Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to support freelancers and self-employed people in my constituency who have fallen through the cracks of what I recognise has otherwise been an extremely generous financial package provided by the Treasury for so many people. As I have gone about my constituency over the past few months, so many people have thanked me—people in business and employees—for the support that they have received from the Chancellor. However, I want to use this opportunity to highlight three cases in my constituency.

The first is that of Andy Warren, a co-director of the long-established Congleton company Printing Group (UK) Ltd. He refers to the fact that dividend-receiving company owner-managers are effectively discriminated against from receiving support. He says:

“HMRC is happy to accept our word on our income tax returns (that are self-assessed), on our corporation tax returns (that are self-assessed), on the furlough claims we make for our staff, and on our entitlement to a bounce-back loan. We even have to self-declare that we have to repay child benefit. None of these are verified by a third-party, we are taken at our word. So why is it not acceptable regarding our dividends?”

Secondly, I would like to turn to the concerns expressed by another constituent, Dave Boutcher, who is a director of Thorn Distribution Ltd, a warehousing and distribution company with 15 staff. Neither he nor his co-director have received anything by way of benefit from any national scheme or council support package for themselves or their company. They have not even received any furlough money, due to a technicality on the payroll submission date, but being the honourable employers that they are, they have paid out some £100,000 of their own money to their staff, effectively furloughing their staff out of their own funds. I wrote to the Treasury about this on 13 May and received a generic reply letter on 8 September. I am asking the Treasury to look again at their case, which their accountant says is one of the worst they have seen in a system with no flexibility and no appeal.

Finally, I would like to talk about my constituent Lauren Scott, a self-employed musician. We have heard a lot about musicians in the debate, and I would like to tell the House about Lauren’s circumstances. Lauren is a highly professional harpist, and her husband Andy is a composer and teacher. Over the past 10 years of my being a Member of Parliament, no individuals have done more in my constituency to promote the arts, and particularly the engagement of young people in music, than Andy and Lauren Scott. I have heard Lauren perform many times as a harpist, and I have heard one of Andy’s pieces premiered at the Southbank Centre.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady for what she has said. It is so important to foster talent, and if we do not provide the support now, that future talent could be lost forever.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Member is absolutely right—it is about not just these people’s talent, but the next generation that they are nurturing.

Lauren says:

“I am a self-employed freelance musician of 25+ years. I have only ever been a professional musician. During that time I have always paid my taxes and never considered myself to be a burden on the state. I am highly regarded within my field and very often my work is booked into my diary up to 1-2 years in advance. All my concert work has been cancelled…Performing was 80% of my work/income and private teaching was 20%. The only work I now have is my teaching.

At the start of lock-down I applied for 18 jobs with local supermarkets for roles ranging from shelf stacking to driving delivery vans. I did not succeed with any of those applications. It appears that 25 years of playing guest principal harp with all the professional orchestras playing at the likes of the BBC Proms, recording live broadcasts and performing at all the major concerts venues across the country was not the right kind of experience Aldi and Tesco were after.

I will not be able to ‘get back to work’ when the current SEISS ends in October. By now my diary should be full of bookings for 2021, but promoters are not booking and I have nothing booked in for next year…

Please could you ask for there to be consideration to extend the SEISS for self-employed musicians and the Arts Sector. Having high quality live events happening in major venues… is precisely what is going to attract people to visit those city centres.”

Andrey Lugvoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2020

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 General Committees

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I have a question for the Minister. Does the definition of

“financial assets and economic benefits of any kind”

include real property—land, in other words? If so, how is that treated as frozen? For example, many Russians have bought property in London. If they are unable to deal with that property in any way, there may be a risk of deterioration, which will affect the neighbourhood. How does the Treasury deal with the freezing of such assets?

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The reason is that the inquiry is designed to test the policy, and the policy remains in place until the inquiry is over. If the policy were ended now or suspended, all that potentially would occur is more confusion if the inquiry took the view that, ultimately, the Government were in the right.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank Ministers for providing funding to help evidence and establish the business case for reopening Middlewich railway station—a key priority for my constituents. What wider fiscal steps are they taking to support my constituency by supporting the northern powerhouse and midlands engine?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for working tirelessly on behalf of her constituents to ensure that more infrastructure, including rail and road, is delivered locally. She will know that one of the first commitments of the new Administration was to Northern Powerhouse Rail and further funding for the midlands engine. She may also know that yesterday I announced a White Paper on further devolution, which I think she will welcome too.

