Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I am well aware of the sensitivities around the duty bands, on which we have received a number of representations, and of the renaissance not just in the industry to which the right hon. Gentleman refers but, for example, in respect of the number of microbreweries and the flourishing investment in that area. There have been a number of good news stories in this sector in recent years.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

24. The Minister has also received representations about a wholly different kind of cider that has not seen much of a real apple, and that is super-strength white cider, which is very harmful and cheap. Will she consider using the new freedoms following Brexit that will enable the Government to take seriously the evidence in favour of a minimum unit price of alcohol, given its consequences for the health of young and vulnerable people?

[Jane Ellison]

I am extremely well aware of the points my hon. Friend makes, not least, as I say, because of the role I last held in government. We look carefully at all these things, particularly the issue of white cider.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, what he would have heard last week was a catalogue of 2.7 million new jobs created over the last six and a half years, a deficit inherited from Labour at a peacetime record high slashed by two-thirds, a million new jobs created in the UK, record employment levels and 865,000 fewer workless households, all of which will have made an important contribution to improving living standards and prospects in coastal communities throughout the UK.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

2. What fiscal steps he is taking to increase housing supply.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government are committed to supporting housing supply and ensuring that the housing market works for everyone. Good progress has been made since 2010, with housing supply now at an eight-year high. In October, my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary launched a £3 billion home building fund to provide loans to house builders to unlock over 200,000 homes. However, the scale of the challenge requires us to go further, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Government will invest £2.3 billion in a new housing infrastructure fund that will deliver up to 100,000 homes, and will invest an additional £1.4 billion to deliver 40,000 new affordable homes.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the autumn statement’s £3.15 billion boost for London housing be flexible enough to meet the aspirations of both Londoners wanting a home they can afford to rent or buy and London’s homeless, whose complex needs include the need for supported housing?

[Mr Gauke]

I can provide that reassurance to my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to supporting housing supply and ensuring that the housing market works for everyone, including Londoners. London’s £3.15 billion affordable housing settlement will deliver over 90,000 affordable housing starts by 2020-21 across a range of tenures, including homes for low-cost home ownership and submarket rent, as well as supporting housing for Londoners with particular needs, and of course London will also benefit from the housing infrastructure fund.

Autumn Statement

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No, it has not been going on for two years. Let me tell the hon. Lady what happened. The Prime Minister took office in July, so it definitely has not been going on for two years. She asked Matthew Taylor to undertake that review, which is now under way. It is a very important review, looking at how employment rights more generally are being affected by this transition in our economy. That is being driven by technology, as much as anything, and I have said today that we also have to look at this issue from the point of view of the tax base, because the tax base is also under threat from these changes.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor for helping low-income families today and, for helping to make work pay for those on universal credit. I thank him, too, for the London devolution deal for housing, which will increase the number of affordable homes to rent and to buy. Can he reassure me, though, that this is not a destination but a direction of travel and that, whether it be spring, autumn or any season, we will continue to stand up for working families and for the weak?

[Mr Hammond]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows very well that our stated ambition and the driver in everything we do is to build an economy that works for everyone, but we are realists, unlike the fantasists on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that we can build an economy that works for everyone only if it is a strong economy with strong investment and good, strong British companies exporting their products around the world.

Finance Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I rise to address amendments 180 to 182 and new clause 19, tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. As a relatively new Member, I want to place on the record my enormous thanks to the staff of the Public Bill Office, who over the course of the summer assisted in the production of not only these amendments, but more than 30 amendments to the Higher Education and Research Bill. I have been busy, but I have been keeping them busy. As a new Member, I have perhaps been slightly more demanding, so I am grateful for their time and support.

As the Minister acknowledged in her opening remarks, amendments 180 to 182 arose from concerns reflected right across the Treasury Committee about the nature of appointments to the most senior offices and the dismissal of post holders. The Office of Tax Simplification has an important public duty. Many of us want the tax code to be simplified, but we know that constraints are inevitable because the tax system is as complicated as life and will therefore always have a degree of complexity. However, we also know—particularly those of us with a large number of small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies—that the more complicated the tax code, the more complicated it is for businesses to understand what it is they should and should not be paying. Companies with the means to get a great deal of expensive advice on how to make enormous savings are at a great advantage.

During the course of yesterday’s Finance Bill debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) spoke about the widespread practice of aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations. If the tax code were simpler and clearer, that sort of aggressive avoidance would be harder. That is why there is such parliamentary interest in the work of the OTS and a determination to ensure that Government appointments to the most senior posts have an appropriate degree of parliamentary oversight—primarily, but not exclusively, through the Treasury Committee.

I welcome the Minister’s constructive approach and the agreement she made with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who does a sterling job of batting for all members of the Committee and on behalf of both sides of the House. This is a good example of how the Government and the Select Committee system can work together effectively to reach the right outcome. I do not intend to press amendments 180 to 182 to a vote this afternoon, because we have received sufficient assurances from the Minister and I look forward to that process continuing under successive Governments.

Turning to new clause 19, even newer Members of the House are familiar with the regular display and theatre of the Budget. In this modern age, there is an inevitable degree of briefing, counter-briefing and misleading in the run-up to the event in order to misdirect the Opposition and to enable the Government to be fleet of foot on the day and to save the best headlines for the Budget. On the day itself, we have the routine announcements about the business that needs to be conducted in any Budget and then, of course, we get the inevitable rabbit out of the hat. Once the smoke has cleared and the mirrors have been packed away, the real analysis begins of the consequences of each Budget item for the people whom we are sent here to represent. Even members of Select Committees or Bill Committees, who follow the scrutiny of Bills closely, know that trying to penetrate the real impact of a Finance Bill or any fiscal event is a significant challenge.

I must say that that challenge has been made more difficult by the decision of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), to move away from his commendable practice of publishing alongside the Budget the distributional analysis of the impact of tax, welfare and public spending changes. The first question that all hon. Members face when presented with a Budget is about the impact on our constituents. Those of us who are committed to social justice are more interested in the impact on the poorer household than the wealthier household. In fact, the right hon. Member for Tatton described the analysis as the

“most comprehensive and robust assessment available”.

That is why it was so disappointing that he decided to abandon that practice following the general election. The move was condemned at the time by a wide range of anti-poverty charities as a serious mistake. We could spend a lot of time debating why the previous Chancellor chose to abandon that practice at that particular moment, and we could have our usual exchanges about the priorities of Conservative Governments and Labour Governments, but with the appointment of a new Prime Minister and a new Chancellor I hope that we can instead debate the merits of the principle which we believe any Government, whatever their priorities and political shade, should follow.

The Chair of the Treasury Committee wrote to the Chancellor to express concern that at last year’s summer Budget the Treasury

“replaced its previously excellent budget distributional analysis series with a manifestly deficient substitute.”

Since her elevation, the Prime Minister has made great fanfare of the commitment she made outside No. 10 Downing Street to lead a Government who work

“not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.”

I would dearly love to have a debate with the Government about the means by which we achieve social justice and about whether it is a good thing in and of itself, but I certainly agree with the Chairman of the Treasury Committee that a

“high level of transparency about the effects of tax and welfare policy on households across the income distribution would seem to be a logical, perhaps essential starting point.”

That is what motivated the tabling of new clause 19.

It is important that all Governments are clear and transparent about a Budget’s effects to enable proper parliamentary and public scrutiny of decisions—as happens in the Chamber, in Select Committees and in conversations around kitchen tables up and down the country. Knowing that the analysis is being produced and seeing it form as the Budget is prepared helps to concentrate the minds of Ministers and civil servants. It asks the question and gives the Chancellor, before he or she stands at the Dispatch Box to announce their Budget, an opportunity to reflect on the Budget in its entirety.

