Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

12. Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening human rights.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

13. Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening human rights.

Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

We have heard in this debate heartbreaking stories of constituents who are facing real and enduring hardship; of the choices that people are already making in the face of the poverty that they endure; and of the impact of the cost of living crisis on those we represent. The crisis is the direct result of political choices made by the UK Tory Government and their predecessors over the past decade. Many of our constituents face grinding poverty, whether in or out of work. The Covid Realities report that came out today states:

“Our social security system is currently ill-suited to protect people from poverty”.

That should be the system’s very function.

The Tories have cut the £20-a-week uplift to universal credit and to working tax credits, which made such a difference to low-income families during the pandemic, and shamefully they completely forgot about the 2.5 million people on legacy benefits, including many people with disabilities, who depend on their heating so much more. To make matters worse, we have the upcoming Tory tax on jobs—the national insurance hike, which is coming in April. Laden on top of that, we have Brexit chaos, spiralling fuel prices and inflation seemingly running out of control at a 30-year high.

This is a perfect storm for the poorest in society. Already buffeted by the ill wind of austerity, a growing number of people have no savings, and debt which is becoming increasingly unmanageable. Last week’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on poverty in 2022 highlights the two-child limit, which I have fought since 2015 but which remains on the Government’s statute book, driving up child poverty with every passing day; the benefit cap—in Scotland, 67.8% of capped households are single-parent households; the five-week wait for the first universal credit payment; unaffordable debt deductions from benefits; and the freezing of local housing allowance rates since April 2020. All those things have increased the levels of poverty in the UK.

People are increasingly trapped in situations that are not their fault, unable to take on more hours, and unable to change their circumstances. Many of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) mentioned, are WASPI women, whose pension plans were cut short by the Government. I want to pay particular tribute to June Miller, part of the WASPI Glasgow and Lanarkshire group, who was buried today. She was 64 and never saw her pension—shame on this Government.

The impact on those facing the hostile environment is even sharper. Asylum seekers and people with no recourse to public funds are regularly left destitute, dependent on charitable support and help from local churches, gurdwaras and mosques to survive. If we know this, if people out there know this, then Tory ministers must know all this, and it makes it all the more utterly despicable that they have chosen not to act.

Ministers, of course, will talk up the changes to the taper rate, which are welcome, but they only help those lucky enough to be in work. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that real wages will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008. What kind of future is that for people in work? Ministers will laud their pretendy living wage, which is not even set at the real living wage rate, and has age discrimination baked in. They will praise food banks, calling them “rather uplifting”, instead of their proliferation being a mark of shame. My former caseworker, Ellenor Hutson, has reflected that food banks were a rarity when she began advice work in 2005. Yet in 2020-21, the Trussell Trust distributed over 2.5 million food parcels across the UK, which is up 128% in the past five years.

[Hannah Bardell]

On food banks, does my hon. Friend agree it is disgusting that there are now more food banks in the UK than McDonald’s restaurants, that almost 25% of folk in the UK are in poverty and that the Office for National Statistics calculated that the richest 10% of households hold 44% of the wealth while the poorest 50% own 9%—all under this Government’s watch?

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. While we know that those who work in food banks and support them do incredible work, they should not have to.

Away from the realm of boozy lockdown parties at No. 10 and birthday dumps for the Prime Minister while the rest of us were locked down, in the real world, people are experiencing a shocking rise in the price of the most basic necessities, as highlighted so powerfully by Jack Monroe. Average prices do not take into account the distribution of those prices across product lines. Increasing prices and the reduction in what is on offer is far more concentrated at the lower end, the cheaper end, of the food market, disproportionately impacting on those low-income families who depend on them. The reality of inflation is that it is much more than points on a chart to families who are already struggling. For many, it will be the difference between putting food on the table or not.

Energy prices mean that families cannot afford to heat or even light their homes, making them more vulnerable to health issues, particularly those who already experience health conditions and disabilities. Macmillan points out that about one in six people with cancer see their household fuel bills rise because of their diagnosis, with the average cost for those affected reaching £100 a month. The UK Government must act now on energy prices. Instead of a rising price cap, the UK Government must introduce an emergency financial package to support the most vulnerable and help families to cope with this growing Tory cost of living crisis.

The New Economics Foundation found that lone parents, pensioners and families caring for disabled relatives will be hit the hardest by increasing bills, and that the poorest will lose the largest proportion of their incomes to fuel bills. National Energy Action estimates that 6 million—6 million—UK households will be living in fuel poverty by April, a 50% increase from 2021. Resolution Foundation research shows that on average families will be £1,200 worse off in April and that fuel stress will dramatically increase from April due the higher energy price cap. New Joseph Rowntree Foundation analysis also warns that the energy price cap will have a harsher impact on the poorest families, who will spend on average 18% of their income after housing costs on energy bills after April. Minister, people cannot cope with those increases. The Government must act.

The reality is that poverty kills people: quickly and slowly, painfully and miserably. It stunts life chances and its effects endure. It is clearer every day that this UK Government, this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this Minister in front of us today have the powers to tackle this, but not the will. They have the resources and the wealth, should they choose to use them. We can only conclude by their inaction that they have no interest in ending poverty—none whatsoever. Lord Agnew showed some courage—more courage than anybody on the Government Benches here—by resigning over the fraudulent misuse of bounce back loans: further billions to the amount they have allowed fraudsters to walk out the door with, including £4.3 billion from the covid support schemes alone, while so many were completely excluded from UK Government support. That incompetence is not new. According to Best for Britain, a total of £19.3 billion has been wasted by the Prime Minister since he came to power—all that while the Tories play their political games, shifting the blame for tax rises, filling suitcases full of booze, and ducking questions about lies and parties.

