Budget Resolutions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am sorry Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry for Hansard, but it was quite enjoyable. This debate is about making work pay, and the right hon. Member for Leeds West had precious little to say about that. I wonder why that might be. Might it be because unemployment has always gone up under Labour Governments? That is a simple fact for her to think about. It rose by 1 million under the last Labour Government. Youth unemployment rose by 45% under the last Labour Government, and the number of households in which no one had ever worked doubled during the last Labour Government. I find it particularly striking that under Labour 1.4 million people spent almost a decade on out-of-work benefits. Labour should be ashamed of that record of its time in office.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentions making work pay, but Unison has pointed out that a number of social care workers are being disadvantaged because HMRC mileage rates have not changed since 2010. Does the Treasury not believe that the cost of running a motor vehicle has changed in the last 14 years?

[Mel Stride]

One of the principal costs of running a motor vehicle is the fuel in the tank. Because of our stewardship of the economy, the Chancellor was able to announce yesterday that we are freezing fuel duty for the 14th year in succession, as well as beer duty, to help those supporting our vital pubs.

Yesterday’s Budget sets the course for a brighter future for our country. It is a Budget for long-term growth, with more investment, more jobs and an economy that is turning the corner. That has allowed us to cut taxes because this Government believe in rewarding aspiration and hard work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who speaks for the Scottish National party. What I did not really hear from him was the justification he and his party use for increasing taxes—something that is total anathema to almost everybody else speaking in the debate, who are complaining about the high level of taxes we already have.

I welcome the Government’s rethink on national insurance. As somebody who has regularly voted against increases in national insurance by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, I am delighted by the change of heart.

I also welcome the rethink on the unfairness of the high income child benefit charge. When it was being legislated on, I put a lot of time and energy into asking questions about it and speaking and voting against it. However, I could not persuade anybody in the Conservative Government then that it was extremely unfair that a household with an income of £95,000 coming from one person was subject to this charge, while two earners were able to avoid it by each earning £45,000. That will now be put right; in my view, it is long overdue, but it is none the less welcome.

I would, however, be interested in asking the Minister a specific question arising from what was said about this issue: will the move to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs using household-level information from 2026 enable the Government to introduce transferrable tax allowances and end the discrimination in the tax system against married couples? That would be an even bigger benefit of introducing household-level information and from taxing people on that basis. I hope that that will be one of the great spin-offs from this initiative, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point when he winds up.

I welcome the increase in the VAT threshold from £85,000 to £90,000. However, that is a pretty meagre 6% increase after seven years in which the threshold was frozen, and I would like to see it go even higher. I also welcome the Great British ISA, but why is it limited to £5,000?

Last night we had an amazing gathering in the Guildhall in London—I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were there. It was a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Centre for Policy Studies, and it was a great occasion. It celebrated the work that Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher and Alfred Sherman did 50 years ago in setting up what has been the most successful Conservative think-tank of all time. I have to say, however, that there was universal disappointment in the audience that the overall tax burden has not peaked and that the Budget statement confirmed that it will rise even further in each of the next four years and beyond, despite the fact that we already have the highest tax burden ever. There seems to be no explanation as to why the Conservative Government are still pursuing that policy of increasing the tax burden.

As ever, the Prime Minister spoke eloquently, echoing the philosophy and founding principles of the Centre for Policy Studies. He spoke of the small state, the need for low taxes, and promoting enterprise and supply-side reforms. Indeed, his rhetoric chimed with the Chancellor’s own Budget statements, and I will quote three of them. The first was:

“Conservatives know that lower tax means higher growth.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 837.]

The second was:

“Keeping taxes down matters to Conservatives”.

The third was that

“lower-taxed economies have more energy, more dynamism and more innovation.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 848.]

I could not agree more. Yet we have a Budget that is actually increasing the overall burden of taxation and that seems to run counter to that rhetoric. My constituents are concerned about actions rather than words, and I hope that, in responding to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will explain why the Budget’s content does not fit with that rhetoric.

Where does that leave us? As we approach a general election—from my point of view, the sooner we have one, the better—I want to be able to tell my constituents that they have a choice between a Conservative Government who are really committed to the enterprise economy, following in the steps of the Centre for Policy Studies, Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, and a Labour Government who are committed to ever higher taxes and burdens on individuals, with dire consequences for economic growth. At the moment, however, I am not sure that that is being spelled out with sufficient clarity to enable us to make the case as strongly as I would like when the general election comes.

Another issue raised in the Budget is that of low, if not declining, public sector productivity, which is a scandal of the highest order. Lip service was paid to addressing the problem of low productivity in the national health service, but low productivity has been endemic in the NHS for years. I was looking at a book produced by Lord Crisp—Nigel Crisp—when he worked for the NHS, and in it he refers to the low or declining productivity in the NHS between about 2000 and 2010. The latest figures also show a decline in productivity in the NHS. Two years ago, the Government committed themselves to productivity increases of 2% per annum in the NHS. I thought that that was already policy, but I see in the Budget statement that the head of the NHS, Amanda Pritchard, is saying, “Well, with the extra initiatives from the Government, we might even be able to get to a productivity increase of 1.9%.”

[Jim McMahon]

I will give the hon. Gentleman a second to take a breath. Does he accept that the NHS does not sit in isolation? It is part of a wider ecosystem of public services, and it reflects local communities. So many preventive early intervention services, such as those provided by local government, have been taken away, and that has an impact. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have seen 900,000 fewer workers in local government since 2010, but 900,000 more workers in central Government, and the civil service has grown too. That shift has definitely had an impact on productivity.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, by expanding the public sector and the number of administrators, we are undermining our attempts to increase productivity. The OBR says that a 5% increase in productivity would give us a £20 billion dividend, so instead of fussing about £1 billion here, £100,000 there or whatever, why do the Government not concentrate on productivity?

One example of the lack of productivity is the increase in bed blocking. I have an example from my constituency, which I raised in a parliamentary question recently. On 31 January, 308 patients in acute hospitals in Dorset were there with “no criteria to reside”, which is how what used to be called bed blocking is described these days. If we take a ballpark figure and say that each of those beds costs about £1,000 a night, that is £300,000 a night. If we multiply that by the 365 days of the year, we get an enormous figure. Money is being wasted through the NHS’s inability to address that long-standing problem.

Despite the establishment of integrated care boards, the problem is getting worse, rather than better—the whole essence of integrated care boards was to try to link together all the players.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the previous speakers, and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). Today’s theme is making work pay. I believe that this is one of the key challenges facing our country. Conservatives believe in conserving, but what is it that we seek to conserve? In a word, freedom. As Ronald Reagan said:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same”.

There is nothing more important to the cause of individual freedom for human beings than the opportunity to work. It is the only moral way to achieve financial security. It is the path to a better life. It is not the meaning of life, but there is no meaning in life without work. It is:

“The force that through the green fuse drives the flower”,

as Dylan Thomas said.

God put Adam and Eve on Earth to work. I believe that was a wise decision, because good, hard, challenging, stressful and important work, done well, makes people happy and purposeful. It is not just a means to an end for generating taxes; the true gifts of life are to be found in the struggle on the hard road. We Conservatives are not blind to the reality of human nature. We do not pretend that people are not motivated by financial incentives. It is not selfish to want to earn more for ourselves and to work hard for it. I believe that in the Budget that was set out yesterday by the Chancellor, Mrs Thatcher would have found much to be pleased with. In 1975, she said that

“the person who is prepared to work hardest should get the greatest rewards and keep them after tax…we should back the workers and not the shirkers…it is not only permissible but praiseworthy to want to benefit your own family by your own efforts”.

How right she was in 1975, and how right we are as Conservatives to do that now.

That is why I welcome the Budget measures, especially the cut in national insurance, which will save the average worker £900, and the average self-employed worker—we have a lot of them in Redditch—£650 per year. Combined with the changes to high-income child benefit and the childcare support that we have previously talked about, the reduction in inflation, and the economy starting to turn a corner after a very difficult time, I know that those measures will be welcomed by hard-pressed families in Redditch juggling work and home life.

Of course, the welfare state and benefits are necessary in today’s world. Our fellow citizens rely on us when they are sick, or struck down by life’s blows, or cannot sustain themselves, but the pandemic has had a worrying impact, and I have seen a loosening of the links of the social contract between all our citizens as a result. We cannot ask a shrinking pool of workers to pay out of their taxes for a growing cohort of people who cannot or will not work. Benefits must only ever be a last resort for those truly unable to work—never a lifestyle choice caused by faulty wiring in our system.

