Financial Statement

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I remind hon. Members that copies of the Budget resolutions will be available in the Vote Office at the end of the Chancellor’s speech. I also remind hon. Members that it is not the norm to intervene on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

It says here that I will commit a further £20 million of Government funding to support the campaign against violence against women and girls, which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, takes the Government’s commitment to this campaign to over £100 million in this Parliament. That is on top of the tampon tax, which today delivers another £12 million in support of women’s charities across the UK. The Prime Minister also mentioned earlier that the Government will commit a further £5 million to promoting returnships to the public and private sector, helping people back into employment after a career break.

Next year is the centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918, which was the decisive step in the political emancipation of women in this country. I will commit a further £5 million to projects to celebrate this centenary, and to educate young people about its significance.

As well as knowing that the Government are on their side, people want to know that they are getting a good deal from private markets. A well-functioning market economy is the best way to deliver prosperity and security to working families, and the litany of failed attempts at state control of industry by Labour leaves no one in any doubt about that—except, apparently, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is now so far down a black hole that even Stephen Hawking has disowned him.

The Government recognise that sometimes markets, particularly in fast-developing areas of the economy, can fail people. Sometimes the market does not deliver the outcome that the textbooks suggest that it should. When that happens, the Government will not hesitate to intervene. We will shortly present a Green Paper on protecting the interests of consumers, but ahead of the Green Paper we will take the first steps to protect consumers from unexpected fees or unfair clauses, to simplify terms and conditions, and to give consumer bodies greater enforcement powers. Together, those measures will boost incomes, help family budgets to stretch a little further, support parents back into work, and tackle some of the frustrations that sometimes make it seem that the dice are loaded against ordinary people going about their everyday lives.

The House knows that the only sustainable way to raise living standards is to improve our productivity growth. Put simply, higher productivity means higher pay. The stats are well known: we are 35% behind Germany and 18% behind the G7 average, and the gap is not closing. Investment in training and in infrastructure will start to close that gap. The Government place addressing the UK’s productivity challenge at the very heart of their economic plan, because the cornerstone of an economy that works for everyone must be rising living standards for ordinary working people.

A key element of our plan is the £23 billion of additional infrastructure and innovation investment that I announced in the autumn statement. Today, to enhance the UK’s position as a world leader in science and innovation, I am allocating £300 million of that fund to support the brightest and the best research talent. That includes support for 1,000 new PhD places and fellowships, focused on STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and maths. I am allocating £270 million to keep the UK at the forefront of disruptive technologies such as biotech, robotic systems and driverless vehicles—a technology that I believe the Labour party knows something about. There will be £16 million for a new 5G mobile technology hub, and £200 million for local projects to leverage private sector investment in full-fibre broadband networks.

On transport, I am today announcing £90 million for the north and £23 million for the midlands from a £220 million fund that addresses pinch points on the national road network, and I am launching a £690 million competition for local authorities across England to tackle urban congestion and get local transport networks moving again. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will announce details shortly.

Because we believe that local areas understand local productivity barriers better than central Government, we will make further progress with our plans to bolster the regions. In May, powerful Mayors will be elected in six of our great cities. Across Britain, local areas will take control of their own economic destiny, and we will support them. I can inform the House that I have reached a deal with the Mayor of London on further devolution. Tomorrow, I will follow the launch of the northern powerhouse strategy in the autumn statement by publishing our midlands engine strategy, which will address productivity barriers across the midlands.

For the devolved Administrations, our announcements today deliver additional funding of £350 million for the Scottish Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us just move on. We are doing very well; let us not spoil a good day. Come on, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mr Hammond]

Wait for it: there will be £200 million for the Welsh Government and almost £120 million for an incoming Northern Ireland Executive, demonstrating once again that we are stronger together in this great, United Kingdom.

Perhaps the single most important thing that a Government can do to support ordinary working families is invest in the future, so that their children and grandchildren can make the most of the opportunities ahead. That means addressing the skills gap, and ensuring that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to go to a good or outstanding school. In the autumn statement, I focused on investment in infrastructure and research and development. The next step today in our plan to raise productivity and living standards is to focus on the quality of our children’s education and the teaching of technical skills.



While investing in education and skills of course helps to tackle our productivity gap, delivering greater prosperity, it does something else as well. It delivers greater fairness, because investing in skills and education is the key to inclusive growth—to an economy that works for everyone. If you talk to people from any background and any part of the country about their hopes and their aspirations for the future, you will hear a recurring concern for the next generation. Will they have the qualifications to find a job?

Will they have the skills to retrain as that job changes, and changes again, over a working lifetime? Will they be able to get on to the housing ladder, or save for a pension? In short, the question that concerns so many people is, “Will our children enjoy the same opportunities as we did?” Our job is to make sure that they do, and that is why we are investing in education and skills to ensure that every young person, whatever their background and wherever they live, has the opportunity to succeed and prosper.

The proportion of young people not in work or education is now the lowest since records began. That is a good base on which to build, but it is only by equipping them for the jobs of tomorrow that we ensure that they will have real economic security. We have put education reform at the heart of our agenda since 2010, and that commitment is already paying off: 89% of schools in England are now rated “good” or “outstanding”, which is the highest proportion ever recorded. That means that 1.8 million more children are being taught in good or outstanding schools than when the Labour party left office in 2010.

Our forthcoming schools White Paper will ask universities and private schools to sponsor new free schools. It will remove the barriers that prevent more good faith-based free schools from opening, and it will enable the creation of new selective free schools so that the most academically gifted children—from every background—have the specialist support that they need to fulfil their potential. Today I can announce funding for a further 110 new free schools, on top of the current commitment to 500. That will include new specialist maths schools to build on the clear success of Exeter Mathematics School and King’s College London Mathematics School, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited earlier this week.

We are committed to that programme because we understand that choice is the key to excellence in education, but we recognise that for many parents, the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice. Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school, because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities that a child enjoys. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members get too excited, let me add that we will invest in our existing schools too. [An Hon. Member: “No, you won’t.”] Oh yes, we will—by providing an additional £216 million over the next three years, which will take total investment in school condition to well over £10 billion in this Parliament.