Successive Governments and Chancellors have once or twice fallen foul of public opinion by realising that the Budget as a whole is not necessarily as great as they thought it was when each part was being considered. Having the analysis in place as the Budget is prepared will not only aid public and parliamentary scrutiny, but enable Ministers to make the right judgment about how Budgets should be balanced. The Opposition believe, particularly when difficult judgments are to be made about tax and welfare changes and public spending, that the books should never be balanced on the backs of the poorest. I hope that we can find agreement in that area with the new Chancellor and Prime Minister, particularly given her stated aims, but whoever occupies the highest offices of this land, we can surely agree that parliamentary scrutiny is vital.

We should also agree that, as the Treasury has the evidence to hand and we are not asking it to do additional work—the analysis already exists—simply requesting that it be put in the public domain is not too much to ask. I welcome the fact that this afternoon the Minister has left the door open and says that this area will be considered by Ministers. On that basis, I accept that Ministers, the Chancellor and the Treasury will consider it. I assure the Minister and the Chancellor that we will return to this issue, through the Select Committee and at future fiscal events, if a change is not made. On the basis that the Government have an open mind and open ears on this issue, I am prepared not to press new clause 19 to a vote.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this stage of our consideration of the Finance Bill. I was interested to hear the carefully constructed arguments of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). Let me pick up on the point he made about wanting to see social justice from this and future Budgets, and to see it at the heart of the Government’s agenda, as was made clear on the steps of No. 10 by the new Prime Minister. He also talked about the impact on the poorest households, which is the focus of new clauses 2 and 3 and the reviews that they propose. As ever, it was also interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), and to listen to his thesis on post-factual analysis, be it on the Labour leadership contest or on this Bill. He mentioned roads, so perhaps he should come down to Enfield and give us a post-factual analysis of the cycle lanes that are planned in my borough to see whether we should continue with that expensive proposal, given the need for best value.

Let me return to the matters at hand. First, I wish to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Sadly, the latter cannot be here as she is leading her Health Committee on a visit, although she would want to be here to support this new clause. I hope and expect that across the House there is support for the principles of wanting to carry out a proper review of the impact of the duty regime, particularly in relation to high-strength cider, although I very much welcome the Minister’s comments. She will know all too clearly from her previous role in public health of the impact of alcohol and high-strength alcohol in particular, including cider, on the poorest and those most in need of our attention. I welcome the hint that a wider, more coherent view of the relationship between alcohol duties and harm could be taken, which was mooted by the previous Prime Minister but seemed to get kicked into the long grass—it has never returned. The Minister will be well aware of the permutations and the different interests across Government in relation to that review and its final outcome. The previous Prime Minister was talking about minimum alcohol pricing in terms of when not if, but this has now gone back to an if. I look forward in future Budgets and future consideration to a wider review and factual analysis of the relationships to harm and the impact on behaviour, particularly among the poorest.

New clause 2 hones in on an area that is about not just health harms, although that is the core of the argument, but an anomaly in our treatment of cider and of beer.

[Rob Marris]

I was a “remainer”, so at the risk of sounding like the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that this is one area where, as a small silver lining, leaving the European Union may assist, because the rates of excise duties, the definitions and so on are related to our membership of the EU? For example, I am thinking of the way in which wine is treated, because of the Italian, Spanish and French wine industries. If and when we leave the EU, we will have more flexibility in this regard.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome reluctant converts to the cause of Brexit, whenever they come. That is a silver lining among many. I see this very much as sunshine, rather than silver linings. At the heart of it all, this is about our taking back control over a duty that has an impact on the most vulnerable, and we have already had arguments about VAT. I look forward to hearing the Scottish Members’ support for the same silver lining, because they have been battling to ensure that their proposal for minimum unit pricing is not subject to court and European Court interference. They, too, would perhaps welcome that silver lining; I look forward to their joining the hon. Gentleman in what he has just said.

As much as anything else, new clause 2 is about dealing with an anomaly to do with high-strength ciders. In the recess, hon. Members may have enjoyed ciders of all varieties. They may have popped their corks and had some sparkling cider, which is a substitute, perhaps a poor one, for champagne. They need have no fear about this, because the essence of my proposed review is very much about the nasty stuff. I doubt many hon. Members will have partaken in it, although they may have done. I am talking about people going down to their local office licence to get a large bottle or can of white cider, which is not particularly sparkling or pleasant. However, it attracts under-age drinkers and, in particular, dependent drinkers—

[Rob Marris]

It has never seen an apple!

[Mr Burrowes]

It has never seen an apple. The Minister intimated that the same is true of pears. We need to look at the fact that white cider attracts the lowest duty per unit of alcohol of any product while representing the cheapest way to consume alcohol and get drunk, and to enable addicts to continue their dependency. Three-litre bottles of high-strength ciders are available for just £3.50; people can get completely wasted on £3.50, but they would struggle to buy a bottle of some mainstream ciders for that. As a result, these products are causing disproportionate levels of harm, which is closely associated with dependent, street and under-age drinking. The Government are rightly emphasising and prioritising tackling street homelessness and putting funds into preventing homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has introduced the very helpful Homelessness Reduction Bill. We hope that, with cross-party support, he will be navigating its safe passage through this House on 28 October and all hon. Friends will attend to that.

Let me make a wider point about future Budgets, as connected to that is the need to examine the impact of duty and the evidence that price has a particular impact on behaviour.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend pre-empts the point I wished to make, and is making a typically eloquent speech. For too long, under all Governments and under generally liberal regimes, whether we are talking about salt, sugar, alcohol or fixed-odds betting terminals, there has not been a holistic approach from the Treasury that looks at the indicative costs to society. I am talking in terms of health services, social services and so on. I do not think any Government have got that right over the years: there is a cost if we do not get the fiscal policy right in trying to change behaviour across all these areas.

[Mr Burrowes]

That is a welcome intervention. I welcome the Minister to her place, as she has wide experience in this area. I understand that she was the longest-serving Conservative public health Minister. She can bring that experience to bear, not least because she has added responsibilities, given the make-up of the limited number of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, to cover those aspects of what some might call sin taxes and to create a better overall review. That can be linked up with what we look forward to receiving from the Government: the long-awaited life chances strategy. Be it on the social justice strategy, social reform strategy or life chances strategy, we must ensure that we focus on the poorest and most disadvantaged, who are particularly badly affected by high-strength ciders and other issues that have been mentioned.

High-strength ciders are usually about 7.5% alcohol by volume, they are sold in three-litre bottles and they contain 22.5 units of alcohol. That is over 50% more than the Government’s weekly limit guideline, just in a single container. The leading brands are Diamond White and White Ace. The price means that heavy drinkers of white cider can spend only a third as much on alcohol as low-risk drinkers would spend. These low-strength ciders and high-strength ciders range between 1.2% and 7.5% ABV, but we need to focus on the white ciders, because at the moment the tax is based on volume rather than strength. That has an impact on behaviours. Obviously, it has an impact on the behaviour of manufacturers. When they look at incentives and what they produce, they may say, “Let’s just go for volume. We won’t then be hit on strength.” There is not a similarity with the beer regime, which has that grading, and that has an impact, not least on what products come out. Unsurprisingly, on the high street there is much more of a market for lower-strength beer and different qualities of lower-strength beer. Meanwhile, there is a wide range of mainstream ciders, but no impact in duty terms on high-strength ciders.

In considering the impact of high-strength ciders, we should perhaps discuss Glasgow and Edinburgh where, I understand, 25% of alcohol treatment services patients drink white cider. Of those, 45% drink white cider exclusively, so this is a huge issue whether in Glasgow or Edinburgh, where there is a significant problem with high-dependency drinkers, or in London or elsewhere.

