Child Benefit Entitlement (Disqualification of Non-UK EU Nationals)

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify non-UK citizens from the European Union from entitlement to child benefit; and for connected purposes.

Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for giving me permission to move the motion? The purpose of the Bill, were it granted by the House, would be to end the absurd anomaly whereby any EU national can come to this country to work, leaving their children behind in their country of origin, and then British taxpayers pay child benefit to those children. I think that is wrong, the Prime Minister thinks it is wrong, most of the people in this country think it is wrong, and this Bill would put that wrong right.

What is child benefit? It is a universal non-taxable cash payment for families with children. It is currently worth £20.50 a week for the eldest eligible child and £13.55 for each subsequent child. As of August 2013, 7.6 million families receive child benefit for over 13 million children and qualifying young people. Expenditure in 2013-14 on child benefit totalled £11.5 billion. Families with children may also receive means-tested support through child tax credit, and approximately 4.1 million families are receiving child tax credit for around 7.8 million children and young people.

Child benefit has been said to perform a number of different functions, and different functions are emphasised at different points in time, but one of the main features of child benefit is that it provides a contribution from society as a whole to the next generation. Indeed, in August 2006 the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the intergenerational redistributive effects of child benefit. It said:

“Since everyone—childless people, as well as those with children—will benefit in due course from the productivity of children being brought up now, society”

as a whole

“should share the cost of bringing up those children with their parents, as an investment by us all in the next generation.”

Well, that only applies if the children concerned are actually resident in, and growing up in, and will make a future contribution to, this country. Where those children are resident abroad and will not be in this country, that effect does not apply.

Domestic legislation already provides that both child benefit and child tax credit cannot normally be paid in respect of children resident abroad. That is what this House, this Parliament, has legislated for. However, under provisions in EU law on social security co-ordination within the European economic area as a whole, both child benefit and child tax credit may be payable to EEA migrants in the UK in respect of their dependent children resident in another member state. The provisions relating to payment of family benefits for children resident in another member state are in EC regulation 883/2004.

As a result of this perfect example of EU regulations superseding British law, as of 31 December 2013, 20,400 awards of UK child benefit, covering 34,268 children, were made in respect of children living in other EEA states. That equates to around 0.3% of all child benefit awards. Although not a large number, I think most people in this country would regard this as wrong.

At the end of December 2012, there were 4,011 child tax credit awards under EC regulation 883/2004 in respect of 6,838 children. The majority of families benefiting from child benefit with children resident abroad were in Poland—13,175 Polish families with 22,093 children; in second place, with 2,505 children, was the Republic of Ireland; in third place, with 1,712, was Lithuania; in fourth place, with 1,429, was France; in fifth place, with 1,091, was Latvia; and in sixth place, with 1,019, was Spain. Thirty-one countries within the EEA are eligible and a total of 34,268 living overseas are receiving child benefit from UK taxpayers.

Under the key provision, EC regulation 883/2004, an EEA migrant in the UK who is covered by the UK social security system can claim either or both child benefit and child tax credit for their dependent children, even if the children are not resident in the UK. Where the family benefits are payable by the state that has primary responsibility, if those benefits in that country are less than the family would get in the country where the working member of the family is working, the latter country has to pay a supplement to make up the difference. The benefit the Polish families are entitled to in this country is more than they would have got in Poland, so British taxpayers are supplementing the Polish child benefit to which they would be entitled. My constituents, and I would suggest the vast majority in this country regard that as simply absurd.

It is difficult to determine the cost of all this. The reason, given by Her Majesty’s Government in a written answer from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that

“Information about the value of such awards is only available at disproportionate costs because under the priority rules”—

which I have just described—

“in that regulation not all awards of UK family benefit are made at the full UK rates.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 615W.]

But some sections of the media have claimed that spending on child benefit for children resident in other countries now amounts to about £30 million a year.

