Windrush: 70th Anniversary

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to contribute to this debate and to add to all the great speeches today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing both this debate and the Speaker’s apartments for next week’s Windrush celebrations, organised in conjunction with Jamaica National Bank and The Voice. I agree with what she said about the Black Cultural Archives and making sure that the Black Cultural Archives receives funding, and about 22 June being Windrush Day for us to celebrate. I would also like to pay my respects to the survivors of Grenfell. I will be on the silent march with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) after this debate.

I would like to paint a picture of an expat from Jamaica named Jeff. When he landed, he had his hat, he was pressed and dressed, as they liked to say—his clothes were very smartly pressed—and he walked with his grip, which to everybody else is a suitcase. When he landed, he was shocked by the smog that confronted him, that all the houses were so close together he thought they were factories, and that there were no front or back gardens, which was very different from the green, green grass of home. And this was his mother land. As he passed the houses and the signs that read, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”, he made his way to a shared house in east London owned by a Jewish family who were great allies of the Windrush generation.

That expat was my father. His first job, which he got almost immediately, was working in a Matchbox factory making little toy cars. The factory no longer exists, but there might be some cars in the loft still that are worth some money. When that closed, he worked for London Underground. All that time, he also worked as a gigging musician. He used to tell me about singing in pubs where black people were not welcome or were scared to go.

My dad contributed greatly to this country, not only in the work he did but in breaking down so many societal barriers. Once he had made enough money, he rented a room and sent for my mother. She came to this country and was surprised at a number of things: that food was cooked without seasoning, that English people only bathed once a week and went to bath houses, and that children did not have school clothes, playing-out clothes and church clothes, which were an absolute must in a Jamaican household.

The contribution of the Windrush generation is vast and varied. They were proud not only of how they dressed but of how they were as a community, and they were proud of their mother land, as they called it. They did not know the Jamaican national anthem, because they came before Jamaica became independent. They only knew the British national anthem.

Can we imagine this generation of people, who came to this country to rebuild it with such pride not only in how they looked but in how they conducted themselves, now feeling, in 2018, surplus to requirements? After giving this country the best years of their lives, they have been told that they need to go back, that they are illegal or that they are no longer wanted. It is heartbreaking when I hear the stories of people who come into my surgery in tears, clutching as many bits of paper as they can find. It is heartbreaking when I receive emails from teachers saying, “I remember teaching the children of the Windrush generation. Is there anything I can do? Will the Government accept my evidence to prove that these people were here as British citizens?” And it is all the more heartbreaking because it was the Prime Minister who created the hostile environment. The Prime Minister was previously the Home Secretary and therefore shoulders full responsibility for the hostile environment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I take the hon. Lady’s point and I hope she will take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I share passionately, as she knows, a desire for this situation to be addressed. I have written about the policy and I have condemned it very vocally, but one must recognise that this came out of a period when both parties were doing the same thing. I do not say that with any joy, but I think the shame is shared. It is certainly not with any joy, I am sure, that she will recognise that Home Secretaries under her own party also spoke about a hostile environment. Sadly, it is something the whole House has to bear, not just one party.

[Dawn Butler]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I take his point that parties spoke about a hostile environment. The big difference is that the Prime Minister, as Home Secretary, not only spoke about it but created policies that ensured a number of people then became complicit in creating the hostile environment: doctors, nurses, teachers and landlords. It is unusual, rare and dangerous that somebody in authority instructs people to create a hostile environment for their own citizens. We have to be very mindful of that.

It could just be a coincidence, Mr Speaker, but my decision to sit on the Back Benches and speak in this debate today has created a flurry of activity in my office. My office received a call from the Prime Minister’s office with regard to several letters I sent to which I am still waiting for a response. As I say, that could just be a coincidence. For the record, I would like to raise in the Chamber some of the points I have raised in those letters to which I am still awaiting a response.

It is very important that we know how and when cases will be expedited, what new pathways will need to be created and whether the cost of fast-tracked naturalisation—it can cost about £2,000—will be waived. We have been assured that it will. The “Life in the UK Test” also needs to be waived. The people being victimised at the moment are ageing. They are of pensionable age and they need access to healthcare. Some of that is being denied, so we need a clear timetable for when all of this will be achieved, as well as a clear timetable for compensation.

The other issue I raised in my letters is whether the Prime Minister was warned that her decision to tighten immigration controls and have a hostile environment would harm Commonwealth citizens who were here legally. I am yet to receive a response. I need to receive that response. It is very important, and not just because I am a daughter of the Windrush generation. Martin Luther King said that if you are not opposed to a system of detrimental actions or incarcerations, you then become complicit in it. I do not want to be complicit in the actions of this Government who have created legislation that is institutionally racist.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke about the injustices of slavery and the people who were enslaved. I wholeheartedly agree with everything that he said. The Labour Government will create a slavery educational trust based on the Holocaust Educational Trust—because the international slave trade was the African holocaust. We have heard lots of contributions about slavery and enslavement, and how it ended. We need more factual talk, discussion and education on the issue. A slavery educational trust will enable that to happen and quash some of the misunderstandings and misnomers.

I do not think the Prime Minister is a bad person, but I do wonder whether she really understands the emotional and generational trauma that she has created with not just her words but her actions on the hostile environment. It pains me to highlight that these policies are institutionally racist, but they are. As the Prime Minister and her Government work through the race audit that she has instructed civil servants to deliver, I hope that she will also implement section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which talks about the socioeconomic duty of Government.

As we celebrate, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, the 70th anniversary of Windrush, we need not just to appreciate but to compensate. Martin Luther King said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.” I hope that the Minister will go some way towards talking about the right thing that this Government will do. I also hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on her hostile environment policies and do the right thing.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 9 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Friends.

I thank the previous Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), for the equality impact assessment response sent to me just before Christmas. Her responses are normally quite upbeat. I found this response a little lacklustre, but it highlighted why we need to support new clause 9. Her letter highlights the weaknesses of “due regard” and goes on to make a somewhat puzzling statement:

“All Departments carefully consider the equality impacts of individual policy decisions taken on by those sharing protected characteristics in line with our legal obligations and our clear commitment to equality issues.”

Therein lies the problem: this Government have not shown a clear commitment to equality issues-far from it. With 86% of the cuts falling on the shoulders of women, and with black, Asian and minority ethnic people and the disabled suffering more than any other group, I find it hard to understand why the Government try to proclaim that they are committed to equalities.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that the Government have not made a clear commitment. Does she not agree that compelling companies in our country to publish gender pay gap information—the first time any Government have done that—is a very clear signal that is already making real change for women working in those companies?

[Dawn Butler]

I agree that it is good to get companies to publish their pay gap information, but there are no teeth if companies fail to do so. That is a real problem that needs to be addressed. We need to tackle the gender pay gap, and there needs to be punishment for companies that fail to address the pay gap—that is an unfortunate failing in the Government’s plan.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that voluntary publication schemes—such as on participation, as demonstrated by the Crossrail project—show that companies will comply through social pressure? There is a brand equity question, so we do not need a hard punishment. Through brand equity and reputation, there will be punishment enough if companies fail to comply.

[Dawn Butler]

Again, the problem is that very few companies have actually published, and the deadline is quickly approaching.

The letter from the right hon. Member for Putney went on to say that the Treasury would complete a cumulative impact assessment. I have yet to receive confirmation of that cumulative impact assessment, so will the Minister confirm that it has been done and whether a copy will be placed in the Library?

