Roadchef Employees Benefit Trust

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I thank the hon. Members from across the House who have so far agreed to stay back to listen and perhaps contribute to the debate. What I am looking to discuss this evening can be boiled down to basic fairness and people getting access to what is rightfully theirs. I think it is important to set out some context to where we are today, before I come to the main points that I hope the Minister might be able to help with.

In 1986, the Roadchef employees benefit trust was established to give employees at Roadchef motorway services, such as those at Harthill in my constituency, Watford Gap, Hamilton or dozens of other locations across these isles, access to a John-Lewis-style employee-ownership scheme, whereby they would benefit from increasing share entitlements based on length of service. It was established honourably by the then chief executive Patrick Gee in consultation with and with the support of the GMB union. Sadly and tragically, Patrick Gee died aged 43 before the scheme could be fully realised and Tim Ingram Hill took over. He then transferred the shares that Mr Gee was making available to employees into a second employee benefit scheme, of which he was the only beneficiary.

When Roadchef was subsequently sold to the Japanese company Nikko about a decade later, Mr Ingram Hill made approaching £30 million on the shares that should have been made available to Roadchef employees. In 2000, he made a tax payment on his ill-gotten share windfall to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the tune of approximately £10 million, something which has only to come to light further down the line. On discovering the unjust enrichment, the trust then took Mr Ingram Hill to the High Court, and Justice Proudman found that he had acted in breach of trust and, crucially, that the shares were never his in the first place—they were the employees’ shares. The purchase of the shares in the sale of the company was therefore void and—this is important—the £10 million paid to HMRC also belonged to the beneficiaries, not Mr Ingram Hill.

Subsequent to the High Court ruling, Mr Ingram Hill settled with the trust, thus ending our interest in him for the purposes of this debate, but the trust then notified HMRC of the fact that the settlement had occurred and that it now intended to pay out to its beneficiaries, who total some 4,000 current and former Roadchef employees. The trust also wished to clarify that there would be no tax implications from the payments being made, thinking that that would just be a formality, but the response from HMRC was rather surprising. HMRC said that it would be happy to waive any tax implications for the beneficiaries as long as the trust did not pursue it for the £10 million paid in tax by Mr Ingram Hill. That was the first time that the trust had been made aware of such a tax payment. In accordance with any trustees acting on behalf of beneficiaries, the trust has challenged HMRC on the £10 million payment, which should be repaid to the trust with interest. That brings us up to date on this complex and unique case.

I am grateful to the chairman of the trust, Christopher Winston Smith, and to Huw Edwards for their insight ahead of this debate, and to the current CEO of Roadchef, Simon Turl, who I spoke to last night. Roadchef wants the issue settled for its current and former employees and has been working constructively with HMRC to that end. The trust has also worked with a number of hon. Members from across the House to raise the matter with HMRC, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

My constituents certainly want this issue settled. Twenty constituents, most of whom live around the service station at Harthill, have contacted me about the matter, but I am sure that more are waiting for their payment. They include Mrs Margaret Gibson, who lists some of the things that she has struggled to do in recent years that this money would have helped with, including borrowing money for home improvements, helping her son to pay for his wedding, or helping her and her husband to get by during periods of unemployment. She considers it a ridiculous amount of time to wait for what is rightfully hers, and I completely agree.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that what adds insult to injury here is that, as well as being deprived of the payments, many of the people concerned are also working on quite low pay?

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. I believe that the main thrust behind Mr Gee’s setting up of the trust in the first place was to ensure that low-paid staff were able to benefit from the company doing well. That has sadly not happened yet, and many low-paid workers have suffered as a result. Many of my constituents—I will list some shortly—have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the payments not being made, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Linda McLeod and Margaret Main pointed to the time it has taken for their money to be returned, but they also highlighted the number of former colleagues who have sadly passed away and will not get the benefit their hard work merited. Caroline Todd contacted me on behalf of her mother, Mrs Quigley from Harthill. She desperately hopes this gets resolved soon so that her mum, who is getting older, is able to enjoy her own money. Margaret Forsyth just wants HMRC to settle matters so that she can have some security, a sentiment echoed by Jane Paxton and Elizabeth Campbell.

Joyce Simm’s husband has been receiving treatment for small-cell carcinoma for three years, and she has been out of work while she cares for him. They have had to survive on pensions and savings, which are fast disappearing. They have now been hit with the sad news that he has a carcinoid tumour and will be undergoing surgery on 21 December. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the family well, but clearly any pay-out now would be particularly beneficial.

