Brexit: Opportunities

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Let me begin by welcoming the Paymaster General to his new role. I thank him for advance sight of his statement. In fact, I imagine he had about as much advance sight of it as I did—11.40? However, I sympathise with him, not just for being thrown into this particular deep end, but for the title that was given to him for today’s statement.

Before I go into that, let me say that the proposals that the Paymaster General has mentioned will demand careful consideration once we have been able to examine the detail. For example, he mentioned the recent Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport proposals for reform of the data regime. If they are anything to go by, every measure in that package will need to be carefully considered, not just on its own merits but for the implications for our trading relationship with Europe. There was also reference in the statement to GMOs, research and development, vehicle standards and artificial intelligence, and all kinds of other things may be hidden in the huge category of law that has yet to be reviewed. We will come back to this, I have no doubt.

Let me return to the title of the statement: “Brexit: Opportunities”. That is the title, yet the country faces continuing shortages of staff and supplies, exacerbated by the Government’s Brexit deal, while businesses across the country face mounting losses in trade with Europe directly caused by the Government’s Brexit deal, and the people of Northern Ireland remain stuck in limbo as the Government refuse to implement the Brexit deal that they negotiated. Into all that, along comes the new Paymaster General to talk about all the wonderful opportunities that await us because of the marvellous Brexit deal, which is working so well at present. If he will excuse the unkind metaphor on the first day of his new job, it is a bit like the Pudding Lane baker strolling around the great fire of London asking people running for their lives if they have any orders for Christmas.

On the issue of opportunities, I will happily have a debate with the Paymaster General, whenever he wants to have one, about how the Government are wasting the opportunities of Brexit when it comes to the lack of ambition and innovation in both the roll-over trade deals they agreed last year and the new negotiations that they have begun since. I will happily have a debate, too, whenever he wants to have one, on the merits of the Government’s strategy to downgrade trade with Europe in favour of trade with Asia, on the fantastical basis that we can make up all the losses our exporters are facing in their trade with the EU through the gains that we will make through trade with the Asia-Pacific. The flagship policy of that strategy is the UK’s accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which, according to the Government’s own figures, will produce a £1.7 billion increase in UK exports to those Asia-Pacific countries over a 15-year period. That is roughly a third of what we exported to Luxembourg last year alone—the covid-affected year.

I will happily debate that strategy with the Paymaster General on another day, but what I want to focus on today, and what I urge him to focus on in the new role he has been given, is not the imagined opportunities of Brexit that might happen in the next year, two years or five years, but the real practicalities that need sorting out today—the holes that need fixing in our deal with Europe to support British businesses through this period of economic recovery and resolve the impasse in Northern Ireland.

Can the Paymaster General tell us where we stand on the Government’s efforts to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications and regulatory equivalence for financial services, so that our key growth industries in the professional and financial sectors can get back to doing busines in Europe with the speed and simplicity that they enjoyed before Brexit? Can he tell us where the Government stand in their efforts to seek mutual recognition of conformity assessments to remove the double testing of products that is costing our key industries both time and money? Can he tell us not just what the latest plan is to kick the can down the road in Northern Ireland, but how we are going to reach a sustainable and permanent solution?

On that note, may I ask the Paymaster General to clear up one specific mystery, which relates to the Cabinet Office? In March last year, without publicity and without an open consultation, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paid McKinsey consultants £1 million for eight weeks’ work to provide

“the most effective solutions to ensure food security and choice is maintained for consumers in Northern Ireland”

after checks on GB-NI goods were introduced. My question to the Paymaster General is this: if the best brains at McKinsey were given two months and £1 million by the Government to examine that problem and come up with a solution, what is the answer that they provided? Is the reality that they, like the Government, have no better alternative solution than a veterinary agreement—the solution that businesses want, the solution that the EU says would work, the solution that every Opposition party in this House supports, but the solution that Ministers are refusing to consider?

That brings me to my final question—the great unanswered question when it comes to Brexit practicalities, which I hope the Paymaster General will not try to evade as so many of his predecessors have. When Lord Frost was asked on 24 June why he would not pursue the option, even in the short term, of a veterinary agreement with the European Union to resolve many of the problems at the border, he said:

“We’re very ambitious about TPP membership, so…it might turn out to be quite short term. That’s the problem.”

Can the Paymaster General answer two questions? First, why do the Government believe—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before the right hon. Lady asks any more questions, let me say that she has significantly exceeded her time. I know that we are in a bit of flux, so I will allow her to finish, but I hope that she and others will note that keeping to time is important as a courtesy to others.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The questions I want to ask are these. First, why do the Government believe that signing a veterinary agreement with the EU is incompatible with their ambitions to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Secondly, if the answer is that joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership requires them to diverge from EU standards in relation to food safety, which is the only logical explanation for the comments that Lord Frost has made, can the Paymaster General tell us which specific standards they plan to diverge from?

I urge the Paymaster General, in his first appearance in his new position, to come out of the fantasy world that his predecessors have been living in together with Lord Frost and join us in the real world, together with Britain’s business community—the world of delays and shortages, red tape and bureaucracy, lost business and lost trade. It is a world that demands sensible answers and practical action from the Cabinet Office, not just another Minister addicted to dogma and wishful thinking.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome and her kind words. I have now been Attorney General, Solicitor General and Paymaster General in the last seven days, so I think I ought to have a uniform. Her opening remarks were very welcome.

The right hon. Lady is quite right, of course, that everything will be considered carefully, and that is why we are asking the British people to assist us in this regard, but she should welcome the opportunities that Brexit has afforded this country. The Labour party’s relentless—may I say poisonous?—negativity about the opportunities of Brexit really is a sight to behold. What about the wonderful positions of this country now that we are free from the shackles of the regulation and bureaucracy, and the burdensome arrangements, that were applied carte blanche to all member states of the European Union?

I urge the right hon. Lady to look at the positives—the fact, for example, that this country is now the No. 1 country in the G7 for economic growth on the GDP front, and that we have a million job opportunities for our constituents and the people of this country. Those are positives. Those are things that have been delivered post Brexit, and work is in progress—negotiations and discussions. She knows well that the matters that she raises are at the forefront of the priorities of this Government and are being worked on keenly.

The right hon. Lady spoke of Lord Frost and his comments about ambition. Of course, Lord Frost and I share—as do the whole Government—the ambition of this country. If only the Labour party shared that ambition, I think that she would find greater support.

Points of Order

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A junior Government Whip chunters from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not right always, but the same could be said of junior Government Whips. On this matter, however, the hon. Gentleman is right in both respects: motion 5 on today’s Order Paper is posited on the assumption that there will be a debate on Monday 18 July on the UK’s nuclear deterrent; and this debate has not been notified to the House, other than via a passing reference to it yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence in the course of the statement on the recent NATO summit. I make no complaint about what the Prime Minister might have been thinking or what he intended, or if he was caused or tempted to comment elsewhere—I am not focusing on that point. What I am focusing on is that if there is to be a change of business, there should be a supplementary business statement. That is the way we do our work in this place.

If I may say so, the usual channels, whatever their opinions on the merit of the issue, really ought to be aware of that point, which is blindingly obvious and brooks no contradiction—it is very, very, very straightforward. We cannot get into a situation in this place in which we do business in a disorderly fashion. The procedures of this House are for the protection of this House and all Members ought to take that very seriously. They certainly ought to be aware of the significance of that and some sort of remedial training is required for those who are not.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Ministry of Defence released a press release—this is therefore not just a glancing reference by the Secretary of State—stating that there would be a motion, but the House has certainly not been informed. Indeed, the motion is about not renewal, but the principle of continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, which in my view seems to be a different issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I confess I do not know what press offices get up to in these matters, but suffice it to say that ultimately the Secretary of State in a Department is always everywhere and for everything responsible in that Department. We probably should not dwell on this further, but let us try to learn from it for the future.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I am just summing up, so I will not give way, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

Coupled with that is the desire of Opposition Members to keep a welfare system that does not work and does not help enough people into work, when we now—with the economy growing, plenty of jobs and wages going up—have an opportunity to do something about it. We have a plan, and in the absence of a plan of their own, I encourage them to back ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

Swansea is a fine city and the hon. Gentleman represents it very well. That may be the case in Swansea, but I can only speak about the Jobcentre Pluses that the Work and Pensions Committee investigated. We did not see any evidence of targets. In my constituency, I have two Jobcentre Pluses. They are outstanding and do a fantastic job. We have almost full employment in Weaver Vale and the surrounding area. The centres do a great job of trying to get the people who are unemployed into jobs. If hard-working taxpayers who pay for benefits and welfare did not turn up to work on time and do a good job, they would be sanctioned—they would be sacked. There has to be fairness. Finding a full-time job is a full-time job. There is the claimant commitment. All I am saying to the House is that in my experience I have not seen any target culture in the Jobcentre Pluses I have visited.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Islington Law Centre in my constituency has a 100% success rate in overturning sanction decisions?

[Graham Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. She makes a powerful point. She represents north London and I represent a seat in the north-west. When the Committee investigated Jobcentre Plus, one of the things I used to argue for was best practice. There are some outstanding examples of Jobcentre Plus practice. Perhaps the north London jobcentres need to look at best practice elsewhere in the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Emily Thornberry]

The point is simply this: the hon. Gentleman may be right, so will he support our call for an independent review of sanctions across the country, so we can see where there is good practice and where there is bad practice?

[Graham Evans]

The hon. Lady raises a good point, which others have raised, too. I would encourage the Select Committee to do a further investigation into Jobcentre Plus. My personal experience is that it does an outstanding job. I carry out job fairs in my constituency and I am organising my fifth one since I became an MP, during which time I have seen unemployment halved in Weaver Vale. One thing I learned from working with the jobcentres in Runcorn and Northwich was the number of high-quality and well-paid jobs available.

Let me provide an example. Waitrose came to town—to Northwich. It is under no obligation to give interviews, but when it came to Northwich, it said it would interview 25% of local people on the books of the local jobcentre. In the end, it interviewed 70%, and I am pleased to say that more than 50% of those it took on for the new Waitrose in Northwich were local people. I spoke to many of the people employed there. There were lots of young ladies, and ladies not quite so young, who had been unemployed for many years. They now have themselves a fantastic career with a John Lewis partnership. I asked them why they were unemployed for so long, and they said that the training given by Jobcentre Plus and the local Cheshire West and Chester work zone was what made them job-ready, able to do well in interviews and capable of producing a good CV.

The last time I checked, Waitrose was delighted with the quality of the workforce—one that, as I say, had been unemployed for a very long time. Some of the jobs are part time, but some people want that, and they are good-quality jobs and very well paid. This is exactly the sort of Jobcentre Plus activity that I hope goes on in everyone’s constituency. I was going to say more about Jobcentre Plus, but I shall give that a miss as I have already made the points.

Everyone with the ability to work should be given the support and opportunity to work. The previous system wrote too many people off and left too many trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency. Over the last five years, the number of people in Weaver Vale claiming jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit while not in employment fell by more than 1,000—a 51% drop. I am not saying that my jobs fairs had anything to do with that, but they probably helped in some way.

This Government’s long-term economic plan is working for Weaver Vale, getting people off a life on benefits and back into work. I have not heard of an alternative to our long-term economic plan recently—or at all, in fact. Employment has been this Government’s real success, with 2 million more jobs—and 1,000 created each and every day during the last Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

I am going to make some progress.

It is morally right that people who can work are better off in work; why should someone who is able to go to work get more money on benefits than in work? There has been strong support for that argument, both nationally and in my constituency. As I have mentioned in this Chamber before, Cannock Chase is a former mining area, where there is an incredibly strong work ethic. That might go some way to explaining why people would spontaneously say to me on the doorstep that they really supported the cap. That is notwithstanding the general public’s support. A YouGov survey conducted in the previous Parliament demonstrated the strength of public feeling, with around three quarters of respondents supporting the cap.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Amanda Milling]

If the hon. Lady does not mind, I am going to make progress.

Not only do people support the cap, but there is evidence that it is working. It is reforms such as these that have helped encourage people back into work. In my constituency of Cannock Chase, unemployment has fallen dramatically. Since May 2010, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen by a staggering 70%. It is measures such as the benefits cap that have contributed to that fall. That is also evidenced by the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). Since the cap was introduced, 16,000 capped households have moved into work. Further analysis shows that households subject to the cap are 41% more likely to go into work, compared with similar uncapped households. There is also evidence to show that those who are subject to the cap are doing more to find work, whether by submitting more applications or attending more interviews.

However, one of my key concerns—this can be seen nationally and in my constituency—is whether the benefits cap goes far enough. Having talked with members of the public, I had a strong sense that the cap was set too high. After all, a family going out to work would have to earn £35,000 in order to net the equivalent £26,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) mentioned.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Amanda Milling]

I am going to make progress, because I am conscious of time and the number of Members who wish to speak.

I therefore welcome the proposed reduction in the cap to £20,000 outside London and £23,000 in London, as set out in our manifesto and as included in the Bill. That is something the public support, as the general election result demonstrated. The Government received a clear mandate from the public on 7 May to introduce the benefits cap and the proposed reductions.

In my view, the benefits cap is a key measure at three levels. First, it ensures that our welfare system is fair, by making work pay and ensuring that those who can work are always better off in work than on benefits. Secondly, it ensures that our welfare system is targeted, by making sure that there is safety net for those people who most need support—the most vulnerable. Thirdly, it creates a welfare system that is sustainable, helping to get our economy and public finances on to a firmer footing and helping to reduce the deficit.

To date, the benefits cap has worked to meet those three objectives, helping to create a fair, targeted and sustainable welfare system. I believe that the measures set out in the Bill will help to deliver those further. The amendments that have been tabled would undermine that progress, so I will not be supporting them this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I was not aware of that fact, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out.

On the employment numbers, I also want to point out that there are a lot of people on short-hours contracts. I am not talking about zero-hours contracts, which have now reached 750,000, as Conservative Members must know; I am talking about eight-hour and 12-hour contracts. They provide insecure employment and insufficient money for people to live on, and they make it very difficult to get other jobs. They are, however, recorded as employment. There is all the difference in the world between working 35 hours a week and working eight hours a week, and Conservative Members need to think about that before they start talking about miraculous employment figures.

[Emily Thornberry]

A snapshot of today’s jobs market would also reveal that 3 million people in this country identify as being underemployed. They are not working enough hours to be able to support their family.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend has expressed that beautifully.

I shall move on to the question of employment and support allowance. Again, hon. Members need to think about the overhang from the heavy industries and the impact that reductions in people’s income has on those individuals and on whole communities. I suppose this seems quite unusual to those representing a constituency whose casework consists of a lot of neighbour disputes and planning issues, and where only one person a week turns up with a benefits problem, but in a constituency like mine—a former mining constituency in an industrial area—the bulk of the casework is this sort of thing. The cuts Conservative Members are proposing to vote for tonight will have a devastating impact on the amount of money in the local economy, as well as being very unfair to people who are not going to be able to go back to work.

Finally, I want to make one observation on universal credit and lone parents. It is not reasonable to have the same conditionality for a lone parent with children under school age as for people in couples. The practicalities of looking after children are different for lone parents and for married couples. Ministers in the Parliament before last changed the rules so that the conditionality for lone parents was aligned to the tax credit system, and the period was 16 hours instead of 30 hours for people in couples. Ministers must help people balance their parenting responsibilities and their working responsibilities better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wish to speak to new clause 7, amendments 35 to 48 and new clause 6.

I had the very great privilege of sitting on the Committee for this Bill and I have heard arguments from all parts of the House. There is one point in relation to new clause 7 that we looked at in Committee and that I wish to develop further today, and that is the principle of making work pay. The benefit cap has been criticised by some Opposition Members, but the reality is that, in my constituency, it is a very popular policy. The median salary in my constituency is £480 per week, which is less than the cap currently in place for benefits of £26,000. The point has already been made, and indeed we looked at it in the Bill Committee, that that £26,000 figure is equivalent to a gross figure of £35,000.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

In a moment if I may. Let me just finish this point. This effort to make work pay is to be welcomed and not criticised.

[Emily Thornberry]

I pointed this out to the hon. Lady in Committee, but I am grateful to have the opportunity to point it out to her again. If someone had a median income in central London, they would be on benefits, because it is accepted that people cannot live on £26,000 in central London and pay their rent.

[Victoria Atkins]

As I responded in Committee, I understand that the hon. Lady represents a London constituency, but I do not. I can only speak for what I think is right for my constituency and the area outside London.