People are freezing and people are starving, not in some Dickensian dystopia but right now, on these islands. Tackling the Tory cost of living crisis is a matter of urgency and lives depend on it. The UK already has the worst levels of poverty of any polity in north-west Europe and the highest levels of in-work poverty this century. Only independence will allow us to recalibrate our economy to support and invest in those who have the least, rather than to reward those who already have the most. I urge all Members with sense and compassion to support our motion today.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The tax system in the UK is hugely complex. Every Finance Bill that comes along adds layers of complexity, leaving a taxation system that is unwieldy and difficult to understand, and even more difficult for the Government and HMRC to control. It leaves loopholes that incentivise tax avoidance and evasion. My SNP colleagues and I have long argued for a root-and-branch review of the entire system, and I am grateful for the opportunity to repeat those calls today.

The Scottish National party will continue to lead the fight against tax avoidance and evasion at Westminster. In the last Parliament, we were proud to secure the House’s support for a Finance Bill amendment seeking a review of the impact of UK tax avoidance measures. We forced the UK Government to accept the need to tackle the abuse of Scottish limited partnerships as money-laundering vehicles, and supported cross-party efforts by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and her colleagues to drag the UK Government into the 21st century by adopting Magnitsky powers to sanction overseas officials guilty of human rights violations.

The SNP has just won a landslide of Scottish seats on a manifesto demanding tougher action on tax avoidance, including a review of the closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and across the UK; immediate action, including reform of Companies House, to uncover the beneficial ownership of SLPs and other companies and trusts; measures to improve the transparency of tax paid by international companies to ensure that they make a proportionate contribution to tax revenues; multilateral efforts to address tax challenges resulting from the digitisation of the economy; further action by the UK Government to tackle international tax avoidance; the full implementation of the fifth money laundering directive; a fit-for-purpose online retailer tax; a review of the tax rules governing intermediaries—known as the IR35 tax rules—and problems with implementation of the loan charge; and a comprehensive inquiry into the digitisation of tax, to uncover the reasons for HMRC and UK Government delays which mean that we still do not have the 21st-century tax payments system that could help to tackle avoidance and evasion.

We have heard a great many well-meaning arguments from the official Opposition this afternoon, but, unfortunately, this is a situation to which Labour contributed when it was in power. Instead of simplifying the tax system, it introduced policies such as the IR35 tax rules, which have made staffing extremely difficult for the NHS and other public sector organisations.

While some very welcome action has been taken, no UK Government have yet created a comprehensive anti-avoidance rule. Legislation has come to shut down loopholes as quickly they have appeared, and then, as night follows day, new schemes have emerged to circumvent the law. We saw then, as we do now, plenty of tinkering at the edges of the system but no meaningful action to align taxes for different kinds of workers. Successive Chancellors have passed up opportunities for radical reform, and have simply added layers of bureaucracy and complexities to the existing system. There are now ample places in which those who do not want to contribute can hide within the system.

Last year, Tax Justice UK published a report on the worrying scale of loopholes in, for example, inheritance tax. On the basis of HMRC figures, it states that the vast majority of those tax breaks go to properties worth more than over £1 million; and that is over and above the usual inheritance tax allowance. Instead of benefiting small farms or family businesses, the tax breaks constitute a massive tax giveaway to those who are already very wealthy. The report’s findings only highlight what we know to be true: that this UK Tory Government have ensured that the rich get richer, while at the same time the poorest people in society have experienced real cuts in their incomes, and are less likely to benefit from policies such as the increase in the income tax threshold.

I appreciate that the new Chancellor has not yet had time to outline his plans, and I hope that he will take a different approach. However, the accounts of his professional background by the shadow Chancellor and in this week’s Private Eye lead me to hae ma doots. Extremely worrying noises have been coming from the Government in respect of the post-Brexit regulatory landscape. Already this year we have seen the UK inch closer to the world’s top 10 countries for financial secrecy, rolling back progress made in previous years on increasing transparency. We have all heard talk of a ”Singapore-on-Thames” approach to the City of London. That would be bad news globally, but also for the people who live here.

With a Tory Government full of Thatcherites, who have no interest in creating a level playing field on tax with the EU, there is a real risk that the Prime Minister has set the UK on a race to the bottom on tax avoidance. Just weeks after the UK left the EU, the European Union has added a British overseas territory, the Cayman Islands, to a list of tax havens. Markus Ferber, of the group of the European People’s party (Christian Democrats), has said:

“The UK would be well advised to take note that EU finance ministers put a British overseas territory on the blacklist of tax havens.

This sends a clear signal that the idea of turning the UK into a tax haven will not be acceptable to the EU.”

The Minister who will wind up the debate should explain exactly what he is doing to address that blacklisting as a matter of urgency.

There are already significant holes in the system preventing dirty money from being moved around. My former colleague Roger Mullin and I have spoken on numerous occasions in this place about the problems surrounding Scottish limited partnerships, which still freely allow people to hide and move dirty money between countries.

[Hannah Bardell]

Scottish limited partnerships have a real human impact. Is my hon. Friend aware that money is being laundered from, for instance, Moldova through SLPs? That is having a hugely detrimental impact. One human rights defender whom I know from Moldova has been driven out of her own country, and is having to live elsewhere.

We must bear in mind that human impact, but we must also bear in mind the reputational impact on Scotland. Scotland wants no part of schemes of this kind, and the UK Government should clean up their act.