I know that it is often difficult for the Government to hear the Opposition’s views, so I urge them to listen to the voices of Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Chair of the Treasury Committee. The Committee is obviously a little perplexed by the lack of commitment to equality impact assessments. The Chancellor has complained about the type of data gathered, but when he was asked whether he had asked the Office for National Statistics about the gathering of that data, he replied that he had not. That does not exactly show a commitment to equality, does it?

The Treasury Committee went on to say:

“The Treasury should use ONS and HMRC data to produce and publish robust equalities impact assessments of future Budgets, including the individual tax and welfare measures contained within them. A deficiency of data in respect of some protected characteristics is not a reason for failing to produce an analysis in respect of others for which data is available. Nor should the risk of misinterpretation or methodological complexity preclude the publication of an Equalities Impact Assessment.”

In short, just do it.

The only reference in the Budget to identified gender impact is where it disproportionately affects men. What possible reason could there be for that? I understand that the Treasury Committee would welcome an explanation of the Government’s thinking, and so would we. It just does not make sense. The Chancellor alluded to the fact that Ministers see the equality impact assessments for their Departments. That makes me wonder: if Ministers see them, read them and give proper due regard to them, why would they implement the policies they do?

If the Government fail to support this new clause, there can be no public confidence in the Government’s commitment to protect and not punish people with protected characteristics. For the record, let me say that the nine protected characteristics are age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy; maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. I understand that the Prime Minister is a little pre-occupied and weak at the moment and that she is dealing with a serious ransom note, but I honestly believe she will not be pleased that her legacy will be the hindering of women and their life chances.

More children are homeless or living in temporary accommodation now than at any time since the 2007-08 financial crash. Shelter says that homelessness is a national scandal and estimates that 140 families become homeless every day. The estimate of rough sleeping shows an increase of 134%. Every day, we see and hear the damaging effects that this Government’s policies have had on people, especially those with protected characteristics. This Government are damaging, not protecting, vulnerable groups in our society. Even when the Government conduct an equality impact assessment, they seem to ignore it. Just two weeks ago, they released an equality impact assessment that revealed more bursaries will be axed—this is for about 1,000 nurses who enter the profession each year. The assessment revealed that the latest change risks discouraging women who are ethnic minority or from poorer backgrounds, but the Government went ahead and did this in any case.

We need a Prime Minister who cares enough to start laying foundations by which we can bring about true equality for women, diverse communities, LGBT+ communities and those with protected characteristics. A Labour Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would do just that. A Labour Government’s success will be measured by how they reduce inequality. The next Labour Government will ensure that we publish comprehensive equality impact assessments and conduct them before implementing policies. A Labour Government would have pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny to ascertain whether policies are making a situation better or worse. The Labour way will enable us to truly build an economy for the many and not the few. If the Government fail to support this very reasonable new clause, more people will question—

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

rose—

[Dawn Butler]

I am sorry, but I am just coming to the end of my speech. If the Government fail to support this very reasonable new clause, more and more people will begin to question why this Government are so intent on harming and hindering women and those with protected characteristics, as opposed to helping them.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the final day of debate on this Finance Bill. We have had a lot of debate during the past few weeks. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the Minister and I have spent quite a lot of time together in the Committee Room, on not only this Bill, but the customs Bill. It is good to be here again to talk about this. It is a great way to start talking about equalities, particularly in respect of this new clause put forward by the Labour Front-Bench team.

The new clause is incredibly important, because the way the Government and previous Governments at Westminster have done Budgets has not been particularly transparent and has not resulted in people knowing what the effects of all the policies will be. I have said before that this is a good new clause and I am delighted to support it on behalf of the Scottish National party. I wish to highlight a number of things in it and to make more general comments about transparency and the processes the Government use to create Budgets and make tax law. The new clause talks about various things, including an analysis of the impact on the different protected characteristics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady and I agree on a lot of things and disagree on others. We have debated issues across this Chamber and in Committee Rooms. I do not think that figures will help those children. Figures are just retrospective and talk about what is possibly happening.

[Dawn Butler]

I want to clarify something. Equality impact assessment is part of the public sector equality duty. It looks at the implementation of policies, assesses them, and sees whether they have helped or hindered progress. That is all that equality impact assessment does. It is a good thing. It is not an extra burden; it makes for good decision making.

[Stephen McPartland]

My difference of opinion with the Opposition is that I think that a good teacher probably makes a much bigger difference to a child’s education and chances in life than an impact assessment and something from the Treasury. With regard to forecasts from the Treasury and economists, stuff that we have seen over the past couple of years, and the nearly eight years I have been a Member of Parliament, shows that in reality those figures never seem to be right.

This is about equality of opportunity and equality of aspiration. I would like to talk about universal credit. I campaigned on some of the issues on universal credit. I believe that universal credit, as a product, is the right thing to do. It was supported by both parties in the sense of stopping the cliff edge for people who could not take on an extra hour or two of work because they lost all their benefit. The idea behind universal credit was that the benefit would be reduced over a certain period. I know that there are still live issues with the Treasury over the size of the take. I hope that the Minister is taking note of that, because I continue to raise it with the Chancellor. I think that the withdrawal rate is still too high.

Universal credit is doing more than new clause 9 would do to help people’s life chances—more than a document saying what has happened and people’s opinions of what could or could not have hindered the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

It is good governance to have a look at the impact of one’s policies on society.

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but I cannot support the new clause because it will not do anything to help people practically. It will just allow academics and economists to argue over moot points, whereas I am interested in actually helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds who want the opportunity to go off and aspire to achieve and to be anything they want to be. It is very sad, in this day and age, that we are discussing the fact that we need to identify whether certain sections of society need more support than others. We should be aiming to get to a society—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) is absolutely right: this new clause does highlight the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government are intent on taking actions, regardless of whether they help, hinder or hurt people, whereas Labour Members want to ensure that we have policies that help society.

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point that I respect, but I assure her that I only vote for policy that I believe will help people, and if I do not believe that it will help people, I do not vote for it. I have voted against the Government for that reason. I have a record of doing that and will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention, because she touches on the important point that there is an element of proportionality. As I will come on to argue, one of the difficulties with accepting the new clause is that a lot of the information is not available. That is not an argument for not going out and finding the information, but some of it would be extremely difficult to generate. I would not go as far as my hon. Friend in suggesting that this is a Machiavellian plan to gum up the works of Government, but I am sure some Opposition Members might be pleased to see that happen. I take the new clause in the spirit of the wording in front of me.

[Dawn Butler]

I just want to help the Minister a bit. The Women’s Budget Group, the Runnymede Trust and lots of other organisations, as well as the ONS and HMRC, accumulate the data that would be needed, so the data necessary to carry out equality impact assessments are available. In fact, the Treasury does some assessments anyway.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is suggesting that one particular set of analyses is an ideal set to present, and can be seen as in no way misleading, but entirely robust and entirely objective. If we are to reach such a quality of data, we will have to achieve certain specific aims, and one of the aims is to deal with the fact that a lot of the analysis to which she is referring is very selective—it does not look at the entire picture. For example, some of the analysis reflecting changes in income tax may show a benefit for one sex over another, but it may not take into account the impact of increased spending on childcare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We know that the gender pay gap is at its lowest level on record, for example. That is a very substantial achievement and we are making considerable headway in that particular respect.