We are talking here about a package of measures. I know that Opposition Members do not like to draw together all of its different threads, but this is a package. The ripple effect of the national living wage includes commitments—

Individual Electoral Registration

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of those people who do the hard yards in our democracy—electoral registration officers. They do not have a fashionable local government job, but they do their very best to boost our democracy and, as my hon. Friend says, they have been undermined in this instance.

To be fair, before the 2015 general election coalition Cabinet Office Ministers, the Electoral Commission and the National Union of Students sent a letter to university vice-chancellors across the UK asking for their support to ensure that students were registered to vote. Consequently, there was a big drive in universities to boost registration—fair do’s. We are now in a new academic year, however, with thousands of admissions to and departures from the universities, so the HOPE not hate group rang 54 universities asking about their work this year. Every university that responded said it was scaling down its efforts as there was no general election this year, with just four of them referring to plans to inform the new intake about voter registration in their welcome packs. That is a microcosm of the larger problem in high turnover areas. Without a sustained programme of action, any voter drive will work for a short period only.

Labour is doing its bit with the “missing million” push this weekend, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). It is one of our biggest registration drives ever. Labour students will be around campuses, colleagues will be touring community groups and local parties will be going door to door. That sort of work cannot, however, be sustained by volunteers alone, no matter how committed they are. A lot of the push has had to come from local authorities, who deserve credit for working hard despite the wider cuts and the new demands of the IER system.

Although information such as dates of birth and national insurance numbers is a good protection against fraud, it places further demands on electoral registration officers and that is why we need to support them by using all the available tools to find as many voters as possible. That means Departments and local authorities linking up their information and streamlining their processes. On this side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) deserves credit for doing that with his local university, the University of Sheffield, where they have integrated voter registration into the student registration process, leading to 64% of students registering to vote. That is a success story—fair do’s.

The more innovative methods we can use to take advantage of what we already have, the better. In my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I have seen some of the new ways in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is working. Since 2012, it has been making use of credit reference agency data to good effect. It has checked addresses and other information to see if everything is up to date and correct. That helped HMRC to reduce tax credit losses by £280 million between 2011 and 2014. Further afield, in California, a Bill has recently been signed that allows residents to be registered to vote when they obtain or renew a driver’s licence or a state identity card. The point is that we need to use more good and accurate databases to increase voter registration to protect and build our democracy.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to intervene in the debate. I compliment my hon. Friend; he was an excellent agent in Islington South in 2005 and has been an even better MP since for Wales.

Is it not right that we should all be democrats? We should all be trying to work to ensure that as many people as possible exercise their democratic right to vote. It is extraordinary, is it not, that the Government seem to be putting barriers in the way of people being on the register in order to exercise the power they should have simply because they are citizens?

[Nick Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She does a brilliant job of boosting voter registration in Islington.

The Government are rushing the introduction of individual electoral registration. Next year’s elections are important and the boundaries for future constituencies will rely on an accurate register. The Government say that they want to boost our democracy, but their action undermines it. How many times have we, in this place, around this room, knocked on doors come election time, to be greeted by a person who has lost their opportunity to vote because of a registration problem? I see lots of nods. Why do we want to reject hundreds of thousands of students across the country by squeezing them off the register and telling them that their vote does not matter? Why do we want to undermine our voting system and threaten to exclude private renters, people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, the unemployed and lower-paid workers?

The Government must listen. They must hear the genuine concerns and allow more voters on to the register; otherwise, they do our democracy a great disservice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to make my first speech under your chairship, Mr Davies. There is no opposition from my party to the principle of IER. We can all agree it is high time to move away from the Victorian process of the patriarch registering the household and to individual registration. However, the process of transferring the responsibility from the state to the individual means that not all individuals are equal. We know that in many areas there have been problems with some groups being able to take advantage of their ability to join the electoral register: people who live in the private rented sector, students, and people who are recent migrants or who have no fixed abode in communities and are moving around. Also, there are people with various problems—poverty, addiction or other social problems—who are very much on the margins of society and, frankly, registering to vote in an election is not at the top of their list of priorities. Such factors do not affect all constituencies equally. I guess that is why we have an apparent imbalance of interest in the debate today. I guess there is a disproportionate interest the other way round in a debate on tax credits, but who knows?

In Scotland we have had an exercise in our recent history that I think has set the gold standard in electoral registration. During the Scottish referendum, we reached registration levels of 95% plus—previously unseen in these islands and lauded by everyone as a remarkable achievement. I recall asking the then First Minister Alex Salmond, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), what his most vivid memory of the entire referendum was, and he said the thing that stood out for him most was being in the city of Dundee in late August in the bright sunshine and having a queue of more than 200 people waiting in line around the block to sign up before the deadline for registration. Such was the enthusiasm of people wanting to participate.

We will wait and see what the effect will be in December in terms of the drop in the register as a result of moving to the new process, but the initial indications are not good. The interim register in April was 3.4% down on the register on which the referendum took place. That is in part because of the presence of 16 and 17-year-olds, but if we compare over-18s on the register, there is still a drop of 1.8%, which is a fairly significant drop. Hundreds of thousands of people could lose their right to vote.

It strikes me that we need to do two things. First, we need processes that are external to Government, but wherein the Government encourage people to take part in the electoral process to begin with. That should be done, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) says, through schools, through advocacy and through trying to educate people about the importance of their being on the register. We need state and local government-funded publicity campaigns to drive people towards that process.

Secondly, we need to look at the processes involved and how we can make them a lot simpler and easier. It is ridiculous that when a woman gets married and decides to change her name, she then has to provide two further pieces of identification in order to re-register to vote. Surely it is the state that is agreeing to the marriage and recording it in the first place; I would not think it beyond our wit, in the 21st century, to find a way to transfer that information to the electoral register.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The problem that I have is that because of his fear of patriarchy, he is saying that individual people should grasp their right to vote. That is putting the whole thing on its head. It should be everyone’s right to vote. It seems obvious to me that the state should ensure that people have the right to vote; it is then for the individual to decide whether they want to.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree, of course, that without question everyone should have the right to vote. I am trying to suggest that it is the state’s duty to promote the availability of that right and to encourage people and advocate that they take it up.

I agree completely with the points that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made about identity. I asked my electoral registration officer why people could not indicate in the relevant place that they felt themselves to be Scottish—I represent the capital of Scotland. The electoral registration officer said that they would happily change the form but could not do so because it would need to be changed on the Cabinet Office portal. I wrote to the Minister on that on 3 September and am still awaiting a reply. I am not trying to bounce him into replying today, but I shall be grateful if he will speed up the process.

I do not want to pre-empt what the Government are going to say, but I guess they would say that they have brought the date forward because they are extremely confident that everything will be all right on the night and okay in the end. Surely the question today is: what if it is not? What is plan B? We need to be prepared. When the registers are announced in December, if there is a dramatic drop-off in some areas, it is the Government’s responsibility to take emergency action to ensure that people are not disfranchised in the elections and referendums that are coming next year.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Seventh sitting)

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 11, page 12, line 39, leave out “2017” and insert “2022”.

This amendment would see current arrangements for child tax credit remaining in place for children born before 6 April 2022.

I hope Committee members have all had an enjoyable recess and a successful conference. Unfortunately, the Scottish National party has to juggle a week of Bill Committees and conference, so the week will no doubt be a busy one for us.

From the outset I want to make it clear that the SNP wholeheartedly condemns the intentions behind the clause, which will exclude many of the poorest children in society from the support of our social security system, against the very principles on which that system was set up. The two-child policy, which has been much discussed, will affect more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. I cannot understand how anyone in Committee could say that that was fair, just or necessary.

The stark reality is that the Government’s national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. A third of the children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps it is for that reason that the Government are seeking to airbrush child poverty from the statute books. It is easy for the Government to come in with a clean page, to spout theories without evidence and to claim that reducing financial support to only two children will make poorer families rethink their financial choices, but that is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to plan financially for children. As I am sure we all know, that is not possible.

What if someone’s second pregnancy turns out to be twins, or even triplets? We still have no real clarity on how multiple births will be treated. Will the Minister concede that such eventualities simply cannot be planned for? Perhaps he needs a biology lesson. Are we telling families to stop having children just in case? The scenarios are not that simple.

I have raised many times in Committee and on the Floor of the House, as have my SNP colleagues, the very sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the even more insensitive plan of the Minister and the Government to make women justify their children in front of a caseworker from the Department for Work and Pensions. Many organisations have stated clearly that their staff have to train for a considerable amount of time to support women who have been raped, so I cannot understand how the Government’s proposed system and policy will work.

I therefore ask, clearly and specifically, for the Minister to keep in place the existing arrangements for children born before 2022 and to tell the Committee, before we vote on the amendment, exactly what his Department’s plans are for that. We all have to deal with constituency cases, but I am interested to know how any Government Members would deal with a woman coming to them who cannot seek benefit because she has been raped and therefore has to justify herself to the DWP. Even in evidence to the Committee, stakeholders described the policy as “unpalatable”. Does it simply show, at the height of Tory insensitivity, how out of touch the party is with reality? My view and that of my colleagues is that the Government have simply not thought things through.

When the Minister responds, will he tell me just how a woman would prove that her child was a result of rape? We all know the difficulties involved in securing a criminal conviction in that respect, as well as the high burden of proof, never mind the devastating emotional impact on the victim. What exactly will be the Government’s standard? Why did the Minister, and the Conservatives generally, think it appropriate to include the issue? The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to serious emotional damage of the child should he or she become aware through the social security system that they are the result of rape. Imagine someone finding that out purely because their parents seek benefits.

Let me be clear: discussing this matter is not something I do lightly, but the SNP feels, as I hope others on the Opposition side of the Committee feel, that we must speak up. Amendment 44 would kick the policy into the long grass. Even campaigners Women Against Rape have called the policy “disgusting”, saying it will have “appalling consequences”. The SNP stands firm with that position and urges the Government to remove the two-child policy from child tax credit and universal credit provisions to ensure that no victim or child should go through the torment associated with justifying a third child, given the horrific crime inflicted on them.

Given the current economic climate, families simply cannot plan for a third child, or subsequent children. What if their first or second child was the result of rape, and they went on to have further children, but their economic circumstances changed? The Government’s failure to secure a strong, thriving economy with stable employment opportunities means that, although the members of a family may have stable and reliable jobs, there is, as we have seen, no guarantee that someone who decides to have a child will be employed for the next 18 years. To deny assistance to families who fall on hard times completely flies in the face of what the welfare system was built for.

Working people will ask why they pay their taxes when they can no longer receive support in our social security system. Will they be made to feel that their third child was a bad choice because the company they worked for made them redundant? Does the Minister have an answer for the parents of twins or other children? Could he, or any Government member of the Committee, look into a constituent’s eyes and say with a clear conscience that that constituent’s bad financial planning means they deserve no support from the Government?

The provisions in the Bill are nothing more than a move to socially engineer society into a form the Tory Government have dreamt up—one where the right to have a third child is a luxury reserved for the rich. That is not a society that I, any of my colleagues or, I believe, anybody in this country wants to live in. That is why the SNP are standing up for the poor, for hard-working folk and for children. We want to protect them when they fall on challenging times.

Child Poverty Action Group research shows that many families in receipt of tax credits are already struggling to meet their children’s most basic needs. Current levels of entitlement cover only between 73% and 85% of the cost of raising a child. Removing tax credit entitlements will only widen that gap further. Ultimately, the provision in the Bill could sink more families below the breadline, leaving children at risk of ill health and lower educational attainment.

From the heart, and using my head, I can only urge all Members to unite with the SNP today and to think of the constituents who will come to them—those with three or more children and those struggling to get more hours at work to make ends meet. Members should think of what rejecting the policy will do for those people: they will be able to look their constituents in the eye and say they did everything they could to stop the policy. If we, as parliamentarians, are here to legislate for those we represent, let us legislate properly and with our consciences. The provisions in the Bill do not make good law, so I ask Members to please think again and vote with us.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to return to the Committee, Mr Streeter.

The two-child policy—there is a list of political regimes that begins with the Vietnamese communists and the Iranian theocrats—is not going to end well. We are debating a proposal that would see the current Administration join that inauspicious rank of people who at one time or other have imposed state-sanctioned limits on the number of children a family can have. Even the ayatollahs backed away from it in recent years.

Of course, there is a caveat in the Bill that adds a layer of unpleasantness to the proceedings. The Government will impose a limit on family size that applies only to poor families. At least the other countries tried to stop all families from having more children. This Government seem to focus only on the poor. They seem to be trying to limit the number of children that the poor have.

We are not all poor always. Some of us might begin life by being quite well off and comfortable and able to make decisions. We would know we could be completely confident that we could be independent, but then things happen. That is what the social security system has always been about. I speak from personal experience. My parents were allegedly, supposedly happily married. They had three children and then one day, when I was seven and my younger brother was five and my other brother was three, my father left—he left the country and abandoned us. I remember the bailiffs came round. They were wearing bowler hats—this was the ’60s—and they threw us out of our house. We had nowhere to go and we had no money and the welfare state picked us up and gave us accommodation. They gave us a house. Nobody said, “How many children have you got? You’ve been very reckless, Mrs Thornberry, I’m sorry we can’t give you any money for the third child. Young Ben Thornberry is going to have to starve.” There was none of that thinking. It was tough, but we were looked after. Nobody looked down on my mother for having made a decision with my father to have three children. That was a long time ago, but I feel that that is the sort of Britain we ought to want to be involved in.

We ought to be able to have a Britain where we have a safety net that looks after people when they find themselves in difficult circumstances. We do not want to have a Government that tells people, “Now listen here, you look a bit rough round the edges. We don’t want you to have any more than two children. Lord knows what they will be like and you won’t even be able to look after them. Sorry, but no, that’s it.” Where will it end?

Frankly, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is shockingly bad and it flies in the face of a British value of which I have always been very proud—that we look after the weakest and poorest and have a safety net. If things happen, people will not starve. We should not say, “I’m sorry, we are now in a world where people must make choices.” The third or fourth child does not make a choice to live. The third, fourth or fifth child is not to be blamed for their existence. The sixth child is not to have no shoes because of a reckless mother who cannot keep her legs crossed. It is not the sixth child’s fault that he is the sixth child. Why should he starve? How will it make a difference? What is the evidence that the Government want to put before us that will tell us that a change to the benefits system in that way will stop people having more children?

It is interesting that there is not going to be an equality impact assessment. The Government have learned their lesson. The last welfare Bill had 20 equality impact assessments, which the Opposition revelled in, as did all the people opposing that previous piece of pernicious legislation, because the assessments showed what the effect of welfare legislation would be. I may be quoting roughly—I will be corrected if I am wrong—but one of the equality impact statements produced for the previous Bill, which the Government have unfortunately not produced for this one, said that black and Asian families were three times as likely to have more than two children. It is interesting that the Government decided not to have an equality impact assessment on clause 11. Perhaps nobody will notice that the legislation affects black and Asian families that much more.

We all know whom the Bill will affect: women—black, Asian, white or whatever. Women will be adversely affected by the Bill and will struggle to work out how they are going to afford a pair of shoes that winter for the fourth child. Mr Streeter, you may be surprised to hear this, but yes, we are against this particularly nasty piece of legislation. I do not know at this point if you wish me to speak to new clauses 5 and 6.

[The Chair]

No.

[Emily Thornberry]

Very well.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The amendment seeks to delay the Government’s proposed changes to the family element of child tax credit until April 2022. The Government were elected on a mandate to reduce the deficit and restore order to our public finances. As part of the plan to get us into surplus and to continue the progress made in the previous Parliament, the Government have committed to making a further £12 billion of welfare savings.

To set the scene, the most recent statistics show that, in 2011, the level of UK expenditure on family benefits was the second highest out of the 34 countries in the OECD and almost double the average. Child tax credits are there, of course, to provide support to low-income families to help them with the costs of raising children.

[Damian Hinds]

The OECD has done a survey based on percentage of spend to GDP. The hon. Lady has not asked this question but let me clarify further: it takes together family benefits, cash benefits, tax breaks and childcare. Of course, the mix is different in different countries. Nordic countries tend to spend more on direct childcare and Anglophone countries tend to spend less on that but put more into tax breaks. Our country has tended to spend a little bit more on cash benefits and on childcare.

