Christmas Adjournment

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hanson. I was expecting to come a little further down the list, but I am delighted to be called so early.

It is something of a relief to be attending a debate with time for issues other than the B word—although we are all mentioning it. Although Brexit has been all-consuming of the Government’s time, energy and actions, the day-to-day reality for my constituents and those outside the Westminster bubble is quite different. There are 130,000 children who will wake up on Christmas morning without a permanent place to call home. My local accident and emergency unit is so full that my constituents have been left queuing outside it in the cold. The pressure on our police means that antisocial behaviour is running rife in my local town centre—an area crying out for more bobbies on the beat. Although the Government have found billions of pounds for contingency planning for a no-deal Brexit, our vital public services teeter ever closer to breaking point.

I want to use my time today to bring to hon. Members’ attention three of the issues most important to my constituents. Let me start with housing. A year ago to the day, I spoke in this debate about the homelessness crisis across the country. I have reread my speech, and it is disheartening that every single word is still applicable one year on. In fact, if anything, the situation is now worse. Some 80,000 households across England will spend this Christmas trapped in temporary accommodation. Last year, I brought to Parliament’s attention the 86 homeless families in my constituency housed in a converted warehouse in the heart of one of south London’s busiest working industrial estates. One year on, many of those families are preparing for yet another Christmas in that so-called temporary limbo. They do not have the facilities to cook a Christmas dinner. They have no space for a Christmas tree, with families of up to five people sharing a single room, and there is little chance of presents, with every penny possible set aside to save for the extortionate deposit that may one day provide the golden ticket needed for the private rented sector. How many more families must be trapped in this limbo before the Government make absolute priorities of tackling homelessness and building the social housing and genuinely affordable homes for which we are so desperate?

The second issue is universal credit, which has been at the forefront of debate over recent months. For my constituents, the botched roll-out of the supposed flagship reform of the benefits system has undoubtedly caused chaos and misery. Take my constituent Mrs D, who wrote to me earlier this week and said:

“Universal credit has been a complete shambles for my family. We’ve explained to the children that Santa won’t deliver much this year and that there won’t be a Christmas dinner. Universal credit doesn’t make work pay, it puts you in debt.”

Another constituent of mine, Mrs L, was made redundant last year after 10 years working as a school administrator. Since January, she has worked on an agency basis for an employment agency. Universal credit assesses a person’s circumstances within a set monthly assessment period, however, so the dates of their universal credit claim and monthly pay packet are of paramount importance. For Mrs L, that has proven to be a nightmare. She anticipated a payment on 22 November, but was not paid until 18 December and, for the first time in her whole working life, she finds herself in rent arrears. She is now so worried about the irregularity of her payments that she questions whether it is in her financial interest to work for the agency. That makes a mockery of the idea that the system helps people to get into work. How much longer will the Government stand idly by while the least well-off continue to fall through the broken net of universal credit?

I will use my remaining time on a more positive note, to highlight a quite different organisation in my constituency, which is changing the lives of so many young, vulnerable constituents. The WISH Centre is a charity that prevents self-harm, and offers a community-based model that provides therapy and counselling in schools and at the centre. Over recent months, the Centre for Mental Health conducted an evaluation of the WISH Centre. The results were outstanding and worthy of being brought to the attention of the Chamber.

The report found that an extraordinary 81% of young people who have been helped by the WISH Centre have either significantly reduced their self-harm, or have stopped altogether. The young people themselves describe the project as holistic; it focuses on their strengths and builds resilience at each individual’s own pace. The report highlights the relief brought to sufferers, parents, carers and teachers, and evidences cost savings in both mental health and school budgets. Its recommendation is clear: the WISH approach should be introduced by clinical commissioning groups and authorities across England. Fortunately, the WISH Centre is actively looking to share its methodologies more widely, and I will happily introduce any hon. or right hon. Member to the scheme, if they would like more information.

With the Government trapped in Brexit turmoil, I sincerely hope that the Christmas period will bring them time to reflect on the day-to-day reality of those who I have described.

“People just walk past us and they are supposed to be going into that building to change the world that we live in.”

Those are the words of Jamie Leigh, who has been sleeping rough outside the gates of the Parliamentary Estate. I sincerely hope that the Government offer her more hope in 2019.

2019 Loan Charge

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

On behalf of all Members here, I congratulate the Loan Charge Action Group on its effective lobbying of so many MPs. I would not wish its members to think that this number of MPs normally turn up to such a debate. It has done very well and has clearly done its members proud.

I start by emphasising that I cannot defend tax avoidance in any form. I strongly believe that everyone should pay their fair share and that there should be repercussions for those who do not. However, the case at hand is not quite so simple. This loan charge will affect up to 100,000 people, many of whom acted in good faith and were acutely unaware that they were ever doing anything wrong. Several of those impacted were forced into schemes as prerequisites of taking up a job, following guidance given in good faith, rather than attempting to avoid their tax responsibility. They are being taxed retrospectively for something that was technically allowed at the time.

What is more, the proposed 20-year range is usually reserved for blatant acts of criminality. We are talking about life-changing amounts of money. For some people, the sums involved run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. This will lead to bankruptcy. This will lead to mental breakdown. This will lead, and has led, to suicide. I will quote directly from the letters and emails sent to me by my constituents, so that the Minister can hear the reality behind these excessive measures.

Mr M describes a dark cloud hanging over his head. He says:

“It has been hell and I have at times considered suicide. It will affect my kids’ entire lives, in that I will be unable to support them as they grow older and I may be unable to buy a property for the rest of my life.”

Mr M argues that governing with life-changing force and 20 years in the past is nothing short of grossly unfair, and that it sets a dangerous precedent that HMRC can, where it suits its need, change or create laws and retroactively and aggressively enforce them.

Mr C says that bankruptcy is his only option. He says that he took and followed professional advice and declared his arrangements at the time to HMRC, which did not act. Mr L describes the impact of the stress levels on his health since he was made aware of the legislation, particularly as he believed the scheme to be legitimate. He claims that these schemes are still freely available for contractors to sign up to.

My constituents are not alone. The Loan Charge Action Group has conducted analysis of those affected. It highlights the fact that 68% describe depression, 71% fear bankruptcy, 31% fear relationship breakdown and 39% have suicidal thoughts. The policy will cost lives.

Would it not be more sensible for HMRC to pursue the enablers of the schemes? I am talking about the client organisations, agencies and umbrella companies, all of which have benefited and which, I believe, hold the most responsibility. Perhaps HMRC does not do that because even HMRC itself was using and paying contracts now subject to the loan charge, working through arrangements that HMRC now declares to be tax avoidance schemes.

