Concentrix

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend’s intervention highlights the human impact of these contractual failings. My constituents have asked me for the addresses of food banks and whether parcels could be delivered to them because they were too ashamed to be seen as struggling by their communities. To put people in such situations is an absolute disgrace.

Total savings of £284.1 million have been made since the commencement of the contract in November 2014. Anyone can see that the leap from £2.3 million in 2014 to £159.5 million by mid-August 2016 is excessive. Does the Minister therefore believe that there was simply a massive increase in fraud in the system, or does she agree that the contract was granted in the absence of a firm evidence base to justify the risks associated with an agreement based on payment by results?

As I said, there is a human impact and a human cost; it is not simply a case of slapping Concentrix on the back of the hand and saying, “Let’s all move on.” We are talking about the Government’s duty to preserve justice being abandoned as a result of the profit motive established by the contract. The risks were real human risks—families being forced into destitution, anguish and despair, with all the associated pressures on an individual’s mental health.

Earlier this year, the Social Security Advisory Committee noted that the payment model could create a conflict of interest. It recommended that the National Audit Office should examine the contract to ensure that it included appropriate safeguards to preserve justice for the claimant. At that stage, there was no investigation, but the Labour party has since written to the NAO and received the following response:

“My team has carried out some preliminary work to look into the issues. Their view is that the contract between HMRC and Concentrix merits further investigation.”

I am pleased that the NAO will investigate, but the Government must carry out a full and transparent inquiry of their own. Our motion calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix and HMRC’s contract with the company, in terms of both the adequacy of enforcing all the contractual terms, and the suitability of a payment-by-results model for delivering such a service. I would add that the NAO confirmed last year that the Government’s payment-by-results schemes accounted for at least £15 billion of public spending. It has stated that neither the Cabinet Office nor the Treasury monitors how payment by results operates across government.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a detailed case about the defects of the contract, including in relation to payment by results. Does she agree that the problems with that model were exacerbated by the fact that when people had a problem with their tax credits being withdrawn, they had to complain to Concentrix—they had to go back to the decision maker—and there was, naturally, no financial incentive for Concentrix to unwind a wrong decision?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, however, when many people tried to complain to Concentrix, all they received was a dull engaged tone, so they did not get very far.

Will the Minister assure the House that she will go beyond the scope of the motion and investigate such contracts more widely? She should consider putting measures before the House that will prevent the incorrect application of payment by results. I fear that Concentrix is just the tip of the iceberg.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

It is important to recognise that when a case is resolved, it means that a conclusion has been reached based on the facts. I cannot give the House the breakdown of cases in which payments have been reinstated, cases in which there was in fact an error in the claim that had to be corrected, or indeed cases—a very small number of them—in which claims were fraudulent. The point is that the cases have been resolved according to the facts provided and in the knowledge of the person concerned. We may be able to provide a breakdown at some point, but I am not in a position to do so today.

[Kate Green]

The House would find it especially helpful to know to what degree Concentrix was steered by the Government towards looking for undeclared partners, and to what degree the contract incentivised Concentrix to jump to conclusions?

[Jane Ellison]

I will come on to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). It is very useful to have the Minister’s detailed and constructive responses on the operation of the contract, but I want to open my remarks by drawing attention to the policy issues that underlie the difficulty we have got into.

For many years we had a social security system designed and operated in a way that served to target, judge and stigmatise single parents in particular. I thought we had stopped doing that, but certainly as far as the experiences of my own constituents are concerned that group of claimants has been particularly affected by the way this contract has been designed and operated.

Of course, single parents will in most cases, although not always, be women—women who take responsibility for raising their children alone. There is a real question for Ministers to answer about the policy design that led to that group of women being so damaged and targeted by the operation of the contract. When I raised this point with the Minister earlier, she did not really address it, but I hope the NAO report will look at it—not just at the way the contract operated, but at how it was designed and what behaviour it incentivised.

I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay that nobody condones fraud in the benefit system—it undermines confidence in the system and denies access to the system for those entitled to benefit from it—but when the system starts to make assumptions about intimate relationships and living arrangements, which are intrinsically intrusive matters, it is incumbent on the Government and their agents to handle that with great sensitivity and care. It seems pretty clear from all we have heard about the operation of this contract that Concentrix did not bother to do that. Instead, perhaps steered by Ministers or perhaps because of the payment-by-results model—about which the Social Security Advisory Committee warned of dangers early on—Concentrix appears to have taken the flimsiest of evidence at face value to determine that people must be living with undisclosed partners. In many cases, such as those of some of my constituents, without any further meaningful inquiry their tax credits would then be stopped.