It is tempting to view the Budget as a single event. It happens over a day, and there are headlines in the media. We look at it through the obsessive lens of our 24-hour news cycle and social media feeds, but we should not judge it in that way, and nor should we look at the events happening in our country as unique. We are not an outlier. Every country around the world has suffered from the pandemic, and the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dame Jackie Doyle-Price) rightly said, the public are not fooled—they definitely understand and can see what is going on. They can also see that, over the course of 14 years, it is the Conservatives who have made huge strides in reversing Labour’s “something for nothing” culture. We have ensured that welfare is truly targeted at the people who really need it, meaning that we can be more generous to really vulnerable citizens.

After all, Keith Joseph first articulated the concept of the cycle of deprivation, and he set about helping people to break out of it. A Conservative Government implemented the life-changing universal credit reforms so successfully being rolled out across our country. Those reforms were conceived and led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). That was the true genesis of the value that work must always pay.

Every time we have made reforms to welfare, the Opposition parties have howled that we are cruel and heartless. It is totally fake outrage. The true moral failure is to let people languish on benefits and not expect any better from them. That is Labour’s legacy, and we saw record levels of unemployment in every age group when they last left office, in particular among young people and women. We were prepared to take the hard decisions about universal credit. I have the scars on my back from standing here to defend the Government’s decisions at the time. But guess what? The apocalypse did not arrive.

Instead, we now see record numbers of people in work, including record numbers of women and record numbers of women over 50. Government analysis has consistently shown that universal credit is having a positive impact on labour market participation for all groups, including single parents and other vulnerable groups who face the most barriers when returning to work.

[Jim McMahon]

Most people who experience the benefits system will understand and support the need for a more simplified one that works around working people. The hon. Lady must also accept, however, that that was not the design of universal credit that met such opposition. The five-week wait limit before entitlement was drawn, for example, meant that people were getting into debt unnecessarily when they were entitled to the benefit earlier. She must accept that even given the principle of a simplified system, the way it was done was not right.

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not accept that, and I do not wish to rerun all the previous debates. The Government have listened to a lot of the issues involved in the roll-out of an incredibly complicated system, and the evidence speaks for itself. Universal credit has helped more people get into work, and work is always the best route out of poverty.

Before I move on, I will make a few comments about mental health conditions. A category of people in our country are the economically inactive, which is sad to me and many of us, because those people are fundamentally not free—they are dependent on the state. My concern is that the number of working-age adults who are out of the labour market because of long-term sickness has been rising since 2019, from about 2.2 million people then to about 2.5 million in the summer of 2022. I understand that that started before the covid pandemic.

The biggest relative jump in economic inactivity due to long-term sickness is among the under-35s, whose main complaints are depression, bad nerves or anxiety. I have two psychology degrees, and I fully understand mental illness and mental ill health. I also believe in using words precisely. I am therefore alarmed to see the conflation of the terms depression and anxiety together with “bad nerves”. Bad nerves? Both anxiety and depression are clinically recognised conditions; bad nerves is not.

Government statistics, obtained following several questions that I posed to the Department, do not break down the number of people self-reporting under each condition, and there is no data or information on how that concept of bad nerves is defined, assessed, treated, understood or prevented as a separate condition from depression and anxiety. That is because there cannot be. Having “bad nerves” is a totally meaningless phrase. No one knows what it is, so how can people decide if they are unfit to work if they have it? I have bad nerves about standing to speak in this Chamber, and my constituents have bad nerves when they are navigating the day-to-day challenges of juggling work and family. The phrase sounds like something out of a good housewife manual in the 1950s.

I simply do not believe, frankly, that bad nerves is a reason to be on sickness benefits, and yet figures from the labour force survey indicate that 1.3 million people are economically inactive due to some combination of bad nerves, anxiety and depression. We do not know how many are off because of each condition or how many are off because of bad nerves. I think it would be a good idea for the Department and the Ministers I can see on the Front Bench to understand on a more granular level what conditions are preventing our constituents getting back into work, so that we can target more efficiently the taxes of our constituents who are working hard for long hours and paying into the system, so ultimately reducing the bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend is quite right: if anything, Labour wanted the lockdown to carry on longer, meaning that the debts would have been even higher. Had the Conservative party not put the public finances back in order, we would have started that pandemic with much higher levels of debt than we did. The necessary decisions were made to put the economy right.

The borrowing has gone on because of the need to pay for covid. It has been complicated by a war in Ukraine —again, I have not heard any Labour Members say that we should not have supported the Ukrainian people.

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman’s speech is giving the impression—I understand why—that the world was rosy up until covid came and that the problems followed afterwards, but before covid, there were 2 million more people on the NHS waiting list than under the previous Labour Government. The NHS was in a fragile state, as was the national debt, which was over £1.5 trillion before covid hit. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that that is strong foundations.

[Damian Collins]

No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that we picked up the pieces of an international banking crisis, with no plan from the previous Government for how that would be paid for. It was entirely down to the Conservative party to find that money. The criticism was that the previous Labour Government were increasing borrowing before the banking crisis hit. They were already borrowing for political reasons—to sustain spending they could not afford—and then had to bail out the banks on top of that. If Members are going to criticise the past 14 years of Government, let us start where the problem started, which was before we came into power. We were required to pick up the pieces of the mess we inherited.

There are big things that happen, which require responsible Governments to take big, responsible decisions. That sometimes means that they have to put up taxes in order to pay for borrowing to get through a crisis. Let us not pretend that that is not the case, but the question is whether Governments have a serious, credible plan and whether they are prepared to be honest with the British people about what that plan entails. On the back of the pandemic, we have had to put up taxes and borrowing to pay for that. We have done that, and we are now at a decision point. As the economy recovers and the OBR projects that debt will fall, what can we do? What path should we go down? As the Chancellor has set out, the priority of this Government is to recognise that because taxes had to go up to pay for the pandemic, we want to reduce taxes when we can. We want to lift that burden from the British people and start to reduce taxes.

If any hon. Members want to come in at this point, I am happy to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

I do not agree with that. Just looking at my own constituency, we have had two brand new secondary schools built, a big new special needs school, and primary schools as well. There has been investment in most school buildings, and we have seen a huge amount of investment in the infrastructure of this country. References have been made to the decision not to complete the northern leg of high speed 2. Of course, that money is not being taken out of infrastructure spending—it is just being spent on different things. That is a point that has not been made.

As the economy recovers and debt is predicted by the OBR to fall, we have a decision to make. The priority of the Government is to reduce taxes, and they have done so through the national insurance cuts made in the autumn statement and again in the Budget: a 4% cut in national insurance, and yes, a longer-term ambition that that tax may go altogether. That is not an unfunded commitment; it is saying, “That is the priority. That is the decision we would take—the direction we would go in.”

[Jim McMahon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Collins]

In one moment. What we have heard in today’s debate—particularly from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—is that Labour would go down a different path. Labour would spend more; they call it investment, but basically, Labour would spend more. Labour’s priority is not to cut taxes. It is begrudgingly going along with the tax cuts we have announced because it does not want to oppose them, but there was certainly no statement made today that suggested Labour would seek to cut taxes.

Labour would seek to spend more, so that is the choice for the British people at the next election and moving forward: as the nation recovers from the shocks it has been through, and as the Chancellor has got the discretionary money to spend, do we give that money back to the British people? Do we let them keep more of what they have earned, or do we just spend it on their behalf? That is the classic separation between our parties, which has existed for generations. The belief to which the Labour party is still wedded is that growth is created—something that we both want to see—by the Government spending more. What has been demonstrated over the decades is that by backing the British people, and their ingenuity and hard work, we generate the growth we need. That is the separation that we see now.

The shadow Chancellor said at the beginning of her speech that she would not make unfunded commitments on spending or taxes, but she has done so today, because now that the money from the non-doms is no longer available to fund the things that Labour wanted to spend it on, there is no plan in place. On the radio this morning, she said that she would find the money; today at the Dispatch Box, she said that there would be a detailed piece of work to seek it out, but we still do not know what the plan is. The only thing the Labour party could point to today that would increase revenue is taxes on private schools, which will not pay for much at all, so we have an unfunded commitment to spend more—we do not know how; I imagine that it will be borrowing more, but it could be taxes going up—and some specific unfunded commitments. The Labour party will not say where the money will come from, but what it has said today, loud and clear, is that cutting taxes is not its priority. There has been no ambition today to say that we should cut taxes at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way twice. He has mentioned a number of times the need to repay any debt and borrowing. He will know that part of the borrowing for HS2 was going to be serviced through the revenue from HS2 ticket sales, and through moving more freight off-road and on to rail, to be carried by the track that was freed up. Is he absolutely confident that the new transport projects, including on potholes, that will be funded by the spare capital that has been freed up will be serviced through revenue, or will that be a funding gap in the future?

[Damian Collins]

I am confident that the robust plan that the Government set out for spending that money on other transport projects will deliver.