As I said, child tax credits are there to provide support to low-income families to help them with the cost of raising children, but the system has grown unsustainably—a family with three children that earns up to almost £40,000 could still be eligible for some support. The previous Labour Government let public spending on tax credits rocket out of control so that, in 2010, nine out of 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. That was not targeted support for low-income families.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the Minister agree that we have in this country a unique system that in fact helped us to weather the international storm caused, not by Gordon Brown being at Lehman Brothers throwing dollar bills out the back window, but by an international financial crisis, and that we did not have higher levels of unemployment because measures such as in-work benefits meant that people could continue to work and employers did not feel the need to continue put up wages because they felt that it was easier to continue to employ people? Does he agree that in-work benefits have resulted in people remaining in work?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady tempts me into a wider debate about the deficit, which would be interesting to get into, particularly with some of the news this morning about her own party’s interesting deliberations on how the deficit should be dealt with. I do not think that anybody denies that there was an international financial crisis in 2007-08, but it is also true—I doubt that many people will deny it, though she may be one who does—that it came on top of a structural budget deficit that was out of control because we had spent too much and borrowed too much, even in the good years.

[Emily Thornberry]

Nonsense.

[Damian Hinds]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady says “nonsense”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I say that these are major structural changes. I think you would admonish me, Mr Streeter, if I went too far down this road, because we had this debate on the Floor of the House and there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter.

We are talking about helping people through the national living wage and increases in the income tax personal allowance, but also through measures such as childcare support and, most important of all, the general strength of the economy. We see real wages rising very strongly at the moment, and we have very low inflation and very strong economic growth. Those are the things that most help families with their budgets and living standards.

In the summer Budget, the Government took steps to put tax credit spending on a more sustainable path, including by limiting the individual element of child tax credit to two children and by removing the family element of child tax credit for those who are not responsible for a child or qualifying young person before 6 April 2017. The average family size in this country has decreased over recent decades. The average number of dependent children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

The Government believe that it is fair and proportionate to limit support through tax credits and universal credit to two children per family. The measures in clause 11 will ensure that there is greater fairness between those receiving benefits and those paying for them, and will ensure that, in the future, families in receipt of benefits face the same sorts of financial decisions when they consider having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. The Government decided to implement the measures from April 2017 to give families time to make decisions about having more children. That provides sufficient time for those considering whether to have more children to make plans, while at the same time putting tax credits on a more sustainable footing.

The hon. Member for Livingston quite rightly raised some of the difficult issues. We have already been clear about multiple births, and there will be more detail forthcoming on that. We will also have a chance discuss that in debates on further amendments. The Government have been absolutely clear that if parents have twins or triplets and previously there were fewer than two children in the household, that will be treated as a single birth. In the most difficult circumstance—a child conceived as a result of rape—it is right that the Government take a careful and sensitive approach to working out how best to deal with those circumstances and support women through that situation in relation to the tax credit system. There will be more detail in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I should like to speak to new clauses 5 and 6 in particular, which are grouped with the amendments. New clause 5 would prevent the Secretary of State from limiting entitlement to housing benefit based on family size, and new clause 6 would do a similar job with universal credit. There is no mention in the Bill of limiting housing benefit on the basis of family size. That is odd. It is a radical proposal, it is pernicious, it needs scrutinising and it is not there, but we are told that it is coming. The Red Book mentions that there will be a limit on tax credits to a maximum of two children and then states, on page 38:

“An equivalent change will be made in Housing Benefit to ensure consistency between both benefits.”

It is coming—it is linked with the limits on tax credits—but the Government have not yet told us about it. We therefore want to pre-empt that and have a discussion now, putting in our new clauses.

Another removal of money from poor families is the getting rid of what is called the family premium. The premium is an acceptance that families are expensive and that a working family ought to have more of its income disregarded when assessing entitlement to housing benefit. On getting rid of the family premium, Shelter has said:

“Exploiting the complexity of housing benefit and tinkering with means tests and tapers is a clever ruse to extract savings from housing benefit in a technical way that doesn’t attract attention in the way that big, visible cuts like the bedroom tax did.”

Well, we have noticed.

If the Government get their way, they will be abolishing the family premium for housing benefit. That means that families—working families—will have £17.45 a week in earnings held against them when a decision is being made on whether they can get help with their housing costs. I do not know what the Government intend. Do they think that families are not expensive these days? Do they believe that the contribution of working families to the Osborne economic miracle by way of the cuts to tax credits is not enough, so the family premium ought to be cut as well? I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us.

May I go back to limiting housing benefit to two children and how that will work? As I have said, the Government have stated their intention. I have a few questions because I do not understand it. Perhaps no such provision is included in the Bill because the policy has not been thought through yet. We might be being helpful to the Government if we raise some of the likely problems if they place a two-child limit on housing benefit. For example, will local authorities presented with a homeless family with four children be obliged to house them in housing that means that they are not statutorily overcrowded? If so, and the family is not working and the property is a local authority one, will anyone pay the rent? Will the Government pay rent only for two bedrooms and the other two bedrooms will not be paid? Or will the family be expected to pay the rent out of the child benefit?

The Minister repeated today that child benefit is not affected by the reforms, because the Government want to ensure a fair start in life for children in all families. That is certainly part of the Tory script at the moment, but it is not true—we have a script alert here for my hon. Friends. The irony is that there is an enormous difference between the level of support provided through child benefit, which is subject to a four-year freeze, and that provided by tax credits. For a third child, a family can claim £712.40 a year, compared with £2,780 in tax credits.

The Government say of such families, “Don’t worry, they are still getting child benefit. They’ll be fine.” They will not be fine. In particular, families will not be fine if there are no tax credits for the third child and housing benefit is being taken away. The Government are therefore presumably expecting parents to pay for their rent out of—I do not know—jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit or something. How will that work? Will people simply have to end up living in cars, because that must be what the Government’s policy is about?

How will the Government assess whether they are giving housing benefit to a family with only two children, as opposed to three? Would they expect families possibly to split up, so that two children live with a parent at one address and two with another parent at another address? Housing benefit for four children could be paid in that way. Or would that be wrong? Given that there is a housing crisis in London, I cannot see how that would work because there is not enough accommodation for all the families as it is. In my constituency, I have 19,000 families waiting for accommodation. If the Government are to restrict housing benefit for larger families, where will they go? I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to what might happen.

The Government have not put that measure in the Bill, which may be because they have not really worked out what they mean, how it will work and what the impact will be on homelessness and the number of people living in cars. If they have not worked that out, perhaps that is a good reason for them not putting it in the Bill yet. I applaud them for that. Of course, there is another possibility: they want to slip the provision into a statutory instrument. If they put it into a statutory instrument, they do not need to have any impact assessment—heaven forbid they have an equality impact assessment! We know they will not have an assessment, so we will not know how much money, if any, will be saved, who will be affected, how much more homelessness or how much more child poverty it will cause. That is why we want to have a debate now, so that the Government are given the opportunity to tell us their thoughts and enlighten us, and so that we can explain to them why that is one of the more horrible aspects of their so-called welfare reform and something that will have a devastating effect.

I should bring up another point—I forgot to raise it earlier and I apologise for the illogical order, but it is important. The Government have said that they will abolish the family premium a full year before the introduction of restrictions to child tax credit. I wonder why. Will the Minister say why they are doing that? They will restrict child tax credit but will take away the family premium a year early. The Government say that the measure will apply to new claims but have not made clear what it will mean in practice. For example, would a family moving into a new area, perhaps as a result of the Government’s welfare reforms, be treated as making a new claim if an existing housing benefit was simply transferred from one local authority to another? Will the Minister help us with that? The proposals to restrict entitlement to housing benefit are not included in the Bill and, as I have said, we have not had any details on how the restriction will work in practice. The Minister has quite a lot of explaining to do.

Entitlement to housing benefit is currently calculated on the basis of the number of rooms a family needs, as we know. Children under 10 are expected to share a room, for example, with a single mother. A single mother with four young children would be entitled to claim housing benefit for a three-bedroom property. Are the Government proposing that she should be entitled only to a two-bedroom property? Indeed, are the Government expecting to change the law on overcrowding in order to accommodate those larger families who do not have the money to pay rent on a decent-sized property? It would be very helpful to hear from the Government on those points.

[Damian Hinds]

The amendments serve a similar purpose: to increase, or indeed remove, the limit on the number of children or qualifying young people in respect of which a person is entitled to the individual element of child tax credit or the child element of universal credit, and to prevent limits being placed on the number of children for the purposes of calculating housing benefit or the housing costs element of universal credit.

I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments. Despite the progress we have made towards reducing the deficit since 2010, we still ran a budget deficit of 4.9% last year and are expected to have the second highest deficit in the G7 in 2015. That is why it is important, indeed imperative, to get welfare spending under control, to help us get into surplus so that we can continue to increase our investment in our NHS, schools and pensions. As I have already mentioned, tax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms between 1999 and 2010 and cost the taxpayer just under £30 billion last year.

[Emily Thornberry]

I wondered how much money the Government might save if they did not introduce their changes to inheritance tax?

[Damian Hinds]

Today’s debate is not about inheritance tax. If the hon. Lady is making a point about fairness in the tax system, that would be a fair question to ask. In fact, if we look at the overall package of what the Government have done in tax and spending since 2010, we see that the distribution of spending between different income groups and society has stayed pretty much the same.

[Emily Thornberry]

No, it has not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The fault was all mine, Mr Streeter. I do not blame the hon. Lady and I apologise for my part in it. The last thing I was going to say was 27.5%.

The level of spending we have reached on tax credits—£30 billion—is unsustainable and carries a risk to our public services. That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that the system is fair to those who pay for it as well as those who benefit from it. That is why the Government are limiting support to two children in child tax credit and universal credit from April 2017.

Amendments 45 to 48 and 50 to 54 would increase or remove the limit on the number of children or qualifying young people in respect of whom a person is entitled to the individual element of child tax credit or the child element of universal credit. If that policy were to protect six children in each household in terms of the payments or remove the limit completely, as suggested by SNP Members, there would be negligible savings from the measure and it would undermine our commitment to deficit reduction. It would also continue the unfairness that an out of work family with six children could receive over £17,000 per year in child tax credit in addition to other benefits if they are not subject to the benefit cap, while many working families would not see their budgets rise by anything like that when they have more children.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I am going to press on for the moment. The average number of children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7. The Government therefore think it is fair and proportionate to limit support through tax credits and universal credit to the payments for two children. To give families time to prepare, the change will not come into effect until April 2017. In child tax credit, the change will affect families who have a third or subsequent child born on or after 6 April 2017 only. In universal credit, the change applies to any third or subsequent children born, or joining the household, on or after 6 April 2017 and to families making a completely new claim to universal credit after that date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I fear that that is another invitation to err from the path of the rightful debate.

On new clause 5, the intention seems to be to amend section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to prevent the Secretary of State from making changes to housing benefit that would restrict the number of children who can be included in the housing benefit assessment. Housing benefit and the housing element in universal credit take into account the number of children for whom the claimant is responsible. There is no maximum number attached to that, and the Bill does not introduce one.

The only related changes to housing benefit, which will follow in regulations, are to ensure that a claimant’s housing benefit award is no higher than it would have been if the tax credit changes were not introduced. Obviously, without those changes, the tax credit change would have the unintended effect of awarding claimants with more than two children a higher amount of housing benefit, which would reduce the savings from the tax credit change.

Let me be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury raised some very reasonable questions, which we need to address directly. As she knows, housing benefit is made up of a number of elements. That includes taking into account the number of children in calculating the family’s income. The family premium she mentioned is part of that calculation. The changes will affect the calculation of family income, but not the number of rooms allocated, which is a separate issue.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not think that I have quite understood—it is my being slow, and I know he is trying to be helpful. The number of rooms allocated will be down to whether the local authority has accommodation available or access to private sector accommodation. It will also be a matter of need. However, the local authority will not be able to rent a larger property to a larger family if there is not enough housing benefit to cover that. What I really did not understand—I am so sorry, and I may understand it when it read it—is whether the Government will restrict housing benefit to larger families and say, “You may be a six-person family, but we are not going to give you enough money to rent a four-bedroom property”?

[Damian Hinds]

The change in the regulations will ensure that, for families with more than two children, housing benefit does not rise to offset the notional loss in tax credit or universal credit, because the amount saved in tax credit would then reappear in housing benefit.

Let me move on to new clause 6, which is related. The housing cost element in universal credit is an additional amount paid to a claimant to cover the costs of the accommodation they occupy as their home. The new clause seeks to amend section 11 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 by making it clear that the Secretary of State will have no power to make regulations limiting the amount of the housing costs element based on the number of children living in the home.

In calculating the amount of a renter’s housing element under the universal credit regulations, a determination is, as the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, made as to the category of accommodation it is reasonable for the renter to occupy, having regard to the number of people in the household. Claimants in rented accommodation are currently entitled to one bedroom for each qualifying young person for whom they are responsible; one bedroom for two children who are under 10 years old; one bedroom for two children of the same sex; and one bedroom for any other child. Additional rooms are available in certain other circumstances. The Bill does not make changes to matters such as the number of rooms the claimant’s family is allowed as part of the local housing allowance or removal of the spare room subsidy.

It is right that families on benefits should in future face the same financial considerations when deciding whether to have more children as families who support themselves solely through work. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press the provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Amendment 50 will be taken later in our proceedings this morning.

[Emily Thornberry]

Mr Streeter, may I make it clear that new clauses 5 and 6—I should have said this earlier—were probing amendments?

[The Chair]

In any event, they would have been considered later, but it is helpful to know that.

[Emily Thornberry]

I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 11, page 13, line 12, at end insert—

‘(3C) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young person for whom an individual element of child tax credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (3B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the child or qualifying young person in that household is disabled. This includes, but is not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disability element of child tax credit.’

The amendment exempts households from the limit on the number of children for whom the individual element of child tax credit can be claimed where one or more child in that household is disabled.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 84, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1B) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young person for whom a child element of universal credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (1B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the child or qualifying young person in that household is disabled. This includes, but is not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disabled child element of universal credit.’

The amendment exempts households from the limit on the number of children for whom the child element of universal credit can be claimed where one or more child in that household is disabled.

New clause 16—Exemptions to changes in child tax credit and child element of universal credit—

‘(1) The limit on the number of children for which child tax credit or the child element of universal credit can be claimed, as provided for clauses 11 and 12 of this Act, do not apply in the following circumstances—

(a) where the number of children exceeds two because the third (or subsequent) child was part of a multiple birth at the same time as the second qualifying child;

(b) where a third (or subsequent) child becomes a member of a household as a result of being fostered or adopted into that household, or enters the household as the result of a kinship care arrangement;

(c) in exceptional circumstances as defined by the Social Security Advisory Committee, including but not limited to—

(i) the claimant becoming unemployed;

(ii) the death of one of the parents in the claimant household; and

(iii) one of the parents in the claimant household leaving the household following a breakdown in relationship.

(2) No limit shall apply to a household where any child or qualifying young person is disabled.

(3) No limit shall apply to couples with dependent children who if living in separate households would not be affected by the limit.

(4) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, establish an appeals process by which an individual can appeal a decision as to whether an exemption set out in this clause applies in their individual situation.’

[Emily Thornberry]

Amendment 83 exempts households from the limit on the number of children for whom the individual element of tax credits can be claimed where one or more of the children in the household is disabled. Amendment 84, which would amend clause 12, would carry the same requirement on to universal credit.

Any legislation that amends our current social security structure must have attached to its leg the aspirational legislation of universal credit, which I know that the Government hope will someday apply across the board. They have rolled it out for some of the simpler cases and they claim they will continue to roll it out, but we have been waiting for several years. However, we are told that it will happen, but we do not know when; it is not clear. We hear lots of stories about extraordinary overspends, computer systems that do not work and the Treasury tearing its hair out. We hear about all kinds of things going on behind the scenes, and we keep hearing that the implementation date has been pushed back. We will wait and see what happens. We appreciate that in the meantime we have to continue to produce two-legged administration with one leg in the current situation, and the second leg being the aspirational universal credit that at some stage in the future will apply to all of us. Good luck with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Has my hon. Friend read the piece in this morning’s Guardian about kinship carers also being badly affected? Specifically, some people are now not being able to take on the care of disabled children who for a number of reasons cannot be looked after by their parents, because of the changes to their financial assistance.

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, indeed. From speaking to people who have spent many years devoted to this sector and who have tried to make our safety net as good as it possibly can be in difficult times, the attacks are coming from so many different angles, at so many different levels and so fast, that for many of us it is very difficult to know where to start. The changes are fundamental and very frightening. We know that what will happen in two or three years’ time will become manifest, and it will become increasingly obvious that the poor have got much poorer and that people have got much more desperate. That will affect children, and those born now will be disproportionately affected.

I hope that at that point, the Government will finally realise that, because I do not think that many of those on the Government Benches are heartless, but they have not thought this through. The difficulty is that their policy is based entirely on rhetoric. That is clear from some of the lines in their manifesto that are now appearing in proposed legislation. Look at the Childcare Bill, which says very little more than what was in the manifesto. The difficulty is that if you do not make policy on the basis of evidence but on the basis of rhetoric—what sounds right and what you think will work well with your focus groups—that will not work when it comes to ruling the country.

