Low-Cost housing

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Penrose]

That is absolutely right. There are some people who, from a purely aesthetic point of view, love brutalist concrete architecture and rather more who dislike it a lot. For most of the rest of us, one of the crucial tests is not merely the aesthetics but whether this stuff remains liveable, not only in the first few years after it is built but over many generations. Another is whether it is therefore acceptable to the rest of the community. It is not just a question of what somewhere is like to live in as a location; it also has an impact on other people as they walk past.

As the hon. Gentleman said, it depends on how the design stands the test of time. There are places such as four or five-storey Regency terraces and Victorian town houses, which people still want to live in and walk past a century or two after they were built, or their slightly taller and more modern equivalents, which provide trendy new city centre living space for young professionals or well-designed retirement homes for older folk. We do not need to be scared of these buildings. One of the densest urban areas in Britain is Kensington and Chelsea, which is hardly a byword for inner-city decay. Elegant continental cities such as Paris and Madrid are far denser than almost anywhere in Britain too.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is giving a very powerful speech so I am loth to interrupt him. He mentioned the international comparisons and Kensington and Chelsea, but I think he is missing the suburbs. I represent a suburban seat. He said that housing is the single biggest bill, but it is also the single biggest issue in surgeries. I had a candidate stand against me as a “no to tall buildings” person. His slogan was, “We want to be living in Acton, not in Manhattan.” Has the hon. Gentleman had similar experiences as a constituency MP? People just do not like these buildings; they crowd out light and are not in keeping with the suburban landscape.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be short and not too discursive?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I absolutely agree. One advantage of building up rather than out in existing urban environments is that an awful lot of infrastructure is in place anyway. Less brand-new infrastructure needs to be constructed as a result. Other problems come from building in urban environments—for example, existing infrastructure may be put under strain and need to be expanded in some way—but flood defences are a good example of where the effects are perfectly scalable. When a flood defence wall has been built, an awful lot more can be built behind it. The flood defence wall does not need to be upgraded just because more has been built behind it, even though it may need to be upgraded when it wears out in 50 years’ time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good example.

As I was saying, prices will never stabilise, still less fall, unless the supply of housing increases dramatically. Cheaper homes are one of the cheapest, simplest, most effective ways of raising living standards for everyone and, by making our available cash go further, of improving the country’s economic productivity.

In the 1970s and ’80s, our towns and cities were places without an economic purpose. Their industrial manufacturing centres were dead, social problems multiplied as jobs dried up and people left in droves. But now, urban living in towns and cities is fashionable again, because, even in our highly connected, distance-defying online world, it turns out that there is huge value in people clustering together. Ideas flow more freely; skills and knowledge too. Firms in similar sectors create clusters that feed off their neighbours’ energy, hire each other’s staff and drive each other on. Building up, not out helps those things to happen more easily, so more wealth can be created. It is greener and cheaper, and it makes us richer and improves our quality of life, so clearly, the idea’s time has come.

To their eternal credit, I think the Government get that. The new White Paper has much to say about developing smaller sites of half a hectare or less, and subdividing large sites so that smaller developers can get in on the act as well. Local development orders and area-wide design codes, which streamline planning permission if people want to build particular pre-approved types or styles of property in a specified area, make a strong showing too. There is a range of new permitted development rights, which allow everyone from hospitals to brownfield site owners to build without all the red tape, heartache and uncertainty of getting planning permission.

[Dr Huq]

From a design point of view, I completely get the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but how would he inject affordability? The rate in London has been at up to 80% of market rates, and units in high-rise buildings in my constituency seem to be bought off-plan by people at property fairs in Singapore and by Russian oligarchs—the lights are always off—so how would he make that link and build affordability in?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Lady tempts me into a slightly wider area of discussion than the one I was focusing on. However, my broad point at least is that we will not be able to make all housing more affordable, whether that is for those on lower or middle incomes, unless we dramatically increase the supply of new homes of whatever tenure—whether we are talking about homes for rent or for buying. Only by doing that over the longer term will we manage to reduce the cost of housing for everybody at all income levels. The hon. Lady might like to propose some additional measures and, if so, I am sure that she will make some remarks later to turbo-charge some other opportunities for those on lower incomes as well. However, as a starting point and a fundamental, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can get away without increasing the overall level of new homes that are being created in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under you again, Ms Gillan. I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing the debate.

I wondered whether there had been a mix-up by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who decides on these debates, but knowing him and understanding the process as I now do, I know that that is not possible. Hon. Members may have attended this debate and people may have watched it in anticipation of a debate on low-cost housing, perhaps hoping to hear some more detail about the White Paper that the Government released yesterday or some more meat put on the bones of the essential topic of low-cost housing. Instead, this debate has been about a small proposal to tweak the planning system.

I will address the proposal from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in a moment, but first I will address low-cost housing, which is the topic of the debate and is what I expected to be speaking on. Of course the overall supply of housing—which the hon. Gentleman states it is the intention of his policy to address—is important, because we have a shortage of housing in this country, as the Secretary of State said yesterday. In a pure supply and demand curve, one expects more supply to mean lower cost, and the obverse—shortage of supply—means higher cost, which is exactly what has happened in the open market; so housing becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more people.

That has happened in the last seven years. Under David Cameron, the UK built fewer homes than under any peacetime Prime Minister since 1923. The number of home-owning households rose by a million under the 1997 to 2010 Government, but it has fallen by 200,000 since 2010, and this shortage has meant that the price of buying has risen and risen, putting homes out of the reach of even well-paid young people. Members here today may have watched “Newsnight” last night, in which there were reasonably well-paid young professionals who could not get on the housing ladder. In my constituency in west London, working people earning reasonable salaries cannot even afford to rent, and if they can just about pay more than 50% of their income on rent, they have no money left to save up for a deposit. The market is not delivering affordable homes to rent or to buy, except in some economically deprived areas, where there are more homes than there are people who want to live in them.

