Wine Duty

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered wine duty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I am pleased to have secured this important debate the day before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers the Budget statement to the House. I am grateful to the Minister for responding. I know he will take very seriously the points I will make further to our correspondence on this issue. I would also like to thank the unusually great number of right hon. and hon. Members present for supporting this 30-minute Westminster Hall debate. I hope the Minister has noticed the strength of feeling on this important subject.

I applied for this debate as a result of meeting the chief executive officer of Majestic Wine, which is the UK’s largest specialist wine retailer, with more than 200 stores across the UK, including a large store in my constituency. They raised a number of concerns relating to wine duty that I felt were important for the House to hear and reflect on. The UK is a major global hub for wine and spirits. It is the world’s second largest importer of wine by volume and value, and the largest exporter of spirits. It supports over 390,000 jobs, £69 billion in economy activity and £8.6 billion in excise duty revenue.

Like all businesses, those across the wine supply chain have had to confront some tough trading conditions over recent years, but a number of the challenges they face are unique to the wine and spirit trade, and these were brought to my attention by Majestic. The challenges faced by Majestic and other similar businesses stem primarily from the new alcohol excise system, which was introduced last year. In particular I am referring to the impact of the historic duty increases and the changes to the way wine duty is calculated. The introduction of the new duty regime last August followed a review of the inherited EU duty rules. When the review was announced, it was welcomed across the drinks industry, which backed wholeheartedly the aims of the review, which were to make the new duty system fairer, simpler, less distortive and easier to administer.

Sadly, particularly for wine and spirit businesses, the new regime is not fairer. In fact, in many ways it has reinforced the existing market distortions. For wine businesses, the new system is anything but simpler to administer—in fact, it is exactly the opposite. The new system that was introduced on 1 August 2023 levies excise duty on all alcoholic products according to strength, but at different rates. This reinforces pre-existing market distortions by continuing to tax wine and spirits more harshly than other categories of alcoholic drink.

When introducing the new system, the Government recognised the impact it would have on wine businesses and rightly put in place a temporary easement mechanism that pegged the amount payable for wines in the range of 11.5% to 14.5% at the amount payable on a wine of 12.5% alcohol by volume. That amount is currently £2.67 per bottle. Wines falling within this easement mechanism account for 85% of the wine sold in the UK market. That is 1.1 million out of 1.3 million bottles sold. This easement is set to end on 1 February 2025.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I represent the Wine Society, which is headquartered in Stevenage and is a large organisation struggling under this pressure. It will cost it £300,000 to £400,000 to upgrade its systems. It is being asked to price wine before the level of alcohol is known, as wine is an agricultural product, and it is having to re-evaluate the range of wines it is able to output, which is having a knock-on effect on the supply chain. Does my hon. Friend agree that this seems to be a difficult case of unintended consequences, and if the easement he refers to were to be made permanent rather than temporary, it could solve the problem?

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to champion the cause of the Wine Society, which is based in his constituency. There is both a significant cost implication and an administrative burden for such organisations, so the impact of these changes should not be understated.

The easement that is set to end on 1 February 2025 will affect wine businesses ranging from major retailers such as the big supermarkets to specialist retailers such as Majestic. However, as my right hon. Friend has just alluded to, there are also thousands of independent wine merchants who have all said that having to implement fully the strength-based system would impose significant costs, running to many millions of pounds, both in the short term and once the necessary systems are established.

Justice

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Treasury questions on Tuesday 9 April 2019.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

6. What progress he has made on reducing the total amount of tax that people pay.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

This Government have made very significant progress in reducing the burden of taxation on the low paid, including by recently increasing the personal allowance to £12,500—thus taking 1.7 million of the lowest paid out of tax all together since 2017.

[Official Report, 9 April 2019, Vol. 658, c. 165.]

Letter of correction from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The Government are responsible for the productivity agenda and the setting of targets for the national living wage. As I have already set out, working in those two tracks is the way to deal with the challenge of low pay. I can tell the hon. Lady what will not help workers on low pay: having their personal allowance taken away from them.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

6. What progress he has made on reducing the total amount of tax that people pay.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

This Government have made very significant progress in reducing the burden of taxation on the low paid, including by recently increasing the personal allowance to £12,500—thus taking 1.7 million of the lowest paid out of tax all together since 2017.[Official Report, 11 April 2019, Vol. 658, c. 5MC.]