[Sammy Wilson]

While Members have rightly identified the incentivisation issue, does the hon. Lady accept that Concentrix acted on only a fifth of the 1.5 million cases sent to it by HMRC, and that in the mandatory review it reviewed 95% positively? That militates against the incentivisation argument. In addition, when cases went to appeal, fewer than 0.005% were overturned, which would indicate that Concentrix was well aware that it had to abide by certain rules in dealing with these cases.

[Kate Green]

Assuming that there might be fraud in a fifth of cases and looking into them is a very high proportion, because we know, and the Minister acknowledged, that fraud in the social security system is very low. I am not sure I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, therefore. I have concerns—and the whole House has expressed concerns about this in this debate, as has the SSAC and the NAO—that a payment-by-results model has to be designed very carefully if perverse incentives are to be avoided. In this instance that was not achieved.

As a result, constituents of mine and of Members across the House were put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative—to prove that they did not live with somebody, often somebody they did not know, and sometimes someone who did not even exist. Cases that I have seen include: a woman being asked about an undisclosed partner who turned out to be a previous tenant of the property who had moved out nine years earlier; a constituent who was accused of living with a previous tenant’s son; a constituent who was told that her landlord was in fact her undisclosed partner; and, in perhaps the most bizarre case of all, a constituent who appeared to have been told that her mother, with whom she lived, was her undisclosed partner.

Evidence that was provided to Concentrix by my constituents was too often ignored. Sometimes Concentrix had given the wrong address for the evidence to be sent to, or, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, the letters did not look very convincing. One constituent drew my attention to the fact that many of the words were misspelled and that the letters were full of errors. She drew the overall conclusion, when Concentrix got in touch with her, that she was in fact the victim of some sort of scam. Sometimes evidence could not be produced. In two cases that I have dealt with, constituents were asked to submit utility bills, even though they were living with their parents and the utility bills were not in their name. We have also heard that when constituents have tried to deal with Concentrix on the telephone to explain their circumstances, they repeatedly received poor customer service or were unable to get through.

I consider it troubling that, even when there was clear evidence of Concentrix being in error, my constituents were told that they would have to go through a formal process of mandatory reconsideration—an extra barrier—when in fact Concentrix should immediately have said, “We have made a mistake, we will get the situation put right.” The Minister has told us of the commitment to get tax credits into payment within four days of an investigation being concluded. Of course I understand that time needs to be taken to look into the circumstances of a claim, but we need an overall time limit for these investigations. We cannot leave constituents waiting for weeks and weeks without these matters being resolved.

The consequences for all our constituents have been extremely harsh. Housing benefits have been stopped. In one case, I had to intervene to prevent a constituent from being threatened with eviction. Debt has been mounting. We have heard about women being forced to go to food banks for the first time. One mother in my constituency who was unable to pay her nursery fees was told to remove her child from the nursery. In another case, children have had to be sent away to live with relatives because the mother was no longer able to feed them or to heat their home.

Another policy point to which I draw the Minister’s attention relates to how especially damaging this contract has been in terms of its impact on children. The Government really have to face up to the fact that policies and their execution must be underpinned by an obligation to prioritise the wellbeing of children. In this contract, that clearly did not happen. It is iniquitous that the brunt of this chaos should have been borne by women and children. An equality impact assessment of the policy and its execution ought to have addressed that fact, but the Minister did not mention that this afternoon, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) did not mention it in the Westminster Hall debate last week either. I really hope that, in summing up the debate this afternoon, the Minister will tell us what equality impact assessment was carried out, and what adjustments were made to the policy as a result.

This has been a disgraceful catalogue of error and mistreatment. I am pleased that the contract has been terminated, and I am very pleased that the National Audit Office is to carry out a full review of what went wrong. I echo the questions asked by colleagues around the House. What compensation is going to be paid to our constituents who have borne the brunt of the erroneous management of the contract? What penalties will be imposed on Concentrix? What has been the overall cost to the taxpayer of the mismanagement of the contract, including the cost of the spike in appeals?