Summer Adjournment

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

In just over one hour, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which I have the privilege of chairing, will be publishing its latest report—a substantial and groundbreaking one, entitled “The Limits of Consent: Prostitution in the UK.” That is not a subject often considered in this place. We need to. The whole basis of the report is that many of the women drawn into prostitution—often through trafficking but also by other means, and often very young—are abused and suffer abject sexual exploitation.

Those women deserve our compassion, practical help and support and must not fear criminalisation under our complex, confusing and inconsistently applied laws. Those laws need reform. We need to penalise those who exploit, coerce and abuse others in this area, but not those who are themselves exploited. The recommendations in our report are clear and I am pleased that Conservatives are leading on this human rights issue. We need to reduce the demand for prostitution by creating a new criminal offence of paying for sexual services—by criminalising the trade, but making it absolutely clear that those personally abused in this way will not fear being treated as criminals. If anyone is under any illusion as to what the trade really means and its links with organised violent crime, drug and people trafficking and international money laundering, they need only read our report.

By creating a new offence, we will help to halt human trafficking into this country by making it a less attractive destination for those who engage in the heinous organised international trade in human beings for the purposes of prostitution. We can strike a spoke into the wheel of modern-day slavery and challenge and call to account the often violent and degrading sexual exploitation associated with the trade. Sadly, all these crimes are still growing in this country. It is indeed a heinous trade. I have heard it said, “You can sell a drug once, but you can sell a girl a thousand times.” I heard of one trafficked girl who decided one day that she would count how many men were sent to abuse her; after 100, she stopped counting.

The experiences in other countries support our proposed approach. The UK needs to be at the forefront of this human rights work. Our report is different from others in this policy area because it gives in-depth consideration to the questions of principle around prostitution that are often neglected—questions such as: what does it mean to make a free choice? Is prostitution inherently harmful? What does sexual consent really mean in the context of prostitution? We found more agreement on these issues than one might first expect from a superficial reading.

The report, which is the fruit of more than a year of research and inquiry, meticulously weighs the evidence in favour of and against different legislative models and solutions. I pay tribute to the lead commissioner on the report, Luke de Pulford, and thank those who gave their time to help draft it. I also pay tribute to the many survivors of prostitution and the dozens of concerned interest groups that gave evidence to us. I thank in particular one remarkable woman, the brave survivor Rachel Moran. I implore colleagues to read her book “Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution”, which tells her heart-scorching personal story. I challenge any colleague then to deny that these abused women, and some men, need our effective help, and need it now.

In the coming months, I shall bring forward a private Member’s Bill to strengthen the law around sexual consent and end the demand for prostitution in this country—an approach that I know has cross-party support. If enacted, the Bill will repeal criminal sanctions against prostituted people while creating a public sector duty to enable those caught in prostitution to exit, and to give them safe homes, health help, support and protection, as well as the educational skills that so many never have the chance to develop because frequently they are drawn into prostitution in their early teenage years. Our report can be found at Scribd.com. I ask for support from all colleagues from all parties in this endeavour.

Breathing Space Scheme

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her observations, and she is right that the Government have carefully listened to and observed the experience in Scotland. She asks about the timeline, and I have done everything I can to move this forward as quickly as possible. The challenge is to bring the sector along at the same pace and to ensure that we have complete commitment and sign-up to the process so that it will be a success. I am pleased that the chief executive officer of StepChange has said that he is particularly pleased to see the Government’s confirmation that debts owed to the Government will be included in the scheme. We are working very carefully, and this is the timeline to which we have to work.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the proposals, which will help some of the most vulnerable and their families and, I believe, save lives. Will he clarify which stakeholders he will engage with to ensure effective implementation, and will they include debt advice charities such as Christians Against Poverty, which does such excellent work in this field?