How do we change this? One way is through this Bill. The other, as stated in a written answer in November 2010, is that amendments would have to be made to the EC regulation, which would require

“a proposal by the European Commission and…co-decision with the European Parliament and the Council.””—[Official Report, 28 January 2013; Vol. 519, c. 444W.]

I pray in aid of my quest the support of not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Prime Minister himself. I understand that Her Majesty’s Opposition also regard the situation as absurd. In The Daily Telegraph in April 2013, the Chancellor said:

“The truth is we are absolutely wrestling with that issue at the moment and trying to find a way that is legal to make sure that benefits do not go to the continent of Europe. The European Union rules are pretty tough…but we are looking at all sorts of ways to make sure that British taxpayers pay for benefits that are paid in this country rather than abroad.”

In January, on “The Andrew Marr Show” the Prime Minister said:

“I…think it’s wrong that someone from Poland who comes here…we should be paying child benefit to their family back at home in Poland.”

He said that we should not be doing that. Yet, in response to that comment, the Polish Foreign Minister said:

“If Britain gets our taxpayers, shouldn’t it also pay their benefits? Why should Polish taxpayers subsidise British taxpayers’ children?”

Describing children living in Poland as British taxpayers’ children just underlines the absurdity of the whole position.

Let me make it clear to the House: I am not in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union. I believe we would be better off out as a nation if we controlled once again our tax and fiscal regimes, our work and benefits system, and ultimately our borders. There are now almost 2.5 million EU nationals living in this country, about half of whom have come from the new entrant eastern European countries. I hope that my Bill will play a small role in ultimately securing the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Philip Hollobone, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Martin Vickers, Mr Peter Bone, Nigel Mills, Jim Shannon and John Baron present the Bill.

Mr Philip Hollobone accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March; and to be printed (Bill 83).

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The former Leader of the House assured me and others, I believe on more than one occasion, that we would have a statement before the House rose for the summer recess on the aftermath of the flooding earlier this year. That is not forthcoming, and with a new Secretary of State I understand perfectly well why that may be the case, but would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State to write to Members affected by the flooding giving an update, and to put a copy in the Library, so that Members are informed over the recess about what has happened?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have commissioned a major review of food safety as it relates to contents, led by Professor Chris Elliot, which will be made available to the House and discussed. On halal food, we have held discussions with the faith organisations because it is a critical issue for them; not necessarily a Government issue, but certainly something that matters to them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Farmers in the Kettering constituency told me recently that their greatest concern was rural crime and the theft of farm equipment. What work is the Department doing with the Home Department to address this problem?

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Civil Fines)

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not have the figures with me and will, therefore, happily write to him to set out the position.

I will, in fact, go further than that. I am due in East Anglia tomorrow and I plan to meet with the GLA to discuss exactly how it operates and how we can help it to operate, so it seems entirely appropriate that we look at the resourcing issues. It is not small beer to redirect resources from areas where they are deployed to no great benefit because they are being used to license people who have not the slightest intention of breaking the law, and have the track record to show that they do not. It seems entirely appropriate to redirect the resource to deal with the bad guys, against whom we need to collect evidence.

I take the point about the difference between criminal and civil standards of proof. That is, of course, a factor, but let me be absolutely clear: I want more criminal prosecutions. I want to see more people brought before a court for their abuses and I want them then to suffer the further penalty, where appropriate, of proceeds of crime restitution, so that we get back the money that the gangmasters have acquired through illicit means. We also need to make it plain that they are not wanted in our agricultural industry. We must deal with them effectively.

I do not quarrel at all with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I want to ensure that we do this right, and I am working within an overall Government policy that is resistant to the view that civil sanctions are the appropriate means of dealing with small and medium-sized businesses. That is my difficulty. It is not an insurmountable difficulty, but I need to persuade others in Government of the case.