Good schools are the bedrock of our education system, but we need to do more to support our young adults into quality jobs and help them to gain world-class skills, and while we have an academic route in this country that is undeniably one of the best in the world, the truth is that we languish near the bottom of the international league tables for technical education. Our rigorous, well-recognised system of A-levels provides students with the qualifications to move into our world-class higher education system, and we support this route further today by offering maintenance loans to part-time undergraduates and doctoral loans in all subjects for the first time. But long ago our competitors in Germany, the US and elsewhere realised that in order to compete in the fast-moving global economy, they had to link technical skills to jobs, and I am pleased to report, in national apprenticeship week, that our apprenticeship route is now, finally, delivering that ambition here, with 2.4 million apprenticeship starts in the last Parliament and the launch of our apprenticeship levy in April supporting a further 3 million apprenticeships by 2020.

But there is still a lingering doubt about the parity of esteem attaching to technical education pursued through the further education route. Today, we end that doubt for good with the introduction of T-levels. Thanks to the work of Lord Sainsbury, Baroness Wolf and other experts in this field, we have a blueprint to follow. Their review concluded that students need a much clearer system of qualifications: one that is designed and recognised by employers, with clear routes into work, more time in the classroom, and good quality work placements; and one that replaces the 13,000 or so different qualifications with just 15 clear, career-focused routes. Delivering on those recommendations is the third part of our plan, so today we will invest to deliver, in full, these game-changing reforms. We will increase by over 50% the number of hours of training for 16 to 19-year-old technical students, including a high-quality three-month work placement for every student, so that when they qualify, they are genuinely “work-ready.”

Once this programme is fully rolled out, we will be investing an additional £500 million a year in our 16 to 19-year-olds. To encourage and support the best of them to go on to advanced technical study, we will offer maintenance loans for those undertaking higher level technical qualifications at the new institutes of technology and national colleges, just as we do for those attending university—putting the next generation first, to safeguard their future and to secure our economy.

Because changing labour markets will mean that retraining is vital—with many of our young people today needing to retrain at least once, and perhaps more often, during a working life that may span more than 50 years—we will consider how best to deliver high-quality learning and training throughout working lives. The Department for Education will invest up to £40 million in pilots to test the effectiveness of different approaches to lifelong learning, so that we can identify what works best and help the next generation learn and train throughout their lives.

Just as the principle that every child should have the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential is central to this Government’s values, so is the principle that everyone has access to our national health service when they need it, and that everyone should enjoy security and dignity in old age. Today, our social care system cares for over 1 million people, and I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of carers who work in it. But the system is clearly under pressure, and this in turn puts pressure on our NHS. Today, there are half a million more people aged over 75 than there were in 2010, and there will be 2 million more in 10 years’ time. That is why the Government have already delivered more than £7 billion of extra spending power to the system over the next three years, and it is why we are ensuring that local authorities and the NHS work more closely together to enable elderly patients to be discharged when they are ready, freeing up precious NHS beds and ensuring that elderly people are receiving the appropriate care for their needs. So today I am committing additional grant funding of £2 billion to social care in England over the next three years; that is £2 billion over the next three years, with £1 billion available in ’17-18. This will allow local authorities to act now to commission new care packages and forms a bridge to the better care funding that becomes available towards the end of the Parliament.

Of course, this is not only about money. While there are many excellent examples of best practice around the country, at the other end of the scale just 24 local authorities are responsible for over half of all delayed discharges to social care. Alongside additional funding, the Health and Communities Secretaries will announce measures to identify and support authorities which are struggling and to ensure more joined-up working with the NHS.

These measures, and greater collaborative working under NHS sustainability and transformation plans, will bring short and medium-term benefits, but the long-term challenges of sustainably funding care in older age requires a strategic approach, and the Government will set out their thinking on the options for the future financing of social care in a Green Paper later this year. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to make it clear that those options do not include, and never have included, exhuming Labour’s hated death tax.

The social care funding package that I have announced today will deliver immediate benefit to the NHS, allowing it to re-focus on delivering the NHS England forward view plan—a plan which this Government have supported with the £10 billion increase in annual funding by 2020, £4 billion of it in this year alone. We recognise the progress that the NHS is making in developing sustainability and transformation plans, and we recognise, too, that in addition to the funding already committed, some of those plans will require further capital investment. The Treasury will work closely with the Department of Health over the summer as the STPs are progressed and prioritised, and at autumn Budget I will announce a multi-year capital programme to support the implementation of approved high-quality STPs across our health service in England. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary expects that a small number of the strongest STPs might be ready ahead of autumn Budget, so today I am allocating an additional £325 million of capital to allow the first selected plans to proceed.

I have one further announcement related to the NHS. The social care package I have announced today will help to free up beds by easing the discharge of elderly patients. That is one of the two big pressures on our hospitals. The other is inappropriate A&E attendances by people of all ages. Experience has shown that on-site GP triage in A&E departments can have a significant and positive impact on A&E waiting times. I am therefore making a further £100 million of capital available immediately for new triage projects at English hospitals in time for next winter.

This Government back the NHS’s plan. We are funding it with a £10 billion above-inflation increase by 2020. We have addressed the pressures on the NHS from the social care system with a total of £9.25 billion in additional resources. We will protect the NHS from the effects of the changed personal injury discount rate, and have set aside £5.9 billion across the forecast period to do so, and today we have made a clear new commitment to fund the capital programme for the implementation of high-quality STPs, with a first down-payment for the early pioneers. As the voters of Copeland so clearly understood, we are the party of the NHS—we are the party of the NHS because we have not just the commitment and the will, but also the economic plan that will secure the future of our most important public service.

Last November I set out our plan to build an economy that works for everyone, to enhance our productivity and protect our living standards, to restore our public finances to balance and to invest for our future. Today’s OBR report confirms the continued resilience of the British economy. At this Budget we continue with our plan, building on the foundation of our economic strength, reaching out to seize the opportunities that lie ahead, backing our public services, supporting Britain’s families, investing in the skills of our young people and making Britain the best place in the world to do business.

Our United Kingdom has a proud history. We have done remarkable things together, but we look forwards, not backwards, confident that our greatest achievements lie ahead of us. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to invest in Britain’s future. We embark on this next chapter of our history, confident in our strengths and clear in our determination to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain. I commend this Budget to the House.

Provisional Collection of Taxes

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 51(2)),

That, pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following motions:—

(a) Pensions (offshore transfers) (motion no. 12);

(b) Alcoholic liquor duties (rates) (motion no. 40);

(c) Tobacco products duty (rates) (motion no. 42).—(Mr Philip Hammond.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled “Amendment of the Law”. It is on this motion that the debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The Questions on this motion, and on the remaining motions, will be put at the end of the Budget debate on Tuesday 14 March.

