Childcare Payments Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I most certainly do agree with him. Pieceworkers and others can have hours and wages that fluctuate over a long period; they will most certainly be affected. I feel that the

“easy-to-use online tool”––[Official Report, Childcare Payments Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2014; c. 222.]

promised by the Minister in Committee will prove elusive.

On top of the sizeable potential for confusion, the different mechanisms by which child care costs are to be paid under the tax-free child care scheme and universal credit are also worrying. As we are aware, under the tax-free scheme, payments will be made through child care accounts. That will provide families who are in receipt of tax-free child care with an important budgeting tool to help them manage their finances; that is particularly important as payments will be made through child care account top-ups before costs are paid by the parent. However, child care support received through tax credits and universal credit cannot be provided through child care accounts. That means that child care payments are not aligned, which gives rise to the potential for further confusion and complexity for parents, and it means that an important budgeting tool for households in receipt of tax-free child care is not available to those receiving child care support through universal credit.

It is worth highlighting that the Children’s Society report “The Debt Trap” found households in poverty containing dependent children to be twice as likely to be in some form of arrears as families on higher incomes. It is precisely these families who are most likely to need help with budgeting, but who will be given the least support. Moreover, universal credit payments of child care costs will be made in arrears. As Members will be aware, parents are usually required to pay child care providers one month in advance, but families on low incomes claiming universal credit are likely to have the lowest savings, if any at all; this will inevitably result in many being forced to borrow money to pay for their child care up front. We should be under no illusion: that could be a hefty sum, and if child care costs are higher during school holidays, further loans may be required to meet those costs. This runs the obvious risk of forging a cycle of dependence. Reporting requirements for universal credit are significantly greater than those for either tax credits or tax-free child care, and any failure to report in time will lead to the loss of all payments for that assessment period.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it strange that in this time of austerity and everything else that we hear about, the Government have come forward, under this Bill, with a child care payment scheme that gives more, including more flexibility, to those who have more? I am thinking of the bankable allowances and so on. Compare that with what the Government are providing, in terms of child care, under the universal credit rules. It really is one scheme for the better-off, and another, much worse scheme for the less well-off.

[Alex Cunningham]

I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. It is a peculiar world—I would use the word “bonkers”—when someone earning £100,000 can benefit more from a new Government scheme than somebody on perhaps £20,000. It is important that the Government think again on some of these points.

Let us not forget that families on higher incomes will get their child care accounts topped up by the Government before they have to pay their provider, so the rich get paid up front, while the poor do not get any payment at all. One possible solution that could be explored further is the provision of child care accounts and tax-free child care to families in receipt of child care support through tax credits or universal credit. Allowing these claimants to use child care accounts to receive their payments of child care costs would allow receipt in advance of payment, but without the risk of any overpayments being lost within wider family budgets. However, as things stand, the Bill would not permit that without additional primary legislation. These minor amendments to clauses 11 and 15 would allow the tax-free child care scheme to go forward as designed, while allowing us the time to consult and to assess these issues fully. We would have the flexibility to make changes by regulation, rather than through additional primary legislation.

Universal credit is still in its infancy and is being gradually rolled out. It seems to make little sense to limit how it may evolve by putting barriers, in the form of primary legislation, in the way of what may be sensible reforms. I would like to hear from the Minister what further considerations she has given to extending the tax-free child care scheme in this way, and expanding child care accounts beyond the scheme. I hope that she will support these minor amendments, which would allow for the potential benefits that those changes could deliver, particularly for some of the poorest people in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

There is support that remains focused on those on lower incomes. As I said at length in Committee, the Government’s overall child care system is very much focused on those on lower incomes, and it is wrong to suggest that that is not the case. Families in receipt of tax credits receive more generous support with child care costs. We have already discussed universal credit, which is being extended to cover up to 85% of the costs of child care. All the analysis shows that the benefits of the scheme are focused on households on lower incomes. The new scheme ensures that for the first time parents can be certain that support will be available for them; yes, obviously, at the lower end, but importantly, as they move into work and increase their incomes too. The scheme is much more fairly targeted than the existing scheme of employer-supported child care. It supports working families, getting households and families back into work. It was debated at length in Committee, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.

Today’s debate has shown that the Government are taking a broad range of actions to support families with the costs of child care, not just through this scheme, but through improvements in the welfare scheme—

[Mark Durkan]

In considering how the Government can best take this forward, will the Minister take account of the fact that whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly debated the legislative consent motion, there was much confusion, even on the part of the junior Minister, about its impact on child care in Northern Ireland? Child care provision in Northern Ireland has a different profile from here, and it seems that the Government’s scheme will lead to degrees of confusion and uncertainty, particularly for existing schemes that are well favoured.

[Priti Patel]

I take this opportunity to re-emphasise that the scheme in no way creates confusion. In Committee we touched briefly on the situation in Northern Ireland and provided information and guidance in that regard. This is about working with all the players—parents, employers, and other stakeholders. It is about making the system abundantly clear and simple, not about complexity. Guidance has been drafted. We are working with third parties. We are designing a calculator tool, as we have discussed before. This is all about giving guidance and providing clarity.

I shall briefly cover amendments 3 to 11 on families in receipt of tax credits. The child care element of tax credits is just one component of the package of support designed to help lower-income households. I emphasise that there is support for those on low incomes, in particular. We should reflect on the fact that under the new scheme more working families than ever before will be eligible for support with child care costs. The scheme will be an important component of the overall offer to working families. It will sit alongside existing schemes to ensure that support is available to those increasing their incomes as they move off benefits.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

At a time when budgets are tough, I completely understand why people want the maximum amount of money possible to be spent at home, but the truth is that we have been able to get a reduction in the EU budget because of the tough negotiations of the British Prime Minister. That is what we are able to achieve by standing up for Britain’s interests in Europe.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Chancellor help us better to understand what he is presenting as a masterful feat by telling us: what he did not know; when and for how long he did not know it; and why he did not know it?