Some provisions of the RES Act might be useful to the operation of the GLA. We have invited views from stakeholders on the usefulness of the measures, and the public consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remains open until 21 June. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman, and others who feel strongly about the matter, to ensure that their views are fed into that consultation process. When we respond to the consultation in due course, it will be helpful for us clearly to understand, from colleagues who represent areas where many labourers work in such schemes, what the problems are and how we should best deal with them.

As I said, I am very happy to look at the matter in the round and to recognise the strength of the arguments, but I come back to my basic premise, from which I will not resile: the key change will be to redirect resources as the GLA is asking us to. That seems to make sense, but obviously we must wait for the consultation process to end to see whether others agree that we should redirect resources in the key areas of serious offences and organised crime.

The GLA itself has been at the forefront of the reform programme, and last week published its three-year strategy for protecting vulnerable workers, which emphasises an intelligence-led, risk-based approach, working closely in partnership with other agencies. The hon. Gentleman will know that the GLA is active in many parts of the country, including in the constituencies of the hon. Gentlemen here today: North East Cambridgeshire, Morecambe and Lunesdale, and Peterborough.

The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire mentioned Operation Pheasant, a multi-agency taskforce set up to tackle ongoing worker issues in the area. Three people have been arrested on suspicion of human trafficking offences in Wisbech, and a diverse team of agencies has been assembled to assist with the operation, with partners including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Home Office, trading standards, Fenland district council and Cambridgeshire fire and rescue.

I want to know more about the matter at first hand, which is one of the reasons why I am going to East Anglia tomorrow to talk directly to GLA officers and partner agencies involved in the joint operation. If they tell me that there are clear areas in which we have still not dealt effectively with the issues they want us to address, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I will act on that and take their advice in developing Government policy.

I believe that the package of reforms that we are taking forward with the GLA will make the authority better able to protect vulnerable workers, while easing burdens on the majority of businesses, which are compliant and law-abiding. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I suspect that the debate has been the best possible pre-briefing for the Minister’s visit tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I think that any tool that is effective in urban areas is likely to be effective in rural areas as well. I have repeatedly sought to make the point not only that rural areas must not miss out on economic regeneration but that they are in many ways in a position to lead, as they have a huge contribution to make. I want to ensure that every single community in this country has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of economic growth as it develops.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The residents of 22 villages in the borough of Kettering are concerned about petrol and diesel prices, rural crime and the access to and cost of off-grid energy, as well as access to rural broadband. What representations to the relevant Government Departments has my hon. Friend made on those important issues?

[Mr Heath]

This Department has a responsibility for rural proofing across government, which means that we continually have a dialogue with other Departments about all the factors that have the potential to hold back individuals, businesses and communities in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that we constantly make the point that we must have a clear regard for the more than 80% of the landmass that is rural Britain. It comprises only 20% of the population, but it is nevertheless enormously important to the fabric of this country.

Horsemeat

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents in Kettering will be surprised at the extent to which meat products are cut, processed and reprocessed back and forth across so many international borders. Might one of the benefits of this episode be that consumers value local farmers markets that provide high-quality meats sourced from local farmers?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I hope that people value locally sourced produce, and there is evidence that they do so. People value local butchers shops that know the provenance of the produce. They also value the quality assurance schemes that we have in this country, which indicate a high quality of produce.

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Those investigations are under way to ensure that if this scandal is replicated in other low-cost beefburgers, it is picked up and we take appropriate action.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Given that the FSA has responsibility for food safety, I am surprised and disappointed that a Health Minister is not at least sitting in on the Minister’s response to this urgent question. Likewise, no shadow Health Minister is present either. Will the Minister send a signal to the authorities in the Irish Republic that if there is any criminality, exemplary sentences should be handed out?

[Mr Heath]

The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for the FSA, has apologised, because she is abroad today. That is why she is not here. Yes, we clearly want these matters to be prosecuted and dealt with with appropriate severity, and we will continue our dialogue with the Irish authorities to ensure that whatever they do is consonant with that.

Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that everybody would be very happy, but the fact remains that the Backbench Business Committee, of which he is such a distinguished member, now has responsibility for scheduling debates on those days. If his amendments were successful, these days would not be available to the Committee, so it simply could not be done under the terms of the Wright Committee proposals. That is the sadness of what is obviously a well-intentioned thought on his part. The Standing Orders get in the way, and we are as bound by the Standing Orders as any Member.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the House would struggle to think of suitable business to take up the time in Westminster Hall on either the Monday or the Friday were the amendments to be passed, because today in business questions 37 subjects were suggested for debate. I am sure that the Government could pick from that huge list two or three suitable topics on which the House could hold the Government to account.

[Mr Heath]

I am sure that we could, but that would be to return to the dark ages when the Government decided what was debated in the House, rather than the Backbench Business Committee, and I do not want to do that. I am a great believer in the Backbench Business Committee and in the need for us to continue making progress towards a House business committee in due course. I do not want to return to the time when the Executive decided what the House could debate. The idea that Ministers should retake possession of Westminster Hall and decide what the House should debate on those days on the basis of their prejudices and requirements rather than of what is properly decided by the Backbench Business Committee is wholly retrogressive. So I will hold firm to the principle behind the Backbench Business Committee and the Wright Committee reforms that we have put in place. I certainly do not think that we should move away from that principle without the benefit of a more thorough inquiry.

The Procedure Committee recently reported on new and inventive ways in which Westminster Hall could be used. It is absolutely right that the House, in the future, be given an opportunity to consider those proposals in more detail. There are colleagues in government who would be delighted to take up the hon. Gentlemen’s suggestion of giving more power to the Executive, and at some point a Minister from the Dispatch Box might ask for their support and would be grateful for it when that time comes. But it will not be this Minister on this day.

[Mr Heath]

No, because I was being entirely speculative, and idle speculation is not something that we should indulge in from the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Gentleman will readily recognise. As I have said, my view is that we must keep to the reforms that we have put in place and not move backwards.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am struggling to identify the principle that the Deputy Leader of the House is purporting to uphold, because he is effectively telling the House that it is better for the Government to scrap completely a day’s business in Westminster Hall than to decide what business should take place on an alternative day.

[Mr Heath]

I have to say that days are scrapped in this House for all sorts of reasons. However, as a matter of fact, we sit more often, and as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, we have provided a huge range of opportunities—more than before—for Members to have their say. However, there are times when the House is not sitting—when public holidays occur, for instance—and we do not automatically say, “Well, we’ll sit on the Sunday, because the Monday is no longer available.” Instead, we look at the calendar of the House as a whole and we ensure that there are ample opportunities. The principle—I will set it out again—is that the Executive should not decide what happens in Westminster Hall. That is the position that we are in, and to move away from it without careful consideration of why and how we should do so would be a mistake.

I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises the progress that we have made. He is trying to ensure that the Government are properly held to account, and he is absolutely right in that, as is his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. He will recognise that the Government have already introduced elected Chairs of Select Committees, Back Benchers having control of the agenda through the Backbench Business Committee and extra time for the scrutiny of Bills on Report—all things that improve the scrutiny of Ministers by Back Benchers. That is absolutely right, and the balance has genuinely shifted towards Parliament and away from the Executive. I want to maintain that.

The hon. Member for Kettering and his colleague are putting forward proposals with the best of intentions, and I understand that. However, I do not think they are either necessary or desirable at this point, although I am certainly prepared to go away and listen to the points that they make and consider how we can best accommodate proper scrutiny, as I always have done. I commend the hon. Gentlemen on the spirit of their amendments; equally, I will ask the House to reject them if they are pressed. I have set out what the purpose of the House should be in agreeing to the motion before us and in rejecting the amendments. I commend the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider reactivating the second Adjournment debate procedure so that when Government business collapses, as it will today, there is an opportunity to use the full parliamentary timetable for Back-Bench business?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which he might like to put to the Procedure Committee for its consideration. It is not for me, as a Minister, to give a yea or nay to the suggestion, but the Procedure Committee could usefully look at it.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and particularly to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for the way in which he approached it. I know from having argued this case with him, often in similar terms, that it is something he cares passionately about and feels should happen.