Some of the other taxes mentioned in new clause 9 include employment and disguised remuneration. Disguised remuneration is a highly complicated area, as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) will know, having discussed it in some detail in Committee. The mind boggles as to how one would possibly unpack the effects on the various protected characteristics of that particular taxation. Pension schemes are also extremely complicated. Settlements and air passenger duty are perhaps a little bit easier than some of the others, but the point is that overall—and we have to look at the new clause in its entirety—new clause 9 is extremely complicated indeed.

Finally, there should be no doubt that those of us on the Government Benches are entirely committed to ensuring that we drive the equality agenda and drive it very hard indeed. We should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) suggested, look to our own record in that respect. We now have more women in work than at any time in our history. In the past year, 60% of employment growth came from female employment. We have the lowest gender pay gap in full-time employment ever. Those companies employing 250 employees or more, as we have said often in this debate, are now required by law to provide a gender wage audit. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) suggested, there are teeth. Penalties can be applied by the ECHR, and fines can follow where that is not done. For those who are disabled, we spend a record amount in excess of £50 billion a year on benefits. As has been said by a number of Government Members, the national living wage has disproportionately helped some of the most needy in our society. When we talk about equality on this side of the House, we mean it. I urge the House to reject new clause 9.

[Dawn Butler]

Having a detailed understanding of how policy choices exacerbate or eliminate inequality at every stage of policy making is key to tackling burning injustices and producing good policies. I wish to put new clause 9 to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Equality impact analyses of provisions of this Act (No. 2)—

‘(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,

(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(3) A review under this section must give a separate analysis in relation to the following matters—

(a) income tax (in sections 1 and 3 to 6),

(b) employment (in sections 7 to 10),

(c) disguised remuneration (in sections 11 and 12 and Schedules 1 and 2),

(d) pension schemes (in section 13 and Schedule 3),

(e) investments (in sections 14 to 17 and Schedules 4 to 5),

(f) corporation tax and other aspects of business taxation (in sections 2, 19 to 32, 36 and 37 and Schedules 7 and 8),

(g) the bank levy (in section 33 and Schedule 9),

(h) settlements (in section 35 and Schedule 10),

(i) stamp duty land tax (in sections 40 and 41 and Schedule 11),

(j) air passenger duty (in section 43),

(k) vehicle excise duty (in section 44), and

(l) tobacco products duty (in section 45).

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.

(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.” .

This new clause requires the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out a review of the effects of the provisions of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.

[Dawn Butler]

New clause 6 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and those of other Members on both sides of the House. The aim of both new clauses is basically to help the Government. We want them to set an example to every Department and public sector organisation by fulfilling their own obligation under the public sector equality duty and publishing a meaningful equality impact assessment. The equality duty covers nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Prime Minister says that she understands the problems faced by members of protected groups and that her Government are committed to tackling inequality in the ways set out in the equality duty, but one thing confuses me. If she understands all that, why does she allow her policies to undermine and hurt women and other groups with protected characteristics? Such “words over deeds” undermine people’s trust in politics and politicians.

How can I be sure that the Prime Minister knows these problems so well? There have been two stand-out moments. The first was in 2010, when the Prime Minister said:

“there are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending.”

The second was when she said, on the steps of No. 10, that she wanted to tackle the “burning injustices” in our society. But all that she has done is make things worse. She has added fuel to the fire, and those injustices now burn brighter than ever. The Chancellor said that this Budget would be full of new opportunities—for whom? He failed to address the position of women born in the 1950s, violence against women and girls, the crisis in social care, falling wages, and a social security system that is leaving millions of children in poverty.

I am sure that the Minister will disagree with some of what I am saying, but let me challenge him. This is his opportunity—his moment—to carry out a comprehensive equality impact assessment, publish it, and prove me wrong.

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

One of the issues that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—although I am sure that she will come to it—is the underfunding of women’s refuges.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is right: I will indeed come to that issue.

As we approach Christmas, I ask the Minister to consider the impact that the Government’s policies are having. More than 128,000 children will be in temporary accommodation over Christmas, women’s refuges—as my hon. Friend has just said—are in crisis, and universal credit will leave people penniless and homeless over the Christmas period.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

Nonsense.

[Dawn Butler]

It is not nonsense. I challenge the Minister to sit in one of my surgeries and hear that it is not nonsense.

The Government have made £28 billion of cuts affecting 3.7 million disabled people, and the additional caring responsibilities have fallen on the shoulders of women. It is the same with the cuts in social services—women take up the slack—and the pay cap, which hurts women more than men. Indeed, 86% of the Government’s cuts are falling on women. Labour Members are not the only people who are saying that. In June, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said that the Government’s changes adversely affected

“women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and families with two or more children.”

If the United Nations can see that, and if Labour Members can all see it, why can the Government not see it and do something about it? The best policies are evidence-based policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. I am sure she agrees that, given that this Government and the previous Government talked about £12 billion in cuts, and therefore universal credit must fit that target, that is why they will not conduct an impact study.

[Dawn Butler]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and it points to the crux of the new clauses: if the Government would only do impact assessments even as the policy goes forward, they would be able to say, “Okay, this isn’t working: it’s hurting; it’s damaging people. Let’s do something different.” But, in their arrogance, they refuse to do that.

The House of Commons Library uses a different calculation in its assessments. I admit that some of the assessments are not straightforward, but that does not mean that they should not be done; after all, they are the Government. Most recently, the Government have argued that the equality impact analysis carried out by the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust does not take into account the impact of increases to the national living wage or spending on services that benefit women such as health, education, childcare and social care. I say again: “Oh yes it does.” Their report, “Intersecting Inequalities”, includes the impact of both the national living wage and changes to spending on a wide range of services. When the cuts to services are added, the impact is more severe. The Treasury says that individual Departments are responsible for the equality impacts of their own policies; yes they are, but the Treasury should also be responsible for publishing the equality impact of policies, since it sets the overall budget limits, and any impact assessments carried out should be available for everyone to see, and not hidden away.

The Government’s arguments are just excuses, allowing them to evade accountability for the impact of their policies. That shows a lack of commitment to tackling the major inequalities in our society. This Government are so evasive: we are still awaiting a response to the cross-party letter sent to the Minister for Women and Equalities on 29 November highlighting major concerns on this very issue.

If we were in Scotland or Wales, we would be legally obligated to carry out and publish equality impact assessments. We are the mother of all Parliaments and we should be leading the way. What is wrong with getting the facts and making policy based on them? That is sensible and it is right; people outside this place will not understand what the reluctance is all about.

The Minister will probably talk in his response about “due regard”, but what does “due regard” mean? There is some legal definition of due regard. The courts have said that it means sufficient information, so even on a lower bar of “due regard” this Government and their Departments are still failing, as they tend to produce superficial equality impact assessments.

I concede that more needs to be done to establish robust analysis, but if Scotland and Wales can do it, why cannot we? Current analysis should be taken as a starting point for Government action, not an excuse for inaction, so I call upon the Chancellor to give the country a Christmas present and to commit to doing things properly.

As my Christmas gift to the Government, here are three things as a start in that process. First, they should consider the impact of their policies at all stages of the legislative process. That means the Government examining the differential and intersectional impact of their policies and, if necessary, changing course to ensure equality of outcome. Secondly, they should work with organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust to produce analysis with a high level of detail. Thirdly, they should commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an independent review into the effects of the provisions of this Bill.