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work of Christians Against Poverty, which is indeed a key stakeholder. We engage widely with the sector, including the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, StepChange, the Money Advice Trust and the charity National Debtline—it really is a collaborative effort—and I am pleased with their response to where we have got to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The measures we have taken to increase the national living wage, combined with the increases in the personal tax allowance, mean that a single person on national minimum wage will be £4,500 better off in terms of take-home pay than they would have been in 2010.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

24.    The Chancellor has actually already answered my question. What assessment has he made of the effect on the lowest pay of meeting our manifesto commitment to cut personal allowance a year early, which in effect has almost doubled the tax-free allowance under the Conservatives?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right and we are proud of that record. From 2015, 1.7 million of the lowest paid will be taken out of tax entirely and a typical basic rate taxpayer is £1,205 better off in terms of tax paid than in 2010-11. As I have just said, when we combine that with the changes to the national living wage, that is a £4,500 a year increase in take-home pay—8% in real terms, the largest increase across any part of the income distribution.

Taxation of Low-income Families

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) not only on securing the debate but on the excellent way in which he touched on all the key concerns. We need to address what is surely one of the “burning injustices” that the Prime Minister referred to on the steps of 10 Downing Street. If there are any just-about-managing people, it is surely those striving to take their families off benefits, go into work and improve their families’ lives. We are particularly concerned about families with children.

Yet just as those people aspire to improve themselves, the system knocks and disincentivises them, as we have heard—the opposite of Conservatives encouraging aspiration. Effective marginal tax rates of 70%, 80% or even 90% surely cannot be sustained by a Conservative Government. However, this is not a new issue. We have sustained it. It has been known about for years. It has been eight years since the Conservatives entered Government and we have failed to address the matter.

For many of those years, CARE has held annual meetings about this issue and published annual reports on the taxation of families. I pay tribute to CARE for its assistance in the production of “Making Work Pay for Low-Income Families”, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford says, we are publishing today. It is being published by the Manifesto to Strengthen Families, the executive director of which is our highly respected former colleague, David Burrowes, and can be found on strengtheningfamiliesmanifesto.com.

I will give some examples that detail the complexity and show how low earners can end up paying such high effective marginal tax rates, losing so many of the benefits that they had once they start to earn. We need to change that. This example has been given by the Centre for Policy Studies, so we are not alone in raising this concern.

Imagine Jane, a 28-year-old single mother of one school-aged child. They live in Northampton. She receives benefits of £13,908 a year, comprising three elements: a standard allowance, a child element and a housing element. She starts work, earning £8,143.20 per annum. Her benefits are reduced by 63p for each additional pound she earns, which is the taper relief figure; interestingly, the CPS suggests reducing the universal credit taper rate to 50p as one solution. Jane’s effective marginal tax rate at this point is 63%. She then earns a little bit more, becoming liable to pay national insurance, putting her effective marginal tax rate up to 67%. She then earns a little bit more again, earning £12,850 a year—£1,000 over the current personal allowance rate—so is liable to pay income tax. Of that £1,000, she takes home just £251.60. She is being taxed at a 75% effective marginal tax rate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, if that was the tax rate paid by multimillionaires on their highest earnings, there would be an outcry.

One aim of universal credit, which was intended to be simpler to understand, was to help ease the transition between welfare and work. It is certainly an improvement, but it has not solved the problem of people entering work and losing an average of 73% of their earnings, or even more. We appreciate that the Chancellor promised in his recent Budget to increase the work allowance by £1,000 a year, at a cost of £1.7 billion, which many of us asked for. However, that still leaves us with the problem that we have identified. Working claimants will lose most of the extra money that they earn when they increase their hours or progress in their jobs. It will just mean that they keep a little bit more of their money before they reach that point.

