HMRC Office Closures

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will not. I have listened to Mr Speaker and I take his words very seriously. I will make progress.

I say to the hon. Member for Livingston that the changes that HMRC is talking about, such as trying to find efficiencies through centralisation, are not unique to HMRC or the UK Government. The Scottish Government have also brought forward proposals to rationalise their estates. They brought forward proposals to close up to seven of Police Scotland’s 10 control rooms, and we hear of plans to close regional fire stations, following the consolidation of local fire authorities into one national body. There have been cuts to the number of court buildings across Scotland, and the number of incorporated colleges was cut by almost half. I am sure that the Scottish Government had good reasons for doing that, but so do we, and it is right that we take such steps.

In conclusion, if we want HMRC to do its job effectively, we must ensure that it is fit for the challenge. We must be willing to modernise, find efficiencies, target resources, and make long-term strategic decisions. That is precisely what HMRC is doing by transforming itself into a smaller, more highly-skilled organisation, with modern, digital services, and a data-driven compliance operation that will deliver more for the taxpayer at lower cost. What would the opponents of change prefer? Do they want to rely on a structure that in many respects dates from before the internet era, or to pump in more money without examining where it is going? It is surely right that HMRC carries out efficiencies, targets its resources, and concentrates on delivering for the British taxpayer. That is the policy it has embarked on, and it is already increasing revenue yield and closing the tax gap. That is the policy that the changes will help achieve, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, this is about moving into more efficient and more effective regional centres in which, in those places, jobs will be created. The great majority of people are within travel time of those centres and will be able to move.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will the Exchequer Secretary give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I will not for the moment. I want to see how things go and to try to cover as many as possible of the points that have been raised during the debate.

The consolidation has been ongoing since the formation of HMRC in 2005, when it had more than 570 offices. Most recently, in 2014, it announced the closure of 135 older-style walk-in centres, to which vulnerable customers had to make the effort to travel. HMRC replaced them with a dedicated “needs extra support” service, whereby officials go to meet the customers in their own home or at a convenient location. I have met and spoken to HMRC staff who have made the change from the old service model to the new one, and have heard about how much more effective it is in supporting those who need most help.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has raised a very important point. When the rules were drawn up in 1837, equality was not a priority for our society. Today, thankfully, it is, so those are just the kind of changes that we are considering.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us how much it would cost to bring marriage certificates into the 21st century? If he cannot, why are his colleagues in the Home Office team saying that it would be too expensive? What price do he and the Government place on equality?

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Lady had been listening carefully, she would have already heard the answer to that question; I talked about civil partnerships earlier. We have rightly said that when people are converting civil partnerships into marriage, having entered into those partnerships before same-sex marriage was available, we will waive the fee. I think that that demonstrates the Government’s priorities.

The Economy and Living Standards

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views, but the main message of my speech so far has been a warning against complacency, and I suggest that he heeds that warning. [Interruption.] As should the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham).

As I said, the challenge that this Queen’s Speech should have risen to, but did not, is how we can ensure that we generate a secure recovery that delivers more good jobs for our country. The huge disappointment was that that was not the subject of this Queen’s Speech. We know that there is no quick fix and that we have to earn our way to rising prosperity. We cannot turn our face against change, Europe and the world, but nor can we succeed with a race to the bottom whereby British companies simply try to compete on cost and the Government see their role as simply removing regulation, undermining job security and hoping it will work. That will not generate the low and middle-income jobs that we need in the future. Our view is that we can succeed only through a race to the top, by backing innovation and investing in skills, making our economy more competitive and dynamic and earning our way to higher living standards for all.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

In my constituency, long-term unemployment has increased by almost 600% in the past two years and 380 people are desperately in need of some sight of the so-called recovery. What was in the Queen’s Speech that will give them any hope?

[Ed Balls]

I am afraid that the Queen’s Speech missed out the key elements of a long-term economic plan that would deliver rising prosperity for all. That is the problem. We know that there is a problem with housing—demand has run ahead of supply—so where was the action in the Queen’s Speech to deliver new towns, Treasury guarantees, planning reform, affordable homes, reform of Help to Buy and a new help to build scheme, which would deliver what we need? We have lower levels of house building than at any time since the 1920s, and the Chancellor is tinkering. It is about time that he showed some leadership on housing; otherwise, the aspirational majority will not get on the housing ladder. The danger is that interest rates will rise much earlier in the recovery than they should, choking off the living standards of people across our country.

The same point applies more widely to the Queen’s Speech. On skills, where was the action to deliver a gold standard for vocational qualifications? Where was the tax on bank bonuses to ensure that every young person who is out of work for a year is guaranteed a job? Where was the action to ensure that we incentivise a non-statutory living wage, improve the minimum wage and tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts?

Although we welcome the extra investment in child care, that will not happen until the next Parliament. It will fail to help too many families who are struggling with the costs of child care, which have gone up so much. Why will the Chancellor not increase free child care for the under-fives from 15 hours to 25 hours a week for working parents? It is a Labour policy, but it is a good policy and should be in any sensible long-term economic plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The last Queen’s Speech before the general election should have shown that the Government were listening to what ordinary people want. Instead, we had a speech that seemed to be geared more towards allowing Government Members plenty of time to go off campaigning for their own jobs than it was to helping 380 of my constituents who are long-term unemployed, which is an increase of almost 600% in the past two years. It was a speech that talked about charges for plastic carrier bags, but not about helping those people who are struggling to afford the food to put in them.

The lack of action by this Government to tackle inequality was particularly notable. This is a Government who have helped the rich get richer while allowing the incomes of ordinary working people to fall by £1,600 a year. The Office for National Statistics recently published research showing that the wealthiest 10% of households owned 44% of the country’s total wealth, while the least wealthy 50% owned just 9% between them. That research also showed that the north-east has the lowest average household wealth—not even half as much as the south-east. Such deep inequality has been shown time and again to be a drag on the economy. One of the most effective ways to tackle that is by rebalancing our economy to create more jobs and wealth in our regions, particularly in the north-east.

Do not get me wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker, the north-east does not need any special treatment or sympathy; that is not what I am after. It is full of people who are highly motivated to work, who have world-leading skills and new and exciting ideas. It has bags of potential, particularly in low-carbon technology and other skilled manufacturing. In fact, only last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary came to the fabulous new Rolls Royce factory in my constituency to see that for themselves. I am not sure whether they had time to go for a pint together afterwards, but I would have been more than happy to recommend one of Washington’s excellent pubs.

What the north-east needs is a fair crack of the whip. So far under this Government regional development funding has been skewed towards the already prosperous London and the south-east and, sadly, nothing in this Queen’s Speech changes that.

