European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I rise to speak on Brexit for the first time ever in this House. I have never spoken about Brexit before. I have avoided the subject like the plague. It has brought out, I am afraid to say, a side in a lot of my friends and colleagues, who I love dearly, that I have not particularly enjoyed. I am forced to have a view today and I will be honest.

I have always been ambivalent about our exit from or membership of the European Union. I know that frustrates others. I respect those who hold passionate views on both sides of the argument, but for me is has always been an issue—it is not the issue of a modern Conservative party. This situation we are now in represents a total failure of the political class in this country. I completely understand the views and regret of many Members in this House, but we have to see it for the opportunity it is. Not to do so would be not to understand the referendum result. That result shook this country to its core. I voted to remain, but I liked that; I came here because I could not watch my country have her politics dominated by a political class out of touch with the nation they governed. I liked the shockwave that was sent through the establishment, but more than that I was hoping for change.

This deal indicates what I have long feared: that too many in government have failed to grasp why people voted to leave the European Union in the first place and the opportunities for a brighter future that that vote represented. Was it about Europe? Of course it was. But it was about so much more than that. The vote to leave was in no small part a cri de coeur from millions of people who feel that the powers that be in Westminster no longer know, let alone care, what it feels like to walk in their shoes. Poorer and less-well educated voters were more likely to back leave. The majority of those not in work backed leave. Those living in council housing and social housing tenants mostly backed leave. Those dependent on a state pension largely backed leave. At every level, there was a direct correlation between household income and the likelihood to vote for leaving the EU. That is what makes what happens now even more important. The referendum result was a nation throwing a leash back around its Government. What people wanted was a Government who said what they meant and meant what they said. Yes, it was about taking back control—but it was about the country taking back control of its Government.

That, right there, is my issue with the deal. I know courage and resolve when I see it and on Tuesday evening, when the Prime Minister rose to open this debate after losing three votes on the bounce, she demonstrated why she personally still holds the affections of many of us here. But what followed, and, in fact, what preceded her in the motion that was passed, showed me that in some ways, we still do not get it. The establishment is too loud, too boorish and too condescending, and it really worries me. To force this deal through—crossing our own red lines and our manifesto that we stood on, but particularly critically for me, threatening the Union of this United Kingdom—would speak to a democratic deficit that I have always spoken about, and if I am to retain my integrity, I must now oppose.

This country is in troubling times. The divisions, hatred, unreasonableness and the fundamentally un-British unpleasantness of man to fellow man have to end. If I thought that this deal was going to do that, I would be the first through the Lobby. I want nothing more than simply to be part of an extraordinary team on the Government side achieving extraordinary things and making a modern, compassionate Conservative party that is fit to meet the challenges of a modern Britain, but this is not it. Unfortunately, this deal is not it. The British people know that and we must now be very careful.

I say to the Prime Minister that we must try again. I do not want no deal, and I believe that a second referendum—although I respect those who hold such views—would open up divisions in this country that frankly, I and a lot of people in this country are sick of. However, I cannot accept an agreement that makes the UK a junior partner in an international relationship that it cannot unilaterally leave, because that misses the point of why people voted for Brexit in the first place.

We can do this. I travel thousands of miles up and down this country, and there is a huge conservative heart out there in this nation looking to be represented by a modern Conservative party here at Westminster. We get there by remembering our values and why people vote for us—it is because they feel like they have control. The backstop is not that. We believe in the fundamental goodness of this nation. This is a seminal moment and we must be extremely careful to get it right.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I rise to speak to my amendment 30, which would improve the timeframe for the breathing space, ensuring its introduction by the end of 2019. That would provide greater certainty, because the current timeframe centres on the establishment of the SFGB, which is potentially moveable. I have proposed a realistic target, allowing sufficient time for the necessary preparation work. I am assured of that by the debt advice providers themselves; they say it gives enough time to plan and develop the new systems to deliver the new protections to all.

Let us not forget that debt often pushes people into a mental health crisis and that debt and depression necessitate people visiting the doctors’ surgery. They are suffering depression, but it is not that; it is the debts that are depressing them. The breathing space and statutory debt repayment plans, properly set up, will give people time and space to get debt advice, stabilise their finances through periods of temporary difficulty and put in place a long-term sustainable solution to their debts. That is not just of benefit to the individual; it benefits the creditors as well, because they know they will be getting their money back, in a fair way, over a fair period of time.