Everyone in this House can help tackle the burning injustices that blight our country today by voting for new clauses 6 and 7.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 6 and 7, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler).

Under the public sector equality duty, all public bodies, including the Treasury, are obliged to have “due regard” to the impact of their policies on equality. Yet, once again, this Government have refused to carry out a meaningful equality audit of their Budget.

I am grateful that the House of Commons Library has done research, and it has consistently shown that 86% of the burden of Tory tax and benefit changes since 2010 has fallen on the shoulders of women. Today, I will tell the stories of women impacted by this, and show how they are bearing the brunt of failed Tory austerity.

Women make up two thirds of public sector workers so have suffered most from the Tories’ pay cap. Women have to struggle with more caring responsibilities due to the ever-increasing gap in social care funding. Some 54,000 women a year are forced out of their jobs through maternity discrimination. Women in my constituency of Rotherham earn 11.9% less on average than men. And, shamefully, 94 women and 90 children are, on a typical day, turned away from refuges due to lack of space, according to Women’s Aid.

Let me talk about some specific cases. I want to talk about Martha, a single mother. A recent report by the Runnymede Trust and the Women’s Budget Group shows that by 2020 single mothers like Martha will have experienced an average drop in living standards of 18% since 2010. As a part-time NHS worker, Martha’s real pay has been slashed under the Tories. NHS staff have suffered a 14% real-terms pay cut since 2010. With inflation at a near six-year high of 3.1%, more and more women like Martha are struggling to put food on their table. Martha is not just about managing; Martha is only just about surviving.

The Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust analysis shows that black employed women, like Martha, are set to lose the most from cuts and changes to universal credit—around £1,500 a year. These changes include cutting the first child premium, which came into effect this year and would have been worth £545 a year to Martha.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

rose—

[Dawn Butler]

Before the hon. Gentleman responds, will he give way again?

[Bim Afolami]

I shall.

[Dawn Butler]

I am sure that the hon. Members around the hon. Gentleman are trying to get him to stop talking, but Labour Members do not mind. It is actually nice to see you go through your journey of trying to put the pieces together and understand the problems we are talking about. You cannot justify any of your statements because you have no data.

[The Temporary Chair (Albert Owen)]

Order. Too much “you”. The hon. Lady is an experienced Member of the House and she should set an example.

[Dawn Butler]

My apologies, Mr Owen. I am getting carried away in my enthusiasm to try to educate the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). The Government cannot justify anything you are saying, because you have no data to back it up. We are having to rely on data from voluntary groups and charities, which do an amazing job of crunching the numbers and looking at the intersectionality of the Government’s policies. But in order for you to make your statements, you need to have the data.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. That was a very long intervention with too many “yous”. Let us get used to the parliamentary language and have a proper debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is right: there are many ways it can be done, and the Government are indeed doing it in many ways. She need not only look to me for the observations I have made; the IFS has recognised my very point about household income. We will, however, continue to look at how we provide information and assess policies, and we will work with the ONS, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget.

In conclusion, the Government have a vision for a society that is equal, not in terms of levelling people down, but in terms of giving people the opportunity to go up. In yesterday’s debate on the Bill, the Labour party chose to vote against a measure to encourage young people to get a foot on the housing ladder. That is not acceptable, and that is an example of what we will do to promote equality of wealth and opportunity at every turn. I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 6 and 7.

[Dawn Butler]

The Minister referred to distributional analyses. The distributional analysis carried out by the IFS, the non-gendered and gendered analyses of the Women’s Budget Group, and others, such as those carried out using the Euromod tax-benefit model for EU countries, all share the same characteristic: they are static. The exact same method is adopted by the Treasury itself when it assesses the distributional impact of Budget measures in Budget and IFS documents. If the Treasury does not like other people using the model, perhaps it should not use it itself. The Government cannot criticise others for using the same method as them to analyse their own Budget.

The Minister said several times that the Government believed in equality, but their actions fail to carry that through. They say one thing and do another, and they are exacerbating inequality in our society. [Interruption.] The Chancellor says from a sedentary position, “Unlike the Labour party.” The Labour party is more competent than this Government have ever been in ensuring that this country is more equal. All the equalities legislation has come from a Labour Government—[Interruption.] Productivity, growth, all the equalities legislation has come under a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government. In fact, every time the Conservatives enter government, everything starts to go down. Food banks were not part of the Department for Work and Pensions scheme when Labour was in government. Period poverty was not part of everyday life for young women when Labour was in government.

I say to the Minister, “If you in any way believe in equality, you should not lead your merry men into the No Lobby. You should lead them into the Aye Lobby, and vote with us.”

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has reminded me of that excellent point. He is absolutely right. This Government understand how jobs are created. That is a serious point, because jobs are created when businesses grow and risk their hard-earned savings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) is talking to me from a sedentary position. Does she want to intervene?

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Besides my being offended by the use of the term “miracle”, which does not describe anything that the hon. Lady has described, I want to say that many businesses are not investing due to Brexit. Are zero-hours contracts included in her “miracle”?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, in which she makes two broad points. This Bill is not about Brexit, so she will forgive me if I leave it to my esteemed colleagues to discuss that, but we recognise that it will have an impact. Does she realise that it is what the country voted for? My constituents voted for Brexit, and the Prime Minister and the Government are getting on and delivering it. The Government actually have a plan for Brexit, but the Opposition Front Benchers seem to have changed their plans several times in the past day—maybe even in the past hour—and I do not think that their constituents really understand what their plan is.

I will now move on to discuss zero-hours contracts.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What has been highlighted by the publication of the so-called Panama papers is that we do not have a fair tax system. We are not all in it together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said so eloquently. Those exposed by this scandal have knowingly exploited tax avoidance measures for their own financial gain. While it is not technically illegal, aggressive tax avoidance has been argued to be against the spirit and intention of the law and of the will of this House. What is really shocking is that Heads of Government are involved, including our own Prime Minister, and that poses fundamental questions about politics and politicians. Once again, it threatens public confidence and trust in politics and politicians. These people are meant to be providing leadership to our citizens, and such involvement calls into question their attitudes and values, as well as their motives for seeking public office.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think the comments that have been made—for instance, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) said, “If you are not wealthy, you are a low achiever”—have added to the public’s distrust of politicians in this place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Dawn Butler]

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

DRAFT Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 General Committees

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, and to debate such an important issue with the Minister.

As all hon. Members here will be aware, the Chancellor deviated—shall we say?—from his original plan for sweeping cuts to tax credits after ferocious opposition from Opposition Members and from some Members of his own party and, of course, after defeat in the House of Lords. However, we are now discovering that the deviation is not quite what we had hoped for; arguably, most of the cuts have been delayed and others are still going ahead.

As we have heard, the regulations seek to cut the income rise disregard, which is the buffer zone that protects families from incurring financial hardship as a result of repaying tax credits in the event that they earn slightly more than anticipated in any given year. It is an element of leeway in the system that allows a household’s income to rise a certain amount in a financial year without affecting the household’s tax credit award for that year.