I echo the concern that it is at best philosophically inappropriate for intrusive inquiries into people’s personal circumstances to be carried out for commercial gain and rewarded by results. I ask the Minister to review whether it is appropriate to put someone through the formal mandatory reconsideration process when a simple error has been made by the contracting company and when dealing with the error there and then would have been a fairer and more effective way to proceed.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her fundamental thrust is to look at what lessons can be learned overall. Will she undertake to return to the House to report on those lessons and tell us how she intends to apply the learning that has been gained?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I will keep going, if I may.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also asked whether the contract unfairly discriminated against women. It is important to note that as of April 2016, 88% of single claims were made by women, and 80% of single claims sent to Concentrix to check with regard to high-risk renewal were from women. I recognise this—

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Kirby]

I will not—I have to respond to a lot of people.

I recognise that sensitivity is needed on tax credit claims and that claimants should be treated with dignity and respect. The hon. Lady also asked about penalties. The figures that will and have been deducted from payments, and the detailed calculations, cannot be disclosed at this point as they are commercially sensitive, but the amounts will be fair and appropriate.

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said that Concentrix was getting a rap on the knuckles. I point out that it is actually losing the contract.

My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made particularly thoughtful and considered contributions. They have obviously given the matter great thought.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) asked whether the contract was ended only because of poor call handling. That was not the case. The poor call handling had an impact on customers and resulted directly in tax credits being stopped. She also mentioned the downsizing of HMRC. An extra £800 million has been announced for HMRC. Using a private company in this way offered a cost-effective method of reaching a large number of people.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether this situation spelled the end for outsourcing. This is about cutting down on errors and some fraud, but HMRC will evaluate each case on its merits to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. It is fair to say that the lessons learned from this situation will help to inform future contracts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

As the Chancellor is considering investment in roads in his autumn statement, will he look sympathetically at the need for investment to support the substantial Carrington development in my constituency, both in the M60-M62 network and in the relief road that will be necessary to support journeys in and out of the Carrington area?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not know the project that the hon. Lady talks about. I assume that it is a housing development, and we are certainly interested in the way in which infrastructure investment can not only deliver in its own right, but enable much-needed housing development. If she would like to let me have a written submission, I would be happy to look at it.

Concentrix: Tax Credit Claimants

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Indeed. Not only that, but the Government ought to ensure that it does not happen again. There is a risk that it could, not just in the Treasury but in other Departments. The reason why I persisted with this debate after the Treasury abandoned the contract is that I believe that this is an opportunity to learn lessons that should be spread throughout Government.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out that this is not just a failure of practice by Concentrix but a policy failure by Government. The deliberate intention of the contract was clearly to target single parents, on the basis of assumptions that they were living with a partner and not reporting it. That is an acute, intimate and sensitive issue, and it is important in such cases that practice is handled with great care. There is absolutely no evidence of such care. This is returning to the attitude that single women bringing up children must not be respectable and need to be investigated. Surely that is something that the Government need to rethink and re-learn.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a gendered contract, and the Government did not stop to think—or maybe they did think about it, and thought that women in such circumstances should be blamed. All Members here will know that their constituents feel harassed, scared and pinned up as targets as a result of how things have been done. It is not acceptable in a civilised society to treat mothers in that manner, and it is mothers who have been treated badly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The problem is that the Minister and his civil servants cannot imagine what it is like for someone to have to choose between feeding their son or daughter and posting an important letter that will get next month’s money in. They cannot imagine a parent having so little money that that is the choice they face. When people’s tax credits were stopped, they were eventually restored. Although they can get additional bank charges and so on paid back—I have managed that on behalf of constituents—they often cannot redeem their credit history, which makes the rest of their life more expensive, so there are serious long-term consequences.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should reconsider the situation wherein, in the face of error by Concentrix, my constituents were asked to apply for a mandatory reconsideration of the decision? That is disgraceful. The fault was not theirs.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Indeed, and if we look at the figures for mandatory reconsideration we can see that it is overwhelmingly decided that our constituents were in the right and the decision makers in the wrong.

It is striking that the process was also expensive for those who complied. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) pointed out, sending precious documents by registered post costs money, as do printing inks. People also have to pay fees to have documents reissued. Yet in every case HMRC had initially decided that the application was justified. We are not talking about initial applications for tax credits; we are speaking on behalf of people who are trying to continue to receive them. The burden of proof has to be on HMRC.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and he is absolutely right that the Governor made a powerful speech yesterday, outlining the steps he and the regulators are taking to end the age of irresponsibility. The Government welcome the recommendations of the FEMA—fair and effective markets—review and hope that they will be taken forward internationally via the Bank for International Settlements and under the Governor’s leadership.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her new post. In a week when he have heard that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank is planning to refocus its investment and attentions away from Europe to the far east, what implications does the Minister think this sell-off could have for the long-term headquartering of the Royal Bank of Scotland in Edinburgh?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words. The Government noted the points made by HSBC in its report this week. We are proud of the fact that the UK remains one of the most attractive and competitive places in which to locate a financial services company and a bank. It is essential, in making us fully competitive in that regard, that we take the steps we are announcing today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As the Prime Minister made very clear in the 2010 general election, it is right that we recognise marriage in the tax system, and that is precisely what we have done. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, it is now possible for people to register to be able to benefit from the transferable tax allowance.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the Minister consider it either fair or socially useful that money is being spent in this way when only one in four of the couples who benefit are raising children?