I hope that the Minister will also confirm some details of how the breathing space scheme will work. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is essential that the length of time involved is sufficient to ensure that people are not put back into the harmful uncertainty of unmanageable debt before they have that long-term plan in place. Six weeks has been mentioned, and such a period may help some people, but I have said many times that three months is probably more realistic. I have mentioned how long it takes to get people to come in and deal with the debts, with the need to open carrier bags full of envelopes that people have not had the courage to open. If we are going to start with six weeks, provision must be made for extensions to be made to that; it cannot just finish at six weeks, as it often takes longer than that to get an appointment.

I would like to see this scheme cover all relevant debts, including benefit debts, council tax debts and debts owed to central or local government. If creditors are excluded, they will be able to put the unhelpful pressure on the debtors, which will reduce the scheme’s viability and effectiveness. This has to stop creditors across the board making unaffordable repayment demands. For example, claimants on universal credit can have 40% of their benefit withheld to pay off third-party creditors, with another 40% going on paying back benefit advances—that is 80% of the money. That leaves them with 20% of what is considered the minimum amount required to live on, and that is simply unaffordable.

There is widespread unfair pressure from Government creditors. As StepChange says, bailiffs are often the first port of call rather than a last resort. Clients rate the DWP, HMRC and councils far worse than other creditors—far worse than payday lenders—for treating them unfairly. The Government should adhere to best practice, and I hope that the Minister will agree that it is in all our interests to ensure that no vulnerable people are put into a position where they are unable to pay off their debts.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 5, which is in my name and those of the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), as well as many others across the House.

We in this place often talk a very good game when it comes to mental health, and serious progress has been made in taking the agenda forward over the last few years thanks to colleagues from across the House. When it comes to parity of physical and mental health, however, small details in policy matter. The amendment concerns one such detail, and I am delighted by what the Minister has said today about bringing that into reality for some of our most vulnerable constituents. It was a manifesto commitment of the Government to introduce a breathing space scheme, whereby people who suffer from problem debt are given a fixed period without fees, charges, interest or collection. The consultation is out at the moment, and I support the proposal very much, but there is a gap in provision for those who suffer from mental health crises—those who are too unwell either to manage their finances alone or seek debt advice, and so would not be able to access this scheme.

As we have heard, last year that situation affected up to 23,000 of our most vulnerable constituents, who were hospitalised for poor mental health while struggling with debt. That does not account for those who were in a similar position while receiving mental health crisis support in the community. The link between debt and poor mental health is indisputable; it is a marriage made in hell. I pay tribute to the work of Martin Lewis in bringing together the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which has shone a torch on the relationship between debt and mental health. That relationship is often hidden away in some of the darker recesses of our communities, but it makes some of our most vulnerable constituents’ lives hell.

Tens of thousands of people in this country are trapped in a spiral of escalating debts and worsening mental health. Some receive court summons while they are in hospital. I know somebody who faced demands on their doorstep the day they were released following their recovery from an illness. Some people have missed bill payments while hospitalised for mental health conditions, and escalating fees and charges have led some to attempt suicide directly after contact from bailiffs.

The ask of this amendment is very clear: for the Minister to look at extending the current breathing space scheme to apply to anyone who accesses psychiatric in-patient care. We must commit ourselves ever harder to parity of esteem, as I have said. For those who have a short period of acute mental illness—who suffer panic attacks and cannot open the post, call the bank or even think coherently—going to a debt counsellor to call a halt to things is just impossible. The commitment that we seek today, and that we have got from the Minister, is important because it means that people can look to those in NHS crisis teams for advice and space in the breathing space scheme.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to listen to our concerns. The campaign has been a good one. It has involved all Members of this House and shown what can happen when those from all parts of the House work together. I come back to what I said at the beginning. We often talk a very good game—I was delighted that parity of mental health and physical health was made a manifesto commitment in 2015—but sometimes big words have to be matched by calibrated and careful actions. This is one such area, and I am delighted that the Minister has decided that he is going to work on it. I look forward to working with him and the policy institute to make that a reality for tens of thousands of people up and down the country.

[Luciana Berger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

Disclosure of information

Amendments made: 12, page 14, line 17, after “where” insert “—

(i) the disclosure is for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the exercise of the consumer protection function, or

(ii) ”

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 10, which makes changes to the consumer protection function, including requiring the SFGB to pass information to the FCA in certain circumstances. This amendment ensures that disclosure of information in these circumstances is protected by subsection (7) of Clause 18.

Amendment 43, page 14, line 26, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”—(John Glen.)