Christmas Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If hon. Members take up to eight minutes, everyone will—[Interruption.] It is no use moaning about it. If you want to take extra and knock someone else out, that is up to yourselves. I am only trying to be helpful. In the Christmas spirit, let us all treat each other with equality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The good news is that we have had two no-shows, which will allow Members to speak for up to 10 minutes. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) must have known that already, given the length of time for which she spoke—but not to worry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Siobhain McDonagh—and Buster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Should fate ever somehow decree that I end up as a member of a council in Somerset, I shall make it my absolute priority—horses’ heads or no—to stay on the right side of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).

This has been a tumultuous year culturally and politically. With the assassination of an ambassador and a further apparent terrorist atrocity yesterday, it seems we are finishing on a stark but familiar low. The attack in Germany drives home to me the fact that, to coin the phrase of the moment, we have more in common with our European partners than divides us. I fear that the current stand-off over Brexit and the forthcoming negotiations will drive us further apart from our neighbours, when these are surely times when those nations committed to the cause of democracy, freedom and pluralism must stick together and find common ground, rather than hunker down in an introspective bunker, focused on the challenges of Brexit while the big global challenges and threats remain.

The main debate in the EU negotiations seems to be one of immigration versus free movement and access to the single market. I am in favour of the free movement of labour; I am just not in favour of the free movement of unemployment and the free movement of exploitation. Over a decade ago, as a trade union official, I saw construction workers being brought in from abroad and used on big construction projects; names such as Staythorpe power station or Lindsey oil refinery spring to mind. Those immigrant workers would be used by the prime and principal subcontractors to drive down wages in a sector where skilled, well-paid jobs provided a good standard of living and were negotiated nationally between the unions and employers, and where the system worked.

All of a sudden, wage rates were falling in a race to the bottom, which even good employers—the majority of employers—were forced to join to stay competitive. The difference was kept by the corporations and their bosses in the form of bigger profits, rather than being shared out among the men and women doing the work. Bogus agencies were set up in eastern Europe, advertising British jobs at below UK agreed rates of pay—again so that the money could be siphoned off from the workers and those at the top could keep a bigger slice for themselves.

It is unsurprising that so many working-class people voted to leave the EU, when that was their most visible personal experience of it, albeit it was not necessarily the EU that was at fault but the system of globalised capitalism we are seeing today. My solution would be simple: retain free movement in a qualified manner. If someone has a job, they can come and work here, but the job must be advertised in the UK and in English, and it must pay accepted UK rates. I suspect that the rest of the EU may soon find itself moving towards such a system anyway.

The Euro-referendum and, it would seem, events elsewhere, have brought into focus another new aspect of the state of politics, exemplified by the word of the year: post-truth. In the UK, there was no better example of that than the red Vote Leave bus, with its siren promise of an extra £350 million a week for the NHS—a promise it took Nigel Farage barely 12 hours to admit was false, on breakfast TV.

Members of the House who associated themselves with that promise have never apologised or faced the appropriate obloquy for their association with it. I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I sought guidance from Mr Speaker and the Clerks as to how I might criticise Members such as the Foreign Secretary for their association with the bus and the claim. I learned that the rules of the House preclude me from calling Members such as the Foreign Secretary deliberately mendacious. Were I allowed to do so, I would, indeed, suggest that these Members were deliberately and wilfully mendacious in the pursuit of short-term political gain—a practice that is known in Cheshire as being a snollygoster. Of course, the rules do preclude me from that, so I will not be making any such allegation.

Post-truth politics is dangerous because it devalues our political system, corrodes the quality of our democracy and diminishes public trust in our institutions. It has a broader effect too—a cultural effect, because as well as undermining honesty and trust and celebrating deceit, it celebrates ignorance and stupidity in saying that learning is not to be valued and has nothing to contribute. So when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) told Faisal Islam on “Sky News” that he had “had enough of experts”, it was a breathtaking attack on progress, an attack on scientific and cultural learning, a devaluation of the intrinsic importance of the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. You are mentioning Members. Did you give notice that you were going to mention Members in the Chamber?

[Christian Matheson]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will bear that in mind and amend my comments suitably as a result.

When Members say that they have had enough of experts, that is an attack on progress—a devaluation of the intrinsic importance of the accumulation of knowledge as a good thing that has benefited, and will continue to benefit, humanity across the ages.

I say this clearly to the House: please reject the dishonesty of post-truth politics but reject also its regressive and reactionary message that ignorance and dishonesty are somehow a good thing. Post-truth did not put a man on the moon or develop the Hubble space telescope, post-truth did not invent the internet or the worldwide web, and post-truth will not find a cure for cancer. If we in this place cannot address an argument with fact, it may be time to reassess whether our views are correct and sustainable.

As we look forward to the new year, I make a further plea to the House to reject the notion that the 52% vote to leave is somehow the will of the people. It is the will of the majority of the people and it must be respected— we must deliver the exit from the EU agreed in the referendum—but it cannot be portrayed as the will of all the people. The views of the 48% must be taken into account in how we exit the EU; they cannot be ignored or airbrushed away. I fully support and pay tribute to hon. Members on my Front Bench who are trying to bring the country together and make efforts to represent the 100%, because I fear that, in addition to the perils of post-truth politics, we face another threat—one of cataclysmic disunity. The referendum was brought about by this Government to halt long-running rifts over Europe in certain parts of the House, but those rifts have now been transferred to the whole country, and have fed narrow nationalism in certain parts of it. Narrow, petty nationalism cannot be the solution to any problem that we face in the world today.

I am certainly not imagining a nation where we all agree and everything is fine and dandy, but a basic consensus about how we do politics has been attacked, as exemplified by recent media attacks on High Court judges and their integrity. We are stronger when we stick together. I have never known our country to be so deeply and unpleasantly divided. We have heard so much about putting the “great” back into Great Britain; perhaps now, with all the external threats and challenges we face, it is time to put the “united” back into the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti). I agreed with much of what he said.

I am going to speak about three issues that have come up in community casework in my constituency. I have previously raised the issue of how hysteroscopies and uterine biopsies are conducted in the NHS. I have drawn to the attention of the House the serious pain and distress suffered by far too many women, who are not well served by the advice and support—or, frankly, the lack of support and empathy—that they receive from clinicians and the NHS.

