the form of loans. That shabby deal with a shabby company comes to an end in 2021. For the privilege of renting publicly built offices sold off for a song, HMRC will have the

“right to occupy buildings, with leases based on market terms”

after that date. That is very generous of Mapeley.

I commend the National Audit Office on its 2009 report on the deal. It is redolent with phrases such as,

“the Department has not achieved value for money…The Department did not fully appreciate the risks… The Department has not had strong processes to monitor the overall cost of the contract and whether it is achieving value for money”.

The Exchequer Secretary admitted to this House last year that the end life of the Mapeley contracts represented a

“one-off opportunity to make this change to the estate footprint.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1300.]

That is part of the truth behind the closures—a private finance initiative deal worth billions from the public purse, used to enrich a Bermuda-domiciled corporate entity, with the public left with nothing at the end of 20 years, except the right to sign a commercial lease.

I will end with the words of a PCS member and HMRC employee, my constituent Bobby Young, who is chair of the PCS Revenue and Customs branch:

“Whilst my branch welcomes the news of a slight increase of jobs in Glasgow, we absolutely oppose it if it comes at the cost of jobs elsewhere. Communities from Bathgate to Bootle will be devastated by these closures—that is not a price worth paying for the sake of a few extra jobs in Glasgow.”

If anyone should know about prices, it is an employee of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Sadly, it seems that their superiors know very little about value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I have many points to get through, but if I have time I will give way.

When HMRC was formed in 2005, it had around 570 offices spread out all over the country—an inefficient way of doing business in the 21st century. Reorganising this network of offices was a priority even then, which is why, following a number of reorganisations, that number was reduced to around 390 in 2010. It now stands at around 170 offices, ranging in size from 5,700 people to fewer than 10. That is a start, but it is not efficient enough. The changes that we announced in November represent the next stage of HMRC’s estate transformation programme.

Over the next 10 years, the department will bring its employees together in large, modern offices in 13 locations equipped with the digital infrastructure and training facilities they need to work effectively. These new high-quality regional centres will serve each and every region and nation in the United Kingdom, creating high-quality, skilled jobs and promotion opportunities in Birmingham, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Croydon, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Stratford.

There are significant advantages to such a system: the new offices will have the capacity to encourage people working in different roles, at different levels, to work more closely together, as well as providing more opportunities for them to develop their careers. The offices will be in locations with strong transport links and with colleges and universities nearby, to ensure a ready talent pool close by. In short, they represent the way business is done in the 21st century. HMRC expects the first centre to open by 2017, with the others opening over the following four years.

On the point about consulting HMRC staff, HMRC fully recognises that its most valuable asset is its people. HMRC can only do what it does thanks to its dedicated members of staff who bring in the money that funds our essential public services, as well as helping hard-working families with the benefits they need. That is why HMRC has kept its workforce fully abreast of all its plans to change how it operates, which were first announced internally two years ago. Since then, HMRC has held around 2,000 events across the United Kingdom, talking to colleagues about these changes. Everyone working for HMRC will have the opportunity to discuss their personal circumstances with their manager ahead of any office closures or moves.

I should remind the House that this is about changing the locations, not cutting staff. Indeed, the department’s policy is to keep any redundancies to an absolute minimum. HMRC’s analysis indicates most employees are within reasonable daily travel of a new centre, although that is subject to the one-to-one discussions which every member of staff will have about a year before any planned closure.

Let me pick up the point about trade union representation. One-to-one meetings are an opportunity for managers and staff to discuss how the proposals will affect staff, and HMRC will consult every one of its staff. Once decisions are taken, staff will of course have the opportunity to have representation. This is not a change of approach; these are fact-finding discussions with all members of staff to understand their personal circumstances. Trade union reps have never been in such meetings, but they will be involved, as they would normally, at a later stage.

[Chris Stephens]

My understanding is that, once there is an outcome at the one-to-one meetings, there is an appeal mechanism, but the trade union will not have access to that either. Will the Minister clarify that?

[Mr Gauke]

The purpose of the one-to-one meetings is to ascertain the particular circumstances of each individual likely to be affected by the proposals. From that, further proposals will come forward, and the usual trade union representation will be available to members of staff.

Since announcing its decision on the locations of its new offices in November, HMRC has been busy negotiating with suppliers, designing the look and feel of buildings, and planning how it will move its existing workforce. That has included one-to-one meetings with almost 2,500 members of staff who are most immediately affected, to look at their individual needs.

I stress that those are operational changes, decided at an operational, rather than a political level. Making changes to how HMRC offices are organised is an integral part of the Government hubs programme. It is essential to make the organisation fit to deliver better customer service, as well as to make it harder for the dishonest minority to cheat the system—and all at a lower cost to the taxpayer. That has the Government’s full support.