[Stephen McPartland]

What the Treasury gives with one hand, local authorities are taking away with the other, with relentless rises in council tax, and parking charges and fees affecting households up and down the country. What are we actually doing to help families, instead of paying them lip service?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that there are many costs and taxes that bear down on the lowest paid. That is why, in addition to increasing the personal allowance, the Conservatives have introduced the national living wage, which has gone up well above the rate of inflation this April. We have frozen fuel duty for nine years in a row, which has saved the average car driver £1,000 cumulatively. We should also not forget that 28% of all income tax is paid by just the highest 1% of earners.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill (First sitting)

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Sometimes the House can come together and do good things, and this is an example of that. Perhaps we will see other examples before too long. I thank him and I commend the Bill and clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I just want to speak briefly, as the incident happened in my constituency of Stevenage, and I want to put on the record my thanks to PC Dave Wardell, police dog Finn, and the campaigners, and to my right hon. and learned Friend. Without his vast experience of being Solicitor General and his roles in the Ministry of Justice, we would not have been able to get the Bill written in such a form as to get past all the blocking tactics we found within some Government Departments.

I fully support the Bill, as do all Members in the House, as I understand. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the great work he has done in creating this cross-party passionate effort to ensure that working service animals are protected.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I thank everyone on the Committee today, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire for introducing this extremely important Bill. It is absolutely and fully supported by the Scottish National party and the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, which I chair. We have had the pleasure of a visit from Finn and Dave Wardell to meet parliamentarians and speak about the tragic case and why it is so important for the Bill to be enacted, in order to correct the wrong of treating service animals as objects under the law, and for us to congratulate these service animals, in line with public opinion, on all the work they do to keep citizens safe, and to protect them going forward.

A proposal is already going through the Scottish Parliament and these measures have been accepted there as a Bill. I am hopeful that we can move forward collectively to ensure that animal welfare standards, particularly Finn’s law, go forward with aplomb today, and that we add to those levels of protection across the United Kingdom.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

Another very well-informed point from a colleague about the great progress that women are making in the workplace with the support of this Government.

The headline point that I was keen to make is that this Government have a track record in reducing inequality. I am keen to ensure that we base what we say on the track record—the track record of improving the lives of people on the lowest incomes and of reducing inequality.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just incomes, but equality of opportunity and aspiration?

[Helen Whately]

I agree. We should not just look at the outcomes. The outcomes are a desired end but, in order to get to a better outcome, the key is to give people opportunities to make the most of their lives. In particular, we should help those who have a difficult start, or who find themselves in a difficult situation. They may need extra help to access the opportunities but, absolutely, opportunity is the key.

Rather than painting a picture that can mislead people into believing this illusion of a perfect world, we need to base claims on substantial policies. I know that it is controversial, but universal credit is making a difference in my constituency for people who want to work and who want to work more hours. I have heard many criticisms of the policy, but genuinely it is making a difference and giving people the opportunity to increase the work that they do. Improvements in the standard of education and the opportunities coming through thanks to the industrial strategy—these are the concrete policies that will make life better for people. That is how we reduce inequalities and that is why I am delighted to support the Government throughout this Finance Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

It is clear that we all take this matter extremely seriously.

Earlier I intervened on the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. She said that the Government have no teeth to act when companies do not publish the data. It is my understanding that the Government do have teeth to act. We have something called the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which can act when companies fail to publish the data. I urge Treasury Ministers to pay close attention to that.

From the work I have done in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I am aware that a number of companies have published the data. That is great news because it is now in the public domain. The Conservative Government made that happen, not the Labour Government. Now many more companies are following suit, and it is making a big difference to the employees of those companies. The Equality and Human Rights Commission can issue a notice and require implementation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said, this is a complex issue.