What I would say about High Speed 2 in the north—based on my own constituency experience in Kent, where we have High Speed 1—is that Folkestone in my constituency has benefited enormously from high-speed rail. I believe that these big infrastructure projects deliver benefits in time that are sometimes intangible and difficult to predict at the beginning. However, for HS1, the train only goes at high speed on the high-speed line as far as Ashford. The same rolling stock then runs on the traditional railway to Folkestone, Dover, Canterbury, Ramsgate, and other places on the Kent coast. A high-speed rail service that runs at high speed on the high-speed line from Birmingham to London, but with those trains starting elsewhere in the north of England, will still deliver huge benefits in reduced journey times and attracting other investment. That has certainly been our experience in Kent, and that is why I have always supported high-speed rail for the north: I think it can deliver the same thing. I still think it will deliver big benefits for the north-west, even though the trains will only go on the high-speed line from Birmingham down into London.

In addition to the points I have made about the very clear difference between the two parties with regards to taxing and spending—whether we want to cut taxes, or put spending up—I will focus on one or two specific things. The Chancellor noted in his speech that Britain has become a global centre for television and film making. Sometimes, that is said as if it is a happy accident; that, despite the fact that people could have invested anywhere in the world, they decided through serendipity to invest in the UK. The reason that the UK now has this leadership position, which is not one that we had in 2010, is that we have invested in making it happen. We have recognised that in a highly global market, production tax credits mean that people will bring production investment to the UK, rather than taking it elsewhere in the world. That generates revenue for the Treasury—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not in his place, but that is another great example of Mr Laffer’s curve at work. When we reduce the tax burden, the investment goes up, and the revenue goes up with it.

That has had huge benefits for this country: the investment in our creative industries, the jobs that people have in studios and film production—jobs that simply did not exist before—and the fact that we remain a massive global centre for investment. We have introduced tax credits for high-end television production, animation, video games, orchestras and touring exhibitions. I was very pleased to see in the Budget yesterday that those tax credits will be extended to smaller-budget independent productions, which will massively open up opportunities for smaller film companies to attract investment.

However, the big thing we have seen is the investment in studio space. Britain rivals any place in the world for studio size, which makes it, after California, the global home of film and television. One of the barriers to further investment in studios—I am thinking of a very exciting and ambitious studio project just outside my constituency in Ashford, an investment that will benefit the whole of east Kent—is that if someone builds a film studio on derelict land, which studios are often on, the business rates cost would go up massively. Is that fair, given that the uplift was generated by massive external investment? If the Chancellor recognises that, and gives new studios a 40% reduction in business rate uplift for 10 years, it will unlock a further pipeline for investment, allow us to consolidate our global leadership, and be a huge boost for the creative sector in this country.

I want to mention nuclear technology and small modular reactors. I have a constituency interest in this: Dungeness nuclear power station is in my constituency, and it would be an ideal site for small modular reactors. The Government have launched a competition to design them, and the Chancellor is encouraging people get their tenders in. I hope that we will consider that the benefit is not just us producing the clean energy that we need for the future, but us backing British industry. A British-designed and built SMR manufacturing process in this country will meet our needs, but this could also be a fantastic export industry for Britain.

I urge the Government and the Chancellor to carry on backing this new nuclear technology, to support the design competition, and to back one of the bidders. Ideally, a British company such as Rolls-Royce would be great, but there are other excellent bidders. The Government should also support the roll-out of this technology. Through their civil nuclear road map, they have established how they intend to do that, and they acknowledge that they need more nuclear sites. As a result of the road map and the consultation on it, I hope that other sites, such as Dungeness in my constituency, will be identified where this technology can be deployed.

Huge investment in green energy and new nuclear has been delivered under this Government. In 2010, when we came into government, we still had not completed the national policy framework on nuclear energy, and there had not yet been any decision about where nuclear would go. The new fleet of power stations, and the investment —and there is a lot—has entirely taken place under this Government, which is something I whole- heartedly support.

In closing, a number of hon. Members have talked about housing, and a lot of important points were made about levelling up in the Budget, and in the statements released by Ministers alongside it. New house building is incredibly important for delivering economic growth, and growth of our communities. I was very pleased that Folkestone town centre was a beneficiary last year of a significant levelling-up investment. I encourage the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Homes England to continue their discussions with Folkestone and Hythe District Council about backing the new garden town proposal in Otterpool Park in my constituency, which will not only deliver homes that people need, but create a great many new jobs in east Kent for the coming decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening a second time, because I now have the exact words from Hansard. The Chancellor said:

“When it is responsible, when it can be achieved without increasing borrowing, and when it can be delivered without compromising high-quality public services, we will continue to cut national insurance as we have done today, so that we truly make work pay.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 852.]

I do not think it is as the hon. Gentleman is saying. I think he is misrepresenting the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and I hope he will not persist with that line of questioning.

[Jim McMahon]

I think we can all recognise a Conservative campaign headquarters rebuttal on its own Chancellor when we hear it. The substantive point was that the NICs cuts mean there is a lower tax burden, but we must be clear for the record that that is not correct. This is the highest tax burden since 1948. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that freezing the personal tax allowance has a significant impact on all taxpayers.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Again, I hope we will not have my right hon. Friend’s welcome ambition to reduce national insurance traduced in the way that it has been. I do not think we will get very far by continuing that argument. Indeed, you will probably reprimand me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I go too far down that rabbit hole.

I was going on to say that it is not just workers, through the reduction in national insurance, who will benefit from this Budget, because of course pensioners will too. Pensioners will see a significant increase in their pension through the triple lock of a huge 8.5% this year. Together with the enormous rise in the personal income allowance that we have introduced over the years, from £8,500 to £12,500, that will affect not only those on the basic state pension but also those who earn a little bit of income on top. They will see that our measures have considerably benefited the amount that they receive in their pocket.

Moving on to our commitment to families, we recognise the importance of easing the financial strain, especially for parents. I have listened closely to those constituents in the Cotswolds who have contacted me about how they have had to tighten their purses since the covid pandemic, when so many found their work interrupted, as well as about the cost of food and energy price rises in the years following. People in rural areas will be particularly pleased to see another freeze on fuel duty, because they rely very much on having to use their cars.

I am pleased that the threshold for the high-income child benefit charge has risen from £50,000 to £60,000. It will directly impact nearly 500,000 families, providing an average boost of £1,300 per household, empowering families and ensuring that every child has the support they need to flourish. I welcome the British ISA, which allows for a £5,000 investment. It should have been more. I also welcome the incentivisation of nuclear investment assets. Rather than hitting savers, we bolster economic resilience and pave the way for a brighter future for generations to come. I welcome the disclosure moves for local government pensions that will encourage investment in UK infrastructure projects.

Our commitment to families and businesses remains unwavering, from child benefit to increasing VAT registration from £85,000 to £90,000. That should have been more, but it will help a number of businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). I will leave it there.

The test of any Budget is simple, and we all know it, in politics and elsewhere in life: are working people better or worse off? The fact is that Britain is worse off. There are higher taxes, lower wages and a stagnant economy. The tax burden is at its highest for over 70 years, since 1948, and the national debt is at its highest since the 1960s. Average households will still be £870 worse off after all the Budget measures, and this will be the only Parliament on record in which living standards fell lower at the end of it than they were at the start.

The real cruelty is not that the Budget was a missed opportunity for the Conservative party to gain some ground; it is that working people do everything that is asked of them and more, but that work is not rewarded. Real pay has gone up by just £17 a week over 14 years of Conservative Government. Compare that with the last Labour Government, under which wages rose by £183 a week over 13 years. Even the national insurance reductions pale into insignificance when we consider that the personal tax allowance freezes will take £41 billion from working people. In the end, working people are worse off, and they know it.

Working people know that the communities where they live and work, and that they care about and are invested in, are feeling the strain, as are public services. People are waiting longer for NHS treatment than ever before. Even before the pandemic, which has been used a number of times as a reference point, 2 million more people were on waiting lists than when Labour was last in office. Today, waiting lists stand at 7.6 million, impacting more than 6 million patients. What of the nation’s productivity, when there is low life expectancy, which in some cases is going down, and when quality of life is compromised by pain, worry and stress? How can we talk about productivity in the economy when the nation is simply not well?

There is a firm poverty postcode lottery. The King’s Fund reported that people who lived in the most deprived areas of England were twice as likely to wait more than a year for treatment as those who lived in more affluent areas. It is a postcode lottery on health, and an inequality that is not right in the modern age. There is no healthy economy without a healthy society. That the Chancellor does not get it is one thing, but for a Chancellor who was previously Health Secretary not to get it beggars belief, frankly.

We all know that health and social care are interlinked, and that people’s wellness and the economy are interlinked. Labour will get the NHS back on its feet—we did it before and we will do it again—but we were disappointed not to see more interaction between health and social care yesterday. Like the Local Government Association, I was disappointed not to see a focus on adult social care.