Another way to make our society more equal and more prosperous is by harnessing the potential of women, which means addressing the unaffordability and unavailability of child care. Instead of taking action in this Parliament to address their record of spiralling costs, plummeting availability and cuts to support through tax credits, all the Government could muster in their final Queen’s Speech was the promise of something to come in a year’s time. Parents everywhere will therefore welcome the calls for more free child care for working parents outlined in the Opposition amendment. All I can say is thank goodness this will be the last Queen’s Speech from this Government.

Consumer Rights Bill

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I have resolve, but I can seldom resist giving way to my right hon. Friend. Animal welfare is a big issue for lots of people, but it is not the only one. Many other faith groups are concerned about the blessing given to the meat before sale, and his proposal would not address their particular concerns. My new clause has been drafted with all such people in mind, because the issue is bigger than one only of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an important element, but not the only element. I will come on to that later.

I want to start, however, with new clause 12, which relates to ticketing. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that my new clause had nothing to do with her new clauses, but nothing could be further from the truth—it very much has. We know what her long-term agenda is, because she let it slip in an intervention: ultimately, she wants to see the end of ticket touting and the secondary sale of tickets. I think that that would be a massive retrograde step. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve, looked into the matter in the previous Parliament and found that such activities were a legitimate area of business. The Office of Fair Trading, as well as the Committee, found that it works in the consumer’s best interest.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will stick to my resolve. The hon. Lady and I have locked horns on the issue over years. If anyone wants to look at our previous debates, they can go back to Hansard and see them all rehearsed there. I am sure that she will get the opportunity to have her say in a bit.

Fifty per cent. of tickets on viagogo are sold at a loss, so the idea that all people touting tickets are selling them at huge profits is simply not true; most are sold at a loss. The principle is this: if I buy a ticket, as far as I am concerned it belongs to me. I should be able to do with that ticket what I choose to do, including selling it on to someone else, as I can with any other commodity. Other products have limited editions, which are popular, such as designer handbags or Buzz Lightyear toys from years back, and people go in, buy the lot for a small amount and sell them on at an inflated price on eBay a few hours later. If the Labour party wants to ban that happening with tickets, presumably it will say that that kind of behaviour should be banned as well. That is complete nonsense.

Event organisers do not lose out at all, because all the tickets are sold at the price that they wanted to get for them—all the income that they wanted is delivered. The idea that real fans will be deprived of going to an event is complete nonsense. If someone is prepared to pay £1,500 for a ticket, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are a real fan. Not many people are prepared to pay £1,500 for a ticket for something that they do not really care about going to. It actually guarantees that real fans go.

--- Later in debate ---

I will bring my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say. For your benefit, Mr Speaker—you were not here at the start—I repeat that if the chance arises I would very much like to press new clause 13, on labelling halal and kosher meat, to a vote, because I think that it is a matter of great importance to many people in the country.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am delighted to be able to speak on new clauses 18 to 21, which stand in my name and those of the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and other hon. Friends. I add my support to new clauses 8, 16 and 17, which were tabled by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and ably argued for by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) this afternoon and in Committee.

New clause 18 follows directly from the conclusions and recommendations of the recent excellent report by the all-party group on ticket abuse. I want to put on the record my thanks to colleagues across the House and all the outside experts who contributed to that excellent report. We found that the existence of a secondary market for event tickets is justified by the need of genuine consumers to pass on tickets that they can no longer use. To some extent, that is because event holders are not very good at facilitating refunds or exchange mechanisms, even though they sell tickets many months in advance of the event.

On that point, I will speak briefly to new clause 12. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—he is not listening now—would not allow any interventions, because I wanted to correct for the record some of the errors in what he said. He is right that we have regularly locked horns on the issue, but that does not mean I will sit back and not seek to correct him when I think he is wrong. First, the Opposition are seeking not to ban the resale of tickets, but to regulate and reform the market in the interests of consumers through these very sensible cross-party proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow did not “allude”—I think that was the word he used—to trying to ban the resale of tickets.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Shipley was incorrect to claim that no one gives refunds at the moment. The Rugby Football Union guarantees full refunds for high-demand matches—I am sure that the world cup would qualify—up to an hour before kick-off. It also provides legitimate resale platforms. This ensures that any investment goes back into the sport of rugby. The England and Wales Cricket Board has established ticket exchanges at each venue and centrally so that a supporter who can no longer attend a match or has a spare can legitimately re-sell their ticket. Those are just two examples among many more that are out there.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clauses 16 and 18 are particularly powerful, because they would enable us to identify the power sellers—the people who buy tickets on an almost industrial scale, and by doing so corner the market, rip off consumers and push up prices? Unless we do so, it is more likely that £250 tickets for the rugby world cup can be sold for over £1,000, as is happening at the moment. That has to be a bad thing, and we must stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his work in the all-party group in producing the report that has led and informed us in tabling the new clauses.

Our report recommended that the live event industry should do more to provide refunds. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley could be ruinous for the live event industry while removing all the risk for the industrial touts of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke. Most touts will aim to sell their tickets on the internet about four days in advance, so under the hon. Gentleman’s plans, any they do not manage to sell for a profit they could simply give back to the promoter for a full refund the day before, by which time the promoter will be unlikely to be able to sell them all on again. I fear that rather than helping ordinary consumers, as the hon. Gentleman has no doubt argued, that would mean more tickets being acquired by ticket touts who no longer face the uncertainty of whether they will be able to shift them, thereby manipulating the supply even more than they already do. A better balance would be to give refunds up to a reasonable point before the event, with facilitated resale after that if the event has sold out—as we set out in our report, which I hope the industry will take on board.

While accepting that there is a role for a legitimate secondary ticket market, the all-party group found considerable problems with how this market, which is estimated to be worth about £1 billion a year, works at present. In particular, we found that it does not adhere to the same principles of transparency and consumer protection that other markets are held to. To address these shortcomings, we have put together some modest proposals which, far from driving ticket resale underground, as some of those involved in it have claimed, would increase consumer confidence in the secondary market and therefore be very good for business.

Our first two new clauses address the lack of transparency. New clause 18 is about who is selling the ticket. It would place a duty on secondary ticketing platforms to provide basic identifying information about the individual or business offering a particular ticket or set of tickets for sale. It would allow consumers to say how prolific and reliable a particular seller is—in other words, whether they are a tout or a fellow fan and, if they are a tout, whether the tickets they have sold in the past have been as advertised. That would make the secondary ticketing platforms a lot more like the other internet marketplaces that many of use regularly and with confidence, such as eBay, Amazon and Play.com.

Importantly, the new clause would also require secondary ticketing platforms to be transparent in cases where the seller is also the event holder. The practice of event organisers secretly allocating whole blocks of tickets directly to the secondary market has been on the rise, due to the failure of successive Governments to intervene in the market on behalf of consumers or the creative sector. It was exposed in the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme, “The Great Ticket Scandal”, broadcast in 2012. I cannot blame those who do this. They cannot stop the touts, who have not contributed in any way to the event—unlike the artist, the venue, the agent, the promoter, and so on—from making huge profits off the back of their hard work, so why not try to make some of that money for themselves, or, as I like to see it, have a piece of the poacher’s pie? That is their decision, but they should have to be transparent about it. Hiding behind the secondary market and allowing fans to believe that the ticket they are buying has been sold at face value before and they are buying from a third party is simply dishonest.