[Mr Osborne]

It was not clear that this exceptional demand for a payment would have the British rebate applied or indeed to what extent the rebate would be applied. The amount was confirmed to us only last Thursday evening.

Childcare Payments Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I was referring to the Government’s original timetable that they are already behind on, but I appreciate that it is intended this offer will be implemented in autumn 2015, as she says. We hope that that will be the case. However I do have a number of questions about the implementation. Unfortunately, Ministers have repeatedly refused to set out the specifics of who will be better off and by how much, or whether people will be better off as a result of these measures. I have tabled a series of written parliamentary questions to try to gain clarity on those points, but disappointingly, although not surprisingly, the answers from the Financial Secretary have not been helpful in the slightest. In many cases, the right hon. Lady has simply failed to answer the questions. It would appear from her responses that the Department is simply not aware of what proportion of families paying for child care will benefit from the Bill, how it will benefit different income groups proportionally, and what the average top-up will be per child once the scheme is up and running. It is hard to believe that the Treasury is not in possession of such data. Surely it is fundamental to understanding what the Bill’s impact might be on the Exchequer, and on children and families.

The only indication that we have about how the Bill will impact on different income groups is from work undertaken by the Resolution Foundation, which suggests that the scheme could be skewed towards higher earnings, which might go some way to explain why the Minister has been so unforthcoming with responses to the various questions put.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On that very point, has my hon. Friend noted that the Family and Childcare Trust has made it clear that the 1.25 million families that will benefit from this, are only about half or slightly over half of those who are paying for child care costs, and 80% of those who will benefit under this measure are in the top 40% of the income distribution?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point and puts forward compelling evidence as to why we need to question the details on this. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is not true, but if it is not true, why is she not forthcoming with the Treasury data on this issue?

As Gavin Kelly, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, pointed out, the Government’s decision to increase the spending cap is likely to benefit those on the highest incomes, despite the fact that it is low and middle-income families who are struggling the most with the rising costs of child care, for whom it is acting as a barrier to taking on more work. He said:

“About 80 per cent of the gains from this will flow upwards to those in the top half of the income distribution.”

Throughout the Bill’s passage in the House, we will continue to press for some clear, transparent information from Ministers so that parents can be clear about what they can and cannot expect to receive in support. At the moment, the Bill is completely devoid of any of this information.

None the less, despite a lack of answers from the Minister, there is a curious line in the Bill’s impact assessment, which states that, of those families that the Government say will gain as a result of the new scheme,

“the average additional support they will receive is £600 per year”—

£600 per year on average. That stands in complete contrast to the claims of Ministers who have implied that working parents are all in for a £2,000 child care subsidy. Indeed, the Financial Secretary’s own website, summarising her week of activities when she announced this revised child care scheme in March this year, suggested this was the case. She said:

“The new Tax-Free Childcare scheme which I am guiding through Parliament will provide 20 per cent support on childcare costs up to £10,000 per year for each child via a new simple online system. This will mean an average saving of £2,000 a year per child.”

I hope that she will set the record straight on that point, because her Department’s own impact assessment suggests a very different reality.

I would also like to take this opportunity to probe the Minister on the Government’s plans to support 85% of child care costs for all universal credit claimants. Under the Government’s original plans, only those universal credit claimants who paid income tax—the highest earning claimants—would be eligible for 85% of support. Everybody else would be covered for only 70% of costs. We welcomed these changes as they signified a reversal of the Government’s decision to cut the child care element of working tax credit from 80% to 70% in 2011, a move that we opposed because we recognised that it simply served to hit those parents who needed the support the most. But it would seem that this could be yet another example of the coalition Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

As Alan Milburn, chairman of the Government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has made absolutely clear, low-income families could still lose out despite the increase in support for those most in need. He told The Independent on Sunday:

“The Government has taken half a step forward. The announcement that 85 per cent of childcare costs will be met under universal credit from 2016 will help work pay for low-income families. This is very welcome. The sting in the tail is that this £200m expansion in childcare support will come from within the universal credit programme. This risks robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

The Minister did not provide any clarity when my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) probed earlier in relation to this, but there needs to be some upfront response. How exactly do the Government intend to pay for this increase in support?

There is another key concern. We now know that the universal credit programme is in complete disarray under the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and the Treasury is refusing to sign off on the programme’s business case, and there are concerns that low-income parents may now be waiting until 2017 at the earliest to receive this welcome additional support. Again, I have tabled a number of written parliamentary questions to ascertain whether this will be the case, and, again, disappointingly but perhaps not surprisingly, the Minister has failed to answer any of these questions. I put it to the Minister today: when can the 4 million low-income families who will be eligible for universal credit expect to receive support to cover 85% of their child care costs? [Interruption.] The Minister says she has said it, so will she give a cast-iron guarantee today that they will be in receipt of these payments by 2016? Will she confirm that at the Dispatch Box? No.

[Mark Durkan]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that whereas the new scheme seems to offer up to £2,000 per child, with no limit on the number of children, child care support under universal credit is capped, so anyone with more than two children is effectively losing out when compared with those who benefit from the new scheme? Would child care accounts not be a fairer way in universal credit as in this scheme?

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I do not pretend to know much about Welsh schools, although my cousin goes to school in Wales and I have many relatives there. I am not necessarily aware of the provision that exists, but I know that this Government are keen to work with schools in England to increase the number of schools choosing to make provision for young children. I do not know what the Welsh Assembly Government are considering, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), has consistently tried to introduce reforms that will make child care provision an attractive career. We are right to press ahead with some of the childminder agencies we are introducing, not through this Bill but separately, to remove some of the administrative burdens that might be deterring people from entering that career. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage such agencies to set up in his area of Arfon, bringing new employment opportunities for both men and women and making provision for working parents.