I remind colleagues that the Manifesto to Strengthen Families is supported by more than 60 Conservative parliamentarians; not a small group in our party. Some 20 of us tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) referred to, and it was very much as a result of that amendment not being selected that we called for the debate. However, we had been working on an inquiry into this issue for some time, chaired by David Burrowes. We took evidence from several organisations, including the Child Poverty Action Group, the Resolution Foundation and Tax and the Family, which all indicated in their evidence that they share our concerns on this issue. I will touch on one or two of the reasons why we really need to address it.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, the British effective marginal tax rate of 73% is the highest anywhere in the developed world, where the average is 33%. However, it is not only the very low-paid who are affected. Our inquiry found that families with earnings that appear high can also be affected. For example, a single-income family with three children earning £21,000 and paying rent of £157 a week could this year have a marginal tax rate of, incredibly, 96%. That does not come down to 32% until income reaches £40,776. Where housing costs are greater, that 96% rate could be even higher. I appreciate that something may be done to look at this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, but that is not enough.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I commend the hon. Lady for her continuing interest in this issue. Does she agree that its effect on middle or average-income families earning around £22,000 to £26,000 per year causes particular resentment among people in that category? They are the aspiring families who want to earn more and contribute more to society, and they feel that they are being penalised as they do so.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is absolutely right. We outline in our report several reasons why this needs to be addressed. I will touch on four of them.

First, the hon. Gentleman is right that these arrangements are anti-aspirational. Secondly, we believe that they are illogical. While we as Conservatives celebrate the family—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said families are the bedrock of a strong, stable and flourishing society—we tax them as if they are individuals while at the same time operating a benefits system that views them as families.

Thirdly, the current arrangement is anti-choice. The best systems of independent taxation give couples the choice as to whether the two people are taxed independently or jointly. Fourthly, it appears judgmental. Any family in which the second earner is either not in work or earning less than their personal allowance will be hit hard and judged for that arrangement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) gave evidence to our inquiry and commented that we find ourselves in the peculiar situation of saying that we are not very judgmental, but being very judgmental at the same time. We are judgmental about couples who choose for only one spouse to work. The huge impact of that was underlined in evidence to us from the Child Poverty Action Group, which said that it looks like

“having a second earner in the labour market in Britain today is necessary to get oneself out of poverty”.

To some extent, we are telling parents staying at home to look after children or relatives that they are making the wrong choice, yet, as our report says, it is in the long-term interests of Government and society to have stable families in which children are nurtured and cared for to give them the best start in life, and if, in some situations, that means taking time out from work, particularly when children are under five, surely that should be encouraged and accommodated.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that this is certainly about children, but is also about carers. The enormous number of unpaid carers in this country do a massive amount for our country and society, but the current system does not help them, either.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is absolutely right: they do indeed.

We talk about cripplingly high effective marginal tax rates, but actually it costs money to go out to work. Often, it costs money to clothe oneself for work and to travel to work, and it is more expensive if one has to buy lunch out, so some people will effectively earn nothing when they go to work. That cannot be right. As my hon. Friend has said, what is proposed will help different types of family: single parents, married couples and couples in which one person works or one person provides care for other members of the family. Work is good—we know that—but it costs, and it is outrageous that some of the poorest in our society face some of the highest tax rates. One of the highest priorities of the Conservative Government should be to tackle and solve this burning social injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I very much welcome that intervention: the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I do not believe for a minute that the Government set out with the intention of ending up in this position, in which families face effective marginal tax rates of 75% or 80%. No one intended that to be the case, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the situation and that, if that was not the intention, surely it is time to look at it and see what steps we can take to reverse and undo it.

As I said, the introduction of universal credit was a huge step in the right direction and very welcome. It is not perfect; it is not without its challenges, but I very much welcome the Government’s approach to the roll-out of universal credit—to take their time, learn, and adjust and amend as necessary. Fundamentally, universal credit is the right change to make to our benefits system, and I very much welcome the way the Government are rolling it out.

One purpose of universal credit was to ensure that work paid and to reduce the disincentive for people to take on extra work and lose benefits. I saw that myself, before coming to this place, as an employer. I am thinking of the number of times that I approached my staff to offer extra hours of work and they just said to me, “There’s no point, Steve, because I will lose tax credits. There is no point in me working longer and harder to be no better off—all I will be doing is giving the extra money to the taxman.” Universal credit has been a big positive step, a step in the right direction, to remove that disincentive, and that is hugely welcome, but we need to recognise that there is still a disincentive in the system. It has been highlighted and now is the time to address it.

I also hugely welcome the Government’s policy of increasing the personal allowance. That has taken many of the lowest-paid people in our country out of the tax system—out of paying tax—altogether. That has also been the right thing to do and is very welcome, but as we are saying, it does not undo the situation that we now have. Under the current arrangements, there are those who are paying marginal tax rates of 75% if they are homeowners, and 80% if they are renting, and on universal credit. We cannot expect people to be incentivised to take extra work if they will get to keep only 20p or 25p in the pound for the extra work that they take on.