There is also a dishonest practice whereby a secondary ticketing platform or its employees or shareholders buy and sell tickets themselves, as the “Dispatches” programme also exposed. Employees of the platforms featured were shown with catalogues of credit cards, trying to buy as many tickets as possible to gigs. A leaked operations manual sent to me shortly after “Dispatches” aired showed that that was also a key part of the viagogo business model. The manual showed, among other things, that a company called Andro Capital, which was linked to viagogo’s then chief executive, Eric Baker, was also its most favoured power seller. Interestingly, a box at the start of the chapter explaining such dealing to employees stressed:

“Not only do we have private and power sellers, we also sell tickets on the website. PLEASE NOTE THAT NEITHER SELLERS NOR BUYERS SHOULD KNOW THAT WE ARE THE SELLER OF CERTAIN TICKETS. NOR SHOULD ANY OF THE INFORMATION BELOW BE DIVULGED TO OUR POWER SELLERS!”

Viagogo has since said that it has abandoned that practice, and Christoph Homann of GetMeIn! also assured the all-party group in his evidence that it does not itself buy tickets, either. In that case, they will not be affected by the new duty and have no reason to oppose it. Even if they or other secondary ticketing platforms still engage in such dealing, I can see no good reason why the law should permit them to keep that information secret from their consumers when it may make a material difference to a buying decision. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider adopting the measure.

I have mentioned the Channel 4 “Dispatches” investigation into the problems and I am also pleased to inform the House that the BBC’s “Watchdog” is also very keen on highlighting them. Indeed, they will feature in its shows on 21 and 28 May, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be glued to their TVs, watching them. “You and Yours” on Radio 4 also runs regular features on the issue, as do numerous national newspapers, including The Mirror, the Daily Mail and The Times, as well as trade magazines, such as the excellent Audience.

New clause 19 relates to the transparency of the product itself—that is, the ticket. Knowing the characteristics of a ticket would in many cases make a material difference to a buying decision, particularly in the case of seated events, in which a person’s position in the venue can make a significant difference to their enjoyment of the performance or the experience. Providing that information —or, indeed, the ticket number when there is general admission to the event—would also give consumers the confidence that the individual or company selling the ticket actually has tickets in hand and is not just speculating that they will be able to provide them at a later date. When a consumer wants to buy a number of tickets, the information will help them to ensure that they get seats together or at least close by.

The secondary platforms themselves were asked about that as part of the all-party group’s inquiry. StubHub said in its evidence that it requires seat information to be provided, but an investigation of its website shows that such information appears to be hit and miss. On the whole, it tended to be single tickets, which were probably being sold by ordinary fans, that had full information, while listings of two, four, six or more tickets, which were probably being sold by a professional, did not.

One of the other key pieces of information of which a consumer should be aware is a ticket’s original face value, which in many cases is another indicator of the quality of the product. In their evidence to the inquiry, representatives from the Rugby Football Union said that the cheapest tickets at Twickenham—those they keep cheap to try to get families to come along and to encourage grass-roots participation—often end up being resold at higher prices than some of their premium tickets, some of which may still be available.

Many consumers who are less conscious of how these secondary markets work think that because they are paying more for a ticket, they will get a premium service or seat. Many others do not even know that the website they are using is a secondary market rather than the primary or official source, given that such sites pay significant sums to show up first in Google rankings. Making sure that consumers are made aware of the original price of the ticket they are buying at the earliest opportunity, not just on the last screen—if at all—therefore gives them another piece of the information that they need to make an informed choice about whether to enter into such a purchase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I know that my hon. Friend has considerable concerns about FOBTs, not just in his constituency but around the country. We will see strengthened play protections that will help to deal with the risks of FOBTs, wider self-exclusion and more intervention. I am happy to have a chat with him about the issue of impact assessments that he has raised.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to prevent tickets for the 2015 rugby world cup being purchased by organised syndicates of touts.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the members of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse for the important work they have done on this issue. However, while I am aware of the concerns of the rugby world cup organisers, there is no evidence to suggest that introducing legislation to prohibit ticket touting is needed to deliver a successful event this year.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I know that the Secretary of State has his own opinions on this issue, but he will no doubt have heard this question being answered in the same way month after month. The Government seem to think that there will not be a problem, but if they bothered to look online, they would see that there already is a problem. Thousands of tickets for the rugby world cup are already for sale online at many times face value. If the Secretary of State will not accept the Opposition Front Bench’s offer of co-operation in banning the unauthorised resale of tickets, will he at least accept the recommendation of the all-party group on ticket abuse that calls for greater transparency and adequate protection for consumers?

[Sajid Javid]

I know that the hon. Lady is very passionate about this issue and I commend her for her leadership, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), of the APPG on ticket abuse. She will know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee looked at this issue in 2008, as did the previous Government in 2009. I agree with their broad conclusion that there is no need for further legislative action. However, I would be more than happy to sit down with the hon. Lady and discuss her concerns further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing work she does to promote Derbyshire in this House, She has so effectively led the Derbyshire embassy, which I was delighted to attend. The Belper arts festival is putting together a fantastic and enticing programme. I am also pleased to see that the Arts Council is supporting the Red Earth theatre in Belper, the Buxton arts festival and the Wirksworth festival in Derbyshire.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

T7. I am sorry that the sports Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and indeed the Secretary of State were not able to attend the all-party group on basketball event yesterday on Speaker’s Green, where Opposition Members were able to out-dunk Government Members by 56 to 33. The Minister will, however, be aware of the deep concern across the House about the future of our national basketball teams after UK Sport withdraw all their elite-level funding. What consideration has she given to providing elite-level development funding for accessible team sports such as basketball which fall foul of the no-compromise model of UK sport?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I am sorry that I could not attend the event—I wanted to but I had a clash. I believe a Conservative won the event, and that is always welcome. As she well knows, sports governing bodies, including that for basketball, have received large amounts of public money—taxpayers’ money. It is certainly no gravy train and if sports cannot deliver increasing participation, it is absolutely right that the money should be diverted to those that can do so. I do not believe that doors are ever closed for ever and I would be happy to have a chat with her about the proposal she makes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

The Government are in the process of appointing a business champion for older workers, and an announcement will be made in the next couple of months. That person will have a responsibility to ensure that older workers—in particular women, as the proposal came out of the recommendations of the Women’s Business Council—are taken more seriously by employers and have their skills and experience recognised. This may well be an issue that the champion would like to take up.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the older workers business champion, but that was promised over a year ago following a recommendation from the Women’s Business Council. Why have we had to wait for more than a year? The Minister said that the Government are looking at appointing such a champion, but is the year’s delay a result of older women not being a priority?