Another constituent of mine visited my surgery. He is seriously ill and in a difficult financial situation, and the money he is entitled to get back would simply be life changing and would help him immensely. He is desperate to see HMRC settle as soon as possible. I know many other hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who are affected and, sadly, will be able to share similar stories. Indeed, I understand Mr Speaker has constituents who are affected by this issue.

It is worth mentioning someone else who has been affected by this case. The former company secretary at Roadchef, Tim Warwick, blew the whistle on what the then chief executive was doing before there was any kind of whistleblower protection. Exposing this affair effectively ended Mr Warwick’s career, and we should all thank and pay tribute to him for his efforts.

What can the Minister do to help my constituents and their 4,000 colleagues across these isles who are waiting for their money? I understand that HMRC is a non-ministerial department of Government and that the Minister is therefore somewhat restricted in what he can do, but I hope he can join me and colleagues on both sides of the House in calling on HMRC to settle this case with the trustees and to return the £10 million, plus interest, to the rightful owners—the trustees and beneficiaries.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is giving a moving account of how the wrongdoing of one person, compounded by the inaction of HMRC, is causing real misery to a lot of people. Does he see a contrast with HMRC’s generosity when it comes to settling deals with big multinationals that have been caught avoiding tax through barely legal, and sometimes non-legal, methods? Would it be fair to say that his constituents must now think HMRC applies one law to the rich and another very different law to the poor?

[Neil Gray]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I draw the House’s attention to his professional background and expertise in this area. He makes a valid point to which I am sure the Minister has listened.

If HMRC does not settle the case, it will stand accused of laundering illegally obtained funds at the expense of those who have been defrauded. I understand from correspondence that HMRC is concerned about setting a precedent in this case. As far as I can tell, this is the only EBT fraud case that involves a tax payment made in error, so I am not sure what exactly the precedent would be. But even if it were not the only such case, returning the money to its rightful owner would be a pretty good precedent to set.

Will the Minister advise the House on whether today was the first time he was made aware of the £10 million that was wrongly paid in tax? I say that because, to date, as far as I can see, the £10 million figure has not been mentioned in all the correspondence between Members of this House, Ministers and HMRC. At best, it would appear that officials are failing to apprise MPs of the full facts, which is a very serious matter indeed.

HMRC might also have briefed the Minister to say that this case is time barred, which of course will not be the case until the two-year anniversary of the High Court ruling comes round early next year. Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, is not in the Chamber, but I hope she takes note of what I have presented to the House today, as I believe there is a role for her to play in getting the lead officials at HMRC to answer for the delay. I will be writing to her, as the Chair of the Select Committee, in the new year to get her to look at ministerial guidance to HMRC on unjust enrichment and to get this issue scrutinised in more detail.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the issues I have raised this evening on behalf of not just my constituents, but constituents from across these isles. Some 4,000 low-paid workers have been denied what is rightfully theirs, first by the breach of trust by their former boss and now by HMRC. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the chair of the trust, Mr Winston Smith, so that we can all work together to finally see justice for current and former employees of Roadchef. This is about natural justice, and it is not good enough for HMRC to say that it is too difficult or that it is precedent setting, or to give any of the other excuses offered so far. This is not HMRC’s money. It is my constituents’ money—it is our constituents’ money—and it should be returned to them without delay.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for having raised this issue and secured this debate. I congratulate him also on the vociferous energy with which he has pursued these important matters—the Government recognise their importance. I appreciate that this matter is a source of long-standing concern for those affected, and I can fully understand that they would want a resolution soon. I assure the House that HMRC is working hard towards resolving this issue. As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, I am of course constrained by HMRC’s duty of maintaining taxpayer confidentiality, so my remarks on the case will, of necessity, be limited to matters already in the public domain. HMRC will, however, continue to correspond in writing with the trustee chairman and assist the employee benefit trust’s representatives.

It may be helpful if I first set out the typical tax treatment for the sale of shares from EBTs. When a person exercises an option to obtain EBT shares, this is often chargeable to income tax and national insurance contributions, based on the difference between their valuation when they are obtained and the amount paid for them. If the shares are sold to a third party, the sale will then be subject to capital gains tax on the difference between the valuation used for the taxation of the option and the sale prices.