I therefore very much welcome the report that has been published today. I urge the Government to consider it carefully and look at what can be done to review the current situation. I very much welcome the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that we need to set as a target bringing the UK in line with the OECD average. It seems crazy for the United Kingdom, which is renowned around the world for the effectiveness and competitiveness of its tax system, to be so out of step with the average for the other developed countries. We should set a target that, in an achievable but relatively short space of time, we will seek to reverse the situation and bring ourselves back in step with the OECD average.

We need to change the mindset that the only way to tackle the problem is through the taper rate for universal credit. That will get us so far, and I am sure that any amendments that can be made in that respect would be welcome, but really we need to bring our tax and benefits systems into line with each other.

[Fiona Bruce]

It is interesting to note that if the taper rate is altered to 50p, when universal credit recipients start to pay national insurance or income tax, they will still face a 66% effective marginal tax rate.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. Although changes to the taper rate will be welcome, they will go only so far. We need to change this system: in the benefits system, families are treated as families, yet in the tax system, people are treated as individuals. That is where the conflict comes. I would very much support any move to treat families as families in the tax system, by allowing some measure of transferrable tax allowance, which enables families to be seen as a whole rather than as individuals. We have the same situation with child benefit. It seems crazy to me that in the child benefit system taxpayers are treated as individuals rather than as families. That seems to be an anomaly we need to address.

I want to put my weight behind the point that this is not just about children. There are huge benefits that we can gain as a country by helping families to look after their elderly relatives and supporting them in the tax system. If we can do that by making some element of the personal tax allowance transferrable—for example, for a family that chooses that one of the taxpayers will stay at home, rather than work, in order to look after an elderly relative, who otherwise would put pressure on our adult social care system—it would be a huge, positive step. It would be better not only for that elderly person and that family, but for our adult social care system, which, as we all know, is under so much pressure at the moment. One answer to that pressure is to enable families to care for their elderly relatives much more, rather than just handing them over to the state and expecting the state to do it all. The Government would do well to consider that. I think it would make a huge, positive contribution to resolving the challenges we face.

I have huge respect for the Minister. When he entered the Chamber today, I was glad to see that he did not have his notes hanging out the top of his folder. I am sure he has been listening and will take a positive message from this debate back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, and tell them that there is something we can look at here and take positive steps on, which would bring huge benefits to families across the country and to our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

My hon. Friend makes a superb point. It is a significant problem that apparent inconsistencies in the tax system give people who are already doing pretty well a further advantage, yet poorer people not do not receive that advantage. Looking more broadly at society, a few years ago there were riots in London and other cities around the country, and we are currently concerned about rising crime and the people causing those problems. We also have to look at how we can strengthen families, because I think that a certain societal cohesion comes from a strong family. That has so many other impacts across society. We may not immediately see income return, but in a stronger, healthier society the returns will be immense, not only for society, but for the Exchequer.

[Fiona Bruce]

Before my hon. Friend closes, I want to put on the record my appreciation for what he has done. He was one of the hon. Members who took part in the inquiry, which produced this report. Very modestly, he has not made reference to that, but I thank him for his work.

[Chris Green]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Behind the scenes in Parliament there is so much good work going on, much of which is cross-party, with different colleagues bringing different perspectives. During these difficult times in Parliament, it would be positive for people to reflect on the important work that goes on behind the scenes, influencing decision makers, much of which is on a cross-party basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I see that the Treasury Minister is nodding; let me give him a suggestion, as I have made a call on the public purse. At the moment, we give child benefit to families that have an income of £100,000, where both members of a couple are earning £50,000, whereas that stops at £62,000 when there is only one earner in a family. So there is £38,000 worth of income in respect of child benefit to play with.

The Minister will have to go back to the Treasury and get all his super-clever officials to run those figures through the Treasury modelling system, but there will be some money there that could perhaps be better targeted at child benefit or the transfer of unused personal allowances. We are not being prescriptive here; we want Ministers to go back and look carefully, and reflect carefully, on these matters.