It is great news that under this Government more women are working than ever before, yet we would like to see even more women—and even more parents—going into work. This scheme is part of our long-term economic plan. We recognise that the cost of our child care is the second highest in the OECD as a percentage of family income; only Switzerland’s is higher. I think that it is fair to say that under Labour the number of childminders decreased significantly and costs went up. Before the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North springs to her feet—if she is not following the latest reshuffle news on Twitter—let me say that I recognise that that trend has continued, but it is not going on at the same level. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for referring to my haircut. It was nothing to do with the events that seem to be unfolding on Twitter. I merely got a phone call from my own mother complaining that my hair was too long and, as we know, in these situations mothers know best. I am not a mother, so I have to stick with what my mother tells me.

Let me give a few of the reasons why these things matter. A couple of years ago, the Conservative Women’s Forum undertook an inquiry, in which I think you might have participated, Madam Deputy Speaker, into the executive pipeline of talent. It focused not only on the number of women on boards, but on how we encourage women to get up the executive ladder and, more importantly, on what women can do for themselves, what Government can do and what companies can do. The issue of child care was a running theme throughout the inquiry, particularly for those in junior management. Once people are at a certain level, they probably receive a salary that means they do not have to think about the issue; they can pay for a nanny and even though it might be painful, the costs are not quite so prohibitive. We consistently received evidence that the voucher system was inadequate. It did not cover enough of the cost, it was very limited or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned earlier, it did not help people such as the self-employed. I am pleased that the Bill extends the provision to almost anyone in work and it is right that we should do that.

It is also fair to say that no one magic bullet emerged as a result of the inquiry to solve some of the challenges in the pipeline of talent or in how we tackle child care, but nevertheless the discussions before the Budget announcements on how to help with tax relief were exactly the issues being brought up by senior executives. I was glad that the subsequent announcement was made in Budget 2013.

The proposals in Budget 2013 were limited to £6,000 of child care costs, which would have meant a maximum benefit of £1,200. I was pleased that after the consultation, to which significant contributions were made, we were able to change the age limit to 12 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has pointed out, to change the age limit for children with disabilities. We also increased the limit to £10,000, with a maximum of £2,000 support. That was the right thing to do, because it recognised the costs of child care. Nevertheless, it is important that we have retained the choice for parents who are in employer-supported child care schemes to stay in that system while recognising that we will close it to new entrants, so to speak. I support that because, understandably, companies have gone to some expense to set up these schemes and they are popular. We should not withdraw one thing simply for the sake of simplicity for the Government.

The hon. Lady from Northern Ireland—I have forgotten her constituency—

[Mark Durkan]

South Down.

[Dr Coffey]

Thank you. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the situation in which one parent was not working and asked why they would not get support with child care costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has accurately pointed out, the consultation raised those points and we have extended the provision when there is a working person and somebody on carer’s allowance or employment and support allowance. When people are enjoying parental leave after having children, they should not be penalised if they have children in child care. We do not want any unintended consequences.

I am a strong supporter of the traditional family. I am sure that I am not the only person whose mother did not work initially after having me, although she did start to go back to work as a supply teacher. It is fair to say that although the Government have scarce resources, they are offering both parents the choice to get back into the workplace, as opposed to one person having to choose, for perfectly good reasons, not to return to the workplace. I therefore support the gist of what the Government are saying about restricting support to cases in which both parents are working or the other cases that have been alluded to.

I am surprised that there are no Members in the Chamber from the Scottish constituencies, because, of course, this is a United Kingdom measure, although I am delighted that we have had contributions and interventions from Members from Wales and Northern Ireland. Much has been made of the fact that National Savings & Investments will initially be providing the child care account. You may have read in the weekend press, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the people of Scotland choose to go ahead with separation, NS&I will not be able to provide accounts to people living in Scotland, as they will effectively become foreign nationals. They might wish to consider that as another element of the question. I am sure that if somebody from the Scottish National party were here, they would leap up and say, “We will have an even better scheme and it will cost less than yours.” Nevertheless, I am sure that the good people of Scotland recognise that that is unlikely to be the case. The Minister might want to consider the issue in her regulations for this provision, but let us not prejudge the outcome of the referendum. I strongly believe that the people of Scotland will recognise that staying together is better for us all.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman would say that, and he has been very loyal to his nationalist friends. I recognise that.

On the timing, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that if we could bring in the scheme tomorrow, we would do so. However, we do not want to repeat—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? I think she said that we have been in power for four years, and I recognise that we are bringing this into play rather late in our parliamentary term, but she will know some of the challenges of government from her previous experience. Nevertheless, I would rather we got this right than end up with the fiasco we had over tax credits, which were brought in in quite a rush, with all the accompanying problems. The hon. Member for Manchester Central might be slightly bemused by that, but overpayment of tax credits and trying to reconcile figures and help people out with that is one of the biggest issues in my constituency casework. She will, I think, recognise some of the challenges of bringing in a new system.

The Bill rightly provides that the connections between the different agencies will be updated quarterly. We are not going to get into penalties and going back and forth, but provision is made for recovery. It is important that parents recognise that they should anticipate the potential impact if their conditions change. To be frank, I think the biggest change will occur when people move from one salary bracket to another, or decide to stop claiming universal credit and simply to claim this instead. At least the hurdle or cliff edge when people have to change is fairly black and white.