I am sure hon. Members will know of constituents who are particularly dependent on this harmful drink, which is the drink of choice for many a harmful drinker. Indeed, the chief executive of Thames Reach, Jeremy Swain, has said that 78% of deaths among his clients can be traced back to high-strength drinks such as white cider. That is a shocking statistic that needs to be out there. I implore the Minister, perhaps when she considers future Budgets, to look at what is happening, and why. Efforts have been made in relation to manufacturers and others—she will be aware of this from her previous role—to sort things out and become responsible, and it has to be said that retailers have done that: Heineken and Bulmers have withdrawn their white cider brands as they believe them to be socially irresponsible. That is to be welcomed and we should praise those companies.

Furthermore, retailers such as Costcutter, Morrisons, Nisa and Spar have acknowledged the problems associated with those products and reduced their stocking and promotion of white cider, but if hon. Members come to Green Lanes in my constituency, although they will not get near any of those established off-licences, they will see that high-strength ciders are readily available. They are, sadly, targeted at the heavy drinkers, who are more likely to have those white ciders. Also—this is based on evidence that needs wider debate and review—they are more responsive to the cheapest price for alcohol.

Those supporting such a review and such a measure are indeed those responsible retailers and manufacturers, as well as the health sector—those who see the impacts of liver disease and the changes brought about by lack of accessibility to and an increased price for such products. In addition, alcohol treatment charities, various parts of the drinks industry and dependent drinkers themselves have also made the point that they recognise the impact of having an increased price.

It is indeed time for the Government to provide additional reassurance that there will be a honed focus on the issue in future Budgets, as well as a wider review of the impact of high-strength alcohol, particularly with respect to cider duty and targeting on white cider sales. As the Minister said, we must always be proportionate in the way we handle duties and ensure that people are not unduly impacted when they either buy or go out for a cider, but these measures would not impact on most mainstream ciders of between 4% and 5% ABV.

On the issue of simplification, which was alluded to earlier, these measures would bring such products into line with the treatment of beer. Since 2011, there have been three tiers of beer duty, with low rates on low-strength beers and high rates on high-strength beers, so why do not the Government, to achieve simplicity, clarity and coherence, make similar provision in relation to ciders, particularly because of the impact of high-strength ciders on the poorest?

The Government have rightly put social justice at the heart of all they do, and that must include this area, where the spotlight of social justice must also shine in preventing harmful drinking. I look forward to the Minister perhaps adding a few words of support for a targeted increase in the price of high-strength cider, or at least agreeing to look at the issue again seriously in time for the next Budget so as to help the vulnerable and end the anomaly to which I have referred. That would recognise these proposals as part of a wider review of the important issue of alcohol duties and their relationship to harm.

Another issue has been of interest during previous debates on Finance Bills, and I wish to bring a strong focus to bear on it by speaking to new clause 3, which stands in my name and the names of 15 of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Indeed, others have indicated to me their support for a review of the marriage and civil partnerships transferable tax allowance. I want to comment particularly on low-income households, especially couples with young children. It would be very progressive if the Government were to focus on achieving more take-up—I welcome the Minister’s comments on that—and arriving at a more significant amount, which would disproportionately impact on lower-income households.

I welcome the introduction of the transferable allowance for married people and civil partners last April, so, unlike in previous debates, I will not, along with my hon. Friends, be imploring the Government to establish such an allowance in the tax system. We have that. That battle has been won and that promise has been kept. There is that recognition of marriage in the tax system, and it is evidence-based: the institution of marriage is valuable as it helps individuals to build social resilience, improves mental wellbeing and aids healthy relationships, particularly with children. I shall not dwell on that past battle because, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, she also, on behalf of the Government, is wholly committed to that transferable allowance. It is here to stay under this Government, which is wholly welcome and I very much appreciate it. If any other hands got on the tiller, I am sure that it could be under threat.

However, we must not sit back and be content. The bauble is there and we have recognised marriage, but we need to look, as we do across Government, at how that measure will impact on poorer households. Indeed, we need to consider incentives, including financial incentives, and disincentives around different couple relationships and penalties that still exist. I believe that we must prevent marriage, with its particular social benefits, which have been evidenced, from becoming the preserve of the more wealthy.

I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in not being content with the fractured society that is based around relationships breaking down. We must do all we can to support couples to stay together, particularly those with children, and consider the impact on children when couples do not stay together. Evidence states very clearly that the children of married couples, who have grown up with them, are better served by the fact that the couple stay together.

I recognise that there are different incentives and this is not all about the tax allowance. A range of support can be given to keep couples together, although that is perhaps the subject of another debate for another time. However, we can play our part through fiscal incentives. I recall a recent speech from the former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, who spoke about an issue that we often discuss. We pray in aid the fact that we are a party of one nation and that we want to build a country of one nation. Interestingly, Lord Sacks referred to the fact that there is a growing phenomenon of two nations, which he saw in terms of a failure to support marriage creating two nations with two very different sets of life chances. As the Government build on their strategy, we should not ignore this issue, and immediately the life chances strategy is published I shall be doing research on the word “marriage” and how much we are supporting marriage.

It is important to heed the words of Lord Sacks. He said:

“In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers. This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of ‘two nations’ a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer.”

We should not allow that to be the preserve of one part of the nation. We can play our part fiscally to ensure that we are not divided and that many gain the opportunities derived from couples being together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

On that point, and particularly on the point about whether parents choose to stay at home or to work, despite the measure that has been put in, I support anything that allows parents to have a choice, or more of a choice, over whether they stay at home to look after their children or put them in childcare. However, we still have a massive problem with families not being able to make those choices, because childcare is not affordable for them, particularly for those caring for under-fives. Parents are still forced into being stay-at-home parents or taking low-wage jobs at strange hours because of the lack of affordable childcare. Does the hon. Gentleman support measures to change the childcare regime as well as the tax regime relating to this issue?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Lady tempts me into a wider debate. If the Minister were to respond on this, she would certainly point to the measures on childcare. When one looks at supporting couples with young children, there are other things the Government have been very much involved in to improve the offer. There is work to do on access and affordability, not least, in my constituency, in relation to poor households accessing childcare.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Lady talked about choice. There is also an issue about choice in that the Government are rightly encouraging as many people as possible to work and to exercise that choice, but it is sometimes an invidious choice for those who would want to stay at home, and the fiscal incentive to do that is not currently there.

There is a huge impact generally across the tax system on single-earner couples, which is not getting sufficient attention, and this proposal for the transferable allowance addresses that. There are lots of other measures across the tax and benefits system that seek to focus support on children, but we must particularly support the benefits of this allowance, which is around couples, marriage and the commitment to marriage and civil partnership.

In conclusion, following the cause of new clause 3 can be a win-win situation for the Government. It not only, obviously, recognises what we do already on marriage in the tax system, but it allows us to get the maximum effect from the Government’s original commitment, which I believe was welcome, but which was somewhat partial in terms of its original intentions. Recognising the financial challenges, I think new clause 3 would ensure that we can seek to remove some of the disincentives to marriage for those who wish to marry; it would help us to support social resilience and help with transferability; and it is also fiscally conservative. In short, new clause 3 is about getting more bang for our buck in supporting marriage and social justice.

[Philip Boswell]

There are several new clauses on which I intend to speak—most of them briefly—and the first is new clause 18.

New clause 18 calls for a review of the impact of section 24 of the Finance Act 2015. I and my SNP colleagues have concerns that the changes made in section 24 may have adverse consequences on the availability of affordable housing in Scotland and beyond. That legislation seems to be yet another London-centric policy that fails to take account of the diversity of the housing market throughout the UK.