I draw Members’ attention to the work of the 30% Club, set up by Helen Morrissey, who got a load of business leaders together and urged them to take voluntary action to put women on boards. Although there was absolutely no legal right or Government mandate, she found that the business leaders were all worried about reputational damage, culture and their image with their employees, and she saw significant changes across the board. I was an employer before I came into this House, so I know that addressing the issue is not simply a matter of passing laws in the Chamber or the Government carrying out a review. It is about a societal and cultural change. I am proud that our Government, led by our Prime Minister—the second female Conservative Prime Minister—are leading from the front on this issue, and that companies and businesses across the board are following suit.

The Government’s record speaks for itself. It is not just about slogans. It is about enacting policies that make a big difference. I worry that requiring analyses and placing additional burdens on the Treasury at this time—when it has a massive amount of priorities to deliver in order to make our tax system fairer and to achieve the progress and outcomes that we all want—would have the opposite effect. I have certainly seen for myself the danger of unintended consequences when we regulate and put more burdens on businesses.

I do not support new clause 9 and will not vote for it if there is a Division.

[Stephen McPartland]

It is a great pleasure to be called in this debate and to follow such wonderful speeches from my colleagues. I understand that the Treasury publishes the distributional analysis of the cumulative impact of the Government’s tax, welfare and public services.

I have never been shy about voting with the Opposition if I believe that they are right, but I do not believe they are right in this case. That is because the review that they are asking for, which focuses predominantly on households with different income levels, and issues around Treasury analysis, just provides more data and more analysis, and that is not going to help people on the lowest incomes or those from disadvantaged backgrounds to move forward in life. It seems to be very academic as opposed to actually helping people to push forward and achieve opportunities. For me, the real challenge in this country is inequality in opportunity and in life chances. At the moment, the best way of changing one’s life chances is still through getting a great education. I am proud of the Government’s record, with millions more children being educated in good or outstanding schools. We should all be proud of that on both sides of the House.

As I say, I am not shy about voting with the Opposition if I believe they are right. I have campaigned on—

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in Hertfordshire we have seen a lot of investment in the schools sector, which is helping to achieve the sort of results that he is talking about, with, for example, Highfield School in my constituency being completely rebuilt recently?

[Stephen McPartland]

I do agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I have another colleague from Hertfordshire here as well—my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). We have seen massive investment in our area. I am very proud of the number of primary schools that have been expanded and rebuilt in my constituency. A couple of secondary schools have also been rebuilt, creating great opportunities for the pupils. I am also very proud that all the primary schools in my constituency are rated “good” or “outstanding”. It is probably one of the few constituencies in the country where that is the case. Four of my six secondary schools are good, and the other two we are currently dealing with. I hope that by the time of the next election I will be one of the few Members of Parliament where every single child in my constituency will be in a good or outstanding school.

I do not believe that new clause 9 provides equality of opportunity and equality of aspiration. It will do nothing to help people in my constituency from disadvantaged—

[Stella Creasy]

We are all concerned to see good schools, I think. Does the hon. Gentleman recall a former Prime Minister who argued that sunlight was the best form of disinfectant? Having the numbers to track why, disproportionately, young men from black and ethnic minority backgrounds do worse in our schools, for example, and whether Government policies are influencing that, or whether their parents’ income might be an issue, would help him to understand how he gets those better schools.

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady and I agree on a lot of things and disagree on others. We have debated issues across this Chamber and in Committee Rooms. I do not think that figures will help those children. Figures are just retrospective and talk about what is possibly happening.

[Dawn Butler]

I want to clarify something. Equality impact assessment is part of the public sector equality duty. It looks at the implementation of policies, assesses them, and sees whether they have helped or hindered progress. That is all that equality impact assessment does. It is a good thing. It is not an extra burden; it makes for good decision making.

[Stephen McPartland]

My difference of opinion with the Opposition is that I think that a good teacher probably makes a much bigger difference to a child’s education and chances in life than an impact assessment and something from the Treasury. With regard to forecasts from the Treasury and economists, stuff that we have seen over the past couple of years, and the nearly eight years I have been a Member of Parliament, shows that in reality those figures never seem to be right.