On staff engagement, HMRC staff are currently spread across about 170 offices across the country, many of which are a legacy of the 1960s and 1970s, lack modern facilities and technology support, and do not reflect new ways of working. The current state of the estate is undoubtedly a factor in the levels of engagement from staff, many of whom look forward to working in new, modern, fit-for-purpose offices—the type of workplaces that will also help HMRC to attract and retain the skilled workforce it will require in the future.

There has been much comment about the Mapeley contract entered into by the previous Government, and I for one am certainly not going to defend it. It is not a good contract for the taxpayer, which is precisely why HMRC wants to get out of it. If we do not get out of it now, HMRC will be fixed in it for years to come.

On customer service standards, call handling last week was at 90%, and the average wait was six minutes, but we invested more money at the Budget to improve that.

On Welsh-speaking services, HMRC is committed to maintaining services in Welsh for its Welsh-speaking customers. The quality of those services must continue to be high, and HMRC is actively exploring the ways it can best achieve that.

If we want HMRC to do its job effectively, we must ensure that it is fit for the challenges it faces. We have to be willing to modernise, find efficiencies, target resources, and make long-term strategic decisions. That is precisely what HMRC is doing: transforming itself into a smaller, more highly skilled organisation with modern, digital services and a data-driven compliance operation that will deliver more for the taxpayer at lower cost. That is the policy it has embarked on, and I hope it will have the support of the House.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank all those who contributed to the debate. They represented all the nations of the United Kingdom, because this issue affects all the nations of the United Kingdom. We heard some excellent points, particularly on HMRC offices being the largest employer in an area in many instances.

Let me say to the Minister that it is cavalier to suggest that employees dragged into one-to-one meetings are denied trade union representation, and he really should look at that. I would also say to him that the lack of parliamentary scrutiny on this issue has been shocking, and many of us in the House will continue to hold the Government to account on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) plan Building our Future which will close most of its offices and make substantial staffing reductions; is concerned that this could seriously compromise the ability of HMRC to collect tax, enforce compliance and close the tax gap; believes the plan should have been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; and calls on the Government to ensure that Building our Future is suspended until a comprehensive consultation and review has been undertaken.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who led the debate, teasing out the issues. He will be aware that on a number of occasions since I was elected to this place last May, I have raised the issue of delays to the publication of the Chilcot inquiry.

In my maiden speech I said that I was here to give a voice to the voiceless, because too often cynics view this place as somewhere where peoples’ voices are not heard. Today I express not only my view, but the view of my constituent, Mrs Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon in the Iraq war in 2004. Gordon Gentle was 19 years of age—19. Mrs Gentle and her family, like many military families, want answers to basic questions. Were those serving in our forces in Iraq provided with the proper equipment? If not, why not, and who is responsible? Have documents been hidden, and why have they been hidden? Why were our forces there in the first place?

For those military families like Rose Gentle and her family, this delay is like reliving an inquest. In Gordon Gentle’s case the inquest was cancelled on three occasions and concluded in 2009. Last year military families wrote to Sir John Chilcot to say that they wished to see the report published by the end of 2015, and if not, they would consider their legal options. In response, Sir John Chilcot threatened them with legal costs if they took him to court. What a disgraceful and insensitive thing to say to military families who have lost loved ones. What kind of behaviour is it that threatens those who have lost loved ones? What kind of behaviour is it that threatens those who have waited over a decade to find out what actually took place, and whether the military should have been there in the first place?

Rose Gentle’s reaction to the unnecessary delays is simple—disgust. Delays have been caused by so-called Maxwellisation. Delays are now caused, we are told, because of national security. Military families’ view is that all delays are now not trusted.

[Bob Stewart]

What the military families feel could be summed up by saying that the longer the process takes, the more jiggery-pokery they think is going on with the results of the inquiry. If we continue like this, there will be a total loss of faith in what it produces.

[Chris Stephens]

Indeed, and I am sure the military families watching these proceedings will agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The length of time that this inquiry has taken has put undue pressure on military families, who want the truth. Those families are proud of their loved ones who served, but are disgusted with the Government and the Government process. That is the view of military families like Rose Gentle and her family. They feel that the military covenant has been not just broken, but shattered. They feel that their loved ones have been buried twice—once after their death, and twice by bureaucracy and evasion.

The Prime Minister wrote to Chilcot asking for clear deadlines and publication. The Government cannot and should not allow themselves to be seen to be backtracking on the Prime Minister’s strong words. Further delays are not acceptable. Rose Gentle is an inspiration to many. She has done a lot of work to assist charities such as Soldiers Off the Street, a charity with an office in my constituency which looks after soldiers who have returned from the frontline and struggle to adjust to civilian life. Rose Gentle and her family have a simple request: it is time for justice for the military families who lost their loved ones serving in Iraq. The Chilcot report must be published in the first week of May 2016.