Unlike other parts of the UK, where large rental agencies dominate, Scotland has a disproportionate number of landlords who own a small number of properties. That is hugely beneficial to tenants—particularly those on low incomes—as those small-scale landlords are often more willing to rent properties at an affordable price and to those relying on social security as a safety net. Owing to the changes introduced in section 24, we are concerned that those small-scale landlords may be forced drastically to increase rental costs, causing houses to be less affordable, or to sell their properties, potentially resulting in their being purchased by less sympathetic landlords or agencies. Given the UK-wide housing crisis that we are suffering and the rising cost of rented accommodation, it is incredibly important to ensure that landlords who rent at affordable prices and to those who depend on social security as a safety net are not pushed out of the market. New clause 18 therefore calls for a review of the impact of these changes on the availability of affordable housing so that those on lower incomes are not adversely affected.

New clause 6 calls for a review of the VAT treatment of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue service. I thank the Minister for her comments and consideration in her introductory remarks. Many in this Chamber may be familiar with the matter of VAT in relation to the Scottish police and fire rescue services, which my colleagues have raised in this House on a number of occasions. This remains an incredibly important matter that this Government have failed properly to address. Since the incorporation of police and fire authorities in 2013, the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish fire and rescue services have been charged VAT by the UK Treasury. This UK Government have refused to grant an exemption to these vital services in Scotland, despite the fact that since the time of incorporation the HMRC has handed out exemptions to the new transport agency Highways England, and Olympic legacy organisation the London Legacy Development Corporation.

This Tory-backed charge on essential Scottish public services is costing emergency services tens of millions every year that could and should be spent on frontline services. Only in June, it was reported that Scotland’s police force has paid £76.5 million in VAT since it was formed three years ago and remains unable to claim this money. It is worth noting that only the Scottish police and fire services have been expected to pay VAT to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and not English, Welsh or Northern Irish services. This is a disgrace. It seems absurd and unfair for this Tory UK Government to continually expect the Scottish Government to rectify the matter and cover the difference, especially given the consistent cuts to the pocket money they grant Scotland to run devolved matters. New clause 6 therefore seeks a review of the impacts of the VAT treatment on the Scottish police and Scottish fire and rescue services, including analysis of the impact of the financial position of these services arising from their VAT treatment.

I turn briefly to new clause 15, which seeks to prevent VAT from being increased on the installation of energy-saving materials. I agree with the intent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to prevent these VAT increases, if not his methods. This Tory Government have consistently instituted regressive policies in relation to clean energy and energy-efficiency measures, from cuts to the solar subsidies—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

We have provided funding for respite breaks. The hon. Lady is right to identify this as an important thing for carers in this, Carers Week. There are 200,000 more people now receiving carer’s allowance in this country. The Care Act 2014 extends rights to assessments, and the Government are launching the new carer strategy in recognition of how important a role this is for millions of people throughout the country.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Recognising the risks of homelessness for disabled people, may I welcome the financial commitment in the Budget to prevent homelessness? But does the Minister recognise the risks of a local housing allowance cap on supported housing?

[Damian Hinds]

I, in turn, acknowledge my hon. Friend’s welcome for the additional money for tackling homelessness that was in the Budget—and, indeed, that has been provided previously. On the LHA cap, we now have a joint evidence review being conducted by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions, and the one-year exception, to make sure that we get this right, so that we can have a long-term, sustainable funding solution for this sector.

Budget Changes

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

First, may I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and, through him, express the condolences of the whole House to the family who suffered so grievously last night?

On this Government’s approach, we believe that it is in the interest of the whole country that the public finances are on a sound footing. Reducing the deficit from a record level to surplus is a significant challenge, but it is one that we have to meet as a country, and we have to be willing to take the decisions that that involves. That is what this Government were elected to do in 2010 and what we were re-elected to do in 2015, and that is what we will do.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been no change in the Budget commitment to tackle homelessness with a record boost of some £115 million, which is on top of the protection for the homeless prevention grant? That very much shows this Government’s credentials in protecting the vulnerable.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 50, line 33, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in page 51, leave out lines 3 to 13 and insert—

2A (1) The Sunday trading authority for an area may publish a notice (a “consent notice”) in accordance with this paragraph providing for large shops in tourist zones (as defined in sub-paragraph (2)) in the authority’s area to be permitted to do either or both of the following—

(a) to open on Sundays falling between 21 March and 1 October and on the three Sundays before Christmas Day for a continuous period of whatever number of hours is specified in the notice (in addition to the continuous period of six hours mentioned in paragraph 2(3)),

(b) to open on Sundays falling between 21 March and 1 October and on the three Sundays before Christmas Day at specified times beginning earlier than, or ending later than, the times mentioned in paragraph 2(3).

(2) A consent notice published by a Sunday trading authority may only apply in relation to those parts of the authority’s area that is a “tourist zone” which is defined as—

(a) a retail area where tourists from outside the United Kingdom are responsible for a significant proportion of the retail sales, or

(b) a leisure and retail area, such as a coastal resort, which a significant number of tourists from outside the local authority area visit

and in deciding what is significant in either case the local authority shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would allow the relaxation in Sunday opening hours for larger shops to apply between Easter and the end of September and before Christmas to areas that attract significant numbers of tourists, such as central London and coastal resorts.

Government amendments 2, 13 and 14.

[Mr Burrowes]

Amendment 1 is in my name and those of 24 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as hon. Members from across the House. I think seven different parties have signed up to the amendment. I could not quite convince the UK Independence Party Member to unite with me on the amendment, although I may continue to try to persuade him if he attends the debate. Nevertheless, there is significant cross-party support for the amendment.

In many ways, I would prefer not to be here; I am sorry that we have to deal with this issue. We are having to do so not least because the proper procedure has not been followed, but also because of the issue of substance around Sunday trading. Some hon. Members will remember debates on the matter in the ’90s and the ’80s, which took up a considerable amount of the House’s time and attention. The previous time the matter came before the House, it took some two years of debate to reach the compromise that we reached. We have some three hours today either to unpick that settlement or, as I seek to do in the amendment, to delete the Government’s provisions.

Let us remind ourselves of what the Bill is about, and how Sunday trading fits into it. As I understand it, when it first came to the House, the Bill’s aims were clear. They were to

“make sure that Britain is the best place in Europe to start and grow a business and that people who work hard have the opportunity to succeed”

and to

“cut red tape for business, encourage investment in skills, and make it easier for small firms to resolve payment disputes by setting up a Small Business Commissioner”.

So say all of us, or certainly those of us on the Government Benches. The Bill is important, and I support it up to the point of its conclusion about Sunday trading.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell us why he is opposed to what the Government are seeking to do, which, as I understand it, is permissive, not mandatory?

[Mr Burrowes]

If my right hon. Friend will be patient, the purpose of my speech is to explain the reasons why I oppose the Government. We need to look at where the Government are taking us, even though they are trying to get there through a permissive, devolutionary approach. It is based on the premise that the deregulation of Sunday trading is good for small businesses, families and workers. We need to look at that premise. Deregulation is a one-way valve that local authorities would have the option of taking. I know that many Conservative Members are pure localists, who might want the decision about whether to restrict or deregulate Sunday trading to be a purely local one. The Government make the case that this is good for small businesses, but I object to that. I want to look at the way in which the Government have approached the question and carried out the consultation.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and his strong leadership on the matter. Does he agree that the Government’s case would be more compelling had they abided by the undertaking that the Minister has twice given to publish the impact assessment, which we are led to believe is positive and favourable? So far, the Government have not done so.

