Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 General Committees

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Wilson. I had not realised that you had been elevated to such heights. It is long overdue.

I will not delay the Committee for very long, as we obviously support the order, but I will ask for a couple of clarifications. The maximum penalty for a pawnbroker who takes in an air weapon when they should not is three months’ imprisonment or a level 3 fine. On what basis have the Government come to that decision? Is that sentence enough to be a real deterrent? In my ignorance, I have not got a clue what level 3 means. Will the Minister give us some idea of that?

I welcome the fact that 19,000 weapons have been handed in, but they are obviously the people we should not be worried about. Can the Minister reassure us? When people are ordered to forfeit or dispose of weapons, how is it policed to ensure that that actually happens? Is it possible that, because the pawnbroker is no longer there, there is more chance of an underground black market in air weapons developing? Clearly none of us wants that, so what will be done to ensure that that does not happen? I guess that nobody in this room would argue with the order, but we should remind ourselves that only 12 years ago, a two-year-old was killed in Scotland. That is worth mentioning, because this is serious stuff.

Draft Scottish Fiscal Commission Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2017

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 General Committees

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Gray. I welcome the order. The important thing about this debate is that it is not about the present Scottish Government or the past Scottish Government and how they have behaved; it is about the Scottish Government as an institution. From now on, an independent commission will be able to scrutinise the Government’s work.

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. There is an issue about how good the scrutiny is when the people doing it are 500, 600, 700 or even 800 miles away from the people on the ground, so it is very good that we are where we are. However, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South about the time that this has taken. I do not want a debate about why his amendment fell, because I am glad that we have unity here today, but it is quite clear that there were concerns and resistance when the Scottish Fiscal Commission Act was being debated in the Scottish Parliament last year. Will the Minister explain why this has taken so long and why the order will not be enacted for at least another two months? I understand that nothing moves very fast in this place, but did it really have to take this long?

Draft Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 General Committees

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to be before you today, Mr Rosindell. To get straight to the point, this is a tidying-up exercise, which is long overdue. People who are facing the misery of bankruptcy and people trying to advise them do not need any complications on top of what they have got. The order does exactly the right thing by putting that right, and the Opposition are happy to support it.

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

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 General Committees

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I welcome the changes made in article 2 of this statutory instrument, which confer similar powers afforded to constables under section 13 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to immigration officers not below the rank of chief immigration officer. As far as article 3 is concerned, I accept the consequential modifications to the primary legislation in consequence of the creation of the two new statutory offences that the Minister has spoken about.

I hope that the Minister will be able to calm my fears and those of my Labour colleagues and other MSPs in Holyrood. Their concerns were expressed in a number of amendments that were tabled about the definition of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. My information from them is that those concerns remain, and I will come back to that in a moment.

I appreciate the will that the Scottish Government have shown to address concerns raised at stage 1—namely, the concern that the word “travel” would require a cross-border element, and that the emphasis on that word did not align with Scotland’s international obligations, including those in the EU trafficking directive, which does not place the same, or similar, emphasis on travel. Thankfully, as a result of these concerns, the Justice Committee asked the Government to look again at the definition to see whether it could be better aligned with international obligations. It also suggested that the Government consider the wording of the definition in relation to the word “travel”.

To be fair to the Scottish Government—I will always be fair to the Scottish Government—they took heed of this advice and brought forward amendments at stage 2 to remove the need to establish that a victim’s travel had been arranged or facilitated simply to allow this to happen. Instead they reframed the offence to criminalise certain defined and listed relevant actions.

Various amendments tabled by my MSP colleagues—in particular, Jenny Marra MSP—were denied, despite the support of every MSP in the Chamber other than those from the Scottish National party. I hope that amendment 12, in particular, does not come back to haunt the Scottish Government. It would have ensured that section 4 of the Scottish Parliament’s 2015 Act, which does not contain any definition of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, was capable of effectively prosecuting those who exploit children. Good examples that have been raised with me of the crimes that might not be covered include claiming child benefit fraudulently and forcing children to shoplift. I hope that the Minister will allay my fears on that.

The Scottish Government would also have shown an element of compassion if they had accepted amendment 16, which would have required them to publish guidance on the provision of support and assistance to victims of human trafficking offences. Again, that had the support of every MSP in the Chamber with the exception of SNP MSPs.