[Alison Thewliss]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who thinks that moving money around in this way is consequence-free should look very carefully at what actually happens to the proceeds of these funds when they are moved around.

SLPs have their own separate legal personality, which means that a firm can contract and own assets without lifting the veil to see who is really buying them. In 2016 the UK Government obliged SLPs to register a person of significant control, but there is virtually no enforcement and virtually no consequences for people who fail to register companies in the proper way. Last time I checked, thousands of partnerships had failed to register a person of significant control. I should be interested to learn from the Government how many fines have been recovered, and the value of those fines.

This scandal is still having an impact, despite legislation being in place. The dogged investigative journalist David Leask revealed in January that SLPs had been implicated in the payment of mercenaries in a private air war in Libya. If the United Nations is taking an interest in the abuse of SLPs, this UK Government should be taking action urgently. A quick Google search reveals umpteen companies advertising their services in setting up SLPs from abroad and extolling the virtues of this tax-free, opaque way of conducting nefarious business. There is no comeback for firms protecting those who will not register a person of significant control, and no comeback for the perpetrators either. It is well known that SLPs are being used for criminal activity and have been linked to international scandals, not least the Azerbaijani laundromat, in which £2.9 billion was laundered through four UK companies, which were able to file paperwork disguising their true ownership without any flags being raised.

At the heart of this is the gaping chasm in our regulatory system that is Companies House. Companies House is obliged only to register companies, not to carry out any verification or due diligence. This must change urgently, because it undermines the credibility of the UK. It is farcical that the only person convicted for filing false information has been a whistleblower, Kevin Brewer, who did it to highlight the nonsense of the registration process. I ask the Minister: what has changed since that prosecution? Why will the Government not reform a system that is open to such flagrant abuses? If I want to do my tax return online or get a passport, I would require to use the UK Government’s Verify scheme. If I want to set up a company, I can do so online for £12 with absolutely no checks. Why do the UK Government insist that people pay so much for driving licences, passports or UKVI applications but so little to set up a company, especially when those companies can go on to facilitate tax avoidance and evasion? It is high time the Tories sat up and took stock of the scale and extent of the tax avoidance and criminal activity linked to the lack of proper checks by Companies House and the abuse of SLPs. Only by doing so can they put forward a practical and effective solution that will adequately tackle the problem.

HMRC highlighted a loss in 2016-17 of between £1 billion and £1.5 billion on digital sales through VAT fraud. I note that the Association of Accounting Technicians has called for online platforms to be made liable for the collection and remittance of VAT. That money is going uncollected. We know where the goods are going—they are going into people’s houses and through retailers—so there is a digital chain there that we can follow. The UK Government should deal with this VAT avoidance.

I also ask for an update on the registration of overseas entities Bill, on whose pre-legislative joint scrutiny Committee I sat. Property is yet another way in which money can be hidden and taxes avoided, and that Bill will be a vital tool to clamp down on the flow of dirty money. The Committee also noted the abuse of trusts—as we close one loophole, another opens—and the Government must look into that as well. Trusts are being used as a means of hiding the true ownership of property and companies.

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend mentions the Bill on whose Committee we both sat. She led, admirably, for the SNP on that Committee. Does she recall that it was not until the attack on UK soil, in Salisbury, that the Government really sat up and took notice of the genuine issues that were raised in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill? It should not take an attack on UK soil for the Government to act on these issues.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change of tone during passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill was palpable. It really does say something that the Government only really took the issue of dirty money seriously when it arrived on their own doorstep. We cannot wait for that to happen again; we must take action now.

Another area where the UK Government are taking entirely counterintuitive action is in closing local HMRC offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) had an Adjournment debate in January on the closure of the Cumbernauld office, and I know that other colleagues share those concerns about the imminent closure of offices in Aberdeen, Bathgate, Livingston and other locations. While I have something of an interest, as the local Member for the proposed Glasgow regional centre, I cannot see the logic in cutting staff numbers and losing not only jobs in communities but the important local knowledge that can be brought to bear. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) mentioned that a House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report last year criticised the Government’s lack of robust business planning ahead of the decision to base local HMRC offices in “expensive” cities. It is a colossal waste of public money to move offices into city centre locations where the rents will be significantly higher and the benefits will not be seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

On the matter of the movement of offices, another important issue is accessibility. A number of members of the union who have spent time in that new, expensive office in Edinburgh have said that the accessibility for people with disabilities is very poor. I wrote to the Government about this before the election last year but I got a very poor response. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new, expensive offices should at the very least be accessible, and that they should not have been moved in the first place?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. There is a strong argument that the value of the local offices in communities such as Livingston and Cumbernauld is significant. It is much easier for people to get to work there rather than commuting, which of course adds to the environmental damage. It is much better to have a shorter commute to work. The PCS union has also criticised the move and called into question HMRC’s rationale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who may have more to say on these things later.

All of this comes at a time when the head of HMRC says that the authority may need to hire an extra 5,000 staff to deal with the logjam at the border because of Brexit. This is a time of growing complexity, and investment in staff and expertise is crucial. Without that expertise, the UK Government are leaving themselves open to a further loss of tax revenue and further potential evasion and avoidance as we head into Brexit.

It is only right that people should pay the taxes that they owe, but HMRC’s botched implementation of the loan charge is nothing short of a disgrace, leaving many people facing the prospect of bankruptcy. The UK Government must, of course, pursue vigorously the organisations that have facilitated those loans, and they must work constructively with those who are seeking a responsible and reasonable repayment plan—one that recoups the unpaid tax while avoiding the unacceptable risk of bankruptcy and homelessness. If HMRC cannot deliver that, an independent arbitration mechanism should be used.