Let me re-emphasise that if and when an individual or organisation has purposely dodged tax, they must be penalised. But what strikes me is that HMRC is ruthlessly pursuing hard-working contractors, while rolling over in the face of obvious and aggressive tax avoidance by so many of the UK’s largest corporations. Why did Amazon pay just £1.7 million in taxes last year, despite profits almost trebling to £72.3 million? Why did Facebook pay just £15.8 million in taxes last year, despite collecting a record £1.3 billion in British sales? Why did Google pay just £49 million on UK sales of £7.6 billion? Richard Murphy, a professor of practice in international political economy, estimates that such tax avoidance costs the UK about £7 billion each year. That is enough to pay for 180,000 nurses or 150,000 secondary school teachers.

Tax avoidance in any form must not be tolerated. While the Government bankrupt unknowing individuals across the country, multibillion-pound corporations make a laughing stock of their tax collection efforts. It is high time that those organisations and those who have enabled the schemes described today were made to pay their fair share once and for all.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is right. For the past six months, we have seen rising real wages, and the latest data show that they have been rising faster than at any time in the past 10 years, so we are the party that is fixing the economy and improving living standards.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that abolition of certain restrictions in the labour market, such as payment between assignment contracts, would also increase people’s wages? Will he be making a statement on the Taylor review and its contribution to this debate?

[Mel Stride]

This debate is not the place to make pronouncements about the Taylor review. The Government are considering the Taylor review and the way in which people are working. There are a number of aspects in the Budget that relate to the taxation elements of the way that people work, but we will come back in the fullness of time with a full response to the Taylor review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

In the context of a fair taxation system, as set out in “Funding Britain’s Future”—which, again, I exhort the hon. Gentleman to look at—we look at everything, and we will look at everything, unlike the Government.

The indecisiveness that I referred to means that the Government have to try to amass as much power as possible so that, if the Prime Minister cannot make her mind up, our hands are tied in a constitutional sense. It seems that, when Tory Brexit theocrats talked about wanting to take back control, they wanted us to give it to them. We cannot allow such a vast power grab to take place from a Government who have shown such disregard for our constitution already.

Turning to another issue, I draw the House’s attention to the measures that are supposed to address tax avoidance—hope springs eternal. Once again, these are simply inadequate. They are a series of half-measures that leave so much room to wriggle, they must have been written by the Prime Minister. The Government promised us a full public register of beneficial owners. Where is it? I have looked through the Bill numerous times—I have to admit, it was painful—and I can see no reference to it. It is yet another broken promise.

We have been waiting for two years for the Government to act to tackle burning injustices, yet they seem more focused on fanning the flames. Again, we find ourselves being forced to debate a Bill that is heavy on rhetoric, as evidenced in the speech from the Minister, and light on content. No wonder the Government will not let us amend it. They are scared that we would put something useful in it and add some policy to the lacuna that is there now.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a response to the Taylor review would be the start of something real and possible and the abolition of payment between assignment contracts?

[Peter Dowd]

I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by the Minister earlier. We are prepared to look at all proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I would like to raise two issues related to the Budget, one of them good news and one of them bad, and I would be grateful if the Minister responding to the debate addressed both.

For the good news, I refer to a brilliant article about a range of desperately needed changes in the gig economy by Pippa Crerar in The Guardian on Friday. Her article suggests that we will finally see the end of exploitative “pay between assignment” contracts. In theory, those contracts guarantee a basic level of pay when an agency worker is between assignments and out of work. The reality is that staff are often held on those contracts even if they have been working in the same job for years, without such a gap between assignments.

The Communication Workers Union has led the way, striking a deal with BT that will see thousands of employees taking home the pay packets they deserve from BT call centres. Pippa’s article suggests that we will see the end of these deceitful contracts once and for all. Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct and, if so, what the timeframe for action is? When can we expect a comprehensive response to the Taylor review, which is now long overdue?

My reason for speaking today, however, relates to a different form of exploitation. Like many Members across the House, I was utterly dismayed to learn that the Government do not plan to introduce the new maximum stake of £2 for fixed odds betting terminals until October 2019, and their choosing to bow to pressure from the gambling industry, rather than listen to the legitimate concerns of one of their own Ministers, speaks volumes about just how badly misplaced their priorities are on this matter.

I do not come at this as somebody who is not used to gambling or who comes from a family that does not like to gamble. For most of my childhood, I could be seen on racecourses and dog tracks with my Irish family, who kept greyhounds, and my dad, to the last week of his life, spent his retirement with a copy of the Daily Mirror on the table in an attempt to spot the winners. But betting shops today are not about a fiver each way on the 3 o’clock at Cheltenham, as individuals are staking up to £300 a minute on FOBTs. That could not be further from the reality of my childhood or my dad and uncle’s lives.

Through FOBTs, bookmakers have facilitated a form of gambling at its most irresponsible, addictive and exploitative. With 43% of FOBT users thought to be problem or at-risk gamblers, it is no surprise that these machines have been called the “crack cocaine” of gambling. Even the Government have described them as a “social blight”.

We already know that FOBT machines can have a truly devastating impact on the lives of individuals, but they are even worse than that. In my constituency of Mitcham and Morden, they come hand in hand with a worrying range of related problems for my local area, because as FOBTs have grown more prevalent in the betting shops around the town centre, the culture of reckless gambling they promote has contributed to an epidemic of drinking, drug taking and antisocial behaviour.

In many cases, that activity now takes place inside the betting shops and bookmakers have become hubs for illicit activities and antisocial behaviour. That has seen local businesses suffer and driven customers away from a town centre that has so much to offer, but which some now worry has become less safe.

Just this week, I have had to write to one of the bookmakers in Mitcham town centre, Betfred, concerning reports of drug use, drug dealing and stolen goods being sold inside the shop. Mitcham town centre, like many town centres, faces many challenges in the retail sector, but it is not helped by the attraction of people to these bookmakers in a confined area at the same time that the number of police has fallen. No longer do we have a safer neighbourhood town centre team of police, so the behaviour gets worse and more women do not want to bring their children to the town centre, as they would see street drinking, brawling and men urinating in the street.

I am sure that my constituency is not unique in experiencing those issues. Betting shops are disproportionately clustered around some of the most deprived parts of the country, and the proliferation of FOBTs has served only to exacerbate many existing problems. That is why I must urge the Government seriously to reconsider their decision to delay the implementation of the £2 maximum stake: the longer it takes to bring an end to this horrible and exploitative form of gambling, the more unnecessary harm will be done to vulnerable individuals and to our town centres.

Implementing the new maximum stake might not bring an immediate end to the problems facing our communities, as those problems might already have gripped them too tightly, but it represents a vital step in the right direction—a step that we should not hesitate to take any longer.