[Mark Durkan]

Would the hon. Lady like to see a strong information and advice offer built into the scheme, so that people who are having to decide how to navigate between universal credit and the scheme will get advice and without-prejudice, better-off calculations?

[Dr Coffey]

My expectation is that that would happen naturally. I do not want to overplay it, but I think it would be a natural consequence when people say, “I’m coming off universal credit to get this.” It will be a straightforward calculation, which should be readily understandable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, and perhaps makes my next point for me, which is that the previous Government failed to deal with the problem of child care costs, and it is the present Government, in particular the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who are doing so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who is responsible for child care, has rightly said in the past that a changing economy means that parents need affordable and available child care more than ever, and a changing world means that children need a rigorous, rounded education more than ever. We have before us an opportunity to do both things at once. The context is the tax and benefit changes that came into being this financial year. The biggest reforms in a generation, they will create more jobs—indeed, they have already done so—and they are getting more people off welfare and into work. Child care follows from that, so let us see it in perspective. It is only by sticking to those kind of economic actions—a long-term economic plan, in fact—that we will build a more resilient economy and a more financially secure future for hard-working people and their families.

The cost of living cannot be seen in isolation. The British people cannot be flannelled with phony figures. There can be no economic or household security without the honesty and courage to control the public finances. Labour’s old way has failed—Labour Members would argue with that, if they were here to do so. More public spending led to more welfare bills and more government jobs that the country could not afford. They propose in this debate to use a levy they have already spent 10 times over. Why can they not afford parents the respect of some honesty? This Government, on the other hand, are backing businesses by cutting their taxes, so they can create jobs; cutting tax for individuals, so that their job pays; and controlling welfare, so that getting a job pays more. Universal credit is of course crucial and will be one of the most important reforms this Government make. By replacing working tax credit, it should help my female constituent who wrote to me last week to say:

“When I did work we were over the threshold for working tax credits by around £300 yet I would have to pay £12,000 in childcare cost to continue working.”

Let us look at some other current figures. I am drawing now on the Mumdex—the helpful piece of work that Asda does every month. The latest report shows a rise in spending power for the eighth consecutive month, leaving families £4 a month better off than last year. The main cause is a slowdown in essential item inflation, particularly food, clothes and mortgage interest payments—another sign of a sounder economy. Petrol costs fell again, which eased the pressure on household finances—indeed, under this Government, fuel duty is now more than 13p a litre lower than it would have been without our action, so that the average family saves £7 every time they fill up the tank.

Such results in family finances can only come about with control of the public finances, which has entailed serious decisions by the Government about what to spend hard-earned taxes on. Voters have serious decisions to make as well, as the Conservatives appreciate. As a previous Conservative election poster said,

“Don’t just hope for a better life. Vote for one.”

I am delighted that the Chancellor has put public money towards the tax-free child care scheme that we are discussing. It stands to ease costs for families even more, and here are five good reasons why I support it. First, it will be bigger and faster than first outlined, opening sooner and benefiting in its first year 1.9 million working families with children under 12. That is good progress already in the work that has to be done to bring the scheme forward. Secondly, it will be simple, flexible and easily accessible online. Thirdly, for the first time self-employed parents and those working for the great majority of employers who do not offer the existing employer-supported child care scheme will be able to take part.

Fourthly, the scheme will also help those working part time and on the minimum wage because of the low minimum earnings threshold of £50 a week. Fifthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, it offers more help for parents of disabled children by recognising that assistance ought to continue until the child is aged 17, rather than 12. I know from experience in my constituency how welcome that will be.

This all means that all working families where the parents earn at least £50 a week will have access to Government support for child care costs unless one of the parents earns more than £150,000 or receives support from tax credits, universal credit or ESC. All told, this gives families greater stability and more flexibility to make their own choices about their family picture. A male constituent told me:

“I’m now on £10K a year, at 39 years of age. My wife, an amazing mother, has to stay at home to look after two of our children, as we cannot afford the child care or would be worse off if my wife went to work.”

The personal allowance will rise in April next year to £10,500. My constituent then may be one of the 400 people in Norwich North who will be taken out of tax entirely by the actions of this Government. He will certainly be one of the more than 38,000 people in my constituency who will benefit from our tax changes. Universal credit will address the abhorrent benefits trap, which is reflected in the quote that I just gave. My constituent and his wife may also benefit from the scheme before us today. I welcome the targeted provision of taxpayer-funded child care for families on the lowest incomes.

[Mark Durkan]

On universal credit, does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a disparity, in that child care support under universal credit will not be paid through the sort of child care accounts that are available under this scheme; they will be only for costs that are already paid out, unlike under this scheme.

[Chloe Smith]

I do recognise that difference, and I am confident that the Minister will look at that carefully. I wonder whether we might deal with it in Committee, and whether Labour Members will be there to do so, as they are absent from the Chamber today. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I do not have the answer, but I am confident that the Minister is working on it.

The new provision, however it is implemented, will be targeted. It is important to add it to the provision that this Government have extended for families on the lowest incomes, beginning with all three and four-year-olds receiving 15 hours a week of free child care, and going on to target this offer to the 240,000 poorest two-year-olds. If that is how the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) defines doing nothing in our years in power, I cannot wait, and I am quivering in my boots, to see what she will do when she marshals some Back Benchers to help her into government.

Let me turn to a couple of points about the quality of child care that we all wish to see as we put the Bill through. I want more great child care to be available and to offer parents more choice and flexibility. I would also like it to be easier for new providers to enter the market and for good existing providers to expand, with consequent benefits for affordability and quality. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, has said that we know that other countries, such as France and Germany, have excellent systems for comparable amounts of Government spending, while also paying staff good salaries and keeping parents’ costs affordable. I hope my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will reassure us that the implementation of the child care payments scheme will be simple and cost-effective, will work with other Government systems such as universal credit, and will give parents the confidence that they need and deserve in affordable, achievable, good quality child care in this country.