This is not some kind of academic argument. This issue has implications for the real world, for the money available to our public services and for the growing gap between rich and poor. The shadow Chancellor set out the limitations of HMRC’s estimate of the tax gap at some £35 billion. There is a real implication here for all our constituencies when we see cuts coming down the line. Paying tax is a duty. It is the price of a fair society, not a burden to be avoided. Those who seek to avoid and evade their responsibilities, and those who facilitate their behaviour, need a strong message from the UK Government. The Government must explain why they are failing to stop the siphoning away of money that could be paying to educate children and care for the elderly. The SNP is committed to clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, but we do not yet have the full economic levers to do so as they are still held by the Treasury and HMRC. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has pointed out on many occasions that small countries are much better and more efficient at gathering tax, so I suggest that if the UK Government will not act, they should devolve the powers to Scotland and let us get on with the job of building a fairer society.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

That is indeed astonishing, and if it is a problem, the Government ought to be looking at it. People living in Scotland should pay the appropriate amount of tax, because that is the price we pay for living in a civilised society. That is what the Minister said in his speech earlier. We also have to look at what we get for our taxes in Scotland. We get a better, fairer society, which is good for us all. All the academics in this field recognise that a fair society is better for us all.

Last year, this Government opposed my amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill that would have increased the transparency of Scottish limited partnerships by ensuring that those partnerships had bank accounts. We are still waiting for a response from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the consultation that closed on 23 July this year.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I served on that Bill Committee with my hon. Friend, and the work that she did was excellent. Does she share my concern about the damage being done to Scotland’s reputation by Scottish limited partnerships? The partnerships are nothing to do with the Scottish Government, they have not been legislated for in Scotland and we have no power over them there, but they are doing serious damage to Scotland’s reputation internationally, and the UK Government need to act.

[Alison Thewliss]

This Government absolutely do need to act on this issue. It cannot be right that something we have no control over becomes a noose around our neck when it comes to our reputation internationally. I expect this Government to come forward with something on this soon, because their not doing so allows this to continue to happen. The Herald, whose journalist David Leask has been a constant campaigner on this issue, has reported that

“in the year to March 2016, 95% of SLPs were set up by offshore tax havens.”

That ought to ring alarm bells for this Government, given the likely sums of money involved in these tax havens. I have tabled more parliamentary questions on this today, but the last time I checked, no fines had been issued to those SLPs that have not yet registered a person of significant control. Even pursuing those fines against SLPs could have brought large sums of money into the strapped Treasury coffers, never mind dealing with the underlying lack of transparency surrounding SLPs.

It is no secret that SLPs are being abused to carry out crimes abroad and launder money and that the anonymity they provide enables all this, but this Government are simply not doing enough to stop it. There was some progress after the Salisbury attack, and there was talk of clamping down specifically on Russian dirty money, but we have not yet seen that happen. We need to know what the Government’s plans are, because we cannot allow this to continue. I commend to the Minister the investigation on Uzbekistan by David Leask and Richard Smith, because the sums of money and levels of corruption involved are absolutely hair-raising.

The SNP has put forward many sensible proposals to crack down on tax evasion and avoidance, but they have been rejected by this Government time after time. No action has been taken on enforcing the people of significant control rules governing SLPs. No action has been taken on the alternative investment market loophole that allows families to register homes as business properties, effectively overriding inheritance tax. No action has been taken to make online retailers liable for tax avoidance when they falsely classify their goods as gifts. And no action has been taken to create a legal framework to combat tech firms who avoid corporation tax by registering implausibly low profits in the UK.

[Hannah Bardell]

On top of all that inaction, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the centralisation of HMRC offices? Highly skilled staff will lose their jobs because of this Government’s centralising agenda. In my constituency, more than 1,000 jobs are being moved from West Lothian to Edinburgh, which will create huge issues.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree that that loss of expertise is a huge issue. I have a constituency interest, because many of these centralised offices end up being in Glasgow Central, but this also comes at a significant cost to the taxpayer. It is no secret that city centre office space in Glasgow is expensive, and there would be greater benefits in keeping those services in areas such as the Clyde Gateway, which is also in my constituency but much cheaper, or in Livingston. That would provide better value for money for the taxpayer than having them all in city centre offices.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I hope to at least press new clause 19 to a vote, because there needs to be some action on SLPs, and tying it to a bank account is a good way of doing that.

The SNP is extremely proud of Scotland’s reputation as a successful place to conduct business, but with SLPs continuing to generate new scandals, there is an ever-growing reputational risk to Scotland, and indeed the UK, if action is not taken. I would like to take this opportunity to dig the Government up for their shenanigans on SLPs.

Owing to the diligent campaigning by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Roger Mullin, the UK Government launched a consultation on SLPs on 16 January last year and closed it on 17 March last year. We then had an election, in which my dear friend did not get re-elected. We waited. Questions were tabled, and we were told again and again by Government that a response on the consultation was imminent. There was nothing. A month ago, we were told that it would be a matter of weeks, but probably not until after the Bill came back. Last week, we were told by officials that the report on SLPs was awaiting sign-off in Government, and on Sunday there was an announcement in the press that action was going to be taken, with a “Crackdown on abuse of UK businesses for foreign money laundering”. When we get to the detail, what in fact is it? It is another consultation—it is a consultation about a consultation.

