House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

May I make a bit of progress, if that is all right? I have been very generous in giving way. I will try to give way later.

I want to speak about one of the other major features of the House of Lords: the deference—all the forelock-tugging to all these lords and ladies, and this idea of the high and mighty. We still have this political culture in the 21st century of showing deference to these people in ermine and of knowing your place and respecting your betters. Imagine designing a Chamber where that was still a feature of how we conducted our parliamentary debates.

I actually looked for the House of Lords TV channel the other day, and I came across the fantasy adventure “Game of Thrones” instead. I was listening to some of the language being used, and it struck me that the House of Lords is so like “Game of Thrones”, but without the dragons, beheadings and the proper bending of the knee— that is how ridiculous that institution down the road is. One of the first things we have to do is get rid of all this 13th-century, medieval deference and create a modern, 21st-century establishment, to make sure that we get proper representation in the second Chamber.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are countries around the world that we can learn from? Countries such as Australia, ironically enough, have upper Chambers that are based on ours, but they have managed to leap ahead and to have elected Chambers. Actually, the Queensland Parliament has abolished its upper Chamber, which is now a tourist attraction. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not make progress, we will fall behind in the world in terms of the democratic process?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would love to see that place as a tourist attraction. We could stuff some of its Members so that we could see them. They are all dressed like a demented Santa Claus. It would be fantastic: maybe we could have a Christmas fantasy or something as a feature of a visitor attraction. That is where we are, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

What is the Government’s intention when it comes to the House of Lords? Well, there seems to be only one ambition, and that is to stuff it full with even more cronies and donors. We have seen the latest additions. I do not know whether this is the Government’s intention—perhaps the Minister could clarify—but I get the impression they are trying to secure a majority in the House of Lords, because they are unhappy with the defeats they have experienced at its hands in the past few months. I have not done my sums properly on that, but I suspect that it would still involve another 30 to 50 new Members, taking its membership up to 900. That would bring it very close to overtaking the People’s Congress of China. Is that what the Government really intend to do?

At the same time—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—the Government seek to reduce the number of elected Members of this House. This House—this nation—should be appalled at that prospect; we should be demanding that it is addressed and reversed. How on earth can we, as a Chamber, agree to the idea of stuffing that place even fuller, while the Government reduce the number of representatives of the people—us, the directly elected Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am rapidly learning that, when it comes to road programmes and other transport infrastructure projects, it is for me to respond. We remain enthusiastic about improving our transport network, whether it be in the south-west of England or elsewhere.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Given the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year, does the Chancellor have plans to review the Financial Conduct Authority’s failure to enforce the prospectus rules in the Lloyd’s enhanced capital notes case? One of my constituents has been fighting hard for pensioners, who have lost over £3.3 billion.

[Mr Hammond]

As indeed have constituents of mine, so I am familiar with this case from the point of view of a constituency MP. I have not yet had a chance to look at it from the point of view of a Treasury Minister, but I promise the hon. Lady that I will do so.

HMRC: Building our Future Plan

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for bringing forward this debate. The issue of tax avoidance has obviously been highlighted in the House by the recent publicity over the Panama papers. It is beyond doubt that powerful individuals in the UK have been shamefully implicated in those documents. These people want to keep their offshore tax affairs a secret. Let us be quite clear: both rich individuals and organisations are using trusts and shell companies in places such as Panama and the British Virgin Islands for one purpose and one purpose only—they hide their financial assets from the tax authorities of the countries where they actually live and do business. It then becomes extremely difficult or, indeed, even impossible for tax collection agencies such as HMRC to collect accurate levels of tax on their wealth.

To be effective, HMRC requires the recruitment, training and retention of skilled and experienced tax professionals. They are the very people who make sure that the Government have enough money to pay for schools, hospitals and pensions. It is in this context that the current misguided reorganisation of HMRC needs to be understood.

Since the Government came to power in 2010, they have invested vastly greater resources in pursuing benefit fraud than in going after the real villains—those who funnel billions of pounds out of our country. Figures show that 10 times more Government inspectors are employed to investigate benefit misuse by the poorest in society than to deal with tax evasion by the wealthiest. The Public Accounts Committee report on tax fraud stated that a meagre 35 wealthy individuals are investigated for tax fraud each year. To put that in perspective, it is only slightly more than the number of Government Members who could be bothered to turn up in the Chamber today. HMRC does not even know how many of these individuals are actually prosecuted. We need to put that in the context of the fact that this country still presides over a tax gap of £34 billion, which we should move urgently to close.

I recently discovered that the ownership of the leases of HMRC offices—this has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend—was transferred to a company called Mapeley in 2001. You could not make this up, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where is Mapeley based? In the Bahamas. That is right: HMRC pays rent to a company registered in a tax haven. To quote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, this Government have scored a “massive own goal”. Who stands to profit from the sales of HMRC local offices? You guessed it: Mapeley again. Why not use local council offices that may be available, and then any profits from the rents would go straight to the Treasury?

The UK Government intend to close 137 local HMRC offices across the UK. Two of them, Sidlaw House and Caledonian House, are in my Dundee constituency, where almost 800 staff are employed. This is of course driven by the Government’s austerity obsession, which means that the budgets for Departments and public bodies have suffered swingeing cuts. The Chancellor boasts of having increased the funding for HMRC, but it does not even come close to restoring the cuts he made in 2010. At this moment, about half as many people work for HMRC as did in 2005.

I have spoken in this Chamber before about HMRC and have tabled a number of questions, only to receive evasive and unhelpful answers. Employees, some of whom have more than 30 years’ skill and experience—decades of loyal service—are being abandoned by an organisation to which they dedicated their whole careers. At Caledonian House in Dundee alone, there are 10 couples working under the same roof. Those 10 couples could see their entire income disappear overnight. The proposals are set to destroy families’ lives.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Offices in my constituency are going to be moved to Edinburgh, as are many others in West Lothian. I am sure he will share my concern that the number of redundancies in February was the biggest ever across the civil service, and that carers and people with disabilities are being disproportionately affected by those compulsory redundancies. We should be doing all we can to support them and stand up for their jobs.

[Chris Law]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when this is still in consultation, the forced redundancies coming through are an absolute shame and embarrassment for all of us in this House.

Relocating HMRC to regional centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh will mean not only job losses in Dundee, but a loss of boots on the ground, and will diminish the capacity for public contact anywhere north. For example, Aberdeen has paid more than £300 billion from its oil resources into this Government, yet there is not going to be an HMRC office there, and the largest growing city in Europe, Inverness, will not have any representation —not to mention the rural areas in between. It is essential for HMRC to offer its clients access to skilled, trained staff based in the local area. Speaking from previous business experience, I know what a struggle it can be getting through to HMRC on the phone; what sort of business will we come to expect? I have to share a story I have heard just in the past 10 minutes: one of my colleagues has tried eight times to pay a bill that is due and still cannot get through.