As the House will, I know, be aware, in the hysteroscopy procedure a small camera is passed through the cervix to examine, and often take a sample from, the lining of the womb. Yes, that means cutting out a piece of the lining of the womb. The procedure is useful in the diagnosis of cancer and other womb conditions, as well as to investigate fertility issues and to perform minor operations. For most women, it is a significantly uncomfortable procedure, but for a sizeable number it can be unbearably painful, leading to significant blood loss, loss of consciousness and, in some cases, hospitalisation. Such procedures are usually carried out as outpatient appointments, and often without any kind of anaesthesia.

The NHS website helpfully says of the procedure:

“You may experience some discomfort similar to period cramps while it’s carried out, but it shouldn’t be painful.”

To say that that advice is misleading is something of an understatement. The problem is that for some women, the procedure is unacceptably painful. Hysteroscopy Action estimates that up to a quarter of UK hysteroscopy patients have reported severe pain. I know that you will agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not acceptable to be led to presume that the worst that can happen is that, as the NHS website says, women will experience some discomfort, given that the reality is very different. All women need to be offered proper anaesthesia at the appropriate moment so that the sizeable minority who experience significant pain can be supported. To do anything else is nothing short of barbaric.

This is the third time that I have raised this matter in an Adjournment debate, so I have decided not to read out the cases that individuals have mailed to me, trusting that their stories will get action. Today, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will raise the matter on my behalf with the Department of Health and get a statement from the Department about pain management with hysteroscopy.

We need better systems to be put in place to ensure appropriate triage, rather than trial and error. More information about what may happen needs to be made available to patients beforehand, accompanied by the support required to ensure that women understand the risks and can make real choices about the best method of treatment for them. It is not acceptable for women to be told by a male doctor that they must have a low pain threshold when they are begging for the procedure to be stopped.

Given that this is the third time I have raised the issue and that I have received warm and comforting words from Health Ministers in the past, I fail to understand what is preventing such action. Frankly, I wonder whether it is because of money—the cost of an anaesthetic being available to women. I look forward to receiving a written response from the Department of Health. I am not an unreasonable woman, in the main—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Agreed.

[Lyn Brown]

Thank you.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In the main.

[Lyn Brown]

Indeed. Not unreasonably, I expect a response by mid-February. If I do not get one, I will seek a further debate in the House to focus attention on the issue. I cannot believe that other Members in the Chamber for this and previous debates think that what I have described is acceptable.

Secondly, a couple of months ago we had our first debate on arthritis for many years. Given that the condition affects about 10 million people—one in six of the population—one would have thought it deserved greater attention. In particular, it is important to understand the differences between the various types of arthritis and how they affect everyday life. Too often, we assume it is an issue for the elderly, not one that is really so important. In fact, one constituent wrote to me that she was very grateful for the debate, because she got an arthritic condition in her 20s. She was so exhausted by it that she was unable to continue working in the law, and she has spent many years trying to get it under control. She told me, “It’s not about having a creaky knee, but people believe that’s all it is—they simply do not understand how it can have a massive impact on somebody’s life.”

There are implications for employers, carers and the Government’s welfare to work policy. For example, rheumatoid arthritis, which occurs when the immune system targets affected joints, can be a fluctuating condition. If it is not properly controlled, it can make it so hard for a person to sustain full-time work; yet when properly understood and managed, there is no reason why an individual cannot continue their working lives, provided that there is sufficient understanding and flexibility not just to avoid and manage flare-ups, but to accommodate the necessary medical appointments. One constituent wrote to me to ask whether the House could consider a legal right to flexible working for those with fluctuating health conditions.

I recently spoke in the House about my own experience of having an immune-based arthritis and of getting it under control. I want to place on the record my thanks to the many constituents and others who got in touch with their stories and told me about their similar experiences. I am delighted to hear about the breakthroughs in medical science that will help others to live full working lives. The UK is leading the way in the development of many potential solutions. I have read about the medical research on osteoporosis being carried out in Glasgow, and I know that our European partners are also working in this area. I have read that clinical trials are taking place in the Netherlands to reverse the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis through using an electronic implant attached to a nerve. My concern is that some of the critical research collaborations in this area may be threatened by our departure from the European Union. I know that the House discussed these issues yesterday, but I would again be very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House if he discussed this with whomever he needs to discuss it with and confirmed that specific areas of research on arthritis will be protected.

Finally, I would like to mention one of the more troubling and tragic cases I have received at my constituency surgery in recent months. It concerns a British national, Ali Asghar Khan, the husband of a constituent. He was killed in Pakistan on a trip to visit family. He had been celebrating Eid and was returning home with two friends when their vehicle was ambushed on a mountainous road. A gunman opened fire and both Mr Khan and the driver of the vehicle were killed instantly. The third passenger, who was sat in the back of the car, managed to escape by jumping into the ravine and was subsequently able to raise the alarm.

My understanding is that Mr Khan was not the intended target of the attack, but that is of course little consolation to his widow and family. My constituents have struggled to ensure that his death is fully investigated and the perpetrators brought to account. Sadly, they are struggling to the point of being asked for money by the local investigating police force to transport files and take witness statements.

I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), about the case, and his response was really quite helpful. My purpose in raising the case today is to draw attention to the plight of the family of my late constituent and get a greater understanding of how the Government can meet the safety concerns of British nationals in Pakistan and what assistance is afforded to them while visiting the country. When he winds up, perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether he will consider pushing for some parliamentary time to discuss the subject more widely.

I thank the House for the opportunity to raise these issues today. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, all colleagues and all the amazing staff of this House, who are so very good with us every single day, the very best for Christmas and the new year.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I just want to remind hon. Members that opening speeches are usually up to 15 minutes long—there is some flexibility—and to warn them that I will be applying a formal limit of up to eight minutes so that everyone can get a fair shot.

[George Kerevan]

For that reason, having been reasonably accommodating, I will press on to the nub of my argument.

For a permanent resolution of the problem, we need three different mechanisms. First, we need a shift in the legal onus on banks to provide a duty of care or good faith in how they deal with customers, particularly business customers. That is open for broad debate—over the years, the banks have been unwilling to accept a narrow duty of care—but we need to redress the balance between major banks and small business clients by providing a mechanism around the legal onus on banks. I would even accept it, initially, if the banks collectively were prepared to come forward with a solution themselves. Secondly, given that many small companies end up insolvent, we need a more balanced insolvency practice to remove the possibility of banks or lenders being tempted to force small and medium-sized enterprises into unnecessary or premature insolvency. Finally, we need a new permanent and effective redress system for banks and small businesses in dispute. In effect, putting those three together, we need to change bank culture.