That simply will not do. The UK Government are well aware of the problems with SLPs, which are well documented. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the evidence that led to the bringing into scope of the person of significant control. We know that that was required, and there was evidence on it. We are waiting for fines to be levied on people who have not registered their persons of significant control.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental point in all this is that closing a consultation and then having a debate on Report shows a Government in complete chaos? How can they commit public money to a consultation process that has no influence on the legislation before us?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The Government have been told all the way through this process that this is the opportunity to act on the evidence that has been gathered and is out there in the newspapers—it is in The Herald on a weekly basis, for goodness’ sake—about abuses of SLPs. The Government could have done something about this. They could easily support the amendments we are proposing to the Bill. The press release that came out said that there was

“growing evidence SLPs have been exploited in complex money laundering schemes, including one which involved using over 100 SLPs to move up to $80 billion out of Russia. They have also been linked to international criminal networks in Eastern Europe and around the world, and have allegedly been used in arms deals.”

So why will the Government not act?

Proposals are far too vague. We are promised that the Government will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Secretary of State said that the consultation will close on 23 July, so we are looking at after the summer recess before anything comes back to the House. This is the stuff of never-never land. Minsters could accept our new clauses and amendments today and start to legislate now. If they are really serious about this, they should stop fannying around, support the new clauses and amendments and stop the flow of dirty money through SLPs once and for all.

The Government’s move not to oppose new clause 6 is astonishing, but I am very glad they have made it. There has been some speculation by Conservative Members about the Scottish National party’s position on this issue, and I will deal with that, but I first want to pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for their Herculean efforts in bringing this before the House today. For a long time, we did not know when or if the Bill was coming back, but they have steadfastly worked hard to garner cross-party support, and I absolutely pay tribute to them for doing so.

Earlier in the Bill’s progress, I made clear the reservations I had at first, and it should not be the case that the UK Government impose things on other territories. Again, I reiterate that I would not like this if it were about Scotland, but I should say to all Members who doubt the sincerity of the SNP’s position—[Interruption] I hear some of them chuckling—that we cannot envisage a situation in which a Scottish Government would deliberately act to damage the financial interests of the UK economy by allowing tax evasion and avoidance to take place on an industrial scale within our jurisdiction and to shield the flow of dodgy money. That is what we are talking about today, and that is the fundamental difference. In Scotland, the fundamental issue of landownership is also hidden behind the shield of overseas entities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I will rattle through them and say why they have been tabled. The primary concern is about Companies House. Very much as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has just said, we have laid out our serious concerns at all stages of the Bill. It is disappointing to get to this stage and find that the Government are still not listening to those concerns.

Companies House does not have the adequate resources or powers sufficiently to monitor and ensure the integrity of the company incorporation data submitted to it.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems to be harder to open a gym membership than to register a company with Companies House?

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Registering with Companies House seems to be the easiest thing possible. It is baffling that anything else, such as a tax return, a passport application or a driving licence application, needs to go through the gov.uk verify scheme, but Companies House does not have that requirement. Just tightening up those rules would help hugely both to ensure the accuracy of the information and to clamp down on those who wish to abuse the system. It is in all our interests to make sure the system is accurate, but it is not accurate.

Worse, there are only about 20 people at Companies House policing some 4 million firms’ compliance with company law. There are no proactive checks on the accuracy of the information submitted, which, as the hon. Member for Oxford East has just said, allows a significant amount of false and misleading data to be submitted to the companies register.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there has been no proper commitment yet to continuing with Erasmus+, which gives so many children in my constituency opportunities to go and make friends, to travel out into the world and to broaden their horizons?

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree. A delegation from across the EU—from Spain, France and many other countries—came to my constituency to meet and work with our children. It was so incredible to see the friendships that were struck up and the experiences that were shared. The thought that my three-year-old niece, or any children that I have, will not get to experience that is heart-breaking. We should all reflect on that. What are the young people of the nations of the UK going to miss out on because of the poor decision making and the poor decisions that are being pushed by this UK Government?

The Executive powers provided in clause 8 put current UK international obligations under serious threat. As we know, the UK Government cannot be trusted to uphold international obligations. We have seen time and again instances of them turning a blind eye to our obligations. In Yemen, for example, more than 300 incidents that could violate international law have been tracked by the Ministry of Defence since the conflict began two years ago, yet the UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.

One of my hon. Friends talked about the Trade Union Act 2016 and how workers’ rights have been rolled back. When all this power comes back, supposedly, to the UK, what faith can we have that our rights and obligations will be upheld by this Government?

We have spoken about Erasmus, regulations and what our young people are going to do. I strongly believe that the whole rhetoric in this process has been damaging. Some of the phrases that have emerged, the slogans that have been put on the side of buses and the way that political discourse has developed during this period echo, sadly, the Trump Administration. That scares me and, I am sure, many others deeply. We hear that Brexit means Brexit, that it will be a red, white and blue Brexit, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, that there are economic impact studies, there are no economic impact studies—yes there are, oh no there are not—and that the post-Brexit trade deal will be the easiest in human history. We have had a political hokey-cokey on the grandest scale and who are going to be the ones who lose out the most? It is going to be the young people of our nations who have to deal with the impact of Brexit and clean up the mess that many in this Government seem hell-bent on creating. For their sake—for your children’s sake—and for the future of all our nations in the UK, let us stop this madness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

9. Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

11. Whether the additional funding provided to Northern Ireland announced in the Government's agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party will have consequences on funding for Scotland.

BHS

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

As ever, my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely spot on. A knighthood for thousands of pensions does not seem unreasonable. The 32 BHS stores that closed across Scotland included branches in Livingston, Hamilton, Kirkcaldy and Leith, and the closure resulted in more than 700 employees losing their jobs and livelihoods, and a place of work to which many, like my constituent Tracey, gave a huge chunk of their working lives.