[Mr Burrowes]

The impact assessment has been published today. That is important. The Bill has already received some scrutiny in Committee. The Sunday trading proposals were introduced in Committee; they were not in the Bill on Second Reading. The Bill started not in this place but in the House of Lords. Therefore, the Sunday trading measure received no scrutiny in any of the stages in the House of Lords.

Following the consultation, we were promised that the impact assessment would be published, as we would expect with any measure, not least such an important and controversial one. The impact assessment was published today, and it includes several paragraphs about the family test, for which I and others have asked for some time. Back in October, I asked when the family impact test would be published, and I was told that it would be published before the Committee stage. In February, I asked again when it would be published, and I was told that it would be published alongside the Government’s consultation response. That did not happen. After that, I was told that it would be published shortly. It has been published today. I do not think that is acceptable.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistency on this subject. He stood for election in May. He will have known that some Conservative Members would have liked to bring forward such a measure. He must have been reassured that it was not in the Conservative manifesto. As a democrat, how would he be able to face his constituents if he had chosen to vote for the measure, given that his views are so well known and that the Conservative party had not put it in its manifesto?

[Mr Burrowes]

I am a lawyer by profession, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has asked me a leading question. Plainly, the measure was not in the manifesto. Not only that, but the Prime Minister confirmed on 20 April 2015, in the middle of the campaign, in a letter to the “Keep Sunday Special” campaign:

“I can assure you that we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe that the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.”

That pretty much sums up my position, on which I have been consistent. The Prime Minister appeared to share my position back in April.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend knows that I have enormous respect for him and for his campaigns on many issues, on which I have worked with him, but does he not agree that we should just trust our constituents to make up their own minds? In life, we all have to find our own balance, and we are all capable of deciding whether we work or shop on a Sunday. That is not the most complicated decision that our constituents will make in their lives. Will not my hon. Friend trust his constituents to make wise decisions for themselves and their families?

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I saw that “but” coming. We have a job to do in Parliament. We do not simply devolve every decision out to our constituents. We should listen to our constituents. I am not sure whether he has looked at his mailbag, but I have looked at mine, and many shop workers, faith groups and others have asked me, “Why are we doing this? Why are we trying to unpick something that is fairly settled, even if it is not perfect?” I have listened to my constituents. We have important principles as well. The Sunday trading arrangement is complex, and it is our duty to look at it carefully, to consult widely and to scrutinise it fairly. None of those things has happened to the extent that they did in the ’90s and ’80s. It should not surprise us that there is a lot of cross-party concern. I would agree with my hon. Friend if this were a wholly devolving measure, but it is not. It is based on a principle that we would have to sign up to.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

In a moment. When we make this decision here in Parliament, everyone who votes against amendment 1 will have to agree with the premise that deregulation is good for businesses, families and workers. Members have to make this decision; we cannot simply devolve it to local authorities.

That is the premise of the case that the Government are making today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Burrowes]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be a signatory to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman, who is my neighbour, and to support him. As I am sure he knows, some 49% of retail workers surveyed are parents or carers, and their Sunday is special to them. In relation to what has been said about trusting our constituents to make their own decision to work, I am sure my neighbour knows that even in workplaces that have trade union reps to support members, many staff are pressured into not using the Sunday opt-out. In fact, something like a third of shop workers are pressured into working on Sundays, or they will have their working hours cut.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is included in the unholy alliance that, as I have mentioned, has come together on my amendment. She makes a very good and important point. We may have a choice about whether to go to church, shop or spend time with our families. We need to be a voice for people who do not have such a choice, perhaps because of caring or work responsibilities. We need to be very careful about imposing further requirements or obligations on them. That is important, and it is why we suggested having a family impact test. The impact assessment has been published today. The Government twice in parliamentary answers promised me they would do that. We must take the impact on families seriously, as the right hon. Lady says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I will come on to that point. The Government have made the case that the Bill will support high streets and deal with the challenges of online shopping and the like. However, to go back to the campaign, when my hon. Friends and other Members were campaigning up and down their high streets—my constituency is full of high streets, like many other constituencies—was this mentioned to them? I do not remember that happening. In fact, only one large outlet, Asda, mentioned it. The rest did not once say that the way to rebuild and regenerate high streets was to deregulate Sunday trading. In fact, they wanted business rates, car parking and things such as that to be sorted out.

I do not need to rely only on what my constituents are saying. Let me look at the Government’s review, which was a proper review, into how we can regenerate and improve the high street. If we page through that substantial review, we will not see a big case being made that the one way to regenerate the high street is to deregulate shopping hours for large shops. That will threaten small businesses.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

Let me take my pick. I give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not misleading for the Government to describe this as a devolution measure? Is it not simply a fact that the moment one council adopts these powers, every neighbouring council will be forced to follow suit?

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

Was that the hon. Gentleman’s point as well? I give way to him.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because this follows on smoothly from the previous intervention. Before Christmas, I was a member of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which the Government consulted on the devolution of Sunday trading powers. I can categorically say that those powers were not asked for or requested; they were forced on that body.

[Mr Burrowes]

There will be the inevitable domino effect of a race to the bottom if local authorities get hold of the powers. We should not just see this as a matter that can be left to local authorities. The Government have said that this provision is good for high streets, businesses, shop workers and families.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Burrowes]

I will carry on for a moment.

The Government are making the case for devolving such powers and they must be held to account for it—it is for them to make that case—but the reality is that the substance of their case does not meet the high threshold required to justify unpicking the complicated Sunday trading laws.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Burrowes]

I will give way to a Member on the Conservative Benches.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I am sure that those who know my hon. Friend would agree that it is very rare for him to be in any sort of unholy alliance. I am very much of the view that the compromise made 30 years ago has worked fairly well. Does he not recognise that there is no sense of imposition? As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) rightly pointed out, the approach is a permissive one. In my constituency, which I accept is a relatively exceptional one in the centre of a city, there would certainly be a demand, particularly during times when we have a high number of tourists, for local authorities to give such permission, but that would be up to local authorities to manage. This is quite a good compromise, given the great changes that have taken place in shopping patterns in the past 30 years, not least with the internet.

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear that point. Throughout this process, I have been open to such a debate, and I know that the large shops in the west end, such as Harrods in Knightsbridge, have made a strong case for opening for longer for tourists. That is part of the Government’s economic case, but I do not think it is substantial enough. It is based around the New West End Company model in particular. However, research by Oxford Economics and others shows that we must look at the economic impact more widely, not simply at the benefits for larger businesses. Hon. Friends and hon. Members know that we should not just listen to big business; we are concerned about shop workers and small businesses, and it is important to say that the impact on them should not be underestimated.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Burrowes]

I give way to a new face and a new voice.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am not that new. Can my hon. Friend knock on the head the point that Conservative Members are making about permission? The issue is not about the fact that permission is given; it is about who will exercise that permission. The permission will be exercised by local authorities, but do individual shop workers who wish to run their own store six or seven days a week have such a right of permission?

[Mr Burrowes]

That is an important point. This is not simply about providing local councils with such powers, because our duty goes much further. We need to look further than simply at whether councils want this or not—whether 100, 200 or more councils want it. We need to look at what businesses and shop workers want.