No one in their right mind would argue that it would make sense to have just two huge hospitals in Scotland, one in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow. If the NHS can maintain internationally recognised standards of service in thousands of clinics and hospitals around the country, surely it is possible for HMRC to do the same in a network of fewer than 200 local offices.

To return to my earlier point, the Panama papers have dramatically drawn attention to a fact that has been emphasised over and over again in this House, by colleagues from all parties, namely that sufficient resources need to be dedicated to HMRC so that it can scrutinise sources of income to ensure that the tax due is paid. It is clear that to do this we need HMRC offices all over the UK, staffed by experienced tax officers with local knowledge. No one would ridicule the Government for making a U-turn on HMRC’s Building our Future plan.

HMRC has the potential to become a paradigm of self-sufficiency, a public service that pays for itself. That idea is certainly less far-fetched and counter-intuitive than the measures currently set to be put in place, which are designed to boost, yet again, the income of companies based in offshore tax havens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this debate. There have been plenty of thoughtful and, indeed, robust contributions so far, with Members—notably all on this side of the House—doing their best to scrutinise the general principles behind HMRC’s proposals as well as individual local proposals. I shall add my tuppence-worth in a moment. What shines through in this debate is the frustration, which I share, at not having enough information or attempts at justification to enable us to do our job of scrutinising the proposals thoroughly at a strategic and local level.

Whatever view people might take of these proposals, they are certainly radical. As we have heard, thousands of jobs could be lost and a 93% cut in the number of HMRC offices could be implemented. This is not tinkering around the edges in any way, shape or form. It is therefore not only right but imperative to ask questions about how such cuts and closures will impact on HMRC’s ability to collect taxes and tackle tax dodging, particularly at a time of huge public concern over that issue in the light of the Panama papers. It is right that we should ask about the consequences for the towns and cities in which tax offices are marked for closure. It is also absolutely right that we should pose some of the many questions that the hard-working, dedicated and expert staff in our constituencies have raised.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer some of our questions today, but I must emphasise that debates alone will not be enough. We need the people behind these proposals to come here to explain them directly to Parliament. That would allow Members to get stuck into the nuts and bolts and to get behind the management-speak and buzzwords that are too often passed off as answers. If that does not happen, staff and taxpayers will be left questioning whether HMRC is really “building our future”, as the glossy brochure states, or whether this is in fact a question of buildings forcing our future. It has already been pointed out that this is taking place in the context of the expiry of the extraordinary contracts that were entered into in 2001, when 600 or so properties were sold to the offshore company, Mapeley Steps, and then leased back, PFI-style, to HMRC. Those contracts expire in the years leading up to 2021. In the absence of answers to our questions, many will conclude that this is more about digging HMRC out of the hole that it jumped into in 2001, rather than being about any kind of strategy. That is the only conclusion open to us.

The remaining questions are many and varied, but I shall get down to the basics of the issue. Why is 13 the magic number? Why are 13 offices preferable to 30 or 530? Why is the sensible range of hub sizes calculated at 1,200 to 6,000 staff? And if that size of office is perfectly efficient, why should offices such as Cumbernauld, which are within that range, have to close? Does the proposed configuration take suitable account of the expertise and local knowledge that can be built up by having a presence across the country? For example, the offices in Aberdeen and Inverness have experts in oil and fishing. And does it take into account the expertise that will be lost through employees being unable to travel to new locations?

The brochures and press releases tell us that saving £100 million a year by 2025 is apparently the goal. We are told:

“Moving more of HMRC’s work out of central London, which has some of the world’s most expensive office space, will enable HMRC to make substantial savings”.

How has that figure been calculated, particularly when HMRC does not know exactly where the new hubs will be? And how is the idea of moving out of expensive city centre locations consistent with closing offices in Cumbernauld, East Kilbride and Bathgate, for example, and centralising them in big prime city centre sites in Glasgow and Edinburgh? Can we see the sums?

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. On the specific issue of centralisation, virtually no work has been done in my constituency of Livingston to assess the impact of the proposals in relation to transport and travel. The distance between Livingston and Edinburgh is relatively short, but what about the people in Dundee who will be expected to travel? Is it not clear that this is an ill-conceived and ill-thought-out proposal?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely.

We want to see the sums and the justifications for the proposals. Will each of these local decisions be revisited if the sums do not add up? Has the effect on local communities been factored into HMRC’s considerations? Does it feature at all? I have had a similar experience to that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), in that when I asked the Minister about this, his written answer stated simply that HMRC

“will undertake all necessary consultations and impact assessment work to inform”

its plans. No one is suggesting that any town or city where a public sector office is based can assume that the office will be there forever, but it is far from unreasonable to say that the local economic impact of office closures will be a significant factor in decision making, so what weight has been attached to that?

Most important to me and many MPs here are the questions of our constituents—the dedicated, skilled staff in the tax offices. They want to know whether jobs are moving with them or whether they are moving to new roles in a new location. HMRC claims that people will be better able to develop careers up to senior level, but my constituents fear that their good-quality roles will be replaced with poorer-quality work. How did HMRC calculate that 90% of employees will be within reasonable daily travel? Not only does it not know where offices will be, but reasonableness of travel does not just depend on distance but transport links, parking spaces, and accessibility. Will those issues be assessed on an individual basis?

For other staff, including a good number in my constituency, challenges arise through disabilities and care commitments. Why has HMRC not undertaken a proper equality impact assessment of its proposals? Why did HMRC change its HR policy in February 2016, particularly when redundancies were on the horizon, so that union members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, were no longer entitled to take a trade union rep to one-to-one discussions?

Most concerning are the questions around the 152 compulsory redundancy notices that have been served. How can they be genuine redundancies given that the work that the employees are doing is continuing, that there are no immediate plans to close the offices, and that the Department has recruited over 1,000 new staff in other locations at the same grades? What is the explanation for that? Why will HMRC’s chief executive not meet the Public and Commercial Services Union about alternatives to compulsory redundancy? How can all that be happening while HMRC is apparently spending £1 million a month on overtime to mask staffing shortfalls?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker.

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”

The words of Benjamin Franklin are as resonant and appropriate today as they were when he uttered them, especially in relation to this Government and their mismanagement of the public finances. The Government are failing to prepare our country by implementing, by their own parliamentarians’ admissions, short-termist policies that risk failure in the long term. They continue to unravel the fabric of our society by pursuing their relentless austerity agenda.

As we come to the end of the Budget debate, there is much to reflect on, particularly after a weekend of turmoil for the “party of Government”. As the Tory party tears itself apart over Europe and its horrible benefits cuts, the most-affected people of our nations have a painful wait to find out how they will be affected by the Tory cuts. The IFS has warned that British voters should “all be worried” about the risk of job cuts and lower wages amid growing concerns of another economic downturn. The Chancellor’s cuts have even been criticised by his own leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson. That the party of Government has the temerity to self-style itself the party of working people is an absolute joke. It has a target to increase the number of disabled people working, yet it cuts employment and support allowance and other supports that enable people with disabilities to find employment.