Let me focus on Oldham, a borough of nearly a quarter of a million people—good, decent people who should have been front and centre of this Budget. There, like everywhere else, they know that good public services are the foundation of a good economy, not a burden placed on it. They know the cost when public services are overwhelmed by demand, staff are under immense pressure, and those they love do not get the care they need.

Many MPs will know this from our surgeries, but not that long ago, if people were having a struggle with housing, adult social care, SEND support or a range of other different public services, it would have been the exception and not the rule that they were found to be in a difficult position. Now, however, we all know that when people come to us to say that they have a housing crisis, we have to reply, “That’s the rule for many; it’s not the exception any more.” When people say that the person they love cannot get adult social care, we say, unfortunately, “That’s the rule now for too many; it’s not the exception any more.” When parents come and say that they are fearful for their children because they have not got the SEND assessment and support needed, we say too often, “That’s not the exception any more; it’s the rule for too many people.” The public service infrastructure for too many people has completely been eroded.

In many places the market has completely failed. We see that in adult social care and in children’s services, where the cost of placements is significantly impacting on local authority budgets. Then we come to temporary accommodation, which has to be mentioned. In Oldham, the cost of temporary accommodation has increased from £1.9 million to £6 million in just a few years. That is not the real story, of course; that is just financial pressure. The real story is that behind every figure is a family, a family in desperate need. In Oldham, 1,000 people are in temporary accommodation, including 500 children—500 boys and girls in temporary hotel accommodation, sharing a room, mixed gender, mixed age groups and often in mixed hotels, where the hotels are not even block booked to stop private clients being able to access the facility. That is not right, it is not safe and it reflects a broken market.

In the end, we need to rewrite the British contract, because it has failed too many working people. The idea that if people roll their sleeves up, work hard and make a contribution, they can get on in life and build something for themselves and their family, has been taken away from people. More than that, the generational progression that should be there has been denied. I look at my children growing up now and I see a housing market that is moving further and further away from them, not closer. People in my community see that the good, well-paid, skilled working-class jobs are something of the past and not the future. That fundamentally hits at the heart of the British contract, so we need a different way. As chair of the Co-operative party, I would say that we should be looking at many examples in the co-operative movement.

Ownership matters. We have seen a complete hollowing out of ownership in our communities. Look at our high streets and our town centres: we do not even know who owns the building that has been boarded up for 10, 15 or 20 years. Ownership matters.

On energy, we see that people are paying more and more for their gas and electricity to oligarchs and offshore interests, when here we are not building something that we can own together. That is where the Labour party is setting out a different path. With onshore and offshore renewables through Great British Energy, we can own something together, where we get to share its value, where we can take back control of our energy supply, our energy security and our energy bills.

In the end, this comes down to the Government deciding to choose a path and a course. I think that some of those issues should be beyond politics. Part of the problem with British politics is that things follow the parliamentary cycle far too much, when some are far more structural, such as adult social care and the future of health and social care. There should be a bigger response to that than whatever the Chancellor of the day thinks at a moment in time. Greater consideration should be given to the future world of work, and ensuring that work pays and gives people the opportunity to live a decent life. When we do not have that big politics and those big ideas, I am afraid we end up in the same situation that we found ourselves in yesterday: frankly, vacuous and without ideas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening yesterday to the Chancellor, who had a key focus on jobs. That is precisely why we are lifting so many people out of poverty and why we have had a focus on increasing the national living wage over the years. Let us not forget that the tax-free allowance was about £6,500 under Labour, whereas it is more than £12,500 now. We have lifted so many people out of paying tax altogether, and that has been a key focus and strategy of this Government.

[Jim McMahon]

On low income tax payers, by the Government’s own assessment how many people have been brought into taxation because of the freeze on the personal tax allowance?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I said earlier that, unfortunately, we have had taxes at a higher level than we want, but now we are in a position to reduce them. Reducing them and focusing on NICs is impactful for 29 million workers—anybody earning above £12,500. People now need to earn more than £1,000 a month before they pay any tax whatsoever.

As I said, when we came into power unemployment was near 8%, but it is now about 4%. We should not take full employment, or near full employment, for granted. We all know that every Labour Government have increased unemployment—that is not an impressive record but it is a consistent one.

I particularly want to reflect today on how our plan rewards hard-working families. The Government believe that people’s careers should support rather than undermine another important role: parenthood. That is why at last year’s Budget the Chancellor announced the biggest ever expansion of childcare from September 2025, extending the 30-hour free childcare offer to all children of working parents from nine months old. That will result in an extra 60,000 parents entering the workforce in the next four years. But to deliver on that we need to support the private sector to play its part too, so yesterday we confirmed that the Government are guaranteeing the hourly rate paid to childcare providers to deliver the free hours offer.

Inequality and Social Mobility

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do more to provide more housing for people on low incomes, and this Government are committed to ensuring that we do build more houses, that we make more available and that we make more houses available at prices within the local housing allowance, which has also been a challenge.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not the truth, however, that as well as the pound that people have in their pockets being worth less now than before, the social and economic contract of this country has been completely smashed apart? The idea that if you roll up your sleeves and work hard you can get on in life and have a better life for you and your children is no longer true for millions of people in this country.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman paints a very bleak picture, but the facts that came out on Tuesday demonstrated that monthly incomes are rising faster than inflation. There are jobs being made available and inequality has started falling since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We know that different headwinds are at play here, and we know that social media is, in some respects, having a negative impact on health inequalities. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary recently met with social media companies to see what can be done to control the harmful websites that are, for instance, part of the reason why we believe people may be committing suicide. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently commissioned Dame Carol Black to review drug usage. Different things are going on here, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are alive to wanting to improve health inequalities in this area, and we recognise that there is more to do.

We will set specific, measurable goals for narrowing discrepancies in health outcomes, and all local health systems will be expected to set out how they will reduce them in their area. That will ensure that we continue to provide world-class healthcare free at the point of use not just for this generation, but for generations to follow. As part of our long-term funding for the NHS, a five-year budget settlement will see funding grow by an average of 3.4% in real terms, because it is vital that anyone who suffers illness or cannot work knows that we stand ready to support them at times of need.

[Jim McMahon]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Amber Rudd]

I want to make some more progress.

We continue to look for ways to help people out of poverty, which is why we have acted to increase the incomes of the poorest in society. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has injected an extra £10 billion into universal credit since 2016, and that meant we could increase the universal credit work allowance by £1,000 in April, providing extra cash in the pockets of hard-working people in 2.4 million households.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I know there are people who have difficulties, and I listen to people in my Hastings constituency. I try to make sure that we respond as a Government, and I try to help them individually, but the Government cannot just base policy on anecdotes. We also have to look at the statistics and there are many different ways of doing that.

The hon. Member for Wirral West may quote relative or absolute statistics, but it is important to have an agreed basis so that we know we are measuring the same thing. That is why I have said we will look at the Social Metrics Commission’s “A new measure of poverty for the UK” report, of which she may approve because it looks not just at people’s income but at their actual spending. That makes a huge difference to people on low incomes. I urge her to look at the report.

[Jim McMahon]

I appreciate the Secretary of State’s generosity in allowing an intervention again. In that spirit, is the Department having cross-departmental conversations on the impact of other taxation? VAT, the most regressive indirect taxation, and council tax, the most regressive direct taxation, take 8% of a lower-income family’s income. Surely there should be such conversations across the Government.

[Amber Rudd]

We always have conversations across the Government. I work very closely with my colleagues across the Government to ensure that we devise the best policies to help everybody on low incomes. Those people need our support.

Supporting those on the lowest incomes and making sure that people’s life chances are not determined by their background or gender is at the heart of a one nation Conservative Government. For as long as we lead this country, we will always put social mobility at the centre of what we do and prioritise those most in need of financial support.

We believe that good government can empower people with a hand up, not just a handout, to get a good education, enter work and earn a decent wage. We have sought to keep taxes as low as possible, particularly for those on low and middle incomes, so that these people can keep more of the money they work hard for. We are not complacent about the challenges faced by the lowest earners in this country, which is why they are entitled to free childcare earlier in their child’s life than anyone else. Our increased national living wage and work allowances ensure that, once people are in work, they now earn more than ever.

It is the Government who are improving the situation for families across Britain. I urge all colleagues to reject the motion.

Social Security

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood]

I will come on to pensions further on in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will wait for that.