This is yet another ill-thought-out cut and change to the most vulnerable and most hard-working families, to the families in the most difficulty. Imagine spending time bringing up a child with disabilities and the continued worry of that. Those families have enough worry in terms of their child’s welfare without worrying about why the Government are taking away yet more funding and making life that much more difficult.

[Hannah Bardell]

It is a pleasure to speak again, Mr Streeter. I will keep my remarks brief and start by saying that we are more than happy to support Labour’s amendments. We offer that hand of friendship across the Benches as a form of compromise.

The amendments support the same policy intentions—although not quite as strongly—as our amendments that we have already discussed, so I will not go on too much. We support the intentions of protecting those who are fostering or adopting, households with disabled children and also, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned, kinship carers. That is something which the SNP in the Scottish Government have done a lot on in recent years. These are some of the most vulnerable children in society. We must do everything we can to protect them. Please, Minister, you must concede that we need to protect at least some of these children from the cuts. Will you back the advice of the Social Security Advisory Commission which said that there has to be a review? Will you take that into consideration in your closing remarks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it in his response.

Barriers to work are created by the stress of caring, often with no support. I am thinking again in the context of the £3.6 billion of cuts in social care, which also affect disabled people. When people do not have that support enabling them to work, it can build difficulties into family relationship. It is not clear in the impact assessment whether an assessment has been done on the likely increase in poverty of families with disabled children.

For example, what is the increase in NHS admissions predicted to be? I have mentioned my daughter who has asthma. The implication is that there will be other families in similar circumstances. Is there any prediction of an increase in family breakdown? We cannot be in a situation where, potentially, the Government are arguing that the measure will balance the books when it is really about cost-shunting from one Department to another. What assessment has been done on that?

We do not believe that disabled people, their families and their carers should be subject to further cuts and therefore seek to exempt households with one or more disabled children from the provisions on both child tax credit and universal credit. The Government and the social security system rightly recognise the additional costs of raising disabled children but the provisions in clauses 11 and 12 seem to be at odds with that. I oppose them absolutely and in their entirety. At the very least, the effect of the provisions should be mitigated for households with a disabled child and I urge all members of the Committee to do the right thing and support the amendments.

[Emily Thornberry]

Might I rise again? It is entirely my mistake but I realise that I spoke just to amendments 83 and 84 and not to new clause 16. Would it be convenient for me to do so now?

[The Chair]

Yes, it is convenient.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am sorry, Mr Streeter.

New clause 16 takes the issue of child tax credits and universal credit face on and raises some of the most difficult aspects of trying to restrict tax credits. It exposes some of the most serious flaws in the Government’s thinking. The Government’s rhetoric is constantly about choices, how people can shape their future by way of choices and how Governments can in some way affect people’s choices by changing tax credits. We say that that is simply not right. If we are wrong, will they show us some evidence? In fact, would they like to show us evidence that anyone has ever made a decision about how many children they are going to have on the basis of benefits? Do people really make a profit out of having a child? Do they have a child and then get more money than they actually need to spend on that child and rake it in thinking, “This is a good career,” or is it possible that that is nonsense and, that, in fact, the changes to tax credits are just about saving money, dressed up as some form of slightly extraordinary social policy?

The impact assessment states that the aim is to ensure that

“those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work.”

However, that creates a completely false distinction that seems to exist only in the minds of Tory Ministers. The fact is that almost two thirds of families with three or more children who claim tax credits are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has said, in work. The impact assessment may state that the aim is for financial choices for those who are out of work to be the same as for those who are in work, but let me say one more time to ensure that Ministers get it: people who claim tax credits are in work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady’s points are very interesting. Does she agree that we also have to take cognisance of religious groups across the divide? In many cases, such as those of Catholics, who consciously do not use contraception—[Interruption]—these policies could well be an infringement of their human rights.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister says from a sedentary position that, in the 21st century, we should not pay attention to the Catholic view of contraception and decisions made within Catholic families. I am surprised. I say no more.

As I was saying, the Government have not provided details about what might be considered exceptional circumstances, so new clause 16 has suggested a few examples, such as multiple births, adoptions or kinship care arrangements. I recommend to the Minister an article in The Guardian today, written by Patrick Butler, about kinship adoption and related difficulties. One difficulty, among the many difficulties that people who put themselves forward to adopt children face, will be a potential cut in tax credits. If someone adopts a child who has a little brother, and the little brother then needs to go up for adoption, will that person say, “No, I can’t do it, because I can’t get the tax credits”? Are they really going to say that? Is that right? No, it is not, so will the Minister please do something about that, and will Government Members pay attention to our arguments and vote with us on new clause 16? It is entirely sensible and fleshes out the exceptional circumstances, which we think are glaring.

Those exceptional circumstances are: multiple births, adoptions, kinship care arrangements, relationship breakdowns, including, but not limited to, cases of domestic violence, and the death of a partner. The Minister says, “We are doing this in order to make sure that people make the correct choices.” I have spoken from my own personal circumstances. Frankly, my example is out of date, but unfortunately, in the last 40 or 50 years, these things have continued. People die unexpectedly and people leave unexpectedly. It is not as though someone can make a “bad choice”—in the Minister’s words—to have a third child and then take it back because their partner has died. That seems exceptionally harsh to us.

The new clause also proposes an exemption for those who become unemployed. The point here is to emphasise that, even if we accept the Government’s suggestion that families should make their family planning decisions based on the Government’s welfare reform legislation—that is a tall order in itself, although I suppose having to sit up and read the Government’s legislation on welfare reform might be some form of contraception—and even if the Government are right that people will realise welfare reform means it will be a bad idea for them to have a third child, people in work will not see that as relevant. They will make decisions because they can afford to have their children, but something may then happen, such as their becoming unemployed, and they will be hit that much harder. Therefore, even if the Government are right, which they are not, that people will make decisions on how big their family should be based on welfare reform, those people who are in work at the moment, making decisions frivolously to have four children, will find themselves in great difficulties if they suddenly become unemployed. That is unfair, as I am sure the Minister will recognise. We need to acknowledge the realities of life, particularly in the 21st century job market. People work in an insecure market. People can lose their jobs. Hopefully, they will get back into work, but it is unrealistic to expect parents to make decisions about their jobs and income with 100% certainty over an 18-year period. It is just not right. There are also abusive relationships. Women should not be expected to make decisions based on the possibility that they might become victims of domestic violence.

The new clause raises the serious issue of a couple’s penalty. Couples with more than two children will be given an incentive to separate just to continue receiving the support that they need to feed their children. That will happen. It is especially ironic that measures of child poverty are being replaced by measures of family breakdown, among other things. The Government are to measure child poverty on the basis of family breakdown, yet their social policy seems to pressure families into a form of breakdown so that they can continue to receive the benefits and tax credits that they need. The Tory party used to be the party of family and marriage. Why is its social policy dividing people? The irony is especially acute given the Secretary of State’s claim at the Conservative party conference that this Government’s reforms are

“all about making families stronger”.

Clearly, they are not.

[Damian Hinds]

I welcome the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth to her place in the Committee and, more broadly, to the Opposition Front Bench. She has a hard act to follow in the shape of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, but I know that she will execute her work absolutely admirably in this Committee and beyond. She and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury have spoken powerfully about the challenges faced by the parents of disabled children. I echo them in acknowledging the invaluable work that such parents and families do in difficult circumstances.

The Government are protecting benefits related to the additional costs of disability and care by exempting them from the freeze and from the cap that we discussed on another day. Those benefits include personal independence payments, disability living allowance and the support group component of employment and support allowance. Additionally, we will continue to increase those benefits by inflation. The Government are committed to supporting disabled children. We have reformed the special needs system to support children continuously from birth to the age of 25 and increased our spend on the main disability benefits by more than £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament. Overall, of course, we continue to spend about £50 billion on disability benefits and services each year.

My understanding is that amendments 83 and 84 would have the effect of removing households with one or more children with a disability from the two-child support limit policy in child tax credit and universal credit respectively. Thus, a family with five children, one of whom is disabled, would continue to receive child tax credit or universal credit in respect of all five children, as well as the appropriate disabled child element in child tax credit and the additional amount in universal credit. The Government think it right that, just as families who support themselves solely through work must weigh up financial considerations when deciding to have more children, families in receipt of benefits should face the same sorts of financial consideration. That should apply to all families.

In recognition of the costs of supporting disabled children, we will create a separate disability element of child tax credit that will be payable for all disabled children, regardless of whether they are the third or subsequent children or otherwise. We will continue to pay the relevant additional amount for disabled children in universal credit, regardless of whether those children are the third or subsequent children or otherwise.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark rightly raised the subject of childcare. He will know that, in the tax-free childcare system that we are introducing, there is, quite rightly, a special addition to recognise the additional costs of childcare that pertain for children with a disability. In the overall offer of 15 hours and 30 hours of childcare there is, as he will know, rightly a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure proper provision for children with disabilities in the nurseries that their families trust.

[Damian Hinds]

I do not dispute for a moment what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him entirely that we—the Government and Members of Parliament—must be vigilant in ensuring that families, including those with disabled children, have access to good childcare. It is a duty on local authorities but vigilance is always required to ensure that such measures are delivered. The hon. Gentleman asked about the roll-out of universal credit. I am not quite sure of the specific context in relation to the measures—I will just say that it is on track. It will be in every jobcentre by April 2016, with the bulk of migration complete by 2019.

New clause 16 seeks to specify exemptions to our proposals, including a new role for the Social Security Advisory Committee, and to establish an appeals process. The Government have already given a clear commitment that multiple births, for example twins or triplets, will be treated as a single birth with a child element for each sibling where there were previously fewer than two children in the household. We have also set out that there will be protections—we discussed this earlier—for women who have a third child as the result of rape. We will set out exemptions in regulations after discussions with stakeholders and careful consideration. Using regulations to set out exemptions provides the Government with greater flexibility to adjust exemptions in the future without needing to secure primary legislation. That is more appropriate because we may wish to act relatively quickly in the light of operational experience.

The Social Security Advisory Committee, as its name suggests, is a valuable body for advising the Government on our secondary legislation. It does not, however, have the remit to design legislation. That is the proper job of the Government and we consult with the committee as appropriate. Amendments 83 and 84 relate to the proposed exemption of households where any child or qualifying young person is disabled. I have responded on that issue.

Finally, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to set up an appeals structure. Social security and tax credits already have comprehensive appeals arrangements that will apply to any decisions made under the provisions in the Bill or exceptions set out in regulations. The provision is therefore not required. For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. We have recognised that there will be a need for some exemptions, for example in relation to multiple births, but those are much better dealt with in a considered way in collaboration with stakeholders through secondary legislation. I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the amendment.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am very grateful to the Minister for the answers he has given but the reason for our view that the Social Security Advisory Committee should define the exceptional circumstances is that that decision should not be made by politicians. The Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an expert body on the matter, can look at exceptional circumstances. The Government may have come round to the idea of an exemption for multiple births—we are glad to hear that—but they will not necessarily have thought of all the exceptional circumstances, so an expert body, such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, is important.

We are always concerned about dealing with such matters in secondary legislation because the level of democratic accountability in secondary legislation is not the same as that in primary legislation. If the Bill had been thought through properly, it would not be for the Opposition to table such amendments—the Government would have thought through the most difficult effects of their policy and would have done all they could to counter them. It is our duty in Committee to point out such things. I hope the Government come back with amendments to the primary legislation so that it can be scrutinised properly rather than knocked off into the long grass. It is an important aspect. In such circumstances, we will press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 30

Ayes: 9

---

Labour: 7
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 11

---

Conservative: 10

[Emily Thornberry]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—

“unless this would result in an amount no longer being paid in respect of a child or young person who was born before 6 April 2017, in which case a payment shall still be made in respect of this child or young person.”

To ensure that the reduction of the child element of Universal Credit to two children only affect children born after 6 April 2017.

The point of the amendment, which largely echoes points made earlier, is that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect families to make long-term decisions based on the proposals in the Bill. Even if it were not, it would still be unfair to include families with children born before the policy was even announced, which is what the clause does. As far as I understand the clause—I would love to stand corrected if I have misinterpreted it—proposed new subsection (1A) in clause 12(2) makes it clear that, regardless of when a child was born, when universal credit is brought in people will be penalised. It is as if the policy is being sold as, “Let’s get people to make responsible decisions” and “This policy will make all the difference in terms of the decisions that people make”, but when universal credit finally comes over the sunlit mountains and changes our world it will not matter at what stage people have decided to have their children—“We will penalise you anyway.”

I do not want to reiterate the points that have already been made about the assumption that people will make decisions about their next 18 years based on Tory party policy, or how likely they are to know whether their partner is going to die or be abusive towards them in later years, but a particularly troublesome area of the Bill is that it would force women to stay with abusive partners. On the other hand, there is an equally perverse couples penalty that will provide a strong financial incentive for couples with more than two children to separate. The clause is particularly vicious in that it goes in the opposite direction from the Conservative party rhetoric that is used to justify this unfair piece of legislation, so that is why we tabled the amendment.

[Damian Hinds]

The amendment would see the policy that limits support to two children applied only to children born after April 2017, rather than also applying to entirely new claims for universal credit. The part of clause 12 that the amendment would change is primarily about fairness to the taxpayer and ensuring that where people can provide for themselves, they do so. We estimate that the amendment would increase universal credit expenditure by £245 million in 2019-20. We have committed to protecting universal credit claimants at the point of change and new claimants who have been in receipt of universal credit or tax credits in the previous six months. The policy will therefore apply only to claimants who have been supporting themselves entirely outside the benefits and tax credits system for more than six months and who will therefore not see a cash loss.

We also need to remember that child benefit will remain in payment for all eligible children, continuing to provide support beyond the child element of universal credit.

[Emily Thornberry]

Can I just rewind a little? New claims for universal credit will be affected by the two-child policy. When universal credit comes in, people will need to make a claim for it. If someone is on benefits or tax credits when universal credit is brought in, will there be a seamless transition whereby they will not be seen as a new claimant and not be adversely affected?

[Damian Hinds]

It is an untold pleasure to put the hon. Lady’s mind at rest. We are referring to entirely new claims and not to an existing recipient of tax credits for a third or subsequent child under either universal credit or the predecessor tax credits system. There is also the six-month window, so the Bill strikes the right balance between those needing support and the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Why, then, is there a discrepancy between clause proposed new subsection (3A) in clause 11(4) and proposed new subsection (1A) in clause 12(2)? Clause 11(4) spells out that a qualifying young person is born on or after 6 April 2017, but clause 12 does not state a date of birth. That is the reason for the misunderstanding. I am glad to hear what the Minister says here in Committee, because that has some legal standing, but it would have been easier if it had been in the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

I will have to ask for the hon. Lady’s forbearance and forgiveness for my lack of photographic memory of proposed new subsection (3A). However, I can reassure her that the point is about new claims or those with a gap of more than six months since receipt of either universal credit or the predecessor tax credits system. The Bill strikes the right balance between the support that people need and the taxpayer. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Emily Thornberry]

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

Just over five years ago, on Friday 7 May 2010, another emergency summit of Finance Ministers from across Europe was convened to save the economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland from falling over like a row of dominoes. Here at home, unemployment was galloping away and had passed 2.5 million, 1 million more people than five years before. The Government had lost control of spending, spending nearly £150 billion a year that they did not have in the biggest structural deficit in the western world, which meant they had to borrow one pound in every four they spent. That very day, a note was waiting in the desk drawer of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, telling his successor with brutal bluntness that “there is no money”.

The Cabinet Secretary had to intervene in the discussions between the political parties to impress on them the consequences of delay in forming a Government. As The Daily Telegraph reported that day:

“UK bond investors, facing huge borrowing demands from the Government this year, started selling…The fear stalking investors is that a delay in forming a coalition will set back plans to tackle Britain’s record Budget deficit, triggering a full-scale run on the pound.”

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Clark]

On that fateful day, in those dramatic circumstances, a Conservative-led Government did what history has regularly called on Conservatives to do and begin to pull the nation back from the brink of ruin after the disastrous denouement of a period of Labour Government. During the five years that followed, Britain’s prospects have been transformed, with the deficit cut by half, 1 million low earners taken out of income tax and spending on the NHS and schools safeguarded. More people are working than ever before in our history and Britain’s economy is the strongest growing in the western world. Thanks to the hard work and enterprise of the British people, our nation is on the rise again, but our task is far from complete. On 7 May this year, the British people looked at the past, looked to the future and asked us to finish the job. We are determined to repay their trust.