In most of England, because house prices have risen, more and more people need some kind of subsidised low-cost housing. Since 2010, however, Government funding for all types of affordable housing—there were eight definitions of affordable housing in the White Paper—has been withdrawn, except for one, which is for first-time buyers. The level of new affordable house building has still managed to hit a 24-year low. The number of shared ownership homes and other low-cost home ownership homes being built annually has fallen by 66% since 2010, to just 7,540 homes a year, meaning that 34,170 fewer affordable homes have been built since 2010 than in the last six years of the last Labour Government. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) clearly described the problems—and the potential solutions—of delivering truly affordable low-cost housing.

For social rented housing, official statistics show that the number of social rented homes that were started in 2009-10 was almost 40,000, but in 2015-16 the number of social rented homes being delivered was less than 1,000—a fall of 98% and the lowest figure since records began.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said yesterday in the main Chamber that private house builders, housing associations and councils need to fire on all cylinders to build the homes that we need, and councils need to be allowed to build homes again to meet the needs of local people. At the moment, they are not allowed to do that.

[Dr Huq]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I agree with what she is saying, that this “Pile ’em high, sell ’em cheap and leave it to market forces” solution does not sound like it is enough. When it is left to market forces, in a place such as Ealing, people seem to use these high-rise homes that are going up as a very expensive piggybank; they are not even living in them. Obviously we need more social housing to counteract all this.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I have experienced that in my own constituency. We still have newly built homes that are never let, because they are seen as nothing more than an investment, and many of them are very high in price.

As I have said, the latest affordable housing statistics have fallen to their lowest levels in 24 years. Of course I welcome any credible initiatives to provide low-cost housing, but where is the evidence that this well-meaning initiative to extend permitted development rights, which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has discussed today, will actually deliver low-cost housing?

Between February and April in 2016, the Government consulted jointly with the Mayor of London on proposals to deliver more homes in London by allowing a limited number of additional storeys on existing buildings through a permitted development right, local development orders or development plan policies, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is seeking. That was part of the Government’s commitment to explore how more homes could be built on brownfield land, in order to reduce the pressure on greenfield or metropolitan open land. The Government summary of the responses that they received to that proposal says:

“More than half of those were not supportive of the proposal, with a one-size-fits-all permitted development right approach considered unworkable. While it was noted that it could support town centres and deliver more homes, it was recognised that the complex prior approval that would be required to protect neighbours and the character and amenity of an area would result in a permitted development right that is no less onerous than a planning application.”

Specifically, a couple of the consultees—the Planning Officers Society and Historic England—did not support the proposals. I am well aware that the British Property Federation welcomed them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). He has been fortuitous in securing this debate on low-cost housing the day after the White Paper was published, but he is rather disadvantaged by the fact that the Minister responsible is so busy selling the White Paper that he has to put up with a reply from me, but I will endeavour to answer the points he has raised.

The tone of the debate has frankly been a bit miserable, in truth. My hon. Friend has come forward with a proposal to expand the supply of housing. We all know that supply is the biggest challenge in delivering low-cost housing. Houses have become less and less affordable because we have not been building enough houses, period. We need to look at what we can do to unlock a bigger supply of houses, and that is what the White Paper is all about. I could happily trade statistics with Opposition Members, but the reality is that we have not been building enough housing in this country for decades. There are many reasons for that. Some of them are to do with planning, public opinion, finance and land prices, but what is clear is that our housing market is broken, and I do not think we should be ruling anything out in fixing it, because we have a real problem in terms of fairness for everyone in society being able to live in a decent home that they can afford. We in Government and as politicians should be seeking to deliver that.

That is where my hon. Friend has it in a nutshell, in coming forward with a proposal that could unlock substantially more housing. Listening to him and the reaction to his remarks from Members highlighted a massive cultural prejudice against building up, rather than building out, and there is a reason for that, which he alluded to in his remarks. We were very badly let down in the ’60s. That was the zenith of building up, not out, but we built buildings that were ugly and unpleasant, and they became unpleasant places to live. That is in people’s minds when they start thinking about high-rise housing and development. I have it in my constituency. We are on the border of London, so we have a substantial need for new houses. We have a substantial amount of brownfield land and green belt. Members will not be surprised to hear that we get a lot more planning applications for housing on green-belt sites, because we all know that it is cheaper to build there. We are also on the river, and if there is one place where high-rise developments would work, it is on the river.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—I think we were all impressed by his courage in turning up for the vote yesterday—came to my constituency when he was housing Minister. He did me no favours because he described one of my riverfront housing developments as pig ugly. It was a four-storey housing development on the river, and people want to live on the river, but his point was that if the planners had been a little more adventurous, we could have built something higher and more beautiful. When one visits places such as Greenwich in south-east London, one can see that they have shown imagination. They have opened up the river and created nice places to live, so I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this.

To give my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare some comfort, the White Paper sets out clearly the importance of high-density brownfield development, which is a part of his proposal. We propose changes to national policy to make it clear that local plans and individual development proposals should encourage building up where acceptable. We also propose to make better use of public land. The Department would welcome my hon. Friend’s response to the White Paper so that we can take this forward. It is incumbent on all of us, and it is very easy. We all react to our postbags—Mr Grumpy always complains about the planning application that is proposed—but we have a role now, because this is such an important issue, to sell what will really deliver more housing, so I encourage my hon. Friend to make his submission as robust and as forthright as he wishes.

The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss low-cost housing in its wider sense. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) made some excellent points, but we need to recognise that the problem has been in the making for decades and the issues are complex. We do not say that the White Paper has all the answers or all the solutions. There is no silver bullet. If there was, the previous Labour Government would have delivered it, as would we in the last Parliament. Let us get real here. This is a serious problem, and unless we have a grown-up discussion about it, we will not solve it and we will let down future generations.

[Dr Huq]

There is some stuff in the White Paper that was nicked out of the Ed Miliband playbook—we are pleased to see that there will be a ban on letting fees—but it could have been a little more aggressive on the “Use it or lose it” idea. I apologise, Mrs Gillan; I should have said my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). In Ealing we have a site, which my 12-year-old remembers as a building site for most of his life—it was a cinema—that is going to be rebuilt for residential use, but it has been land-banked for the best part of a decade. What does the White Paper say about that, and how can we be more aggressive with developers who simply sit on land while the value goes up?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Lady has hit on a major structural problem that is inhibiting the ability to supply. There are many examples of what she talks about. Some developers are bringing forward a supply of housing and others are sitting on the land.