[Jenny Willott]

The Women’s Business Council made a wide range of important recommendations on how women interact in the economy from school age to leaving the work force, and the Government have been working carefully to ensure that we implement as many of them as possible. That element is now in track. The older workers business champion will be appointed shortly, and I hope that we will then see the next part of the process taken forward.

amendment of the law

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Yet again, this Budget benefits those on the Treasury Bench and their millionaire donors far more than the millions of ordinary people who have borne the brunt of this Government’s decisions so far. This Budget showed that although Ministers might try, they will never understand ordinary people.

The Chancellor said a lot about beer duty—it was as if he had given people a free pint. As we heard earlier, however, the trouble with saving a penny a pint is that someone has to drink around 300 pints before they get a free one—hardly a healthy message. He also said a lot about cutting tax on bingo. What he did not say is that that will benefit bingo operators, not bingo players. The Chancellor made big play of allowing people to save up to £15,000 a year tax free. He might be able to squirrel away that kind of money, but at the moment many of my constituents would consider themselves very lucky even to earn £15,000 a year, and even luckier to take home that amount, never mind being able to save £15,000 in their lifetime, let alone in a year. Should not a responsible Chancellor who wanted to build a broad-based recovery and improve living standards concentrate more on helping those people rather than wealthy savers? If he wanted to know what ordinary people wanted from the Budget, he should have read the excellent Sunderland Echo, as I do every day. A reporter went out and about in Sunderland last week to ask people exactly that question.

Thomas and Elizabeth Dunn wanted the Chancellor to do something to tackle the cost of living crisis, which is becoming difficult for them. They are not alone. Working people are on average £1,600 a year worse off in their pay packets under this Government; that is even more the case if we add in the 24 tax rises that the Government have snuck in, causing the cost of living crisis that is devastating people across the country. How many mentions of the cost of living were in the Red Book, and how many new policies were there to ease it? Absolutely none.

The Sunderland Echo reporter also spoke to new parents Chris and Lisa Mann. Lisa wants to return to her job as a community nurse after having her son, Harry, who is now eight months old, but the cost of child care is prohibitive. Chris said:

“We both want to work but the cost of child care is a problem, it really is. We have to rely on Lisa’s mum a lot.”

Parents across the country are similarly prevented from working because of the triple whammy that the Government have hit parents with. Costs are up 30% since the election, there are thousands fewer child care providers, and tax credits have been cut. Did the Budget mean that Lisa will be able to return to work at the end of her maternity leave, thanks to increased support for child care? No, it did not. Yes, there will be some support, but in 18 months’ time, not now. What about now? The fact remains that over this Parliament, the Government have cut, not increased, support for parents in accessing child care. Parents will remember that, and they will see Labour’s offer of 25 hours a week of child care free at the point of use as the biggest help to their family budgets.

Of course, the No. 1 concern in my constituency is finding decent jobs. On the face of it, there was some good news for my constituency in last week’s employment figures, but when we dig down we see that very long-term unemployment for adults is rocketing. In my constituency, there was a 76% increase in just one year, and 12 of the 20 constituencies with the biggest increases on that measure are in the north-east. Twelve out of 20 constituencies are in one small region, yet there is only one in the whole of the south—more evidence of the widening north-south divide under this Government. Those people are clearly being left behind by this Government, and by a Work programme that is worse than doing nothing. They need a way back into employment—something to give them their confidence back and to sharpen their soft skills. What did we see from the Chancellor to help those people? Absolutely nothing. Only a Labour Government would guarantee those people a job for six months, with training and intensive support to find employment afterwards.

In summary, the Chancellor should not believe his own hype or a few good headlines from his friends in the press—people who probably benefit from this Budget. Come the election, real people will be asking themselves, “Am I better off thanks to this lot?” We know who will be able to answer yes: the Chancellor, those on the Government Front Bench, the Prime Minister and all the millionaires the Government have prioritised support for. However, millions of people on low and middle incomes—those who have been hit hardest by the Government’s cost of living crisis—will answer no, and it is they who will show this lousy Government the door in 15 months’ time.

Consumer Rights Bill

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that we can clarify what should be included in prominent pricing and at what point in the sale that information should be provided. Perhaps that reflects the Government’s small vision for consumer rights, because we could put that basic principle into the Bill and it would help to deal with a range of issues. The Government have chosen not to do that, and we are going to challenge them about it.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points, especially about the secondary ticketing market. Does she agree that there is now demonstrable market failure, which is one of the measures that the Government always said they would need before they would regulate the market? Does she think that the time has now come when we need to legislate to do something about that parasitic economy?

[Stella Creasy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue and seen at first hand the frustration of fans denied the opportunity to go to events. There are ways we can address that market, and principles about how sales are made and who has the opportunity to sell a product. We could put those clear and simple proposals into legislation and they would benefit not just the secondary ticketing market, but also some of the other markets under discussion. The Opposition have committed to testing the Government in Committee about why they feel they cannot provide that protection for people, and I hope the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) will reflect on that and agree with us. As he said, it is difficult to disagree with these issues, but we now need to act. It is no good wringing our hands when we could prevent some of those problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Colleagues who remember my speech during the debate on the Queen’s Speech at the start of this Session will know that I see this Consumer Rights Bill as an opportunity to address the serious failings in the secondary ticketing market. I want to explore that opportunity in my speech today. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) agree with my views on this in her excellent speech, and I am pleased that she is drafting amendments to the Bill accordingly. I know that a growing number of Government Members also agree with me.

Many colleagues will know that I have campaigned on this issue for a long time. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the subject only last week. I see that one of my sparring partners, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—who is often on the opposite side to me on this issue—is in the Chamber today. That debate was intended as a curtain-raiser for an inquiry that is being undertaken by the newly-formed all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which I am pleased to co-chair with the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). He is also a long-term campaigner on this issue. That inquiry is intended to inform the thinking on amendments to the Bill that could be tabled in order to enhance the rights of consumers in a market that has had precious little scrutiny thus far, despite being worth around £1 billion a year.

I hope that the Government’s timetable for the Bill will allow us to conclude our evidence-gathering in time to present that evidence to Ministers for Report stage, although, for my money, there is plenty already out there that makes the case for intervention, some of which I will skim over in my speech today. If Ministers want a more detailed case, I would be happy to send them the Official Report of the debates on my Private Member’s Bill in 2011 and of last Tuesday’s Westminster Hall debate.

Like all markets, the secondary ticketing market serves a purpose. It meets a need, and that need is for people who have bought tickets for an event they can no longer attend to sell on those tickets, and for people who decide late that they want to go to an event to purchase tickets nearer the time. However, the refusal of successive Governments to get involved in this issue means that the market has moved far beyond simply performing that role, and it is now fundamentally failing consumers.