Summer Adjournment

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I would like to share with the House how I will be spending my recess. Today is 24 July, and what else would I be doing other than fighting yet another NHS-inspired campaign to close the A&E and the maternity unit at St Helier Hospital? The third week of July is always the time when my local NHS decides that it is a good idea to consult—to consult families who are on holiday, people who are away from work and people who could not possibly get to a consultation meeting in the middle of the day. There are no rules. It is the wild west in the NHS in south-west London.

Last year, at Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, the chief executive, Mr Elkeles, bet his career on the fact that he could close the A&E and the maternity unit—something that nobody else has done over the past 20 years. So yes, deliver leaflets to the whole catchment area, other than any house in my constituency. Yes, tell nobody that responses will only be accepted on the official form. Yes, get 1,000 responses and accept them, but get 6,000 contributions from other people opposing this move, and, no, they are not to be included.

Let us now talk about the clinical commissioning group, which is following the same pattern as last year. It is about to begin its consultation of four public meetings—all held during working time and all held in July and August. Who says that there is a code of guidance on consultation in the NHS? Nobody in south-west London has ever read it. This is my ninth campaign to fight the reorganisation of my hospitals. The plan, as it has always been for the past 20 years, is to close the A&E and the maternity unit at the hospital, which is surrounded by those who are most in need, with the greatest health issues—those who are the least likely to have a car and the most likely to be dependent on public transport. But no matter; in the NHS in south London, as my mum would say, much gets more. If people live in a wealthy area, they can anticipate greater capital spending. The NHS in south-west London has built the Nelson health centre in one of the richest wards in London, but closed the walk-in centre in a portakabin in my constituency. I would be really interested to know the capital figures involved in doing up GPs’ surgeries, and I suspect that a great deal more money has been spent in Wimbledon.

It is a travesty that over the past 20 years £50 million has been spent on these consultations, which have always come out with the same result. It really does not matter to me how many experts or marketing consultants the trust has or how much money it wants to throw at it. It is wrong to take an A&E, a maternity unit and all the associated services away from a hospital that is in huge demand. During the winter, the hospital saw an uplift of 20% in the number of people turning up to A&E. But this is not just about my area around St Helier Hospital; it is about the health service in south-west London.

If St Helier A&E and maternity unit are closed and moved to Belmont, the consequence will be that the fantastic St George’s Hospital in Tooting will not be able to function because of the number of my constituents who will be going to that hospital to use its services. Similarly, Croydon University Hospital—a hospital surrounded by a population in greatest need—will feel the brunt of my constituents from Pollards Hill and Longthornton using its services.

This madness should end. Somebody should listen. There should be rules about consultations. There should be criteria that people understand. If the NHS is to abide by the Equality Act 2010, it should, in all circumstances, take into account how those who are in most need access their health services. I hope that there is someone, somewhere, who just might listen.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To attempt to stay within the time limit, I will abbreviate my contribution. I rise to speak on behalf of two constituents, Mr S and Mr A, who I believe may be in the Public Gallery today, both of whom I have attempted to assist, without success. They have both had a very difficult time.

Mr S is a former owner of a successful club and restaurant business in Chelsea and banked with RBS until 1998. In 1993, his account was suddenly moved to the Specialised Lending Services division of RBS, which was subsequently renamed Global Restructuring Group. Mr S felt bullied by the bank to appoint its manager as a shadow director. In the eight months of this new management, £500,000 went out of his account and to date remains unaccounted for. His club lost its licence and was forced to close. Prior to the bank’s intervention, the value of the business was £2.25 million. At that point, it was just £100,000.

Mr S then spent £25,000 on obtaining a new licence before RBS Specialised Lending Services suddenly ordered payment of £500,000. The bank forced the business to close and tried to develop it for profit. Mr S was evicted from the neighbouring maisonette and made homeless. The bank’s actions lost Mr S his home, his business and, ultimately, his wife. Twenty years on, Mr S is still traumatised and has still not recovered financially.

My second constituent is Mr A, the former owner of an estate company in Kent. In this case, the bank was HSBC. The bank agreed to provide partial funding for a £2.2 million development project that started in 2007. It was approximately 75% complete when HSBC stopped the period funding payments. The UK economy was suffering and HSBC’s policy was to treat construction projects as a “restricted sector” for loans. This restriction came into effect in early 2008. To continue funding that project, HSBC applied to its central committee in Calcutta, assuring Mr A that his case was nothing more than a formality. To enable the project to continue, Mr A personally funded a further £150,000, exhausting his resources. It took a full year until HSBC confirmed that there would be no further funding. The works stopped, the site was set on fire by local vandals and Mr A was forced to issue court proceedings. Two weeks before the trial, HSBC took action to place the business into receivership, signing a consent order to stop the trial, which was accepted by the High Court, bankrupting Mr A.

Mr A has lost his business; he has lost his house; he has lost his savings. He is now living in rented accommodation and depends on state benefits. He is understandably suffering from stress and has been classified as disabled. The consequences of HSBC’s actions are lifelong.

How can it be that in the 21st century banks can behave in this way and are free from any retribution?

Social Mobility and the Economy

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Davies: I will have to leave the debate a few minutes early to get a ticket for Prime Minister’s Question Time. I thank the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for allowing us to debate this really important issue. I know how committed she was to social mobility when she was Secretary of State for Education.

The right hon. Lady knows that the roots of social mobility start far earlier than a place on work experience. They start from birth, primarily in the first 18 months of a child’s life. By the time a child gets to school, a poor child is 18 months behind its classmates. A poor child—let us call her Jo—is 27 times more likely to go to an inadequate school than a well-off peer. She is one of the 50% of children from low income families who do not reach the expected developmental milestones by age five. Because of her low progress by age seven, Jo has just a 50% chance of avoiding the bottom of attainment when she completes her GCSEs almost a decade later. That does not come as a surprise. Her secondary school is also more likely to be disadvantaged, with stark evidence that the top-performing comprehensives prove to be highly socially selective, with only 9.4% of pupils eligible for free school meals in the top-performing 500 comprehensive schools—let us not get started on selective schools—which is far lower than the 17.2% average.

When Jo tries to secure an invaluable internship, she cannot afford the £1,019 a month cost of its being unpaid, and she does not have the high-powered networks that could offer a golden ticket into a business. Meanwhile, Jo is trying to find a home.

Most Members, many from London and the south-east, know that at their advice surgery they will see hundreds of families terrified of losing their private rented accommodation and being placed in temporary accommodation. If someone lives in south-west London, temporary accommodation means Birmingham, Kent or Luton. How does a child continue to go to school if they live so far away in temporary accommodation? How do they have the confidence and security of being able to study if they never know where they and their mum will be able to live or how many brothers and sisters will be in the same bedroom? That is the reality for the many families that we see.

Although confidence and a personal contribution are paramount, we cannot ignore the social system in which many children and young people find themselves. It is not a level playing field, because they are far behind the starting line from the very moment of their birth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is difficult to see exactly where the Scottish Tories are coming from on this—they are so confused.