This is about equality of opportunity and equality of aspiration. I would like to talk about universal credit. I campaigned on some of the issues on universal credit. I believe that universal credit, as a product, is the right thing to do. It was supported by both parties in the sense of stopping the cliff edge for people who could not take on an extra hour or two of work because they lost all their benefit. The idea behind universal credit was that the benefit would be reduced over a certain period. I know that there are still live issues with the Treasury over the size of the take. I hope that the Minister is taking note of that, because I continue to raise it with the Chancellor. I think that the withdrawal rate is still too high.

Universal credit is doing more than new clause 9 would do to help people’s life chances—more than a document saying what has happened and people’s opinions of what could or could not have hindered the situation.

[Dawn Butler]

It is good governance to have a look at the impact of one’s policies on society.

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but I cannot support the new clause because it will not do anything to help people practically. It will just allow academics and economists to argue over moot points, whereas I am interested in actually helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds who want the opportunity to go off and aspire to achieve and to be anything they want to be. It is very sad, in this day and age, that we are discussing the fact that we need to identify whether certain sections of society need more support than others. We should be aiming to get to a society—

[Anneliese Dodds]

Given that, for example, over 80% of the social security cuts enacted by Conservative Governments have fallen on the shoulders of women, would it not have been helpful for those women, and indeed for us as decision makers, to know about that before the decisions to implement them were taken?

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady makes a very earnest point, but I cannot accept those figures.

A huge amount of money has gone into social care. At the moment, there are people in my constituency on fixed and low incomes who are very disappointed about the 3% that is going to be levied on their council tax for social care, because that will have a negative impact on their income, although it helps other sections of society and is the right thing to do. This new clause is about academics and economists as opposed to helping real people on the ground on a day-to-day basis. Some Labour Members are shaking their heads, but they got involved in politics for the same reason that I did, which is to help people to get on in life and achieve the best that they can. That is why I am a Conservative and why most people in this Chamber are Conservatives.

Returning briefly to the welfare system, as that is my area of expertise, we want a system that works. When we look at universal credit, the Treasury’s distributional analysis provides an analysis of the cumulative impact on welfare and public services. My view is very much about developing policies to help people get on in life. New clause 9 is just about providing some information on what has affected people in the past over a number of years, and by the time we are focused on the next Budget or other fiscal event, things have moved forward again.

[Bim Afolami]

My hon. Friend is making, as I think everybody knows, a very powerful speech. Does he agree that new clause 9 is indicative of the fundamental difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members? We care about action and doing things and improving people’s lives; they want more analysis.

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. We can see why he was selected to be the Member of Parliament for Hitchin and Harpenden. He stands up for his constituency incredibly well, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald). I am proud that we have three Hertfordshire MPs who are speaking in this debate because we are interested in helping people to get on in life. As a result, we have incredibly low unemployment in our areas.

[Dawn Butler]

The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) is absolutely right: this new clause does highlight the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government are intent on taking actions, regardless of whether they help, hinder or hurt people, whereas Labour Members want to ensure that we have policies that help society.

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point that I respect, but I assure her that I only vote for policy that I believe will help people, and if I do not believe that it will help people, I do not vote for it. I have voted against the Government for that reason. I have a record of doing that and will continue to do so.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, as many would, that the Treasury produces excellent research documents, and research is an important thing, but are these further demands for research not indicative of the difference between the parties, which is that they are the researchers, and we are the doers?

[Stephen McPartland]

I could never disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He always makes a powerful point.

One of the biggest challenges in society is intergenerational fairness. I do not think that new clause 9 captures some of the issues we face as a society and the challenges facing different generations. There are some people living in large houses, paying high council tax rates and on very low fixed incomes. There are young people who may be considered quite affluent but still cannot afford to purchase a property in their part of the country. In a different part of the country, they could easily afford to purchase a property but may not be able to get a job, so cannot get a mortgage. Intergenerational fairness is incredibly important, and the Government have tried to spread wealth throughout the country through the northern powerhouse.

I think that the Conservative Government have tried very hard. They have not always got it right, and I have voted against them when I believed they have got it wrong, but they have tried consistently to help people get on in life and provide a welfare system that is a safety net for those who need it in times of difficulty.