In order, I hope, to build some common ground with the Minister, I should acknowledge that the Government have already moved some way in recognising this issue. The Government’s impact assessment on the establishment of a small business commissioner in the Enterprise Act 2016 reads:

“The Government is concerned that for small firms, negotiating a contract with a larger business can be challenging… Government has been told that small businesses often feel intimidated and accept such terms (rather than walking away from a proposed contract or refusing to agree to a change) and there is concern that larger firms”—

for that, read “banks”—

“sometimes use their market power to impose unfavourable terms.”

That, I think, is what lay behind the issue of the hedging products sold to small businesses during the economic boom in 2006 to 2008. The Government have recognised the general problem, therefore; it is just a matter of how we resolve it.

Just to show that there is a broader political agreement on this, from right and left, I want to quote the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who wrote a piece for the Free Enterprise Group three years ago, entitled “Defending the rights of those who take risks”, in which he wrote:

“Over the years...the banks have contractually extended their rights through their ‘standard terms and conditions’ to give LPA”—

the Law of Property Act 1925—

“receivers general powers of sale, to set aside the limit on the fees that a receiver may charge and to load all associated costs on to the borrower. They have even moved to grant themselves the right to peaceably re-enter properties over which they have a charge without any recourse to the courts. The contractual extension of power taken by the banks goes well beyond what was originally envisaged in the Law of Property Act 1925.”

In other words, the banks have gradually extended their powers of receivership, making it increasingly difficult for small companies in financial difficulties to get redress, and leading to the situation with RBS’s Global Restructuring Group, which has now re-entered the public domain with the initial report from the Financial Conduct Authority.

I expect the Minister to tell us that ultimately, if there is to be a change in the redress process, it has to come from the FCA. To that end, the all-party group on fair business banking has been consulting the FCA, and subsequent to that, I raised the matter with Mr Andrew Bailey, its new chief executive, when he appeared before the Treasury Committee. I asked if he drew any relevant conclusions from the FCA’s experience with the banks in drawing up ad hoc processes of redress for the various mis-selling schemes, and he said that he did. He said that the problem arose where schemes lay “outside the regulatory perimeter”—much of the mis-selling was of unregulated products—but that the FCA had learnt from the experience, having come late to it, that businesses felt they had not had their day in court. He went on:

“Now, they do not want to have a literal day in court because that is obviously very expensive. However, what I conclude from this is that it”—

the ad hoc procedures—

“is not satisfactory from the point of view of the FCA, because the FCA has been involved in creating a lot of bespoke processes. We discussed this on the board a number of times. Were there to be a mechanism that could substitute for these—let us loosely call it a tribunal, for the sake of argument—rather like the ombudsman but for more complex cases, because corporate cases often are more complex, this would be a big step forward. From the point of view of the things that come out, we are creating a lot of work for ourselves. However, I am very sympathetic to the people involved, so we have to do it. However, if there were to be a process that could substitute for this…I think this would be a big step forward.”

We are proposing the idea of a tribunal. At this stage, it is a generic proposal, and there are issues to be discussed. It would, for example, cross the boundaries of the devolved Administrations, so if we went down this road, there might have to be separate institutional tribunal procedures in Scotland. There are also financial issues, but since we are dealing with redress where the FCA has decided that a bank has been involved in mis-selling—in other words, since we are already in the territory where a bank is going to pay—any permanent tribunal system could be funded by the banks. The all-party group is open to a general discussion with the Government about how to proceed, but the general backing from the FCA is there; it is just a matter of the detail.

This is important because the issue has not gone away. The situation with RBS GRG is coming back into the public domain. RBS has put forward a new ad hoc procedure for dealing with complaints from small businesses put into GRG. We have advance notice of a report, not yet finalised by the FCA, in which, having taken technical advice, it has clearly found a conflict of interest in how RBS handled the cases of companies put into GRG: the part of the bank taking over and reselling properties from the insolvent companies was part of GRG. In effect, therefore, the bank was putting companies into insolvency, taking their property and handing it over to another part of the bank, and generating cash that way.

Given that this issue has reappeared and that there is a public debate over the nature of the redress system, we are not looking at legacy items; we are looking at a future situation in which the Royal Bank of Scotland is creating an ad hoc redress system that we need to ensure is a correct one.

I know that other Members want to participate in the debate. The bottom line for the Minister is that there is now an ongoing process of debate and a general consensus, even from the FCA, that we need a more permanent resolution system and that we need to go beyond just looking at insolvency law. The door is open for the Government to join the rest of us on both sides of the House to ensure that that resolution process is provided.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As I said, we will have a voluntary limit of up to eight minutes. If it is not voluntary, it will have to be imposed.

Outsourcing and Tax Credits

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from this—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Simon Kirby]

I have had the pleasure of responding to debates on this in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber, and this is now the third occasion I have had such an opportunity to respond. There are clearly lessons to be learned. The Financial Secretary has made the Government’s position very clear: Concentrix will not be providing the service in the future. However, there is no change to Government policy on outsourcing, which can be an appropriate way to deliver both quality public services and, importantly, to make savings for the taxpayer. We will have to wait to see what the independent National Audit Office review shows, but I am sure we are all looking forward to it. As I have said, there are many lessons to be learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I would say three things in response. First, if the hon. Lady feels that her constituent has been wrongly treated, she should write and apply for compensation. Secondly, it is worth saying that the savings to the taxpayer are probably in excess of £200 million —not a small sum. Thirdly, yes, there are lessons to be learned—[Interruption.] I shall have to say that even more often, because it obviously gets a reaction. As a Government, we would be foolish not to learn lessons and not to make sure that the service we provide is as good and appropriate as possible. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that this is turning into a debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. She asks whether we are going to come back and report. We shall have to wait for the independent NAO report.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The danger is that the Minister is going to keep the debate going.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a great deal of amnesia on the Opposition Benches? I well remember the misery caused to my constituents when 50% of all tax credits were paid incorrectly during the course of the last Labour Government. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about Concentrix. What financial penalties will the Government impose on Concentrix for the cock-ups it has made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

What I can say is that the penalties referred to in the contract will be taken from the money paid to Concentrix and will go to HMRC, and that any compensation that is appropriate and due will come from HMRC.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, Daniel Zeichner.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I think we have got the message that the Minister wants lessons to be learned. Will he assure us that all that the minutes, recordings and transcripts relating to the process that led up to the tendering of the contract will be published?