[Mr Gauke]

This is about recognising marriage within the tax system, but it should also be noted that it will benefit many low-income households, including 1 million households where tax credits are claimed.

Equitable Life

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) who opened the debate on securing time for it this afternoon. As we have heard, this is an issue of justice and accountability; and it is also one of confidence in the financial markets, confidence in the regulatory system and confidence that political promises and commitments will be honoured. It is particularly on the issue of confidence that I wish to focus.

Let me start by declaring a personal interest. For a few months in 2000, I paid into an Equitable Life pension scheme offered by my then employer. Shortly after I joined the scheme, Equitable Life closed to new business and the company collapsed. I was lucky in that I lost, I guess, only a few hundred pounds, whereas many of my colleagues, like many of our constituents, lost considerably more. In the organisation for which I worked—this was typical for many policyholders—salaries were pretty modest, so it was people on modest incomes who had set money aside, in some cases for many years, to provide for their retirement who were left significantly out of pocket as a result. In fact, the organisation I worked for was a charity. Equitable Life had made a particular effort to take a substantial share of the charities’ pensions market. That is why, as a result of the important shares and securities market, a number of former and retired charity workers are now paying the price.

From my own experience at that time, I view it as important to remember that in taking firm and clear action now, we send a very clear signal about the importance of tight and effective regulation. When I joined the scheme in 2000, I remember seeing advertisements all over the London underground, encouraging people to take out Equitable Life policies. It could only have been a matter of weeks before the schemes collapsed, and it is quite beyond belief that regulators and, indeed, the company’s managers, were not aware at that time that they were advertising on the basis of an utterly false premise. I can only assume that this was a desperate attempt to bring money in as rapidly and to as great an extent as possible to shore up what was well known to be a collapsing business at that time.

However, that was not known to customers at the time. I did not know it, as a relatively financially literate and savvy customer, so it is crucial now publicly to recognise that regulation was seriously deficient. One signal we want to send strongly from this afternoon’s debate is that we will not tolerate that kind of lax regulation again.

My second point about confidence and why it matters so much as we act now in response to the failure at the time is that after the collapse of Equitable Life, the organisation for which I was working—in fact, I was the chief executive—attempted to set up a new group personal pension scheme for our employees. A substantial proportion of those employees refused to have anything to do with this. They could not see the point of investing in another pension scheme when they had been so badly let down the first time. We are talking about people largely in their 30s who were absolutely turned off providing for their own retirement. I suspect that the damage to confidence in the financial markets at that time was much more widespread, going beyond just the immediate impact on the policyholders who lost out.

Thirdly, we need to be honest and open today about where we are going in the future as regards compensation for these policyholders who have suffered so disgracefully. All Members have constituents who feel that they were very much misled by what they understood to have been a commitment to follow through the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation that they should be placed in the position that they would have been in had Equitable Life not failed. They feel that what they have received in compensation falls a long way short of that. I have to say that this mismatch between the promises these people felt they had secured and the situation in which they find themselves today is contributing considerably to a loss of confidence in our regulatory system and in our political response to regulatory failure. That is important, and senior politicians need to do all they can to put it right.

I know that many colleagues want to contribute. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate this afternoon. I hope that a strong message will go out to my constituents and other policyholders across the country of the deep seriousness with which this House treats this matter. I know that our debate is being watched very closely by thousands of policyholders in all constituencies across the country.