The Chancellor’s Budget puts our economic security first by cutting the deficit at the same pace as in the last Parliament until we have a surplus and ensuring that Britain pays its way in the world. It will help working people, support aspiration and boost productivity. It will reward work and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. As the Chancellor said last week, the Budget is a new settlement for Britain.

Let me be frank: not every Budget goes according to plan. Some are cheered and others are jeered, such are the ups and downs of government, but it takes a special kind of genius to have an omnishambles Budget while in Opposition. I am sure that the whole House is eagerly awaiting the latest news from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on whether the Opposition have a view on the Budget. Yesterday, the acting Leader of the Opposition announced that Labour would support the welfare cap and the restrictions on family tax credits, but within hours of her announcement three of the four leadership contenders—the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—denounced her and a policy that they had presumably agreed. We await the view of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), but we have her representative on earth here—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, who supports her campaign—and we want to find out whether the chaos is complete or partial. After the disarray of the last 24 hours, who could disagree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) when he said yesterday:

“The speed and rapidity with which we are beginning to be regarded as irrelevant…is really terrifying”?

We on the Government Benches have a settled view on the matters at hand. This afternoon, I will talk about two aspects of the Budget in particular: the opportunity that it offers to every part of the country to participate in our national success; and the imperative that it sets to move our economy to one of high productivity by addressing vital challenges, at the centre of which is building more homes.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—the Member for my home town.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I do agree, and I encourage my hon. Friend and his local business and civic leaders to make an application for an enterprise zone on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that that would further enhance the prosperity of the Northamptonshire economy.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady has been very patient, so I will give way to her now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity.

What would the Secretary of State say to the 19,000 families in Islington who are on the waiting list for social housing about how long they might need to wait to be rehoused?

[Greg Clark]

I would say to the people of Islington that they should be pleased that the highest rate of affordable house building took place in the last Parliament, and that we will increase that rate during this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We support the local plans. It seemed that the Minister for Housing and Planning was not that bothered about them—I remember an interview he did with Inside Housing in which he said it was not that important whether local areas had local plans—but the Government seem to have done an about-turn on that as I received a nice letter from him today, spelling out how important the local plan process is.

We think it is important for local people to have a say over what goes on in their areas. We have big questions about the Government’s proposals, which we have only just seen and on which we would like more detail. How will the Government still ensure that local people have that say? How will they ensure that local infrastructure is delivered? And how will they ensure that affordable homes are also delivered on some of these sites? Those are serious questions, we would welcome answers to them and we would like to see more details of the proposals that the Government put forward on Friday.

We are facing the biggest housing crisis in a generation. In England, we are building only half the homes we need. I know we have heard from the Mayor of London—perhaps I should call him the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—but in London we are building only one third of the homes we need. We have had the lowest level of home ownership for 30 years under a Government who claim to be a party of home ownership. The Government urgently need to get a grip of this problem. The result of their Budget will be £60 billion of public sector debt added because of their changes and 14,000 fewer affordable homes, according to the OBR. That is hardly a record worthy of Macmillan.

In conclusion, this should have been a Budget to support working people.

[Emily Thornberry]

What does my hon. Friend think of the fact that the housing benefit bill has gone up by 60% and that we are talking about working people here, 98% of whom are tenants in the private rented sector? We continue to have an unsustainable housing benefit bill because of the rise in private sector rents.

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In this area, we spend a lot of government money—95%—on housing benefit, and only 5% on bricks and mortar and building affordable homes. That clearly is not a sustainable or wise use of public funds. The way to bring the housing benefit bill down is by tackling the underlying drivers of low pay and high housing costs, but this Government are tackling neither.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady repeats a point that one of her colleagues made in an earlier day of the debates on the Budget. We need to examine in this debate the broad range of the impact of the Government’s policies. When the Government make any change, they are moving big blocks around—that is one reason why I am a Conservative, actually. When that happens, there will be specific examples of an impact on people’s lives that the general policy was not supposed to have. The hon. Lady should raise those instances directly with Ministers, so that changes can be considered. However, we should not undermine the entire sweep of Government policy because of a particular example. I have found the Government reasonable in understanding the need for certain changes to benefit policies if they have a deleterious impact on individuals.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful, although wrong, speech.

If a constituent of mine were a single parent with two children and met up with a man who had a child, would the hon. Gentleman advise her not to get together with that man because they would then have three children and be subject to cuts in their benefits?

[Richard Fuller]

It is not the role of an MP to advise an individual constituent on their life choices. That is their decision. With respect, the role of an MP is to analyse and scrutinise Government policies to see whether, in the round, they will provide the changes that the British public think are fair and reasonable. Against that test the deficit reduction policies, with welfare reform at their core, accord with what I heard on the streets of Bedford and Kempston. I hope that when the hon. Lady’s party has finished tearing itself apart at its parliamentary Labour party meeting, it will come together and see that it is worth supporting the welfare reforms.

I wish to say a few words about the Government’s proposals on pay. A lot of hon. Members have mentioned the interaction between the introduction of a national living wage and the changes to tax credits. That is an important debate to have, but I hope that Members of all parties will give the Chancellor credit for grasping that important nettle. At some point, the era of corporate welfare, with the taxpayer subsidising wages, had to be brought to a close. The cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer was getting larger and larger. We were sending terrible signals to employers about what they should do about pay rates, and terrible signals to people in work that if they chose to improve their wages by getting extra skills or training, all their extra pay would be taken away because of changes in benefits. The change needed to be made, so I look to the Opposition to bring forward more thoughtful responses in the weeks ahead. They should have the grace to say that the change is important and that, overall, they support it.

As a Conservative, I say to my party’s Front Benchers that we have not yet seen the impact of tax credits following the recent recession. There is an argument that in the previous recession, during which the Government had a tremendous record of overseeing growth in jobs, tax credits had a beneficial impact in dampening the impact of the recession. They made people more willing to accept reduced hours, because their income was increased by tax credits, so employment could stay high. I urge the Government not to get too ideological about the transition from tax credits to the national living wage, and to be cautious about the impact on businesses on a sector by sector basis.

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s comments about housing policy. There has been tremendous take-up of Help to Buy in Bedford—one of the highest proportions in the country. The extension of the right to buy to social landlords will be particularly welcome in Bedford. Between 1991 and 2001 the decline in home ownership there was 10%, compared with 4% in the rest of the country, because in 1991 the council put all the housing stock into a social landlord. Since then, the most significant increase in household wealth has been through people buying their own home. For 20 years, a large proportion of people in my constituency were denied access to one of the most fundamental ways in which they could have provided a better future for their children, because they were denied the right to buy. The change to the right to buy has been presented thoughtfully, and I encourage the Government to move it forward.

This afternoon I have heard the progressives and socialists on the Opposition Benches say that they do not support the national living wage, poor people getting a pay rise or people in council houses having a cut in their rent, and that they would deny people on low incomes the chance to buy their home. The right to buy has been one of the most successful policies that any Conservative Government have ever introduced, and I hope that the Government will move forward with it later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I read the statistics the hon. Lady has just trotted out in The Sunday Times. She draws an equivalence between us and the developing world, where, presumably, enormous amounts of benefits are not being paid. The fact is that we are part of the developed world. Would she like to compare us with other countries in Europe?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but my statistics still stand. Even when we make these changes, five out of 10 people will still be receiving some kind of benefit or tax credit. We always need to support the people who really need support, and the Conservatives will always do that. I spent Friday afternoon with my local citizens advice bureau, finding out and understanding what is happening and how we can continue to support the people who really need it. That will always happen.

Thanks to a shrewd Chancellor and the hard work of British business and the good people of Britain, Britain is now moving and growing faster than any other major advanced economy. It grew by 3% last year, as we have heard from other Conservative Members, creating 2 million more jobs—far more than the OBR anticipated. My constituency has played a major part in creating those jobs. Many businesses have grown and expanded. Unemployment is down and jobs are up. I will give just one example of a booming business: the Ministry of Cake in Taunton, which the Chancellor himself visited during the election campaign. Indeed, he iced a carrot cake.

The Ministry of Cake has recently secured a huge contract to supply cakes in coffee shops right across Europe, all the way to Moscow. It already supplies more than 1 million slices of cake a week to customers in the food service and the catering trade. It will now be employing another 30 people in Taunton, all of whom will be contributing to the local economy. This is exactly the direction we want the economy to go in. This example proves that it is. I would also like to say that the Chancellor is much, much better at handling the economy than he was at icing the carrot cake.

There is very little youth unemployment in Taunton: it is very low at 1.9% and it is continuing to fall. On Friday, I met a very fine example of the kind of young person who has been given the necessary skills to take our economy forward and is getting to work. Ashleigh Thompson was an apprentice at the local Creech St Michael preschool. For a year, she worked four days a week at the college and one day a week at the preschool. She has done her NVQ stage 3 and has just qualified. She has now got a full-time job at the preschool, because she is offering exactly the qualification and skills it wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Listening to the Budget was like falling down Alice’s rabbit hole. It claimed the most extraordinary things—black is white, poverty has got nothing to do with money, the long-term plan lasts five months between Budgets in March and July, and the minimum wage is now the living wage even though it is not enough to live on. Apparently, it is a Budget for higher wages and a lower welfare economy, but we got a £5 billion wage increase at the expense of £12 billion of social security cuts.

Things get really Orwellian when the Government start talking about housing. Government Members may recall the modest proposal Labour made in relation to private rents. We were asking for just three years’ security. We were not asking for a great deal and we were not forcing rents down, but it was something—it was a start. But good heavens, one would have thought that civilisation as we knew it was about to end! The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) got extremely excited and called it Venezuelan-style rent controls. So which socialist republic inspired the forced reduction of social rents, which has now been adopted by the Government?

The Government Benches seem to be populated by an awful lot of Maoists. We have heard about the Government’s two-child policy. It now seems that the Conservative party feels we ought to be doing something about pushing down social rents. Why? It would seem that Ministers have discovered that the housing benefit bill is ballooning. Well, yes! And why is that? It is hardly being caused by the social housing sector. Have Ministers not noticed the size of rents in London at the moment? At the very least, they are twice that of social rents. Frankly, Ministers should come with me and find out how much the private rented sector costs people who are trying to remain in Islington. Housing benefit has soared and Ministers have finally noticed it, but they ought to have noticed this: the number of working people claiming housing benefit shot up by 60% under the coalition Government. Ministers should also have noticed that of the increase in the total number of people relying on housing benefit since May 2010, 98% are private sector tenants.

Despite all the evidence, which comes from the Government’s own statistics, we have a proposal to cut spending on housing benefit by bringing down rents in the social sector, but that will not make a great deal of difference. Of course, the logic is this: it is yet another nail in the coffin of social housing. We have seen this agenda laid out in front of us for a long time: the Conservative party has not missed an opportunity to attack social housing. First, there were the cuts to social housing subsidy. Then we had forced conversions to the Orwellianly named “affordable” rents of up to 80% of market value, which is hardly affordable in my constituency. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is pulling the most extraordinary face. What is 80% of market rent in his constituency, and to what extent is that affordable to his constituents? The Government have threatened to lower the benefit cap, extend the right to buy to social housing tenants and force the sale of more expensive council homes. Now there will be forced rent reductions, but only for social landlords. This is an assault on social housing. We know it, they know it and so do the public. We need to ensure the message gets out loud and clear, because it threatens an end to social housing as we know it. It is a disgrace and it is unforgiveable.

Large tranches of the Budget could have been predicted. The Conservatives talked about how much it would be, but they would not give us the details. Those of us who looked at chapter nine of the IFS green budget, “Options for reducing spending on social security”, would have been aware of it. Unfortunately, the Chancellor does not seem to have read up to chapter 10, “Options for increasing tax”, and there were so many good things in it. For example, he missed the option of raising £990 million by abolishing tax relief for empty properties, or raising £1.5 billion through a 1% increase in corporation tax. Instead, he chose to cut it.

This is not a one nation Budget. This Budget is all about the same old Tories: the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

Voter Engagement

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered voter engagement and the franchise.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I have the great privilege of representing an area that, throughout history, has served as a hotbed for new and often radical ideas about democracy, justice and representative government. Mary Wollstonecraft lived in Islington for many years and established a school for girls at Newington Green. Thomas Paine began writing his “Rights of Man”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]—at the Angel in 1790. And Lenin—let us also have a cheer for Lenin, please—worked in Clerkenwell Green during the early 20th century, publishing several issues of his communist newspaper from the site now occupied by the Marx Memorial library.

My constituency has often been described as a citadel for constitutional reform, and it is not hard to see why. One of my predecessors as MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, presented the second, and by far the largest, Chartist petition to Parliament in 1842. The petition is said to have been signed by 3,315,752 people and was so large that it could not fit through the doors of Parliament without being unrolled. The Chartists sought radically to reform the way that hon. Members were elected to this House and called for an extension to the franchise, a secret ballot and the abolition of property qualifications so that wealth was no longer a precondition to vote. Of course, the Chartists called only for the enfranchisement of men, but we have since moved on.

Unfortunately, Islington’s recent history has, at times, had a more troubling side, and its elected officials have not always taken such an expansive view of the franchise. During the many years in which the local authority was under Liberal Democrat control, the council tended to draw most of its support from more affluent voters. Registration remained stagnant in the most deprived parts of the borough, where many ethnic minority people, in particular, live. In 2006, the Labour group tabled a motion asking the council to do better, and particularly to work hard to ensure that black and minority ethnic voters register to vote and are included on the electoral register. The Liberal Democrat majority voted down the motion and, after the vote, one of the leading Liberal councillors shouted across the council chamber, “That’s how we win elections!” Fortunately, there has been a significant improvement in voter registration over recent years, which is largely attributable to the proactive measures taken by the Labour majority that took the council in 2010. Islington has gone from being the area with the second-worst voter registration rate in the entire country to being a model for other local authorities that seek to maximise registration.

Voter registration is not a partisan issue, or it should not be. Anyone who wholeheartedly supports a healthy democracy should start from the principle that both registration and turnout should be as close as possible to 100%. Our current system is wholly inadequate for making that aspiration a reality. We have had a lot of counterproductive talk over the years from politicians of all parties who suggest that the vote is some sort of privilege that should be proactively seized by voters on an individual basis. That tendency was markedly on display when the coalition Government introduced the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, in the last Parliament. They announced their intention to implement individual electoral registration, dropping the existing plan for a phased introduction purely as a cost-saving measure. Ministers in the last Government spoke of giving people the opportunity to register to vote and of people being removed from the roll only if they failed to do so. On Second Reading in the other place, the Bill’s sponsor, the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire, claimed that its goal was

“to give people greater ownership of their own registration”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2012; Vol. 739, c. 616.]

It is as if what was needed at the time was for people individually to seize their right to vote, but the Bill did not address the fact that more than 6 million people who were entirely eligible to vote were missing from the electoral register.

Who are those 6 million people? Members may be familiar with a report produced by the Electoral Commission in July 2014. The report lists the groups who are most likely not to be on the electoral register. This list will not surprise hon. Members: young people under the age of 35, especially students; private tenants; black and other minority ethnic groups; Commonwealth and EU nationals; and those classified as social grades D and E or, to use plain English, low-skilled and unskilled workers and the unemployed. If the Government have a genuine interest in maximising participation in the political process, I would have thought they would see that as a serious problem and seek to address it, but that is not happening—the exact opposite is happening. It is abundantly clear that the excessively hasty introduction of individual electoral registration has had an even more detrimental effect on voter registration and engagement, particularly among those groups, and we should all be alarmed.

It is appropriate at this point to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), under whose chairmanship the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform produced a report on this vital issue, “Voter engagement in the UK”. The report stated that the 5.5 million voters who were not transferred to the new register following the initial implementation of individual electoral registration included “disproportionate” numbers from particular groups: private tenants, students and attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 before the date of the next general election. The Committee recommended that

“every effort is made by Electoral Registration Officers to reach all registered voters who have not been automatically transferred to the new register”.

I do not understand why people are not automatically registered. If we are all true democrats, we should wish for everyone who has the right to vote simply to be on the electoral register. Putting unnecessary hurdles in the way of people exercising their democratic right to vote is entirely counter-democratic, and I do not understand it.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend, like me, is a London Member of Parliament, and she will know that in recent months there has been a significant increase in the number of people evicted from their property because of the impact of benefit capping, which has resulted in people moving from one London borough to another. People are moving to my outer-London borough of Redbridge from Westminster, Kensington and other inner-London boroughs, and our own people in Redbridge are now being placed in bed-and-breakfast hotels in Hounslow, Staines, Heathrow or other parts of England. What can be done to ensure that those people do not lose their democratic rights?