Overall, the Bill was an important one that had cross-party support at Holyrood. It is fair to say that a variety of amendments, some of which I have mentioned, possibly did not receive the consideration that they should have received at the time. Having raised those concerns, we will not oppose this statutory instrument today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I very much welcome what the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said. It is reassuring to see cross-party support on something as important as this—there is very little controversy about the measure, and rightly so. We need to get it right and the authorities in Scotland have clearly worked hard to do so, in consultation with many.

I heard the shadow Minister’s representations on definitions and consultations. With regard to wider consultation, the reality is that the Scottish Parliament’s 2015 Act was the subject of numerous reports, inquiries and consultations. The Scottish Government drew on the analysis and recommendations in all those reports to inform the Act. I can assure him that they have taken the same approach with this order.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about the definition of the word “travel”, we are content that it is compliant with international obligations. The matters have been perused by the appropriate authorities, and the Scottish Government have indicated to the UK Government that they are content and that it meets international obligations.

[Mr Anderson]

I accept that the point about travel has been resolved and that the Government acted on the concerns that were raised. The issue was more about the definition of

“slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour.”

I hope that the Minister or his civil servants will advise that there is a definition in this place that covers the same things in Scotland, but I just wanted to make sure that we do not leave a loophole that could be exploited.

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for exploring the matter, because clearly it is crucial. Lawyers—I was one before I came to this place—will always look for loopholes where they can find them and definitions have to be very carefully considered and tightly demarcated, otherwise they provide undesirable opportunities to exploit any lacunae that might exist within them. I am very confident that the authorities have considered that carefully and that legal representations have been sought. I am assured that numerous reports, inquiries and consultations have taken place, and I can only assume that they will have included legal representations. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Claim of Right for Scotland

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to be here before you today, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate.

I am proud that the Labour party is the party of devolution. The Labour party pushed for devolution while in opposition and supported the constitutional convention in every way. We made sure it worked and saw it embraced by the Scottish people. We have consistently supported more powers for Scotland, even when we have not been in a position to implement those additional powers in the devolved Administration. We were supportive of the in/out referendum in 2014 and we were the ones who drove the vow that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) spoke about. The people of Scotland overwhelmingly supported that vow less than two years ago. That led to the Smith commission, which has delivered to Scotland the most complete and powerful devolved Administration on Earth.

On a personal note, I have been an ardent supporter of devolution for many years. I was the chair of the policy committee of Unison in the late 1990s. During that time, we committed funds, practical and political support and physical resources to London, Wales and Northern Ireland and in particular to Scotland, where we were an integral part of the civil society voice that drove forward the constitutional convention. Things have changed in recent days. We know that the British public’s decision to vote for Brexit, whether we agree or disagree with that outcome, has left the United Kingdom fractured. That is the nature of politics. We make decisions—in this case the electorate made the decision for us—knowing that there will be others who disagree with the outcome. While we are in such a fragile economic state, we have a duty to the people to ensure that we do not exacerbate the situation.

Everyone in the Chamber knows the end goal for the Scottish National party. The clue is in the name; it is written on the tin. The question we must ask ourselves, though, is whether now is the time to be pushing that agenda. I take on board what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said. I respect the Scottish people. Let me set the record straight: unlike some, I would never say that the Scottish people are unable to choose a Government who represent their best interests. Nor would I say that were Scotland to remove itself from the UK, the country would become destitute and cease to be. What I would say, however, is that there have been two referendums in two years. That is a matter of fact. There was one for the people of Scotland and one for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. In both, the people of Scotland voted to remain as members of those Unions. Is it therefore right to remove them from those Unions against their democratic will?

In the EU referendum in June, 62% of the Scottish electorate exercised their right to vote. In the independence referendum in September 2014, 85% of the same electorate exercised that very same right. The Labour party is the party that is willing to explore the possibility of fulfilling the wishes of the Scottish people as expressed in both referendums to see whether we can give them what they have asked for.