Some 8 million people are in poverty and live in families where at least one person is working. According to Shelter, more than half of homeless families in England are in work. Under the Conservatives, having a job is not even a guarantee that someone can avoid homelessness. The benefit freeze cannot be seen in isolation. It is just one part of the Conservative austerity programme that has seen billions cut from public services around the country and taken the core out of our communities. The Conservatives have targeted social security with devastating cuts, taking vital support from poor and disabled people. According to figures produced by the Library, measures announced in the June 2010 Budget onwards are forecast to cut social security by £36 billion in 2020-21. Nearly £5 billion is forecast to be taken from disability benefits, including employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit; £4.6 billion from tax credits; and £3.4 billion from child benefit. These cuts have had a devastating impact on the incomes of millions of people. The freeze should be seen in the context of the chaotic roll-out of the Government’s failing flagship social security programme, universal credit.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the points that she is making, many of which will resonate with my constituents. Does she agree that in-work poverty is a modern-day scourge on British society, and it exposes the lie that if someone is willing to work hard and make their own luck they can get on in life? Absolutely the opposite is true for too many people under this Government.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is a real sense of betrayal that that myth has been perpetrated by Government Members.

It is clear that universal credit is not working. It is driving many people into poverty, debt and rent arrears. One of its key defects is the inbuilt and unrealistic five-week wait. Originally it was even worse—a six-week wait. It seems that that senseless policy was devised by the Government without any thought for how people are supposed to survive for five or six weeks without any payment at all. The Secretary of State herself has spoken of the link between universal credit and the significant rise in food bank use. Why then have the Government failed to tackle this issue and why do they offer people a loan, rather than solving the problem?

The Secretary of State has said that the benefits freeze will not be extended beyond next year, but families cannot afford another year of the freeze. Next year alone, the benefits freeze is expected to cut £1.5 billion from the value of working-age benefits. We have called on the Government repeatedly to end the benefits freeze. It is not too late for them to stop the freeze. Ending it a year early would lift 200,000 people out of poverty altogether and boost the incomes of 13.7 million people on low incomes by an average of £270. The Government might be reluctant to do that now because the next financial year is only weeks away. However, when there is a desire to get a short Bill through and general agreement that it is non-contentious, Parliament can move primary legislation along quickly. As we saw in the recent work and pensions estimates debate, there is a cross-party desire to remove the damaging benefits freeze.

Part of the Government’s concern might be that the passage of such a Bill would be slowed down by amendments, so we will lay down a challenge to them: if they introduce a short Bill to end the benefit freeze one year early, Labour would support it and do whatever is possible to ensure its smooth passage before the next financial year. Will the Government agree to this measure, which would take hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty?

The increase in universal credit work allowances was introduced after considerable pressure from the House and Labour Members in the autumn statement. We welcome the increase, but we question why the Government cut the work allowances in the first place only to partially reinstate them a few years later. The 2015 cuts to work allowances dealt a major blow to the work incentives of universal credit and took money out of the pockets of working families. According to the Resolution Foundation, the increase to work allowances announced in the autumn restores only half the original cut overall. There are no work allowances for single people and couples who do not have a disability. Will the Government revisit this decision?

Turning to the uprating of the state pension in line with the triple lock, we are pleased that the Government have kept to this, despite the Conservatives’ plan to scrap the triple lock, which they announced in their manifesto. Presumably, the pressure from Labour Members made them think about that again. The latest figures show that pensioner poverty, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said, is rising again, with more than 300,000 additional pensioners living in poverty compared with 2012-13. That could be made worse by the news, slipped out on the eve of an all-important Brexit vote, that mixed-age couples will no longer be able to claim pension credit. They will instead be forced into making a universal credit claim, and some couples may lose as much as £7,000 a year as a result. Cumulatively, the cut amounts to £1 billion over the next five years. What assessment have the Government made of the effect this cut will have on pensioner poverty?

As the Government are still recklessly failing to rule out a no-deal Brexit, the threat of no deal and the effect it would have on the state pensions of UK citizens living abroad looms ever greater. As has been mentioned, the Government already withhold the pension uprating from pensioners living abroad in many countries outside the EU, an injustice Labour has pledged to reverse. In their no-deal planning, the Government have failed to commit to uprating the state pension across the EU beyond 2019-20. I have met pensioners who are very worried about this scenario and the effect it will have on pensioner poverty abroad. People who previously moved to the EU did so on the understanding that their pensions would be uprated. Why will the Government not give assurances to protect UK pensioners living abroad, whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations?

The Government have failed to address the financial hardship faced by millions of women born in the 1950s due to changes in pensions policy. Why, despite constant lobbying raising awareness of the issue, have the Government failed to take action? The Conservatives’ austerity agenda has inflicted real hardship on many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. It has also drastically undermined our social security system.

We on the Labour Benches believe that we need a social security system that is valued as highly as our NHS and is there for any one of us should we need it. The Government are failing to deliver. If the Prime Minister was really serious about austerity being over, the Government should take action to tackle the rising poverty we are seeing throughout our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Masterton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I would point out that that is not what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) actually said.

I want to address the order, which delivers on the triple lock to the state pension and provides an extra £3 billion for pensioners in 2019-20, uprating in line with earnings at 2.6%. The UK has a system whereby today’s taxpayers pay for pensions currently in payment. When people are living healthier lives for longer, spending much greater proportions of our lives in retirement, that is both unfair and unsustainable. The figure has already grown from 26.5% in 1981 to 33.1% in 2013. In 2010, the basic state pension stood at 16% of average earnings. Thanks to the triple lock, it will soon be around one quarter of average earnings. That has contributed to pensioner poverty falling significantly in recent years and the Government can be rightly proud of that. By some estimates, typical pensioner households now have higher incomes than their working-age counterparts. The triple lock has therefore served its purpose, and I would argue that it cannot be maintained indefinitely.

[Jim McMahon]

Does the hon. Gentleman see that as a justification for removing the free TV licence?

[Paul Masterton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I will come on to some of the questions about universal pensioner benefits in just a second.

As the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) mentioned, all Conservative MPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to replace the triple lock with a double lock of inflation and earnings from 2020. I believe that that was the right policy, and it would of course be more generous than the Cridland review’s recommendation of moving to a simple earnings link. Even this year, we are raising the state pension in line with earnings, because they have risen above the 2.5% floor the triple lock provides. The system should of course provide generous support for vulnerable pensioners, but that support should be properly targeted.

The current universal system means precious public funds are being spent on well-off pensioners. In fact, the richest one fifth of pensioners on average receive a higher weekly income from benefits, including the state pension, than the poorest one fifth. That would be a shocking statistic even without the context of strained public finances. If we are serious about addressing intergenerational unfairness, we must recognise the unfairness of allowing higher income pensioners, many of whom remain in very well-paid employment—for example, as MPs—to retain certain entitlements, while workers on an equivalent income lose their child benefit and their marriage allowance, to give just two examples.

We are building huge levels of intergenerational inequity in this country under the current system that the triple lock, having done what it was designed to do, will only continue to exacerbate. If we want to avoid increasing the burdens on younger workers to fund large transfers of wealth to better-off pensioners, issues around the triple lock and, although they are not in the scope of the measure today, universal benefits need to be addressed. Why are we increasing and providing these benefits to extremely wealthy individuals if it means having to freeze the entitlements for those who are in work and struggling to make ends meet?

I know that the political reality following the experience of the 2017 election meant that that manifesto commitment had to go and that that could easily lead the Conservative party to conclude that it has had its fingers burnt on many of these issues and should steer clear of them in future, but that would be a betrayal of my generation and those to follow. While I, of course, support the uprating order and particularly the increase to the UC work allowances, which many Government Members lobbied very hard for, I hope that the door is not being slammed shut on the grown-up discussion that we all need to have in the House about the triple lock and other universal pensioner benefits in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank all those from across the House who have taken the time to speak in this debate. As in last week’s estimates day debate, there was a lot of passion about very important issues. Although we do not agree on everything, this is a helpful debate in focusing our minds as we share the proceeds of growth in the coming years to make sure that we are targeting support at those who most need it.

I wish to pick up on a few points raised in this debate. A number of speakers said that we were not supporting those too sick to work. Let me be absolutely clear that the employment and support allowance support group rate will be increased from £37.65 to £38.55, and the severe disability premium will increase from £77.65 to £79.50. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was spot on when she talked about the impact of unemployment; we could not agree more, which is why we are proud to have delivered record employment in every region. That is in stark contrast to every Labour Government, who have left office with higher unemployment. This was echoed in the speech made by the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), who continues to attack job creation policies, seeking to remove the opportunity for people to fulfil their potential.

[Jim McMahon]

The Minister must surely know that the reason there are more people in work is that there are more working-age people. In my constituency, unemployment is higher this year than it was last year, and there is still a struggle to get people on long-term unemployment back into the labour market. He must know that, surely.