If anyone needs proof that these secondary ticketing websites are not about legitimate fans selling tickets they cannot use, they need only watch what happens on the day that tickets for a major sporting event, concert, or stage show go on sale. Within minutes—sometimes even seconds—an event or series of events for which there are thousands of tickets completely sells out on the official market, only for thousands of tickets to appear instantaneously on the secondary market at a significant mark-up. Nobody buys a ticket at 9 o’clock in the morning, only to realise at 9.5 am that they cannot go to the event. Those are tickets that are harvested in vast quantities, by fair means or foul—the foul means involve the misuse of computers or back-channel dealing—and then either dumped or drip-fed on to the secondary market for profit by industrial touts.

Just last week, the BBC highlighted the resale of state-subsidised theatre tickets at the Donmar Warehouse and the National Theatre for up to 10 times their face value. Those tickets are rightly subsidised to increase access to the arts, but those arrangements are being exploited by faceless individuals who are pricing out the very people the tickets are supposed to be for. The same happens with art tickets—the Da Vinci exhibition in 2012 and the David Bowie exhibition last year are prime examples. This applies to more commercial enterprises as well. The last big example of that was tickets for the Monty Python reunion being snapped up and resold at eye-watering mark-ups within minutes.

I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is a fan of the Arctic Monkeys—it is not exactly ballroom dancing music—but that band has done more than most to try to stop touts cashing in on its hard work. Even it cannot stop the practice, however, despite trying to do so and despite doing nothing to encourage it, as some bands and promoters are accused of doing. If the Secretary of State wanted to see the Arctic Monkeys at Finsbury park in May, the minimum he would have to pay for a ticket on the secondary market would be double its face value. On one of the websites, I counted seven pages of listings, with some entries allowing up to 10 tickets per applicant.

This is not about random gig-goers; this is large-scale manipulation of a market, and an exploitation of copyright and intellectual property by individuals who put nothing into the industry that they are capitalising on. It is a parasitic market that is now out of control. In many cases, the practice severely undermines the strategic objectives that are factored into ticket pricing decisions, such as the need for artists or sports to develop long-standing relationships with fans or, as in the case of National Theatre and exhibition tickets, access to the arts.

More importantly for me, this practice is obviously bad for consumers. Many never get a chance to buy a ticket at face value, and if they can bear the cost of going to the secondary market, they do not know who they are buying from or whether the ticket will be genuine or still valid, as event holders have the right to cancel tickets they identify as having been resold. They cannot even be sure whether the ticket was ever available on the primary market at the face value printed on it, as more and more event-holders try to cash in on the secondary market by directly allocating tickets to it, passing themselves off as fans selling to fans so as not to damage their reputation with fans.

The report from Operation Podium, the Metropolitan police unit set up to monitor crime related to the Olympic games, shows that the complete and intentional lack of transparency in the market creates a front for fraud and large-scale money-laundering. The market is therefore attractive to organised criminal networks, which are of course more likely to use illegal means such as botnets to harvest genuine tickets, making it even harder for consumers to buy tickets at face value. The report, “Ticket Crime: Problem Profile”, clearly states:

“The lack of legislation outlawing the unauthorised resale of tickets and the absence of regulation of the primary and secondary ticket market encourages unscrupulous practices, a lack of transparency and fraud.”

Those are not my words but those of the Metropolitan police report.

I hope that the Government will have heard the excellent exposé that Radio 4’s “You and Yours” produced in conjunction with ticketing expert Reg Walker last summer, which uncovered a large-scale fraud perpetrated through the main secondary websites by their so-called power sellers, whose privileged status allowed them to do that. This was able to happen precisely because of the opaque nature of the market and the way in which those websites operate.

What better way of addressing this kind of problem than through the Consumer Rights Bill? At the very least, the Government need to ensure that there is a right to transparency. After all, there are very few markets in which we think that it is fine not to have at least some basic knowledge about who we are buying from. To ensure that consumers have the information they need to make an informed choice, these websites must ensure three things. First, they must ensure that all ticket listings display the face value, and seat number where appropriate, of the tickets being purchased. That would prove that it was a real ticket that was already in existence.

Secondly, websites selling tickets that they have acquired themselves, or that have been directly allocated to them by an event-holder, must disclose that clearly to buyers, instead of passing the tickets off as being sold by fellow fans. Thirdly, individuals selling tickets via the websites must be able to provide proof that they actually own the ticket. When we buy from eBay or Amazon, we are at least able to see a profile of the individual or company we are buying from. We can see what they have sold in the past, and what other consumers are saying about them. The secondary ticket market could learn a lot from that approach.

Those measures would cover the right to information, but there must also be a right to recourse when the market lets consumers down. As I demonstrated earlier, the way in which the market works at the moment is allowing fraud to be perpetrated under the anonymity that the secondary websites offer to sellers. When someone turns up at a venue and finds that they cannot get in because they have been sold a fraudulent or invalidated ticket—or a ticket that has rightly been cancelled because it has been resold without permission, in contravention of its terms and conditions—it is not just the price of the ticket that that person loses.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has mentioned the word “fraud” twice now. If a fraud has been committed, does she not agree that a crime will have been committed and is therefore actionable by the police as a crime?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I do agree, but people who report fraud or illegal activities to Action Fraud are finding that the offence is not being taken forward. Perhaps it is because it is seen as a minor fraud or a minor criminal offence. The Metropolitan Police have recommended that we pass legislation to ensure that we take forward such offences as criminal activity. We need to put such a measure in the Bill so that we can follow their recommendations.

A new report by UK Music on music tourism and its value in our economy calls on the Government to tackle the problems of the secondary market. It says that people who travel from one country to another or from one end of the country to another for the sole purpose of going to a gig or seeing a show incur substantial costs, such as those for travel, airfares, accommodation and subsistence. Consumers who are sold fake or invalid tickets should not expect to have just the cost of the ticket refunded promptly. That guarantee, which they actually pay for as part of the service charge that is slapped on the tickets when they buy from these sites, is not always honoured judging by some of the stories that people have sent me over the years. Consumers should also have the right to be able to reclaim all of the associated costs they have incurred where they can be proven with receipts.

Such measures would not prevent the secondary market from functioning, but it would ensure that it is focused on the rights of consumers, rather than on the rights of a handful of industrial touts who want to make unlimited amounts of money off the hard work and investment of others. Personally I would like to go even further, and allow rights holders properly to protect their tickets from being resold without authorisation. I hope that a future Government would look more favourably on such a measure than the current Government do.

It is ludicrous that the Government have ignored the calls of the Rugby Football Union and England Rugby 2015 to ban the unauthorised resale of world cup tickets as they did for the Olympics. I hope that when the world cup comes around, our streets are not littered with those who have, in all innocence, bought counterfeit tickets, because they are being sold all over the place and are available from unofficial outlets, and fans have not been able to tell the difference.