For someone from a less affluent background who secures employment in a graduate entry-level job, that debt will stay with them for years. That is if they even manage to get what we once would have considered a graduate job. One in 20 graduates do not find any work at all, and the destinations of others is often less than optimal.

During the time that graduates carry that debt, they have less disposable income, their contribution to the economy is lessened, they find it more difficult to get on to the property ladder, decisions about starting a family are made more difficult, and their career decisions are limited. When they have children, that disadvantage is passed on, because they will not have advanced as far in life as they might have done if they did not have to carry that debt. It might be advisable for anyone who believes in improving social mobility to look at removing or alleviating that debt. Abolishing tuition fees would be a start.

To digress a little, I recommend that Members read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s paper on migration and social mobility from 2005, which suggests that immigration encourages social mobility in the UK. That is on top of what we know already.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

If I could take the hon. Lady to my constituency, I would take her to homes where there is not a stick of furniture. In those homes are Tamil and African families, whose children are the doctors, lawyers and engineers of tomorrow. Social mobility is an issue of class and ethnicity. That is difficult for us to talk about, but in London we certainly need to talk about it.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Lady for that interesting point about her constituency. We already know that immigration is a driver of the economy, and I would recommend a dose of extra immigration to any nation that wants to forge ahead.

Christmas Adjournment

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, people who are street homeless—actually sleeping on the streets rough—have chaotic lives and do not work to the same sort of timetables as everyone else. It is clearly wrong in principle, therefore, that they be penalised when, through no fault of their own, they fail to attend such meetings and have their benefits taken away. We have to do far more. We know, above all else, that every single person who is homeless is a unique case and therefore should be treated as such and sympathetically.

This is the 50th anniversary of the founding of Crisis. One of my political heroes was the late Iain Macleod, who helped to fund and start Crisis. It started off as Crisis at Christmas, but has gone on to provide services throughout the year. All Members have an opportunity to make a difference. The Crisis Christmas single, a re-recording of “Streets of London” by Ralph McTell, commemorates its 50th anniversary. It features the Crisis choir and Annie Lennox as guest vocalist. All Members and members of staff can download the single, for 99p, and we can aim to make it the Christmas No. 1.

If I cannot convince Members to buy “Streets of London”, they could download Phil Ryan’s Christmas single. He has worked with Lord Bird, the founder of the “The Big Issue”, for 26 years, and has launched a self-penned single, “Walking Down this Lonely Street”. Homelessness and loneliness are two things that go hand in hand. It would be great for all Members to download and support those singles.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the great many churches that do a huge amount to provide night shelters at this time of year. My own church, Christ Church in Collier’s Wood, is part of a group of churches that provides a hostel from November through to January. As a person of faith, it is great to see that action, but it is also a desperate thing to be happening.

[Bob Blackman]

At this time of year we should commend all those volunteers who give up their time at Christmas, and throughout the year, to help homeless people. FirmFoundation does a brilliant job in my constituency, and I am sure every constituency has such groups of people who come together to help others, and particularly the street homeless.

We had two successes in the Budget that we should celebrate. The help to rent proposals will help upwards of 20,000 families to get together a deposit for a rental property, and the funding of three Housing First pilots is a good start, although we need to see it rolled out right across the country.

Equally, in the Budget we had a huge win on the staircase tax, which was going to affect 90,000 businesses across the UK, following the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Valuation Office Agency to levy rates individually on offices that are on separate floors or corridors. One campaigner in my constituency came to see me about it. I lobbied the Chancellor—I am pleased that many Members on both sides of the House did so, too—and he listened to what we had to say.

There is some unfinished business that needs to be concluded in Parliament. First, the Government conducted a long-awaited consultation on removing caste as a protected characteristic in equality law. There were thousands of responses from the British Hindu community, and we now await the Government introducing legislation to remove this ill thought out, divisive and unnecessary legislation from our statute book.

Equally, we have the plight of Equitable Life policy- holders. I am the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders. An outstanding debt of £2.6 billion is still owed to those people who invested their money after listening to advice and were victims of a terrible scam.

We recently had the 99th anniversary of the great union of Romania, with Romanians gathering to celebrate the joining of Transylvania to Romania. As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Romania, I had the privilege of attending the national celebration at the embassy, and I wished some 10,000 of my constituents a happy national day.

This time of year would not be complete without raising some local issues. There is what I can only describe as the north face of the Eiger at Stanmore station. As one arrives at the terminal after travelling on the Jubilee line, one is met by 49 steps to reach street level. There is no lift—the lift was taken out of the plan by a previous Mayor of London—but the Department for Transport has held a consultation. Hundreds of my constituents have campaigned for lifts at Stanmore and Canons Park stations, and I look forward to the Department coming forward with the necessary funding to make that happen.

We have also had the scandal of the Hive sports ground, which Harrow Council sold to Barnet football club for a relatively small sum of money. I led an Adjournment debate on the subject. Barnet football club, having acquired the whole land, has now submitted planning applications to overdevelop the site in a way which residents are objecting to in huge numbers. I trust we will see those planning applications duly rejected, as they should be.

People often think of rural areas as having problems with broadband, but I suggest they come to Stanmore in my constituency, where the various providers refuse, point blank, to provide high-speed broadband to residents, even though many of them desperately need it. We look forward to the providers being forced to provide high-speed broadband in the way they should.

I have continued to work to encourage the opening and development of free schools in my constituency. The proposed Mariposa and Hujjat free schools are both strongly supported by local residents but objected to by Harrow Council. I trust that those objections will be removed so that we can see first-rate schools being set up for the constituents I have the honour of representing.

There are three other important local issues. I attended the opening of the DiscoG coding academy, a new facility in Belmont in my constituency that supports young people to learn to write code. They learn how to write computer code from the age of five, which is an excellent way of ensuring that our young people are getting the type of education they need to complement what they learn in school.

At this time of year, although we are celebrating Christmas, it is of course the festival of Hanukkah, too. I had the honour last week of attending the lighting of the menorah at Stanmore Broadway, as we brought together members of the public from all faiths and none to ensure we all recognise the multiculturalism of London, and particularly of Harrow.

Harrow Mencap is doing brilliant work, and it has now formulated a function that can only be called “connecting communities.” I said earlier that we should concentrate not on people’s handicaps but on the things they can do, and Harrow Mencap is a prime example of that. Although the organisation works with people who have profound disabilities, it gets the best out of them and ensures they have the opportunity to live a full and active life, getting a job where appropriate. Harrow Mencap brings people together from across the communities, many of whom are very isolated indeed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, Mr Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers and the whole House—all Members and all members of staff—a happy Christmas and a restful break. We look forward to 2018 being a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

This time last year, my single, a Band Aid cover named “National Living Rage”, rocketed up the Christmas charts, highlighting the plight of workers and the national scandal of low and unfair pay in Britain. There are many matters of sincere importance to be discussed before the forthcoming Adjournment, but this Christmas there are perhaps few as critical, heartbreaking and lamentable as the fact that 128,000 children will wake up homeless on Christmas morning. I cannot help but wonder how closely my two recent Christmas campaigns are linked, because more than half the homeless households in London are in work.