[Justin Tomlinson]

What we know is that every region of the UK is seeing more people working. Youth unemployment increased by 45% under the last Labour Government, but it has almost halved under this Conservative Government, and that will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

Can we just take away this artificial divide between taxpayers over here and claimants over there? People who claim benefits also pay tax. They contribute and work hard, and they deserve a better deal than this.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is why we are delivering record employment and increasing support for those who most need it, and why we are today announcing the latest sharing of growth with those who most need it, with a £3.7 billion increase. We are maintaining the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for both the basic and full rates of the new state pension; increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by earnings to support the poorest pensioners; increasing the universal credit work allowances so that claimants can earn more before their payments are reduced; and increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs, and carer benefits, in line with prices. I commend this order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can give him no advice further than that of which he is already well aware as an experienced and erudite parliamentarian. The fact is that I am about to proceed to the motions, as on the Order Paper.

[Jim McMahon]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, there were exchanges relating to the Seaborne ferry contract, and I was staggered to see that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was at the Dispatch Box responding to questions. I would welcome your advice about whether that was standard practice or unusual. Was there a point in our recent past when that was the case? Apparently, the issue was—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The reason why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was at the Dispatch Box is that the contract in question was made by the Department for Health and Social Care. It was therefore the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. Such matters are not for the Chair or the Chamber, but for the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. If somebody has appealed their PIP decision, they can keep their car.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Unemployment in my constituency now stands at 7.1%, which represents an increase of 1,200 on this time last year. What is the Department doing to support people into decent, well-paid and secure employment?

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have record levels of employment across the country. There are more than 800,000 vacancies in the economy and help is available at jobcentres, with one-to-one personalised support.

Universal Credit Sanctions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank those Members who are staying to listen to the debate. I realise that it is very late at night, but this is an important issue that affects many people—far more than we would want to be affected. Ideally, we would not be having the debate. We hoped that by now the Government would have listened to the calls for the universal credit programme to be paused so that they could learn lessons, take stock of where we are, and fix an arrangement that ought to be providing a decent service and simplifying the benefits system.

After the great war, William Beveridge declared that there were five giants on the road to reconstruction: poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. To tackle those five giants, a new, radical response was needed—a response big enough to meet head on the challenges of the day that risked Britain’s future. Furthermore, Beveridge set a vision for a new settlement between the rights of citizens, the role of the Government, and the formation and foundation of public services. It was a balance of roles and responsibilities, rights and obligations, and an expectation that if Britain was to succeed, there must be investment in its foundations.

The challenges that face Britain today, although different, are as big. Our economy is weak and reliant on low wages, low skills and insecure employment. We might sweeten the bitter reality by making it sound cutting-edge—by calling it the gig economy rather than exploitation —or by affixing power to the workers when in fact many of them are powerless, but at its heart is a weak foundation of exploitation and low value that fails to respect a basic belief on which I was raised: a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.

Why is this important? It is important because people should be able to earn enough to live—not just to get by, but to be comfortable and enjoy life: to have a nice meal, a holiday, a reliable car, a decent, secure home and a healthy family, and, crucially, to live in a country that invests to ensure that the next generation does even better than the one that went before. We should have a society in which fairness runs through everything we do. There should be a balanced contribution, with equal dividends for those who pay their fair share.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new sanctions in the universal credit system punish the working poor, especially low-paid workers?

[Jim McMahon]

The evidence says that—it says that working families are worse off under universal credit, and not because of its technocratic elements, but because the Government made a deliberate decision to make sure the financial crisis would be borne by those who could least afford it. They are people who are going out to work and doing what is asked of them but, as hard as they try, they cannot make ends meet because the odds are stacked against them and the Government are not on their side. That is what people in Oldham tell me, and that is what people in Oldham feel when they work very long hours and do not see the reward from doing that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at this late hour of the day, or this early hour of the morning—whatever it might be.

The issues that the hon. Gentleman is describing are United Kingdom-wide. A report from the Central England Law Centre shows that UC sanctions are three times greater than other sanctions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a worrying trend that affects all constituencies throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Jim McMahon]

That is an important intervention. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own error statistics show that the error lies within the DWP. In 2016-17, claimant error was 1.8% and official error was 4.9%. When claimants are doing what is asked, the margin of error is marginal, so it is the official errors that are sending people into severe debt and often poverty, and, all too often, to the food bank.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It is about a different aspect of UC from what we have discussed before, which is refreshing. Does he agree that reports produced by the likes of Oxford and Liverpool Universities on the links between benefit sanctions and the use of food banks prove that there is a major issue regarding the DWP’s sanction regime forcing people into food poverty?

[Jim McMahon]

That is what is cruel about this. The working classes are taught that if they are willing to roll their sleeves up, work hard and put the hours in, they can get by, and that if they work really hard, their son or daughter will have a better life than they had, and that legacy can be passed on to their children. I see a lot of people in Oldham who are doing what is asked of them and working long hours, but the idea that they will do better than their parents, and that their children will do better than them, is a distant prospect. That is cruel. We are still one of the richest countries in the world, but we are a country that is built on very weak foundations. I fear what Brexit means for our country because of how fragile our economy is and how little investment has been made in the foundation of rebuilding our economy, whether in skills, the types of industry that will get us beyond Brexit, housing or public services. All those things matter, and I do not see investment being made in places where it ought to be. This is a very sad situation.

Reflecting on my own situation, when my son was born, we relied on working families tax credits. That helped us, because it meant we were not just eating cheap microwave meals or skipping meals entirely to pay the rent, but it also meant that for the first time we were part of the welfare state. We were always taught that we claim benefits only when in absolutely dire need of them, not because there is a shame necessarily attached to claiming them, but because they are to be treasured. We were taught that we must not abuse them, but that they are a safety net to catch us when we need it. That is why we pay our national insurance and that is why we value benefits.

I worked for 40 hours a week, but it still was not enough, especially when large or unexpected bills arrived. It was a tough lesson to me that sometimes it does not matter how hard people work, because if they get caught in a cycle of debt, it can be difficult to break out of that trap. It only takes one or two minor things going wrong, such as a household bill coming in unexpectedly, for things to become very difficult.

The situation also showed me that sometimes the machinery of government is not on our side. We were in debt not because of unexpected bills, but because an error in the calculation of our family tax credits sent us into an overpayment situation.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been worth staying in the Chamber for this important debate. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, has been a pathfinder for universal credit for some time. It is those bits of absurdity that I find so hard to take. Government errors are resulting in people being sanctioned. I have seen people sanctioned for attending a job interview, which they are mandated to do. They win such cases on appeal, but that can often take two or three weeks, and the sanction leaves them dependent on high-cost credit or food banks to get by. They become trapped in a spiral of despair, and I find that bit of the system absolutely unconscionable.

[Jim McMahon]

That was my experience. We were working long hours and we relied on tax credits to be able to pay the rent and put food on the table. Through no fault of our own, we were trapped in a system that put blame and responsibility on to our shoulders, even though the fault was eventually proven to be that of the system. Families experience a great deal of stress when they do not have the necessary disposable income to satisfy all the demands that are coming in. That is the extremely difficult experience of people who are on universal credit.

I was in a secure job with a regular wage, and my hours were not changing all the time. I would fear being a universal credit claimant today if I were in insecure employment where my hours changed from one week to the next, where my employer would not give me certainty of employment or, even worse, where my employer would put me on a zero-hours or self-employed contract and I had to declare my earnings up front just in case there was an error further down the line. That does not strike me as a system that has been designed to help the claimant. It seems to have been designed to create a culture, and I believe that it is a corrosive culture. It is not a safety net to catch people, or a top-up benefit system that is meant to make work pay. It is a culture that talks about the deserving poor. It tells people that they are poor because of their own fecklessness or laziness, or as a matter of choice, not because they have been caught in a cycle of debt and despair. There also seems to be a grudging idea of what the welfare state is meant to be. People are told, “All right, we’ll pay you the money if we have to, but only if we really have to.” The culture that that creates is very dangerous for a country that has a long history of a welfare state.

More than 1 million working families will be £2,800 worse off under universal credit. Food banks have reported a 30% increase in referrals in areas with full universal credit roll-out. I want to talk about Greater Manchester, and particularly about Oldham. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for the leadership that she has shown on this issue. She will know from her constituency the depths of despair that people reach and the problems with the system, but some of these issues can be resolved, provided that the Government step back and listen to these concerns and take enough time to fix them, instead of going full steam ahead into a programme that they know has been built to fail.