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the age of emojis, is there any way in which Hansard will be able to report the look on the Minister’s face when he responded to the question asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith)? It said it all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Absolutely not.

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We have two debates to get through in three hours and 20 minutes, so brevity will help everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I advise hon. Members that the speaking limit will be five minutes. I hope that we will not have to reduce it, but that might happen as we have very little time left.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that we have a six-minute limit on speeches to start with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do hope it is a point of order, Mr Arkless.

[Richard Arkless]

I am curious about the right hon. Gentleman’s assertions, Mr Deputy Speaker. The wording of the motion on the Order Paper is clear and I ask you kindly to bring him into line to discuss it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will make a better suggestion. I will decide who is in order and when. I would not waste any more time on interventions, however, as we are struggling for time and I want to ensure that everyone gets equal time.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We are not hearing about education because the Scottish National party has had to execute a humiliating U-turn and its Education Minister, Mr Swinney, has had to adopt our policies on education by giving funding to schools—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Michael Gove]

While at the same time adopting our approach to examinations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We allow a little bit of movement, but the right hon. Gentleman is concentrating purely on education when we are discussing the size of the House of Lords, and even I struggle to see the connection. I would have expected a connection by now, and as there is not one coming I am sure, Mr Gove, that you will want to get back to the subject of the size of the House of Lords and what we are debating.

[Michael Gove]

Indeed. One of the challenges, as has been pointed out by those on both Front Benches, is that when SNP Members put forward proposals for the House of Lords, they offer no alternative method of scrutiny. They simply propose unicameralism. Not only that, but they do not observe the basic pragmatic principle of the British constitution that we should preserve what works. Like the monarchy, the House of Lords is an institution that works, despite the fact that it might not succumb to every rational imprint. I speak as a Minister who has been held accountable and who has been cross-questioned—[Interruption.] An ex-Minister, I should say. I have been cross-questioned by Select Committees in the House of Lords with a greater degree of pertinacity and effectiveness than I have found in any other cross-examination I have ever faced.

The logic behind the SNP’s position is that if it objects to any constitutional model that does not fit its own preconceptions, it should object to the monarchy. The real thrust behind the SNP’s position is that it opposes the institutions that bind the United Kingdom together and are a focus for loyalty in this country, such as the monarchy, because of its single-minded pursuit of separation and independence come what may. If SNP Members really object to unelected figures meeting in a fashion that results in democratically elected Members of Parliament finding the will of the people frustrated, why are they so keen to stay in the European Union? If they object to unelected, unaccountable and out-of-touch figures wielding power, why do they not object to the existence of the European Council in its current form? Again, the answer is that they are only interested in separation.

One final point. We scarcely heard anything from the SNP on the vital importance of ensuring that all parliamentary constituencies should be of equal size. Having parliamentary constituencies of equal size was a demand of the Chartists in 1838, yet we still do not have them. I may be a young man in a hurry, and I may be an impetuous radical determined to bring about change at a pace faster than many would account, but surely, after nearly 200 years, the Chartists’ demands should at last be honoured. All votes should be equal, all constituencies should be equal and democracy should be honoured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just before I bring others in, may I say that we are going to have to drop to a five-minute limit, and I want to try to get everybody in on the same level?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we will go from one extreme to the other. I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are four Members left to speak. With about 10 minutes available for Back Benchers, may I suggest they have about three minutes each?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is the problem, and that is why there are so many of them.

The efforts of the Members of the House of Lords whom I was talking about do not go unnoticed, and so they should surely have nothing to fear from standing for election to a democratic second Chamber. There have even been occasions when the House of Lords has played an important role in blocking or amending legislation. Imagine how much more important a function our second Chamber could play in shaping legislation if it were fully elected and fully representative. More than half of peers are over 70. I know we are facing an ageing population but to even suggest that that is representative of wider society is absurd. Twice as many peers used to work for the royal family as have worked in skilled or manual labour. That simply is not right and cannot deliver the real-life experience needed in an effective second Chamber.

It simply is not right that the boundary plans proceed. We need plans to vastly reduce the number of peers and a full review of reform of the House of Lords. In the meantime, the Government must discard their plans to reduce the number of democratically elected Members of Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I apologise to the two speakers who cannot get in, but I have to call the Front Benchers. I am sorry about that, but the interventions have killed us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and whether the Government were going to take mitigating measures to compensate the worst-affected women. He responded that the Scottish Government could use their powers to compensate them. At the end of questions that day, I raised a point of order. I was generous in my choice of language and suggested that perhaps the Secretary of State knew something that we did not—namely, that powers over pensions were coming to Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State, through the Chair, if he would correct the record, knowing full well that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 specifically excludes the possibility of the Scottish Parliament having competence over pensions. I was somewhat enraged to receive a letter from the Secretary of State this afternoon which assures me that his statement was correct. We all know that people spin from time to time, but that is disingenuous to say the least, and the Secretary of State should really come clean and recognise that he has misled the House. I ask for your support as to how we can—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First, we should not say that a Member is disingenuous or that they have misled the House. Let me see if I can be helpful here. Obviously there is a disagreement over the views and the interpretation, and I think that there is a way to deal with this—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. This could be helpful. You know me better than that. Give me a chance. There is a way to deal with this through the Procedure Committee, but it might be better to have a face-to-face debate in Westminster Hall. Why not put in for an Adjournment debate where this can be settled in the best possible way?

[Ian Blackford]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your advice, but there is an important issue here. The Secretary of State is giving a level of competence to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that they do not have, and it is important that we in this House have the opportunity to call him to account. I say clearly that he was wrong and that he should correct the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I understand that he says he is wrong; the hon. Gentleman has made that point. What I am saying is that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to put the case and get the answers. That is the way forward. There is also the option of the Procedure Committee, but I think that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to set out categorically where the answer lies.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a series of good points about the impact that the Bill could have on small charities. He has mentioned several in Southend, and I suspect that all of us could mention others in our own constituencies. Is he aware that the inability to reclaim through texts is a possible issue for some of those charities, and does he think that the Minister should reflect on that when winding up the debate? May I also ask what he thinks might be the impact on charities such as scouts groups that sometimes, for example, raise funds using buckets outside supermarkets. Under the new provisions, I think that they will be able to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is doing a Whip’s job, and I do not mind that, but what we cannot have is the making of speeches rather than interventions. I want to try to help everyone, but I cannot allow myself and the Chamber to be tested by a speech rather than an intervention.