Given that two of the four secondary ticketing platforms are already listing tickets for the final and for numerous other games and were doing so as far back as December, despite the fact they do not go on general sale until October, there is clearly a question about whether every ticket that is listed on those sites actually exists. However, the best should never be the enemy of the good. The measures I propose are very much in keeping with the spirit and intentions of this Bill, and will be widely supported by the live events industry and consumers alike. I hope that Ministers and other Members will look on them favourably—perhaps they can be incorporated into the Bill before its later stages—and take action to put consumers of live ticketed sporting and cultural events first and to tackle once and for all the parasitical ticket touts who prey upon them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

If the hon. Lady would listen, I just said that the Department has written to public enforcers to ask them to enforce the law properly. The problem is clearly still happening, and we are all aware of instances of it. Recently, there were reports about the issue on the radio, particularly about the fake HMRC websites. There are lots of things that are illegal that still go on until there is a crackdown. This is one such thing, and we are doing what we can to encourage public enforcers to take action to close down websites that are clearly in breach of the law.

On a technical point, the issue of devolution was raised by a number of Members from Northern Ireland, and I should like to clarify the situation. The issues covered in the Bill are reserved to Westminster with regard to Scotland and Wales, but they are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The devolved Administrations in all three nations were consulted throughout the drafting process, and both Cardiff and Edinburgh are perfectly satisfied with the measures and are happy for them to be implemented across England, Wales and Scotland. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we are all part of one country and that it is important to be consistent across it. I am glad to be able to tell him that the Northern Ireland Assembly has agreed to a legislative competence order so that the Bill will apply across the board to the whole of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will be consistency in the application of all the measures to the whole of the UK.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will the hon. Lady clarify something? I think I heard her say that some of the issues raised by hon. Members did not fall within the remit of the Bill, including the point that I made about the secondary market in controlling ticket touts. Am I correct in thinking that she is not going to respond to any of my points?

[Jenny Willott]

Some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised related to unfair contract terms, which I shall come on to in a minute. Many other issues relating to banking legislation and the regulation of energy markets do not fall within the remit of the Bill, and they are the responsibility of other Departments. However, I shall come on to the points that she made about ticket touting.

As the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) said, many good businesses already offer enhanced rights to their customers. The Bill will help them, because it will create a level playing field, and it will help us to have fair competition. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made it clear that the Bill will bring significant benefits to businesses, saving them time and money, and helping them to provide a better service to customers. It will also make the market more competitive, which helps everyone.

On the specific matters raised, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West mentioned the issue of deductions for use when a product is returned to the trader. As he said, we accepted some of his Committee’s recommendations, and it is vital that we begin the debate by recognising the fact that current legislation allows for a deduction for use whenever the customer exercises their second-tier right to reject. The Bill strengthens that by saying that a deduction for use cannot be made until after the first six months from purchase with a limited exception. As a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny, ably led by the hon. Gentleman, we decided to tighten and limit that exception even further. It is important to maintain the ability to deduct for use, but to ensure that there is a fair balance between the rights of consumers and the pressures on business.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised the issue of time- limiting the period available for repairing products, as did another hon. Member. A number of factors will be beyond the control of the trader and a fixed time limit may impose a significant burden on them. When providing a repair the trader must carry out a number of actions, including taking delivery of the goods, diagnosing the faults, and perhaps sending the goods away for repair or ordering in parts. Similarly, the trader may have to order in a replacement. We are concerned that imposing a time limit may lead to a reduction in the quality of the repairs, which may in turn lead to a loss of faith in the repairs, and ultimately to an increase in the number of goods being rejected. We do not want to see that, so we do not propose to lay down a specific time limit in legislation because it could be counter-productive to the interests of consumers.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of digital content. For the first time, the Bill introduces consumer rights for digital content. We are one of the first countries in the world to legislate in this area. I hope that as well as benefiting consumers, this will help to give this sector of the economy a competitive edge in the future. Such an important and rapidly growing industry needs to be governed by a clear and effective consumer framework. Many consumers assume that they have rights at the moment and are confused and concerned when they find out that they do not. We heard from a number of Members about the scale of this. During the last year, 16 million consumers have had a problem with downloaded material. I accept that, where possible, we should align the digital regime with goods and services to make it as clear and simple as possible for consumers, but we should do that only where it makes sense, and we need to ensure that we neither over nor under-regulate this important sector to ensure that it can grow.

Another issue that was raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West concerned the outcome-based quality standard for services. The Bill reflects the current position, which, as he knows, requires services to be undertaken with reasonable care and skill. As part of the consultation ahead of the Bill, the Government asked for comments on additional proposals to move the services regime closer to the regime for goods by introducing an outcome-based quality standard for certain services, but the responses that we received gave a wide range of views, including contradictory views on whether an outcome-based standard would be easier to understand. While in some cases, such as repair or certain installation services, it may be quite simple, in other cases a view on the quality of a service is subjective, and therefore much harder to determine.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the issue is complicated and difficult. I completely understand where he and his Committee are coming from, but the Government feel that the evidence does not fully support the conclusion that they came to and we have decided to stick with the current legal position requiring reasonable care and skill rather than introducing an outcomes-based quality standard. The current system is understood and it seems easier to apply, rather than introducing a new system that could be complicated and subjective, particularly as there are strong views on either side.

Mix 96 (Digital Radio Switchover)

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister’s sedentary intervention to challenge my hon. Friend to name her station means that he is not entirely unaware of the commercial opportunities presented by the debate. It is a shame that more of our colleagues cannot take advantage of it, but, sadly, such debates come at the end of the day in the House. The fact that it is taking place at drive time because we finish so early on a Thursday is a happy occurrence.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady mentions drive time. Sun FM in Sunderland, my local radio station, gives out the best traffic and travel news. Local stations provide another service during bad weather: they let us know whether our schools will be open or closed. That information will be unavailable from national radio stations.

[Mrs Gillan]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. We are coming up to the winter months. That service is invaluable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury will attest, for parents taking children to schools in Buckinghamshire, knowing when schools are open or closed is an essential service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

That brings me neatly on to my next point. I am due to make a major speech about the future of digital radio in the middle of December, when I hope to address particular concerns about coverage. Let me repeat, however, that when it comes to the timetable and the setting of dates, we have always been clear that these will be led by the radio listener. There will be no switchover until the majority of listening is digital. It is clear that we are not there yet, and it will certainly not happen within the time frame that concerns my right hon. Friend. While good progress has been made, with the number of adults with access to a DAB digital radio up 10% year on year and places like London reaching 40%, we need to make more progress.

Let me deal with what my right hon. Friend said about Mix 96 and what other hon. Members have said about their own local commercial and community stations. I am a huge fan of local commercial and community radio. In fact, community radio was brought into being by the last Government; I think it has been a massive success story, as are independent local radio stations. Ofcom’s research shows that local radio still holds value for listeners: it is important and valued. Although some measures have allowed greater networking between local radio stations, we still require local programming both at peak time and outside it. Mix 96 is part of the larger radio group. In fact, it is listed as one of the100 best companies to work for by The Sunday Times. Its concerns are well known to us, and they come not just from UKRD, but from UTV and others.