The White Paper on housing that we published yesterday advocates shortening timescales for the implementation of planning permissions where appropriate. That is very much on our agenda. We are considering legislative changes to simplify and speed up completion notices, which will encourage developers to build out or face losing the site. I am a big fan of naming and shaming. Transparency is an effective tool. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Where we have developers clearly engaging in predatory behaviour and exploiting the marketplace, we should be prepared to name and shame them. Every one of us in this room has a voice. Where we see bad behaviour by developers, let us shout out about it, because we have to deliver more houses. It is that simple.

I trust that hon. Members have had the opportunity to digest some of the housing White Paper, if not all of it, and I hope that they will engage with the debate. I want to make it incredibly clear how committed the Government are to grappling with this problem. We want to make sure that all hard-working families have the housing that they need at a price they can afford. The root cause of the problem is that demand outstrips supply. Only by increasing supply substantially will we stop the increasing spiralling of house prices and rents.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Let me move on. I appreciate the point made. The betrayal was why the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green resigned. I have not agreed with a single policy that he has brought forward, but I do not doubt his sincerity in the policies that he has pursued.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree with the words of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that this Chancellor’s policies are

“in danger of drifting in a direction that divides society rather than unites it”?

Was the right hon. Gentleman not right when he said that?

[John McDonnell]

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s interview on the Marr programme on Sunday expressed a profound concern that he had about the unfairness of the Budget, and we agreed with this. As I said, I have not agreed with a single policy he has pursued, but I do not doubt his sincerity. The right hon. Gentleman saw—

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

Of course. The Tories are not interested in looking after ordinary people and small businesses. They are interested in directing money at the privileged few.

Let me turn briefly to the subject of devolution, which the Secretary of State mentioned. In his Budget statement the Chancellor announced a number of devolution deals, about which concern has been expressed in all parts of the House. The Minister cannot say we did not warn him that there would be trouble on that from the Labour Benches. The whole process is far too top-down. The insistence on a single mayoral model has caused much resentment, especially in cities where the idea was recently voted down by local people in referendums.

It is not councils’ fault that there are these tensions—our councillors are under enormous pressure to get whatever they can for local residents. The fault lies entirely with the process imposed, not by the Secretary of State, but by the Chancellor, who is stubbornly refusing to allow ordinary citizens to have a say in how their areas should be governed.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The idea of devolution setting people free from centralised diktat may sound good on paper, but how does it square with the forced academisation of schools?

[Jon Trickett]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s point.

Let me make some progress on devolution. The average pot of money available to the metro mayors appears to be about £30 million a year, but that is dwarfed by the severity of the cuts that each of their councils has suffered. Top-down devolution, compounded by financial injustice, simply will not work as an enduring solution. Labour wants properly funded, real devolution, which would include, for example, the power for every council to open schools, build homes and regulate buses—mayor or no mayor.

That brings me to the Budget’s implications for the north of England. The Chancellor boasts about his northern powerhouse, but his Budget cuts to northern councils alone since 2010 add up to £3.9 billion being taken out of the northern economy. What do we get instead? A few million pounds for a scaled-down flood defence scheme in Leeds, and a few million more to fund not an electrified rail link, but a study that might report eventually on whether there should be electrification. None of that cuts the mustard—it is more of a power scam than a powerhouse.

Let me express my great admiration for councillors of all parties who do their very best across the nation, despite years of cuts, to protect services. Libraries, for example, are one of the most prized assets in any community, but they are frequently the first to go. On Friday, I visited Wyke library in Bradford. The council has managed to keep it open, despite the prospect of losing half its budget in a decade. The library is a beacon of hope and self-improvement, buzzing with learning. I met people there who were studying to better their lot in life. They told me there was no way on earth they could afford to buy the books they could borrow from a public library or to use the internet, which was also available. The priority had to be putting food on the table for their kids, but they were able to come to the library and have access to knowledge. I met one man who was using the internet—publicly provided in a public library—to complete his PhD. Cutting libraries, cutting museums, cutting theatres—all of this is nothing short of cultural vandalism.

The Secretary of State did a round of media interviews this morning. On ITN, he told Conservative Members to come together again; he said they should stop scrapping with each other. Well, good luck with that. Then he went on the “Today” programme and talked about the rough and tumble of Budget negotiations, as if that explained the resignation of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith).

I think the Secretary of State is a decent man, and I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, he appreciates the value of local government services. He knows the role—how could he not?—that many of them play in supporting the vulnerable, but what does he really know about the rough and tumble of Budget negotiations? He was the first Secretary of State to sign up on the Chancellor’s terms.

On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State referred to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green as his very good friend. My guess is that he may not want to follow the path of his very good friend and resign from the Government to defend local councils. I hope, however, that he will decide to fight his corner rather more strongly than he has this year against a Chancellor who has proved his judgment is nil.

Equitable Life

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by a number of constituents who were affected by the collapse of Equitable Life. One woman wrote to me to say:

“I myself have lost over £40,000, and have only received £12,000 in compensation. Does this sound fair to you?”

Successive Governments have failed to appreciate the anger that this issue has caused people. A couple who contacted me asked why the Treasury had provided 100% compensation to Icelandic bank depositors, when they had received only a fifth of the sum that they were due and had planned their retirement around. They said:

“In the years prior to our retirement we actually took money from our own savings to top up our pension payments and feel that we have lost twice over. We would have been better off being irresponsible and spent every penny we had and then relied on the State. It seems the government departments are hoping that we will die and the problem will go away.”

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Library briefing points out that there is a ticking time bomb because the beneficiaries of the scheme are elderly. Like my hon. Friend, I have received representations from many constituents. Has she heard the same sentiment that I heard expressed by Brian Watkins, who faces losing up to £40,000 and thinks that the Government are waiting until policyholders die, so that they do not have to deal with them? Surely, we should reassure those people, and the Chancellor should find that money down the back of the sofa.

[Melanie Onn]

I agree, and our constituents in London and the north of the country clearly share the view that this is a significant issue. People feel seriously let down by the Government’s failure to act on this matter in a timely fashion. I wonder whether the Minister is confident that the current regulations are strong enough to prevent any repeat of what happened. Future investors will be particularly keen to know that they are not going to fall into a similar trap and that if a similar situation were to come to light in the future, the Government would engage with the victims and allow their voices to be heard when trying to devise a solution.