The SNP claims there has been a real shift in public opinion since the independence question and the EU referendum. That is not borne out by what has come over very clearly in public opinion polls. The latest YouGov survey had 54% of those polled expressing their desire to remain within the UK, despite the EU referendum result. Only 37% said they would back another referendum. Are we really saying that that shift warrants a second referendum? Time and again, I have sat and listened to SNP Members expressing their discontent at the people of Scotland repeatedly being ignored by a Government not of their choice. This may come as a surprise to the SNP, but that problem is not experienced solely in Scotland. My constituents in Blaydon elected me as their MP. Only 16% of my constituents voted for the Tories, meaning that a party voted for by only 16% of my constituents is now governing them. As much as it may not be particularly palatable, that is democracy, no matter how much we might not like it.

What is contrary to the principles of democracy, however, is attempting to defy the wishes of the electorate by attempting to use their vote in one referendum to supersede the other. The purpose of devolution was to allow the devolved Administrations to govern themselves and deal with issues that are particularly prevalent in their areas. We are increasingly facing scenarios where those powers go unused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) so eloquently said. I am referring to the refusal by the SNP Government at Holyrood to use their newly devolved additional income tax-raising powers to alleviate the cuts imposed on them by the Tory Government. The plans proposed by Scottish Labour to raise income tax by 1% would have generated an estimated £600 million a year for the Scottish Government. That would be enough to alleviate the cuts affecting the poor and most vulnerable in our society and to support vital public services.

To use one example, NHS Scotland is facing enormous cuts. In Glasgow alone, it is estimated that there will be cuts of £258 million by 2021. The refusal to raise income tax strikes me as odd. After all, we are dealing with a self-proclaimed left-wing party—a party that surely would wish to do its utmost to alleviate the cuts to the poorest in society and to protect their public services. If we had those powers in Blaydon, I would ensure that we used them to protect the poor, the vulnerable, the sick and the disabled so that they would not suffer any more than they already have at the hands of the Tory Government.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Mr Anderson]

I will give way, but please be quick.

[Peter Grant]

If increasing income tax is such a fantastic idea, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that on the back of that promise, his party had the worst electoral disaster in Scotland for more than 100 years and is now even less popular in Scotland than the Conservatives?

[Mr Anderson]

The whole debate is about the will of the people. People chose not to go for that, and that is their choice. Scotland, despite the claims made by the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath about Ruth Davidson, still remains historically a socialist heartland. The majority of the electorate are inherently socialist. I therefore argue that to have a Government who would introduce and implement socialist policies, their only option now is to choose Labour.

I turn to the UK Government and express my utter dismay at a piece of correspondence I received recently. The correspondence came in the form of a letter from Citizens Advice Scotland that drew my attention to a report it produced on the poverty premium in Scotland. The report highlights the issues faced by those on the breadline—those who have to choose between electricity and food, as well as those who are forced to go to payday loan companies to make ends meet. The report looks at the impact that has on their mental and physical health and their personal relationships. Those are the daily problems that people face, and they are the issues we should be dealing with. It is what the Labour party would do, and it is what the SNP should be doing. I say to Members from Scotland: please stop talking about constitutional matters and get down to the business of actually helping the people of Scotland. If they did that, they would get more respect.

I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members for the history lesson that I have received today, but I am worried about the problems facing the people in the present and the huge uncertainties we face in the future. That is what we should be spending time talking about in this place and in Holyrood.

The Economy and Work

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

An 11% budget deficit means the debt is added to every year. Until the deficit comes right down, we cannot get the debt down. That is what we are doing and why we want to avoid an 11% budget deficit.

Another sign of how the Labour party is changing is the motion it is asking us to vote on tonight. It contains an intriguing clause that relates to Scotland. It states that they

“regret the refusal of the Scottish Government to use its new tax powers to put an end to austerity in Scotland”.

That is code for Labour wanting to put up taxes in Scotland. If it does not want the Scottish Government to use their tax powers to put up taxes to put an end to austerity in Scotland, how does it propose to do it? Labour fought the election in Scotland proposing a 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax. That was the Scottish Labour party’s policy, which was so successful in that election. Here, the UK Labour party is putting that into a parliamentary motion and asking the Labour party to vote on it tonight. We have a report from the Labour party saying that it is irrelevant to working people; the head of policy wants to nationalise land and return to a three-day week; and the parliamentary Labour party will be voting tonight to increase the basic rate of income tax. That is the state of the Labour party today.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has taken us through what has been happening in the Labour party recently. May I ask him to comment on what has been said about him and his leader by the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who took through welfare reform over the past five years? He called the Prime Minister “disingenuous” and the Chancellor a liar and “Pinocchio”. Where does that leave you, Chancellor?