Consumer Rights Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. By my reckoning, eight hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Colleagues will be aware that the moment of interruption is 7 o’clock. They will be able to do the arithmetic for themselves, but if everyone speaks for approximately five minutes and no longer, it should be possible to accommodate everybody.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) who spoke so well in support of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I also wish to associate myself with the clear arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in respect of other amendments in this group.

I wish to speak to new clause 15, in my name and that of the hon. Members for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) and for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood). I raised this issue in Committee, although new clause 15 is not simply a retread of the new clause I tabled there about product recalls, especially of electrical items, and safety. It is a new and improved new clause, with added provisions based on the very fine contribution by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen in an Adjournment debate on 24 March.

When my original new clause was debated in Committee, the hon. Member for East Lothian had to speak to it, as I was in the United States as part of a delegation on the Colombian peace process. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for speaking so well on the new clause in Committee.

The purpose of the new clause is to try to make good the deficiencies in the product recall system. I am one of those people, probably like many other Members, who laboured under the assumption that there are very clear schemes, strict regimes and tightly managed fine systems for product recalls, particularly for products that can threaten the life and health of families and the fabric of properties. We read about products catching fire and being recalled—washing machines, cookers and so on—but the Electrical Safety Council report “Safer Products, Better Business” shows that most product recalls succeed in recalling only 20% of products, with some recalling only 10%. That means there are a lot of unsafe products in people’s homes, threatening lives and property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House with inimitable eloquence as always, but I think I can confidently predict that he is reaching his peroration.

[Mark Durkan]

The other point the Government make is that this will be the subject of a European directive in a couple of years’ time. I would only make the point that we should not have to wait for a European directive, and that it would be better if a meaningful European directive were transposed through existing legislation. New clause 15 would provide exactly those powers and that legislation.

[Mrs Main]

I would like to speak to new clauses 13 and 22, and make a small reference to new clauses 18 to 21.

New clause 13 was explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as being a matter of consumer choice. I have a huge degree of sympathy with that, but I will explain why I cannot support him today. We should all know exactly what we are eating. We should have a good deal of information about how animals have lived and died. I have major concerns that Europe does not have the same high standards of animal welfare that we have in this country, yet we import meat from those animals that have been raised with living standards we do not find acceptable and have outlawed, such as farrowing pens for pigs.

Briefing from the Eurogroup for Animals, published in 2011, gives some interesting information about European standards of animal husbandry and, indeed, animal slaughter—much of the meat involved enters our own food chain—and makes it clear that many of us should be very concerned about those issues. That organisation opposes the slaughter of all animals without their being stunned beforehand. The briefing states:

“In 2010, the European Commission requested from Member States official data regarding numbers of animals ritually slaughtered within their territory.”

Unfortunately, there was a real lack of data. According to the briefing,

“most of the countries do not have reliable figures available as no traceability exists to differentiate between animals”

when it comes to how they have been slaughtered. Of course, I am concerned about how they have lived as well. There is also a significant over-slaughtering of animals for halal and kosher meat within the food chain to allow for the amount of demand that might arise in countries that import such meat, which means that there is no way of showing what happens to animals that have been killed in that way and where they end up in the food chain.

This is indeed a labelling issue, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that, according to some of the information that has been gleaned through the examination of people who do not wish animals to be killed without being stunned, it is almost impossible to trace the meat involved, and that without Europe-wide traceability, his proposal will be totally unenforceable. I appreciate that many consumers would like to know how the animals were treated, where and in what conditions they were raised, the extent of the confinement in which they were placed, and how they were slaughtered. While I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments—I, too, believe that consumers should know exactly what they are purchasing—I therefore cannot support his new clause.

Let me now say something about the tenancy issues that have been raised. I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley a great deal, because he talks a lot of good sense, and his heart is often in the right place. However, I believe that if we put all the onus on landlords when it comes to any fees associated with the checking of tenants—they often have to be checked now because of the rules on residency, which govern whether they have the right to rent in this country—those fees will go into the chain, and other ways will be found to put up rents. I cannot believe that the Labour party wants that to happen.

A small letting agency in St Albans, which contacted me about the Labour party’s proposal, is deeply unhappy about it. Given that the agency provides a service enabling people to go into its office, choose from the properties that are advertised, be shown round and so on, why should a fee not be incurred for the benefit that the potential tenant enjoys? The landlord may enjoy a different benefit in the form of the checking of the tenants; the benefits are not always exactly the same.

I suggest that the Government should be extremely cautious before accepting any blandishments from the Labour party, which constantly tries to impose all the cost on businesses. We, as consumers, also want a degree of protection.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Shadow Chancellor. I am glad he agrees that he is flatlining.

This has been an important debate, and I agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in one respect. She was right to say that this was an important debate on an important subject and should be treated as such. However, it is for precisely those reasons that I support the cap that we are debating, as does my party. Let me explain why. During the debate a few myths have grown up about the cap, which I want to tackle. Fundamentally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made clear, the motion is about accountability to Parliament and about the transparency of public expenditure decisions.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I do not have much time; I intend to make some progress.

Fundamentally, the motion is about ensuring that we have greater control over public expenditure in this country, and that where a Government wish to deviate from the plans they set out to this House, they must return to the House to explain why they want to make a change, or what action they will take to deal with the pressures that have emerged.

One of my priorities when I came into office as Chief Secretary was to increase the amount of public expenditure that is under the direct control of Government, and indeed under the direct control and accountability of this House.

Fairness and Inequality

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am a trade unionist and I fully support trade unions.

