Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The Government are reviewing the new hospitals programme as part of our spending review. We will undertake a full and comprehensive review while continuing to deliver the most advanced and most urgent hospitals in a realistic timeframe.

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

T9. The letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the former Chancellor that emerged this morning clearly stated that the failure by the last Government to hold a spending review following the unexpected national and global pressures significantly contributed to the fiscal challenge that the Labour Government inherited. What can the Chancellor learn from this?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Conservative party crashed the economy and then wrecked the public finances, leaving us with a £22 billion black hole. The shadow Chancellor is not willing to be straight about the damage he did, and is now trying to pass the buck to independent civil servants. I will always be honest about the public finances and take the tough decisions that we need to fix the foundations of our economy.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to be re-elected for the fourth time to the redrawn seat of Brentford and Isleworth, and to follow such impressive maiden speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), in whose constituency we all work.

After nine years sitting in Opposition it is a pleasure to be on the Government side of the Chamber and to support this Government’s legislative programme, which brings hope, opportunity and change for my constituents and for the country at last. I will focus my response to the King’s Speech on the Government’s ambitious proposals around transport policy—not only because it is an area I have long been involved with, having served on the Transport Committee for five years and chaired five all-party parliamentary groups on transport, but because transport was brought up regularly on the doorsteps in this last election.

The theme of today’s debate is economy, welfare and public services. Effective transport policies are essential to the change we need to see in all three areas, as well as in addressing our climate crisis, so I am pleased to see the bold and ambitious plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and her team to do just that. For access to work, education and health services, for supplying our manufacturing and retail sectors and for supporting our wellbeing and family life, decent transport choices are essential, and nowhere are they more needed than in the new communities that will be built, if the traffic on the roads to and around them is not to grind to a halt. Whether in city, town or countryside, we need the full range of transport options—ones that are affordable, accessible, efficient and environmentally sound.

On buses, I am delighted that, through the better buses Bill, the Government will end the ideological and control-freakery policy of banning local authorities from running their own municipal bus companies. Such companies were killed off by the Thatcher Government in a bout of ideological rage, with only London retaining a regulated bus service. The rest of England should have what we have in London: regular day, evening and weekend services, simple fare structures, and high standards of safety, accessibility and passenger information. Those are being developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and I look forward to seeing other local authorities—of all parties, I am sure—following his example.

To be an alternative to driving, and for us to cut road congestion and pollution, rail travel must be reliable. I am therefore delighted to see Bills to create Great British Railways and to bring train operations into public ownership. That is essential for a simplified and unified rail system that focuses on improving passenger services while getting value for the taxpayer. Our constituents, and many Members of this House, have had terrible experiences of cancelled trains, or of sitting on the floor for hours despite booking a seat. We will now see a Government and a Department that do not use transport as a cudgel in our culture wars, or as a crude electoral hammer to override local authorities that want to introduce sensible measures to encourage cycling and walking.

Transport is at the heart of the challenge of national renewal that we have set ourselves: kickstarting economic growth, boosting jobs and living standards, and building sufficient homes in sustainable communities. Of course there are challenges ahead—not least in further growing capacity in our overloaded rail network. I welcome the plan to improve east-west connectivity across the north of England, but funding further increases in rail capacity will unfortunately be financially unsustainable until we see the economic growth that the Chancellor is working on. Aviation expansion is acceptable only if it passes the four tests that we set ourselves in opposition: cutting carbon dioxide emissions, overcoming local environmental impacts, providing regional benefits across the UK, and deliverability. I know that the new Secretary of State and ministerial team will work across our travel and transport sectors to improve transport connections to the benefit of our country as a whole.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Robin Swann to make his maiden speech.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising his concern. That is just one of a number of complexities in the childcare system that are holding parents back. Adding more complexity in the system, which I fear some of these reforms will do, will only compound those problems. Parents, who are so busy, so stressed and so under pressure trying to work and bring up their children, are having to navigate the various Government offers of childcare. They call these offers free, but parents have to pay for so many hours. They also say that it is tax-free, but it is no such thing and parents need to apply for it and get the money back. It is an incredibly complex system. We could provide a much more simplified system that truly helps parents to reach their full potential and that also helps their children to reach their full potential in a quality early years environment.