[Mr Osborne]

We worked together to bring welfare bills down and to make work pay. I am working with the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) to carry on that record in government. We will go on building that strong economy and the sound public finances that underpin a fair society.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

David Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The important thing now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has said, is that we build more homes to house those people. That will be an effective way of reducing prices, too. That will give access to home ownership to thousands more in the capital.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Can we put this discussion on thresholds to bed once and for all? The people who are paying 28% income tax will get a small rise. Every one of us standing here will get a 10% pay rise next year and we will get a much bigger tax threshold rise than the ordinary men and women of this country. That is what they cannot understand. We and the super-rich are getting richer. They keep getting poorer. That is what this debate is about—it is about fairness.

[John McDonnell]

We have to find a better way in our taxation system to benefit those at the lower end of the scale. At the moment, although we are happy with the rise in tax thresholds, there needs to be a way to compensate for that more equitably. Again, it is not us saying this; it is the IFS and many other independent assessors. They are saying that this is not the most effective way of redistributing wealth in this country.

May I go back to my speech? I do not want to try your patience, Mr Speaker.

It is an alien world for the majority of us. It is a world of offshore trusts and legal trickery that would put Byzantium to shame; a world in which it is perfectly normal to buy property in London through a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, managed by lawyers in Panama with offices in Bermuda; a world in which citizenship and attachment to a country are something to pick and to choose depending on price. The scandal of the “non-doms” continues, in which a few super-rich can pay a notional fee instead of the taxes that would otherwise be due from them as residents.

Tucked away in this year’s Budget was an extraordinary clause that wrote off selected non-doms’ entire capital gains tax bill on any gains made before April 2017—a giveaway to the wealthy. This is not the world that most of us live in. Most of us pay our taxes. Contrary to the shocking opinion of the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), that is not because we live in a country of “low achievers”, as he described them. We do so because we understand that a decent society depends on the contributions all of us make. Without the payment of taxes, we cannot run the public services that are essential to a decent society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to draw those remarks to the attention of the House. We have done a great deal on tax avoidance, but more can always be done and I will set out how we are doing that, working through the OECD.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the Minister give way? I want to help.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to help me, so I will give way and then really make some progress.

[Mr Anderson]

In the interests of the people listening to this debate, will the Minister provide, either today or by putting something in the Library, details of companies or schemes identified since 2012 that could be classed as either morally repugnant or morally wrong, terms that were used by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in 2012 to describe such schemes? Has any work been done on that? Can we get a register so that we know who to look out for in future?

[Mr Gauke]

I think the hon. Gentleman is actually being helpful—not that I ever doubted that he would be. When there is artificial, contrived behaviour and when schemes are clearly contrary to the intentions of Parliament, we need to take strong action. We are also entitled to be critical of those involved in promoting such schemes. Indeed, we brought in a regime whereby we can name and shame the promoters of tax avoidance schemes that are clearly contrary to our intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She made an excellent speech, at the start of which she summarised very well the feeling of public anger about an elite who seem to live by rules different from those that apply to the average member of society. I agree with her.

I want to speak along the same lines as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who has just left the room, and talk about the underlying issues. Why is there such public anger about this issue? Tax avoidance and tax evasion have been going on for hundreds of years. Smuggling was tax evasion. When people filled in their windows to avoid the window tax, that was tax avoidance. Why has there recently been a crescendo of public anger? It cannot be simply because the Panama papers have been in the press. I argue that it is caused by underlying economics and the fissures that emerged in our society after the great credit crunch in 2008.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman might want to consider the fact that the poor people of the country are lectured constantly by the Government, who keep telling them that we are all in this together. Quite clearly, we are not.