On the question of imposition, in September, a survey of 10,000 shop workers showed that 91% of them do not want to work more on a Sunday. The current six-hour restriction is important to them because, as they say, Sunday evening is often their only guaranteed “family time”, especially if they have children at school in the week or partners who work weekdays. Not so many staff are required under the current regime—usually, there is a single shift—so most staff are able to work a Sunday rota with some Sundays off. We must look at the imposition on shop workers and businesses.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are making a very good introduction to this debate. I understand that some chief executives of larger stores, such as Sainsbury’s and John Lewis, are expressing their concerns to the Prime Minister about this issue. In relation to that survey, Sainsbury’s has quite rightly questioned whether there is an appetite among consumers or retail staff for Sunday working. As I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, Conservative Members should not assume the opt-out means anything, because most retail staff say it is impossible to use it because employers find ways to make them suffer if they try to opt out of Sunday working.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, that is true. We should not tar all large retailers with the same brush. I think Tesco has also expressed concern. Some of them have no doubt got a commercial interest—they may have more convenience stores on high streets than other large retailers—but they share the concern that the Government’s devolutionary approach is not so practical for larger businesses, given that there are issues in relation to distribution centres and dealing with waste recycling. This will make things more complicated for them. In essence, the Bill is about cutting down on red tape and about deregulation, but this would mean a move in the opposite direction for such businesses.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

When I get into my speech, I will come on to the protections for shop workers, but before I do that, I give way to my near neighbour.

[Mr Lammy]

As my constituency neighbour, the hon. Gentleman will remember walking down high streets such as mine and through parts of Enfield town after the riots back in 2011. Not one local shopkeeper whose shop had been ransacked said that devolving power in such a way—allowing big retailers to open for even longer on Sundays—would help their business. Such businesses are struggling anyway, and this sort of action will only make that worse.

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about the definition of “tourist”? Can he explain what a tourist is? Am I a tourist when I go to Enfield, Southgate to shop?

[Mr Burrowes]

The issue about tourists is not for me. I will leave my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) to make such a case in relation to her amendment 19.

I want to turn to the substance of the issue, which is first of all about process. This is a controversial matter. No one who has been around for a while and who has listened to people’s concerns will deny that it is controversial. That is plainly the case given that it divides opinions so much in this House.

[Mr Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to make some progress.

Normally, as I understand it, the guidance for a Government consultation on a controversial matter is to allocate a full 12-week period for the consultation. However, the consultation that has led to where we are now not only lasted just six weeks, but happened right in the middle of the summer holidays at the start of August. This particularly important consultation ran for two weeks in the central period of the holidays. Why did that happen? Was there a rush to get the measure on the statute book immediately? The Government took some five months to respond to that rushed consultation, which nevertheless managed to generate some 7,000 responses, which is extraordinary, given the time constraints. If such a controversial measure elicited that number of responses, all parliamentarians must ask why it did not get the full scrutiny that it deserved in both Houses. There was an attempt to tack it on to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, and now it has been tacked on to the Enterprise Bill, after that has already been through the Lords. Someone who was cynical or suspicious might say that that limits the scrutiny of an important measure.

These are not just my concerns. When we last had the opportunity to discuss this matter, which was during the passage of the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill in 2012, it did receive full scrutiny. The then Minister, Lord Sassoon, underlined the temporary nature of the proposed change. As many hon. Members have said, we had assurances from the Government that that was not a precursor to a further deregulatory move. Lord Sassoon also gave an assurance that there would be full parliamentary debate if there were ever another Sunday trading legislative proposal, but we have not had that. Unfortunately, that promise has not been kept. That is to the detriment of us all, as it would have allowed us to consider matters such as tourist zones and pilot areas, about which we will probably hear later. All those aspects need time for proper scrutiny.

[Mr Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend nail the myth that the measure is designed to assist town centre retail trade? Some 53% of local authority chief executives said that they would use the new liberalisation to boost out-of-town shopping centres, but that cannot be what many hon. Members want.

[Mr Burrowes]

Indeed. The knock-on effects of the measure need careful thought and attention.

The consultation showed that 76% of local authorities, large and medium-sized business respondents and business representative organisations were in favour of the proposals, but while the Government told us that those organisations and local authorities were in favour, they failed to tell us about the proportion for individual responses. We all have a right to respond individually to Government consultations. We all have a voice. It is not just the big corporate bodies whose response counts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I duplicated a question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ask what number and what proportion of respondents to the Department’s consultation published on 5 August responded yes and no—it is a simple question. The first question in the consultation asked whether people were in favour of the proposal, so surely it is possible to publish the number of respondents. That question was, “Should local areas have the power to extend trading hours on Sunday?” and that is the question that we are debating today, so it would be useful to know how many individuals who responded to the consultation were in favour of the proposal.

The answer that my hon. Friend and I received from the Minister is one of the most extraordinary that I have seen in my 10 years here. It stated:

“The Department does not hold full data from this consultation broken down by specific question as a large portion of respondents chose to respond in their own words”—

I assume that they were English words and there was no problem of translation—

“rather than addressing the consultation questions directly, and/or did not indicate the type of organisation they represented.”

That is unacceptable. There should be a proper, accountable process that enables us to judge the response to the consultation on the measure.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I very much respect my hon. Friend and his viewpoints. Nevertheless, will he explain why he thinks that high streets should be held back under restrictions when most internet shopping takes place on a Sunday? He refers to the consultation, but when people shop via the internet, are they not voting with their fingers, so to speak? Do they not want to be able to shop free from restrictions? Does not my hon. Friend want to support the high street in his constituency and those elsewhere in functioning without these restrictions?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government’s review regarding high streets, about which he and I had concerns, made the case not for deregulation, but for dealing with issues such as parking and business rates, on which the Government are making good progress. On internet shopping, can a case be made that in the hours when large shops are not open—after 6 pm, say—everyone is clicking away on their computer because they cannot get to those shops? That makes no sense. There are other ways in which we can handle internet shopping. We need to look more broadly at how we can revitalise the high street, and this measure is not the way to do it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Burrowes]

I will give way a couple of times, but then I must make progress as others want to speak.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Surveys of internet shoppers show that there is no relationship between internet shopping on a Sunday and the desire for extended hours in local stores. Is the fact that people are on the internet between midnight and 3 am an argument for shops to be open at that time? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not the case?

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does this not boil down to a question of local democracy? How can it any longer be—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

I will try to explain, but first I give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has been very persistent.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to take him back to the point that he made about the consultation. We do have some data: the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has told us that there were more than 7,000 responses to the consultation, and that it believes, as do I, that the vast majority were opposed to the proposal. Does the hon. Gentleman share that belief?

[Mr Burrowes]

Absolutely. It would be good if there were more transparency.

The Prime Minister has led the way, quite properly, in saying that the Government need to publish family impact statements whenever new policy is proposed. We need to look carefully at such statements, so the family impact of the proposed measure should receive serious consideration. I have put questions to the Business Secretary on a number of occasions—22 September, 15 October and 10 February—to ask for the publication of the family impact statement. The understanding was that it would be published alongside the Government’s response to the consultation, but that did not happen, and we have just received it, at the eleventh hour, before the debate.

The family impact statement makes several important points. It accepts that there could be a negative impact on the family and recognises that many individuals who responded to the consultation felt that families would be noticeably affected.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I, too, respect the comments of my hon. Friend, but will he explain why we are so concerned about the family impact on those working in retail, yet we do not regulate for those who work shifts in sectors such as the NHS, transport, catering, hospitality—the list goes on?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is often low-paid workers, in many cases women, who are affected by Sunday trading, and such trading has a knock-on effect on ancillary services in the supply chain to large stores. That, too, needs careful consideration.

On my substantive objections to the proposal, beyond the process—important though that is in determining how Members will vote later—an economic case has been made. It is important that we look at the evidence provided by not just the New West End Company, but Oxford Economics, which I mentioned earlier. It projects that under the Government’s proposals, 8,800 jobs would be lost in the convenience sector, with a net loss of 3,270 jobs in the wider grocery sector because of displaced trade from small to large businesses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Burrowes]

I am sorry, but I am going to make some progress so that other hon. Members have a chance to contribute to this important debate.