It is good to see that the Chancellor is taking a lead from the SNP Government in Scotland by cutting business rates, showing that while the Government often lag behind in reacting, they occasionally listen and do the right thing. However, it is important that the system is easy for business to understand and navigate. I have already heard some businesspeople raising concerns about the complexities of working out the rates reduction. Similarly, support for the oil and gas industry is welcome, but the time taken to reach the decision was woeful. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs and investor confidence is faltering. Quite frankly, it is too little, too late. Both the SNP and the industry have called for a proper strategic review of the tax regime for the North sea and our wait continues.

The apprenticeship levy is allegedly designed to help the next generation to get into work, but we are still waiting for clarity on how it will be implemented. I have raised the double-charging of industries such as oil and gas, but we continue to wait for a response.

The Guardian reported after the Budget that IPSE chief executive Chris Bryce described the move to abolish class 2 national insurance contributions as a

“long overdue and welcome step.”

However, he also said:

“The Government missed the perfect opportunity to back self-employed mums by giving them the same maternity pay as employees. This measure was recommended in the recent self-employment review.”

The Chancellor has failed to achieve his own targets on debt, the deficit, trade and exports and has stubbornly failed to listen to calls to invest in the economy.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can appreciate that parts of London would want to come forward as a zone. For example, some of the evidence shows that, in the west end alone, that could be worth almost £400 million a year for the economy, with 2,500 jobs being created. However, it would be for areas to bid to be one of the pilot areas.

London is actually a really good example of how the market drives these things. Even on the days when shops can open for as long as they like, Members may find that, if they wander to the west end in the middle of the week, shops do not open particularly longer hours, so that, by the time we finish in this place, they are not open. Businesses can make that choice; what we want to do is make sure that they have that choice, that it is locally driven and that local residents have a choice as well.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

For the purposes of clarity, will the Minister tell us how the proposals, which we have not yet seen, will assess the impact on premium pay not just in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Brandon Lewis]

I would say to the hon. Lady and to colleagues around the House that, as we put these proposals forward, it is important that we make sure that the key performance indicators that will come back to the House a year after the pilots—we will run the pilots for 12 months—cover a whole range of issues. She makes a fair point, and if it is one of the points she and her colleagues want looked at in the pilots, I am very happy to make sure it is. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asks from a sedentary position whether I am going to use up the entire time, and I would gently say to him that, no, I will not. I am about to conclude, but I would just point out to him that I have been spending much of my time taking interventions from his hon. Friends. I find his comments slightly surprising, bearing in mind that this is not an issue he felt needed voting on in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to make some more progress before I take any more interventions.

The larger retailers that open longer will have to find a way to reduce costs, which means removing the premium for shop workers. Given that the major retailers operate UK-wide, a change in pay and conditions in England and Wales will mean changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. Premium pay on Sundays is viable across the UK because large retailers in most of the UK are restricted to six hours’ opening. The time and a half paid to many shop workers will be under threat to make up for staying open longer across the UK, which, of course, is why this is a UK-wide matter and why it is entirely appropriate that Members from across the UK have a vote on this very important proposal.

Removing time and a half would cost shop staff who work an average shift in Scotland £1,400 a year, which in anybody’s money is a very significant hit, particularly for those on low pay in the retail sector. The proposed changes in England in Wales would have a profound effect on workers in Scotland, and I am glad that the SNP recognises that Scottish workers will be hit. I was a bit surprised when the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) told us in Committee that, while her concerns focused on Scottish workers, the SNP welcomed the additional employee protections in the Bill, which she ascribed to

“the strong and principled action of the SNP”.––[Official Report, Enterprise Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2016; c. 322.]

We will come to how those protections will not do what the Government claim they will, but I am glad that the letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, has had the desired effect. I welcome the SNP’s confirmation that its Members will vote against the Government, and I look forward to them joining us in the Lobby.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I don’t have a choice, do I?

[Hannah Bardell]

On a point of clarity, the hon. Gentleman can read the record for himself, as can members of the public and Members of this House, but we have been very clear. We engaged with all sides of the argument up until the point where we took a decision at our group meeting as part of a democratic process.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. All I will say is that I am glad that she and her colleagues came to the right decision in the end; it does not matter how they got there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak because if I said this in an intervention, I would test the patience of the House by speaking for too long.

When I first arrived in the House, I was told by a veteran that in the House were good men, clever men and those with good grace. I want to pay tribute to the Minister, who has somehow managed to climb the greasy pole while embodying all three qualities. As Members on both sides of the House know, he is an incredibly hard working Minister for Housing and Planning. When were in opposition, I was always quick to praise Labour Ministers, including those who once held a similar position. I will forgive him for the fact that he is sending notes to love bomb the waverers.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). It would have been a shock, from what I know of his 11 years in the House, if he had not led on this amendment today. He is a man of huge principle. Those of us who have been in the House during those 11 years and have heard him speak with huge conviction on such issues will understand why he has led on this amendment and why so many of us support him.

This whole issue is rooted in devolution, the natural direction of which is towards localism. Therefore, at the risk of sounding like the Leader of the Opposition, I want to speak on behalf of my constituents. Mr Kishor Patel was shortlisted for retailer of the year last year. He came to the House of Commons and was the runner-up. He runs Nisa in Toddington in my constituency, where he has opened a number of stores. He is an amazing small retailer. He recently took a derelict pub in my constituency and turned it into a restaurant. He says that he does not want me to support the proposal in the Bill; he wants me to vote against it. His pub is at its busiest, with families enjoying themselves, on Sundays. He is incredibly worried that, if the proposal goes forward and bigger stores can open for longer on Sundays, pubs like his will not stay open for longer, but will fail. It is the business he does on Sundays, when families can enjoy themselves at the local pub, that makes the difference between its being profitable and not profitable.

Mr Patel also does not want me not to support the proposal in the Bill because of the impact on his small high street shops, which are valued by local communities. In my constituency, it is not particularly easy to get out to the big stores, so people depend on small high street stores. However, the situation would be quite different if the big stores were open all day, because people would make the effort to go out to the bigger stores or to travel into London, and that would have a huge impact on local shops in Mid Bedfordshire.

I want to declare an interest in that my family owned a local shop. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned the Trafford centre. When that opened and got busy, the family local shop stopped opening on a Sunday and began to suffer as a result. It is a known fact that small high street shops must constantly go the extra mile to compete with the big stores. They do not have the resources to man their stores seven days a week—and seven nights a week, because the paperwork, the ordering, the PAYE and so on is done while the shop is closed, not when it is open.