Turning to the Roadchef EBT, as we have heard, the issue we are discussing today has a long history. Before the sale of Roadchef in 1998, the company’s then chairman arranged for shares held by the EBT to be transferred to him. He subsequently sold the shares for a profit. Both the acquisition and sale were taxed appropriately at that time. The former chairman’s actions were contested, and in 2014 the High Court ruled that effectively the moneys from the sale of shares had to be paid back, net of tax, to the trust for distribution to its beneficiaries. The judgment stated that the proceeds from the shares sold had been held on constructive trust by the chairman for the beneficiaries. However, the implementation of the High Court’s ruling in 2014 and the subsequent distribution of the original shareholders has proved to be very complex.

HMRC has since been engaging with the Roadchef employment benefit trustees’ representatives to determine the correct tax treatment for the trust and the relevant distributions to its beneficiaries. This involves HMRC working closely with the trust’s representatives to fully explore all potential legal options to settle this matter. HMRC’s most senior technical people have been working on different aspects of the tax position, and a senior HMRC representative is regularly discussing the progress of the case with the trust’s representative. Several media outlets have also reported how earlier this year HMRC provided a technical analysis of its view of the correct tax treatment to the trustee chairman and its representatives. To be clear, HMRC has no interest in prolonging this matter. It is, however, legally bound to be even-handed and impartial in applying the law.

[Neil Gray]

Can the Minister understand my concern at HMRC’s approach to this? When the trust was first made aware of the £10 million tax payment, HMRC apparently told the trust that the beneficiaries would not have to pay any tax on any pay-out that is made as long as the trust does not pursue HMRC for the £10 million. I think he can understand why that is a little concerning.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific set of suggestions in the context of the dialogue between HMRC and the trust, and that very much strays into the area of confidentiality around discussions between our tax authority and a particular organisation. It would therefore not be right for me to comment on that. Indeed, in the normal course of events, I would not even be aware of such matters—certainly not from an HMRC perspective.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the Minister and understand the constraints he is under, which is why I hope he might agree to meet me and the trust to try to find a way through this. I hope he will agree to do that sometime early in the new year.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation, which he also extended in his speech. I am certainly prepared to consider meeting him and potentially others, although I would like to take advice on whether that would be entirely appropriate, given the situation. I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could explain more fully the exact nature of such a meeting, including who would be present and so on. In no way am I seeking to be unhelpful—quite the opposite—but I am conscious of the clear line that there must always be between members of the Government, MPs and, indeed, other members of the public, and the tax affairs that pertain between our tax authority and another organisation or business.

HMRC has a taxpayer confidentiality obligation, so I cannot comment in more detail on the specific tax treatment of the case. I can, however, assure the House that HMRC is doing everything that it can to resolve this issue promptly and fairly, while ensuring that the tax is paid appropriately in respect of the sale and distribution of the shares. Although HMRC has discretion as to how it goes about fulfilling its duties, as a statutory body it must of course apply the law fairly and collect the taxes set out in legislation by Parliament. When the law is unclear, HMRC can exercise some discretion to ensure that it gives effect to Parliament’s intent. For example, HMRC can exercise discretion to give up some tax if there is an unintended or unforeseen effect only a small group of taxpayers or that will be apparent only for a short time. I should note, though, that that discretion is by its nature limited and would not be applicable in all circumstances—for instance, it would not apply if the courts had made a specific ruling on a particular issue.

In summary, I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts again for securing this debate and for the tenacity with which he has pursued these matters on behalf of his constituents and those of other Members. As I have said, I can appreciate the frustration of those affected, who naturally want a swift end to this matter, which I hope there will be. I hope I have been able to provide at least some reassurance that HMRC is doing everything in its power to resolve this issue in a fair and timely manner.

Question put and agreed to.

RBS Rural Branch Closures

Neil Gray Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. RBS has closed the Shotts branch in my constituency and is about to close the Airdrie branch, having given customer numbers that many in my constituency dispute. He is making a very important point. If my constituents are to have any confidence in the closures, RBS needs to be transparent about the number of customers using the branches.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

The fact remains, though, that there is at least £30 billion of uncollected avoided or evaded tax; that figure could be as high as £120 billion, if we are to believe the Public and Commercial Services Union. Given that tax officers gain a significant tax return to the Treasury against their salaries, would it not be better to invest in tax officers rather than cutting their numbers, and to go after that multi-billion pound tax gap?