I am no great expert on businesses—I am taking the evidence that I have seen—but I do listen to the representatives of business organisations. When the Federation of Small Businesses, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Rural Shops Alliance, the Federation of Wholesale Distributors and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents—many of us will have been to their regular receptions here, and expressed solidarity with them and concern about the challenges they face—are all united in saying that this change is bad news for our economy, I take that very seriously, as should other Members.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

I must make some progress.

My concern is that the proposal has not been properly thought through or evidenced. We are in danger of being seen to be responding to the voice of bigger business, rather than the small businesses on our high streets. Indeed, when the nearly unanimous opposition of small businesses is seen in tandem with the fact that nearly a quarter of the large businesses that responded to the Government’s consultation also oppose the proposal, we need to reflect very carefully on the lack of scrutiny in tacking these measures on to the Bill.

Like many other Members, I want to speak up for my high street. When I go back to my constituency, I do not think that the businesses on my high street would say, “Well done. Thank you very much for deregulating and giving more hours to the large shops.” I think that they would say, “Why aren’t you spending more time lowering our business rates, getting better car parking and reducing red tape?” I support the Government in their focus on that, so why are we getting distracted by the claim that the measure will in any way support our high streets?

Several points have been made about shop workers. We cannot ignore the fact that separated parents can face problems, such as if one parent has access rights at the weekend. One shop worker in that situation told me, “As I am separated, I have my children every other weekend. I work every Saturday and one in four Sundays. I often struggle to arrange childcare and fear that this has an effect on my relationship with my children.” We must listen to those voices.

In relation to the opt-outs, I welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to provide additional protections, but we have heard legal advice saying that that might not allay people’s concerns. In fact, despite the additional protections, there is already an issue regarding whether those who are unwilling to work on Sundays will be considered when they apply for a job. Indeed, as we have heard, people are already under an implied pressure to work longer hours.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the holy alliance that he has assembled behind his amendment. A member of USDAW is quoted as saying:

“I’d be under pressure to do more hours on Sunday, making it impossible for me to go to church.”

Is that not an undesirable aspect of the proposal?

[Mr Burrowes]

The Government have tried to deal with that concern by putting forward additional religious protections in the Bill, and my amendment would not delete those. Whether the pressures are explicit or implied, they are a factor.

The Government did have a pilot in one sense, because such a measure was road-tested during the 2012 Olympics. A specific opt-out was created so that staff could avoid working the longer Sundays if they did not wish to, and retailers claimed that they would cover only those hours when staff volunteered to work. However, I understand that 564 representatives in stores that opened for longer hours found that in over half those stores—56%—despite the right to opt out, staff came under pressure to work the extra hours. Those who asked not to work the extra hours were threatened, or punished by being refused overtime.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that over half of those who work in shops in Northern Ireland, where opt-outs are already meant to be in place, have come under pressure, and that that is why 76% of those who work in the retail trade have said that they do not want hours to be extended, purely because they know that they would be under even greater pressure if local authorities accepted the longer hours?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We should also consider the potential domino effect of the Government’s proposals. Another shop worker told me, “The idea that Sunday working is optional, and that this is enshrined in law, is laughable. They make you pay one way or another for objecting to working on a Sunday.”

When a policy is opposed by the small business community, by a good number of large businesses, by the majority of shop workers, and by Churches and other faith communities—the Chief Rabbi recently spoke passionately about properly respecting the special character of Sundays—we must ensure that we consider it carefully. There has already been deregulation in many forms, but there is still a special character that we can preserve. This does matter, because Sunday is still special for many people, and the Government should not chip away at that unfairly, unreasonably and without due process. We should ensure that there is a proper place for Sundays for families, businesses and workers.

This issue has come before the House on previous occasions. Mrs Thatcher’s Government were defeated by a large majority on an entire Bill in the House of Commons. I remember attending my first ever public meeting in 1986—it was my first foray into the world of politics—which was hosted by my local Member of Parliament, Michael Portillo. He appeared before a packed public meeting and completely misjudged the views of those present, many of whom had never been to a public meeting before. He saw for himself the huge concern in the community, having misjudged the strength of feeling about amending the hours of Sunday trading. Time has moved on, but there is still a strength of feeling out there—from shop workers, families, small businesses and others. That meeting was a formative political experience for me. We heard a statement from the Health Secretary earlier about learning from mistakes, and I urge the Government today not to make the same mistake again.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we proceed with the debate, I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to EU measures to combat terrorism. The Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 217, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

The charity sector as a whole has an income of about £40 billion a year, which is broadly stable. I have been looking at the council accounts for the hon. Lady’s area. It turns out that Kirklees Council has £200 million in useable and unused reserves. The problems to which she refers are not real ones.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Tackling complex needs effectively has been something of a holy grail out of the reach of previous Governments, so I welcome the commitment in the autumn statement to £105 million in social impact bonds to tackle complex needs and perhaps get us closer to that holy grail.

[Mr Letwin]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a passionate advocate, as I and others have been, of social impact bonds. This is a huge change in the way our country is organised. We can get to the point where we are actually paying for outcomes, not inputs. We lever up the amount the Government put in on behalf of the taxpayer, with huge contributions from the private sector and from those double bottom line investors. We can see a huge transformation in public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we take very seriously the issue of illegal loan sharks and, indeed, that of excessive interest charges on payday lending, which is why it was Conservatives who introduced the first ever cap on payday lending. As for the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about funding for illegal money laundering and loan shark teams, we are considering the imposition of a levy on the industry to meet the requirements that he has identified.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Q2. Following last week’s vote, can my right hon. Friend give us an update on action against the genocidal jihadists who not only attack Christians, Yazidis and Muslims, but pillage their churches, shrines and mosques? I welcome the announcement of £30 million to protect cultural heritage, but can we also ratify the Hague convention sooner rather than later?

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Let me briefly update the House on the military action that has taken place since we met last week. We have 16 aircraft conducting strikes, as well as our Reaper drones. The Royal Air Force has flown 11 missions and conducted four strikes, principally against the oilfields, and we are also supporting Iraqi security forces. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be in New York next week for talks on trying to bring an end to the horrendous conflict in Syria. As for the damage that is being done to the cultural artefacts in the area, we are providing £30 million as part of the cultural fund—I have discussed that with the director of the British Museum—and as for the Hague convention, that process is now moving apace.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Overall funding for social care will be protected in real terms. The council tax premium can be levied, and the better care fund will have an additional £1.5 billion to make sure that it can help local government integrate with the national health service. Our objective is to achieve over the next five years the integration of health and social care services across the country. Places such as north-east Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Greater Manchester have made big progress in this area, and I hope that the hon. Lady’s local area also takes steps in that direction.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome this compassionate Conservative statement with, for example, councils receiving £10 million more up front to tackle homelessness in their local areas. Will the additional £105 million pledged over the course of the Parliament to tackle complex needs of homelessness, mental health and youth unemployment be delivered through the roll-out to the troubled families programme, delivering social justice for single persons with complex needs?

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for the work that he has done to champion the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our communities. The troubled families programme is protected and supported in this spending review. The money for social impact bonds to help with complex social needs in our society is additional to that, as is the extra support for homeless people, which will go direct to councils rather than through the benefits system and have an extra £10 million put into it. There are a number of pieces of good news.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am going to speak extremely briefly to amendment 29 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), which asks the Government to look again at withdrawing the full amount of the WRAG component, which affects approximately 492,000 people. Let me briefly explain the reasons.

First, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned earlier, many in the WRAG are in that group for a long period—two years or more, compared with six months on average for jobseeker’s allowance, for instance. As she said, it is extremely difficult to exist on these levels of income for long periods, whereas it might be possible for a few weeks or even a few months for those with other kinds of support. It is therefore important that we look at the length of time.

Secondly, the costs for people in this group are often higher. It has been said to me that the personal independence payment will compensate. It will not compensate for all those costs; for instance, heating is not part of PIP, nor are the special diets people may have, although caring and mobility are part of PIP, of course.

Thirdly, there is the question of the incentive. Because the support group has a component of £36.20 a week at present as opposed to the WRAG of £29.05 a week, which it is proposed to take away, there will be the incentive and a tendency for people to be put into the support group rather than the WRAG. Surely the whole point is to bring people into the WRAG so that they can be given support to come back into work. For instance, 30% of people with Parkinson’s are wrongly placed in the WRAG. This means that instead of receiving the £29.05 component a week, they will receive nothing in future. I have seen instances of people placed in the wrong group in my constituency.

We are talking about a benefit where sanctions are wrongly applied in a number of cases, as has been mentioned in the debate. I need to be very brief and I apologise for not making my points in more detail, but I want others to come in. I ask the Minister to come back on this—

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

This may be an opportunity to mention amendment 31. I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns. What we need is specialised tailored employment support. I understand that in Committee the Minister agreed to come back in the autumn with details of what support the Government will give when the package rises from £30 million to £100 million. The sooner we get those details, the better.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree that we need specialised tailored employment support, but people also need cash to pay their heating bills. That is extremely important and needs to be borne in mind.

Finally, I was not quite clear from my hon. Friend the Minister’s remarks earlier whether the freezing of benefits applies to those in the WRAG who will be on the present JSA rate of £73.10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond once again on that issue and to make the case that, first, it pays to be in work, and secondly, through our package of measures, including the national living wage, the increase in the personal allowance and the extra support for tax-free childcare, families will be supported through the changes we are making. That contrasts with the system we inherited from Labour in 2010, which was not fair to the hard-working taxpayers who paid for it, and certainly did not support people trapped in a system of welfare, with no hope for a brighter future. That is why we are continuing to reform welfare so that work pays in the United Kingdom.

After 13 years in government, Labour left a welfare system that failed to reward work. Between 1997 and 2010, spending on tax credits increased by 335%, compared with an increase in average earnings of just 30% over the same period. Despite all the spending, 1.4 million people spent most of the last decade under Labour trapped in out-of-work benefits. [Interruption.] That is not a ridiculous point to make. Over the same period, the number of households in which no member had ever worked nearly doubled and in-work poverty rose, yet Labour has opposed every decision we have taken to fix the welfare system and support people off welfare and into work.

Our welfare reforms are focused on transforming lives by helping people to find and keep work. We are focused on boosting employment and ensuring fairness and affordability, while supporting the most vulnerable, and on making sure that people on benefits face the same choices as those not on benefits and in work. Over the past five years, 2 million more people have entered employment, while 2.3 million people are now in apprenticeships and the number of workless households is at a record low—down by more than 680,000 since 2010. This was achieved in the last Parliament, when welfare spending increased at the lowest rate since the creation of the modern welfare system.

[Mr Burrowes]

The Bill delivers on our ambitious manifesto commitment to halve the disability employment gap, but we need to be held to account for the progress we make, so will the Minister outline how, through the reporting mechanisms in the Bill, we can show we are delivering on that commitment and build on the good progress we have already made in helping over 200,000 more disabled people into work?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right about the Government’s clear desire to support more disabled people into employment, and as we discussed in Committee, we will strive continuously to fulfil that commitment. I can assure him that in everything we do, including through the £100 million of investment to help people with disabilities and health conditions—something that Labour did not do in government—we will share information with the public and report back to the country on our progress. The Government stand by the principle of encouraging and rewarding work, and the Bill builds on that success.

Naturally, we want more people to have the dignity of a job, the pride that comes with earning a pay packet and, importantly, all the wider advantages that come with employment. All those who want to enter employment and contribute to the growth of our economy should be supported to do so, which is why we are committed to full employment. The Bill will support that commitment with a statutory duty to report on our progress towards full employment and our ambition to deliver 3 million new apprenticeships. In addition, it will put in place a statutory duty to report on our progress in supporting troubled families with multiple, highly complex problems, including in helping them to move closer to work. It will encourage parents into work and support those trapped on benefits without the opportunity to move into work, such as those with health conditions or disabilities in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) rightly highlighted, we will support them into work.

As a one nation Government, we believe that everyone in the country should have the chance to benefit from the security and sense of purpose that comes from being in work. Work provides purpose, responsibility and, in particular, role models for children, yet getting people into work is about more than earning a salary. Growing evidence shows that work can help people to remain healthy and help to promote recovery where somebody falls ill. It is right, therefore, that we look at how the system supports people with health conditions into work. We know that 61% of those in the work-related activity group want to work, but only 1% come off benefits each month. The system has failed them, and financial disincentives have left them trapped on benefits.

As we discussed in Committee and on Report, the changes in the Bill will apply to new ESA claims and universal credit from April 2017. This will enable us to provide significant new funding for additional support to help claimants with health conditions and disabilities into work and to transform people’s lives. Furthermore, we are providing £60 million of funding in 2017, which will increase to £100 million a year by 2020. That will be direct support to get people into work and provide new employment opportunities for those who want to work but have been unable to do so. We recognise the long-term conditions that some people face and will support them back into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I suspect that their lot will be far worse, as with so many of the groups that I am talking about tonight. We know that young people, older people, disabled people and vulnerable people in our communities are going to be worse off under the Tories, because they always are.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

What about working families, the very group that this Tory party chooses to try to speak for? Before the election, the Tories said they would not cut tax credits. The Justice Secretary said:

“We’re going to freeze them for two years, we are not going to cut them.”

That was the promise. We know the truth. After the election, the Government are stripping £1,300 out of the pockets of 3.5 million working families—a 10% cut in the incomes of working families, putting an effective 93% tax rate on low and middle-income workers and imposing a work penalty on those families.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hon. Members]

Give way!

[Owen Smith]

I had not heard the hon. Gentleman. He needs to speak up. I give way to him.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. Will he speak up, loud and clear? He says that he and his party will oppose the Bill, so what are their alternatives? How would they meet the £12 billion savings package? What parts of it will they accept, and what are their alternatives? We want to know the basis of their opposition.

[Owen Smith]

I could, of course, refer, as I have done repeatedly, to not cutting inheritance tax for people passing on million-pound houses; I could talk about not introducing the millionaires’ tax cut; I could talk about clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion. But the real question is for the working families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, thousands of whom are going to see 10% of their income carved away at the stroke of a pen, in a letter arriving just before Christmas. It is a disgrace what this Government are doing. We are clear that we are opposing it tonight and will continue to oppose it. Asking working mothers to shoulder 70% of the cuts is no way for any Government to continue.

This Bill is a litany of broken promises. The risk of job loss, sickness, bereavement or retirement faces all of us at some point, yet this is a Tory bid to undermine the basic case for support and security for individuals through the collective pooling of risk. The Bill is a naked attempt to turn people against one another, in order to undermine any concept of a safety net—young against old, disabled people against non-disabled people, those in work against those looking for work.

The Opposition will not play that game. We are not interested in those divisive Tory tactics. We all want to bring down the welfare bill by making work pay, getting the homes we need built, bringing down unemployment and growing our economy, helping our foundation industries, such as the steel industry, which is being abandoned by the Government—[Interruption.]