Small Businesses: Tax Reporting

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan)—I made my maiden speech after he made his. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for raising this important issue. I have had representations about it from many constituents. As somebody who has run a small business, I am happy to take part in the debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The “Fixing the foundations” report by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Business Secretary, which came out last July, focused on creating an even more competitive tax system. The aim is to cut corporation tax to make sure that we have the lowest rate in the G20 and attract inward investment, as well as to make paying tax simpler. The aim is that that

“will dramatically cut the cost of paying tax for business.”

As we all know, a record number of people—millions more of our constituents—are now self-employed and running small businesses. It is a generational shift, and this growing phenomenon will have an impact on many of our constituents.

As other hon. Members have said, the direction of travel—going digital—is laudable, and if the proposed system is properly implemented, it will increase the tax take, which is of course to be applauded. However, the stated aim is simplification, not only for the Revenue but for business, so I tentatively suggest that the Minister does not rush to make any changes. It is better that the switch takes places slightly later, but with fewer glitches. That would increase buy-in from the business community and reduce the frustration for constituents who are involved in making these quarterly reports—however we want to describe them. There are few more frustrating activities for small businesses, particularly sole traders without admin support, than being kept hanging on HMRC’s helpline.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady’s point reminds me of a comment made by Richard Morse, the FSB’s representative in my area, who said that HMRC did not seem to realise that a lot of businesses in my constituency were sole traders and that the person doing the accounts—there is no separate accounts department—was also generating the business and doing the work. He fears that the proposed system will eat into profits and lead to less taxable income, and I hope the consultation can address his fears.

[Seema Kennedy]

The FSB has made submissions, and it will carry on doing so. Ministers will also be listening to all our representations, which is why it is important that we are here to speak on behalf of our constituents. I welcome HMRC’s commitment to make more use of digital help, such as webinars, webchat and YouTube videos, and I hope it will increase the use of those.

I am sure that the consultation went through this, but I have concerns about when tax would be payable and when penalties would be incurred. I understand that three months does not seem like a very long time, but a four-week or six-week penalty period could pass quickly for a sole trader in busy periods, such as the summer if they are involved in seasonal business. Will the Minister address that point?

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) referred to test runs. Perhaps I missed this information, but I would like to know exactly who did those test runs and over what period. It is essential that the tests are done over an extensive period, with different sizes of business, so that glitches are eliminated and the system runs really well when it is in place.

I have a particular concern about adjustments for capital allowances. I am thinking particularly of my own business, which is in the building trade, as we have had to make large capital investments in the following year, and there are also issues such as amortisation. I know that the impact on working capital came up in the digital consultation carried out by the Petitions Committee.

In conclusion, the move to digital taxation is the right direction of travel if we are to meet business challenges of the 21st century, but it needs to be done after a thorough consultation, of which this debate is only one part, even if that means the current timescales are missed by a few months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for that thoughtful intervention, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s points. However, when policies are thoughtful, intuitive and in the interests of business, businesses usually flock to take them up. In this case something has clearly gone wrong in one of two ways: either it is being communicated in the wrong way, but it is a great policy; or it is a poor policy that is being communicated in the right way but is not managing to hit home. The purpose of the debate is to decide which it is.

The policy needs to be tested and communicated better. We need to ensure that people who run businesses—smart people who want to do the right thing by paying their taxes and ensuring that their businesses are not disproportionately burdened—are fully involved as the policy is implemented in the long run. In my view it certainly should happen in the long run, because at the moment, people are being put off going into self-employment or setting up their own business.

Interestingly, on the train up here today, when I was speaking to my brother, who works as a postman in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency, he told me that one of his colleagues had seen on the news that this debate was coming up and had talked about self-employment. His colleague was self-employed for a number of years—more than a decade—but moved away from it because of the fear of the accounting, bureaucracy and regulation that was being heaped on to self-employed people.

The freedom that is associated with self-employment has diminished. As well as the burden of regulation, people fear not having the skills that they need, and they fear the unknown. Because they are not a trained accountant or an experienced administrator—rather, they are a skilled labourer—they fear that they might step outside regulatory measures without being aware of it. That was enough to drive my brother’s colleague away from self-employment and back into paid employment. We should be wary of that, because it would be a huge shame if entrepreneurship were to become the preserve of the middle classes. I do not believe that entrepreneurial spirit is class-based or education-based; it is evenly distributed, even though it is not evenly expressed in our economy.

Public policy on the self-employed needs to be got right, particularly for people who run small businesses or microbusinesses. At the moment, I do not believe that Government policy across the board is on their side. Let us take one example—the much vaunted, much hyped productivity plan, which I know the Minister is keen to refer to often in the Chamber and in the media. It is interesting that in the Government’s flagship productivity plan there is not one single mention of the self-employed, who make up 15% of the workforce and number 4.5 million people. The fastest-growing employment trend in our country does not warrant a single mention in the productivity plan.

In my constituency there is a fantastic business called Crunch, which has been set up specifically to supply accountancy services to people who are self-employed or running microbusinesses. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, went to visit a couple of weeks ago, which was absolutely fantastic. It now provides services not only right across our city but right across the south of England, and it is great that people are starting to notice just how fantastic the business is and how important its services are. It provides light-touch, fast, responsive support to people setting up businesses. The great thing about being able to visit it is that because it has thousands of customers, it can harness insight into real-time trends in self-employment and see the impact of public policy on the small business and self-employed sector. I know that quite often, HMRC and Government Departments struggle to get real-time data on the impact of Government policy.

One prediction that Crunch makes about the negative impacts of policy is that the leap from 0% to 7.5% in basic rate dividend tax will hit lower-earning company directors the hardest. Those are probably self-employed people who are moving their company to limited status, have a very small number of employees and pay themselves through dividends. Everyone wants to make sure that the right people are paying tax, but the proposal could have the most negative impact on people on lower incomes who run microbusinesses. For example, a limited company director paying themselves primarily through dividends would pay £1,528 more tax a year on pre-tax profits of £48,000, whereas a director with £78,000 of pre-tax profits would pay only £1,343 more.