In respect of the work that parents do within the home—looking after children, or looking after frail or elderly relatives—last October the Office for National Statistics said that unpaid household work had a value to the British economy of £1.24 trillion. That is a big figure, as the Minister will appreciate, and just some recognition of the good that is done to society by that work—the costs that are not accruing to the public purse because of it—would be welcome. I think that on average that work comes down to a value of £18,932 per person, which is a significant amount.

[Fiona Bruce]

Are we therefore saying that some recognition by the Government of family in the tax system would go a long way towards changing the culture in our society, whereby we ought to value much more greatly that kind of work within the home, which is unpaid but provides so much benefit to society, economically as well as socially?

[Andrew Selous]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an entirely reasonable request, and I will tell her why it is so reasonable: all our main economic competitors across the OECD do exactly what she suggests. It needs to be said a lot more often in this House that, as I said at the start of my contribution, we are an outlier in not doing this. We have taken for granted the fact that we have independent taxation that quite often ignores the second person in a family if they are not earning, which has led to some perverse consequences. I ask the Minister to go back to the Treasury and ask his officials to contact the economic councillors in British embassies around the OECD to get good data on how other countries do this, whether Finland, France or Germany. Let us look at what those countries do; let us look at how that increases the net take-home pay of lower income families; and let us look at the choices that it gives to those families, and at the overall satisfaction that is derived.

We have been talking about low-income families, and it is important to get on the record that the effects of high effective marginal tax rates can go quite high up the income scale. For example, a single-income family with three children paying rent of £157 a week has a marginal tax rate in 2018-19 of 96%, but that does not come down to 32% until income reaches £40,776. That might sound like a very high income, and for a lot of people it is, but for a person who lives in a high-cost housing area, that income disappears very fast. We need to remember that across large parts of the country, particularly those regions south of Birmingham in which many millions of our fellow citizens live, housing costs are extremely high, and that leaves a much smaller net take-home income for families to pay for all their needs with.

To repeat a point that was made earlier, in 1990 the effective marginal tax rate for a single-earner family on 75% of the average wage with two children in the UK was 34%. Today in the OECD it is 33%. Today in the UK it is 73%. We have diverged massively from our friends and competitors in the OECD since 1990, and I do not think that is because of some malicious plot in the Treasury; I think it has happened in spite of good policies.

[Fiona Bruce]

Does my hon. Friend think it is interesting that we also have one of the highest rates of marriage breakdown in the developed world? Is there perhaps some interesting connection to be made there?

[Andrew Selous]

We need to look at everything we can do to strengthen family life, because we know that strong families—healthy, supportive, committed, mutually respectful couple relationships—are the bedrock of our society. As a Government, we used to talk a lot about reducing the couple penalty; certainly when we were in opposition and preparing for Government, that was a significant objective. We have made some progress towards that, given what we have done through universal credit, but it is still a big issue, as all of us see week after week in our constituency surgeries. We sometimes speak to single mums who are on their own, who are not acknowledging their partner because of the loss of income that would entail. That is not a good state of affairs, because there exists a loving, respectful relationship in which mum and dad want to live together, but they are not doing so because they would be penalised. It is all very well for us to talk about people doing the right thing, but for a lot of our constituents that is not possible if they are hit in the pocket. That message needs to hit home.

I will conclude by coming back to the importance of family, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton has quite rightly pressed me on. I know that I am pushing at an open door, because I rechecked the excellent speech that the Chancellor made in Birmingham in October. When he listed the principles that inspire him as a politician, strong families and family stability were right up there. I think the Chancellor gets this—I think the whole Treasury team gets this—so I hope that when the Minister responds he will give us a commitment that he will go back to the Treasury, talk to the Chancellor, and do detailed preparatory work and study of other countries to look at how we can make some of these changes. We are not asking the Minister to come up with specific answers today, as we know there is a lot of detailed work to be done, but I hope he will give us an undertaking that he will go back to the Treasury and make sure this work gets underway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Sir David. I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments and I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), Bolton West (Chris Green) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and the spokesperson for the Scottish National Party, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), for their contributions.