That brings me to my next point, which, again, reflects my genuine concern about the Government’s proposals. To make up for the inadequate funding that the Government know they are providing, they are looking to cut corners and, I fear, to drive down quality. Against the advice of parents, providers and childcare experts, the Government are proposing to amend the ratio for two-year-old children from one adult for four children to one adult for five children. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Chancellor has ever tried looking after four two-year-olds, but add another into that mix and it does not get any easier. Significant investment is required in training to enable staff to manage that larger workload. Furthermore, comparing us with other countries that have much higher regulatory and training standards for their early years education staff is just a false comparison.

I urge every Member to listen to parents such as the Steepers, who, tragically, lost their son while he was at nursery. They brought a petition to Parliament to raise awareness of the danger of increasing the ratios, because they are desperate that no parent will ever face the same pain. Nobody supports a reduction in childcare quality or safety, but many warn that that is what these changes will bring. The risk is as well that it will only compound the current challenges in the early years workforce, who are leaving in their droves. Seventy five per cent. of nursery and pre-school staff have said that they are likely to leave the sector if their childcare provider increases the ratios. They are already underpaid and under pressure. Adding another child into the mix will only tip them over the edge. That will not help the Government’s target of finding 39,000 extra childcare staff to meet the needs of the new provision. That explains the delay in bringing it in, because the Government face a mammoth task to build up the workforce.

The only attempt I can see to tackle this—other than reducing the ratios, which people have said and I believe will have the opposite effect—is giving bonuses to prospective childminders. Here is the deal: if someone signs up as an individual, as people have for many years, they will get a bonus from the Government of £600. However, if they sign up with a private childcare agency, of which there are currently six in the country, all listed with hyperlinks to their websites on the Government website, they will get a double bonus of £1,200.

I asked the Prime Minister why the Government are driving people to go through an agency rather than sign up directly with their local authority. The answer I got was:

“I think it is a reflection of the fact that it is through intermediaries, so there are additional costs.”

That rather sums up how backward this policy is; there is £10 million allocated to it, and we could get two for the price of one if we cut out the middleman. Why the Government are doubling bonuses for people who sign up with agencies, I do not know. The Prime Minister has promised to write to me with answers and I eagerly await his response.

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

Is it not something of a contradiction to appear to benefit nurseries over childminders when, in a Westminster Hall debate that I led on childcare, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), decried the loss of childminders and said how much the Government wanted to see the number of childminders return to previous levels?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think there are many contradictions in the Government proposals, and I am attempting to set them out here. I admire the ambition, but I fear the reality does not match it. I would be interested if the Minister were able to shed some light on some of these issues when he sums up the debate.

I also want to focus on wraparound care. We know the crisis in childcare does not stop when a child starts school; the juggle only increases. Parents need help with breakfast clubs and after-school clubs and the Government must ensure that not only are they available, but they have funding to support them. Although the Government have announced an ambition to provide 8 am to 6 pm care for all primary schools, there is not much in reality to meet that ambition. The money that has been provided is for start-up funding. It runs out after 2025 and parents are left to pay the bill with no support with those costs.

The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) suggested that Labour is keeping its election plans very tight, but this is one policy that we shout loud and clear and are very proud of, and are disappointed that the Tories have not stolen. With our wraparound care offer we will guarantee breakfast clubs for all primary school children, paid for by abolishing the non-dom status. I would be delighted, and I think the country would too, if the Government were to steal that policy.

I will conclude, because I am aware that some hon. Members have gone on very long in this debate. The Government finally appear to recognise that childcare is part of our vital infrastructure. I welcome that. It is fundamental to our economy, to tackling the gender pay gap and to giving all children the best start in life—something that is too often forgotten in these conversations. Childcare is about not only helping parents into work, but giving children the best start in life, ensuring that they have good-quality early years provision so they are ready to start school in line with their peers.