[James Duddridge]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, My hon. Friend suffers from having far too many ideas, and I look forward to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It might help if we heard them over a period rather than all in one go. That would help the hon. Gentleman, and it would help me.

[James Duddridge]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I in no way meant to challenge your ruling, but I did want to deal with the issue of SMS messages. I have absolute confidence in these two excellent Ministers, and I look forward to what will be said today. I shall go into a fair amount of detail about different payment methods later, but at this juncture, suffice it to say that SMS messages are absolutely right for this purpose. As many people have pointed out, people do not necessarily want to give all their details. There is also a demographic issue. My mother-in-law would be very happy to text a £5 donation, but if you ask her to use a smart phone or contactless payments, she thinks you are speaking a different language. It is discriminatory not to enable her to donate by text.

As for the point about the scouting movement—my eldest is going up to the scouts, and they collect—I understand that it will be included, but I hope that the specialists on the Front Bench will clarify the position. Earlier in the debate the changes involving buildings were welcomed. It will still be possible to collect money outside a building rather than inside.

Quantitative Easing

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

The hon. Gentleman must have read the next part of my speech. However, that allows me to haste along and agree precisely with what he has said.

A friend of mine, Dr Jim Walker, wrote to me recently and pointed out that

“interest rates throughout history have not only been the cost of capital (or the reward to thrift) but have also been a signalling mechanism about the future”.

We now know that zero interest rates and QE tell business owners and entrepreneurs that there is little or no growth coming. They therefore encourage businesses to hold cash and be extremely cautious about investment. The signalling mechanisms have had a different effect from those predicted by Friedman. It is again time to review the situation. It would be difficult to argue that QE has therefore led to the increase in confidence and investment that was the argument for it.

We can also see other consequences. Despite eight years of near zero interest rates, UK real gross fixed capital formation is 2.8% lower than its 2007 peak. Therefore, investment in the real economy has not been boosted in the way that was originally thought. A similar phenomenon has being going in other aspects of the economy on the demand side, such as in how households have been afflicted. Zero interest rates and asset purchases were supposed to convince ordinary people to borrow and spend more immediately, but some key groups have reacted to zero interest rates by saving more. Why? In order to provide for old age, they can no longer rely on the positive compounding effect of above zero interest rates; nor can they rely on getting the type of annuity for which they may have planned. Instead of encouraging that group to spend, policies have encouraged them to save more due to fear for the future. Such savers are understandably angry. After years of saving some of their income, many people have zero income from their savings.

I am not somebody who is disadvantaged—I have a well-paid job in this House—but I wonder how people who, like me, have a cash ISA are feeling. Before the crash, it was fairly common to get 6% interest, but I received a letter a few weeks ago to point out that from 1 December the interest rate is going to be reduced yet again to 0.1%. The time has come to undertake a critical review of the policies of recent years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I say to the Front-Bench spokesmen that there are three of them and we are going to finish at 5 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bank’s definition of “material contribution to the British economy” is inadequate. Like him, I do not think it is very helpful to be investing in fizzy drinks, but we do need to acknowledge that Siemens has a fantastic development in east Yorkshire and that that is good; that is a proper contribution. I do not think he is really arguing against me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Come on, sit down.

[George Kerevan]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but underlining what I am saying is the fact that only six British manufacturing export companies are on the list of those 300 bonds that the Bank of England thinks are quality enough to invest in. The whole thing that undermines the trajectory of QE is that it is concentrated on saving a banking system at the expense of our manufacturing system.

What do we do next? We have not said enough about that. We should consider shifting the Bank of England’s targets. The inflation target is the wrong one, and we have spent years ignoring it in any case, which means the Bank has no intellectual anchor, and that raises dangers in respect of the accountability of the Bank of England. We should be looking at nominal GDP targeting, in which case the Bank or the monetary authorities would have to be looking at automatic fiscal buffers, whether we are in a recession or in boom. That brings us back to the whole question of how we rehabilitate the fiscal intervention. At some stage, we are going to have to unwind QE. We have to do that in a controlled fashion, so one thing the Bank should be looking at in any evaluation is what timetable we use. If we have a timetable for the unwinding, that will help the markets to adjust in a better fashion. There is a danger, which we might find when we start to unwind, that the natural rate of interest has fallen so low that monetary policy has been undermined in a historic or generational sense, which again means we have to look seriously at how we combine fiscal policy with monetary policy. It would be unwise to unwind QE in the UK alone. What we should consider is a concerted international approach, which must involve some of the surplus countries such as Germany using their trade surpluses in a controlled fashion to boost consumption.

In the autumn statement, it is incumbent on the Government not to leave all the heavy lifting to the Bank of England. It is time that the Government made an intervention in a strong fiscal policy to allow the transition from QE.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Five minutes ago, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that inequality in this country is lessening. On some measures of income inequality, that is true, but this afternoon we were debating wealth inequality.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Lady has been here a long time, and she knows that is not a point of order. I cannot continue the debate because it is now past 5 o’clock. If she had not wasted time when she was trying to make the intervention, she could have got her point across.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the late notice of my point of order, but it is about a situation that has been developing this afternoon. Dozens of my constituents have approached me this afternoon having had their tax credits withdrawn arbitrarily by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs through the Concentrix contract. HMRC has designated a team of people to deal with these issues, which are apparently UK-wide. It takes a 45-minute call to deal with one case. I have dozens of constituents this evening who literally have no money to feed themselves or get the kids out of the door tomorrow morning. I am very concerned that the House is rising at this point and I will not be able to bring these matters to the attention of the Department for Work and Pensions or the House today, tomorrow or on Monday, to cajole some action to get this fixed. There are people who are literally about to starve and the House is about to disappear on recess. Is there anything that you could offer me by way of advice?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

One thing I would say is that you have got it on the record. I think that Ministers are listening and they have got the point. This issue has been debated this week on a couple of occasions; in fact, there was an urgent question on it yesterday. There are still Ministers here, and I would have thought that the message will be going straight back to HMRC. I think there has been an indication from the Minister to say, “Let’s have a conversation,” so if nothing else, at least you have made progress in making him aware now.