A household’s tax credit award for the year ahead is based on income in the previous financial year. HMRC finalises the tax credits at the end of the year to reflect the actual income during the course of that year. If income was higher than predicted, the Government deem that to be an overpayment—effectively a debt that must be repaid—which will be automatically deducted from the claimant’s tax credit award for the next year. If the debt is greater than the award the Government will seek to recover it, in some cases potentially using private debt collectors. It is not unreasonable to expect people to repay any tax credits if they earn more than anticipated. However, the Government’s proposed approach to recover such sums appears to present a number of issues, which I hope that the Minister will carefully consider before reaching any conclusions on whether to recommend that the Committee pass the regulations.

Many families will see a change in income for various reasons over the course of a year. A member of the household may find a job or increase their working hours, exactly as the Government encourage them to do. The income rise disregard ensures that a small rise in income is not immediately clawed back, leaving low-paid families in sudden debt. It is important to make it clear that that does not mean that a household’s tax credit award remains unchanged for the following financial year, but simply that they do not have to repay any overpayment that may have occurred as a result of income rising by a small amount during the financial year just ended. The coalition Government had already cut the disregard from £25,000 to £10,000, and then halved that to £5,000 as recently as 2013. Today’s regulations will halve it again. The number of families breaching the limit has gone from 13,000, when the Tory-led coalition took office, to nearly 350,000 in 2013-14—the last year for which figures have been provided.

I ask the Minster to explain the rationale behind the £2,500 threshold. For example, has this figure been determined pursuant to an evidence-based review of all tax claimants’ increases in earnings over a specified period, resulting in a median threshold? Sadly, I do not believe that is the case. I understand that the figure is simply a return to the figure used at the inception of the income disregard in 2003. Although this figure was deemed reasonable at the time, it became immediately obvious to HMRC and the Treasury that it was too sensitive to small fluctuations in hours worked and, as such, was difficult for HMRC to manage efficiently. It also caused disproportionate hardship to many families.

Leaving the management of the overpayments system to one side for a moment, the Opposition are seriously concerned about the impact of the reduced figure of £2,500 on low-income families. The Government have stated that they champion the strivers who want to work hard and get on, but cutting the income rise disregard to such a low level means that people on lower pay are particularly vulnerable to being hit with an overpayment debt should they get a new job, work more hours, or earn a small pay rise or promotion. We are therefore concerned that the change could create a disincentive for people on low pay to take on more hours or move into full time work through fear of being hit with an overpayment debt.

The proposed reduction presents a real dilemma to families, especially those with members in jobs in which additional hours are less stable, such as zero-hours contracts, or where overtime might be offered from time to time. There might be a stark choice for these families: either work a few more hours from time to time and risk future repayments being imposed on the basis of a predicted salary, or simply decline the offer of extra work and ensure stability in long-term financial planning.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent of the impact assessment that the Government have undertaken on these new limits?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend will hear throughout my speech that I consider that to be a significant issue, which I hope the Minister will address today.

I want to make the Minister aware that our concerns are exacerbated by what can only be described as the Government’s continued silence on the potential impact of these cuts. To date, I am not aware of the publication of a specific impact assessment for these regulations or of an equality impact assessment. The fact that the Government have provided minimal information is reflected in an exchange between the Government and the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 28 January. The memorandum submitted by the Treasury stated:

“Next year there are expected to be 800,000 claimants with a reduced award as a result of their income increasing—none will be cash losers”.

But that did not provide an answer to the question posed by the Committee:

“Can you…give an indication of how many people will be affected by the change…and what the financial impact on those people is likely to be?”

I feel equally starved of information in the light of the responses I have received to my own written parliamentary questions. Since the autumn statement in which this cut was first outlined, I have tabled numerous written questions to ask for the details of its impact. I requested the modelling or case studies the Treasury undertook when formulating the policy; the impact on some example claimants; the total numbers likely to be affected; the estimated average change in tax credit award as a result of the change; and the evidential basis for the statement in the memorandum submitted to the other place that there would be no cash losers from this reduction.

I am saddened to inform the Minister that I have not received any satisfactory answers to my questions or to my requests for the case studies used to formulate this policy. I would have expected such case studies to have been undertaken as a matter of course, in the interests of acting prudently, before even drafting the regulations. It should simply have been a case of passing on the information used by the Government as their evidential base for making the suggested changes to the income disregard in the first instance. The Minister may be able to provide such evidence today—I would wholeheartedly welcome that—but from the information I have been able to glean so far, the only example provided was someone who earned £1 over the new disregard. I must flag up to the Minister that the Government have yet to confirm whether they have conducted an equality impact assessment.

I have no doubt that the Minister will understand my feelings of exasperation. Will he confirm today that a proper impact analysis and an equality impact assessment have been carried out in formulating the policy, or are the Government unaware of what the impact may be? The Minister will be pleased to know that from time to time I endeavour to be helpful to him in solving such conundrums. I have commissioned a bit of evidence-based research into the matter from the Library, and it is indeed illuminating. Its analysis of a household with one working adult on the current national minimum wage, over the age of 25 and with two children, demonstrates that, if that adult’s working hours were increased from 16 to 30 and then to 35 over successive tax years, the new disregard would be triggered and an overpayment incurred. That would then lead to their net income actually going down in at least one year, despite working more hours and earning more pay. Indeed, they would have lost £1,000 of income in at least one year, compared with the same situation under the current disregard. The Government’s claim that there are no cash losers would not be of much comfort to that family. Indeed, it would be interesting if the Minister expanded on what the Government mean by no cash losers, because that case study seems to demonstrate that there will be circumstances in which claimants who are increasing their pay could actually end up with a lower income for at least the year in question. That is just one example, of course, but an entirely plausible one.

Unfortunately, we still do not know the Government’s estimate of the maximum amount a family could lose. It would be helpful if the Minister provided that figure today; if not, perhaps he will say why it cannot be provided. He will no doubt appreciate that my hon. Friends and I are not prepared to allow legislation to be enacted that will affect 800,000 working people, without first knowing the potential impact on those people and without evidence that the Government have carried out due analysis.

To return to the management of the overpayments system, the Government have claimed that the updated real-time information system for pay-as-you-earn will make HMRC more sensitive to changes in income throughout the financial year, so that tax credit payments can be adjusted quickly, avoiding a build-up of debt. However, evidence suggests that the system is no more sensitive than it was in 2003-05, when the overpayments were recognised by all sides as excessive, peaking at £1.9 billion. The then Conservative Opposition were highly critical, and for our part, we recognise that there were problems with the initial introduction of the system. Unfortunately, it seems that while we have learnt the lessons, this Government want to make their own mistakes. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that those fears are unfounded.

Since the coalition Government slashed the disregard to £5,000, the total value of overpayments has rocketed and again exceeded the £1.9 billion that caused the initial crisis. That does not suggest to me that HMRC is any more efficient at adjusting tax credit awards now than it was then. Cutting the disregard by half again adds further administrative burden for HMRC at a time when the Government are closing HMRC offices and reducing staffing levels across the country.

Campaigns such as Child Poverty Action Group have highlighted that people on lower pay tend to see fluctuations in their income from month to month. If the RTI does in fact prove to be effective, that could create huge administrative issues on its own, as people have their tax credit awards stopped, cut and restarted from month to month. Indeed, Mark Willis from Child Poverty Action Group has said:

“It doesn’t really matter what someone’s monthly income is... You always need an accurate estimate of annual income when you’re making these in-year changes. And no-one can really accurately predict the future, especially as we’re often talking here about people with fluctuating earnings”.