[Emily Thornberry]

It is particularly important that such people exercise their democratic rights, because many of the difficulties that they face are the direct result of decisions made by politicians. Such people should make it clear what they think about those decisions, so they must be able to exercise their democratic right to vote. They must be able to make their views clear about such decisions, and the chaos among certain groups in London, with people having to move around because of caps on benefits and the shortage of social housing, is yet another reason why we should be proactive.

When the Chartists handed in the petition, my predecessor was asking for every man living in Finsbury to have a vote. This is not my party’s policy, but he would be turning in his grave if he knew that more than 8,000 people in my constituency are on the electoral register for European and local elections but are not allowed to vote in general elections. They are here, they pay taxes and they play a full role. A man came into my surgery last Friday who was very exercised by the fact that his Japanese wife, who has lived and paid taxes here for seven years but cannot get dual nationality for cultural reasons due to her Japanese background—I do not understand it, but they are firmly of the view that that is the reason—cannot vote and will not be able to vote. At what stage do we reach a tipping point? In an increasingly international world, and particularly in a world city such as London, what proportion of the population can be excluded from the ballot before we lose our identity as a democracy?

At the moment, there are perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 adults in my constituency who cannot vote. They turn up at my surgery and want a proper service from their Member of Parliament, but they do not count because they are not allowed to vote. The title I originally wanted for this debate—I understand that it is not the sort of title that one is allowed to have, but it seems to me entirely the right title—was: “Who counts?” In a democracy, who counts? Who is and is not a citizen? Whose voice should be listened to, and who should be flatly and determinedly ignored?

We are so proud of this city of London, and one of the things that we are proud of is that we have a mixture of people from all over. I would like to represent the whole of my constituency and everyone in it, and I do my best, but it seems profoundly wrong that those people are not allowed to vote. They might all vote Tory. We might end up with a Tory MP in Islington—I would take that on the nose—but they should be allowed to vote. They are here, they are people and they participate. They walk our streets, use our services and pay their taxes. Why are they not allowed to be involved in decisions about how politicians act on their behalf?

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommended that electoral registration officers make every effort to reach all registered voters who have not been automatically transferred to the register. In the absence of anything resembling leadership on this issue from the coalition, local authorities have been left to their own devices. Of course, results have been decidedly mixed. To its credit, Islington council has made strenuous efforts to get as many people on the electoral register as possible. This year, EROs in Islington went knocking on doors of unregistered households right up until election day. They did four rounds of door-knocking, more than any other borough. Thanks to those efforts, turnout in my constituency increased from 54% in 2005, when I was first elected with a majority of just 484 votes, to 65% this year, when my majority grew to 12,708 votes, more than the total number of people who voted for me in 2005.

I applaud the hard work and dedication of those EROs, and it is welcome to the extent that registration and turnout reached much higher levels this year than they would have if the council had been as complacent as Ministers in Whitehall have been, but there is something perverse about it. My local authority is suffering enormous cuts. It will lose nearly half its budget in the next few years, yet we have spent £326,000 and who knows how many hours of public servants’ time knocking on doors again and again. Would that money not be better spent on public services? Would it not be a better use of public servants’ time if, instead of knocking on doors trying to get people to register to vote, they visited the elderly, the marginalised and the vulnerable, who are often not seen enough?

It seems to me to be the wrong way to do things. We should have automatic registration, including for students. Why are student halls of residence not included? There are many thousands of British students living in my constituency. Why must they all register individually to vote there? It is perfectly obvious where they live. The university knows and the council knows. There is no possibility of fraud, so why are they not on the voters’ register? Why must we knock on their doors individually and get them to register to vote? If we are true democrats, what is the problem?

We know what the problem is: the fear of voter fraud. However, we must consider the difference between perception and reality. The Minister formerly responsible for this issue, when asked about it, referred to reports saying that some 30% of the population believe that election fraud is a real issue. Perception is one thing, but reality is something else: the total number of people who have been prosecuted successfully for voter fraud is, I believe, three. However, in order to counter the perception that there is voter fraud, we are creating obstacles to people’s exercise of their democratic right. More voter fraud may be occurring, and more work should be done on that, but it does not seem to me that we are starting from the right place by beginning with, “We are worried about election fraud, so we’re going to make sure we make it very difficult for a lot of people to come to the ballot and vote.” That seems wrong. It is about time that we addressed that point.

The constituencies affected most by the changes to individual election registration are those such as mine: inner-city seats where, although there might be a lot of differences between people, on the whole they vote Labour. I am sure that there is no conspiracy, but the fact is that, if we get a shrinking Labour vote at the same time as the Government keep redrawing the boundaries to reflect so-called fair constituencies, Labour constituencies will shrink, there will be fewer Labour MPs, there will always be a Conservative majority and we will always have a Conservative Government. That would not be democratic, because we would be excluding large numbers of people.

We would also end up in a situation where our Members of Parliament did not know their constituencies. For the past 10 years, I have been putting down roots in my constituency in order to be the MP for the south of Islington. Everybody knows me. I go everywhere; I am at everything. Open an envelope and I will be there. Everybody knows who I am, and I am absolutely honoured. However, if I believed that every five years my constituency would move from here to there to somewhere else, my engagement with my area as a Member of Parliament would change.

Are the Government going to proceed with the so-called fair constituencies or not? If so, are we talking about 650 constituencies or 600? That is important to know—the newspapers have given completely contradictory reports—so I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer. We need to know where we are going on this issue. We need to stop the nonsense about people seizing the opportunity to vote, ensure that they can vote and make it easier for them. It is not right to put barriers in the way of people’s exercise of their democratic right.

Hon. Members will forgive me if this is too radical, but maybe we could do this with boundaries: we could take the decisions out of the hands of politicians and give them to another group that could not be criticised for exercising self-interest, for instance a non-partisan group of experts. We could call it something like “The Boundary Commission”, and we could ask it to look at communities and take an objective view about what the most sensible divisions might be throughout the country to ensure that communities are properly reflected.

We could have had such a body since 1944, and of course we have. It is indeed called the Boundary Commission, and that is what its job is. The Conservatives want to take a partisan view of the issue and introduce a strict cap of 600—or not; who knows? They want to make a rule that the population cannot deviate more than 5% in either direction. Will that be the new plan? Will fair constituencies be less than 5% one way or the other? When the Conservatives tried to introduce that in the last Session, as they will remember, it resulted in complete chaos.

Removing the Boundary Commission’s historical ability to take local authority borders and other natural dividers into account resulted in bizarre constituencies, such as the infamous Devonwall constituency with Cornish voters, over which a few hon. Members were up in arms. I was to represent the City of London, which I was happy to do—I thought that “Islington upon Thames” had a certain ring to it, and that it was about time that the bankers were represented by somebody radical; they had not been represented by anybody radical since John Wilkes—but unfortunately the City of London had a different view, which I thought disappointing and not very open-minded.

The issue has serious ramifications as well, as changes have added up to a system that simply stacked the decks against Members representing densely populated urban areas with highly mobile populations and large numbers of people from overseas, who tend to be represented by Labour. The truth is that allowing the Boundary Commission some latitude in determining the shape and size of constituencies is necessary, precisely because it allows the commission to take into account the huge variations that exist up and down our country.

Let me take one example at random; let us compare my constituency with Weston-super-Mare. Weston-super-Mare has a population of 105,300, compared with 105,820 in Islington South and Finsbury. So far, the two constituencies have much in common. However, in my constituency the electorate is only 68,127, whereas in Weston-super-Mare it is 80,309. Guess whose constituency falls within the magic 5% of the electoral quota and whose does not?

Of course, there may be a number of reasons that might account for the difference between the two constituencies. We know that the level of electoral registration is significantly higher among older people, and there are more older people in Weston-super-Mare than in my constituency, forming 19% of the population there compared with 9% in my constituency. However, I also represent a much more diverse constituency than the Minister does, with 48% of Islington residents identifying themselves as white British, compared with 97% of people in north Somerset. More than a third of my constituents were born overseas and many of them are not on the electoral register because our current law does not allow them to be. They would love to be on the electoral register; they are terribly political and I can tell you that they are not invisible to me.

Therein lies the most insidious implication of the boundary rules, as they stand. The rules quite literally tell every single person who is not on the voters’ register that they do not count, and that for the purposes of determining who represents them in this place they do not matter. I hope we all agree that we should show our constituents, regardless of their backgrounds, more respect than that.

It seems to me that the current Government have kicked this can down the road in this Parliament, but we want answers to some of the questions that I have put today. I hope that I have helped the Minister by preparing a series of questions that I would like him to answer if possible. I have copies of the questions for other Members and I have left helpful gaps at the bottom, so that we can fill them in with the answers that the Minister will hopefully come up with this afternoon.

The questions are as follows. First, at the next general election, how many constituencies will be contested—600, 650 or some other number? Secondly, what does the Minister mean when he says that the Government remain committed to equalising the size of constituencies? Thirdly, will the size of a constituency’s electorate be allowed to deviate by more than 5% from its quota? What would happen if it deviates by 8%, or 10%? Fourthly, how about the Government just doing us all a favour and putting the question back in the hands of the independent Boundary Commission, where it has always belonged? Fifthly, does the Minister recognise the “manifest unfairness”, to borrow a phrase from his own party’s manifesto, of basing the size of constituencies so closely on the number of electors as opposed to the number of people?

There are countries around the world that divide up constituencies on the basis of the size of the population and not just those who are on the voters’ register, and given the number of difficulties and issues that I have raised today—simply in relation to my constituency—surely it is fairer for us to start thinking about constituency sizes based on the size of their population. Does the Minister appreciate that not doing so would put MPs representing diverse, inner-city populations, the majority of whom just happen to be members of the Opposition party, at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to their ability to do their job? Finally, can the Minister explain how on earth reducing the number of MPs to 600

“would result in savings to the public purse of £13.6 million a year”,

as he has claimed, without there being a serious decline in the standards of service that our constituents can expect to receive?

As I am sure Members here can tell, I have a lot to say on this subject and I could say a great deal more, but I will drop the rest of my speech and sit down so that other Members can contribute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I want to discuss young people’s voter engagement and registration, but first I will quickly say something about boundary changes, particularly the 5% deviation. My constituency, Workington, is in Cumbria, where the 5% deviation is a challenge, bearing in mind the geography and the population. Cumbria has a very large area and a very small population —I know that geography and population in constituencies are taken into account in Scotland. The other issue with Cumbria, in addition to its size, is its height, which, if taken into account, would also make a difference. The last time the Boundary Commission looked at Cumbria, it did not seem to realise that a short six-mile walk included going over the top of Scafell pike and down the other side, which makes things a little more tricky. I would be grateful if that could be taken into consideration.

I am here because improving voter engagement is crucial to democracy in this country—I think we would all agree. We have talked about the decline in turnout in recent years. Turnout in Workington at the general election was 65.6%, whereas as recently as 1992 it was more than 80%. In fact, going back further, it was over 80% more often than not, so something has happened since the late 1990s. I see it as an important part of my role as an MP to engage properly with local people so that they want to take part in the political process. We also need to demonstrate that taking part and voting actually makes a difference. People say all the time that it makes no difference, so we must demonstrate that it does.

One of the most worrying and disappointing responses I heard on the doorstep—this was not unusual—was when a young person told me that they were not registered. Often, they were not registered because they did not know that they had to register, because they had no idea how to go about it, or because they did not think that it was something they should be getting involved in. They felt that it was nothing to do with them—they knew nothing about politics and did not feel qualified to take part and vote. The changes to voter registration introduced by the previous Government have only added to that feeling. It is not good enough for a Government to make such fundamental changes while neglecting young people coming into the system, who do not really understand practically what the changes mean for them.

Important civic duties such as registering to vote and voting should be brought into the school curriculum. That way, children and young people will be given the confidence and understanding required to register and take part, as well as to understand why that is important and the effect on their daily lives. That should be true at all democratic—not just parliamentary—levels. Children and young people should understand the importance of voting in local elections; for police and crime commissioners, and so on, because it all affects them and their families directly.

One of the things I enjoyed the most during the election campaign was taking part in school hustings. I did a number of them and was really impressed by the knowledge and passion that young people had for the subjects they were particularly interested in and cared about. We saw how passionately involved young people were in the Scottish referendum and the difference in turnout there; as the Minister knows, the voting age was reduced to 16 in that referendum, and it was very successful. That has convinced me that the voting age should be reduced to 16, along with the active introduction of children to politics at school, through the national curriculum.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a young person can be encouraged to vote, so long as they have voted once, they will continue to do so? The challenge for us all is to ensure that they vote the first time. That is perhaps another argument for allowing kids to vote at 16 and 17.

[Sue Hayman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and there is evidence to show that once someone gets into the habit of voting, they are more likely to continue. One problem is that the children I saw at the hustings were so engaged and excited, but then so disappointed that they could not participate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, if they go to university, there is the further challenge of getting registered. Young people all too easily slip out of the system and out of the habit of voting, so that is an incredibly important point.

I urge the Minister to introduce children to politics through the national curriculum and to reconsider the position on reducing the voting age to 16, because children and young people are interested and want to get involved. Such steps should be part of the solution to increasing both voter registration and participation. I urge the Government to look at this issue ahead of the EU referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well with his new responsibilities in the Cabinet Office. I also join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on bringing this extremely important matter to Westminster Hall so early in the new Parliament. We have had an excellent debate, with contributions from across the House. I will seek to address some of them before I focus on questions about the main two issues raised by my hon. Friend: individual voter registration and boundaries.

The theme running through every speech this afternoon has been how we can increase participation in our democracy. Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has done sterling work on student representation and I will return to that in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) spoke brilliantly today, reminding us about the loss of Chris Ruane, who did so much work in this House to promote voter registration, as well as about the work of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform in the previous Parliament on which he served under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen).

Votes at 16 was raised by most speakers in the debate, and that issue will not go away. We have already heard about the hugely positive experience in Scotland; I think I am right in saying that surveys suggested that 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds participated in the Scottish referendum. The Minister should address this issue. I and the Labour party want 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the European Union referendum and in all future elections.

In the run-up to the general election, I paid a number of visits to schools, colleges and youth organisations and discussed votes at 16. Frankly, there was a range of views—some 16 and 17-year-olds did not agree with the idea—but a common response was that it would have to be accompanied by better education on the matter in schools. I therefore warmly welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I am a long-standing campaigner for citizenship education in schools. Some schools do it well, but they are a minority. We need to emphasise the great importance of effective citizenship education.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) made an incredibly powerful speech. I personally agree with her on electoral reform, although I am speaking from the Front Bench so should say that that is not Labour party policy; there is a range of views in the party and mine is, frankly, in the minority. I hope that politicians in all parties will consider the statistics she cited on the representation of different parties.

The hon. Lady rightly reminded us that turnout varies and that a major factor in determining turnout is relative poverty or affluence. As she said, there is a real risk of a “them and us” culture becoming entrenched in our politics. Her colleague, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), spoke about the importance of women’s representation in this place. We have seen further improvement on that, but we are still a long way from achieving the 50% that we all aspire to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury raised two main issues: voter registration and the linked issue of constituency boundaries. The scandal of under-registration is nothing new. As she reminded us, the Electoral Commission has provided a number of estimates on how many people are missing from the register; its most recent estimate, from last year, is 7.5 million eligible adults. That figure predates individual voter registration.

I echo what my hon. Friend said about the incredibly hard work put in by electoral registration officers and local authorities throughout the country to try to maximise registration over the past year, but, as has been said, there are a number of really important elections next year—for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, local government across the country and, in London, for the Mayor and the London Assembly—so it is vital that that work should be sustained and built on over the coming year.

I will discuss the three key groups—attainers, students and those who rent in the private sector. I echo those who paid tribute to the amazing work of organisations such as Bite the Ballot, Operation Black Vote, Operation Disabled Vote and the National Union of Students. Online registration is a welcome reform by the Government —one that we supported—that has undoubtedly enabled a lot of people to register who might not otherwise have done so.

I would like the Minister to consider the experience in Northern Ireland, where the schools initiative resulted in a higher number of attainers on the register after individual registration was brought in. Under that initiative, a duty was placed on schools and colleges to work with electoral registration officers to deliver high levels of registration. That is a good system and should be adopted across the rest of the country.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central spoke about what has been done in Sheffield. He made an important case. Will the Minister consider whether we can work closely, on a cross-party basis, with Universities UK, the NUS and others to see whether the system adopted in Sheffield could be adopted by universities across the country? Numbers of students on the register might then be higher even than under the old system.

Thirdly, we know that private renters, given the nature of their life, move around more. Will the Government work with large letting agencies and others to include reminders to register for new tenants, for example? I want the Minister to address those three specific points in his response.