We can also see from the statistics that the change in income tax for a microbusiness from 2015-16 to 2016-17 will have a negative impact of 21% on somebody earning about £40,000. The equivalent impact on somebody earning £58,000 will be minus 1%. There is something regressive, not progressive, about the changes to dividend tax, and we need to shift the tax burden so that it is progressive, not regressive. If the Minister does so, I know that he will be met with support from both sides of the House. I would very much welcome his comments on that point.

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend’s point reminds me of something that Andrew Dakers, who is from West London Business in my constituency, has said:

“One can only assume the measure is being planned to speed up tax receipts, which is a duff basis for policy-making in this area.”

Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention, and I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s comments and the example that she has given. It is definitely worth mentioning that, and I am sure the Minister will respond to it.

Crunch, the company in my constituency that I mentioned, has a proposal for the Minister. I hope he will take it away with him, because Crunch represents a large number of self-employed people and microbusinesses. It says that the transition will be most challenging for microbusiness owners,

“as it leads to a steep hike in tax overnight.”

It proposes

“either deferring the introduction of these changes for at least 2 years”,

which would enable businesses to have time to adapt,

“or introducing a 3 year credit to keep dividend taxes at 0% for those business owners on the basic rate.”

I support those proposals, and I hope that the Minister will consider them in the same spirit.

It is difficult to devise policies that support self-employed people, because many people go into self-employment because they enjoy the freedom. Increasingly, however, we see a trend whereby larger employers are restructuring and people are being forced into becoming self-employed at a time when they would otherwise not have done so. This area of policy is not dissimilar to youth unemployment in the challenges it provides for policy makers. Self-employed people, like young unemployed people, are hidden away behind front doors in neighbourhoods and communities. They often work from home, so there are problems of connectivity and how they network as a group. It is certainly easy to overlook them. The fact that they are hidden and dispersed in neighbourhoods makes it difficult to target them as one group.

It would be welcome if the Government examined professional development, which would not be burdensome and would link directly with the policy that the Minister is considering. Self-employed people as a sector underinvest in their own professional development, and other spending trends among self-employed people include a fall in pension contributions every year for the past five years. The key measures of their long-term strategic thinking about their own professional development show that there are challenges that are intrinsic to the self-employed.

Anyone who goes into full-time employment with a company looks at the professional development that it offers. That is a key magnet for talent. Self-employed people are so worried about month-to-month living that they do not invest as they should. We must tackle the productivity challenge among the self-employed and microbusinesses. The Government should launch a consultation into that so that we can work cross-party to get deep into what trends are emerging and how we can support the sector. The challenge of professional development would then be won.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We want a successful financial services industry, because hundreds of thousands of people across the country work in it. We also want a successful manufacturing and steel industry, which is why we have taken action to reduce energy costs—something that had not happened previously and which comes into effect today—and why we are taking action to change procurement rules so that the British Government and others are encouraged to buy British steel. Again, that never happened when the Labour party was in office. We are acting internationally to deal with the dumping of Chinese steel. That is what we are doing. Of course it is an incredibly difficult situation, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, and everyone in this House knows, steel jobs are being lost in every single country in the world at the moment. The question is: what can we do nationally to defend and protect our steel industry? We are doing everything we can. If the hon. Gentleman has constructive suggestions, he should put them to me.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Financial Conduct Authority on its decision to end its review of banking culture.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

The Financial Conduct Authority is an independent regulator. No Treasury Minister or official had any discussions with the FCA before it took the decision to discontinue the review.

[Dr Huq]

Given that the popular image of bankers right now is probably on a par with used car salesmen or MPs even, does the Minister not agree with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) that to abort the review now, which could have looked at regulating challenger banks as well as historical mis-selling, is a missed opportunity?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I find it hard to take lectures from the Labour party on regulating the financial sector. In fact, since my right hon. Friend became Chancellor, we have set up the Financial Conduct Authority and moved on from the failed regulatory system under the Labour Government. We made it a criminal offence to manipulate the UK’s key benchmark, we brought in the toughest rules on bankers’ pay of any financial centre, and we are bringing in a new criminal offence so that senior managers whose reckless decisions bring down banks can face up to seven years in jail.

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Mr Marsden]

The hon. Lady needs to look more carefully at the differential impacts. The point that I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, would make about this is that debt aversion depends on where someone is coming from. It is perfectly possible to have a situation with those common factors. It is not, however, at all clear from any of the evidence that has been put forward that that would not be a significant disincentive.

I was talking about the things that were said previously: those words will do little to enhance the Government’s alleged commitment to increasing social mobility. The Government and their predecessors set great store by the principle of “nudge”—actions that persuade people to change their behaviour for the better. I remind the Minister that is possible to nudge people away from desirable outcomes such as getting higher education, rather than towards them. The question that the Minister and his colleagues must answer is what attention they have devoted in the regulations, which are highly specific, to preventing that.

A new BIS study included in the impact statement by the Government says that more than half the applicants said they felt put off by the cost of university. Also, for poorer applicants, tuition fee loans and the income-contingent repayment threshold were more important in persuading them to apply, despite the costs. However, the Government seriously underestimate the effect that the grant and the cost of universities have on student decisions. That is backed up by what the Sutton Trust has said:

“Shifting grants to loans may move them off the balance sheet, but it could also put off many low and middle income students and tip the balance against their going to university. Since grants were reintroduced, there have been significant improvements”—

and we welcome that—

“in participation from full time less advantaged students, and this will be put at risk by today’s Budget plans.

The reality is that the Government has miscalculated the levels of repayments it will get from its student loans under the new fees system. Rather than penalising poorer students, it should have a fundamental review of the repayments system. We need long term solutions not a short term fix.”

Research from the NUS that was published yesterday by Populus shows that parents are concerned that the Government’s plans to scrap the maintenance grant will discourage their children from applying to university. Two fifths of those with a combined income of £25,000 or less believe that their children would be discouraged from applying to university if grants were replaced by loans. More than half the parents believed that the plan to scrap grants undermined the Government’s objective of increasing access to university for poorer students.

I want to deal with some other surveys that have been conducted. The changes may well pile even more pressure on to students to alter their work-study balance while pursuing a degree. According to the 2015 Endsleigh survey, produced by a company that has specialised in the area for many years, already 77% of students must work to help fund their studies, using time that could be spent on academic work. That already high number looks set to increase further with the removal of maintenance grants.