In this country, education is still the best way out of poverty and the best opportunity people have to change their life chances. I am proud of what the Government have done to ensure that millions more children are being taught in good and outstanding schools. When it comes to the economy, we have record rates of employment, with people out there earning, paying tax and contributing to society.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened to him for some time. He seems to be making quite a lengthy speech; I do not know if that is just a thing that is happening on the Government Benches at the moment. He talks about equality and people getting on in life. I respect the fact that he has rebelled against the Government when he sees fit. He spoke about the importance of a good education and people coming out of school and university, but does he share my concern that under-25s are not included in the national living wage? What does he think about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

From my point of view, there are geographic issues with the national living wage. For instance, it is much more expensive to live in Hertfordshire. One shocking challenge we have in Hertfordshire—I imagine a lot of people in the rest of the country will not understand—is that my constituency is 19 minutes from King’s Cross, and as a result, we lose a lot of our young people to London. When I became a Member of Parliament, there were fewer than 200 apprentices a year starting work in Stevenage. We now have nearly 1,000 apprentices a year starting work in Stevenage. That was the only way of holding on to our young people.

On new clause 9 and distributional analysis of the cumulative impact, if a young person in Stevenage becomes an apprentice, the employer pays for them to get a level 4 degree. They will be earning £25,000 a year and not getting into debt in university. It is geographic.

[David Linden]

I declare an interest: I began my career as a modern apprentice. The reality is that under UK law at the moment, apprentices can still be paid as little as £3.50 per hour. How does that fit with building a country that works for everyone?

[Stephen McPartland]

In Hertfordshire, £3.50 an hour would not be acceptable. In Hertfordshire, employers have to pay far more than that to attract a young person, otherwise they just will not get them. That is the reality. I think I have the highest unemployment rate in Hertfordshire, at 1.6%.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think it is quite important that the hon. Gentleman returns to the substance of the debate—new clause 9. Just mentioning it every now and then does not do the trick.

[Stephen McPartland]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. I obviously had no intention of misleading you in trying to mention it now and again. New clause 9 and the Treasury publishing a distributional analysis of the cumulative impact of Government’s tax, welfare and public service spending is quite a wide-ranging topic. I was trying to make the point that I do not support new clause 9 because it seems academic, as opposed to helping people from different backgrounds to achieve their life chances. On that note, I shall conclude.

[Wes Streeting]

The speeches from Conservative Members have been so rousing that I have been moved to speak to take on the sheer absurdity of the arguments we have heard this afternoon. Member after Member has told us that they oppose new clause 9 because the Government already do this. If the Government already do this, why do they not support new clause 9?

The fact is that the Government do not already do this. What the Government do is publish an impact assessment with a distributional analysis of Budget measures by households depending on income. That measure was introduced by a previous Chancellor, until the current Chancellor’s predecessor decided it was politically inconvenient and got rid of it. The present Chancellor, to his credit, decided to bring it back. That assessment is interesting and useful. It informs Ministers when they are making decisions, but it does not cover the measures that new clause 9 addresses.

The fact is that the Government’s Budget and the Finance Bill are a reflection of their political priorities and tell the country about the problems the Government want to address and how they intend to do so through sufficient provision of resources. The simple fact is that if the Government made an equality impact assessment of their Budget measures, we may not be in a position where women in their 50s are being clobbered by changes to their state pension age at a time in their life when they have little time or opportunity to address it.

As a result of the Government’s refusal to listen to argument, evidence and reason, I see constituents in my surgery on a Friday afternoon—women in their 50s—who tell me that they have lost their job and are not able to access their pension when they expected. They had planned for retirement, and as a result, they can no longer make ends meet. There is nothing they can do about it at that stage. Had the Government considered the evidence, they might have made a different decision.

Had the Government assessed the equality impact of their Budget, we might not be in a position where disabled people have been consistently and repeatedly clobbered by changes to welfare and other areas of public policy. If, as local authorities do, the Government looked at the equality impact of their decision, they might seek to take steps to mitigate the impact on disabled people. Instead, nationally and locally, disabled people have too often had the books balanced on their backs, which is totally unjustifiable.