[Mel Stride]

Going after the tax gap is exactly what this Government are doing, and we have an exemplary record. We have the lowest tax gap in the entire world. It is the lowest in history—far lower than it was under the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about tax officers. We need to move towards an HMRC that is ready and equipped for the 21st century. That does not mean a large number of scattered offices; it means hub offices with the necessary staff and technical skills to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and understanding in order to move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right. The fact is that we were left a legacy by a previous Government who spent money that they did not have. We have had to get the public finances back on track. We do recognise that there are areas in which we need to make sure that we can recruit and retain high-quality public sector workers, but we also need to make sure that we have a thriving private sector economy. That is why we have ended up with the lowest unemployment for 40 years.

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

We know from the Resolution Foundation that this decade, from 2010, is the worst for wage growth in 210 years, so when will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury ensure that Departments are fully funded to scrap the cap?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reason we have not seen the wage growth that we want to see is that we have an issue with productivity in this country. In order to raise living standards for everybody, regardless of whether they work in business or in the public sector, we need to make sure that we raise productivity. That is why we are investing in infrastructure and skills—doing all the things that the previous Government did not do to make our country more productive.

Public Sector Pay Cap

Neil Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. and learned Friend has a huge amount of experience in this area. He is correct to say that we need to take account of the sustainable, long-term financing of public services. We need to look at the specific issues in each sector where we need to recruit and retain staff, and we also need to look at fairness with the private sector. At the moment, public sector and private sector salaries are roughly comparable. As a country, we need to improve our productivity and our growth rate. That is the way to ensure that everybody benefits. The Government have a fantastic record when it comes to getting people into work, and unemployment is at its lowest level since 1975. We need to make sure that we continue with that.

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

I welcome the Chief Secretary to her place. We had all hoped that today would bring some commitment and certainty from the Government on public sector pay. Instead, our public sector workers continue to be stonewalled from the Dispatch Box, while members of the Cabinet have apparently abandoned collective responsibility to brief for an end to the cap. Perhaps that says more about those Ministers’ desire to undermine the Chancellor and the Prime Minister than it does their commitment to public sector workers. According to The Times, the Prime Minister wanted to announce something today but could not get her Ministers to agree a line.

This week, a report by academics from University College London was published quietly by the UK Government’s own Office of Manpower Economics. The report showed that average hourly public sector wages fell in real terms by 6%—or, for some, by up to £3 an hour—in the past decade. That is perhaps part of the reason why the past decade has been the worst for wage growth in 200 years, and why in-work poverty continues to rise. With that in mind, can the Chief Secretary advise our dedicated police, firefighters, nurses and others—who put their lives on the line and make great sacrifices for us—what they have to do to earn a fair pay rise, as they will do in Scotland? Or does the Chief Secretary support former Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments from Seoul yesterday, when he said that it was “selfish” to campaign for an end to the pay cap?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have outlined, pay is determined by a very clear process. Independent pay review bodies make recommendations on areas such as pay for the police and nurses. We will look very carefully at those recommendations to balance fairness for public sector workers, and recruitment and retention of the best possible people, with affordability for the public finances. That is a responsible approach to take, and it will ensure that our economy grows and unemployment continues to move in a positive direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

The shadow Chancellor does not like facts to get in the way of his rants.

[Neil Gray]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the start of these proceedings I failed to declare the fact that my wife is a primary school teacher, which I did when I asked a similar question during Cabinet Office questions. I apologise, and I thank you for allowing me to correct the record now.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—as will be the House—for putting that on the record.

Economy and Jobs

Neil Gray Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is the OBR that makes the projections and it has been quite transparent about what its assumptions are about both trade and immigration.

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

If I can bring the Chancellor back to pay and public services, yesterday his Department and Downing Street were briefing the press about the public sector pay cap. To what extent was he aware of that, did he sanction his officials to carry out those briefings, and does he now support an end to public sector pay constraint?

[Mr Hammond]

Just to be clear, there is no change in the Government’s position. Our pay policy has always been designed to strike the right balance between being fair to our public servants and being fair to those who pay for them. That approach has not changed and we continually assess that balance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, as I pick up the baton carried so ably by my friend Eilidh Whiteford to speak for my party here on social justice. I know that Eilidh will be desperately missed, not just by SNP Members but throughout the House. Her stellar work on a private Member’s Bill to ratify the Istanbul convention brought her much praise on both sides of the House, and we all wish her well for her future endeavours.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on her excellent maiden speech. I do not think that she is still in the Chamber, but she made a fantastic speech.

