Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Chris Stephens

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the impact of cost of living increases on households in Scotland.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the impact of cost of living increases on households in Scotland.

Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Peter Grant and Chris Stephens

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), who is a good friend and comrade. When she talked about loan sharks, it reminded me of the misleading adverts that we see on social media from debt companies, which I do regard as loan sharks, as they force people into trust deeds and other such things. I know the Minister used to be in the Treasury, so he will be familiar with some of these arguments. Certainly this is a matter that I will be taking up with the Government in future, because it must be tackled. If we are in a cost of living crisis and people see these misleading adverts on Facebook and other social media outlets, their lives could be made even worse.

I am told that repetition is not a vice. I was in a Westminster Hall debate this afternoon on in-work poverty, which was led by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). It is worth reminding people that in-work poverty is at its highest ever level, disproportionately affecting lone parents, disabled people and carers. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has told us, 68% of working age adults in poverty are in a household where at least one adult is in work. Those are the highest figures ever recorded since 1996, when figures were first gathered on these issues.

I ask the Government to look specifically at in-work poverty. Far too many people in low-paid jobs do not have any opportunities to progress to better work and to better wages. Moreover, far too many of our fellow citizens are working in insecure jobs with unpredictable hours and unpredictable incomes.

I have a real concern about minimum wage rates, which some of my colleagues have also mentioned. A recent article on The Ferret website—the story was also covered by The Herald newspaper—outlined that an alarming number of the 10,000 jobs advertised on the Department for Work and Pensions website offered less than the national minimum wage. Burger King was advertising a post with a wage of £6 an hour; PizzaExpress, a wage of £6.56 an hour; and Farmfoods, a wage of £6.66 an hour. These companies made profits in the past couple of years—good profits, at that. I will be asking for an inquiry on why the DWP website is advertising jobs that pay less than the national minimum wage. It really is a scandal. Perhaps the DWP will refer itself to the national minimum wage compliance unit; it should, given that it is advertising jobs with these rates of pay. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

A number of Members on both sides of the Chamber have raised concerns about universal credit. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) is no longer in his place, but while he was speaking about universal credit, I looked at a parliamentary answer that I received from the Department for Work and Pensions, and it shows that 55% of Blackpool South constituents on universal credit have an average of £63 a month deducted from their benefit. In Stourbridge, 39% of people receiving tax credits get an average of £61 deducted as a result of tax credit overpayment.

Deductions from benefits really have to stop. Universal credit is supposed to be a subsistence-level benefit; it is supposed to be the amount of money that people require to eat, heat their home, and live a good life. If we deduct from universal credit, it leads to the spiral of debt that many hon. Members have spoken about.

The Government need to do a couple of things. This scandal of advances has to stop; there really should be an up-front grant. The all-party Select Committee on Work and Pensions unanimously agreed that there should be a starter payment two weeks after a claim. That is perfectly reasonable. It would stop the cycle of advances and debts.

Also, why are the Government pursuing tax credit debts that are over six years old? If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) wanted to sue me in the Scottish courts for a debt that was over six years old, the sheriff would immediately knock the case out, because it would be absurd; likewise if I were to sue the hon. Gentleman. So why are the Government pursuing tax credit overpayments that are decades old? It seems complete nonsense. I hope that the Government will sort that out.

The Minister is from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; one thing that he and his Department can do to sort out in-work poverty is introduce an employment Bill that ends insecure work, for example by seeking to eliminate zero-hours contracts, and that stops nonsensical practices. For example, employers are texting four individuals and telling them, “The first person who arrives gets the shift.” Employees then have to pay for transport to get to work, but they might not get the shift because someone else arrived two minutes before them. I hope that there will be an employment Bill, because we have been promised one since 2017. Five years on, it is still not here. Where is this mystical employment Bill? If the Government do not introduce it, perhaps they should support many of us who have brought forward employment legislation to address the plight of workers.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I was a bit reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend, because he is making a fantastic speech, but may I give him an example that shows where the Government’s priorities lie? One group of employees who are traditionally low paid and in very insecure work are catering and cleaning staff. Does he recall that in the last Budget, the Chancellor claimed to have no choice but to impose a tax hike on people who are paid low wages to clean floors and dishes in casinos, but was at the same time able to announce a tax pay-back for the lucky people who own casinos? Is that not an example of where this Government’s true loyalties lie?

[Chris Stephens]

That is exactly where the Government’s priorities lie. Let us not forget that in-work poverty disproportionately affects carers as well, and that has to change.