As for securing a digital future for local commercial and community stations, let me first make it clear that we have never said that we require small stations to go over to digital. We have always said that if and when there is a switchover, we would maintain their presence on FM. It is also true that FM can work in tandem with DAB, as AM has with FM for many years. Many of the manufacturers of DAB radios have agreed a minimum specification, which includes FM. However, I take on board the point—I think it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who talked about remote-controlled radios—that even where we have an FM-DAB station, switching between FM and DAB can be complicated. We are going to see more sets that switch seamlessly as the FM and DAB buttons are pressed, but that does not mean that we do not have to look for a potential solution for local commercial radio to get on to DAB at a cost it can afford.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The Minister mentioned that about 50% of new cars have DAB digital radios fitted as standard. Is he aware, however, that the figure for cars currently on the road is only about 5%? Irrespective of whether the facility for switching between DAB and FM happens, it would not help any of the cars currently on the road.

[Mr Vaizey]

I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point. First, as the timetable moves towards full coverage of digital radio, we will see what is known as the car park being refreshed over a number of years. It is also the case that the ability to convert an FM radio in a car with a digital converter is becoming much easier and cheaper. Technology will have a solution, but I take her point.

Let me say something about the business of transferring community and local commercial radio to DAB. I said to my officials, and to Ofcom, that I wanted to find a cost-effective route to digital broadcasting for our local stations. Ofcom has made progress—to which my right hon. Friend alluded, although she rightly pointed out that this was an early initiative and that more work needed to be done. It has developed a new approach to small-scale, low-power digital transmission, using open-source software which makes it possible to get on to the local multiplex using an existing FM antenna. That approach was developed initially by Rashid Mustapha, an engineer working at Ofcom, and it must be a brilliant solution, because I do not normally have an opportunity to name people who work at Ofcom during a debate. It has been tested in Brighton with the support of Daniel Nathan of Juice FM. The initial results are promising, and I hope that smaller stations that are enthusiastic about digital will get behind the work.

Women and the Cost of Living

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

We have had a high-quality debate today, and it has been superbly led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). I also congratulate the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on winning the opportunity to open for the Government. I say that because it must have been a fiercely fought competition if it has resulted in the Minister for Women and Equalities—the one voice for women at the Cabinet table—and her Tory junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), both being sidelined in favour of the Economic Secretary. It is just a shame that, having won that battle, she gave such a complacent speech. Anyone listening to her would think that everything in the garden was rosy for women. However, as we have heard in many excellent speeches, especially from Labour Members, that is far from the case.

I want to pick the Economic Secretary up on one point. She accused my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) of scaremongering when she pointed out that the £1,200 fees were putting women off taking their employers to a tribunal when they had been wrongfully sacked because they were pregnant. I fear that the Minister might have been trying to play down the problem. Maternity Action, whose representative I met just a few hours before the debate began, submitted evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee that showed that only 3% of victims of pregnancy discrimination took their claim to an employment tribunal, and that the fees involved were cited as one of the significant barriers that women faced. I recommend that the Minister meet Maternity Action to learn some facts about the impact of this Government’s policies on women’s lives. I am sure that its representatives would be happy to meet her.

It is clear that the Prime Minister’s cost of living crisis is hurting everyone except the millionaires who are enjoying their huge tax cuts. It is women who are bearing the brunt of the pain and who are seeing their financial support slashed the most. New mums have lost thousands, £7 billion has been taken away from families with children, and nearly 500,000 mums have lost up to £1,500 a year in support for child care. It is women who are seeing the services that they value being hollowed out. Sure Start funding has been slashed by more than half in real terms over this Parliament, and there are now 578 fewer Sure Start centres as a result. Many of those that remain are cutting back their services and opening hours, or charging for sessions that used to be free. It is women who are facing the greatest pressures in trying to make ends meet.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Does the hon. Lady therefore disagree with the Office for National Statistics when it says that the equivalised, after-tax income for the poorest fifth of households has risen under this Government, and that that income has fallen the most for the richest fifth?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I just do not recognise those figures. Our figures from the Library—and any other figures that we have seen on this matter—show that women are £1,600 a year worse off under this Government. [Interruption.] It is true, and I will write to the hon. Lady and give her the figures.

Child care bills are rising five times as fast as incomes under this Government. Energy bills are shooting up at similar speeds. The weekly shop is getting even more expensive, and real incomes are down by between £1,500 and £1,600 as prices have outstripped wages in 40 of the 41 months of this Government. Women’s long-term unemployment is up 80,000 since the election, compared with a figure of 10,000 for men. Older women’s unemployment is up by a third, while the figure for men has marginally fallen. More than 1 million women are unemployed, and countless others are stuck in low-paid, insecure jobs.

It is women who are struggling to get by over the long school summer holidays, with extra child care to pay for, school uniforms to buy and extra food to put on the table, yet we hear from the Government that they want to slap 15% VAT on the school uniforms on our children’s backs, on the cereal in their bowls and even on the electricity that lights their homes. How out of touch can the Government get? Despite all that, women hold the key to building a sustainable economic recovery that works for everyone. Millions of women want to get back into work or to increase their hours.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a great speech. Are women who work in social care not one of the most tragic cases of women struggling with the hours? Often they are not even paid the minimum wage any more, because they get an hour here and an hour there and do not get paid for travel. These women may want to work 45 or 50 hours a week but end up working only 20 hours. Is that not something we should be ashamed of: the most important job we have, yet that is how they are paid?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend her on the excellent work she does and has done in this area for more than eight years.

If we could support carers and the other women we have been talking about in finding extra hours and finding a job we could add more than £1 billion to our tax receipts, yet still it is women who face the biggest barriers to progressing in their careers. The reason for all that is that women are sidelined and ignored by this Government—and why should we be surprised? This Government have more millionaires in the Cabinet than women—in fact, women outnumber Davids at the Cabinet table by only one, and let us not forget the Lib Dems, the party with as many knights as women MPs.

We have another autumn statement coming up soon. The Chancellor could use that opportunity to make amends for the disproportionate impact of his decisions so far, but if it is anything like last year’s we will just see that unfairness entrenched. I am aware that the Economic Secretary was not in the Treasury at that time—in fact, no hon. Ladies were in the Treasury at that time. Perhaps that accounts for the gross imbalance in where the Chancellor’s axe fell. If it does, I hope she will be able to tilt the balance back in women’s favour this year.

The hon. Lady quoted the late Baroness Thatcher, so let me reciprocate. This may be the first time, and will probably be the last, that I quote the former Prime Minister, but this one line sums up perfectly everything that is wrong with this Government. In 1979, she said:

“Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.”