I have indicated that a number of things will affect how the House deals with this matter in future, such as the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will bring more certainty and uniformity to parliamentary Sessions. Also, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, there is the prospect of the Backbench Business Committee being evaluated and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals for a business of the House Committee, which will take on the difficult role of making sure that the interests of all Members are properly taken into account, as far as possible, given that some of them compete. That seems proper.

We also have the Procedure Committee doing something that the Wright Committee suggested but did not have the opportunity to see through. The Wright Committee recognised that there was a problem with how we deal with private Members’ Bills, but it could not come up with a solution in the tight time scale within which it was operating. It therefore suggested that this Parliament should look into the matter, which is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Procedure Committee to look at the process for private Members’ Bills. We look forward eagerly to its report.

Various things are in motion and we have attempted to respond to the legitimate request for more time. Let me emphasise that this is the first time that a Government have provided more time for private Members’ Bills in a long Session to enable those who have been successful in the ballot and whose Bills are receiving consideration in Committee to make progress if that is the will of the House—it is the House that decides whether that should be the case.

[Mr Hollobone]

Is the Deputy Leader of the House going to enlighten us as to the calculation by which he arrived at four extra days?

[Mr Heath]

It is a matter of balance. It is about looking at the time available and the competing pressures on Members. We came up with a proposal that the House could consider this evening and that proposal is certainly a lot better than anything that has been suggested before. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough accused me of being an accountant, but I really am not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

It is important that we get the right balance in the House between legislative business, which is the proper business of the House, and the debates that the Backbench Business Committee organises on behalf of the House. The Wright Committee made clear proposals on how we should allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee, which the Government have followed. The days have been transferred and I think that it is working extremely well.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on attending Tuesday’s Backbench Business Committee meeting. Will he make it clear to the House that the Committee can allocate only the time given to it by Her Majesty’s Government, and that the days on which Back-Bench business takes place are decided on entirely by him and the Leader of the House?

[Mr Heath]

It is the business managers who allocate the days that are made available, but that is done within a framework by which the number of days is allocated according to a formula, as the hon. Gentleman knows and the House understands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I think it is terrific that the Backbench Business Committee is prepared to consider new ways of doing things in order to establish whether we can improve the procedures of the House, and I can only congratulate it on doing so. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Lady for ensuring that I had sufficient time in which to address, at least briefly, the points raised in the debate.

I know—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will announce it later—that the hon. Lady’s Committee has decided that there is scope for a debate on parliamentary reform, and I think that that too is extremely useful. We will work closely with the Committee in trying to do things better in future, and I hope that the hon. Lady will continue her good work.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

There is no reason why the end-of-term Adjournment debate need take place only at the end of term. It could take place on other occasions in the parliamentary timetable as well. Would the Deputy Leader of the House welcome that?

[Mr Heath]

I always welcome opportunities for Back Benchers to have their say on matters that concern them and their constituents, and I am always happy to make myself available to respond to such debates. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues would say the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Philip Hollobone

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Government are committed to establishing a House business committee. The Backbench Business Committee, of which the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is a member, has got off to a good start, and we shall seek its views on how the House business Committee might operate.

[Mr Hollobone]

Is it the intention of the Deputy Leader of the House that once the House business Committee is established it will subsume the Backbench Committee, or will the two Committees carry on in parallel?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is a fairly complex matter. If he re-reads the Wright Committee report, he will see that there is a degree of ambiguity about the precise interrelationship. I think the assumption is that the two Committees should sit alongside one another, with some common membership, but it is an area we need to discuss in detail with him and his hon. Friends on the Backbench Business Committee, and more widely in the House, so that we establish a system that will work for the whole House and make sure that both Back-Bench business and the interests of the House as a whole are protected.