This proposal was not in our manifesto. The Bill began in the Lords, not in this House, and the policy has never received sufficient public discussion. If we want to do this, let us put a measure in the Queen’s Speech and let the public know about it properly, and let us have a full consultation and a public debate.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the extension of Sunday trading hours. Since the original proposals were withdrawn by the Government, my colleagues and I have been engaging widely with people and organisations on both sides of the debate. Contrary to media speculation and the misinformation peddled by Government Front Benchers, the SNP has, as we said we would, reached our conclusions on the basis of the evidence that has been presented to us.

There are a variety of views across this House and across the country. I intend to outline my concerns about the effect of the UK Government’s proposals on workers’ rights and benefits in Scotland and the UK. However, I should say at the outset that my SNP colleagues and I have no objection to the principle of extending trading hours on Sundays. After all, in Scotland, as has been said many times, we already enjoy unrestricted trading hours on Sundays. It is important to note that in the past, restraints on Sunday opening in Scotland have existed, but they have largely been social rather than legal. There are, of course, areas of Scotland where there is greater religious observance and Sunday opening hours are more restricted but, in general, the practice of longer opening hours on Sundays, particularly in retail, is now well established throughout Scotland, and some evidence suggests that that has been the case since the late 1980s.

The UK Government’s proposals represent the uniform deregulation of trading hours restrictions across these islands. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but without adequate legal protections, which we and others have called for, the employment protections of workers and their remuneration would be threatened.

The Government’s impact assessment, which was published only this morning, identifies more than 450,000 retail workers across the UK who receive premium pay, but in the 44-page assessment, the Government dedicate just one paragraph to that and dismiss out of hand the concerns of workers and of USDAW. Even now, faced with defeat, the UK Government refuse to offer assurances about premium pay. They engage in ping-pong politics, looking for ways to get the numbers through the Lobby.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend rightly underlines the point that we have always made about the long-term erosion of premium pay. A sham of a pilot has been offered, but does my hon. Friend agree that that cannot address the long-term erosion of premium pay? Nobody participating in a pilot is going to take away premium pay—they will have to wait until the pilot is finished.

[Hannah Bardell]

I entirely agree.

My SNP colleagues and I made it clear in November last year that we would oppose the UK Government’s proposals, and we oppose them now. We challenged the UK Government to think again about how they could provide the necessary guarantees and safeguards to shop workers in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I was pleased that the Government tabled a new schedule in Committee—it now forms part of the Bill, although it is threatened with removal—that sought to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give more explicit protection to shop workers opting out of Sunday work, including protections against such workers being discriminated against. Our Labour colleagues have referred to the legal opinion that they obtained.

SNP Members welcome the extra protections for workers. They show that the UK Government can, when they want to, listen and, on occasion, act to do the right thing. The SNP commissioned its own legal opinion from a leading Scottish silk to examine the protections in detail. We are satisfied that they represent a significant increase in employment protection across the UK, and those protections would not have materialised without the SNP’s opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that if these proposals are passed, they will increase protections for workers in Scotland? Will she also confirm that the arrangements in Scotland and England would be identical, meaning that she will be voting against arrangements that already apply in Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

As I have just said, employment protections will increase, but no Minister has said anything about pay protection, which I shall speak about later.

Low-paid workers might lose out even further if they lose their premium pay. USDAW has expressed significant concern that when universal credit is rolled out in May 2016, any loss of Sunday premium pay by families working in retail would trigger the end of their transitional protection at tax credit rates and they would be transferred to the far lower rate of universal credit. That is an extremely important point.

It is an interesting phenomenon that a greater proportion of lone parents work in retail on Sundays than on any other day of the week, yet if one of those lone parents was to lose their premium pay and to be transferred to the lower rate of universal credit, they would have over £2,000 less in their pocket. I and my SNP colleagues are not prepared to gamble with the pay packets of some of Scotland and the UK’s lowest-paid workers.

Moreover, it is an obvious point, but the erosion of premium pay as a result of Sunday trading hours is a real threat not just to Scottish workers, but to shop workers across the UK. We said ahead of the 2015 general election that the SNP would be a progressive force in Westminster and that we would work with others to pursue progressive policies and protect the most vulnerable—and not just in Scotland, but across the UK. In voting against these ill-conceived measures, that is exactly what we are doing. We in the SNP do not just write our manifesto commitments down; we actually deliver on them.

Although the crux of our argument is about the erosion of premium pay, there is a wider debate going on. We should focus our minds on the wider issue of fair pay. In my maiden speech, I spoke about the importance of decent pay for decent work, and about my own family heritage, being from mining and shop worker roots. My grandfather was a miner and believed firmly that no worker should have to seek overtime to make ends meet. Therefore, while we must protect the premium pay of the lowest paid, we should also be continuing the fight for fair pay for the lowest paid in our society. That means a real living wage, not the fake one dreamt up by this UK Government.

We have challenged the UK Government to give assurances and to provide safeguards for the provision of premium pay in Scotland, and they have failed to do so. There is not a single clause in the Bill, or any sentence that any UK Government Minister has uttered in our proceedings on it, that is significant enough a reassurance that Scottish shop workers, and indeed shop workers across the UK, will not lose out because of a lack of protection for their traditional rates of pay. We will oppose anything that puts in doubt the premium payments that lower-paid shop workers in Scotland have for Sunday working.

[John Stevenson]

The hon. Lady is banging on about fairness. Is it fair for a business in Scotland potentially to have a competitive advantage over a business that is 9 miles away?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. What is not fair is for the UK Government to bring in provisions that will have a knock-on impact on Scottish workers and reduce wages. It is on that basis that we oppose them. The UK Government have had time to bring forward the necessary safeguards and guarantees that there will be no detriment to shop workers in Scotland or the rest of the UK, but they have failed to do so.

There is a fundamental point about process and respect for Parliament, its Members and the constituents we represent. We owe it to our constituents to do our business in a manner that is fair, open and transparent. The Secretary of State and the Minister should listen to that. The way in which the provisions have been shoehorned into successive Bills as a last-ditch slapdash amendment is appalling. The Government should do their business better if they want to command the support of the House or the UK public.

The UK Government have left it to the last possible moment to publish the impact assessment and the family test, and they would not devolve employment law to Scotland. For that reason, and for the good of shop workers across Scotland and the UK, and the 450,000 of them who receive premium pay, my SNP colleagues and I will support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) to remove the Government’s proposals from the Bill.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 19, which I suggest is a workable compromise. As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I met Treasury Ministers to try to understand the reasons why the Government wanted to change the original compromise of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I was told that there were two principal reasons: first, to address the demise of the high street; and secondly, the need to remain competitive with neighbouring countries, notably France.

Online shopping was cited as the principal cause of the recent demise of the high street, but longer-term competition from out-of-town shopping centres has also caused that demise. I doubt very much that keeping shops open longer on Sundays will stop people shopping online. Anyone who has been shopping with their teenage or young adult children will know that they go to the shops to look, and say, “Mum, we won’t buy it here because there’s an online discount.” Rather like Canute, we will find it very difficult to turn back the tide.