The impact on low-paid workers is particularly stark when compared with the money spent on the Chancellor’s tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. For instance, those selling a stake in a business of up to £10 million now pay only 10% capital gains tax on their profits—a tax relief worth £3 billion a year, around three times the amount estimated and dwarfing the savings made by the cut to tax credits. The bulk of this money goes to a very different group of people. The latest analysis suggests that the full £1.8 billion went to just 3,000 individuals who enjoyed a multimillion pound bonanza from selling shares—an incredible £600,000 each.

In conclusion, the Opposition are not sufficiently satisfied that the Government have considered, or indeed carried out adequate analysis of, the impact of the regulations. If indeed they have, I would ask that the information is shared and the passage of the regulations through this House paused until such time as Members have had the opportunity to review such information.

We are further concerned that setting the income rise disregard at such a low level makes people on low pay more vulnerable to accruing an overpayment debt simply by doing what the Government are asking of them. That is a disincentive for those in low-paid jobs to work harder and earn more, and is a punishment for doing so. Quite simply, working people have already suffered enough under this Government, and we will therefore oppose the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which was constructive and useful. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who speaks for the Opposition, for a measured and constructive speech in which she put some reasonable points and questions.

Alongside the broader steps that the Government are taking on long-term reform to welfare, the creation of jobs, and making work pay, the regulations will reduce the unfairness in the tax credits system. The reduction to the income rise disregard will decrease the instances where one family receives a higher tax credit award than another family with precisely the same income and the same circumstances. That is a clear point of fairness, and I hope that hon. Members can agree that on principle it is the right thing to do.

As I have already set out, the provision returns the income rise disregard to the original level; but there is a key difference, compared with 2003. This time the Government are making sure that the system is able to cope with fluctuations in family incomes. The answer to one of the parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles would be that we estimate that the income of about 800,000 claimants will increase by more than £2,500 in year, and that therefore they will have an adjustment to their tax credit payments. Those people are doing the right thing, as a number of Opposition Members have said. They are working hard to increase their income. No one will have a cash loss, because their pay rise will always exceed any change to their tax credit award in year; so there will still be a clear incentive for working claimants to increase their earnings, as they will take home more money.

[Dawn Butler]

As there is no impact assessment, does the Minister agree that the measure will probably affect women and children more than any other group?

[Damian Hinds]

The 800,000 recipients are households, and the majority of them will be couples. The majority of those couples will be male and female couples. However, let us be clear, come the end of the tax year, whatever the income rise disregard and with or without today’s statutory instrument, their tax credit award will be adjusted downwards to take account of their higher income—by which time they may, of course, have become accustomed to what was to be a temporarily higher award.

The measure ensures fairness to the taxpayer, because a system of large income disregards unnecessarily increases costs. The Exchequer—hon. Members’ constituents— bears the cost of paying tax credit recipients a much higher award than they would get if their increased income were taken into account. Rather than continuing with that, the Government are taking action to make tax credits more responsive to income changes, which ensures that more claimants receive the entitlement that more closely reflects their actual income.

Real-time information will ensure that the changes to income can be identified earlier. From September 2016, the majority of claimants will be prompted to report increases of income to HMRC through a text message, voice message or letter, with the default action, in the event of non-response, that the award will be adjusted to reflect the income change. That will mitigate the likelihood of overpayments, and will make clear to claimants, in a fair way, their responsibility to report an increase in their income.

HMRC will provide information to those affected by the change, in tax credits renewals packs and updated guidance and notes to claimants, as well as in briefing lines for the tax credit helpline, to ensure that claimants are aware of the change and what it means for their tax credit award. The Government are committed to seeing the change implemented correctly, and are taking a considered approach to both the operational IT delivery and engagement with claimants, to ensure there will be a reduction in tax credit overpayments and the number of claimants falling into debt.

I will now answer some of the points raised by the Opposition during the debate. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked about the rationale for the precise number, and we have had a similar discussion in previous debates. There is never one single magic number that can be applied to such a threshold.

As the hon. Lady said, the figure of £2,500 brings the design of the income rise disregard back to Gordon Brown’s original figure. It is a balance between on the one hand making sure that the system adjusts as quickly and smoothly as possible to someone’s rise in income—to reduce the fall they would otherwise experience at the end of the tax year—and on the other not having to make an administrative change, and change the tax credit award, when there is a very small increase, such as from an annual pay award or a small increase in hours. The big change compared with 2003 is real-time information. To answer the hon. Member for City of Chester, real-time information is already operational and has been since 2013. A lot of the debates he mentioned have happened, but it is an important part of the continuing development of our taxation system.

The hon. Members for Salford and Eccles and for Banff and Buchan mentioned people on zero-hours contracts. I think it is always worth repeating this point because sometimes one could get the impression from listening to the Opposition that people on zero-hours contracts are the overwhelming majority when they are not; something like 2.5% rely on a zero-hours contract. Some of those are coming back into the workplace, and some of them are students. On average, zero-hours contracts deliver 25 hours of work a week.

The important point, which also applies to later in the debate, is that tax credits are still based on an annualised estimate of income. It is not necessarily the case that every single time there is a change in someone’s hours in a particular month they will have to say that this year’s permanence level of annualised income has changed. Through the RTI system there is an opportunity for those on PAYE to be prompted to do so, and others still can do so. The point is what they expect their total annual income to be. That is what the tax credit architecture of the system is based on today. It has always been based on an annual view of income.

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles also asked how we define no cash losers. It is very simple. People’s pay is going up, which is a good thing. Because the tax credits award cannot go down by more than the pay has gone up, therefore these people will be better off.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The Chancellor announced in the spending review that we would be investing more in cyber and that Cheltenham would see those benefits. My hon. Friend is right to praise the employment picture and performance in Cheltenham. It has seen more than 4,000 people get into work, as well as 3,000 fewer people in unemployment. Across the UK as a whole, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast an increase in employment of 1.1 million over the course of the Parliament.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

15. Christians Against Poverty has found that 72% of people on prepayment meters, who are often working, fall behind in their council tax and other bills. What assessment has been made of the impact of this kind of tariff on household debt?

[Greg Hands]

We monitor household debt on an ongoing basis. If the hon. Lady has specific cases she would like to show me, I am sure we could look at them and pass them on to the Department for Work and Pensions and others. I have to say, however, that overall the employment picture remains extremely strong. We have an employment rate of 74.1%. Since the first quarter of 2010, the UK employment rate has grown more than in any other G7 country.

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Percy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North, I want to say that many people are pleased that he is on the inside, fighting on important issues such as this. I am confident that people on the outside will be scratching their heads and wondering why such an important decision is not being debated on the Floor of the House. It relates to our future doctors, nurses and teachers, and the Government are stifling their opportunity to go to university. This Conservative Government need to think carefully about those people’s aspirations and what they are doing to them. The Institute of Fiscal Studies states:

“The replacement of maintenance grants by loans from 2016–17 will raise debt for the poorest students, but do little to improve government finances in the long run.”

For a Government who pride themselves on their economic competence, can you please explain that one? It just does not make sense. Explain why you are making a decision that you know will not help to balance the books.

[The Chair]

Order. May I remind the hon. Lady that when she says “you” she is referring to me and I am certainly not doing anything?

[Dawn Butler]

Isn’t that the truth? I would hate to put this pressure on you. You have my sincere apologies, Mr Percy.