The Government claim that they want to strengthen our skills base and that they have given more support for postgraduates. The initial steps that were announced on that are welcome; but there is a risk that they will be undercut because of the debt aversion of the group of students who will lose their grants. The NUS found that after a student finished their undergraduate degree, access to a maintenance grant could also influence their post-study choices.

I want to turn my attention to the specifics of the equality impact assessment that BIS produced for the regulations. It concedes, for example, that black and minority ethnic students, in particular, will be disproportionately worse off than others following the removal of maintenance grants:

“We believe that the proposed changes will disproportionately affect people from ethnic minority backgrounds. This is based on evidence of debt aversion in this group and the increased likelihood for these students to receive the full maintenance grant. We have assessed that there is a small risk to the participation of students”—

given participation rates—

“both from high and low socio-economic backgrounds”.

Additionally, there is risk to the outcomes of these students if they choose not to take out the additional loan available.”

However, a recent BIS study also stated that non-white applicants were likely to cite the importance of maintenance grants in overcoming their concerns about costs. Thus the removal of the maintenance grant will seriously discourage BME students from attending HE institutions.

There is potentially bad news for older learners as well. The equality analysis states:

“Mature students will be disproportionately impacted by the policy proposals to remove the full maintenance grant and replace with additional loan as well as the freezing of targeted grants. The proportion of students aged 21 and over that claim maintenance grant support is significantly higher than their representation in the population of all student support claimants. The available evidence points to the cost sensitivity and debt averseness of this group. The policy change presents a risk for the participation of older students in higher education.”

The assessment has worrying words for disabled students as well:

“As for all students from low income backgrounds we expect the risk to participation of low income disabled students…to continue to be mitigated by the high average returns to HE investment and the repayment protection for low earning graduates.”

That, of course, assumes that current ratios quoted in that respect will remain the same with the massive expansion of the cohort entering full-time work in the next 10 to 15 years. There is no evidence whatever on that.

However, the Government have conceded in the assessment that disabled people will also be disproportionately affected by the decision not to protect the real value of disabled students’ allowances. The assessment says:

“Students from low income backgrounds will be able to access DSA at same level in cash terms but may be disproportionately affected by the freezing (real terms reduction)”—

a term the Government were reluctant to use at the beginning of the equality impact assessment—

“of DSAs and dependants grants.”

For all of the groups that I have cited so far, I and the rest of the Committee want to know what the Government propose to do to mitigate those disproportionate impacts, which their own equality impact assessment so candidly concedes will be the case.

In addition, there is the separate worrying implication that a significant number of would-be students may be discriminated against under these regulations because of their religious beliefs. The impact assessment states:

“There is evidence to suggest that there are groups of Muslim students whose religion prohibits them from taking out an interest bearing loan. This means that this group of students will no longer have access to funding for living costs as non-repayable finance is no longer available. This could lead to a decline in the participation of some Muslim students.”

The complacency about the failure to have available a sharia-compliant alternative to grants that will be withdrawn borders on discrimination. Does the Minister agree that the regulations as they stand will restrict Muslim students from accessing valuable finance, while the removal of grants threatens to weaken further their ability and capacity to carry through their higher education studies?

The Government claim that they are making an alternative to traditional loans available that is sharia-compliant, but it is not there yet, is it, Minister? Yet the Government have known about the issue since April 2014. Will the Minister guarantee that the change will not be implemented until there are firm regulations in law for an alternative finance proposal that will be acceptable to people of the Muslim faith?

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I want to share my own example, because these matters are often seen as hypothetical. I started my undergraduate degree in 1990, the first year that voluntary loans were introduced. I did not take one of those because Muslim students are very risk-averse and debt-averse and do not want to carry interest-bearing loans. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are real people, not just hypothetical examples?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

We cannot tell exactly what will happen as a result of these further changes and what impact they will have. I speak from my own experience: I graduated from university in 2004, and only since taking this job have I been able to make any impact on paying back the loan that I took out then. That loan was relatively small compared with the loans that we are discussing. How long will people be saddled with debt, and what impact will it have on their life chances and their ability to make progress in their lives? It is an absolutely appalling circumstance, and it is creating an even more indebted generation than the one before it. It is ridiculous. The impact in Scotland will be greater, because we have four-year degrees rather than three-year degrees as in England.

I will quote from the figures sent to me by the NUS in Scotland, which notes that in the academic year 2013-14, a total of £1.59 billion was awarded to applicants in all cohorts. In 2014-15, for post-2012 students, a provisional total of £1.5 billion was awarded. Assuming that that averages out over the three years, it implies an annual reduction of £500 million, contributing to a £50 million reduction in the cash DEL—departmental expenditure limit—available to Scotland per year. For comparison, Student Awards Agency for Scotland figures for 2014 show that the social grant and bursary awards made to Scotland for Scottish-domiciled students totalled £63.6 million. That is a significant impact.

On the impact on Scotland since the introduction of tuition fees in England, when direct cash DEL teaching grants provided by the Higher Education Funding Council in England to English universities were cut by more than £3 billion, assuming a straight consequential, the result is a £300 million reduction in cash DEL available to Scotland. The spending review proposes a further £120 million reduction in the teaching grant by 2019-20, which will result in a consequential to Scotland on top of the impact of these measures, including for nursing students.

The impact on us in Scotland is unfair. Decisions here by a Government we did not vote for and who have one MP in Scotland are resulting in decisions that John Swinney will have to make in our budget, which is decreasing. We have no impact on those decisions, and our Government cannot change them. The decisions taken by this Conservative Government and the previous coalition Government have had the effect of skewing the Scottish budget in further education. The departmental expenditure limit, which includes the teaching and research budget and the grant and bursary budget, has been reduced, and the annually managed expenditure budget, which goes on loans, has increased. We do not want an increase in loans; we want the DEL, but we cannot have that, because decisions here have reduced it. Those decisions affect the Scottish budget, and we must find the money that we want to spend on grants and bursaries from somewhere else within it. That is unfair. We want to support our students. Our students in Scotland deserve support, particularly where, due to demographic differences, they have not yet had the chance to go to university because they are put off by loans.