If the Government looked at the impact of their Budget measures on black and minority ethnic people, they might well take a different approach to the provision of resources in education to address the imbalances. They might also find, through analysis and research—words that have become anathema to this Government in their approach to public policy making—some surprises, such as the fact that detrimental changes to small businesses have a disproportionate impact on BME communities. They may choose to do something about it, or they may not, but at least their policy making would be better informed.

In the debate on this Bill, someone has to stand up and make the case for reasoned, evidence-based public policy making. It is a total disgrace that in the democratic discourse of this country, we now see the trashing of experts. We are warned that if we adopt new clause 9, academics may debate it—God forbid that people with some degree of expertise should debate the laws that we pass, because goodness knows it does not happen in this Chamber often enough. What is it about expertise and data that the Government are so afraid of? What it is about information that they find so terrifying?

--- Later in debate ---

I put the Minister on notice. It may be that that we cannot tear up the contracts, but a Labour Government would get those companies around the table and make sure that they paid their dues. We would make sure that the excessive profits are brought back, so that teachers in our constituencies do not have to fund raise to pay for books and pencils for students while the companies report millions, if not billions, of pounds of profit at our expense. George Bernard Shaw was right: sometimes political necessity becomes a political mistake. The necessity here, now, is to act, and I urge the Minister to listen.

[Stephen McPartland]

I will keep my comments focused on the bank levy, PFI and tax evasion. Results speak far more than rhetoric, and it is important to put on the record that in 2016-17, the banking sector paid £27.3 billion in taxes, which was up 58% from the £17.3 billion that it paid in 2009-10. I understand that under the current proposals, the bank surcharge is expected to raise an additional £1.8 billion for the Exchequer.

I would like to talk briefly about PFI. I have a lot of sympathy for the comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), but a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. I have a lot of experience of PFI. In 2012, I launched a campaign because the last Labour Health Secretary signed a PFI deal for the Surgicentre in Stevenage to be built and operated by Carillion. As a result of the deal, when the centre was fully operational, 8,500 records were lost, leading to damaged eyesight for a large number of patients, and three people died. It was a complete nightmare.

As a result, I ran a long, hard campaign and persuaded the Health Secretary in 2013 to nationalise the facility and return it to my local hospital trust. A Conservative Member of Parliament therefore had a piece of the NHS nationalised that had been privatised by the last Labour Health Secretary, so if there is a specific issue, local Members of Parliament can go in there and create a change. I took Carillion on in 2012 and I won. As a result, I then worked with the GMB union. We launched a campaign to stop blacklisting among construction workers and we won again. It is important that individual Members of Parliament identify problems with PFI in their areas, so we can then work on and tackle those problems as individuals.

Turning to tax evasion, it is very important for people to look at what they can do as individuals. Again, back in 2012—I was obviously incredibly active at the time—I launched a campaign on tax transparency, before it was fashionable. In association with Christian Aid, I wrote to all FTSE 100 chief executives to ask whether they would commit to greater tax transparency and help developing countries around the world. In the drive towards globalisation, the situation is incredibly difficult—it is almost a race to the bottom in some areas—with regard to what each country will offer to allow large multinationals to move around.

I published all those results in The Daily Telegraph and on a website. This was all before tax evasion and tax transparency became far more fashionable. The Government got involved and I am very pleased that as a result, £160 billion has been raised since 2010 in additional tax revenue, tackling avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. For me, that is an additional £160 billion that has been invested in my local and national health service, and in my hospital that has been rebuilt and paid for by the Government, not by outside organisations or PFI. That money is being invested in children’s futures in my constituency. Individual Members of Parliament have a great opportunity to go out and create change in their areas, if there are specific issues that they can tackle, and it is possible to win on those issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think that I was as surprised as you were, Madam Deputy Speaker, by the brevity of the speech by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I very much appreciate it—it is great. I was willing the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) to keep going for an extra 30 seconds to hit the half-hour mark. He was close, but did not quite get there.