When employees lose their jobs and pensions, their families are hit by that loss. Sir Philip understood the importance of providing financially for his family—he understood it very well. In fact, the entire Green family hugely benefited from BHS. Reports say that the Green family made around £2.7 billion in total out of BHS and Taveta. Mr Green paid substantial dividends offshore that financially benefited his wife. BHS employees want to be able to provide for their families, but Mr Green is clearly blind to the parallel. Sir Philip has done pretty well out of BHS and other investments. He has a helicopter, a jet and three yachts. I have nothing against someone spending their hard-earned money as they please, but that should not come at the cost of our constituents’ pension pots. If Sir Philip’s responsibilities do not include ensuring that his employees receive what they have earned, they will certainly not be enjoying the same luxuries as he; they will not even have a pension to retire on.

Beyond responsibility and respect, Philip Green’s actions and those of Dominic Chappell and the BHS directors simply fly in the face of good business practice. BHS’s collapse, coming amid trade negotiations for Brexit, reflects the dire need to encourage fair and inclusive business practices across the UK. This debate is about not only placing blame on Sir Philip Green, but doing what is right for BHS employees, who have been cheated out of their jobs and pensions, and other future employees. It is about ensuring that there are fair business models and regulations so that such a collapse can never occur again.

The Work and Pensions Committee’s announcement that it will examine the adequacy of the Pensions Regulator’s power in a further inquiry is a constructive start to the mission. My SNP colleagues and I have called repeatedly for the establishment of an independent pensions commission so that we can create an architecture under which the Philip Greens of this world can no longer run away with people’s hard-earned money. Now that EU workers’ rights will no longer be guaranteed and transferred to UK workers, it is more important than ever that we are proactive and ensure that our constituents are treated fairly by their employers. As the UK Government embark upon Brexit negotiations, there may be no running commentary, but we can be sure that there are running and ongoing concerns. Employees will remain uncertain about their rights, and the Government have a duty of care to all workers, including those put out of a BHS job and pension.

The Prime Minister claims that she will ensure that workers’ rights continue to be guaranteed in law as long as she is Prime Minister. I say to her and her Government that we require rights to be guaranteed far beyond her term or any of this Government.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. Would workers’ rights be enhanced if employees were allowed on company boards?

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister has mooted that idea and I hope that she receives the support of her party.

Returning briefly to Sir Philip, as he is for the time being, he has responded to the criticism that has been waged against him by saying that England

“is a place where you get a lot of jealous, envious, you know, negative people.”

What a shoddy and shameful way to describe anyone, particularly when they are customers and consumers. I hope that Mr Green is listening when I say that my colleagues in the Chamber from England, Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are not jealous or envious of his gross mismanagement of BHS, but I think I am right to say on behalf of hon. Members from all parties that we do feel negative—negative about how hard Mr Green’s former employees, who are our constituents, will be hit by that mismanagement and his failure to make amends.

It all comes back to responsibility and respect. Sir Philip did not respect the hard work, loyalty and livelihoods of his employees, my constituents and the constituents of Members from across the Chamber. Just as a company is responsible for its employees, Parliament is responsible for its citizens. This is about responsible business practices and responsible regulatory practices. This is about holding businesses and individuals to account by any means possible and sending a strong, clear message that we will not accept such shoddy practices from our businesses towards our people.

Strip Philip Green of his knighthood. Take him to task. Maybe get him to sell a few of his superyachts so that my constituents and everyone else’s can get the pensions and retirement that they worked so hard for. We must have a proper, strong regulatory framework so that this dereliction of duty can never happen again.

Maternity Discrimination

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 14th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and those who signed the request to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I look forward to testing the family-friendliness of this Parliament on Monday, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), as we are both bringing our children down next week. We will see how that goes.

I find it difficult to believe that we in this House continue to have to debate and protest about maternity discrimination. It says an awful lot about the way women and children are regarded in society, and we must all seek to improve the situation through our words and deeds, in this place and beyond. Maternity Action has said

“both pregnancy and maternity discrimination is both widespread and deeply entrenched, with a significant minority of employers holding outdated and wholly inappropriate attitudes.”

It is absolutely unacceptable that 77% of women experience discrimination or negative treatment during pregnancy or maternity, or on their return to work. Maternity discrimination is not a niche issue; it is something that can happen to any woman during pregnancy or while going through the early stages of IVF treatment. Equally, it can happen to people who are adopting, or those seeking paternity leave. It also applies to the period after birth and to breastfeeding, as I was glad to see the hon. Member for Harrow West highlight. There is no explicit legal obligation to provide breastfeeding breaks. One of Maternity Action’s excellent series of cards says:

“While there is no explicit legal right to breastfeeding breaks and facilities at work, employers must meet their obligations to a breastfeeding employee under health and safety, flexible working, and anti-discrimination law. And, not only is it simple and inexpensive for employers to do so, but it brings real business benefits such as increased productivity and staff loyalty.”

I absolutely concur with those sentiments. As someone who has breastfed both children at work, being away from them is very difficult and can be painful and embarrassing.

We need to think of ways to get around that and to support mothers when they return to work. We cannot have women giving up breastfeeding, which is so important to maternal and child health, because their employer will not make reasonable adjustments to allow them to do it. We cannot just accept that that discrimination happens. We must find a way of making that kind of discrimination as publicly unacceptable as any other. Ignoring this important issue leads to the extreme circumstances we saw in the Sports Direct case, in which a woman gave birth on a toilet floor. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the impact on child and maternal health during pregnancy and the early weeks of life can be significant and long-lasting, and we need to think about that when we consider this issue.