Centenary of the Battle of the Somme

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. To try to give everyone equal time, because I know how important this debate is, can we try and restrain ourselves to between five and 10 minutes, so we will all manage to have the same amount of time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

We have had a debate of superlative quality this evening, with 20 right hon. and hon. Members speaking extremely movingly on this the eve of the centenary of the bloodiest day in British military history.

The 19th century French army officer and author, Alfred de Vigny, spoke in his book “The Servitude and Grandeur of Arms” of military service as the most fearsome of contracts. It was true then; it was true in 1916; it was true in 1982, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) so movingly reminded us; and it remains true today.

The hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) quoted AJP Taylor and disagreed with him. I think the hon. Gentleman is allowed to disagree with him; I am not sure that I am. Nevertheless, I hope he will allow me the indulgence on this occasion, because I, too, disagree with him. It is certainly the case that idealism did not die on the Somme; neither did the lights entirely go out across Europe.

If we are to avoid the loss of our 21st century lives and loves in the mud and blood of continental Europe, we need to ensure that we have eternal vigilance across all the Parliaments and Assemblies of our continent. I think that should be our tribute to the fallen this evening—lest we forget.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure that the Minister wanted to point out that Chorley’s own celebration will take place at 10 o’clock tomorrow night and Friday morning, and that the 3 Medical Regiment will take the freedom of the town in Chorley, with the dedication of the cenotaph taking place on Saturday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the centenary of the Battle of the Somme.

The Economy and Work

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (e) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendments (c) and (d), which will be moved formally at the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in the 10 years of the Labour Government to 2008—pre-crash—the economy grew by 40% and that, after the banking crash, we left debt at 55% of the economy in 2010, a figure that is now 83%? Does that not show a failure to grow the economy effectively or to manage productivity?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he has already tested the patience of the House and should not continue to do so? I care about colleagues on both sides of this House and will make sure that everybody gets in, so—unfortunately—interventions must be very short. The list of speakers is very long, and I do not want any Members to miss out.

[John McDonnell]

I do not want to be discourteous to any Members, but as you suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take only a limited number of interventions.

On the crash, let us be clear—[Interruption.] Well, let us talk about the crash. The policy of deregulating the banking system, turning the City of London into a casino, was the policy pursued by the Conservative Government for the previous 30 years.

Let us move on to the criterion of growth. Growth has been revised downwards for every year for the rest of this decade, and when the OBR revised its forecasts downwards, the Chancellor’s entire Budget plan was shot to pieces. He has been left with a £4.8 billion black hole of committed spending, but there is no committed funding. It is nonsensical to claim, as the Government’s Queen’s Speech did, that the public finances are being placed on a “secure footing” when there are gaping holes in the Budget and the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks there is only a 50:50 chance of meeting the Government’s own fiscal surplus target. This is betting the nation’s finances on the equivalent of tossing a coin. There is nothing responsible and there is nothing “secure” in setting unrealistic and politically motivated targets for public spending cuts.

It is useless to preach to us about the need for a “stronger economy” when, by his actions in office for six years, the Chancellor has methodically undermined the economy. This was his choice. Austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. We all now live and are still living with its consequences. Because it was the wrong choice to make, the Chancellor has failed, and it is the British people who are bearing the cost.

The Chancellor has piled failure upon failure, but at the centre of it all is the failure to sustain productivity. Productivity is the key to growth in any modern economy, and the surest way to achieve increased productivity is through increased investment. Increased investment means installing new equipment and replacing old infrastructure, yet business investment remains weak. When business investment is weak, the Government should step up to make sure vital, world-class infrastructure is provided—from high-speed rail to high-speed broadband. There is now consensus from the International Monetary Fund to the OECD, and from the CBI to the TUC, in urging Governments—not just in this country but across the world—about the need to invest in the future, but this Government are clinging to their fiscal surplus target, which is set actually to cut real-terms Government investment over the course of this Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, you could not imagine a more perverse and inadequate economic policy.

Behind the failure to invest lies the failure of our economic institutions. Too many of them have been captured by special interests or place short-term gain ahead of long-term growth. We have major corporations, which are sitting on a cash pile of up to £700 billion, paying out high salaries to senior executives while failing to invest. It is no wonder that in the past month we have seen a series of shareholders revolts against the remuneration packages of some chief executives.

We have a Business Department that does not actually believe in supporting business and refuses even to mention the words “industrial strategy”. In Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we have a department for tax collection that does not believe in collecting taxes—not, at least, from major corporations. That was demonstrated by the fact that when it struck a deal with Google that reflected an effective tax rate in single digits, the Chancellor calls it a “major success”. I have written to the Chancellor to make sure he urgently contacts the French authorities, so that any information they find during their investigation into Google’s Paris headquarters is shared with us to give us a better understanding of Google’s operations in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I would celebrate it if it was a real living wage and if many of those people were not also suffering from cuts to universal credit.

The reality is that after six years of desperate efforts to impose cuts on our economy, against the best available advice from the economics profession itself, the Chancellor is staring an entirely predictable failure in the face. He started out with such high-flown promises. There was going to be a “march of the makers”, yet today, manufacturing is still smaller than in 2008. There was going to be a rebalancing of the economy, yet today for every three jobs created in London just one is created in the rest of the country. There was going to be a modernised tax service, but, as the National Audit Office pointed out in a damning report earlier this week, the quality of service at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has collapsed in the past year as a result of staffing cuts. He promised increased investment, but he cut Government investment spending and now plans to cut it further. In 2010 he forecast the fastest recovery in living memory, but he has delivered the slowest recovery in modern British history.

Let us talk about job creation. The Chancellor and his Government have, perhaps understandably, clung to the job creation figures. Every month they are greeted with rare enthusiasm by Ministers. The reality is that two thirds of those in poverty—nearly 9 million people—are in work. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Treasury Bench does not need to be echoing all the way along. Can we give it a break? The Chancellor will be speaking soon and you will expect me to treat people in the same way. I expect the shadow Chancellor to be heard, not shouted down. [Interruption.] Now, I have been very good so far, but I do not want to hear any more. I am sure that the Whips Office could do with someone to go and make a cup of tea. If they do not want one, I might later.

[John McDonnell]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a class act. The shout was, “Do we welcome the jobs?” Of course we do, but let us be clear: too many of the jobs created since 2010 have been poorly paid and insecure. Some 800,000 people are now on zero-hours contracts. Insecurity at work has been made worse by the undermining of employment rights by the Government. There is no need for that.