I fear that driving down quality and a race to the bottom on ratios will not achieve those ends. The real test of the policy is whether it will make childcare more affordable and more available and whether it will deliver economic growth. We have heard from parents and providers that at best, these measures are just not enough, and at worst, they might make the problems worse. I hope the Government listen to those concerns and keep the policies carefully under review, because the childcare system in our country is so broken that sticking plasters will no longer do.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). However, I do not support her party’s amendment.

I rise to speak about the Finance Bill by saying:

“there’s no stability, no certainty and no sense of a wider plan”.

That is not a comment on the revolving door of Chancellors that we have seen over the past year. They are the words of Paul Johnson of the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the Government’s latest changes to the tax regime in the Budget. He is right, and his words could be applied to the entire Finance Bill and this Government’s entire Budget. The Budget that preceded the Bill was the chance to unlock Britain’s promise and potential, but it failed. Therefore, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. There is a lot I could say, but I want to focus on two things: the failure to ensure that we have a tax system that works, and the impact that is having on public services and my constituents.

The business rates system is outdated and antiquated—the Government themselves have said that. Whether I talk to businesses on Chiswick High Road or in the heart of Brentford, they say that the business rates system is clobbering them, especially small, family-owned businesses that are fighting to survive. Those businesses, in addition, face rising loan costs—a Tory tax on their loans because they decided to shoot a torpedo into our economy. The economy was already struggling after 13 years of low growth and failure. We have all seen how those 13 years of failure have impacted on our public services. In our constituencies, youth centres have been closed, police numbers have been cut, and health, education and care services have been cut to the bone. We feel these cuts every day. They rip the heart out of so many communities and are the reason that we live in a country where nothing seems to work. Ambulances do not arrive, the police do not turn up, the potholes get bigger and new homes do not get built.

The 13 years of Conservative misrule have had a devasting impact on households across Hounslow, Isleworth, Brentford and Chiswick, yet the Budget and the Bill show where the Government’s real priorities lie: with the richest 1%. They were the only people to get a permanent tax cut in the Budget, through the changes to the lifetime pensions allowance. Labour called for a targeted measure, specifically to help NHS doctors, but the Government brought forward a blanket exemption for all high earners. To quote Alexander Pope,

“Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?”

That tax change brought a steamroller to our pensions system, when a far simpler and more targeted solution would have been the answer.

While the Government brought forward that tax break for the richest in society, the reality for families across my constituency is that living standards over the past two years have fallen by the largest levels since records began. Every week I hear from families living in small, cramped, temporary accommodation, parents working two or three jobs to keep a roof over their heads, and families worried about how they will pay the next gas bill, next month’s rent or mortgage payment, or how they will fix the washing machine. On top of that, the tax burden on families across west London continues to rise, with 3 million taxpayers caught up in the Government’s stealth tax rises.

Businesses and families in my constituency desperately want, and need, a Government who are on their side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has set out how a Labour Government would be different: a comprehensive review of business rates, a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants, a real industrial strategy that incentivises business investment, and a plan that would support our economy and give businesses and families the security they need. Heaven knows, after 13 years of Conservative rule, it is time for a change.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I find myself in the unusual and extremely uncomfortable position of agreeing with what the SNP spokesperson has just said. It is a condition that I hope will be quickly removed so that I can assert my usual sound Conservative principles.

There is an important point here, which I know the Minister is aware of, and which is not specific to this Bill. It seems a little odd, if we are looking at the next 10 or 20 years of our investment in infrastructure under the terms of the new Infrastructure Bank, to omit explicitly one of the foundational aspects of infrastructure from the Bill. I know my hon. Friend the Minister will have already reviewed that and he will say, I think correctly, that there is nothing in this Bill to stop support for investment in the circular economy infrastructure. However, I think it is important to have voices at this stage of the debate who can say that clearly, so that those who will now take forward the Infrastructure Bank know that, even if it is not in the Bill, the importance of creating the foundation of the circular economy is explicitly one of the things we anticipate and hope that the bank will do.