This Government know that the change will not help to balance the books. Instead, it will cause more poor people to plummet into debt. Genuinely, what have poor people ever done to the Minister? Why are the Government intent on victimising poor people? Governments are supposed to help people succeed. Instead, this Government are sending a clear message: if you are young, disabled, a woman, black, Asian, minority ethnic, Muslim or if you are not wealthy, they are going to make sure that if you aspire to go to university, you will leave with debts of up to £53,000, compared with well-off counterparts whose debts will be £40,500, which is eye-watering enough in itself.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be an impact on universities? The University of York, for example, has incredible diversity and has really reached out to people from diverse backgrounds. All of that work will go to waste if the regulations are introduced.

[Dawn Butler]

I agree. I am sure that universities are thinking, “Help us, but not in this way.” This Government’s decision does not help them at all.

The Minister will no doubt say that students will have a little more money in their pockets as a result of the change. As with all good cons, that is partly true, but it is a little like loan sharks or payday loans. They will get a bit up front, but they will be paying an awful lot more in the end. We again see a situation in which those who can least afford to pay are being asked to pay more than their wealthier counterparts.

Cynics might say that this is a PR stunt because, as grants count towards current borrowing, the Government can remove the figure from their books by turning grants into loans so that it looks like they are borrowing less. One might call it creative accounting. The Institute for Fiscal Studies states that

“the national accounts...will fall by...£2 billion per year”,

as the shadow Minister stated, but it adds that, in

“the long run, savings will be much less”.

This is another betrayal of parents and young people in Britain.

In 2012, the coalition Government raised tuition fees, resulting in fewer people in my constituency going on to further education. One thing that helped to soften the blow, however, was the acknowledgment of the centrality of maintenance grants, which ensured that the most disadvantaged could still access higher education. Today’s proposals were not in the Conservatives’ manifesto. Why are they doing this? Why are they doing it in such a secretive, underhand, clandestine way? I just do not understand.

The National Union of Students did a great thing in fighting to force the Government to do a full equality impact assessment. That revealed a concerning risk to the participation of students from poorer backgrounds—women students, black and minority ethnic students, mature students, disabled students and Muslim students. It seems that the only group that is not really affected are white, wealthy men.

[Wes Streeting]

Of course, the other group that is not affected by these changes is right hon. and hon. Members who enjoyed their university education for free and who received a grant. Is it not time, when debating student finance issues, to recognise that what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

[Dawn Butler]

Of course. I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention.

I want to end with a question to the Minister. What does he think about the equality impact assessment? [Interruption.] He is busy chatting at the moment, so I will repeat my question: what does the Minister think about the equality impact assessment?

[The Chair]

Before I call Paul Blomfield, I should tell him that I plan to call the Minister at about 12.40 pm. There is another Member who wishes to speak—they are not members of the Committee, but that is perfectly in order—and I would also like to call them. I call Paul Blomfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

In the manifesto. Read it. It is available in all good bookshops.

Let me put the regulations in context to explain why the Government believe that they strike the right balance in ensuring these two things. In the previous Parliament, the Government took significant steps to ensure that university was open to those from all backgrounds. The policy of removing the artificial cap on student numbers, announced in the autumn statement 2013, reflected Lord Robbins’ principle from half a century ago that university places

“should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment”.

Striking progress on social mobility through higher education has already been made. The proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education is up from 13.6% in 2009 to 18.5% in 2015. That represents the highest proportion of students from those backgrounds entering higher education ever, and it is an achievement that we can all be proud of.

We are taking further steps on social mobility, as announced in our Green Paper. The Prime Minister has set out clear ambitions to double the proportion of the most disadvantaged students starting higher education by 2020 from 2009 levels, and to increase the number of black and minority ethnic students by 20% in the same period. We will be setting out further steps as part of our response to the Green Paper and through new guidance to the director of fair access.

[Dawn Butler]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am going to press on, if the hon. Lady does not mind. As we enable more people to benefit from higher education, we must also ensure that the system remains financially sustainable. The higher education landscape has changed drastically since Robbins set out his principle. The overall higher education participation rate 50 years ago was around 5%, while it is now close to 50%. Despite the expansion in numbers, the evidence shows that graduates have continued to benefit as the demand for higher education and skills has grown in a more developed economy.

While respecting Robbins’ principle, the Government cannot fund higher education as if the changes of the past 50 years had not happened. Given the advantages accrued by those who go to university, it is not right to ask those who do not benefit directly to meet all the costs of those who do benefit from higher education.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

it seems that what they really meant was that they intended to eliminate child poverty from the statute books by abandoning any attempt to measure it effectively. The benefits cap is one of the measures in the Bill that will undoubtedly push more children into hardship. Airbrushing child poverty from our public discourse by changing the way in which it is reported is the wrong thing to do and will not help us tackle the lifelong impacts of growing up in a family deprived of income.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

On the effect of the cuts, Brent council has produced its own report, which highlights the fact that in Brent 13,600 households and 26,200 children will be affected.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady makes a useful point. I am aware that Brent is one of the areas where the benefits cap will be particularly keenly felt, but all our big conurbations are affected, especially those where there is a large gap between the incomes of the wealthiest and people who are earning what in any other part of the country would be a decent wage, but in certain parts of the UK is not enough to live on.

I am glad to see that Labour Members have supported amendment 56, which I intend to press to a vote this evening. I shall also address some of the related amendments, 57 to 65, all of which would affect support for those distanced from the labour market, whether under employment and support allowance or universal credit. They would remove the provisions in the Bill that seek to reduce ESA for those in receipt of the work-related activity component.

I want to be absolutely clear that SNP MPs will oppose the proposals in clauses 13 and 14, which are an outright attack on people who are seriously sick, disabled, or living with debilitating long-term health problems. We are talking about people who are so seriously incapacitated that even the Government’s own stringent assessment process has deemed them unfit for work at present. Slashing support for sick people will not help them recover more quickly. In fact, money worries are one of the things that often slow down people’s recovery from serious illness. We have just heard a powerful speech delivered from the Government Benches about support for people who are terminally ill, but sometimes people recovering from illnesses that could go either way need a long time to recover, and they do not always get the support and the sympathy they need.

I am deeply concerned by the Government’s rhetoric on this matter. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) hit a raw nerve earlier when she suggested that some of the Government’s language has been deeply inappropriate, but as recently as the summer Budget the Chancellor said it was a “perverse incentive” for ESA claimants to receive more than jobseeker’s allowance. When a person has been assessed as not currently fit for work, I fail to see how reducing their income by 30 quid a week will get them into work faster.

Today, the Disability Benefits Consortium has released figures suggesting that 70% of disabled people surveyed say that the cut will make their health worse, not better. There are other important considerations to take into account, however, particularly for those with long-term disabilities or health conditions that compromise their ability to work over long periods. A lifetime of disability or the development of a long-term condition already erodes the financial assets and resilience of too many people, including carers. About one third of disabled people already live in poverty, and sick and disabled people who are unable to work—many disabled people do work, of course, and hold down steady jobs—face many costs that might not be immediately evident. For example, they might need to heat their home throughout the day at a higher temperature than would be necessary for a more active and fit person. They also incur those costs over a long period. In contrast, the vast majority of people on jobseeker’s allowance are on it for fairly short periods. About 60% of people on JSA move off the benefit within six months, whereas almost 60% of people in the work-related activity group need that support for at least two years.