This amendment changes the reference to the Data Protection Act 1998 to a reference to the “data protection legislation” (as defined in Clause 25 as amended by Amendment 44) to reflect the changes to data protection legislation that are to be made by the Data Protection Bill.

Clause 19

Personal pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc

Amendments made: 13, page 14, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 15 and insert—

‘(1B) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the member or survivor is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the member or survivor is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(1C) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the member or survivor has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment will enable FCA rules to require trustees of a personal pension scheme who receive an application from a member to access or transfer their pension to refer them to SFGB guidance and explain its nature and purpose (or ensure that another person, such as the SFGB, does so) and will prevent them from proceeding unless the member confirms that they have received guidance or do not want it.

Amendment 14, page 15, line 10, leave out from “guidance” to end of line 11.

This amendment (and Amendment 13) removes references to independent financial advice from Clause 19, so that it refers only to pensions guidance given by the SFGB in pursuance of Clause 5 of the Bill.

Amendment 15, page 15, line 14, at end insert—

“() make further provision about how, and to whom, a member or survivor may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (1C);”

This amendment expressly envisages the rules making provision about how the opt-out (or confirmation of receipt of guidance) mentioned in the new subsection (1C) inserted by Amendment 13 must be expressed in order to be effective.

Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 17 and insert—

“communication that is made for the purposes of complying with the duty in subsection (1C)”. —(John Glen.)

This amendment is consequential on the changes to the duties on trustees made by Amendment 13.

Clause 20

Occupational pension schemes: requirements to recommend guidance etc

Amendments made: 17, page 16, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert—

‘(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the beneficiary is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the beneficiary is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(3) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment makes equivalent changes to Clause 20(2), which relates to occupational pension schemes in Great Britain, to the changes made by Amendment 13 for personal pension schemes.

Amendment 18, page 16, line 25, leave out from “guidance” to end of line 26.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 14 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment 19, page 16, line 29, at end insert—

“() make further provision about how, and to whom, a beneficiary may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (3);”

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 15 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment 20, page 16, line 31, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert “communication that is made for the purposes of complying with the duty in subsection (3)”.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendment 16 for occupational pension schemes in Great Britain.

Amendment 21, page 17, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—

‘(2) As part of the application process, the trustees or managers must ensure that—

(a) the beneficiary is referred to appropriate pensions guidance, and

(b) the beneficiary is provided with an explanation of the nature and purpose of such guidance.

(3) Before proceeding with the application, the trustees or managers must ensure that the beneficiary has either received appropriate pensions guidance or has opted out of receiving such guidance.”

This amendment makes equivalent changes to Amendments 13 and 17 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 22, page 17, line 42, leave out from “guidance” to end of line 43.

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 14 and 18 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 23, page 17, line 46, at end insert—

“() make further provision about how, and to whom, a beneficiary may indicate that they have received or opted out of receiving appropriate pensions guidance for the purposes of subsection (3);”

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 15 and 19 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 24, page 18, line 2, leave out from second “a” to end of line 3 and insert—

“communication that is made for the purposes of complying with the duty in subsection (3)”. —(John Glen.)

This amendment is the equivalent to Amendments 16 and 20 for occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland.

Ordered,

That Clause 22 be transferred to the beginning of line 1 on page 21.—(John Glen.)

This is a drafting change to reorder some of the existing clauses in the Bill to provide a more logical order following the insertion of NC3 and NC4.





Clause 25

Interpretation of Part 1

Amendments made: 25, page 21, line 2, at end insert—

“the ‘consumer protection function’ has the meaning given in section 3(7);”

This amendment inserts a definition of “the consumer protection function” into the interpretation clause, which will be necessary following the amendment to Clause 18 made by Amendment 12, which refers to the consumer protection function.

Amendment 44, page 21, line 2, at end insert—

“the ‘data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data

Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”

This amendment inserts a definition of the “data protection legislation” which is a term now used in Clause 18 (see Amendment 43) and the new clause inserted by NC9, to reflect the changes to be made to the law in this area by the Data Protection Bill.

Amendment 26, page 21, line 7, at end insert—

“‘direct marketing’ means the communication (by whatever means) of advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals;” .—(John Glen.)

This amendment inserts a definition of “direct marketing” into the interpretation clause (using the definition in data protection legislation), which is a term used in the consumer protection function (see Amendment 10) and in NC3 and NC4.

Clause 36

Commencement

Amendments made: 45, page 35, line 6, at end insert—

“() section (Unsolicited direct marketing: pensions);”

This amendment amends the commencement clause so that the new clause on unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions (inserted by NC9) would come into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment 46, page 35, line 25, after “Sections” insert—

“(Unsolicited direct marketing: other consumer financial products etc) and”.—(John Glen.)