Social justice issues will once again be at the heart of this Parliament as the UK Government continue to justify their failing austerity policy and, when we leave the European Union, matters such as the working time directive, maternity rights and other workers’ rights are sadly no longer secured at EU level. Our challenge will be to ensure that those hard-won rights are not watered down in any way, and that our workers enjoy at least the same rights as those on the continent. I hope that the two main parties of opposition can work together more closely to put the maximum pressure on this fragile Government and on the Prime Minister, whose coat appears to be held on the shoogly peg by Brexit. I am disappointed to learn that Labour Members are, apparently, to be whipped to abstain on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) on the single market. That is a sad reflection of where the party is at present.

Austerity is a political choice which has failed, and it has failed in terms of the Government’s own economic targets. That failure comes at the price of the people, in Airdrie and Shotts and elsewhere, who have suffered as a result of cuts: disabled people whose employment support has been reduced, the WASPI women who, at the end of a working life of employment injustice, now face pension injustice; and working families who are seeing their tax credits cut. All the social security and public sector cuts that have stretched families and services for the last seven years have failed to deliver what was intended. Perhaps we may now see the UK Government come to realise that fact, and change course.

During the election campaign, the SNP pledged to review the 1% public sector pay freeze in Scotland, which was a hugely welcome step. That appears to have prompted some movement in the UK Government: the to-ing and fro-ing and the hokey-cokey that was going on in Downing Street yesterday. At first Downing Street was briefing that the cap would end, and we could see the relief felt by Tory MPs. Then the sources U-turned on the U-turn, and now we are back as we were—and last night the Scottish Tory MPs shamefully gave the Prime Minister the majority that she needed to maintain the pay cap, without question. The whole sorry episode lasted barely three hours, and it highlights the chaos that lies at the heart of a Government who are leaderless, rudderless and clueless. They clearly want to review the public sector pay cap, so what is going on? Get on with it!

It is time for a proper assessment of the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 to ascertain the damage that has been done to families across these isles. It is time that the Government finally ditched the need for the disgusting rape clause by ditching the two-child rule for tax credits, and it is time that justice was finally delivered for the WASPI women.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

There is currently a great deal of talk about the position of women in Northern Ireland in relation to abortion. Is my hon. Friend aware that when women in Northern Ireland want to avail themselves of the exemption under the rape clause, the third party to whom they refer themselves must hand the case over to the police? That puts those women at risk.

[Neil Gray]

I was not aware of that, and nor, I imagine, were most other Members. It is another sting in the Tory Government’s shameful rape clause, which puts women in such a horrendous position.

Austerity is a political choice, as is evidenced by the Prime Minister’s not only very conveniently stumbling across her long-lost magic money tree, but finding its branches sagging under the weighty £1 billion-worth of DUP fruit. It is just a shame that the new Scottish Tory MPs—and, indeed, the Scottish Secretary—have not been quite so diligent in picking the low-hanging fruit for Scotland’s benefit, as the Democratic Unionist party has done for Northern Ireland. They have failed their first test by blindly following the Prime Minister without question, and that will be hard to erase from the memories of the electorate in Scotland.

On the Bills that we might see during this two-year Session, we know that this will be a Brexit-dominated Parliament, but it appears that the Prime Minister is not only hanging by a thread over Brexit but allowing her Government to be consumed by it, with little else getting done. It is time we heard more and saw greater action from this Government on inclusive growth and on ensuring that the economy works for everyone. Indeed, just this week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation held a conference on inclusive growth in Scotland, which led to some interesting information becoming available. Dr Andrew Fraser, the director of public health science at NHS Health Scotland, said:

“We know that rising income inequality in the UK cost us 9 percentage points in the growth rate of GDP per capita between 1990 and 2010—that’s approximately £100bn. Taking action on inequalities is not just the right thing to do—it’s the economically sensible thing to do.”

I could not agree more, and I hope that we shall see greater preventive spending allocated in future UK budgets to help to tackle some of the deep-rooted inequalities being faced across this isle.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Neil Gray]

I will give way one last time.