It is a pleasure to have been invited to the launch of a manifesto to strengthen family policies for a Conservative Government. I was not going to make comments about that, because I did not realise it was on the agenda today, but I will do so now, if I may, Sir David, with your indulgence. There were eight asks in the document, and I have time to comment on about four, which are all linked to the debate.

There is a reference to having a Minister for families. We had a Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, which David Cameron got rid of, so that idea of co-ordination went out of the window in 2010. I am pleased that Conservative Members now think that that was a good idea. Perhaps if they had kept that Secretary of State eight years ago, we might not be in the difficult position that we are in in relation to families.

The document refers to family hubs and how wonderful they are, and to children’s centres, but hundreds of children’s centres have been closed in the past eight years under austerity. It is all right to refer to family hubs and children’s centres, but they have gone by the dozen, week in, week out.

[Fiona Bruce]

May I clarify the distinction between family hubs and children’s centres? Regarding family hubs, we are saying that we need to give holistic support to families as they bring up their children right through their childhood—not just from nought to five, but from nought to 19 and beyond.

Family hubs are designed to support not only people bringing up children but, as we have heard, people caring for elderly relatives and couples resolving difficulties in their marriage. It is a one-stop shop where families can go to get help for anything that they have difficulty with, from statutory agencies or from charities working together, much as people go to a citizens advice bureau in a wholly non-judgmental way. I am delighted that family hubs are springing up all over the country. Next month, there will be a major launch here in Westminster where Westminster City Council will promote family hubs.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady reinforces my point. To set up a family hub via charities or local authorities is fantastic—no one disputes the policy—but that has to be set in the context of austerity, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said.

My local authority has had a 50% cut in its funding, resulting in the potential closure of children’s centres, some nurseries and day centres. It is okay to talk about having a family hub or a children’s centre, but the resource is not there, because the Government have decided they will redirect their resources elsewhere. That is fine, but I am afraid that it is impossible to have both. A political choice has to be made, and has been made. The political choice that the Government have made is, de facto, to outsource the closing-down of many of those centres, fantastic community facilities and charities through cuts to local authorities.

The document talks about supporting mental health services, which face major cuts as a result of austerity. The Government have talked about parity of esteem time after time, but they have not done a great deal about it. They have come to that issue as a Johnny-come-lately.

[Fiona Bruce]

Again, our report talks about mental health challenges. Those of us who support strengthening families believe that we need to strengthen families so we can help many children who, at an early stage of their life, could and do suffer mental health challenges because of relational difficulties in the family.

I am the patron of a children’s mental health charity in my constituency, and not long ago, I asked the former chief executive, who has now moved on, how many of the children that the charity is counselling, who can be as young as four years old, have mental health difficulties at least in part because of relational difficulties in their home environment. He looked at me and said, “Fiona, virtually all of them.” A key purpose of our manifesto is tackling the root cause of many young people’s mental health problems.

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady made that intervention; she is reinforcing every point that I make as I go along. Again, the Government have decided to cut early intervention services year in, year out— I can say that because I worked in that area for many years. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have to start early, but if services for early intervention are cut and there is a lack of funding, the impact is the £48 billion from family dislocation that the report identifies.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

2019 Loan Charge

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) made it clear that the genesis of the matter was the change to IR35 in 2000, which led to many freelance, contracted and itinerant workers ordering their financial affairs, notably for the purpose of paying tax, in a way that they believed and were told was completely proper and in line with the new regulatory environment. Subsequently, umbrella schemes developed as some of those people’s tax and financial affairs led them to the point where they became liable for employer’s national insurance contributions. Those umbrella schemes have become mainstream in the subsequent 18 years.

The people concerned were largely acting in good faith, whether or not the people who were advising and promoting the schemes were. The architects and advocates of the schemes are the people who the Treasury should be pursuing with vigour and determination.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to my hon. Friend first.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the organisations and advisers that encouraged our constituents, who are now suffering so much grief, to go into the schemes are the self-same ones putting themselves forward to give our constituents advice to address the challenges from HMRC? Does that not add insult to injury?