It was only recently that we were discussing this issue in this place, in November last year, just prior to the publication of the EHRC report and research from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made a number of reasonable demands on the Government, which I will briefly repeat. First, he asked that the Government take a key role in ensuring employers are well-informed and clear in their obligations and that smaller businesses in particular are supported; secondly, that the Government do all in their power to inform women of their rights, highlighting best practice and protecting vulnerable groups of women, particularly young women, ethnic minorities, those from other nations who might be unfamiliar with their rights under UK law, agency workers and those in non-unionised workplaces; and thirdly that the information services that support women be well-funded. We cannot rely only on trade unions or websites or on picking things up by chance. We need to fund the services that will actively represent and advise women. Fourthly and lastly, he asked that women be able to access justice via employment tribunals. Since fees were introduced in 2013, there has been a significant and disturbing drop in the number of cases brought. The hon. Member for Harrow West mentioned some of the statistics earlier on, so I shall not repeat them, but it can cost up to £1,200 to make an employment tribunal claim, which can rise to £5,700 if more than one person makes a claim, with further potential costs such as, for example, £1,600 if the decision is appealed.

Those costs represent an enormous barrier to justice, particularly at a time when women are at their most vulnerable. The number of women who actually reach that final tribunal is less than 1%. That is tiny. We need to do much better in ensuring women receive the justice they deserve. At the excellent event earlier on, hosted by Maternity Action, it was highlighted that there can be a gagging clause put in the settlement for women who settle out of court, so they cannot even talk about the experience they have had with that employers. Those employers will get away with that. Fellow women in that company might not know that has happened and other women seeking employment with that company will not be aware it is an employer they need to be wary of.

I am proud to say the Scottish Government are committed to abolishing tribunal fees, which is a significant step. We are not at all complacent in Scotland about the challenges. To that end, my good friend, Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Employability and Training, announced at the end of June that he is going to chair a working group to identify action to tackle this unacceptable discrimination. That group will work with NHS Health Scotland to ensure that work environments are safe and healthy for pregnant women and new mothers and to provide employment rights information for pregnant women at that first contact. The group will also create guidelines for employers to ensure best practice in the recruitment, retention and development of pregnant workers. The Scottish Government also pledged earlier this year to improve public monitoring of pregnancy and maternity under the Scottish public sector equality duty. As might be expected, the EHRC has welcomed that announcement, saying:

“These commitments from the Scottish Government are very encouraging and show the leadership for change that is needed to create a positive workplace that supports pregnant women and women returning from maternity leave.”

I will briefly touch on some of the issues of returning to work after pregnancy. I asked on Twitter for people to share their experiences of returning to work after pregnancy. They are fairly typical and depressing. One woman said she had left her stressful workplace when pregnant because it was not worth the hassle to stay, while one commented on the discriminatory attitudes and mindset of her managers. Another woman who had worked for eight years with her employer in a reasonably senior role submitted a request on returning to work after maternity leave to go part time or job share, only to be told it was full time or resignation. She felt she was being asked to choose between her child and her job. Those are by no means the worst stories I have heard and colleagues will no doubt share more. They are very much the tip of the iceberg.

Joeli Brearley, of Pregnant Then Screwed, who is at the back of the room with her gorgeous little baby, has been collecting those examples. I urge the Minister and her team to look at the Pregnant Then Screwed website for those examples because they are absolutely brutal. They must be seen and they must be challenged. I encourage all women who are watching this debate to contact their MP and to contact Government Ministers to let them know it is happening. If we do not know which employers are involved we cannot challenge them and we cannot make change.

I also highlight a man who contacted me about paternity leave. He asked about paternity leave in his workplace, only to be met with the response, “Can we say no to that?” No, they cannot; that is not possible. There needs to be more education about the rights of families in the workplace more widely. I visited One Parent Families Scotland last weekend, which highlighted the treatment of pregnant women and new mothers by Jobcentre Plus. It has identified that women are being forced to come off the benefits they are on and encouraged to start thinking about going back to work. They are asked to attend appointments that are not necessary, but they are being called in anyway. That is something that needs to be looked at more widely.

I also highlight young women, in particular, and the EHRC’s “Power to the Bump” campaign, which is absolutely excellent. It highlights that, among all women, those under 25 are six times more likely to report being dismissed as a result of their pregnancy. Will the Minister reflect on that and see what more specifically we can do to support young women? Young women may not know their rights and may not expect to be pregnant. They might suddenly end up in circumstances in which they are having to make serious choices and perhaps there is something to be put in school curriculums to inform young people of their rights around the issue. There is a bit of a gap there because we are not doing that at the moment. All women should know what their rights are for when that time comes. School is a good place to start with that.

In their response to the EHRC report on maternity discrimination, the UK Government said they are

“committed to creating a strong workforce that is fit for the future. To do this we need to make sure that there are no barriers to everyone fulfilling their potential, enabling pregnant women and new mothers to participate fully if they choose to, and giving employers access to the widest possible pool of talent.”

As has been said, the Government accepted many of the report’s recommendations. However, they notably rejected some of those concerning maternity and pregnancy discrimination, in particular around making changes to the employment tribunal fee system to ensure fees are not a barrier for women experiencing pregnancy and maternity discrimination. They said:

“It is too soon to consider whether any action is needed here. In June 2015 the Government announced the start of the post-implementation review of the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunal. This will consider, insofar as this is possible, any equality impacts that have resulted from the introduction of fees. The review is well underway and will report in due course.”

I urge the Minister to bring forward the response. We need to know the Government’s views and the results of that review.