I may have spent my early life suffering because of the policies she implemented, but I have to say that she had a point. Does it not explain why this Government have such a poor record? They are a Government led by a rich boys club completely out of touch with the problems that so many ordinary women face just to keep the money coming in, a roof over their child’s head, clothes on their child’s back, food on the table and their energy bills paid. They are a Government who cannot tackle the cost of living crisis women face because they have no idea what that crisis means to the people they are supposed to serve.

The Prime Minister knows that he has a problem with women. He even had to hire an extra adviser to tell him why women do not like him—as a women, I call tell him that for free. The Prime Minister has a problem with women because we know when we are being let down and we know when promises have been broken. Even if his party chairman tries to wipe any evidence of their ever making any promises off the internet, women have been let down and seen promises broken time and again by this Prime Minister, as we have heard today. These are promises on affordable child care, decent jobs, energy bills, tax credits, financial support, Sure Start and public services. Time and again women say they need help, and time and again they are ignored.

Government Members should be under no illusion: those same women will be looking at what they do tonight. These women will see the proposals Labour has put forward to help: real help now with finding and affording early years and school-age child care; capital projects that create good quality jobs for women, not just men; and businesses supported to boost the incomes of women on the lowest wages. Those are the kind of policies that will help to tackle the cost of living crisis that women are facing now, today. They are the kind of policies women want and women need. They are the kind of policies that women deserve to expect from any Government. But at the same time they are the kind of policies they know they can get only from Labour. Every vote against this motion from those in the Government parties—every Tory and Lib Dem who would rather please their Whip than stand up for women in their constituency—will be yet another reason for those women to give this out-of-touch Government the boot in 2015.

HM Revenue and Customs

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

I will come on to that in due course. The expression that has been used by non-HMRC staff—observers—is that staff morale is “at rock bottom.” That was demonstrated by a recent internal Government survey, which reported that fewer than one in five staff thought that HMRC was well managed. That is how bad it has got.

I want to get back to the important issue of staff numbers. The Minister claimed in a previous debate that there had been an increase in the numbers of tax inspectors, with 100 new ones having been or being recruited, but that fails to appreciate the role of other front-line staff in dealing with tax inquiries and chasing up payments. Those essential back-room staff, who are not respected in the role they play, seem to be the ones who are vulnerable to losing their jobs. The Government have partially recognised some of the staff resource issues, providing £900 million to secure an extra £7 billion in tax revenue, and announcing a further £77 million in December to expand HMRC’s anti-avoidance and evasion activities, which they predict will secure another £2 billion. That small investment over the coming years will secure a total of £22 billion of additional taxation, demonstrating that investing in the staff and the professionals will have an economic success in tackling the tax collection problems.

Although limited, the additional funding is welcome, but it fails to appreciate the impact of previous job cuts and the threat to staff of another 10,000 jobs going between now and 2015. It is not just PCS members who urge the Government to think again about the cuts; accountants, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants, have expressed their concern in public. One of them described the cuts as happening “wildly”, with little planning, resulting in the loss of highly skilled professional staff.

I urge Members to read the Commons Library briefing note, which cites a number of independent accountants who have gone public with their worries about the impact of staffing cuts on HMRC, including Ken Frost, the accountant blogger, and Mike Warburton. The running theme is that the cuts are causing difficulties and leading to lost experience, and that staff are overwhelmed at a time when more demands are being placed upon them. According to the briefing by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the recent child benefit changes are predicted to bring an extra 500,000 taxpayers into self-assessment, stretching the already overstretched system.

HMRC staff have expressed their concerns that under-resourcing is leading to mistakes. In an article in the Institute of Chartered Accountants journal, one staff member states:

“The pressure we’re under to hit targets and get post turned round leads to errors because we’re having to do it that fast…The emphasis is placed on getting rid of the stuff whether it’s right or wrong.”

It cannot be right that that is happening in our system. To deal with the work load with fewer staff, HMRC management has introduced a working system based on what have been described as manufacturing principles. The pacesetter system is a rigid, time-limited process with specific targets, which leaves little room for professional judgments, resulting in further errors and failures to resolve problems.

It is not just accountants and other professionals who are complaining about the impact of cuts on services; members of the public, individual taxpayers and small businesses are complaining about the often nightmare problems of accessing HMRC services. The closure of local offices has meant that virtually all contact for some taxpayers is now by telephone.

The National Audit Office reported in December that, in 2011-12, HMRC answered 74% of phone calls. The NAO acknowledges that, despite exceeding an interim target of 58%, the level of service is low. For example, 20 million calls, including calls where customers rang back because they did not get through the first time, were not answered. Customers who got through to HMRC in 2011-12 had to wait on average 282 seconds to speak to an adviser. Between April and September 2011, 6.5 million customers waited more than 10 minutes to have their call answered. Depending on the tariff they pay their phone company, customers are charged from when their call is connected, even if they are held in a queue. The NAO estimates that being in a queue cost customers £33 million in call charges; the estimated value of customers’ time while they were in a queue is £103 million, which cannot be right.

I am pleased that the Government have announced that, from the end of the summer, people who phone for advice will no longer use the costly 0845 number. They are also setting a new target from April for 80% of people to wait no longer than five minutes to speak to a real person, including recorded messages. I am grateful to the Government, because there have been improvements and HMRC has hired an extra 2,500 staff. Those staff, however, are employed only on temporary contracts, and the union and others feel that the Government need to allow HMRC to employ properly trained, permanent staff who will benefit the organisation, rather than the reactive, quick-fix recruitment policy that many people feel will not bring about sustained improvement in service delivery.

There is anxiety about over-reliance on phone services. The reason for high caller demand and over-reliance on caller services is because 200 local HMRC offices have closed over the past six years, and there are more to follow.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right that there are more closures to follow. In my constituency, Weardale house is due to close, and in the neighbouring constituency of Sunderland Central, the closure of Shackleton and Gilbridge houses is under consultation. That is three offices and a number of staff in just one city, and in Sunderland unemployment is 7.5%. Does he agree that that is not only bad for HMRC services but devastating for the local area?

[John McDonnell]

I will use the example of Sunderland, because my hon. Friend has hit on a wider issue than just the impact on staff. HMRC plans to close Gilbridge and Shackleton houses, which are in the centre of Sunderland, and Weardale house next to the Washington Galleries. Some 300 staff from Sunderland and 200 staff from Washington could be moved to Waterside house, which is on an enterprise park outside the centre of town.

PCS asked staff at Gilbridge and Shackleton houses to keep track of their city centre expenditure for two weeks as a sample. They spent more than £22,000 across more than 100 businesses in that particular area. I have details of a survey that I would like to hand to the Minister after the debate, because it demonstrates the financial impact on a town centre of removing that number of staff. To a previous question on the union’s assessment that £600,000 would be lost each year, the Minister’s response was that that will be made up for when the buildings are let. Well, those buildings are not being let; the offices are being closed and not being replaced by firms that recruit and employ the same number of staff with the same spending power in a town centre.