Let us face it, most of us could, with a wee bit of effort, cope with a very low income for a week or two, but for those who face an extended period out of the labour market because of their health, £73 a week is just not sustainable. People will be eating poorly and will be unable to heat their home and clothe themselves adequately on such sums. Any one of us in this Chamber could find our lives, or the lives of the people we love, transformed at any moment by serious illness or disability. Earlier this afternoon someone described this as a civilised society, but in my view to be a civilised society we need an adequate safety net. We need to remember that returning to employment immediately is just not an option for people who have been deemed not currently fit for work.

I agree entirely with the Labour Front Benchers that the language the Government have been using has vilified and stigmatised sick and disabled people. Talking about “perverse incentives” implies that they are malingering. That is not the case. I do not think that a perverse incentive involves being so ill that one cannot work. When this part of the Bill was discussed in Committee, the Government seemed to suggest that they planned to use the savings from the cuts to ESA to provide additional funding for tailored employment support for disabled people. God knows, that is badly needed, given the fairly woeful performance of parts of the Work programme, but the only figure I have seen mooted by the Government is an increase of £90 million in employment support, whereas the measures are expected to save in the region of £640 million. Based even on the most rudimentary arithmetic, that seems a fairly paltry portion of the savings. I am also not convinced that it is the best use of resources given the direct adverse impacts on low-income, disabled and sick people. I would welcome detail from the Government on that, because from where we are standing now it looks extremely thin.

New clause 9 and amendments 57 to 65 all seek to reverse the proposals to introduce further conditionality on parents and responsible carers of very young children. I am particularly concerned about the potential impact on one-parent families. There is quite a lot of evidence that many lone parents are already struggling to comply with the new conditionality regime. We have seen disproportionate numbers of lone parents sanctioned, for example, and in recent days we have seen a massive U-turn by the Government in acknowledging that the sanctions regime is not working. I met representatives of One Parent Families Scotland just over a week ago and was gobsmacked by some of the examples they highlighted of struggling parents being sanctioned in extenuating and extremely difficult circumstances.

Currently, lone parents of children under five do not actively have to seek work, but they do need to attend work-focused interviews or work-related activity. Under this group of amendments, parents will be expected to be available and ready actively to seek work from the time their youngest child starts school, but not before. These proposals, which were pushed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and supported by the lone parent charity Gingerbread, take account of the very real logistical hurdles faced by those who are parenting single handed, and do not unnecessarily penalise those children who are already more likely to be poor as a consequence of their family circumstances. The Government’s proposals increase the risk of sanctions for parents of very young children, which can only be detrimental not just for them but for our society as a whole.

That leads me on rather neatly to new clause 12, which is in my name and which I also hope to push to a vote tonight. It would compel the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the sanctions regime. I have called for an independent review previously in the House. In the last Parliament, as we have already heard, the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee called for a full independent review. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) eloquently called for that review, because it is manifestly clear that the new sanctions regime is just not working, as it is failing lots of very vulnerable and disadvantaged people. It is failing not just lone parents, but sick and disabled people, particularly those with invisible or fluctuating conditions such as mental health problems. We can see the fall-out from that in the explosion in the number of food banks in our constituencies and in almost all the communities that we serve.



Last week, we had tacit acknowledgement from the Government that the system is not working when they made their U-turn, announcing their so-called “yellow card” warning scheme pilot. They also showed a new willingness to consider reviewing those classed as at risk to include homeless people and those with mental health problems. I welcome those steps; they are an important change of tone in the Government’s approach, but we need action now and not in the new year—that part of winter when these problems will already have become a lot worse. We must recognise that these steps also fall far short of the independent root-and-branch review that is really needed.

If we are to move towards a more workable system, we need a solid evidence base and to understand better how sanctions have differential impacts on claimants who are disabled, those with protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity, those with long-term health problems, including mental health problems, and those who are bringing up bairns single handed.

Finally, new clause 10 aims to ensure that any changes to the age of eligible claimants for housing benefit must be made by primary legislation rather than by regulation through the back door. New clause 11 offers protections for young people who cannot, for whatever reason, live with their parents. The Government said that they plan to cut housing benefit for 16 to 21-year-olds, but we on the SNP Benches do not think that that should be done through regulation. It is another example of a policy for which there is a very poor evidential base and which needs proper scrutiny. Some 60% of the young people set to be affected by this measure live in social housing. In other words, they are already likely to be deemed vulnerable by their local authority. Their age should not matter, but their need for support most certainly should. Again, this seems entirely arbitrary, and, again, we have seen none of the promised detail of support for those who are particularly vulnerable. I am forced to conclude that the Government have not thought through the implications of their slash-and-burn approach to our social security system.

Our amendments in this group seek to protect low income households, sick and disabled people and children. They offer the Government a way to mitigate the worst impacts of the legislation and help us all better to understand how we can genuinely improve our social security system. I hope that the Government will take some of that on board this evening.

[Helen Whately]

Over the past few weeks, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee, of which I am a member, has had to make some difficult decisions, but they were decisions that the electorate showed in May that they wanted us to make. The decisions that we have had to make can be seen both in this Bill and in the summer Budget.

I do not support the Opposition’s proposed new clause 2, but its wording shows that they do recognise that these reforms are part of a broader and coherent plan. They are part of a package of measures to create the kind of economy and society that people want. I am not talking about a society in which people spend years on benefits and low pay but one in which work pays, people keep more of what they earn and everyone has a chance to be better off.

[Dawn Butler]

In the context of people earning more, does the hon. Lady believe that we should take into the consideration the Living Wage Foundation’s report on how much the living wage should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

[Dawn Butler]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) might be inadvertently trying to mislead the House in that the living wage is actually £9.15 an hour, according to the Living Wage Foundation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I am afraid that I did not catch the intervention by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but I am sure that she was not trying to mislead the House.

Tax Credits

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Today’s bills will be paid at some point. We believe that the challenges for this generation should be dealt with by this generation, and we believe we need to get our finances under control and eliminate the deficit, and not just pass on the problem to our children and grandchildren.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that the 1% pay cap on public sector workers contradicts the Government’s policy for a high-wage economy?

[Damian Hinds]

I do not deny that pay restraint in the public sector is difficult, but that 1% restraint has also protected 200,000 jobs in the public sector, which is an important aim. In addition, since 2007-08, pay in the public sector has risen faster than in the private.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) on her passionate maiden speech—Government Front Benchers were visibly cringing with each word.

Michelle Dorrell, who appeared on the BBC’s “Question Time” last week, is one of the one in four people who now regret voting Tory. With tears in her eyes, she explained that she felt she had been misled by the Government. They are taking from the poor and making them suffer, and it is a false economy. On 19 April 2015 the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said of tax credits,

“we are going to freeze them for two years; we are not going to cut them”.

The spirit of deception goes on. The minimum wage has been renamed the living wage. Ministers claim that the cuts in tax credits will be offset by the increase in the minimum wage. Like all good cons, there is a grain of truth in that, because the cuts could be offset, but not until 2020. The cliché about hard-working families who did not cause the crash having to pay for it is unfortunately true. In Brent, 64% of families receive tax credits, which means 13,600 households will be affected by these changes. We know that there is a problem when The Sun—not a left-leaning newspaper in anyone’s imagination—starts a campaign about the cuts.

Conservative MPs have an opportunity tonight to listen to their conscience, vote with us and send a message to their Front Benchers that this is not right and this is not fair. If you fail to do that, shame on you.

[Several hon. Members rose—]