Small Businesses: Tax Reporting

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I hope that hon. Members agree that we have seen a coming together across the political divides on a number of issues today. There are many shared views about the concerns that are out there.

I pay tribute to Paul Johnson, who created the petition, which, when I last looked before leaving the office today, had nearly 110,000 signatures. That is a sign of the strength of feeling to which hon. Members have referred. It is also important to pay tribute to the work of the Petitions Committee in ensuring that there are opportunities for the public to respond to and feed into Government policy. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) mentioned the engagement on Twitter; the more we can open up our politics, the better.

It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that it is Burns night tonight and, for those hon. Members who did not know, Robert Burns worked in the Excise—

[Rob Marris]

He was a socialist.

[Hannah Bardell]

Yes. What we have heard today is a call for the Government to reflect on the plans and on the pace of development. I am able to find a Robert Burns quote for every situation, and he once said:

“Dare to be honest and fear no labour.”

I commend those comments to the Government.

The contributions to the debate, across all political parties, have been insightful and thought-provoking, but while the Scottish National party supports digital transformation and recognises that it is absolutely key in all aspects of our society, we believe that it must be done in parallel with a simplification of tax policy. We feel that the Government’s lack of consideration about how the changes will work in practice flies in the face of the commitments they have made to simplify tax for small businesses. I believe that the Chancellor said that his “dream” was

“that people might actually understand the tax laws which they were being asked to comply with.”

Some time ago, the Government also said:

“We need to reduce the complexities in our tax system and the coalition is committed to delivering that goal.”

I hope, and assume, that the Government are still committed to that goal, but I think we have heard from hon. Members across the House today that people are not convinced about that.

I highlight again that a key concern across rural parts of Scotland and, I am sure, the rest of the UK, is weak digital infrastructure and connectivity. We appreciate that there has been significant investment by the UK Government, and we commend them for that. In Scotland we have also made a significant investment—£115 million, to be spent in the next year—against a challenging financial backdrop. The overarching issue for us is that we want small and medium-sized businesses to thrive and develop in rural parts of Scotland, but connectivity and infrastructure are not developing apace with that potential and with the proposed changes. Along with people from across the political divides, I urge the Minister and the Government to include that issue in the consultation and map out the weak areas of connectivity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is not here today, recently highlighted a grave concern in his constituency. Thousands of houses and premises there lost connectivity over Christmas, which affected their businesses. If that were to happen regularly, one can only imagine how the changes might affect people. To give an example, a good friend of mine owns a bed and breakfast in the port town and fishing village of Mallaig. For some time he had a satellite on the side of his house—I do not know whether he still does—which provided mobile coverage to Rum, which is one of the Small Isles. There happened to be a storm one winter, and the satellite was knocked off. The whole island lost connectivity for a number of weeks. That is a small but important example of how connectivity is delivered in some of the rural parts of our United Kingdom and across the isles.

Many businesses and groups have argued that the proposals for digital accounts and quarterly reporting will make the requirements on small businesses more complex. The Federation of Small Businesses has condemned the UK Government’s failure to publish initial options for the form that the quarterly return will take, which has not been defined. A number of Members have mentioned that. The FSB has said:

“As such, the announcement runs completely contrary to evidence-based policy making, which only serves to undermine businesses’ confidence that Government is determined to tackle the administrative burdens of small business.”

Additional research has shown that on average, businesses pay £3,600 a year to comply with tax arrangements. The additional burden could have a significant impact.

The FSB has provided us with comments that its members made between 15 and 17 December last year in response to the proposals. One said that instead of making the lives of small business owners as simple as possible,

“HMRC should be pursuing the large businesses that do so very well out of not paying the taxes they are due!”

That is particularly resonant given the urgent question earlier today. Another member said:

“This is my worst nightmare come true. I am going to be spending more time filling out tax returns than actually running the business. I fear it may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”

An accountant said:

“I totally disagree with your comment that ‘it’s good for accountants’. As a professional accountant nagging those late clients to bring in their records and other information to beat the January deadline, having to do this now 4 times a year would be our worst nightmare come true. It would be January four times a year with no doubt penalties and interest for those that are late in filing the quarterly returns.”

I hope the Minister will take those comments on board and think carefully about them.

Many bodies have echoed the concern about the additional workload that the new reporting requirements will place on businesses. Chris Jones, the president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said of the quarterly reporting requirement that he was

“struggling to reconcile this with the announcement by the Chancellor…that the annual cost to business of tax administration will be reduced by £400m”.

Similarly, Anthony Thomas, chairman of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, has said:

“We gave a cautious welcome to the new digital tax accounts on the basis they might simplify matters for some low income taxpayers, although we remained very concerned that a significant proportion of the population, often the most vulnerable, remain digitally excluded.”

That applies for a number of reasons. People on lower incomes who start businesses, particularly women, may well be excluded and unable to navigate the new system. A number of Members have referred to the roll-out and cost of training and development. I hope the Minister will refer to how that will be done and assessed, because that is important.

Business for Scotland surveyed 278 of its members, and 92% of them felt that the changes would cost them significantly more and said that they already had enough to deal with. The majority are concerned about increased stress and fear that accountancy fees will be increased and that they will be constantly preparing for the next tax return. I appreciate that some of those fears may be allayed, but there is an issue of public perception, as we have heard today. It is about how the Government communicate and consult with business, which is key.

The SNP has significant concerns about HMRC’s ability to implement the changes in light of budget cuts and the closure of HMRC offices. It is predicted that many small businesses will need to seek advice on how to meet the extra requirements of quarterly reporting. James Hoare of PricewaterhouseCoopers has said:

“Digitising the relationship between business and HMRC is desirable and inevitable, but the scope and timescale of the proposed changes raise important questions, such as whether training and support will be provided for those less familiar with digital reporting.”

HMRC has had its budget cut. Its departmental expenditure limit will fall from £3.8 billion in 2016-17 to £3.1 billion in 2019-20, which is a cut of more than £700 million across three financial years.

We are all aware of the proposed closures and the devastating impact that they will have, particularly in Scotland, where offices are going to be centralised to the central belt in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Much has been said about how that will be a positive move, and it has been said that minimal numbers of jobs will be lost, but that is not what we are hearing on the ground, where there is a real fear that we will lose much of the expertise of offices and their staff, and that there will be an inability to collect tax efficiently.

The centralisation of offices has led to other issues being raised, include travel, particularly in my constituency of Livingston. One of the offices there was purpose-built for HMRC. It is not old or dilapidated in any way, and the local workforce have impressed on me the number of areas of expertise that they feel will be lost, and the real-terms cut in salary that will result from increased travel costs. Livingston, as most Members will know, is placed right between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and connectivity is very good. I cannot imagine what things will be like for those who are considered to within one hour’s travel.