[Mr Speaker]

There is a considerable shortage of time, so the intervention must be brief.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will remember the years past when people here used to deride Iceland and Ireland, post-crash. They are very quiet now, when those countries have three to four times the growth of this country. Of course, Iceland and Ireland did not choose the mega-austerity cult that the Tories here at Westminster have chosen.

[Neil Gray]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

Far greater priority needs to be given to committing public funds to good quality social housing, just as the Scottish Government have done. I want us to be able to go even further than their commitments for this Parliament, and that requires political will here too. This decade has been the worst for wage growth, according to the Resolution Foundation, and we need to stop the rot. We also need to move away from the idea that the social security system is a burden to society: it is a safety net for all of us. When we move the political narrative in these areas, we will finally be in a position to tackle the social exclusion and inequalities that cost us all, socially and economically. That is my aim in this Parliament.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Neil Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party and with you in the Chair, Mr Flello. I wish all hon. Members present and everyone else a happy Burns day.

It is customary to acknowledge and congratulate those who secure debates in Westminster Hall, but today is slightly different. I cannot merely offer ordinary congratulations to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). After all, he has managed to do what the Government failed to do—bring about a debate on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. As the bard said:

“The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,

Gang aft agley”.

I will touch on the delay shortly, but in the meantime I tip my hat to the hon. Gentleman, a colleague on the R and R Joint Committee.

Today’s debate has been interesting, and I shall reflect briefly on what has been said. The hon. Member for Rhondda set out very well many of the issues that have arisen following decades of neglect—first by Governments at the time when they were responsible through the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and then by Parliament itself. Cheekily, I will mention the poll this week that the hon. Gentleman cited: 25% of those polled would happily see the place bulldozed. However, I feel that that is more an indictment of its incumbents than of the building itself. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made a very good speech to set out his case. He did that very well.

The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), a colleague on the Finance Committee, was absolutely right: being elected is about doing a job, not about doing it in a particular building. He made a very good speech, as did the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who made a very salient point: the work is not for us. We can be sceptical about the project and criticise elements of it, but we must be clear—this work is not for us; we are merely tenants of the building. I say again that at the present time I am campaigning for my eviction—I will leave that one hanging.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), another colleague from the Finance Committee, highlighted the decades-long neglect of the building and its appalling disabled access—he was absolutely right to place that on the record. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), a colleague from the R and R Committee, made a typically witty speech and a very powerful case for his position. That is on the record very strongly.

The hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) put forward their case. I disagree with it, but they have put their points across and I am sure that they will also do so when the matter comes to the Floor of the House, whenever that may be.

For me, today’s debate is not about the rights or wrongs of the project. The hon. Member for Rhondda will, I am sure, acknowledge that despite my early stated scepticism about the project, I did my best to be constructive in my role on the Joint Committee. I helped to secure a public consultation and some significant improving amendments to the text of the report. There is no doubt in my mind that if the two Houses vote for the project to go ahead, the recommended full decant is the best way to proceed.

For me, a sceptic about the project, and for the hon. Member for Rhondda, a champion of the project, the situation is clear: delaying the debate and the vote does not help anyone. I struggle to understand why the Government have been delaying it. First, we were told that there would be a debate and a vote before Christmas; then it was to be yesterday. Are the Government so concerned about the objections being raised by Conservative Members who are coalescing around the idea that somehow MPs could remain in the Palace while the works are going on?

Some hon. Members are worried that if Parliament does not sit in the Palace for a time, it will not return; others are concerned that customs may be replaced. It is an idea built purely on sentiment. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden called it romance. It is a romance and sentimentality about a building. The idea does not make engineering or financial sense, as was explained so well by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Working around Parliament sitting in the Palace would add considerable time, cost and risk to the project. The savings from not building a temporary Chamber in Richmond House would be outweighed by the added time to get the work done, the added engineering complexity and the considerable added risk. It is now just shy of five months since our report was published. I say to the Government: get on with the debate and get on with the vote.

[Robert Flello (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I had a bowl of porridge oats in deference to the bard this morning.

Concentrix

Neil Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

Well, I have not taken one from my hon. Friend, but I will take one from the Scottish National party and then I will progress to the end of my speech.

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

I understand, with the challenges coming from the Opposition Benches, why she wishes to outsource blame purely to Concentrix, but this Government wrote the contract to incentivise Concentrix’s behaviour and, as confirmed by the Economic Secretary last week in Westminster Hall, sent the personal data to Concentrix to investigate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are tremendously grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I feel that he has surely concluded his intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate the Minister’s point, but we need to remember that HMRC and the Government were supplying information to Concentrix, so a lot of the fault lies with the Government.