The point made by a Labour Member about minorities is true as well. It will particularly affect constituencies such as mine in Glasgow, Central, which is probably one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in Scotland and contains Strathclyde University and Glasgow Caledonian University, as well as bounding on Glasgow University. All those universities could be affected by that decision.

[Dr Huq]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the difference between what is happening now and what happened for my generation is that I had a full grant and my fees paid completely? I pity this generation. It was doable not to have a voluntary top-up loan in 1990, but what is happening now is disastrous.

[Alison Thewliss]

I will finish by absolutely agreeing with that. When the hon. Lady and I went to university, we came out with some debt, but not a crippling debt of up to £53,000, which is an astronomical amount of money for anybody from any background to consider if they want to go to university. I urge the Government to reconsider and to speak directly to the Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney and to the Scottish Government to assess the impact of these decisions on the Scottish budget. I doubt very much that the Minister has consulted the Scottish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, indeed it does, and is motivating our decision to increase the amount of support that will be available to students going into higher education in this country. We want everybody who can benefit from higher education to be able to go to university.

We are delighted to see more people applying to university, more people getting in and more people getting on to their first-choice courses than ever before. Critically, we are delighted that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are applying and going to university than ever before, and we want those trends to carry on.

[Dr Huq]

Has the Minister seen the research on these new arrangements for the Institute for Fiscal Studies? The poorest 40% will graduate with debts of up to £53,000 a year, as opposed to £40,000 at the moment. How does that square with his party’s claim to be the party encouraging fiscal responsibility and social mobility?

[Joseph Johnson]

Accessing university is a transformational experience for many students, especially for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. We want more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university and receive the benefits that can bring. I will now explain exactly why—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I am going to press on and conclude my remarks, because the shadow Minister needs to make his closing remarks, too.

Those who disagree with the provisions contained in the regulations should submit their proposals to generate equivalent grant savings from elsewhere. I note that the Labour party has in the past year proposed competing higher education funding policies, although they share one common feature—their significant cost to the taxpayer. Labour’s leader said in July that fees should be removed completely, with grants retained. That was costed by the Labour party itself at £10 billion. Ahead of the election, it was briefly proposed that fees be reduced to £6,000, which would have cost £3 billion. Those policies move us backwards. They are unsustainable.

I was therefore particularly interested to read Ed Balls’ comments in this week’s Times Higher Education, where he spoke about the “blot on Labour’s copybook”:

“We clearly didn’t find a sustainable way forward for the financing of higher education.”

He said that if the electorate

“think you’ve got the answers for the future, they’ll support you.”

We have set out a clear plan for the future to ensure that higher education finances are sustainable and that more people can benefit from higher education. Has the Labour party decided on its approach?

When the tuition fee reforms were made in the last Parliament, there were those who predicted a sharp fall in participation in higher education, particularly by those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, that did not come to pass, and the latest application figures from UCAS, although provisional, show that, in spite of our proposed changes to maintenance, application figures are similar to last year’s figures.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South referred to the grant-to-loan switch in FE. Loans were introduced in the further education sector in 2013-14 to remove the barrier of meeting the upfront cost of tuition fees; we are debating loans for living costs in HE, and I do not believe that is a valid comparison.

[Dr Huq]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

I have only one or two minutes, so I will not give way. We should remember that switching support for living costs from grants to loans allows us to increase the upfront support provided to students from the lowest income backgrounds. In taking the decision to proceed with this policy, the Secretary of State and I considered an equality impact assessment, which we have published. That impact assessment sets out the risk to protected groups. It also explains that those risks will be mitigated by a number of factors, including the 10.3% increase to the maximum loan for living costs for the lowest income students, the repayment protection for low-income, low-earning graduates and the high average returns to higher education.

We will, of course, monitor the outcome of the policy through the data available from the Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Student Loans Company and the work of the Office for Fair Access. We will also continue to listen to stakeholders and colleagues in the House and the other place. In the meantime, I am grateful for the points that have been made by hon. Members today. However, the evidence from the coalition’s fee reforms has been that participation is fairly insensitive to greater debt. The equality analysis made the point that such changes have a

“limited impact on students decision making”.

Students understand that graduate debt is not the same as commercial debt. Graduate debt is paid back through a repayment system that takes account of ability to pay and, crucially, it allows individuals to make one of the best investments—in undertaking higher education.

The instrument allows us, in a time of fiscal restraint, to ensure that universities remain well funded so that they can continue to act as engines of our economy and of social mobility in a time of increased student numbers. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Q3. They are a great British institution and earn billions for our economy, so I am sure the Chancellor will share my concern that two curry houses a week are closing due to Government policies and the fact that the proposed specialist colleges have failed. As a fan himself, will he review the situation? He once likened the elements of a strong economy to those of a good curry, so will he take action to head off the coming curry crisis?

[Mr Osborne]

We all enjoy a great British curry, but we want the curry chefs to be trained in Britain so that we can provide jobs for people here in this country. That is what our immigration controls provide.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jon Cruddas]

I will come to the question of demutualisation in a moment. I simply suggest that Government Members read a book called “The New Few” by Ferdinand Mount, who happened to be Margaret Thatcher’s head of policy. He argued for a more resilient capitalism, including a mixed economy in banking provision, with mutuals, local regional banks and a wider distribution of banking products for communities such as mine in east London. Therefore, I do not think that this is necessarily a left-right debate. I argue that this is a live debate on the right, which suggests that simple neutrality or abstention on the motion is not necessarily going with the grain of more innovative thinking across the right of the political spectrum.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a renowned economist, but even before we get into the alternative models of banking, does he agree that one does not have to be an economist to see that buying something at one price and then selling it off for next to nothing—at the current market rate, shares are £3.21 each—does not make good economic sense? That from a party that prides itself on its so-called long-term economic plan. It is more like what George Bush senior called voodoo economics.

[Jon Cruddas]

A collective hit of £14 billion on taxpayers does not seem to be good, rigorous or empirically grounded economics, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let me return to the question of bank deposits. Apart from anything else, the lack of diversity in the UK’s banking system leaves us extremely vulnerable; all our eggs are literally in one basket. If we look at the international evidence on how those different types of bank perform, it quickly becomes clear that the Minister’s claims simply do not stack up.