On the current policy trajectory, the social pattern of health inequalities will continue. For example, the gap in life expectancy is set to increase, rather than decrease. In England, there is now a nine-year difference for men and a seven year difference for women. The Government’s indifference to inequality reflects their belief in the dated theory that reducing inequality reduces incentives and slows growth. That theory has had a number of iterations, but the converse has been shown to be the case. For example, Stiglitz produced evidence last year to show that inequality caused financial instability, undermined productivity and retarded growth.

The previous Labour Government did not get everything right, but I am proud that we achieved our targets on health inequalities. Our key successes were in achieving our objectives, first, to reduce health inequalities by 10% as measured by life expectancy at birth for men in spearhead areas, and, secondly, to narrow the gap in infant mortality by at least 10% between routine and manual socio-economic groups and the England average. That was quite a feat, and it has not been acknowledged by this Government. I am sure that the Minister will take an opportunity to mention it in his closing remarks. We did not get it right, but we are definitely moving in the right direction with the policy initiatives we have announced: strengthening the minimum wage; increasing support on child care; freezing energy bills; repealing the bedroom tax; providing support on business rates; and improving the quality of jobs.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Reflecting on not just the previous Administration, but the previous Parliament, does the hon. Lady agree that one of their collective achievements was the Child Poverty Act 2010, which was supported by all parties? The Welfare Reform Act 2012 was used to gut the key component of that Act by removing the key element of targets and annual reports. That was not done properly, by its inclusion in the original Bill, but by a Government-sponsored amendment in the Lords, which came back here and was not even voted on.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the increase in child poverty. The Labour Government made some strides in reducing that. As he will know, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that child poverty will increase by 1.1 million by 2020 because of this Government’s policies.

Let me finish on a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), a former Health Secretary:

“Inequality in health is the worst inequality of all. There is no more serious inequality than knowing that you'll die sooner because you’re badly off”.

I hope that focuses all our minds.

Consumer Rights Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As the hon. Gentleman says, I have discussed that with him before. Indeed, there was a discussion in the European Union last week about rules of origin legislation. I am very sympathetic. The potteries are reviving somewhat and the ceramics industry is returning, and we want to ensure that that is sustained. I think that the issues raised are somewhat different from the content of the Bill. We might be talking about fraud, trading standards or enforcement, and there is an issue about mandatory origin reporting, which is currently being debated in the European Union. I fear that the Bill’s provisions will probably not help to solve the problem, but those are important issues.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I want to raise a further question that is not addressed by the Bill as currently drafted, surprisingly. It relates to electrical product recalls, which are clearly a matter of safety for people and properties. The law is currently deficient, and the Electrical Safety Council has made it clear that it wants it improved. It points out that the recall checker on its website often lists products for which there is no procedure in place and no traceable manufacturer. Surely, with regard to consumer rights, that is an area that needs to be addressed.

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the safety aspects are dealt with separately. I was under the impression that the relevant law was tightened up several years ago. I am familiar with it because a colleague who formerly represented Richmond Park in the House had a family tragedy in circumstances similar to those that the hon. Gentleman describes. I understood that the regulations relating to defective electrical equipment had been tightened, but that is a specific point that we can check.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), and others, I have no problem in welcoming any Bill that successfully consolidates quite a number of existing pieces of legislation, and helps to clarify practice as well as better codify the legal basis. However, it is a long way to jump from that consolidation to implying that the Bill will deal with all the consumer issues that we know exist, and the active and pressing matters that hon. Members from across the House regularly express, not only in debates such as this but through other means such as early-day motions.

A number of hon. Members mentioned areas where the Bill could be improved or go further, and indicated that they hope that that will happen in Committee. One point that has been mentioned is the issue highlighted by Citizens Advice in its submission about better information at point of sale. I fully support that, including the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). However, in any future improvement of the standards and requirements for point-of-sale information, the fact and quality of that information should not of itself become a new marketing lure, where businesses imply to customers that they are doing everything in their interests as consumers. Many hon. Members have complained about claims management companies. Claims management companies ring people and tell them they are ringing on behalf of, for example, the Department of Justice. They imply that they have been appointed by the Department to tell people they have a claim simply because they have been licensed as claims management companies. We do not want to assist any firm or supplier, whether online or in-store, in any other mis-selling, but they might use the fact that they are giving point-of-sale information to new consumer legislation standards to do so.

Many hon. Members have heard complaints from their constituents about extended warranties. They have become something of a racket. People find it very hard to buy goods without being spooked into buying extended warranties. The small print that attaches to extended warranties is not matched by small prices. People often find that they have cancelled out any headline discount by buying an extended warranty, but also that, if they need to use it, it does not do the job for them. Many people mistake an extended warranty for an extended guarantee—they believe that it absolutely guarantees against any problem, but do not realise that they are buying a fairly narrow form of insurance, which will be fought and resisted using all means in the small print.

I fully endorse the point made on point-of-sale information, but we need to recognise that point-of-sale abuses take place. The Bill does not give us very much to deal with those problems and does not tell us where consumers stand. We must test the Bill not only on how far it consolidates existing law, but on how far it mitigates the problems consumers encounter.

More needs to happen on a time limit on repairs and refunds. I fully endorse everything other hon. Members have said on that.

On part 3, a point was made on the idea of collective redress. I welcome the important concept in the Bill which suggests that, if action is taken by consumers in relation to a product or service, the eligibility to benefit from it should apply to other consumers—people need not be party to the action to benefit. Of course, it would not apply to anybody who had specifically opted out. That raises an interesting question, which goes back to my intervention on the Secretary of State.