[James Cartlidge]

We have a record low in the number of workless households. Worklessness is the single biggest cause of poverty. The Government have a very strong record on dealing with poverty, and I will come on to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

First, let me reply to a few points that have been raised today. I agree that it was utterly wrong that a cleaner was paying more tax than a hedge fund manager—it stank. But thank God that cleaner was getting the national minimum wage, which was resisted by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats: £3.60 instead of £1.90—that is the truth. I welcome the fact that low-paid people have been taken out of paying tax, but we must recognise that 1 million people in this country are on zero-hours contracts. That is 2.5% of the workforce who would not have been taxed no matter what the tax threshold was because their pay is so abysmal. Five million public sector workers in this country have seen their tax threshold rise, but they have also had their pay frozen or cut for the last eight years. So we must look at the whole picture, and not just say that the tax threshold has risen and therefore everything is okay. It isn’t true.

The Prime Minister was right to say on Monday that nobody should traduce his dad. That was wrong, and the attack on his mother because she gave him a gift was not right either. It is normal and right that parents want to help their kids—all parents want to do that. In principle, if someone’s dad or mother has expertise in any field, we would expect them to use that knowledge on behalf of their kids. That applies to stockbrokers as much as it does to stockmen, and to bakers as much as to bankers.

The real problem that the leak has exposed is the huge range of opportunities that are open only to the rich, wealthy and powerful in this nation, which proves that we simply are not all in this together. Whichever way this is dressed up, it is clear that those in the know have not only the opportunity or good fortune to make money in the first place, but when they get that money, many more avenues are open to them to allow them to keep their hands on it. That is one reason why eyebrows were raised across the country and in the House when Conservative Members pushed through cuts to income tax from 50% to 45%, and huge rises in the level at which inheritance tax cuts in, because they personally would gain from that. If anyone else did that we would say it was criminal, but those Members stood to gain personally from that measure.

The Prime Minister earns £150,000 a year doing a job that we all understand is really hard. He tops it up with £50,000 a year from renting out his house, and he gets another £40,000 a year from his savings and investments. He then turns round and says to poor people in this country, “I’m sorry, mate, but you’ve got to cough up another £14 a week for your bedroom tax”; or a disabled person who struggles to exist on benefits is told, “You don’t need any more money than a fit person in your position, so you’re going to have to give us back £30 a week.” And what about the anger of 5 million public servants in this country who have been told time and again—this year for the eighth year running—“You must accept a real-terms cut in your living standards”?

[Dawn Butler]

I had a conversation with a Conservative Member who suggested to me that Members should declare their unearned earnings. Does my hon. Friend know what that means?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I haven’t got a clue what unearned earnings means—I have never been in a position to have unearned any earnings. The Minister might be able to answer that when summing up the debate, and I would be interested to find that out.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is paid £120,000 a year. He also receives £34,000 a year in rental income from his house, because he lives at No. 11 Downing Street, as well as dividend payments of £44,000 a year. But what does he say to nurses, care workers, prison officers, police officers, and, yes, tax collectors? He says they must work harder and longer—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Anderson]

Sit down.

The Chancellor says to those people, “You must work harder, and you must accept that you will have to work for longer before you get your pension.” How can he expect steel workers in this country, who are facing the possibility of a life on the dole, to believe that he really understands what they are going through?

The Mayor of London receives £143,000 for doing his day job, a quarter of a million pounds a year for writing for The Daily Telegraph, another quarter of a million in royalties from his books, and more money from his savings. Ordinary people in this country are fed up with carrying the can for the mistakes of the rich in this country—mistakes that led us into the economic crisis that is blighting the daily life of men and women who will never get the chance to save anything in the first place, let alone squirrel it away in the Caribbean, the Virgin Islands or the Channel Islands, where no questions are asked as long as people know the drill.

In two weeks the Trade Union Bill will come back to this House, and the most tightly regulated body in the country will face even more restrictions under the sad reality of what we have been told is the sunshine of transparency. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) spoke about trade unions not paying corporation tax, but I dare bet that them not doing that involved fully audited accounts that have been signed off, not hidden away. Why do we not subject financial markets, regulators and dealers to the same tight regulations that this Government intend to impose on trade unions, whose only job is to look after the interests of ordinary men and women in this country? Why do we not put the same effort into chasing tax dodgers as we do into hounding so-called benefit cheats—a process that traduces innocent people and sees their families rubbished? People are sanctioned without money for weeks on end, and at the end of that someone says, “Oh, we made a mistake.” What happened in the meantime? Why on earth do the Government think that people in this country are angry?