The further Government response was that:

“There is no evidence from the responses to the research into pregnancy and maternity-related discrimination to suggest that there is a need to increase the time limit for a woman to bring an Employment Tribunal claim.”

As has been said earlier, three months is not good enough; perhaps even six months is not good enough. Some of the women whose cases I have seen only found out about their rights after the event, which is not good enough either. There needs to be less of a bar on that, so that employers do not get away with dismissing somebody because of their pregnancy.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having access to justice is the bedrock of a civilised society? If we cannot offer that to our women and men, and to parents across the country, we are doing them a disservice and we do ourselves a disservice, in terms of our international standing.

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is so important that there is not only action, support and information, but that, if employers do not comply with the law, that there is recourse and a means of testing those employers and making them accountable for what they have done.

I hope what I and others have said in the debate will change the Government’s mind and will bring about improvements. Society and business are losing the talent and skills of women in those jobs. Women feel devalued. They may be lost to the labour market or end up in self-employment, not of their own choosing, which brings its own set of challenges. Maternity discrimination is the reinforcement and perpetuation of the gender pay gap, and it undermines women’s place in society. We have a new Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist. I call on her and on the Government to take leadership and to ensure that that is true in deeds and not just words.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) did to secure this important debate on TTIP. It is a matter of great concern to many of us across the House and it has been important to hear the varied contributions. I pay tribute, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), whose contributions are always considered and colourful.

The position of the Scottish National party on the proposed trade deal has been clear and consistent, and was reached democratically by the membership of our party. I reflect the views of my hon. Friends, the membership of my party and many, many Scots when I say that we have real and legitimate concerns about a number of the proposed provisions in the trade agreement that would threaten the ability of elected Governments in Europe to act and regulate in the public interest. I will touch on those concerns later.

At the outset, I will address the value of international trade and foreign direct investment, which are vital to our economy. The debate on this trade agreement is not about the principles of free trade. I and my party are passionately pro-trade. Instead, this debate is about the need to achieve a balance. There must be a balance between securing opportunities for further international trade and doing so transparently, while protecting the integrity of democratically elected Governments to run public services and make decisions in the interests of the people they were elected to serve.

Scotland is an avowedly outward-looking and ambitious nation, and is punching well above its economic weight. According to Ernst & Young, Scotland was the UK’s most successful inward investment magnet outside London last year in terms of the number of investment projects secured. In all, 80 separate inward investment projects came to Scotland last year, almost half of which were from the United States. There is a pattern of competitive excellence. Over the past 10 years, Scotland has secured more than 37,000 jobs from foreign direct investment, making it a narrow second to London but well ahead of other parts of the UK. In the past six years, under the SNP Scottish Government, the value of international exports has increased by 40%. That is good for Scottish business, good for the Scottish economy and good for working people in Scotland. The internationalisation of Scottish business, boosting exports and attracting foreign direct investment remain key to Scotland’s economic strategy. My point is that Scotland is a proud and successful trading nation.

In the interests of balance, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the Conservative Government’s record on trade and exports. There were 4,000 fewer British businesses exporting in 2014 compared with the number that traded internationally in the previous year. Earlier this year, it emerged that the Chancellor has presided over the largest annual trade deficit since records began in 1948—a deficit of £92.9 billion, which is the equivalent of 5.1% of GDP at current market prices. The claim that the Government lay to economic credibility is a myth and it lies in tatters.

I highlight that trading record because it is important to recognise that the economic achievements of the SNP Scottish Government are characterised by an openness to trade with our partners and friends around the world. We welcome the opportunity to forge better trade links and encourage our businesses to release their international potential. However, TTIP represents better trade links at the expense of transparency and democracy, and potentially at the expense of good public services owned and managed by the public. I will address three specific concerns.

The first concern relates to the investor-state dispute settlement, which has been much talked about today. We have seen movement on this issue over the past few months from the European Commission, which has conducted somewhat of a rebranding exercise with its revised international court system, which replaces ISDS. Although the ICS proposals contain a number of important reforms of ISDS, the changes are nowhere near what is required to overhaul the inherently unfair system of extra-judicial rights for foreign investors. The fundamental question of why private companies require the ability to challenge public policy decisions made by democratically elected Governments remains unanswered.

This is not a fringe concern. Without intimating any political preference in the upcoming US presidential election, I highlight the comments of Hillary Clinton in her book, “Hard Choices”. I commend it to the House—it is a great read. She says of trade agreements that

“we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules”.

While I am talking about views in the US, it is interesting to note the letter of objection to ISDS, which claims that it weakens the rule of law, that was signed by eminent lawyers and academics such as Judith Resnik, professor of law at Yale, and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

The SNP has repeatedly pressed the Government for an explicit exemption from the agreement for the national health service. There must be absolute clarity that although the UK is, for the time being, the member state, any decision it takes in the context of TTIP, such as opening up the NHS in England to greater private sector involvement, in no way interferes with the Scottish Parliament’s devolved responsibility for the Scottish NHS. I commend the campaigns that have stimulated public interest in the potential consequences for important public health services, particularly the People’s NHS campaign. I urge the Government to pursue meaningful exemptions for the NHS.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is concerning that the public information campaign on TTIP has been left to such grassroots organisations? They are going out and making the case to people on the streets on a voluntary basis, but there is no wider campaign.

[Hannah Bardell]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. Perhaps we should draw on the experience of the Scottish referendum, which showed that full engagement and full transparency allow full participation in these processes. It is important that the public have all the information available to them.

My second concern about the potential impact on Scotland of a ratified TTIP is the effect on protected food names and geographical indicators.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Alison Thewliss

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—