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

On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to say that we support this amendment. As other speakers have said, it improves on the text of the Bill, so we are happy to support it.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for the Opposition’s support. Indeed, the Bill has been characterised by support from across the House for this important institution, which, I remind the House, is already up and running. Today, I am pleased to say, we are putting it on a statutory footing.

I have heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), as well as by my good and hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who helped to pilot the Bill through its early stages. I will make the point that my hon. Friend expected me to make: the language in the Bill is inclusive rather than exclusive. His point is well made and understood.

On behalf of this House, we wish the institution well as we put it on a statutory footing. We in this House all look forward to hearing how it fulfils its objectives of levelling up and adding to the transition to net zero.

Lords amendment 3B agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope the hon. Gentleman reflects on the considerable advantages his constituents gain from being in the United Kingdom, because the Scottish Government receive 25% more funding per person than equivalent UK Government spending in other parts of the United Kingdom. On his challenge about the electric vehicle transition, introducing VAT relief for charging points in public places would impose additional pressures on the public finances, to which VAT makes a significant contribution. Indeed, it is expected to raise £157 billion in 2022-23, helping to fund the key public services we all care about. I welcome his support for the UK Government’s work to reach net zero targets, but I ask him, please, to work with the UK Government to help us to achieve this across the United Kingdom.

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

7. If he will make an assessment of the potential impact of the loan charge on the mental health of people affected by the charge.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

The loan charge was independently reviewed in 2019 by Lord Morse, who considered its impact on individuals affected. The Government recognise the impact and have accepted 19 of the review’s 20 recommendations. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs puts support for those affected at the core of its work in collecting the loan charge; that includes support from trained advisers in its extra support teams.

[Ruth Cadbury]

HMRC has acknowledged that there have now been 10 suicides connected to the loan charge. Can the Minister confirm whether loan schemes like those that the charge was set up to stop are still in operation? What are the Government doing to stop further such tragedies?

[Victoria Atkins]

On the point about the deaths that the hon. Lady understandably raises, we have made referrals to the Independent Office for Police Conduct in relation to those 10 events. The first referral was in March 2019. In the eight concluded investigations, no evidence has been found of misconduct by any HMRC officer, but we are very sensitive to the pressures that people are under, which is precisely why we have the extra support teams in place: teams of trained advisers who can, where appropriate, support taxpayers towards voluntary and community organisations that can help. Of course, people can also ask for help such as time to pay.

The Growth Plan

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

This is not a spending statement, but, of course, we take child poverty and the vulnerable extremely seriously. That was the basis of the energy intervention.

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

First, I thank the Chancellor for overturning his Business Secretary’s statement yesterday on onshore wind, by removing the ridiculous planning restrictions that are unique to that sector. Talk about a one-day Cabinet flip-flop! Secondly, I warn the Chancellor against removing normal planning rules in development and investment zones. When the Tory Government removed the need for planning rules on converting offices to housing, it led to houses like tiny rabbit hutches with no natural light and no basic services, often on industrial estates away from basic things such as footpaths, bus stops, schools and parks. Is this plan a dodgy developer’s charter too?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Not at all. The whole principle behind the investment zone is mutual consent. No investment zones will be imposed in any areas, and it will be up to local councils to work out which are appropriate sites for the investment zones. It is a co-operative exercise that will not be the developer’s charter the hon. Lady describes.

Economy Update

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for the ceramics industry in Stoke. I have been pleased to meet him and his constituents on multiple occasions. This is something that the Energy Secretary is looking at to ensure that our support for energy-intensive industries gets to the people who need it most, and I will happily mention this to him.