It would take a heart of stone to consider childhood homelessness on any scale to be acceptable. I was simply astonished to hear the Prime Minister seem to justify this crisis in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday by remarking that these children are not rough sleepers. Maybe not, but these children will wake up on Christmas morning in B&Bs, in hostels, or in the heart of a working industrial estate in my own constituency of Mitcham and Morden.

[Lyn Brown]

I have not seen children sleeping rough, but I have certainly seen children under the age of 12 in hostels that churches run to keep people off the street. For me, that is the lowest level “roof over head” that there is. It is not a big step away from sleeping on the street.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Consider Sarah’s family, who live in temporary accommodation in Mitcham. They will not have a Christmas dinner because they have no facilities to be able to cook one. They will not have a Christmas tree because their room does not fit anything other than the bed that the four of them share. They will not have any presents because every penny possible is being put aside so that one day they will have enough for the extortionate deposit that is the golden ticket needed to enter the private rented sector. In fact, I will be amazed if Father Christmas is even able to find Sarah’s family, because hers is one of the 22,000 families that have been moved out of their home borough, often without the receiving local authority being made aware of their arrival. When that happens, I am in no doubt that their safety cannot be guaranteed.

Recent freedom of information requests by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England have astonishingly discovered that almost a quarter of temporary accommodation is inspected by local authorities only once tenants have left. Worryingly, nearly two thirds of local authorities said that they did not even seek advice from their safeguarding service when they placed families in B&Bs or temporary accommodation. These are the realities faced by the 79,190 families in temporary accommodation in England today. Of course, those figures do not even account for the 9,000 rough sleepers on the streets of our constituencies, or for the 56% of 16 to 25-year-olds in the UK who say that they have family or friends who have sofa-surfed.

There can be no doubt about the responsibility for the country’s deplorable housing crisis. The report published yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee stated explicitly that the Department for Communities and Local Government has had an “unacceptably complacent” attitude to the reduction of homelessness. The Department’s current plans to tackle the issue were said to address only the tip of the iceberg, and there is an unacceptable shortage of realistic housing options for the homeless. Of course, most of us knew that already.

The last time that the Government target of building 300,000 new homes in one year in England was achieved was almost half a century ago, in 1969. The difference back then was that councils and housing associations were building new homes. But a solution is right here, in our hands: we must give councils the right to build as well as the right to buy. The private sector has never reached, and does not have the inclination to reach, the Government’s targets. For example, last year, only 121,000 permanent dwellings were completed by private companies; meanwhile, just 1,840 were completed by local authorities.

If the Government target of building 300,000 new homes is to be achieved, councils simply have to play their part, which is why I am calling on the Government to grant local authorities the right to build and the right to buy so that housing can be let to families on low incomes at social housing rents. A home to live in should appear on no child’s Christmas wish list. Father Christmas is simply not in a position to influence the budgets of local authorities, but the Government are, and on behalf of the 128,000 homeless children across the country, I sincerely hope that this will be their last Christmas morning without a place to call home.

Christmas Adjournment

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. By now, hon. Members may have seen my break into the music industry with “National Living Rage”, a Christmas song that I recorded with a number of Labour Members last week. Derided by some, adored by others—my mum—I am delighted that the song has had its desired effect of generating national attention for the serious issue of pay cuts. It has had 40,000 hits on YouTube and been laughed at on everything from “Daily Politics” to Channel 4’s “The Last Leg”, but it has got a serious message out in the public domain by humorous means.

These cuts are being made by some good employers who have made a bad decision when it comes to older, long-standing staff. I want to take a moment to consider the tens of thousands of workers who face a pay cut this Christmas—those families who have to bear the pressure of selling their house or finding another job just to make ends meet. Christmas should be a time of good will to all men and women, but a disappointing roll call of employers are being scrooges this year. Instead of delivering presents, they are serving their loyal, long-standing staff with pay cuts and notices. From B&Q to Marks & Spencer, 2 Sisters Food Group, Waitrose, Caffè Nero and EAT, good employers are getting it wrong, using the introduction of a higher statutory minimum wage as an opportunity to cut total staff pay.

No one in this House should be under any illusion that this is some sort of niche issue—on the contrary, it is affecting residents in every constituency across the country. It is estimated that about 11,000 of the iconic high street retailer Marks & Spencer’s total workforce of 83,000 would be negatively impacted in some way by pay cuts—that is 13% of the workforce adversely affected, almost all of whom are on pre-2002 contracts. Some 2,700 workers will lose more than £1,000 a year, and 700 will lose more than £2,000 a year. Approximately more than half a million people in the retail, restaurant and food manufacturing industries will receive a pay cut—that is about 13% of the total number of workers in those industries. Many of the companies involved are high street names with historically good reputations, but they have made some terrible errors of judgment. It is not too late for them to change their minds, and I am asking all of them to reverse their decisions to cut staff pay at their January board meetings. Should those companies not change their minds, I hope the Government will step in and salvage their policy for all workers.

I have seen evidence that proves that many other companies are planning the same sort of pay cuts in the coming year. The chair of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, stated in a private meeting earlier this year his intention to review the partnership’s “historic premium pay arrangements”, which he said were not in keeping with John Lewis’s competitors. We know what the John Lewis Partnership’s competitors are doing, so clearly the “review” of “legacy payments” is just a euphemism for the cutting of pay for long-standing staff. We have already seen clear evidence of that in Waitrose’s decision earlier this year to take away paid breaks from new and existing staff. The House will appreciate my frustration when Sir Charlie emailed me to say that he no longer had any intention of meeting me today. Buster, the boxer from John Lewis’s heart-warming Christmas ad, and I are very sad not to have the opportunity to discuss John Lewis’s plans for pay cuts. Can we assume that the decision not to meet me is an admission of guilt on its part? I guess that Buster and I will not know for sure until those pay cuts are announced in the coming year.

If I am wrong about John Lewis, I will happily return to this House and publicly apologise. I will be delighted to be wrong about John Lewis—it is a great British business that got great through great customer service from well-treated staff, the sort of people whom the Prime Minister describes as those giving their best and putting in the effort. I am happy to apologise if I am wrong and I reiterate to Sir Charlie that I would be happy to meet him and discuss this important issue wherever and whenever he likes.