A lot has been said about the politics of envy, but this is about the politics of fairness. Make no mistake—this week we are seeing the end of the farce of “We’re all in this together”. Hon. Members should read today’s motion carefully because it is a roadmap, a loophole and a get-out for Conservative Members to say to people in this country, “We’ve heard your anger and frustration. We hear what you say. Let’s work together and find a way out of this.” Instead, they have shut the door and want to carry on the dodgy deals. No matter what they say, yet again there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, and the people of this country will not stand for it.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—what a contrast! This Government turned the 10p tax into 0p as we raised the personal allowance and took the poorest out of tax altogether.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

If it has been relatively simple to absorb this change, why on earth did the Chancellor introduce it in the first place and frighten the life out of seriously disabled people in this country? People were terrified about what was being proposed, yet the Chancellor has just said that we can absorb this change easily. Why did he do it in the first place?

[Mr Osborne]

If we take no decisions to control welfare spending and public expenditure, we destroy the nation’s finances, and the people who suffer are precisely the most vulnerable in society. Yes, we have taken difficult decisions, but where we have not got them right, we have listened and we have learned. If we had not taken those decisions, the country would be in an even bigger mess than the one we inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I will not at the moment.

I welcome the lifetime ISA. I welcome the tax crackdown on offshore property developers and transfer pricing. It was good to see the changes in the personal allowance, which will take many of my constituents out of tax.

Indeed, my constituency is in a very fortunate position, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for delivering nothing short of a jobs miracle. We have seen the largest reduction in youth unemployment in the history of my seat—and probably in England as a whole—at over 70%, and there has been a more than 60% reduction in adult unemployment. We also have record numbers of apprenticeships. That is taking people out of poverty. That is the great record of this Government.

The decision to resile from the commitment on PIP was absolutely right. There is a moral, social equity issue—[Hon. Members: “A U-turn.”] It is a U-turn—that was well spotted by Labour Members. However, it was absolutely right to make that decision. It was right for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) to point up the juxtaposition of tax reductions for well-off people and the change in PIP. However, it ill behoves Labour Members to lecture the Government, when they voted against every welfare change in the last Parliament. What would they have done, and what would they do now? It is incumbent on the Opposition to come through with a coherent, comprehensive alternative on fiscal policy, public expenditure and tax.

Let me raise two issues that have caused me some concern with the Budget. The problem the Government have encountered, which we have discussed over the last few days, has given rise to a proper debate about intergenerational fairness. We need to look again at pensioner benefits. We cannot discuss welfare without looking at things such as the triple lock and pensioners benefits. I rarely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), but he is absolutely right that we cannot see these things in a vacuum, and it is important that we look again at means-testing and pensioner benefits. It is morally wrong to make large transfers of wealth from the young to the old. There has to be a consensus on this issue.

One suggestion I would make is that, if we are going to means-test pensioner benefits, we should perhaps link that to the most acute societal issue we have at the moment, which is adult social care. We should have co-ordination and integration between acute district hospitals and the provision of care and housing for older people. I think there are older pensioners who would understand that, and it is something the Treasury needs to go forward with and look at very seriously.

The second concern is that, as we speak, Cambridgeshire County Council—it is not my local authority, because Peterborough City Council is a unitary authority—is looking at the devolution plans for East Anglia. At the moment, those do not stack up. We have not had enough information—in some senses, I am reprising the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) yesterday—and we need more. The proposal has been rushed to get it in the Budget statement. It needs to be finessed. We need to carry businesses with us. Neither local enterprise partnership agrees with it. The majority of councils are, at best, ambivalent, and that includes Cambridge City Council, which has rejected it. We need to look at this proposal again.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

I will not at the moment.

It may be that there are synergies between Lowestoft and Peterborough, or between Norwich and Ipswich, but I have yet to see them. Let us have more information about funding, governance, infrastructure spending, the role of an executive mayor and what will happen to the existing local government structure. I am not against this in principle, but we cannot promise £30 billion of spending over the next 30 years without more facts. We need to see those, and that is the challenge I give to those on the Treasury Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). This Budget, like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s previous Budgets, helps to create jobs. That is the right thing to do, which is why I continue to support the strategy of lowering business taxes to encourage growth. The corporation tax cut will benefit 1 million companies in Britain, and the business rates measure will help 600,000 small businesses. Cutting capital gains tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has carefully laid out, will help to boost enterprise. Reforming stamp duty and abolishing national insurance contributions will help the smallest businesses of all.