My final point about individual voter registration is that we are awaiting a report from the Electoral Commission in which it will recommend whether the Government should bring forward full individual voter registration to this year or should stick with the legislative timetable and introduce it next year. If the commission advises the Government not to bring the transition forward, will they accept that advice? That is an important point, partly because we should ensure that we have the best possible register, with the maximum involvement for all the elections happening next year, and then for the EU referendum, and partly for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. As she said, the next boundary review will be conducted on the basis of the register put together this year; if that review is based on an incomplete register, our political boundaries will not be properly representative of the population as a whole.

My hon. Friend put a number of questions to the Minister about the boundaries that I will not repeat—we all have copies of them now—but I will say that the Opposition never supported the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. We did not think that a case had been made for it, and from the point of view of respect for natural communities and historic traditions, sticking with the number of MPs we have at the moment seems to us to make sense. If the Government are changing their position on that, they will have our full support.

On constituency size, we felt that the 5% variation requirement was simply too tight. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington made a good argument based on the example of Cumbria; others can be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury spoke about some of the odd constituencies that would have been created under the proposals the last Government put forward. In Merseyside, the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal contained a constituency, Mersey Banks, on two opposite sides of the River Mersey.

Professor Ron Johnston of Bristol University has done some brilliant work on this issue and recommended that the Government simply amend their own legislation so that the 5% variation became 8% or 10%, to avoid many of the difficulties that were created by the process that was aborted in the previous Parliament. I ask the Minister to consider that. Professor Johnston also suggests —although this is a matter more for the Boundary Commission than for the Government or Parliament—that the Boundary Commission for England should split wards, as happens in Scotland. It has been reluctant to do that previously; were it prepared to consider doing so, we might not have some of the manifest problems that arose during the boundary review in the previous Parliament. Will the Minister address that point?

[Emily Thornberry]

I understand my hon. Friend’s reasoning on numbers, but surely that would, again, simply lead to chaos. Within one ward, there would be two Members of Parliament, so people might not know who their MP was. Is that what he is suggesting?

[Stephen Twigg]

My preference—and the view that the Labour party has taken consistently—is to move away from a variation of 5% to one of either 8% or 10%. Were we to do so, we would avoid ward splitting on any serious scale. Professor Johnston’s argument is that we could perhaps do both and that an element of ward splitting might be required in certain communities. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to those ideas.

These are important issues for hon. Members to address, and it is excellent that we have had an early opportunity to do so. We must all be driven—all Members who have contributed so far have said this—by a desire to increase the involvement in our political processes and the accountability of this place. If we get registration and boundaries right, we might be able to do that.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to have you in charge of our proceedings this afternoon, Mr Turner. As others have, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this debate on a very important topic. It is a cross-party issue; every democrat surely must believe that it is vital that we maintain the integrity, balance and transparent fairness of our electoral system, to make sure that this place and other elected assemblies have the credibility that is essential for the continuing health of our democracy.

The hon. Lady’s local area has a proud tradition for her to follow. She mentioned the Chartists, who were crucial democrats, and Thomas Paine, a particularly important and well known radical. I was not quite with her on Lenin, but I appreciate that he has played an important part in the past. She also mentioned important initiatives being undertaken by her local electoral registration officer and others around the country.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke about some of the things that are happening in Sheffield in relation to university students. It is worth while pausing to note the different and, on occasion, radically divergent ways of encouraging registration around the country. There are excellent examples of tailored practices that are designed to address particular local issues. Some of those practices may have a much wider national application, despite having started out as local solutions to local problems, and could profitably and promisingly be shared more widely to drive up registration around the rest of the country. There is a great opportunity to share best practice and copy the examples of Sheffield and Islington.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for his welcome and I look forward to debating with him, unless he is spirited away from us by the House’s decisions on Select Committee Chairmen. As he said, the Electoral Commission is shortly due to publish a report, which will be tremendously important for all of us in this room, because it will provide us with an authoritative analysis of what has been going on in registration over the course of the past year or so. It will show which parts of the country are ahead and which are behind. It will provide a fresh update on the hard-to-reach groups that we have heard about during this debate, some of which are particularly low registrants and some of which are particularly high. Importantly, it will shed light on whether the situation is changing and will tell us which groups are getting better and which are falling back, either because they are in different parts of the country or due to demographic trends. It will therefore equip us with vital facts on which we can base our decisions on how to go forward.

Most of us—although perhaps not the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury—agree that individual electoral registration has been a success and has made it easier for people to register to vote online. It has become much simpler as a result of IER to register to vote. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) quoted some impressive figures—I have my own suite of figures, but it broadly overlaps with his—on the truly impressive rate of online registration that was achieved through IER in the run-up to the general election. The system held, and it worked. Although some may have been re-registrations or duplications, that showed that it is possible to reduce the barriers to registration and to make it simpler, particularly for younger folk, who are used to living their entire lives online, but also for the rest of the population. Registration is made a great deal more accessible by allowing us to do it online, and we are all becoming used to doing things online in other walks of life. It would be bizarre and perverse if we did not allow or encourage that to continue. The facts are emerging—we hope they will be confirmed in the Electoral Commission’s report—but it looks as though this has made a major improvement to registration and has got rid of some of the barriers in people’s way.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister may have misunderstood me. I have no problem with making it easier for people to register to vote, and I acknowledge that online voter registration has made it easier for a lot of people. I started from a different standpoint. It is not that we should encourage people to reach out and grasp their right to vote, but that we should ensure that they simply have the right to vote in as accurate a way as possible. It is then for them to decide whether they want to vote or not. They should not need to take two steps, although they may need to sometimes. As a general rule, we should try to have automatic registration, so that we are all going for the goal of 100% registration.

[John Penrose]

I was about to come to examples of where that has been achieved already with some success. In the case of IER, about 87% of those who were already enrolled were seamlessly moved across, without their having to do anything. They were automatically verified, and their registration was moved across straightforwardly and simply.

There is a great deal that can be done, which brings me on seamlessly to the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about other opportunities to prompt people. He used the example of students, but there are many other examples. The shadow Minister mentioned private letting agents, which provide an obvious gateway or portal. There is a prompting moment when people move house. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about universities, and the example of Northern Ireland was mentioned, where work has also been done in schools and colleges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

I am spoiled for choice. I will give way to the hon. Lady, as it is her debate. I am conscious of time, so I need to be quick.

[Emily Thornberry]

It would be patriarchal for a man to register his whole family and to vote on their behalf, but it is not patriarchal for someone to ensure that their whole family has the choice to vote.

[John Penrose]

I find that I am unexpectedly more sensitive to patriarchy than the hon. Lady. That is a phrase I never thought I would utter.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

My right hon. Friend is prescient in all things, and his Freudian slip is absolutely right: Labour has a non-economic plan and it is not going to work. I do not think that they will get a chance to use it.

The Budget will also ensure that our economic recovery continues to benefit every area of the country. Some claim, as we have heard this morning, that London and the south-east are reaping all the rewards, but that is nonsense. Nowhere is generating jobs faster than the north-west, and Yorkshire is creating more jobs than the whole of France. Our French friends may have given us liberté, fraternité and égalité, but my old home county is providing creativity, industry and Yorkshire Tea.

Our economy is growing because this Government understand what makes the economy tick. We believe that all growth is local and that local people are best placed to make decisions about their area. That is especially true where we have improved planning and increased house building. Labour’s top-down housing targets trampled on the democratic wishes of local communities and built nothing but resentment. Majestic promises of eco-towns never got beyond the paper they were written on. We have taken a more practical approach: rather than relying on the long arm of Whitehall, we are trusting councils and communities to make their own decisions about planning and housing and to steer new developments towards the right location. The result is growing public support for new housing, which has almost doubled over the past four years. More than 700,000 new homes have been delivered since the beginning of 2010 and house building is now at its highest level since 2007. Last year, locally led planning systems gave permission for 253,000 homes across England.

There is always more to do. We want to increase significantly the number of homes we build, to sustain economic growth and support the aspirations of hard-working families. Instead of dictating change, we are helping local areas that want to build more homes and boost growth. That will include supporting the development of locally led garden towns in communities such as Bicester, Basingstoke and Northamptonshire. Together, they will deliver nearly 40,000 new homes.

We have appointed board members to oversee Ebbsfleet’s urban development corporation, and marketing will begin on the key Northfleet embankment site. The new garden city on the Thames estuary will provide up to 15,000 new homes, create opportunities for businesses and generate thousands of jobs. We have also given the green light to 20 housing zones across the country and will continue to work with eight other bids. Together with 20 planned zones in London, these will support the delivery of nearly 100,000 homes all on brownfield land. That is exactly where the public want to see new housing so that we can protect our precious green belt and our beautiful countryside.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On the subject of producing housing where the public need it, I am sure the Secretary of State knows that there are 19,000 families on the waiting list for housing in Islington, that the average price of a home in Islington is £630,000, and that 40% of my constituents live in social housing. Is he able to provide housing for Islington people? What is his plan for affordable housing in central London?

[Mr Pickles]

I have just explained that to the hon. Lady. Members on the Government Benches do not look down their noses at people who have white vans outside their houses. Those of us on this side of the House understand the importance of this. That is why it is we who will be working on brownfield sites so that the hon. Lady can occasionally visit the poor in her constituency.

[Emily Thornberry]

Rather than making cheap and rather silly points, which demeans the right hon. Gentleman, would he like to answer my question? Where is the Government help for building affordable housing in central London?

[Mr Pickles]

We are talking about something in the region of £400 million in London. The hon. Lady needs to understand that she is the queen of the cheap point. None of us will forget the tweet she sent out—[Interruption.]

[Mr Pickles]

Thank God you’re here, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was very happy to address the hon. Lady, but you were absolutely right to pull me up on that point of etiquette.

The plans are there; they are published. If the hon. Lady cannot be bothered to look at the plans and work with her local council, that is hardly our fault.

[Emily Thornberry]

Nonsense. Tell that to Mount Pleasant.

[Mr Pickles]

I think the hon. Lady should address her constituents directly rather than doing so through the Chair.

Our large sites programme has already unlocked the construction of more than 100,000 houses. We have now extended support for a site at Northstowe near Cambridge, which will benefit from 10,000 new homes on Government-owned land. We are supporting house building in the capital with a £97 million grant and a ring-fenced 50% share of local business rates to support the regeneration of Brent Cross and unlock 7,500 new homes. The London Land Commission will produce a database of public sector and brownfield sites, so that the Mayor can identify potential sites for new homes. These commitments to build more homes will be matched with support for hard-working people in the housing market, whether they are buying or renting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Willetts (Havant) (Con)]

It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate towards the very end of my time as the Member of Parliament for Havant. It is an opportunity for me to welcome the Budget and to salute the Government’s record in managing the economy, with 2.5% growth this year. It is that record that leads Government Members to feel compelled to describe our long-term economic plan, and I should like to turn to that part of the long-term economic plan that the shadow Secretary of State failed to acknowledge.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am so disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman for using such a empty phrase. Of all the Members who are leaving, we will regret his loss as he is an intelligent man and can explain himself much better than in these rather silly Tory buzz phrases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

A Conservative Chancellor is at the height of his powers. We see falling inflation, falling unemployment, rising living standards and healthy growth, built on the basis of deficit reduction and falling borrowing.

That was, of course, the legacy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in the 1990s. I was his special adviser then, and he is the man who is responsible for my being in this place. However, my right hon. Friend the current Chancellor can boast of an even greater achievement than that legacy. He has achieved stability, and put the country on the path from austerity to prosperity, from a much more difficult starting point: the great recession. On the basis of the Budget statement and the subsequent announcements that we have heard over the past few days, I believe that the current Chancellor will receive a better reward than our party received in 1997. He certainly deserves it.

I have spent about a dozen of my 18 years as a Member of Parliament focusing on Treasury matters, and during that time I have had my fair share of Financial Times headlines quoting what I have said. I was therefore grateful when, the day after this week’s Budget, the paper quoted me as praising it for being a “grown-up Budget”, which is my valedictory FT headline. I described the Budget in that way because it is demonstrably not a giveaway or a populist Budget, but a Budget that is in the national economic interest.

One of my few regrets during my time in this place is that too many of our constituents, and too many in the media, believe that we are all the same—that there is not much difference between the parties. That is probably partly due to their sense that a number of politicians and Governments are buffeted by global economic forces that they may not understand, much less control. I think that that is wrong. I have a slightly more idealistic view of nationally important economic statements such as Budgets: I believe that they should have a moral purpose.

I should add, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that the Budgets of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were momentous events, although I did not agree with many of the measures that he introduced. I often thought that, in the noughties, he relied too much on the flow of very buoyant corporate tax receipts that were never going to last for ever, but on the back of which he spent too much. That is something that even Tony Blair has acknowledged, believing—and I think that, on this occasion, he was right—that in 2005 we could see the beginning of the opening up of a structural deficit in the Government’s public finances. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the former Labour Chancellor, ably assisted by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), undoubtedly had a moral vision of where the country was going.

[Emily Thornberry]

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he believed that the previous Labour Government had spent too much. He talks of being on the record, and of making a valedictory address. Is he on the record as spelling out to the former Prime Minister, or the former Chancellor, any areas in which we were spending too much, and urging us to spend less? Were there, for instance, any hospitals that he did not want us to open?

[Mr Ruffley]

I will give one example: middle-class welfare-ism, as it is often described. We all supported the introduction of working tax credit, a repackaging of income support and family credit, as an in-work benefit for those on low pay—it was, and is, a good thing—but it extended much too far up the income scale, and a great deal of money was spent. Most economic analysts would not deny that that spending judgment opened up a structural deficit. The country was spending more than it could afford.

Let me return to my key point. I believe that valid differences, based on a moral outlook, are exhibited in this week’s Budget, and I will shortly explain why I think that it has purpose and deserves to be praised for that. Before I do so, however, let me say that during my time here, the economic Front Benchers of the Labour party have certainly made us think. I am reminded of what Edmund Burke said in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France”. It serves as a description not just of my experience, but of what I think the Chamber is and should be about. Burke said:

“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”

I want to make two points in the context of the clash of ideas to which I have referred,. One relates to the part of the country that I represent, Bury St Edmunds in East Anglia. It was looked after in the Budget in two ways. First, there was the announcement that there would be a reform of business rates, and that a considered consultation on the matter would take place in the next 12 months. Why is that important? It is important because high-quality market towns such as Bury St Edmunds rely on the shops and small businesses in the town centre. They have been hit disproportionately by the great boom in internet shopping, and we have had to acknowledge that they have significant on-costs if their business is supported by bricks rather than by clicks. The basis of business rate taxation needs to be looked at to ensure the future of our market towns. The other point is that a car is a necessity, not a luxury, in areas such as Suffolk, so another freeze in fuel duty—the longest freeze for 20 years—is warmly welcomed in the East Anglia economy.

I want to make a general point about job creation. We know that 1,000 jobs are being created every day under the coalition Government, of which 80% are full time and 80% are in high-skill occupations. The apprenticeship scheme, which will be seen as one of the great achievements of this coalition Administration, needs to permeate more into rural economies and areas like as mine. The excellent West Suffolk college should do more to offer courses in skilled occupations, increasingly levering in the apprenticeship scheme, so that we can have more high-skill jobs in Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and surrounding areas. It seems to me and many others that while Cambridge has expanded north towards Ely and west towards Huntingdonshire, not enough of the Cambridge effect has spilled over eastwards down the A14 to west and mid Suffolk, as we wish it to do.

Ours is a relatively well-heeled and successful part of the country. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was born and raised a Lancastrian. I understand that the north of England has earned a lot of brass for this country during the past couple of centuries. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has understood that and has been so imaginative in putting together his northern powerhouse proposition. I welcome the pilot for Greater Manchester to keep 100% of additional business rate revenue, and the devolved powers that he will give to transport for northern areas and, in Manchester’s case, on NHS and training budgets. We want that proposal to be extended to Yorkshire and the north-east, as well as to those parts of the midlands that have not yet had the benefits that East Anglia and the south-east of England have received.

My second point relates to the big fiscal judgment in the Budget, which is that we will run an overall fiscal surplus. We will not just balance the current budget by 2018-19, but have capital and current surpluses by 2020. The surplus will not be as big as the £23 billion-plus projected at the time of the last autumn statement, but it will be several billion pounds—and such a relaxation of the fiscal position is good—because we as a nation absolutely must run a surplus. Why? Because as anyone will tell you in the City, where I shall return after May, there will one day be another recession. There just will be, no matter who is in power. Above all else, what we must learn from the past 10 years is that we need to be prepared. If we do not have a surplus for a rainy day, the cuts and the squeeze on living standards will be that much greater.