We were one of the first pilot authorities, and we now have 4,000 claimants in Oldham. There are 49,000 claimants across Greater Manchester, nearly 20,000 of whom are in work. We have seen delays, mistakes and IT failures, on top of the deliberate decision by the Government to cut payments for those claimants who need them the most. Those things have real consequences. We have heard from Citizens Advice, the Greater Manchester law centre, my own local authority and directly from people working in job centres across Greater Manchester. We have also heard from a wide range of charities, including the Oldham food bank, which have seen scores of people—often referred by the Department for Work and Pensions itself—queueing for food vouchers for the food banks, just to get a basic supply to be able to live. My casework advisers are swamped and so are many of the charities. We fear the roll-out to the full 322,000 legacy benefit claimants, not for ourselves, but because we see what the scale of human suffering will be if the Government continue to fail to heed the warnings that the system is broken.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly worrying that the sanctions regime is to be rolled out to people who are already in work? As he says, they are often in insecure work with varying hours, which will leave them open to benefit sanctions for reasons beyond their control.

[Jim McMahon]

That is important, because concerns have been raised about when people are underemployed and do not have enough hours for a full-time week and the Government require them to actively pursue work to make up the additional hours. They may be only one or two hours under the threshold, but they are still required to attend an interview. If they work for an employer that has no flexibility and would be happy for them to walk out the door, because there is a queue of 10 people who are willing to take the 35-hour-a-week job, perhaps they cannot get to the appointment or perhaps the employer will not give them the additional hours required to satisfy the jobcentre. That is a real example of what people are going through today.

In a recent survey, Citizens Advice found that 39% of people had waited for more than six weeks and 11% had waited for more than 10 weeks. We have a heard a lot about the need for welfare to mirror work. It ought to provide a smooth transition between employment, changing contract terms and earnings, and significant changes in circumstances, but at its heart it is part of the welfare state. It is a safety net to catch people when they fall on difficult times that helps them to keep their head above water. It is meant to help people, not treat them as undeserving or with suspicion and resentment. For a safety net to work, it must be there when people fall. It should not let people hit the ground hard and then make them wait six or 10 weeks before help arrives. That is not the spirt of a welfare state that people pay into through national insurance. It is an insurance policy, but it fails to be there when people need it. That is fundamental.

There is a contract in place between citizens and the state. If we collectively, through our common endeavour, pay national insurance contributions, that fund ought to be there when we need it. The Government have failed to honour that contract, as far as I can see, and people who pay into that pot have the right to be disgruntled and to question whether it is really there. I would like to believe that that is not what the Government want, but some of the benefits debates in the media are corrosive. We hear the language that gets used by the Government. We are now in a position where the Government would be happy for public support for the welfare state to fall away completely to give them a reason to take the axe even further.

When the banking crisis really hit, people in Oldham did not blame the bankers or the Government; they blamed their neighbours. They looked at the neighbour who had a slightly nicer car than them and wondered why they could not have a nicer car. They saw the people with their suitcases full who were getting into a taxi to go on holiday and asked why they could not go holiday. That is the cruelty. People on low incomes were set against other people on low incomes, and the Government got away with it. When bankers have not been taken to task and corporation tax cuts have been handed out, the axe has been taken to the welfare state that was supposed to support people.

Thirty per cent. of people have reported making more than 10 calls to the universal credit helpline before their application was processed, with many waiting more than 30 minutes. Up until very recently, they were also charged a high premium. Some 57% had to borrow money while waiting for their first payment. So far, 101 job centres covering 14% of all job centres in Great Britain operate universal credit full service, and we fear for what the roll-out really means. But this is more fundamental than all the facts and figures. I talked about how we collectively pay into the pot that should be there to support people, and I could go into a lot of detail about the sanctioning regime and just how unfair and inflexible it is and how it does not take people’s lives into account.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the passion and conviction with which he is speaking on this hugely important issue at such an early hour. Does he share my concern at the report released this morning by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighting that pensioners, children and many families are, as a result of benefits sanctions, falling further into poverty despite much progress having been made? Does he also agree that, as Brexit starts to bite and as these sanctions come into place, we are approaching a catastrophe for those on low incomes?

[Jim McMahon]

That is absolutely the experience of people who have been affected, including people who are far away from the job market. The treatment of people who are in work on low wages and in insecure employment is wrong, but we should have a welfare state that supports people into employment, and it just does not do that in the way we want. Universal credit might force people into a job regardless of what the job is and regardless of its suitability, and it does not take into account people’s real desire to make an active contribution and to feel that their life is going somewhere. That is the real cruelty of the current system.

According to the DWP’s own data, Greater Manchester saw a staggering 34,000 sanctions in the 12 months to June 2017, with 3,420 of those sanctions in Oldham alone. Unsurprisingly, December 2016 saw sanction rates hit their peak at 4,200, which is hardly surprising given that the Christmas period knocks appointments out of sync, meaning that people might not be able to attend.

My plea, and it has been made a number of times, is that if we believe in the foundations of a fair society, we have to have rights and obligations, but we also have to have a state that recognises it has a role to play. The foundations cannot be taken for granted. When they were brought in, they were brought in because the country was in a state and we recognised that something dramatic had to happen to build the type of Britain we want. The idea that those brave decisions can be undone by a Government who seem completely indifferent to human suffering is worrying.

More than that, the challenge our country faces as we embark on leaving the European Union is one of the biggest in generations. It could cause economic shock and social shock, and we do not quite know yet what the consequences will be. A person might think that the Government would take this opportunity to re-establish their vision for the type of Britain that will exist after Brexit. Core to that has to be decent public services, a social security system that is there when people need it and an employment system in which we invest in industry and make sure that the next generation has the chance, which has unfortunately been taken away from too many, to do better, get on in life and have a decent life living in this country.

The Government need to step up. Time is ticking. Generations are passing by. I do not want the current system for my children, and nobody in this House should want it for their children or for their constituents, either.

State Pension Age: Women

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd]

That is an important point about the many years of contributions and of back-breaking jobs.

I return to the fact that we are all culpable; we know that in this Chamber— Conservative, Labour, coalition and, according to the Conservatives and Labour, the SNP as well. I do not say—because I would be lying to my constituents—that we are going to cancel the new retirement age and take it back to 60; anyone who says that knows they are telling whoppers, and that that is not going to happen.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Stephen Lloyd]

I am going to continue.

If there are Members who honestly say that to their constituents—well, I am not going to cast any slurs on anyone in the Chamber. This is having a shocking impact in some parts of the country and on many WASPI women and I believe that the Government have a duty to find some additional money to assist with the transition period. That is the right and the honourable thing to do, and I believe that the Government must find that money. If they do, a lot of WASPI women will, possibly through gritted teeth, accept that transition money and move on with this challenging age change. Without that, however, the anger and the sense of justifiable unfairness will increase, which will leave a real scar for a heck of a lot of women born in the 1950s who have contributed not just to the greatness of our nation, but through the children, grandchildren and families that have made our country what it is today.

I urge the Minister to go to the Chancellor and ask him to find an element of transition money that will at least allow the WASPI women to have the funds, not just to make up for losing the six years, but to cover the money that this has cost so many. I urge the Minister to find a way; find some transition money, make a difference, and do it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

Given the likelihood that the Government will eventually have to change their position, would it not make sense for a good Government to ensure that financial provision was being made for that eventuality now?

[Mr Seely]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am making that point as well. Clearly, voting either way is not going to change things today, but I hope that the Government will consider this matter in the light of any pensions Bill that is introduced later.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Of course I am not going to say a word against the right hon. Gentleman’s food bank staff and suggest that they are scaremongering or doing anything else negative like that, but my response to his substantive question is, no, we do not expect these things to happen because we want this system to work as well as it possibly can. Its performance continues to improve and we continue to evolve and improve the system.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

We also continue an active dialogue with Members across this House and, of course, other people outside, and we will continue to listen to concerns. Where we hear about improvements and identify the need for them, we will make them. As the Secretary of State and I said in opening and closing last week’s debate, the Government will continue to roll out this benefit gradually, in a considered way, adjusting as necessary as we go.

The Opposition are asking for a pause in the roll-out. We already have planned pauses in the roll-outs. We have just had one pause and another is scheduled for January. These breaks in the schedule have intentionally been built in. They illustrate my point of a slow and considered roll-out, rather than the alternative big bang approach—an approach which Opposition Members may recognise from 2003, with the disastrous implementation of working tax credits, with billions misspent and many families left without money for six months, and many, many more facing huge repayment bills.

[Jim McMahon]

If the Government are so confident in their position, why this week have they refused to publish the risk register that would set out for the whole of Parliament exactly what had been planned?

[Damian Hinds]

Debates over risk registers in relation to a number of different parts of Government policy happen the whole time. They also happened, by the way, when the Labour party was in government. I think people in general would agree that it is important, for the sake of better management of government, to be able to consider these things in the way that they are.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the breaking of the system has gone too far when organisations such as the Greater Manchester Law Centre refuse to support universal credit, on the basis that it results in further adversity and punishment for vulnerable people?