Let us take shareholder owned banks first. Let us not forget that in 2008 it was shareholder-owned commercial banks that brought the global financial system to its knees. Yes, they were “innovative”—they created some of the most innovative toxic financial instruments the world has ever seen—but much of that innovation was what Adair Turner has termed “socially useless”; it served no real economic purpose except to inflate the profits of the banks that produced them while quietly spreading dangerous levels of risk to every corner of our financial system.

Members do not have to take my word for that. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards concluded that the shareholder model itself had a large part to play in the story:

“Shareholders have incentives to encourage directors to pursue high risk strategies in pursuit of short-term returns... In the run-up to the financial crisis, shareholders failed to control risk-taking in banks, and indeed were criticising some for excessive conservatism.”

In other words, the ownership model to which the Government are so keen to return RBS is the same model that helped to bring the bank down in the first place.

Tax Credits

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I also add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this debate in a week of such high drama on this subject. I am very encouraged by the things that I have heard from some Members on the Government Benches, and I hope that that is conveyed to their leadership.

Yesterday’s headlines made for confusing reading. The Guardian went for “Osborne ready to change tack on tax credits.” The Express plumped for, “Defiant Osborne says that tax credits will be cut despite defeat in Lords.” It is not the first time that there has been confusion over this issue. Before the election, the Conservative manifesto promised to “work to eliminate child poverty.” Two months later, the Government scrapped existing targets and child poverty measures. That is not just moving the goal posts, but ripping up the pitch.

The Prime Minister said:

“We must eliminate the scourge of poverty.”

That is difficult to reconcile with cuts set to put more than 200,000 working households into poverty. Those cuts are being put into effect to fund an inheritance tax cut that will benefit the 60,000 wealthiest estates, which probably explains why we no longer hear the words, “We are all in this together.” This is all such high drama, and we do not know what the next instalment will be.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

I have been a bit confused as well. The only thing that is clear is that in Neath we have more than 6,000 families on tax credits, and more than 5,000 families with children, and these measures will drive them into poverty.

[Dr Huq]

I think that we have a similar number—6,500 families—in Ealing Central and Acton. It is the children whom we should be thinking about. They are not just columns on a spreadsheet, but real people.

There was great drama at PMQs yesterday. The leader of the Labour party asked the Prime Minister six times about these plans and whether working people would be worse off next year, and six times, the Prime Minister refused to answer. Even The Sun—not the most Labour friendly paper—referred to that exchange. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said:

“This is not a constitutional crisis; it is a crisis for 3 million families”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 339.]

We could go further, even further than this motion. The Chancellor could still perform a full U-turn, which I would welcome, as I did the rapid conversion to feminism in this place yesterday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, if the Chancellor were to make a U-turn, we would welcome it on the Labour Benches. We would not taunt the Government if they were to do that. There is still time.

The Chancellor has a choice before him. He can continue hell-bent on his tax giveaways to big corporations and to the wealthiest in our country, or he could reverse those tax breaks to the few and go for a lower surplus target in 2019-20 while still sticking to his self-imposed charter. He would still be in a position not to hit those 3 million working families with these tax credit cuts. After all, this is a Government who claim to be on the side of working people. The ball is now firmly in the court of the Treasury Ministers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said that, often, the lifting of people out of taxation is used to justify these measures, but such a move is not as progressive as it initially appears to be. It helps dual earner households the most, but only those who earn enough. It makes no difference if the Government start taxing at £6,000 or £11,000, because there is little help for those on £5,000—the lowest paid on the distributional curve.

Studies have shown that the national living wage, which is not an actual living wage, will only affect a small minority of people and it will never help those under the age of 26. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) also pointed out that the childcare element is quite limited. In my own constituency, parents would be hard-pressed to find a nursery that could offer a place, because there is not the commensurate resource to match the policy.

People have been wondering, even before the mess of this week, how they can trust a Prime Minister who blatantly said one thing on TV as recently as 30 April and then quite a different thing just a couple of months later in July. He made a promise of no cuts to a voter on a phone-in programme. That was then followed up by David Dimbleby to check that what he said was clear. By July, that promise had gone. That must be the fastest U-turn in history. In PMQs yesterday, we heard some MPs say that they had claimed tax credits. I do not know whether that is true. Perhaps we can put that down to the theatre of PMQs.

[David Morris]

rose—

[Dr Huq]

I have already given way once, so I will not do so again. Reduced tax credits are being introduced alongside a gamut of other welfare changes, the cumulative effect of which is an assault on the lowest paid in our country.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Please stick to the motion.

[Dr Huq]

What I am saying is relevant to the motion, because we need some context.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Lady was not speaking to the motion, I would stop her.

[Dr Huq]

We need to look at tax credits in a wider context. There is the four-year benefit freeze, and the reduction in the household benefit cap. New claimants are no longer entitled to the “family element” of tax credits and, controversially, there is the proposal that, after April 2017, families will not be able to claim for their third child. I cannot imagine that happening in any other policy area. Can Members imagine the Government saying that a third child could not go to school? If such a policy had been in place, my sister Connie would never have been educated.

A number of millionaire Tory lords voted on Monday to cut help for Britain’s poorest workers. Lord Lloyd Webber was even flown in from New York for the vote. It did seem as though the Government were throwing the kitchen sink at this whole issue. There is growing awareness of the consequences of such a measure. Etched into the consciousness of those on the Government Front Bench should be the words of that caller who phoned in to that programme before the election, or the words of the woman who cried on “Question Time” the other night. Through old and new media, we have all received hundreds of messages on this point so we await the next instalment, the autumn statement. I hope that kids have been saved the unseasonable tidings of the notices that would have been plopping onto doormats at Christmas.

At the very least, the Government should publish a full impact assessment of their cumulative cuts to tax credits and benefits in the so-called emergency Budget. The Prime Minister said at his own conference that it is not pounds and pence but people that fire him up. Those 6,500 children in Ealing Central and Acton are real people with real lives, not columns on a spreadsheet. Some 70% of the money that the Treasury will save will come from working mums, so I urge the Government to reconsider their proposals and protect those on the lowest incomes.