Income Tax

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a rare privilege for a Treasury Minister to respond to an Opposition day debate on an economic matter this year. In the course of 2014, we had a debate on banking in January and a debate on the Office for Budget Responsibility in June, and now this. Why the reticence on the part of the shadow Treasury team? Imagine the scene in the shadow Cabinet room. With the general election fast approaching and Labour’s economic credibility at record lows, the pressure is on for the shadow Treasury team to make their big economic argument. So they all sit there, straining to come up with a topic for an Opposition day debate. They could set out their case on economic growth, but having spent years saying that our policies inevitably meant that the economy would flatline—remember the hand gestures—we are now projected to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7. They could talk about unemployment. Remember the predictions of another 1 million unemployed. But employment is at record levels, and unemployment, youth unemployment and long-term unemployment numbers are dropping like a stone. They could talk about the exciting plans a Labour Government might have to make our economy more competitive and dynamic, except that they have not got such plans, only plans to increase business taxes. What about the cost of living? The problem here is that hardly anyone believes that a Labour Government would make a positive difference to the cost of living, because we need policies for growth and jobs to deliver improvements in standards of living. They could talk about how Labour would deal with the deficit, except, presumably, everyone forgot to mention it in the meeting. “We must have something we can say,” someone says in desperation, and after a long and painful silence someone eventually says, “We could always trot out the 50p tax cut again. Yes, that will have to do.” So for the first tax and spend Opposition day debate of 2014, we return to a lazy and populist measure, which, as a former Labour Cabinet Minister has been reported to say today, is incidental to the state of the public finances.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the Minister commented on employment rates among young people, and across other groups too. Does it not trouble him and his colleagues that while employment rates are rising, in-work poverty is also rising, and the Government have no strategy to deal with this? What will he do about that?

[Mr Gauke]

The way to address that is by improving our productivity, by attracting additional business investment, and by ensuring that we are a good climate for businesses to invest in. That is how we get growth. It is through enterprise, not through punitive taxation that fails to deliver public finances to the Exchequer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I hope to be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me early in the debate. I apologise for the fact that I will have to leave for some of it, but I will be back for the winding-up speeches.

I want to make a few points on behalf of my constituents. I do not know the exact numbers, but I would guess that only a handful of my constituents are going to benefit from a tax cut on the basis that they earn £150,000 a year or more. In fact, it is quite possible that nobody in Stretford and Urmston stands to benefit. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is about the geographically distributional impact of this proposal. In this House, we talk repeatedly, and rightly, about our concern to rebalance our economy, our wealth and our resources around the country, but nowhere have I seen an analysis of where, physically, the beneficiaries of the cut in the 50p tax rate are. I would very much welcome seeing that information by constituency.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because she might save me the trouble of making my speech. Only 8% of taxpayers in the north-east of England pay the higher or additional rate of tax—I imagine that the situation is very similar in her part of the world—in comparison with the south, where about twice as many people pay the additional or higher rate.

[Kate Green]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Mine is not by any means one of the poorest constituencies in the country, yet we stand to benefit relatively little. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said something about the geographical context.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Lady claims that her constituents are not benefiting from the cut in the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p. However, they are benefiting from the highest economic growth of any country in the G7 and from the 1.8 million new jobs created in this country—more than in the whole of the rest of Europe added together.

[Kate Green]

That brings me to my second point, which is about how this growth, and jobs growth, is affecting—allegedly benefiting—my constituents.

Ministers are very fond of asserting that work is the best route out of poverty and that the increase in jobs is therefore of benefit to working families. Of course, work ought to be the best route out of poverty, but the wage squeeze that we have seen in recent years means that that is simply not proving to be the case. When two thirds of children in poverty are living in households where someone is in paid employment, Ministers cannot be satisfied with a growth strategy that so misses the point in terms of rewarding those who aim to work and do the right thing. One of the reasons why those families are not benefiting from this jobs growth, apart from wage restraint, is that many of the in-work financial support measures that we put in place to support low wages—as indeed did earlier Conservative Governments, through family credit—have been eroded, frozen or cut under this Government. My second request to the Minister is for a more comprehensive answer than the one he gave a few moments ago to my question about what exactly is Ministers’ strategy for addressing in-work poverty, which is felt very acutely by many families in my constituency.

My third question for the Minister is one that I asked of Ministers at Treasury questions yesterday about the gender impact of a cut in the top rate of tax. As we know, men are disproportionately likely to benefit from cuts to income tax, particularly cuts to higher-rate taxes, and women are disproportionately affected by rises in consumption taxes because of their responsibility for managing the household budget. This has a direct feed-through to levels of child poverty. If women—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) has clearly not looked at the many decades of social policy analysis in relation to this. If he has time later, I will take him through it. There is plenty of evidence that poor children have poor mothers. [Interruption.] If he thinks that this is sex discrimination, I am afraid that his analysis of the gender dimension of fiscal policy is even slighter than I understood it to be.