This amendment amends the commencement clause so that the new clause on unsolicited direct marketing relating to consumer financial products other than pensions would come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent.

Schedule 4

regulation of Claims Management Services: Transfer Schemes

Amendments made: 47, page 47, line 17, at end insert—

“‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data

Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”

This amendment inserts a definition of “the data protection legislation”, which is a term now used in paragraph 19 of this Schedule (as amended by Amendment 48) to reflect the changes made by the Data Protection Bill.

Amendment 48, page 49, line 32, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.—(John Glen.)

This amendment changes the reference to the Data Protection Act 1998 to a reference to the “data protection legislation” to reflect the changes to data protection legislation that are to be made by the Data Protection Bill.

Title

Amendments made: 28, line 2 leave out “cold-calling and”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 29, amends the long title in consequence of NC3 and NC4.

Amendment 29, line 3 at end insert—

“to provide a power to make regulations prohibiting unsolicited direct marketing in relation to pensions and other consumer financial products and services;”.—(John Glen.)

See explanatory statement for amendment 28.

Oral Answers to Questions

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is very important that in the negotiations with the European Union we always keep the option of no deal on the table; otherwise, we will not get the best possible deal. But we are very confident of achieving a good deal. Why is the hon. Gentleman not welcoming the fantastic economic news we have had this morning: the lowest unemployment—again—since 1975, and wages up by 2.8%? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of Eeyores on the Opposition Benches.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

7. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the introduction of the national living wage on low pay.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

The national living wage has increased levels of pay. In fact, we have seen the wages of the lowest fifth of our population in terms of earnings increase by 7% in real terms since 2015.

[Johnny Mercer]

My right hon. Friend will know that the two biggest policies that have put more money into the pockets of the lowest earners in this country have come from this Government—namely, the increase in the tax threshold and the minimum wage. What more will the Government do to make sure that private businesses, together with public services, are working to continue to increase wages and improve the quality of life in cities such as Plymouth?

Oral Answers to Questions

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We will continue to seek to simplify the tax system, although I have to say that my personal observation is that whenever there is a proposal to simplify, those who benefit from complexities quickly speak up. They are not always people on high incomes; they are often people on lower incomes. We shall continue to try to simplify the system in a way that is fair and appropriate for all.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

While accepting that the Ministry of Defence is in need of serious reform as well as more money, will the Chancellor confirm that he has agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence that there will be no further reductions in capability while the modernising defence review takes place, and that the money required to do that, in the region of £2 billion, will be forthcoming?

[Mr Hammond]

As the House will know, I had the privilege to serve for nearly three years as Defence Secretary and I yield to no one in my admiration for the work of our armed forces. I also understand how complex and challenging managing the defence budget is: it is a multi-annual budget with many complex procurements. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are working very closely with our right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary as he carries out the modernisation review. We will ensure that defence has the funding it needs to continue to defend this country appropriately.

Oral Answers to Questions

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Household debt as a proportion of household income was 168% in 2008 and today it is 142%, so it has fallen.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

T3. This Chancellor has given more than any before him to the cause of looking after our armed forces veterans in this country, and for that I thank him wholeheartedly. Does he agree that although the charity sector has a key role to play, ultimately veterans’ care is a state responsibility and we must ensure that the money coming from Government is used for evidence-based, empirically measured professional treatments for our veterans and their families?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend obviously has huge experience in this area, personally and because he represents a constituency that has given much to the defence of our nation. He is right: as well as the LIBOR fines, which we use for specific one-off causes to help military charities, we have the armed forces covenant and the annual commitment to support our veterans. I am always happy to look at either specific projects in which we can invest or ongoing concerns we can deal with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to confirm that the deal we struck with the Scottish Government on capital borrowing remains intact. Indeed, we want to strike a new agreement with them involving a new fiscal framework, and we are having a good discussion around capital borrowing powers, resource borrowing powers and the mechanism to ensure that Scotland genuinely sees the benefits and bears the costs of any decisions taken by the Scottish Government. That represents the true nature of devolution, which I am sure the Scottish National party wants to see, so let us make sure we get that agreement.

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments last night on transitional arrangements, but does he agree that we simply must reform this crazy tax credit system, which enforces low pay, and that we will take no lessons from the Opposition, who have failed cities such as mine when it comes to helping the working poor? This tactic of bribing our lowest earners and most vulnerable people, not to improve social mobility or to help them but simply to win votes, is deplorable and must end in this country for good.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point: we have created a welfare system that subsidises low pay, and surely it is better to increase that pay. That is why we are introducing the national living wage and I know that will help many of the people my hon. Friend represents in Plymouth.