The key themes are public and business confidence, and the development of broadband infrastructure and connectivity at pace. The burden must not fall largely on small businesses, because, as a number of Members have said, entrepreneurship and the people’s desire to start their own business may be reduced if the administrative burden is put on them. As we have heard, HMRC is already struggling to answer calls and deal with the current workload, so we need to understand the effect of the various changes and cuts coming down the line. In some respects, it seems like a perfect storm of service closures, reduced budgets and a greater burden on the service.

I hope the Minister and the Government will think carefully about all the issues that have been raised, and that they will extend the time for consultation and roll-out, as Members from all parties have asked for. Otherwise, there is significant fear, not only in the House but in small businesses across the country, that the burden will be greater for small businesses and damage could be done to them.

HMRC Office Closures

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the proposed closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and throughout the UK; believes that this will result in a reduced service to the public; is concerned about the potential loss of tax yield; is further concerned at the loss of jobs and expertise in local communities; further believes that this will undermine efforts to reduce the tax gap which currently stands at £34 billion; also believes that this proposal will undermine the ability of SMEs to access information and advice and that the proposed closure programme is flawed and counterproductive; and calls on the Government to halt its programme of HMRC office closures.

The UK Government’s recent announcement of the planned closure of 137 local Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices across the UK is part of their continued drive to rain down a regime of austerity cuts on our family of nations.

HMRC employs 8,330 people across Scotland, which represents 13% of all UK HMRC staff. Although we do not have the full information from the Government on how many jobs will be lost, the BBC has reported—

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a democratic outrage that the Government produced a statement on this matter during a parliamentary recess, and that a Government statement was not made at the Dispatch Box of this House?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is yet more evidence of this Government’s lack of respect for Scotland and for Scottish workers.

Following the announcement, the BBC reported that more than 2,000 jobs could be lost in Scotland. As yet, we have no detail. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will list the offices that are set to close across Scotland to highlight the scale and impact of the decision: one office to close in Aberdeen by 2021; one office in Bathgate and Livingston, my own constituency, by 2020; one office in Cumbernauld by 2020; two offices in Dundee; three offices in East Kilbride; three offices to close and consolidate into one large office in Edinburgh; and two large offices to close and consolidate into one large office in Glasgow.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to say that I support the motion. The motion also refers to HMRC offices throughout the UK. Does she have statistics for the whole of the UK as well as for Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

I do not have them to hand, but I would be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman’s specific views and discuss them with him.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

rose—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I am going to make some progress.

An office is also going to shut in Inverness, and offices in Irvine and Glenrothes are also in the process of closing. Those closures are distressing news for the employees, their families and the communities affected, including in my constituency of Livingston. We must remember that behind every closed office and every job lost are individual folk, some of whom I and my colleagues have met in recent weeks following the announced closures. Many of them have proudly worked for HMRC for 10, 20 or more than 30 years. Many have spent their whole careers in their local HMRC offices and are fiercely proud of the work they do.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I am going to make some progress. Three of the Scottish centres announced for closure—those in East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and my constituency of Livingston—employ staff who issue specific guidance to the public on access to and eligibility for tax credits. With the prospect on the horizon of the Chancellor returning with his tax credit cuts, it is unthinkable that that support will be withdrawn from our communities.

The budgets of Government Departments and public bodies will suffer as a result of the austerity measures. They will be reduced by the Chancellor, who continues to cut despite the advice of many academics. Indeed, only yesterday, a report by City University said:

“George Osborne could be forced to borrow billions of pounds more than forecast by 2020 if he sticks with spending cuts that will hit economic growth”.

Two academics from City University projected that by 2020 the Government will be forced to report a £40 billion deficit instead of the planned surplus, undermining the Chancellor’s fiscal charter, which dictates that the Government borrow only in times of distress.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Despite the context set out by the hon. Lady and the very difficult economic circumstances, will she welcome the jobs that the consolidation and new office plan will create in Cardiff, the capital of Wales?

[Hannah Bardell]

New jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will, of course, be good news for his constituents, but I want to know what the Chancellor has to say to people in Scotland and other parts of the UK who are going to suffer and lose their local tax offices.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

Let me make some progress. The City University report is proof that this Chancellor’s attempt to run an absolute surplus is not working and is not credible.

SNP Members were elected on a manifesto that offered an alternative, fiscally credible plan for a modest 0.5% increase in public spending, which would have injected £140 billion into the economy. The proposed closure of HMRC offices will have a disproportionate effect on Scotland, because the vast majority of the UK Government’s ring-fenced Departments lie outside Scotland.

[David Simpson]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me some time, I would like to make some progress.

The most recent proposed closure of local HMRC offices will result in Scotland being left with no HMRC offices beyond the central belt of Scotland. The plans fail to understand or take into account the diversity and needs of the Scottish economy. There are a wide range of industries beyond the central belt of Scotland, including farming, fishing, whisky, tourism and, indeed, oil and gas. Many of those industries rely on the ability to work with their local tax offices, given the complexities of their businesses.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Callum McCaig]

I do not know why people are upset—I have not spoken yet. As a former resident of the great city of Aberdeen and a former worker in the oil industry, my hon. Friend will understand the complexity of an industry that relies heavily on contractors and the need for specialist tax advice. Will she explain to hon. Members the distance between Aberdeen and Edinburgh? They are not just down the road from each other, but those making this decision seem to think that that is the case.

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am aware of the complexities of the oil and gas industry, but I am afraid that the Government and Conservative Members do not seem to appreciate them.

The world of work is changing, and many people across the UK are choosing to start and develop their own small businesses. In particular, women are choosing to take charge of their own destiny and start their own businesses, many of them from home. A network of good tax support is essential to support those businesses, run by men and women, if they are to thrive.

I was recently visited by a constituent who has a farming business. He impressed on me the importance of access to local HMRC services and face-to-face support. Industries such as farming often operate a year in arrears to very tight margins, and I and my colleagues have grave concerns about the impact on them and a wide range of other sectors, not least small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I called my local tax offices today to see whether I could pop in to speak to them. For the past year they have been unwilling to allow anyone to see them face to face. People can contact them only by phone, so it makes no difference if they are based in the region or locally.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point very well.

[David Simpson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I have just got to my feet again, so let me continue. John Allan, the national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses said:

“Our members have repeatedly told us about difficulties getting practical help from HMRC when complying with their tax requirements. The current online offering is limited, often hampered by poor broadband connectivity, and the phone help line is hard to navigate, with long waiting times.

Over the long-term, this modernisation programme must bring substantial benefits and efficiency savings. In the short-term however, members will be concerned that the closure of these tax offices will simply compound existing problems.

The Government need to reassure businesses that disruption is kept to a minimum. This should be used by HMRC as an opportunity to deliver services that are easy to access, provide clear and consistent help tailored for smaller businesses and provide the certainty they need for their tax affairs.”