Yesterday I asked Ministers whether they could explain the gender analysis of their fiscal policy, which is exacerbated by things like their marriage tax breaks, the vast majority of which will benefit men, putting money in wallets, not purses. That will mean, again, that children lose out and child poverty is impacted.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

What about child care, free school meals and the pupil premium?

[Kate Green]

Free school meals have yet to be delivered, I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman. We see from this Government very generous promises, totally unfunded.

My final question for the Minister relates to inequality. Ministers are very fond of telling us that inequality is reducing—

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

There are more women in work.

[Kate Green]

More women in work on poor pay.

Ministers are very fond of telling us that inequality is reducing under this Government. It is true that there is a coalescing effect, with lower wages and middle wages meeting as middle-level earnings become stuck, but what is absolutely not in doubt is that the very richest continue to get richer and richer, with not only the top 1% but the top 0.1% seeing super soaraway growth. What measures are Ministers really taking to address the widening inequality between a very, very privileged sector at the top and those on middle and average incomes who are absolutely not feeling the benefit of their economic policies? The Government can look at measures on inequality that suit their arguments, but it is important that we have a wide range of measures and a wide range of strategies to address this rising incomes discrepancy.

Our proposal is one measure—a small one, I admit—to address and reverse some of the income inequality. It will not do all the heavy lifting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said, but it will certainly be a step in the right direction.

Finally, increasing the tax threshold, as has happened under the present Government, is certainly one strategy for improving the incomes of relatively low-paid working families, but the benefits do not reach those on the very lowest pay who fall below the tax threshold. Of course, as the threshold rises the law of diminishing returns sets in. Meanwhile many of us—in fact, probably all of us—benefit from the continuing rise in the income tax threshold as more of our income is sheltered below the threshold.

I ask Ministers to come clean on the genuine progressivity of their fiscal policies. Those policies are not genuinely progressive, and they know it. Those policies fail to address in-work poverty or to tackle rising inequality in relation to wealth and income at the very top, and the Treasury seems to think that it is perfectly okay to overlook their distributional impact.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the hard-working people in her constituency. Not only have our personal tax cuts helped many thousands of those people, but if we go ahead with our plans to raise the personal allowance to £12,500, more than 5,500 people in Thurrock would be lifted out of income tax altogether and 58,000 of the people she represents would benefit.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Raising tax thresholds disproportionately benefits men, because many women earn so little that they do not even reach the lowest threshold. On the other hand, consumption taxes have a disproportionate effect on women who are responsible for managing the family budget. Will the Chancellor rule out any increase in VAT, in order to ensure that our tax system can be fair to both genders?

[Mr Osborne]

We do not need to raise VAT, because our plans are paid for by the Government living within their means. Does the hon. Lady speak for the Labour party, because she seems to be opposing the increase in the personal income tax threshold? That is a policy that has lifted many low-paid women out of income tax altogether, and I find it surprising that once again the Labour party is against the interests of hard-working people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has made the case very clearly that there are strong economic indicators out there that are testament to the Government’s long-term economic plan. Quite frankly, this country is going forwards, not backwards.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

According to the most recent Office for National Statistics figures, child poverty in lone parent families where the parent is working full-time has risen from 17% to 22%. What are the Government doing to help those families to beat the rising cost of living?

[Priti Patel]

I re-emphasise the point that I made earlier: child poverty under this Government is down by 300,000. Inequality is being tackled very effectively by this Government through what we are doing to raise living standards and tackle the country’s economic problems head on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am certainly aware of the importance to local people of this project, and I know that my hon. Friend has been speaking to the Department for Transport. I am of course happy to arrange for him to meet the Commercial Secretary, and I know there is also a bid in to the single local growth fund, on which we will be making an announcement in the coming weeks. May I also say that my hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of his constituents and of businesses in his constituency?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T3. The rate of employment of disabled people is approximately 30% lower than that of non-disabled people, and 650,000 more disabled people are required to look for work as a result of welfare reforms since 2008. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of his ambition of achieving full employment. Is he confident that the Government have a strategy sufficient to close this gap, as that will be essential to achieving that goal?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

The Department for Work and Pensions, and the Ministers responsible for disabilities and for employment, launched a strategy last December to help those with disabilities to find work. What this Government have not done is what the previous Government did, which was to say to people, “We don’t think that you can work.” We want to empower people to work, and schemes such as Access to Work are all about doing that.