On time limits on repairs and refunds, and on collective redress in respect of known faults that are identified and pursued, there is a glaring omission in the Bill on product recall. Even if faults become known to the product manufacturer and the supplier, they might remain unknown to the consumer. There are problems with product recall, particularly in relation to electrical goods. The Electrical Safety Council runs a recall check and says that only 10% to 20% of the products it tracks are subject to successful recall. We should remember that those products are recalled because of a risk to people and property. Hon. Members have argued about what the Opposition want and what the Government want, but we should remember that we are talking about products that go inside consumers’ houses and represent a real risk. There is something of a dereliction in the law in terms of what is expected or required in product recall. Under existing legislation and under the Bill, consumers will have their rights asserted and addressed only in respect of faults that they know and identify, not in respect of serious and risky faults that are known to others.

The Electrical Safety Council also says that for many of the products on which it is running a recall check there is no traceable manufacturer. Many products are supplied under the names of other brands, so the actual manufacturer is unknown. Recalls are made according to codenames, so even if people have accessed any of that information they will still not be sure whether they have the product. There is such diversity in sales and distribution chains—hon. Members have made significant points about supply chains—that the issue arises of whether the standards we set on product recalls are tight enough. Only this month an article in The Guardian highlighted the risks and dangers of unsafe products and the incidences of fires in homes. We should heed those warnings and listen to bodies such as the Electrical Safety Council, and consider whether there is more we can do in the proposed legislation to address that significant gap.

I raised the effectiveness of electrical product recalls in a written question to the Minister. She replied:

“Liability and responsibility for unsafe products lie with the manufacturer or the importer placing them on the European market. Local authority Trading Standards services in Great Britain and district councils in Northern Ireland are responsible for enforcement. They have powers to order a recall, but rarely use them. The majority of recalls are undertaken by industry on a voluntary basis to address their obligations. Recall actions are expensive and often complex; manufacturers work with the enforcement authority to tailor the action to the product and the specific circumstances.

The electrical products industry monitors the impact of these actions to continually improve their effectiveness. I fully support their efforts and consequently have not undertaken my own assessment of the effectiveness of electrical product recalls. However, my officials are keeping this under review.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 190-1W.]

I ask the Minister to listen to what the Electrical Safety Council is telling us. Legislators, Ministers and the Department need to pay attention to this issue and I hope that the Bill will be amended to make good the gap. It seems strange that we are talking about time limits on repairs and refunds when people identify a fault and that we are talking about people being identified and being eligible for rights as a result of a collective action that they may not have been party to themselves. That is right and good, but it is odd that we are not showing care—as consumers and as people who should expect health and safety standards from products that we have brought into our own homes—in relation to product recalls, especially those that have taken place on the basis of an identified danger or risk.

I join many hon. Members who are currently signing early-day motions and doing other things to highlight the injustice of differential charges for paying by direct debit or by other means, and the penalties that appear to be imposed. It is one thing for people to understand that discounts are made available to those opting out of receiving bills by post or by any method that has overheads, but many people believe that many utilities are now charging a standard rate for those on direct debit and a penalty rate for those who pay by other means. This is a concern to all hon. Members, including many who welcome the Bill, but it will not be mitigated by it. I hope that that gap will be taken care of in Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the work that he has done to bring that investment into his constituency, and to create jobs and opportunities for the people whom he represents. It is important for us to send a message to the world that we are open for business and open to investment, and because we are doing that, we are now a go-to destination for world investment. Can my hon. Friend imagine the impact on jobs and investment in his constituency if we adopted the Labour party’s approach?

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May we have an update on the Chancellor’s intention to introduce a new regime for annually managed expenditure? Will the overall welfare cap of which he has spoken include a cap within a cap for welfare spending in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Osborne]

We are not proposing a cap within a cap, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but we are proposing a welfare cap. We have set out the details of the benefits and the annually managed expenditure that will be part of the cap, but we will announce further details about the level of it at fiscal events later this year.

Tomlinson Report

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the gist of the hon. Lady’s comments, but I am not sure what she means by foot dragging. The report was published on 22 October. On 23 October, it was given to the FCA, and, within days, the FCA announced that it would investigate, so it would be wrong to accuse the FCA or anyone else of foot dragging, but she is right to suggest that we must stay on top of this and make sure it is handled in a timely way.[Official Report, 19 December 2013, Vol. 572, c. 7MC.]

The hon. Lady and other hon. Members mentioned the allegations of fraud in the report. They will understand it is not for Ministers to determine whether criminal activity by any institution or individual has or has not taken place. That is something that the courts and authorities must look into. If she or other hon. Members have been contacted by businesses with concerns, it is timely to remind her that micro-enterprises can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service with any such concerns. Businesses can also raise concerns directly with the FCA, which will investigate if it is appropriate, and of course any organisation is free to go to the police with any concerns about criminal activity. The police may involve other authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In respect of some of the issues that hon. Members may be hearing about, as the Minister is aware, the arm of RBS operating in Northern Ireland is Ulster bank. Customers of that bank talked to Tomlinson, and other issues have arisen since the report. Will the skilled person appointed by the FCA look specifically at questions about the practices that seem to have been instilled into Ulster bank as well?

[Sajid Javid]

My understanding is that the FCA’s investigation through the skilled person will examine all allegations in the report and some similar allegations in Sir Andrew Large’s report.

I also mention, as my hon. Friend did, the Clifford Chance report commissioned by RBS and described by RBS as independent. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about Clifford Chance; I listened carefully to what he said. Although it is for RBS to decide whom to appoint, I will ensure that his concerns are conveyed to RBS.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) discussed the future direction of RBS. He and others will be aware that on 1 November this year, the new management of RBS set out a new direction for the bank, which will lead RBS to boost the British economy rather than burden it. It will also enable RBS to focus on its core British business of supporting British families and companies. Ross McEwan, RBS’s new chief executive, has committed to improving RBS’s lending performance across the UK and announced the ambitious goal of becoming the No. 1 bank for small businesses and enterprises throughout the UK, as measured by a newly created independent survey to be run by the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce.