The Government have my wholehearted support in putting the next generation first. Our philosophy in the Conservative party is that debt is the most unethical thing of all to leave to the next generation, and I am proud that we continue to pay down the country’s debts; to reduce spending that cannot possibly have the consent of those who are yet to come; and to steer towards a surplus, which will put the public finances in the strongest position for today’s youngest.

Making it feasible for young people to buy a home or to save in a pension is crucial to intergenerational fairness, which is why I think that the lifetime ISA in this Budget is a positive thing. It should be seen alongside all the other measures that are already helping people in every corner of this country to get their first home. Ultimately, building homes is the most important way to provide homes at a price that can be afforded, and I urge the Chancellor and Housing Ministers to continue to build.

[Mr Anderson]

With the average pay for somebody on a zero-hours contract at £189 a week, how does the hon. Lady expect them to save in an ISA or buy a house?

[Chloe Smith]

I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, the percentage of people on zero-hours contracts remains about 2.5% of all who are in work. Secondly, as he will know from the small print of the Budget, for every £4 that somebody saves, the Chancellor will put in £1. That means that at the rate that the hon. Gentleman cites, for example, it is possible to consider taking up a savings product.

It is vital that those who come out of education and skills training have every possible opportunity, which is why the Budget is right to keep up job creation and investment in infrastructure. It is also crucial that we try to represent the values of the next generation. Generation Y —my own generation—and those coming after us value enterprise. Many will set up their own businesses, and many will work in a totally different pattern over their lifetime, so the Budget is smart to turn attention to the growing army of the self-employed. Many of the smallest businesses of all will welcome a drop in their NIC burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It has been a bad week for the Chancellor. It was his eighth Budget and sixteenth economic statement, so he ought to know better. The Budget unravelled in 24 hours and then it got worse: outrage at PIP cuts as it became clear that the disabled were being sacrificed for the rich; education in chaos as he forced academisation on every school, using our kids in his war against local government; stealth cuts on the NHS and local government, with changes to employer pension contributions; and, to cap it all, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions giving in after six years.

This latest mess only builds on the Chancellor’s catalogue of failure. He is still nowhere near eliminating the deficit, despite his plans to have done so two years ago. In February, we had the lowest manufacturing output for four years. National debt is up 50% under this Chancellor—up to an eye-watering £1.6 trillion—and he has lurched from one missed target to another. He has blamed everybody and everything except himself. He blamed the Greeks. He blamed the Queen for having a jubilee holiday. He even blamed the snow. He did not find any money down the back of the settee this week, unlike the £27 billion he found miraculously before Christmas.

Who pays for the Chancellor’s folly? Who else but the poor, the vulnerable and the sick—those least able to fight back. The Resolution Foundation has him bang to rights. It showed that what the Budget really means is that on average the richest will get a £225 rise, while the poorest might get a measly rise of £10 a year. In fact, it shows that, with other changes and the cuts announced since last year, the richest in our nation can expect to be £235 a year better off, while the poorest will be £375 a year worse off by the end of this Parliament. He is the Robin Hood-in-reverse Chancellor. He has made a career out of making the poorest in our country even poorer.

It is worse than that, however, because in an amazing show of puffed-up pride, the Chancellor stated in his speech that the northern powerhouse is

“the most radical devolution of power in modern British history.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 960.]

Has he not heard what is happening in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, where they are running their own affairs, getting extra money and having proper devolution?

[Mary Glindon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that devolution for the north-east is no deal at all? It is a raw deal, because we cannot even agree between councils what we want. We are just not getting the real democracy we need.

[Mr Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will come on to the north-east in a moment.

The Chancellor should be aware of what is happening in this city, where £2,000 a head is being spent on transport, while in my part of the world the figure is £5 a head. Where is the fairness in that?

The institutions of devolution were set up properly under a Labour Government who trusted the people with referendums and democratic discussion, but that is unlike what has happened in my part of the world. It is one thing to exaggerate—we all do it in this House, and I am as guilty as anybody else, believe it or not—but last week the Chancellor said from the Dispatch Box that

“powerful elected Mayors have been agreed for Manchester, Liverpool, Tees Valley, Newcastle and Sheffield.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 960.]