Tax Credits

Johnny Mercer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

I wanted to speak in this debate because I believe it is important to add my voice, for what it is worth, from the Government Benches and from a first-time Conservative seat, on the tax credit reforms.

I represent part of the great city of Plymouth, which has for some time been a stronghold of the Opposition in recent elections. Indeed, my seat was once the domain of the Leader of the Opposition, such was the political landscape in our history. However, Plymouth is changing. We may have at times benefited from the nuances of being almost entirely state-dependent for our income, but the modernisation of the dockyard has had a profound effect on the demographics and outlook for our city. We now have second and third-order effects of long-term state dependency visible in generations of our residents.

In recent years, we have seen real benefits as the fundamentals of our local economy have changed. That resilient yet ever-evolving Janner character has seen us become a haven for marine science in the south-west, with companies such as MSubs, which was visited by the Chancellor in his last stop in the city. We have some genuine world leaders in hi-tech manufacturing and our charity sector is something that those of us who call Plymouth home are extraordinarily proud of. We have three fine higher education institutions. We are home to the world’s most adaptive and resilient fighting force in 3 Commando Brigade. We are a city that cares, regardless of background, and I look forward to turbo-charging this agenda in the years ahead.

As times have changed, so has the vote. On the Government Benches, we do not think it is right that people should be better off on a life on benefits than those with young families who work hard and contribute to the system. The welfare state is a truly remarkable thing: a system that makes me proud to be British, and a system that provides a safety net to those who need it and security for those who fall. The harsh reality, however, is that the system failed in places like Plymouth. In places like Plymouth, the system offered a life on benefits with income up to £26,000 for a family of four, such as my own. We cannot blame people for one minute for seeking this way of life, but we can look at the system that encouraged it. That is what my party is rightly doing.

I must urge caution with respect to these specific changes to tax credits. We all take individual journeys to this House, but mine was very clearly to represent my constituents above all else and to do what is right by my city. If I am to truly follow through on this, it would be remiss of me not to recount the extraordinary levels of feeling in Plymouth last weekend. This bright, vibrant, exciting and predominantly blue collar city, where in the last general election we saw lots of new and first-time Conservative voters, has serious objections to the tax credit reforms. It is my duty to represent them here in the people’s Parliament where they, and no one else, have sent me to work.

There is a general understanding out there for welfare reform. The policies are, in my experience, very welcome to many in a city that many people would see as entirely failed by the Labour party. Those of us at the coalface every weekend trying to help, encourage, gently persuade and even inspire a generation of young people, feel emboldened by the drive towards self-sustainability and independence of the Government’s reforms. However, my duty—again, I seek not to bang on to those far more experienced and capable in this House—and indeed our duty is to shout for our most vulnerable: the 10% I talked about the other night in the armed forces mental health debate in this House: those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the fringes of society, and who, but for a bit of bad luck and a couple of wrong decisions, could be any one of us.

I stand here as a compassionate Conservative, and unashamedly so. There is a good reason why I was not a member of this party before I decided to stand as an MP last year, but I have no doubt at all that the party is changing. I am proud of our current Prime Minister for the direction he is taking us in. I am one of those who thought that one of the Prime Minister’s bravest moves was to bring in same-sex marriage. I would have struggled to be here today without his personal stewardship, and, when we are winning in places like Plymouth, it is clear for all to see.

It is clear to me that Plymouth's view is that, while welfare, and by extension tax credits, must be reformed, these measures must be supported by mechanisms that protect our hardest hit, with precision targeting and strong messaging. I today urge the Chancellor to provide something—anything—that might mitigate the harshest effects of this policy on our most vulnerable. There are people far more intelligent than me who will provide data and statistical analyses in favour of or against the argument. Indeed, they have done just that. I seek not to go against their carefully considered arguments, but British politics is at a crossroads.

I seek not to denigrate Opposition Members, some of whom I know personally and have deep admiration and respect for, but we have an entirely chaotic Opposition who have so completely lost their roots in the traditional British left as to provide no stable for almost anyone in their right mind who has Britain’s best interests at heart. We must seize the opportunity to welcome to our stable people from all previous political backgrounds. Let us look again, work harder and find a way of bringing this overdeveloped and harmful tax credits system back under control, but let us do it in a way that looks after what should be our core vote.