[Neil Gray]

I was talking earlier about Government responsibility—before Mr Speaker rightly encouraged my pithiness. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way for the UK Government to take proper responsibility is not only by providing substantial and appropriate compensation, but by offering full apologies to those constituents who were wrongly dealt with by Concentrix and this Government?

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more.

Concentrix was saying that 95% of mandatory reconsiderations were upheld, but in the next panel before the Select Committee, the chief executive of HMRC said that it was not as bad as 95% and that 73% were upheld. He said that as though it was some kind of problem that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). I welcome the debate, and the opportunity that it gives us to talk about the issues involved in the Concentrix contract, although it is worth noting that it is a month since our exchanges in the House about the Government’s intention to cancel it.

I believe that our goal should be to ensure that the people who pay for the benefits system through their taxes can be confident that fraud and error are kept to a minimum. However, that went badly wrong in this instance, and examples in my constituency reveal some of the places where it went wrong. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South gave us the interesting example of a “philandering shop” in Scotland. In my constituency, someone had supposedly moved in with a bloke living down the road. They rang Concentrix to try to deal with the matter and get some answers, but found that it was quicker to walk to my office with the phone—while still on hold—and sit there for about 20 minutes while we made them a cup of tea and enjoyed the “hold” music that they were listening to. To prove that this had happened, I took a photo of the phone as it went through the hour on hold in my office.

To be fair to Concentrix, it did only take four minutes to tell my constituent “Actually, you should ring HMRC”, but that was the only part of the customer service that was particularly speedy. The only other remarkable thing is that, given the level of concern and the number of issues that have been raised by Members and others, Concentrix was itself surprised to be told that the contract would not be renewed.

[Neil Gray]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our constituents deserve an apology for the way in which this matter has been handled not just by Concentrix, but by his party’s Government and HMRC?

Concentrix: Tax Credit Claimants

Neil Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Kirby]

I am going to reach that point later. Very briefly, HMRC provided third-party data to Concentrix, which then chose who to pursue from those data.

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

We have heard today of constituents who have lost employment, college courses and access to childcare, and have been forced to go to food banks and take out payday loans, which inflicts stress and trauma not only on the parents but on the children. Having admitted that it was the responsibility of HMRC as well as Concentrix, will the Minister commit to expanding the compensation available to reflect the hardship and trauma inflicted on those people?

[Simon Kirby]

I will make some progress, and if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he may well hear some things that are helpful to that question. Before I turn to those points, let me outline what we are doing.

First, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in the House last month, HMRC is not passing any new cases to Concentrix. We have been very clear that the contract will not be renewed beyond the end date of May 2017. Secondly, staff at HMRC are, as we speak, making every effort to resolve all open cases to ensure people get the payments they need and deserve. HMRC took back 181,000 outstanding cases from Concentrix and it has already dealt with more than 149,000—82%—of them. I would like to reassure everyone whose case remains open that we are making every effort to complete those cases within the next couple of weeks. It really is a priority.

The Economy and Work

Neil Gray Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As one nation Conservatives, we will not be complacent, write people off or walk by on the other side, and that is why we are developing a plan for transforming life chances.

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

The Secretary of State talks about life chances and the Queen’s Speech talks about parenting classes for families. Will he reflect on what use parenting classes will be given that low-income, in-work families are ever more reliant on food banks to put food on the table? What use is a parenting class if they cannot afford to put food on the table?

[Stephen Crabb]

All the evidence shows that the top three drivers of disadvantage and poverty are worklessness, low educational attainment and family instability. The hon. Gentleman talks down the value of supporting parental stability and families, but they have an important contribution to make.

It is a sign of the underlying strength of the economy that there are more than 750,000 job vacancies across the country, but there is another story here too. For a teenager leaving care; for a father coming out of prison wanting to turn his life around; for a single mum shouldering enormous burdens, on which point my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) touched insightfully; for someone overcoming an addiction to alcohol or drugs; for a young person with a mental health condition—for all of them, I want those job vacancies to represent a world of opportunities too. But for too many, taking one still feels a world away. That is why we are determined to improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged in our society. We are not just talking the language of social justice but, as the Queen’s Speech shows, taking the action needed to make a real difference to people’s lives.