[Mr Hayes]

That should be a further part of the invitation that I made via my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, to the Minister. We look forward to the Minister confirming that when he responds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not share very much in common, but we do share the desire to maintain frictionless trade between the UK and the European Union to protect British businesses and British jobs. His preferred way of achieving that is through a customs union; the Prime Minister has set out an alternative plan that will ensure that we can continue to have frictionless trade with the European Union. I prefer the Prime Minister’s plan.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T2. Four thousand current and former employees of Roadchef, many of whom are elderly, including some 150 who worked at Sandbach services, will be pleased that there has been success in their campaign for money that they are entitled to from HMRC, but can Ministers provide an assurance from HMRC that there will be no tax payable on these moneys going in or out of the Roadchef employee benefit trust?

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

I obviously cannot comment on the specific case of the Sandbach services employees, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have looked extensively at this matter and consulted various Members across both sides of the House. I am satisfied that HMRC in general has conducted itself appropriately over this whole issue, but I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point that she raised.

Summer Adjournment

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to register my support for Congleton Museum’s aspirations to move to Bradshaw House. In its first 16 years of existence, Congleton Museum, a charitable trust entirely run by volunteers, has had considerable success locally, regionally and nationally. The museum was established as the local history museum for Congleton but quickly evolved to become recognised within the wider area of Cheshire and the north-west through the acquisition of hoards found in east Cheshire. It is now the area’s leading museum in collecting and analysing archaeological finds. It has been entrusted with the care of important Roman coin hoards from further afield in the county, the Knutsford and Malpas hoards, in addition to two further 17th century hoards found locally, but there is now simply inadequate room to display these collections.

The Congleton Museum’s status has brought about many partnerships within the national museum community. For instance, it has been working with the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum and regional holders of national collections such as the Museum of Liverpool. I pay tribute to the dedicated work of the museum’s trustees and other volunteers for those achievements. Given that success, a move from the museum’s current and—dare I say it—now cramped premises at the back of Congleton Town Hall to Bradshaw House would be fitting.

Bradshaw House is a fine Grade II listed late Georgian home from the late 1820s in the historic heart of Congleton. It takes its name from Congleton’s most famous, or possibly infamous, resident, John Bradshaw, who was president of the High Court, oversaw the trial of King Charles I and was the first signatory to his death warrant. Bradshaw House is currently owned by Cheshire East Council but has been unoccupied for some time.

The benefits of a move to Bradshaw House for the museum are manifold, not only for the museum, but for Congleton, the broader Cheshire East community and our wider heritage. The museum could be more sustainable in the long term. It is a highly appropriate tenant for such a listed building. Cheshire East Council says that it has no current plans for the future of Bradshaw House while seeking a commercial buyer, but if the museum were able to take it over, it could be fully restored and cared for for the full term of a 30-year lease, potentially taking advantage of Heritage Lottery Fund funding, which is much needed for restoration costs, which few commercial purchasers would readily commit to. The museum’s offering could be increased, with space available for larger numbers of children, making a visit more cost-effective for schools.

Bradshaw House is much more visible and attractive than the museum’s current premises, located as it is in the heart of the Lawton Street conservation area. The museum would be able to handle a much larger number of visitors and host conferences. Improved facilities would encourage more visitors to the town, thereby benefiting the economy. There would be exhibition space, storage, education and research facilities as well as room for a café and a larger gift shop. As I mentioned, it would also be able to accept and display more artefacts.

This proposal has not only my strong support, but the support of Congleton Town Council and of local residents, who, in just four weeks, have signed a petition. A total of 857 signatories have been added to the petition and the number continues to rise daily. I look forward to presenting it to the Speaker in this House in the autumn.

I am pleased that, just last month, Cheshire East Council, which has previously rejected the museum’s bid to move to these premises, agreed to suspend activity related to the commercial disposal of Bradshaw House—that is, disposal by way of commercial sale. It has suspended activity pending discussions taking place between the museum and the Heritage Lottery Fund on options for HLF support for this proposal.

I do hope that the proposals will be supported strongly by Cheshire East Council. I am today seeking the active support of the council, which is our principal authority. I also invite the leader of the council, Councillor Rachel Bailey—who I know is a good woman with a real heart for our local communities—to join me and museum representatives to meet the HLF to discuss what support may be available from HLF for this project. Such a meeting would also enable museum trustees to clarify to the leadership of Cheshire East Council that its reservations about the viability of such a scheme can be satisfactorily addressed.