Having concentrated on unscrupulous employment practices, I know that corporate executives are watching every move in Parliament so, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to deliver a message to all those company CEOs and chairmen of boards. The campaign to ensure that no one in this country loses money as a result of the national living wage will continue into the new year, until every worker gets the pay that they so richly deserve. My colleagues and I will be writing to chairmen this week to ask for their contract changes to be reversed at the January board meetings.

I want to use these last few minutes to express my deep concern for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan and in this country.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

As vice-chair of the all-party group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, I want to say that we all stand in solidarity with them wherever they are in the world. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should always speak out against religious persecution, wherever it occurs and whoever it falls on?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Lady: whatever the religion and wherever people are, we must stand up for religious tolerance.

There have been two worrying developments overseas. The first was a raid in Rabwah, where 16 fully armed policemen and 12 plain-clothed officers from three police vehicles forced entry into an Ahmadi office without a warrant, wounding and arresting four innocent Ahmadi men. The raid was unlawful and most likely ordered by the highest ranking officials in the Punjab province.

The second was the destruction of the historic Chakwal mosque, which was attacked by more than 1,000 people a week ago. Stones were pelted and the property was burnt to

“bring it under the influence of Islam.”

I need not remind hon. Members that Ahmadis are not allowed to define themselves as Muslim in Pakistan. I hope that all hon. Members will stand together to express their solidarity with the Ahmadi Muslim community and I ask the Foreign Secretary to do all he can to stand with the oppressed and persecuted Ahmadi people.

Finally, I wish all my constituents in Mitcham and Morden, all hon. Members and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a peaceful new year.

Summer Adjournment

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) sends his apologies; the time taken by the urgent question meant that he could not stay but had to leave to attend to constituency business.

I wish to concentrate my remarks on some local issues and matters concerning this House that might benefit from a mention. I am pleased to report that during the recent London mayoral election in Harrow East, we managed to secure an overwhelming majority for our mayoral candidate, our constituency candidate and the party vote. Regrettably, the rest of London did not follow the same line. I am also pleased to say that we secured a strong majority vote in my constituency to leave the EU, which was of course echoed across the country.

On transport, the dreadful performance of Southern Rail was mentioned in business questions this morning. This affects my constituents as well. The service from Harrow and Wealdstone station to Gatwick airport and Brighton has already been cut, and now Southern proposes to cut the service to Croydon. I wrote to the outgoing Rail Minister about this, and I trust that there will be strong action from the new Secretary of State and the Rail Minister to combat this disgraceful service.

Flooding is a particular issue in my constituency. Many Members from rural constituencies might not realise this, but constituencies like mine have seen deep pools of water and sewage emerging as a result of recent flash floods and heavy rainfall. I have had consequential correspondence and held a series of meetings with the council, Thames Water and the Environment Agency, and it is a great source of frustration that none of them is taking any action to remedy the problem. As a result, many homes have been flooded unnecessarily, which has caused immense problems with insurance.

I had hoped to report today a satisfactory outcome to the ongoing saga of the redevelopment of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. This has been going on since before I was elected: my predecessor and his predecessor attempted to get the hospital rebuilt. The only thing that seems to have changed is that the NHS Trust Development Authority has changed its name to NHS Improvement. Still the bureaucracy continues and still the £20 million funding that is required is being “considered carefully” by the bureaucrats. I trust that the Health Secretary and his team will reduce these levels of bureaucracy and that we can get a reasonable and quick decision on a proper, business-like service. This is a service on which we all rely.

I am receiving complaints about the planning service in Harrow. The local authority is struggling to deal with enforcement notices and the grey areas around permitted development and retrospective planning approval. I warned about this when the Government changed the rules and regulations on planning. It is now causing immense problems, not only in my constituency but throughout London.

I have also received numerous complaints about the rejection of legitimate visa applications submitted for weddings, religious ceremonies, education and other visits to this country. My office is referring every case either to UK Visas and Immigration or the Immigration Minister. We are seeing mass rejections of visas for families travelling to my constituency for legitimate reasons. This needs to be rectified.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. At their advice surgeries, many MPs see people complaining about legitimate entry clearance applications being refused. At the same time, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the high commission in Islamabad recently granted entry clearance to two hate preachers, including one Muhammad Qureshi? Why does he think that permission is being granted to people who are seriously dangerous to our country yet not to those who are not?

[Bob Blackman]

It is quite clear that the problems in the visa system need to be resolved. People who want to cause harm and damage to good community relations in this country should be barred from entering. The new Immigration Minister has a task to review this process. I have proposed that visitors from India have the option of a two-year visitor visa, just as visitors from China do. It might be possible to consider other countries as well, but if we have friendly relations with countries, we should allow people from there to come and visit on a reasonable basis. We should also bar those we do not want here, and that includes barring from our mosques messages from hate preachers who preach over the internet or via satellite television. That causes religious and other concerns.

I wish to take up the vexed issue of the garden tax in Harrow. The council decided in 2015 to charge for the collection of garden waste. Having contacted every London borough, we have established that Harrow is charging more than any other borough in London, and probably the country, for garden waste collection. Residents were rightly outraged by this imposition, but the policy has been approved and 10,000 addresses in my constituency have now been registered for this tax. We have had 168 complaints of poor service and 3,080 missed collections out of 128,000 since the service was introduced. The service is poor yet the most expensive in the country. It is outrageous.

I was pleased recently to visit Bentley Priory museum, where we were buzzed by a Spitfire as part of the celebrations of our winning the Battle of Britain. I also received an interesting request. After successfully securing from the Chancellor a £1 million grant towards an education centre for the museum, I received an email asking for an invoice for £1 million and details of the person to whom the cheque should be payable. I had to check that it was not coming from Nigeria or some other country, rather than a civil servant. I am pleased to say that I was able to pass it on to the relevant people and to make sure they got the money they deserved.

I am pleased to say that the first state-sponsored Hindu Secondary School in this country has now received planning permission. It will be built in my constituency and will open as soon as possible. I look forward to the new Secretary of State for Education coming to open it in due course.

After the break, I will be introducing a private Member’s Bill on homelessness reduction. It is supported by national charities such as Crisis, Shelter and St Mungo’s and by the National Landlords Association and other local charities in my constituency, such as the FirmFoundation night shelter charity and Harrow Churches housing association. Although we cannot eliminate homelessness, we can try to reduce it as much possible. The Communities and Local Government Select Committee will be publishing a report on measures to combat homelessness across the country. My Bill will go through pre-legislative scrutiny by the CLG Select Committee, which I understand will be a first for any private Member’s Bill. This may be an ordeal for me and others.

I would like to tell Members wishing to support my Bill that Second Reading is on 28 October. I look forward to gaining cross-party support for the Bill, and I have already secured co-sponsors from Conservative, Labour, SNP and DUP Members, but unfortunately I could not find a Liberal Member to help. No doubt the Liberals will also support it, however.