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

By doubling onshore wind capacity, £6 billion could be saved on household bills. It would also reduce our dependence on imported energy, contribute to our net zero targets and create thousands of jobs. Is the Chancellor still blocking the development of onshore wind?

[Rishi Sunak]

If the hon. Lady looks at the energy security strategy that the Prime Minister and the Energy Secretary published, she will see that there is a section specifically about more onshore wind, with the consent of communities, and making sure that they benefit from that development.

Financial Statement

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we already have a supplementary corporation tax on oil and gas companies. They pay 40% corporation tax—twice as much as the rate paid by all other companies—and it is right that they do. Going forward, as the Prime Minister’s strategy will outline, we want to see more investment in the North sea, more British energy security and more British jobs.

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

Private sector tenants on low incomes in my constituency face ever-rising rents, which in many cases are well above local housing allowance levels. These are people on universal credit, and over half are working families who are having to make the choice of whether to heat or eat. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the levels of local housing allowance so that my constituents do not have to take £200, £300 and £400 from their non-housing element to pay their rent?

Economic Update

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a thoughtful contribution, and I enjoyed our conversations. He was right to champion those who are on middle incomes. As a result of those conversations with him and others, we have designed a package that does exactly as I think he would like to have seen. By targeting support at those in council tax bands A to D, four out of five households—those up to middle income, those just about managing—will receive £150 extra support, and they will get that support in April.

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

A poll by Survation today reveals that 63% of the public support a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ profits. It is not like this Government to ignore the polls so may I suggest that, rather than misnaming, as he did in his statement, a renewable loan as a discount, why not go for the windfall tax and give that money to our hard-pressed constituents?

[Rishi Sunak]

We have had this debate. Conservatives believe in more investment in our domestic energy sector. We want to support British jobs and British energy security and we believe in doing the right, responsible thing. That is what a responsible Conservative Government do.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I have a lot of sympathy for the last comments by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for bringing into the debate local government, its finance and the challenges it has faced over the past 10 years. Having come from local government to this place, I know that he speaks wise words on this issue.

I too rise to oppose the Government’s Finance Bill and to support the Labour amendments, and I will cover three aspects. The first is the cost of living. Over the recent weeks and months, I have heard from so many constituents about the hardship they face in seeing their energy bills spike and the cost of the weekly shop rise, and from families seeing their rent climb and climb. This Bill does nothing to support the millions struggling with the cost of living.

We should not forget that, even before the Budget, the Chancellor hit my constituents and those across the country with a double whammy. To plug gaps in the NHS and social care, he hiked up national insurance, a regressive tax payable by everyone in work. Other ways could have been found to find the funding needed than this regressive tax hike.

Then the Chancellor decided to cut £1,000 from universal credit for all those claimants. This is essential income that supports over 30,000 families in the Borough of Hounslow alone. About 40% of those claiming universal credit are in work, something that the cloth-eared Conservatives tried to deny for years whenever we raised the issue of universal credit in this House. At last, they have got it, but the changes they have made to taper relief still trap so many in poorly paid and irregular work—work, sadly, that is far too common in my constituency and across the country. The new taper rate only actually benefits about a third of working people on universal credit. The cut in universal credit is absolutely devastating. It is the choice between heating and eating, or between a winter coat and a pair of shoes for a child.

I recently visited the Hounslow Community FoodBox, which supports about 13,000 people in our local area. Demand for its services has skyrocketed locally over the last 18 months, and this is mirrored across the country. The Trussell Trust, the national food bank trust, distributed over 2.5 million food parcels last year, but it saw an increase of 33% over the previous year. How do the Government respond to this food poverty crisis? They ramp up taxes on families, while cutting the very support that is allowing them to barely stay afloat.

I have also recently visited Look Ahead, which is a national charity on contract to Hounslow council. It supports young people in supported accommodation—young people who, by definition, do not have family support. Look Ahead offers vital support services to these young people, and it and the young people warned me that the universal credit cut would be devastating for them. It is worth remembering that universal credit claimants already face a number of hurdles, such as the benefit cap, the two-child limit—the bedroom tax—and the cruel five-week wait, which makes people wait for five weeks to receive crucial support.