[Neil Gray]

Yes, absolutely. The Trussell Trust has reported a 17% rise in food bank aid in areas in which universal credit has been rolled out, which is double the year-on-year rise in the rest of the UK. There is, therefore, a direct correlation between the roll-out of universal credit in its current form and people living in food poverty. That cannot and should not be ignored. Citizens Advice in East Lothian, where UC has been rolled out, says that more than half its clients on UC are £45 per week worse off. The third of clients who are better off are up only 34p a week. Citizens Advice Scotland says that rent arrears are up 15% in UC areas, compared with a 2% drop everywhere else in Scotland. The DWP’s own figures show that one in four UC claimants wait longer than six weeks—some of them up to 10 weeks—to receive a payment.

The SNP has been warning about these issues for years. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) met the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on 14 March 2013. My hon. Friend was, at the time, the leader of the Highland Council, which was one of the first areas for roll-out. Nothing has been done. The warnings from Highland have been ignored, despite the roll-out being designed to allow improvements to be made as it progressed.

Where universal credit is currently in operation, rent arrears have spiked, because housing benefit is no longer paid directly to the landlord and people are not getting their money on time. Food bank need has grown because of the minimum six-week wait for payment. In-work poverty is rising as new work benefits start to become sanctionable, and the incentive to work is removed by the cuts to work allowances.

Of course, the DWP has claimed, and will claim, that universal credit is motivating people into work, but that is not true on the scale that it would wish us to believe from its rhetoric. The DWP’s own figures show that for the 2% of jobcentres with UC, there has been a 3% uplift in employment rates. That accounts for all the factors that contribute to people finding or staying in work. Are the rises in food bank use, rent arrears and in-work poverty really worth a 3% uplift in employment, when many of those jobs are precarious, low-paid and unsustainable? The DWP must look again at cuts to work allowances to really make work pay, cut in-work poverty and allow people to get on. The roll-out is supposed to allow the DWP to adapt where things are going wrong, and to fix the problems. Why, then, are the Government not listening to their own Members, to the expert charities, to the Scottish and Welsh Governments and to constituents?

On the subject of listening to constituents, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is failing his constituents by failing to be here to take part in a potential vote on this issue, which will impact on thousands of his constituents and a huge proportion of children in his constituency. Normally, Whips give slips for votes or business days so that MPs can take part in important constituency events or travel with Committees. The Government Whips appear to have slipped the hon. Member for Moray so that he can run the line at a football match in Barcelona. Far from standing up for his constituents, who would get sanctioned for not turning up to a work-related meeting—

Disability Employment Gap

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I think it is absolutely shameful that the Government are refusing to monitor that properly. It is clear to all of us in the House that if people lose the cars that allow them to get to work, it will be harder for them to stay in work or seek employment. That, surely, is as plain as the nose on the Secretary of State’s face.

Does the Secretary of State think that taking Sarah’s Motability car away from her helps or hinders his mission to halve the disability employment gap? It seems to me that he should know the answer to that. I ask him to bring forward the review of PIP, and to think again about the 20-metre rule in particular. I ask him to look at what Atos and Capita are doing and reform their management of the system, because it is not working, and people such as Sarah are paying the price.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is the fact that the assessment process is so dehumanising for a lot of people? This is not about human beings or about realising their full potential; it is about treating people as numbers.

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend is completely right. As we all know, the truth is that there was a set of targets for savings to be made from the social security budget. Those targets were set by the Chancellor and passed down the road to those at Caxton House, who have set about carving up disabled people’s benefits in order to meet those targets. It is frankly shameful that people are being dragooned into this process, being treated poorly and demeaned by it, and at the end being less likely to stay in work or find work. That is very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I am pleased to see the shadow Secretary of State nodding his head. It is a little churlish of him to criticise us for not narrowing the gap in the first year since the election. He is quite right to point out that the gap has broadened—[Interruption.] It really annoys me that the Opposition Front-Bench team always think that the best way to address any speech by a Conservative Member is to sit and give a running verbal commentary on everything we say—a monologue to their imaginary friends sitting on the Front Bench. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) be quiet for a minute? I am sorry to have to shout at her. I listened very patiently and quietly—[Interruption.] I do not want a conversation with her; I am asking her to listen to my speech. I sat patiently and listened to the shadow Secretary of State. I did not engage in a running commentary. [Interruption.] If she wishes to step outside and argue with me now, then we can do so. All I am asking is for the hon. Lady to show me a common courtesy and to listen to what I am saying, not issue a running commentary. [Interruption.] Yes, I know that my time is running down, but I place great importance on standards of politeness in this Chamber. If I choose to use my time in trying to enforce those standards, that is my choice and it is not for her to comment on it.

[Jim McMahon]

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way. Inadvertently, that will give him an extra minute, which he will be very grateful for. With all due respect, he will not have seen from where he is sitting that, during the opening speech in this debate, his Front Benchers were making the same running commentary against Labour Members. That is perfectly reasonable as part of the debates that take place, but I do not think it is reasonable for him to offer to take outside a Member of the official Opposition.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. As you always remind us, Mr Speaker, we are responsible for what we say in the Chamber. My point to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was that rather than interrupting my speech, I was more than happy to continue the debate about proper standards of addressing Members in the Chamber after we had completed our speeches. On that note, I think we will move on.

I was touched by what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said about his nephew in Lancashire and his perception of engaging in the jobs market. That spoke to me quite a lot because there was a time when I often felt I would be a burden to an employer. An implicit assumption built into how I viewed the world was that, for some reason, employers would somehow not want to touch me with a bargepole, that I would have to be better than the best and that the hurdle would always be that much higher. I very much understand his mindset.

To me, the biggest challenge in trying to overcome the disability employment gap is that some of our assumptions about what will happen to us in the workplace are so low to start with that it is very hard to give people the confidence to engage in the process. One of my concerns—this is partly why I agreed to participate in the review organised by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People—is my belief that percentages can be a very difficult way to measure what is actually going on. We had a very helpful contribution from the Labour party to the review. I welcome the fact that it felt able to make a submission, and I hope it will do so on the Green Paper as well. The contribution was actually interesting. Again, it focused on percentages—the percentage of people with a disability who are in work or engaging in an apprenticeship—but such figures are always hampered by the fact that those are self-declared disabilities. Many potential applicants simply do not want to acknowledge somewhere on a form that they have a disability in the first place, in case it affects the employer’s perception of how they will be treated during any interview process.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am in complete support of my right hon. Friend the Minister and entirely in disagreement with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who is a very civilised gentleman. When he said that this was a pseudo-constitutional issue, he could not have been more wrong. This House’s democratic authority is wholly based on financial privilege, which is why, when we reject amendments that engage financial privilege, we give no further reason. Not only is that important to the current Government, but it will be important to the Opposition when they are in government, too. If the House of Lords can challenge the Commons on matters of financial privilege, then the country becomes ungovernable. Those who have the democratic mandate have a right, because of the people whom they represent, to determine issues relating to finance. The other place is increasingly trespassing on that right. The amendment that it passed in lieu decided to give it the right to consider the secondary legislation on a financial matter, which it does not need to do; it has taken it from primary to secondary, upgrading their role on a financial matter. Constitutionally, that is quite wrong. Any Member of this House who thinks that, one day, he may speak from the Treasury Bench Dispatch Box should bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the constitutional norms are maintained.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

There are plenty of cameras in this place, but they do not always pick up what is going on across the Chamber. When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was speaking, the Minister was engaged in conversation with a person to her immediate left. I am not sure whether that conversation was related to the debate in hand, but they thought it fit to laugh during the debate when the true impact of these cuts on the people who can least afford them was being laid out. Either the Minister was not paying attention to the debate because of disinterest, or she thought that what was being laid out was funny. Either way, she should be ashamed of herself.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

The first thing that I did when I was elected to this place in 2010 was to attend a dinner in honour of Alf Morris, the first disabled Minister, to celebrate the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. At that dinner, I sat between Roger Berry, the former MP for Kingswood, and the late Paul Goggins, the former MP for Wythenshawe. Both were excellent Labour disability Ministers, who did a superb job. Also there was William Hague, who brought in the disability living allowance. What that brought home to me was that the only time that real progress is made on disability issues is when there is a spirit of bipartisanship in this Chamber. On this particular issue, that bipartisanship is clearly lacking.

For the past six years—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) please be quiet? Her behaviour now reminds me why I chose not to vote for her for the Public Accounts Committee. She is showing me no courtesy at all.

For six years now, I have believed that we need to improve our support for those with a disability. There is a crying need for reform. We now have a White Paper. I want us all to engage in the process, not just to sit there. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that promised to halve the disability employment gap. Nothing would upset me more than to think that Opposition Members actively want us to fail in that goal, because they see some sort of short-term political gain. They owe it to their constituents and to the country to help us achieve our goal, and I do not think that some of them want to do that.