I raised the issue of caste legislation at Women and Equalities questions this morning. The all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus is actively lobbying to repeal clause 9 of the caste legislation as it approaches the end of its sunset clause. The consultation time with communities has been fully exhausted over the last two years, and now is the time to take a decision. British Hindus deeply resent this unnecessary, ill thought out, ill-considered legislation, which was foisted on us by the other place. I look forward to its being repealed as soon as possible.

I had the privilege of celebrating the second international day of yoga this year. We had a very well attended meeting here with researchers, practitioners, parliamentarians and representatives from the NHS. The key point is that the NHS is considering putting yoga into the wellbeing aspects of the health service. I would recommend it for all Members. I start my day with a short period of yoga exercises and stretches and meditation, and it has served me extremely well. I thus strongly recommend it for all colleagues—[Interruption.] No, I will not demonstrate it here and now! I have held two meetings with the Minister of AYUSH— Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy—in India. The aim was to get Indian Ministers to inform the Government here and all who would like to listen that this can be utilised to assist people’s wellbeing, as well as ensuring that people can relax and live a proper, decent and long life.

This morning I also raised the plight of religious minorities in Bangladesh. I would like to highlight early-day motion 351 for Members to sign if they so wish, with the aim of ensuring that we get some action. At the moment, we spend £157 million on overseas development aid to Bangladesh, and I am proud of the fact that this country spends 0.7% of its gross domestic product on overseas development. It seems to me that at a time when religious minorities are being victimised and persecuted in Bangladesh, we should spend more of that money on improving security over there for all people of all religions rather than on some of the areas where the money has actually been spent.

I have also raised the plight of Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir. This is an integral part of India, and it shall remain so. The area illegally occupied by Pakistan must be repatriated to India. I have spoken on a regular basis against the continued attacks on Hindu minorities in Kashmir. As a result of the assassination of the terrorist Burhan Wani, the situation in the valley has erupted, with Pandits and Government establishments attacked by Kashmiri Muslims and other terrorists.

I visited Jammu and Kashmir to gain a first-hand understanding of the situation. I met many members of civil society, politicians, lawyers, traders and residents to understand the situation in both Jammu and Kashmir. I met senior cabinet Ministers in Delhi, and it is quite clear that there are huge opportunities for tourism and infrastructure improvements and for the whole of society to come together, provided that the terrorism ceases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

The vote to leave the EU a few weeks ago is a great indication that there are millions of people in our country who feel that they are being left behind, not sharing in the growing prosperity of others. And they are right.

Unemployment may be down according to certain definitions, but poverty certainly is not. For one of the first times in UK history, low wages mean most of Britain’s poor families are in working households. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that two thirds of children living in absolute poverty have at least one parent in work.

Even the introduction of the new national living wage, intended in the words of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), to give Britain “a pay rise”, has fallen short. It has become a vehicle for reducing the take-home pay of thousands of long-standing, loyal employees in the retail, hospitality and care sectors.

Back in February of this year, I was approached by an employee of B&Q who had been given proposed new terms and conditions and thought he might be worse off as a result. In these new contract terms, the employee’s basic per-hour pay was going to be increased, but his overall pay would be reduced by £2,600 per year. This is because B&Q planned to cut Sunday and bank holiday pay, as well as other discretionary bonuses—in short, everything that made B&Q an attractive employer and allowed it to retain its staff.

I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) was able to speak in my place during the debate on the national living wage in this House back in April, where dozens of Members voiced their concerns regarding B&Q’s plans. I was pleased that after the press attention in the debate, a great deal of lobbying, and a meeting between me and the B&Q CEO, the company extended its period of compensation for employees for two years, promising that no one would lose out for the next 24 months. But B&Q is just one of many.

Over the course of my campaign, I have been approached by employees from around the country, and from all sorts of different companies doing exactly the same thing. There were the factory employees working for subsidiaries of Samworth Brothers in Lincolnshire who are facing cuts to their overnight pay. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) met with Samworth workers to hear their concerns. There were young baristas at Caffè Nero and EAT whose free lunches had been scrapped. Most recently, there are 7,000 staff at Marks & Spencer who will be losing out by thousands of pounds each year because the company is cutting overall pay to fund an increase in basic pay.

I have had well over 100 M&S employees from around the country coming forward to me with M&S’s new proposals, with staff terrified for their futures. M&S is cutting Sunday and bank holiday pay, redefining unsocial hours and scrapping its pension scheme, leaving staff with over 20 years of experience at M&S significantly worse off.

Let us consider Elizabeth, whose story was reported yesterday in the Evening Standard. Her name has been changed to protect her identity. Elizabeth used to have great wages and perks at M&S, which she was proud to work for, but now she says:

“Everything is being taken away from us. I wanted to see my kids through university but now I’m not sure I’ll be able to. It really frightens me.”

In a meeting with its head of retail, M&S confirmed that 2,700 M&S employees will lose over £1,000 per year, and 700 will lose over £2,000 a year. Some of the employees who have got in touch with me are going to lose—this is hard to believe—up to £6,000. To be clear, that is after their basic pay is increased.

M&S maintains that this is just a proposal. It cites its “compensation package”, which compensates staff members for 30% of their projected losses not including how much they will lose in terms of pension cuts. From the paperwork I have seen and the experience at B&Q, I think M&S’s plans are a foregone conclusion. To be clear, it is not as if head office staff are getting the sort of pay cut they are dishing out to long-standing shop- floor staff.

There were a number of options M&S could have pursued. Other companies have invested in skills to improve the productivity of their employees. Ultimately, M&S has decided to offset a basic pay increase for some staff by cutting the pay for others.

There are many more examples of UK industrial policies letting down hard-working loyal employees. Just consider the recent discovery of Hermes, the delivery company, using self-employed workers and paying them less than the legal minimum wage, and HMRC’s investigation into Sports Direct’s working practices. Both companies are undermining the integrity of Government policy. These are huge institutions we are talking about, not small local businesses; their profits are in the millions of pounds, and they employ thousands of people.

I was delighted that the Chancellor committed to look very carefully into the case of M&S earlier this week, but I want to tell the Minister today that it is not good enough to introduce a policy like the national living wage without policing it. If Britain has been promised a pay rise by this Government, then Britain deserves to get a pay rise.

Will the Minister write to the M&S chief executive, Steve Rowe, to express the Government’s concerns, calling on M&S to reverse its plans? I absolutely endorse the Prime Minister’s commitment to building a UK economy that works for all, and her Government must start by addressing the causes of low wages. People who work hard and play by the rules need a defender in national politics. Both the Government and those on these Opposition Benches have a responsibility to be that champion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and to hear in this case—forgive the pun—how he has been getting his teeth into his local constituency issues for the good of us all.