If the Chancellor will not listen to the SNP, perhaps he will listen to the Federation of Small Businesses.

These closures have been happening for some time. In March 2013, the UK Government announced that they were to close all of their 281 inquiry centres by June 2015, and it was reported that closures would result in the loss of 1,300 jobs. A consultation on plans to streamline HMRC inquiry and support services through the use of telephone consultations occurred in 2012, and HMRC piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013. In October 2014, HMRC announced plans to close 14 offices across the UK by December 2015. It was reported that that would affect 453 civil servants, and a further 690 administrative employees had been offered voluntary redundancy.

The Public Accounts Committee said in the first half of 2015, following the closures, that only 50% of calls from the public were answered by HMRC, down from 73% in the last financial year. Tam Dolan, the PCS branch chairman in Dundee, said:

“This decision is baffling. HMRC have trained staff doing an excellent job, receiving more calls than they can handle. For PCS members in Dundee, making these staff redundant while recruiting elsewhere sends a message that Dundee doesn’t feature in HMRC’s long-term plans.”

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is being typically generous with her time. In the sunny uplands of Scottish independence, what detailed analysis would her party, as a Government, have undertaken as to the quantum of HMRC staff and offices it would have in a newly independent Scotland?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little ahead of himself; I will come to that.

Ironically, during the referendum many argued that independence for Scotland would result in job losses in public services. It was lauded as the Union dividend, and we in Scotland were told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who sadly is no longer in his place:

“That dividend is our share of a more prosperous future. It is the money that will pay for better public services and a fairer society.”

In July and August 2014, the Scottish Labour party tweeted that 3,200 jobs at HMRC were

“just one of the reasons that being part of the UK is best for Scottish jobs…and 1,400 jobs at HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK.”

That was clearly not the case. I hope that those on the Labour Benches, who will also no doubt have constituencies affected by these closures, will reflect on those comments and think carefully about who can be trusted when it comes to jobs in Scotland.

The tax gap in 2013-14 was estimated to be £34 billion, which amounts to 6.4% of total theoretical tax liabilities. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for the largest portion of the overall tax gap—some £16.5 billion ––followed by large businesses with some £9.5 billion. We in the SNP take the view that the vast majority of SMEs actively want to contribute to society by paying tax and that a high proportion of the SME tax gap will have been lost through errors and miscommunications.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I shall continue. The UK Government’s plan to slash 137 local HMRC offices across the UK will inevitably have a knock-on impact on the ability of SMEs to access information and advice on tax.

I would like to give my personal thanks to Gary Stein and his PCS colleagues who met me, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and MSP Angela Constance immediately after the closure announcement. I know that other PCS colleagues held similar meetings across Scotland and the UK. Gary and his PCS colleagues are working hard to engage staff and management in offices in West Lothian and have made clear their concerns about morale and the range of issues that I have highlighted. It cannot remain unsaid how valuable our local unions are in this process, and I am sure that it is not without sinister intention that the Government have marched ahead with their undemocratic Trade Union Bill, which would mean that the important work that our unions do in such situations would be made ever more difficult. Never has it been more vital that we have good engagement with the workforces who deliver essential public services.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

I would be happy to do so.

[Lady Hermon]

I know that the hon. Lady is storing up the best until last, but in the meantime I am grateful to her for allowing me to intervene. We have a serious issue in Northern Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land frontier with another EU member state, which gives rise, very unfortunately for HM Treasury, to fuel smuggling and the loss of a huge amount of revenue along the border with the Republic of Ireland. The announcement of the closure of HMRC offices in Northern Ireland has serious consequences, so will the hon. Lady reflect on that before she calls on someone else to intervene?

[Hannah Bardell]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, which will be shared across Scotland and other parts of the UK. My local PCS representatives spoke about what they felt was a perfect storm brewing. The greater the pressure we put on our public services and the more we squeeze them, the more likely it is that there will be major breakdowns in the system.

I am going to finish up. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am sure that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) can save his intervention for speeches by other colleagues. I urge all parties across the Chamber to support our motion and ask this Tory Government in the strongest terms to think again on these nonsensical and ill-conceived HMRC closures.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[William Wragg]

I agree entirely that the practice was not restricted to RBS. The case of my constituent involved RBS, but the hon. Lady’s constituent no doubt had a similar experience with other banks.

Tomlinson said that the practices at RBS’s turnaround division were typical. Once placed in this division of the bank, businesses were trapped, with no ability to move and no opportunity to trade out of their position. Good, honest and otherwise successful businesses were forced to stand by and watch as they were sunk by the decisions of the bank. The bank could then extract maximum revenue from the businesses, beyond that which could be considered reasonable, and to such an extent that it was the key contributing factor in the businesses’ financial deterioration.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am struck by the comments made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) about Lloyds TSB. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must learn from the bitter experience of the merger of the Halifax Bank of Scotland with Lloyds—a significant loss to the taxpayer, despite a spirited challenge in the Scottish courts? Does he further agree that it is not good enough to pour taxpayers’ money down the drain by short-selling our banks in a short-sighted manner, at a time when the austerity cuts are hitting the poorest and innocent taxpayers the hardest?

[William Wragg]

If I may strip away the rhetoric from the hon. Lady’s intervention, of course I would disagree with pouring away taxpayers’ money in such a fashion.

Tomlinson’s evidence showed that the process was not open or transparent, nor was it a proportionate response from the bank. During the process, businesses were completely in the dark as to what was happening around them until it was far too late. Most worryingly, the businesses affected were often perfectly viable, and, but for the action of the bank, would have made a positive contribution to the UK economy. If the businesses concerned had had more options for moving their banking facilities, and there was more transparency before entering this process, they would have been better protected from the bank’s opportunistic behaviour through which it manipulated the businesses’ financial positions for its own gain.

The reported practices of RBS’s global restructuring group, if accurate, were, on a generous interpretation, dubious and questionable, but it may be fair and truer to say that they were unethical and scandalous. If the findings of the report that I have just summarised sound shocking or alarming to colleagues, they should do. However, consider how much more shocking and alarming it was for the victimised businesses and business owners involved—for the honest and hard-working businessmen and women and their employees, who saw their hard work and investment, often spanning years, eroded from under them; for those who lost their businesses, their jobs, their reputations, and in some cases their homes.

This, unfortunately, was the case for a business in my constituency. Pickup and Bradbury Ltd was owned by a constituent of mine, Mr Eric Topping. It was a medium- sized, family-owned construction firm operating out of Romiley. It engaged in mainly commercial construction contracts, with clients including large retailers, shopping centres, schools, HM Prison Service, several NHS sites, and a host of other local businesses. It was a well recognised and respected name in the construction industry across Greater Manchester. However, in 1998 Mr Topping and Pickup and Bradbury Ltd fell victim to exactly the kind of practices I have outlined. I shall not detain the House with the full details of the case, particularly as Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are aware of the full details, which I have passed on to them.