At least in the case of Newcastle, that is simply untrue. Newcastle is not being offered an elected mayor. That is exactly as it should be, as it is less than four years since the people of that great city rejected a mayor in a referendum by 62% to 38%. What is actually on offer is an elected mayor for the north-east, but that has certainly not been agreed yet. In fact, this morning Gateshead Council, one of seven councils involved, threw that out. Northumberland Council says is will agree to it only with certain additional powers that do not look like being given. Durham County Council has already said it wants a delay and not to be forced to make a decision on Thursday on proposed legislation that has not even gone through this House and will not do so until November.

So did the Chancellor—the great manipulator; the political strategist; the man who does not get out bed in the morning without weighing up the political advantage; the Machiavelli of Downing Street—make a mistake? He might have. If he made a mistake by saying that that had been agreed in the north-east, he should come and apologise for it. If he did not make a mistake, however, and if he deliberately tried to mislead the House, he should come back here and tell the truth—that he was deliberately misleading the nation and pretending that the so-called northern powerhouse was up and running in the north-east of England, as it is struggling to do in the rest of England. I have been really chuffed in these past two days to hear the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson)—I never, ever thought I would agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough—share exactly the same concerns as me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and saying very clearly that what is on offer is not fair, not democratic and not open to proper consultation.

The proof is in what the Chancellor said last Wednesday. This is a party political Chancellor who puts his and his party’s interests first. He said last week, in relation to the £20 million for building houses in the south-west:

“it is proof that when the south-west votes blue, their voice is heard loud here in Westminster.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 961.]

Unfortunately for those of us who vote red, our voice is never heard, but we are going to keep on shouting at ’em.

Budget Changes

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting those examples. He puts the point well. There is something compassionate about having a society where there are plenty of jobs, and I am pleased that we as a Government are delivering that type of economy.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In the Chancellor’s speech last week, he referred to £20 million being given to build houses in the south-west of England, and said that that was

“proof that when the south-west votes blue, their voice is heard loud here in Westminster.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 961.]

Does that not prove that this was not in the national interest; it is all about the political and personal interest of the Government and the Chancellor?

[Mr Gauke]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been a number of city deals done with authorities in the north-east of England, and a number of deals done with Labour authorities around the country. The employment record in the north-east of England is extremely strong.

Tax Credits

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Is there not a problem for employers in the public sector? A number of them, including my local council, Gateshead Council, are committed to paying the living wage, but clearly they do not know whether extra funding will be made available to them so that they can do so.

[Frank Field]

There is clearly, as my hon. Friend says, a question about resources. We are arguing that Ministers should produce an analysis of the impact of the national living wage, but many local authorities are paying above that level now, so those workers already have that money in their wage packet. The ability of local authorities to increase wages will be limited in the years we are considering, so many public sector workers on the lowest pay will not be beneficiaries of the living wage; their pay increases will be limited by the requirement the Government have laid down. Perhaps that is a factor the Government will use in the analysis for which we are asking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

There are some children in this country who will benefit from the Government’s changes: the children of dead millionaires. They will get an extra £1 million tax free. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a fair transfer from the poorest to the richest in this country?

[Jenny Chapman]

No, I do not. That is a pertinent point. I know that we will be challenged to find the money that is needed to reverse the change. We could find it through changes to pension tax relief or, very quickly, by reversing the changes to inheritance tax that we opposed and to which we remain opposed.

I want to illustrate the points that I have made in the limited time I have left. We have had quite a high-level discussion so far, but this debate is about real people. It is rare to find a constituent who is willing for their name and personal information—particularly on a financial issue—to be shared in the House of Commons, but I had no difficulty finding people in Darlington who were willing to share their names and details, and to become the poster people for this campaign because they are so angry about what the Government are trying to do to them.

Becky in my constituency lives on Red Hall estate and earns around £16,500 a year. She is a single parent, and her son is eight years old. She stands to lose £1,951 in tax credits per year. She told me that she is already struggling and has difficulty paying for essentials such as heating and electricity. Her salary will not change when the minimum wage increases, and she will not benefit from changes to childcare because her son is eight years old. I can tell the Minister that an eight-year-old is no cheaper to support than a four-year-old.