Today, I would like to speak for my constituents of Norwich North on the subject of exiting the European Union. Brits have just taken part in a giant democratic exercise about that relationship, and I thank people for that, however they voted, and whatever lies ahead. The result was clear, and hard work now has to follow to put the country’s wishes into practice. We all want what is best for Britain, so we should all work together in a calm and thoughtful way.

Our membership of the European Union is a fundamental constitutional question, and one that could not have been ducked forever. I am a democrat first and foremost, and it was right to use a referendum as the means to settle that kind of question. The result does raise arguments about what it means for the future of our parliamentary democracy. If we can hold a referendum on this, then why not on everything else? Do we even need a Parliament? There is a very clear distinction to be made, though, as there are fundamental constitutional questions. In such cases, it is right to put those decisions directly to the people. The detail and practical implementation of the decision is then the job of the Executive, scrutinised by Members of Parliament. The majority wish in this referendum is a clear instruction to Parliament.

Like many MPs, I have had hundreds of people getting in touch since the referendum, reflecting on the result. Most of my constituency mail comes from those who voted remain and who are understandably worried about the future. Norwich voted by a majority to remain, but that refers only to the Norwich City Council area. My own constituency is not the same as that area. It is never a simple maths job to speak in this place for all constituents on this or on any other issue. Before the poll, most constituents who got in touch wanted to persuade me to vote out. After the poll, I am hearing most from people who want to persuade me to vote against going out. It is funny how that happens, but it reminds us that there is a silent majority that never gets in touch with its Member of Parliament. Counting all those people who have been in touch on either side of that debate still numbers only a few hundred of the 67,000 I represent.

I welcome any tool, such as a referendum, that encourages so many more voices to be heard. However, it is clear to me that the point of a referendum is that the whole electorate counts together—in this case, the whole of the UK. As an MP, first, it is my job to support the best for Britain after this clear instruction, and secondly, it continues to be my job to work for everyone I represent in Norwich North, whichever way they voted on this issue or any other.

Some of my constituents are reflecting on how the poll was run, concerned that just a simple majority was used to define the result on a complex question. There is clear precedent here. Referendums are decided on simple majorities. Consistency is important and allows a legitimate process. In a healthy democratic society both sides accept the result, recognise the concerns that the other side might have, and then come together in unity. I recognise this in my constituents. While some are celebrating, others who have been in touch are unhappy. What we cannot do is deny the result or denigrate fellow citizens.

Norwich is a proud and old city, but with a youthful population. Some constituents share my own deep concern in particular about the generational rift exposed by the referendum. What happened, in age terms, at this referendum is quite clear. A large majority of younger voters opted in, and a large majority of older voters opted out. Bluntly, the younger generation was outvoted, and many are now contemplating the result with some concern for their future. But, again, democracy is democracy. We live by it and we accept the result.

I am always concerned by turnout rates, in which younger people generally vote less than their elders in Britain. Never mind whether this is a new or an old battle, a new or an old issue, what we are seeing is that younger voters are not coming out in sufficient numbers to fight any battle. Democracy works thanks to those who take part, so if people care about something, they simply have to be there. There are not many excuses in a major democratic event, and considering that many people around the globe still literally die for one person, one vote, we should appreciate the robust lesson that politics actually means something.

I therefore call on the next great reforming Conservative Prime Minister to heal this division. The health of democracy depends on all being represented, and it must balance the needs of different generations. It is the duty and the opportunity of the new Government to reach out to young voters now and offer them a future.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

On that point, and given the hon. Lady’s position on the all-party parliamentary group on voter participation, will she look seriously at automatic registration so that we get young people to the point where they can use their vote?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady knows that I look seriously at all these issues. Indeed, I have chaired that APPG and helped to produce a report that goes into that option and a number of others for ensuring that as many people as possible are registered to vote. I know that that is an issue that the hon. Lady has worked on in some detail.

Let me press on to the situation of EU nationals in my constituency—that is, several thousand constituents, friends, colleagues and family members. I welcome the Government’s early reassurance that there has been no change to the rights and status of those people, and confirmation that when we do leave the EU, the Government fully expect their legal status to be protected, alongside our goals for our citizens living in the other European countries.

I very much welcome the contribution made by immigrants in Norwich and across the UK to our economy, history and society. Norwich is a friendly and welcoming city. I was concerned, like many in our city, by an arson attack on the shop and home of a Romanian. It is still too early to rush to any conclusions about the motives for the attack, but whether it was racist or just plain criminal, it is hateful behaviour and it has no place here. The response of the community has been impressive. Norwich does not welcome racism or any form of aggression. Let us be clear that those who have made Great Britain their home are respected and valued.

Looking ahead, the referendum result provides a clear instruction to the Government that the majority wish is for a change in the way that Britain handles immigration from Europe. However, leaving the EU must not mean leaving behind a strong economy or a strong cultural exchange. In the east of England, almost one in every 10 jobs is linked to trade with the EU. We want to build on that, not to lose it. The case for remain, perhaps, was to maintain the rules for half of our global trade, and we need the best deal possible for that half. The case for making a success of leaving involves looking now to the other half, and I welcome the early appointment of the relevant set of new Ministers who are focused on that.

Norwich, in particular, needs a good deal on financial services. The financial services sector makes the largest single contribution to the economy of Norfolk and Suffolk. Norwich is the largest general insurance centre in the UK, with a heritage going back more than 200 years, and it is going strong today, employing thousands of people. Firms will now be looking for a technical environment of regulation that allows them to thrive in the UK and to thrive outside London, too.

In Norwich, we expect to be able to do the same in our exciting digital and technology sectors so that we can attract investment and talent. We also enjoy an ambitious science sector, a thriving cultural scene and a strong tourism industry. All of this requires an outward-looking attitude. Britain must remain a successful economy—jobs and livelihoods in my constituency depend on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am afraid that I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend to speculate on the content, or even the date, of the autumn statement. What I can say is that the Bank of England is well equipped with the tools necessary to deal with the short-term needs of the economy following the shock of the referendum, and the autumn statement is well placed, after the batch of economic data that will be published this autumn, to provide a longer-term response.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. He may recall that his predecessor cut corporation tax for business to allow the living wage to be introduced. As we speak, Marks and Spencer is consulting on cutting overtime payments and Sunday and bank holiday pay, in order to do just that. What will the Chancellor do to ensure that my constituent, Mrs M, does not lose £2,000 a year because of the introduction of the living wage?

[Mr Hammond]

Very clearly, the intention of the introduction of the living wage was not to make people worse off; it was precisely to support the living standards of those on the lowest wages. I will look carefully at the case that the hon. Lady has drawn to my attention.