The Tomlinson report also recommended that state-owned banks be split into small banks focusing solely on retail and commercial lending as a means of improving competition in the banking sector. The Government are already committed to greater competition and diversity in the UK banking sector both locally and nationally, which is why we asked the Independent Commission on Banking to investigate competition issues in the UK banking sector as part of its work.

The ICB uncovered a number of issues, and we are taking forward its recommendations in the Banking Reform Bill and through other legislation. We are removing the competitive advantage that big banks get from the “too big to fail” system by introducing ring-fencing in the Bill. We have also secured a new seven-day switching service delivered by industry that will allow both consumers and SMEs to switch businesses accounts far more easily, and we have introduced a strong competition objective for the regulator, the FCA, to help it promote competition much more effectively.

The new regulators have already introduced big changes on the regulatory side to make it easier for new banks to enter the market, grow and compete with the large incumbent banks. We are also taking further action in the Banking Reform Bill by creating a new payments regulator to ensure that new and smaller banks have fair and transparent access to the payment system, and giving the Prudential Regulation Authority a secondary competition objective to strengthen its role in ensuring competitive banking markets. The Bill will also give the FCA further competition powers.

Hon. Members mentioned the future of Lloyds and RBS. At the national level, both RBS and Lloyds are in the process of divesting part of their UK banking businesses, creating new challenger banks. The Government have taken the first steps to return Lloyds to the private sector and are actively considering options for further share sales. The reintroduction of the TSB brand on the high street is great news for competition. That action is further evidence of the Government’s stated aim not to be a permanent investor in the UK banking sector.

The Government do not believe that there is a strong case for breaking up the core operations of any bank in which we have a stake. The cost of reorganisation would be attributable to the banks, and consequently to the taxpayer. The time required to execute such a reorganisation would also be lengthy, further delaying the Government’s ability to return the banks to private ownership.

Before I conclude, I turn to a couple of the other issues raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend had concerns about insolvency, relating not just to the Tomlinson report but to the process more generally. His comments show how much he has researched the subject, so I take what he said seriously. He will know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the lead on insolvency issues, but I will ensure that my colleagues in BIS are aware of his concerns. Perhaps, if he finds it useful, I could arrange a meeting for him with the relevant Minister to discuss this important issue.

My hon. Friend will know, however, that insolvency procedures can be commenced only by a court order, and that the whole process is subject to supervision by courts. It is deliberately designed to ensure transparency, make the process legitimate and provide a forum for any disputes, as they often occur throughout such a fought process. I will take the issue forward for him and see whether more can be done to listen to his concerns.

Newry HMRC Centre

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I sit on a cross-border committee organised by Newry and Mourne district council. A representative from HMRC in Newry attends its meetings and deals with illegal fuel laundering. The last meeting was some six weeks ago, and good progress has been made on that, on foot of the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the good work being carried out by HMRC in dealing with illegal fuel laundering.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As my hon. Friend knows, Foyle House in Derry, in my constituency, is also affected by the proposals. She is rightly emphasising the fact that jobs are at stake, but does she agree that the quality of services is also at stake? When other taxation services have moved out of Northern Ireland, not least those involving the administration of tax credits, many people—particularly cross-border workers—have been left with very poor services and chronic problems.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for this service, particularly in regard to cross-border working, as there is a considerable interchange of population between the north and the south. In his case, it is between Derry and Donegal; in my case, it is between Newry and Dundalk. In my area, there is a memorandum of understanding between both councils, north and south, to deal with economic issues in order to pump-prime the local economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I reiterate that HMRC will honour the commitment made earlier in this Parliament that Newry will be open at least until 2015. A final decision will be made only after consultation, as I have outlined. I do not wish in any way to hide from the point—indeed, HMRC has been very clear about this—that HMRC does not see Newry having a future in the long term. The final decision as to when any closure would take place will be made, as I have said, after consultation. The choice for HMRC in the circumstances is to try to conceal that and leave things to the last minute or to try to be as open as possible, engage with staff and provide opportunities at an early stage for those who might want to leave voluntarily with a severance package.

[Mark Durkan]

In the decisions that HMRC is making about its future pattern of business, has any account been taken of the possible changes in the distribution of taxation? The Government have recently indicated that there are shifts in relation to Wales, and who knows what is going to happen in Scotland? If other choices are being made on some taxation moving to a more devolution-weighted basis, surely having a revenue-collecting infrastructure available in a devolved area is hugely important?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. HMRC is going in the direction of concentration on larger urban offices that have the flexibility to operate. Included in those larger urban offices is Belfast. He tempts me to speculate on future policy matters in the devolution of tax, but I want to make it clear that this is not a proposal to withdraw from Northern Ireland. This is a proposal that applies across the United Kingdom, with a move to larger urban centres. That applies in Northern Ireland, as well as elsewhere.

May I deal quickly with the issue of the equality impact assessment, which is an important matter raised by the hon. Member for South Down? The equality position has been considered, and it has been concluded that there is unlikely to be a disproportionate impact on any of the protected equality groups as a result of the voluntary exit schemes. Consequently, completion of an equality impact assessment is unnecessary. A people impact assessment has been completed, however, and audiences likely to be affected have been identified and appropriate mitigating action will be taken to eliminate those impacts.

If HMRC does decide to close any offices in future it will identify all redeployment options for affected staff. However, because its estate and work force will become smaller, there will clearly be less chance of redeployment in HMRC, particularly in areas that are outside a reasonable daily commute.