I am conscious of time, but I hope the Government will respond positively to the points I have made. This is their crisis—the things I am pointing out are not to do with Ukraine or anything else. These things have been going on for 12 years, and the Government can immediately solve them.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Peter Grant and Chris Stephens

Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Some of the comments that I will make today will repeat the assurances I asked for on Second Reading. Looking back over the Hansard record, I think I was the only Member who spoke in that debate who did not have their queries addressed in the Minister’s summing up—not that I was keeping track or feeling got at, at all.

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the query from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West; it should concern all of us that such a massive injustice almost slipped through the net. There have been dozens of chances for amendments to be made and for this Bill to be got right. I said on Second Reading that I was concerned that the number of very late amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords was an indication that there were still big gaps. Something as vital as not denying a public service worker their pension rights was missed because, as a result of a dreadful piece of legislation, their job was sold off to the private sector and then brought back in house again. For that potential injustice to have got this far, until the Government spotted it and brought them in, will leave us all at the end of today’s proceedings—and Tuesday’s if we sit then—still wondering what else is left that has not been picked up.

It is quite clear that, with some of the later amendments, the Government did not identify issues for teachers, whose length of service provision and their age sometimes will not fall into line with each other in a way that would be expected. Some of the later amendments suggest that the Government forgot that sometimes the Treasury does not decide things in Northern Ireland, but rather, it is the Northern Ireland Department of Finance that decides. How could such a crucially important piece of legislation have got to that stage without basic facts of the UK constitution having been picked up somewhere within Government?

I hope that when we come to those sections that the Minister will have the good grace to admit that sometimes there have been simple blunders by the Government, that mean we will have to consider these things as amendments rather than them being part of the substantive Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are taking about deferred pay for public sector workers, and therefore we should be treating this Bill with a great deal of care and attention?

[Peter Grant]

I absolutely agree. I made it clear during my comments on Second Reading that I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister’s and the Government’s intention to do the right thing. However, I believe it is a fundamental principle that if someone signs up to a pension scheme, they get what they were promised, even if it becomes inconvenient or the Government discover afterwards that it is going to cost more than they expected. That is why it is important we get clarity on who is going to pick up the tab for the £17 billion, for example. It concerns me that a group of workers who were very badly treated by legislation in the past would have lost even more than they thought they had done if the Bill had not been amended at such a late stage.

I hope that these will be the last substantive amendments that we need to see, but I suspect that on Report the Government will have another raft of big amendments for things that nobody spotted until now.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Peter Grant and Chris Stephens

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for his generosity in giving me those 33 seconds.

It is becoming clear that this will be the first Budget of this financial year. I do not mean that as any criticism of those on the Treasury Bench, but it is clear that events are moving fast. The Government will want to introduce emergency legislation and may seek emergency powers, and it is clear that even the Budget announced last week has already been overtaken by events. However, let me make couple of remarks about it.

First, we will have a wider debate about the loan charge on Thursday, but I was disappointed that there were no more concessions for those caught up in that scandal. It amazes me that people who were caught up in it, rather than those directly responsible for it, are being chased for money. I hope the Government will also be a bit more specific about the measures they want to introduce to tackle the promotion of tax avoidance. I am not the only Member who is concerned about the reduction in staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the past 10 years.

Secondly, the Government committed during the election campaign to maintaining the free TV licence. Given that we are in a period where the main source of information for many people, particularly the elderly and those who live on their own, is television, the Government need to move quickly to take back control of that power from the BBC and give it back to the Department for Work and Pensions and maintain the free TV licence. Over the next few weeks and months, elderly people will need that box in the corner of their living room to get vital information on tackling coronavirus.

[Peter Grant]

The Conservatives have already changed their promise on that. In the 2017 manifesto, they promised to keep the free TV licence. Now they are promising to keep it as long as everybody else pays for it. Surely that is a bit like saying the Government will provide free bus fares for everybody, as long as the bus companies pay for them?

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.

There are a number of challenges that the Government now face. I am not the only Member over the past few days who has had constituents contact them to say they have already seen their hours reduced and shifts cancelled. They are being advised by employers that there will be no work for them, as people are being discouraged from going into nightclubs, bars and restaurants. The work in this sector is traditionally low paid and precarious. I hope the Government will now look at the models introduced by Denmark and Norway to address those issues, and sit down with trade unions and business to come up with a financial model that ensures wages are maintained for those who are low paid and in precarious work, including those on zero-hour contracts. In particular, I hope the Government are considering, as Norway has done, issues relating to the self-employed and carers.