At the same time as wanting to run a surplus, the current Chancellor has very clearly set out two paths that are consistent with core, right-of-centre Conservative principles—the first is that individuals who work should be allowed to keep more of what they earn to spend as they choose, not as the state chooses; and the second is that individuals must be allowed to keep more of what they save to do with what they decide, not what the state decides. That is why two sets of measures in the Budget need to be praised. One set involves the new personal savings allowance, taking 17 million people out of tax on savings, which is a modest start to bolstering the savings culture. There is also the freedom for 5 million annuity policyholders to get out of their policies in a year’s time if they so choose, and the flexible ISA. The other set relates to income tax. The ambition of taking lower-paid people out of tax means that in two years’ time the personal allowance will be £11,000. That will help not just the low-paid; everybody, including those who pay income tax at the 20p and 40p rates, will receive a tax cut.

Finally, I would say that I leave the House wiser and more optimistic about this country’s economic health, its future and the ability of its citizens to compete in the world. I feel hugely grateful for, and very privileged to have had, the opportunity to represent the most beautiful constituency in the country, Bury St Edmunds. I still believe that this country is, and I hope it will remain, the greatest on earth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), whom I wish the very best in retirement. That said, he is wrong about there being a Conservative Government following this one. It is clear that of all the results at the next election, a Conservative Government is the least likely.

The Budget was all about the election—there were two Budgets really. There was the reality and there was the rhetoric, and it did not take long for the rhetoric to start unravelling. Fortunately, some of the nonsense we were subjected to we will not need to hear again for some time. The pared-down, sanitised version of the Budget the Chancellor presented could be quickly unpicked simply by looking at the Red Book, which confirms our very worst fears: on public spending cuts, he and his party are just getting warmed up. On Wednesday, he claimed that living standards were higher this year than when they entered office, but on Thursday the ONS and independent think-tanks criticised his wildly inventive use of statistics. Facts and evidence had little role in his “Alice in Wonderland” version of the Budget—up was down, down was up, and a word meant whatever he said it meant. It was a transparent attempt to argue the opposite of what Opposition Members know: that under this Government, living standards have fallen and the poor are getting poorer. The impact of their reckless decisions has fallen most heavily on those least able to bear it.

Today, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government took up the baton in the same spirit as the Chancellor. Of all the extraordinary things he said, the thing that really struck me was his claim that the Government were building the homes the public wanted. In my constituency, the best he is likely to get for that is a politely hollow laugh. In my constituency, the average house price is £660,000, according to latest figures. How will Help to Buy ISAs help with that? How much will £15,000 in the bank help with that? It is evidence of the Government’s lackadaisical attitude to the housing crisis—stimulating demand but doing nothing on the supply side, promoting home ownership while offering nothing to the millions of private renters struggling to make ends meet.

It is often said that politics in Islington begins and ends with housing, and it is not difficult to see why. Every week, I am overwhelmed by the number of people who tell me how much they are struggling to make their monthly rent payments, pay the bills and buy essentials such as food, fuel and child care. People think they know about Islington, but they don’t: we have the sixth-worst child poverty rates in the whole country, and 40% of my constituents live in social housing. In many ways, we are a constituency of two halves, and we are separating out, and it is getting worse under this Government.

I would like to give the Chancellor a dose of reality—I would like to tell him about some of the people I have the honour to represent—but I shall begin with a few facts. Renting a flat in Islington privately now costs an average of £600 a week. Now, the Government will say it is unfair for people on benefits to get more than the average wage, and in principle I agree absolutely, but the difficulty is that if we include rent in benefit payments, and if the income cap for those on benefits is £500, it does not take much wit to work out that the vast majority of the money goes to the landlords, not to the family. As a result, people are being forced out of Islington and London, as far as they can go, but instead of dealing with prices and the housing crisis and building more affordable homes in my constituency and central London, the Government are penalising those who can least afford it and are least to blame.

A constituent came to see me two weeks ago. She has three children; she survived polio as a child—her legs are in a terrible state; she lives in completely unsuitable private housing, and has to climb 28 steps to reach her front door. It is temporary housing she has been in temporarily for four years while the council has been looking for somewhere to put her. For this, she has the privilege of paying—or the Government do—£400 a week, meaning that this disabled woman and her three children have £100 a week to live on. Is the sun shining on this family? Are things getting better for them? No, they are not.

Unsurprisingly, rents are running out of control in this area. In places such as Islington, social housing is the only realistic option, yet, despite the council’s best efforts, there are 19,000 people on the housing waiting list. In Islington, we currently have a joke: the council is working so hard to build social housing that if someone moves their car in the morning, when they come back there will be a flat there. It is doing its utmost to build social housing, but, with the withdrawal of the Government subsidy for councils to build social housing, it is hard. It is doing everything it can, and I applaud its efforts, but it is as if we are running as fast as we can and still going backwards.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She mentioned the Help to Buy ISAs. The money the Conservatives would spend on that would build 69,000 affordable homes. Is the attitude of Conservatives not really shown by councils such as Tory-controlled Hammersmith, which sold 315 council homes on the open market, meaning that 315 families will now be in private rented accommodation and presumably subject to the benefit cap?

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, and the irony is that when properties are sold and the council is allowed by the new owners to rent them on the private market, the tenants are told they have to live in the property for a huge amount of money that is then paid in benefits. It is no wonder that the benefit bill and the cost to the Government are rising.

We need to step back and look at the situation realistically. If rents are far too high, what do we do? We need to build more. If we do not, rents will continue to rise. We have to take control of the housing situation, particularly in areas of high demand, such as central London. We cannot leave it to capitalism red in tooth and claw to deal with the housing crisis in Islington. We have to intervene, and we have to believe that it is the best way of dealing with it; otherwise, we will continue to have huge unfairness.

A man and his partner and baby came to see me. They desperately want a home of their own, but they cannot afford to rent privately, so they are living with mum. Their house is completely overcrowded—it is totally unsuitable—but they have no alternative, and they will be there for years. I have another constituent living in overcrowded accommodation who has made 76 bids to move home, but she has still not been successful. Another woman is in arrears for the bedroom tax. She has had discretionary housing payments, but they were only small, and she remains in debt and is desperately worried about what will happen to her. She wants to move, but there is nowhere for her to move to.

A woman came to see me—she is not really a priority, I appreciate that—who lives in a one-bedroom flat with two children and two adults. This is like the 1920s. We are going backwards in time. People are living like this today. This family are not a priority; they are not the worst case, and their chances of getting re-housed are slender because they are only overcrowded by way of two adults and two children in a one-bedroom flat. I had a letter from another woman about high rents in the private sector. The sun is not shining on her house. Her flat is cold and damp, and there is only one radiator. Another family came to see me—four adults and two children in a two-bedroom flat.

Does this Budget solve any of these problems? Does it even think about them? It denies their existence and makes no attempt to address the problems arising just a stone’s throw from this building. We cannot continue to put our heads in the sand. We need a Government who care and are prepared to address these problems, not continue to talk in “Alice in Wonderland” terms about the sort of world we want. “We choose the future”, the Chancellor said. Well, the Government do not choose the future for the people I represent. They should be ashamed of themselves, and they will not be in government for long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an improvement in the law if there was corporate liability for the criminal acts of individuals within companies? In other words, if someone behaves dishonestly on behalf of a company, the company itself should be liable. If that law were in place, as it is in the United States, it would help with prosecutions in this country for fraud and dishonesty.

[John McDonnell]

Exactly, and there is some movement on that in this document, but only yet another consultation that does not define whether individuals as well as corporations will be completely liable.

The Government sometimes have good intentions. We all supported on a cross-party basis the idea that if a company is prosecuted for tax avoidance, it should not then get a public contract. We all supported that in this House, but now, two years since it was introduced, not a single tax dodging entity, despite judgments by tax tribunals, has been barred from securing public contracts. What frustrates most of us in all parts of the House is precisely this non-implementation of legislation which we think could be effective and which we have all supported.

Another issue also came up. We supported the Government’s introduction of the general anti-abuse rule. We had been campaigning for years on it, and it came into effect on 1 July 2013. The Chancellor has referred to it on several occasions in various debates. The concept is good, but HMRC cannot go after offenders on its own because the Government have, in effect, put the tax avoiders in charge. HMRC needs permission from a panel, populated by the corporate tax avoiders, before it can implement the GAAR. The panel includes, for example, a partner from Baker Tilly, a firm of accountants associated with a tax-avoidance scheme used by Aberdeen Asset Management to dodge taxes on bonuses to employees, and so far the panel has not looked at a single case. It renders debates and legislative measures in this House totally irrelevant to the real world. The real issue is that no matter how many policy statements, reports and legislation we have, it is all rendered pointless if HMRC does not have the staff and resources to implement them.

I was critical of my own Government; I opposed the staffing cuts at HMRC then. In 2005, there were 92,000 staff at HMRC. By 2015, there were 62,000 and by next year there will be a planned 52,000. That is a 43% cut in the very tax collectors we rely on to chase the evaders and avoiders. For every pound spent on a member of staff at HMRC, £25 is brought back. That is not my figure, but the independent assessment. The Government have now closed all 281 local tax inquiry offices. They have brought in a centralised call system, which is struggling on every measure. HMRC’s management have gained a reputation across the civil service for belligerent incompetence, and that was displayed when the Public Accounts Committee attempted to hold them to account. Morale in HMRC is at an all-time low, which is testified to by the Government’s staff survey showing that it had the lowest level of employee engagement across all Government departments.

We have also seen, as a result of the leaked memos of four weeks ago, the HMRC management’s union-busting strategy. They have not only targeted and victimised PCS reps, but are trying to set up an alternative staff association to break the PCS. In my view, HMRC is not only not fit for purpose, but sinking. It is in need of basic reform if it is to live up to the expectations placed on it even by the report that the Treasury published yesterday. If we are really going to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and have any hope of closing the tax gap, we need a more effective, better staffed and better resourced HMRC. We need greater parliamentary accountability, which means: a specific Minister responsible for HMRC; and a separately established Select Committee to which it is accountable. We also need resources for organisations outside Government that can monitor it and respond to the detailed, complex Government consultations. Above all else, HMRC needs staff resourcing and the reversal of the staffing cuts on this scale that have neutered its operations. If we really want to tackle the tax gap, we need to ensure that it is properly staffed, that Parliament is in control and that there is proper accountability and monitoring throughout. In that way, we can tackle the tax gap, and we can start talking about the fairness of the wealth tax, the financial transaction tax and corporate tax reform. We need not so much a long-term economic plan as a long-term fair tax plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)]

I pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members who have spoken in this debate. Some of them have spoken for the last time, and we should note their distinguished service. Their contributions will be missed in the next Parliament. I will particularly miss their wisdom and guidance

This is a Budget that rewards hard work, cuts taxes for millions of people and empowers families and businesses. It gives people more incentives to save and greater choice over how they spend their savings and pensions. It is a Budget based on a long-term economic plan that is working. It is a plan that is growing our economy and providing a better future for our country; that has given more people the chance to get on in life, with record numbers of people in employment; and that is providing more security for the long term, with the deficit down and our national debt starting to fall as a share of the economy.

Five years ago, our economy had suffered a collapse greater than that seen in almost any other country. Today, alongside jobs, growth, new business start-ups, new housing zones, enterprise zones, support for savers and for people who aspire to own their own homes, we have lower inequality, child poverty down, pensioner poverty down to record lows, the gender pay gap smaller than ever, and the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds at university at a record high. The stability that we have put in place has taken Britain from austerity to prosperity.

Listening to the contributions of Opposition Members, I was struck by their complaining that the economic recovery is not taking place fast enough in their eyes. I have heard their message, but it was they who crashed the British economy. It was on their watch that the debt-fuelled economy was created, that manufacturing halved as a share of the national economy and that the gaps between the north and south and between the rich and the poor grew ever larger. Yet their complaint is consistent: the Government are not fixing their appalling legacy fast enough.

This afternoon, we have heard, from constituency to constituency—from Newcastle upon Tyne East to Croydon North to Blaenau Gwent to Luton South to Islington South and Finsbury to Poplar and Limehouse—from Labour Members who have opposed every single measure undertaken by this Government to put us back on the path to recovery. Let me respond to some of the points that have been made in this wide-ranging debate.

Housing came up consistently. Since 2010, more than 200,000 affordable homes have been delivered. Council house building starts are at their highest level in 23 years. In the year to December 2014, 250,000 new homes were granted planning permission. In London alone, £1.1 billion has been provided to the Greater London authority to deliver affordable housing zones. Labour Members may complain, but their complaints are actually a demonstration of the failure of Labour local authorities to deliver housing.

[Emily Thornberry]

Nonsense!

[Priti Patel]

Actually, it is not nonsense. It is a failure on the part of Labour.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Lady tell us how many affordable homes the Mayor of London has built in Islington? I do not mean homes at 80% of market rent; I mean truly affordable homes that have been built by the Mayor of London in Islington. If she has that figure, she will realise that what she has been saying is nonsense.

[Priti Patel]

I will correct the hon. Lady. It is not nonsense. The money has gone to the Greater London authority to deliver affordable new homes. She said that the Help to Buy ISA would not help her constituents. It is projected to help 190,000 people in London buy their first home over the next five years. Of course, the average first-time buyer is a basic rate taxpayer.

We have heard complaints that the North East combined authority is not doing enough. Let us be clear: more people are employed in the north-east then ever before. We have heard about Croydon. There has been £7 million of funding in Croydon and the GLA is delivering 4,000 new homes and 10,000 new jobs. Those are positive and proactive measures that are transforming people’s lives.

When it comes to job creation and job growth—

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Well, we have taken a much more aggressive approach. As a result, prosecutions are up fivefold. I have the following parliamentary answer from the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and this is what he told the House:

“Where serious tax fraud has been committed, the Board”—

the Inland Revenue board—

“may accept a money settlement instead of pursuing a criminal prosecution.

The Board will accept a money settlement and will not pursue a criminal prosecution, if the taxpayer, in response to being given a copy of this Statement by an authorised officer, makes a full and complete confession of all tax irregularities.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 784W.]

That was the approach of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to tax policy. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says it was before 2000, but the revelations were made in 2009, and the last time I checked there was a Labour Government in late 2009 and early 2010.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor finally seriously consider the issue of corporate liability for the criminal actions of employees? This would mean that banks could themselves be prosecuted. Would he like a copy of Labour’s policy review on tackling serious crime and white-collar crime that I launched two years ago? I have a copy here; he can have a read of it. I suggest a change in the law.

[Mr Osborne]

Unfortunately for the hon. Lady, the Labour party had 13 years when they had a Labour Chancellor standing at this Dispatch Box able to introduce all these things she talks about. As I have said, we are looking very seriously in the Budget at what further action we can take to tackle not just those who evade their taxes, but those who facilitate that evasion.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I will give way in a moment. Let me explain what is going on here. It is a three-year rolling target, so in 2015—[Interruption.] Let me explain it to the Deputy Chief Whip or whatever he is—the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). In 2015 the three-year target presumably refers to 2017-18, but in 2016 it is rolled forward to 2019 because that is three years later. In 2017, it rolls on to 2020 and in 2018 it rolls on to 2021. It is a three-year rolling target, so it rolls on, which means that the Chancellor could come back to the House in 2020 and say, “It is okay. Consistent with the charter, I am meeting the aim because I am balancing the current budget in 2023.” That is what this says and it is utterly ridiculous. It does not even sign him and his party up to balancing the current budget by the end of the next Parliament. The fact is that for all the boasts, the rhetoric and the talk of traps, in this new charter before the House it is not targets but aims; it is not balancing the overall budget but the current budget; it is not an absolute commitment to deliver a surplus in the next Parliament, but an absolute commitment to a three-year rolling five-year target. The Chancellor has spent all of the past nine months telling everybody what a clever wheeze this is and, once again, it has totally backfired. It is less of a trap and more of a load of complete pony and trap. That is what we have before us today.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps one problem with a rolling target is that it is very difficult to hit? The point for many people is this: low-paid workers in my constituency do not get to pay tax at all; instead they need the taxman to be giving them money. Is it not because so many people need in-work benefits—they work and yet the taxman gives them money—that the Chancellor is spending £25 billion more than he expected to in 2010?

[Ed Balls]

He is. As my hon. Friend says, not only has the Chancellor overspent in this Parliament, but he is promising £12 billion of further cuts in the next Parliament, and as the IFS made clear in December, his party has been totally unspecific about where any of those will fall, beyond the fact that they will be hitting the tax credits of working people.