Secondly, I will be voting against the Finance Bill because it does nothing to support those already impacted by the loan charge and still being forced to sign illegal disguised remuneration schemes if they want to do the work in which they are skilled. The all-party parliamentary group on the loan charge and taxpayer fairness published a damning report earlier this year on the wild west supply chain of unregulated umbrella companies and rogue recruitment agencies that conspire to lure workers into tax avoidance schemes, often entirely unwittingly, yet the Government have so far done nothing but publish some guidance.

When will the Treasury take some ownership of the bullying and aggressive activities of HMRC in chasing down those who have signed these disguised remuneration schemes? These schemes are still being openly sold and have been targeted at many lower-paid workers, including, shamefully, NHS staff being recruited to help with the nation’s response to the pandemic. Too many ordinary workers advised to use these schemes have been hammered to the point of suicide, while promoters with known links to the Conservative party have not yet been asked to pay a penny. This is an all-too-common theme with this Government, who continue to ignore the reality and the evidence.

The reality is that if HMRC enforces the loan charge on the thousands of people who now face it, there will be many more bankruptcies, more mental anguish and potentially more suicides, as well as more people losing their homes and more unable to continue to work. The fact is that there is considerable new evidence—evidence not known at the time of the last review—showing that the conclusion of the Morse review was flawed. It seems clear that this important evidence was not shared with Sir Amyas, now Lord Morse. Indeed he was not given an accurate or complete picture by HMRC and the Treasury, and having in the past spoken to Treasury Ministers I sometimes wonder how much control the Treasury has over HMRC or whether it has become a rogue agency.

The clause in the Finance Bill mentioned by the Treasury Minister does nothing to stop the ongoing mis-selling. To stamp that out legislation on umbrella companies is needed. Fining the promoters and freezing their assets is all well and good, but it is much easier to legislate to make agencies responsible, as the APPG proposed, and that would stop the schemes overnight. Without legislation to clean up the supply chain there will be ongoing skimming of contractors’ pay, misappropriation of holiday pay, and backhanders between agencies and umbrella companies. Action is needed to actually stop the schemes rather than pursue the scam after it has happened.

We know that HMRC has not been able to find legal precedent for the loan charge and that it itself used contractors on loan schemes while claiming at the same time that it was clear that that was wrong. We now know that all along it knew that many people would not be able to pay while claiming they could and would do so. Common sense, if not compassion, dictates that effective legislation and a fresh and genuinely independent review is needed to come up with a resolution to the loan charge issue, avoiding devastating consequences for thousands of families and going after the right people for a change. We have new Treasury Ministers now and I hope they will approach the issues of the loan charge and disguised renumeration with an open mind and agree to carry out this much-needed review, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) has urged.

Finally, I want to address the air passenger duty changes. This Government repeatedly say one thing and do another on climate change. If I wanted to buy tickets to go to Glasgow in three weeks I would pay £65 to fly with easyJet from London, yet a train ticket to Glasgow on the same day would cost me £69, and that is before the cut in APD on domestic flights is introduced. The fact that it is still cheaper to fly than to travel by train is a key reason why we are not seeing the reduction in carbon emissions we so desperately need. One way to reduce the number of short-haul flights is to improve train travel, but whether in the choice of routes, the length of journey, the cost of tickets or the experience on board other European countries are miles ahead of the UK and have been for many years. It is no surprise that short-haul domestic flights contribute so heavily to our carbon emissions when this Government have absolutely failed to fix rail travel. And this week we hear they are going to cut the proposed rail services to Leeds and Manchester. This Government are not only failing communities across the country but are failing our climate. The Government should impose the polluter pays principle to their transport policies and the fiscal policies that support them.

In conclusion, I will oppose the Bill because it punishes low-income households but does nothing to relieve the nightmare for current and future loan charge victims and it treats the climate emergency as an afterthought.