On statutory sick pay, I have been contacted by constituents who are alarmed that some employers, including some large multinational employers, do not pay company sick pay from day one. Some pay it on day four and some pay it on day seven, leaving the state to pick up the tab. Because of the different schemes by different employers, some individuals will find themselves receiving only statutory sick pay from day one, which is not topped up by employers and their particular sick schemes. That will lead to a situation where some people—I am sure I am not the only Member to hear this—feel they will have to make a choice between public health and poverty, and their wages. We really need to look at the rate of statutory sick pay. If there was a European league table, the UK would be either in the relegation zone or not too far away from it. The statutory sick pay of other European countries far outstrips what is on offer in the United Kingdom.

On universal credit, we need to move away from an arrears-based system. The five-week wait, which other hon. Members have mentioned, needs to go now. The first payment should be the first payment. The DWP receives £50 million a month in advances returned from claimants. How much does that cost the Department to administrate and how much time are DWP staff taking on that when they could be processing online journals and other claims? I agree with hon. Members that there should be no evictions for rent arrears during this period and that there should be no sanctions.

I want to end by saying that the Treasury will now need to consider, over the next few days and weeks, whether there should be a people’s bailout. The amount of money the state had to spend on the bankers’ bailout will probably be similar to what it may have to spend to alleviate poverty and to get through the current crisis in the weeks ahead.

HMRC: Building our Future Plan

Debate between Peter Grant and Chris Stephens

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) plan Building our Future which will close most of its offices and make substantial staffing reductions; is concerned that this could seriously compromise the ability of HMRC to collect tax, enforce compliance and close the tax gap; believes the plan should have been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; and calls on the Government to ensure that Building our Future is suspended until a comprehensive consultation and review has been undertaken.

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my position as chair of the PCS—Public and Commercial Services Union—parliamentary group and as an active trade unionist. I thank fellow Members from all parties represented in this House for their support in securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

Before I move on to the substance of the debate, I hope I may be allowed to wish Calvin Thomas well on his last day of work in this place. Calvin arrived in the House in 1989, becoming a Doorkeeper in 2000, with nine years in the Members Lobby and seven years in the Special Lobby. I know that many of my colleagues are grateful for all the help that he has given us and our family members and guests over the years, and we wish him well as he returns to his beloved island of St Helena. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

On 12 November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published departmental plans for the future structure of HMRC, entitled “Building our Future”. It is important to note that the plans were issued by the Department, rather than via a ministerial statement. That is unsatisfactory, given their impact, which includes the closure of 90% of the office network and thousands of staffing reductions.

In 2005, HMRC employed approximately 105,000 staff; in 2016, the figure stands at approximately 58,000—an almost 50% reduction. The Building our Future plan seeks to close almost all the 160-plus HMRC offices and to move to 13 regional hubs and four specialist sites. It seeks to make further job cuts to bring the headcount down by 8,000, to 50,000, although some information suggests the intention is to reduce staffing levels to 41,000.

The timeline for the proposals is in two phases: in the first phase, HMRC proposes that 21 offices are to be vacated up to March 2017; in the second phase, 27 office closures are to take place between June 2017 and March 2018. HMRC will in future be based at 13 large offices and four specialist sites, where 95% of the staff who remain after the cuts will work.

On 16 February, HMRC issued compulsory redundancy notices to 152 members of staff, 70% of whom are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. That is the biggest number of compulsory notices issued in a single instance by any UK civil service department.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that 11 of the compulsory redundancy notices have been imposed on constituents of mine who work at the Glenrothes HMRC office, which is scheduled to close in June. When the closure was announced, staff got the same assurances that are being given to current members of staff, but the PCS told me that, in practice, their members—many of whom had given 30 or 40 years of dedicated service to the public—were made to feel they just did not matter. Part-time workers were asked to accept relocations that would have meant they spent longer commuting than at work. Employees with care commitments were expected to work more than two hours away from their home, where they might be called to an emergency. It was even claimed that the distance they were told they would have to travel between Glenrothes and Edinburgh was based on a straight line, but it was impossible for them to take that route unless they swam across the firth of Forth. Has my hon. Friend any reason to believe that employees who are currently being threatened with redeployment or redundancy will be treated any better than my constituents have been?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Interruption.] Well, we will call it an intervention. He is right to be concerned about some of the practices we are hearing about from trade union members and staff members based in HMRC. People are being called into one-to-one meetings where they are denied trade union representation. If an employee is having a meeting with a manager to discuss their job prospects, I would expect the trade unions to have access to that meeting, but they do not. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that. I will come later to the issue of travel times.