It may be of benefit to the House, though, if I briefly outline the example. Pickup and Bradbury was forcibly moved by RBS into the global restructuring group after the bank claimed that the business owed it a significant debt in excess of £700,000. My constituent acknowledges that the business had some debt, but it was perfectly capable of managing and servicing it. However, the crux of the case was that although the business balance sheet at the time showed assets of over £1 million, after the restructuring group process RBS placed a valuation on the business at negative £1.1 million—a discrepancy of over £2 million. The upshot was that this led to the forced liquidation of Pickup and Bradbury, costing the jobs of all its employees and forcing Mr Topping to sell his home. He contends to this day that the business was viable, and would still be trading if it were not for the actions of RBS, or if he had been given time to switch to another bank.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to his position as I move across to the business brief. From his speech earlier, I am sure the social justice team has a very talented member.

I shall speak to amendments in this group tabled by my colleagues, particularly amendments 53, 54 and 55, which clearly state the SNP’s opposition to the Government’s two-child policy. The SNP wholeheartedly condemns the Tory Government’s intention to restrict tax credits to two children, which by definition excludes many of the poorest children in society from our social security system, going against the very principles for which it was set up. The Government’s proposals also stray into an area of policy making that I never thought I would see suggested by any Government who had a shred of compassion for their people. Hidden away in the Red Book were the words:

“The Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as the result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances.”

No detail was provided. How much disrespect can this country take?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appalling not only that that appeared in the Budget statement, but that during the consideration of the Bill there has been no explanation of how that will work in practice?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more. The two- child policy will hit more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. The Government’s own national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. Currently a third of children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps that is why the Tory Government seek to airbrush child poverty from the statute books.

It is easy for this Tory Government to espouse theories and claim that reducing financial support to just two children will make poorer families rethink their “financial choices”. That is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to financially plan for children. I am sure we are aware that that is not the case. What if a second pregnancy turns out to be twins or even triplets? What about the many families who are supported or led by kinship carers? Perhaps the Tories need a biology lesson, or a simple lesson in humanity.

Such eventualities cannot be planned for, so are we telling families across these nations to stop having children, just in case? I have raised many times in Committee, and many of my colleagues have raised on the Floor of the House, the sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the insensitive Government plan to make women justify their children in front of DWP caseworkers. Many domestic abuse charities have expressed grave concerns, and Rape Crisis Scotland has warned that the plan is “inherently unworkable”. It has asked how DWP workers will prove whether someone has or has not been raped, and said that many women would find explaining that situation extremely uncomfortable. Many women do not report to the police that they have been raped, or go years without reporting it or speaking about it, so they cannot be expected to explain it to a DWP worker.

What training will a DWP worker have to deal with rape victims? It is clear that this is an unrealistic, ill thought out and unhelpful proposal. In evidence before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, stakeholders described it as “unpalatable”, and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wrote in The Guardian recently:

“A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money”.

I could not agree more. It just goes to show that at the height of the Tories’ insensitivity, they will quite literally leave no vulnerable group untouched in their scramble to, as they put it, balance the books. The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to potentially serious emotional damage for children should they become aware that they are a child resulting from a rape. The SNP amendments would see the policy abolished, and we urge the Government to remove the two-child policy from tax credit and universal credit to ensure that no victim or child goes through the torment associated with having to justify a third child due to such an horrific crime being inflicted—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is about to conclude.

[Hannah Bardell]

If we as parliamentarians are in this place to legislate for those we represent, let us legislate well and with compassion and good conscience. The proposals do not make good legislation. They are wrong for our society and wrong for this generation, so I ask Members to think again and vote with us.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I spoke the other day about how tax credit reform is part of moving to the higher wage, higher productivity, higher opportunity economy that the Government are building. I have been talking to the Chancellor behind the scenes about welfare reform for many months, and he is listening. Welfare reform is, however, an essential part of the broad package of reform that is helping to return our nation and its people to a sound financial future. The Opposition offer no alternative.

In my professional life before becoming a Member of this House, I was involved in the pensions and savings industry. I know how important saving is in building people’s future and their economic resilience. I believe that reforming national insurance contributions and entitlements is a good way to further incentivise work, deal with the hurdles to advancing at work caused by high marginal tax and benefit withdrawal, and provide scope in the budget for transitional arrangements. That could address the impact of tax credit reform on those with the lowest regular income.

Insurance businesses work by taking premiums from people and investing them over long periods, usually in dividend-paying and other shares that grow substantially in value over time to generate returns that are then available to those who need to claim on the scheme. Unfortunately, our national insurance contributions are not invested in the same way but are spent year in, year out on the claims of those using the NHS or the state pension, or are lent out to other Departments for their spending. We should add major savings reform to what we are doing, by reforming national insurance to create a genuine low-cost defined-contribution investment scheme that people can use to supplement their entitlements under the state pension system and that can be made available, under certain circumstances, ahead of retirement age. Credits could be offered to the lowest paid even if they did not meet the threshold for payment of traditional national insurance, to kick off their contributions and get them used to saving. They could also be used to supplement some payments by employers or to provide transitional funds, which could be substantial.

The investment scheme could also be available to others who wanted to make a contribution. I believe that it should be accompanied by tapering the threshold for the payment of traditional national insurance contributions, and the rate, to make the marginal incentives to work more efficient while letting people keep more of their earnings. That could be paid for by tapers on the higher limit and rate of national insurance obligations and entitlements for those on the highest incomes, particularly the entitlement eligibility of very high income retirees. I note that the principle is already established that state pension entitlement cannot pass in its entirety from spouse to spouse, and that entitlement to state pension is not an asset. I believe that that measure could make available several billion pounds.

Tax credit reform is not an option, but is essential in moving to a higher wage economy that will better provide for the future of all of us. Reform of national insurance is a neat solution that is not inconsistent with our manifesto. Nor is reform of the working tax credit system, as part of our overall package of reform.

Finance Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and raises the spectre of a case to bring before the courts—perhaps even the European Court of Justice—on the basis of discrimination. Perhaps that would be one way of resolving this particular problem.

I am shamelessly using this example as an opportunity to make a far broader and more important constitutional point.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has admitted to his own shame, because it seems somewhat shameful to fudge the issue. We may not have all the powers to change the situation, but this House has an opportunity to send a clear message to Europe on something that is very wrong and about which so many people feel strongly. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is using that as an excuse to not support us on an issue for which there is clear cross-party support.

[Mr Jenkin]

I point out to the hon. Lady that my name is on new clause 7. I support it, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say before deciding whether to vote against my own Administration. I am sure she will understand that. There have not been many rebellions among the SNP yet. The point about being a political party in this House is that we are all individuals and we are all allowed to do what we choose. In fact, that is our responsibility.