I want to talk specifically about the bank levy, tax avoidance and evasion, and, briefly, PFI. We will support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I will not expand on that because she covered the issue broadly. On the bank levy, the position in our 2017 manifesto was that we did not support the reductions in the bank levy; we supported the reversal of those reductions. What the Labour party has proposed is a good way to tackle this, given, as has been said in exchanges across the House, that there is not an amendment of the law resolution, nor are we able to move some of the more exciting, more interesting things that we would have liked to move. I hope that the next time there is a Finance Bill, the Government choose to do that, and if we end up with the Labour party in charge, I hope that it will make that change and ensure that an amendment of the law resolution comes through in any Budget process and Finance Bill. That is the only way in which we can have a reasonable level of discussion on this issue.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend remember the City Minister, Ed Balls, saying in 2006 that nothing could endanger the light-touch regulation of the banking system?

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention because I absolutely do remember that. The reason why those words might linger in mind longer is that they came from someone holding an office of state. Cabinet members at the time were positively encouraging those whom they considered their friends in the City to become increasingly reckless, as was the First Minister of Scotland, as I have mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I consider the hon. Gentleman to be a friend because we work together in Suffolk as MPs; we are always happy to do that. I will be coming to the issue of the crash and the way in which the banks went back to the 1930s, as he puts it, because I experienced that myself.

[Stephen McPartland]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the total tax take from banks now is 6% higher than it was in the year before the financial crash?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention and provides the rebuttal for me. The key point is that more tax is being raised now than before the crash.

My point is that were we to apply now the test of the impact on the public revenue under Labour’s very own review as proposed in new clause 3, we could only come to one conclusion, which is that all the taxes we have put in place on the banking sector—not just the bank levy—have been raising significantly more revenue. The rising revenue has contributed to paying off the deficit and supporting UK public services. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), is shaking his head. I am happy for him to intervene and tell me that we are not raising more tax from the banks. He was very generous in giving way to me, but it appears that he is not going to intervene.

Subsection (2)(b) of new clause 3 states that the review that Labour would introduce of the bank levy would look at

“reflecting risks to the financial system and the wider UK economy arising from the banking sector”.

I always find it amusing to see a Labour amendment—particularly from this Labour party—talking about risks to the financial system; indeed, I think the shadow Chancellor himself has referred to Labour as a risk to the financial system. One wonders whether, in its own review, Labour will be modelling what the impact of a run on the pound—let alone a run on the banks—would be on the banking system. I certainly think it would be most profound.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North said we are going back in time, but of course we have to go back, because the bank levy was born out of what happened in 2008. The bank levy came from the crash, which has had very many wider impacts, but particularly on this aspect of our tax system.

Let us remember the real bank levy—the real cost to the public. The cost of the bail-out of the banks was £850 billion. That was the figure the National Audit Office published in 2009 while there was still a Labour Government. That consisted of all kinds of costs. There was £107 million for City advisers—that’s right, a Labour Government spent over £100 million on City advisers. There was £76 billion to buy shares in RBS and Lloyds. There was £250 billion to guarantee wholesale borrowing to strengthen liquidity. There were many more hundreds of billions of such costs, including hundreds of billions for the Bank of England to insure itself in providing liquidity. People forget that. When we talk about the cost of the bail-out, we are not talking just about buying shares in the banks; this huge amount of subsequent activity that took place ultimately has to be accounted for, and it is borne by the whole of our economy and all our taxpayers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

We will carefully consider the commission’s proposals for a broader register. If those proposals go forward, the Government will consult on what the register should look like after the negotiations have concluded.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to improve productivity.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government recognise the challenge that Britain’s productivity performance represents, and we are resolved to tackle the issue. At last year’s autumn statement we launched the national productivity investment fund to provide £23 billion-worth of additional spending, focused on areas key to boosting productivity. We went further at the Budget by investing an additional £500 million in technical education to ensure that businesses can access the skills they need.

[Stephen McPartland]

With the average worker spending 23% of their day on email, what assessment have the Government made of how the increasing reliance on email is stalling productivity?

[Mr Gauke]

Particularly in the context of the public sector, we have an ongoing efficiency review. Where we find areas in which we can improve efficiency and ensure that everyone becomes more productive, we will obviously look to take those opportunities.

Sale of Annuities

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that this is the right thing to do. It is a difficult decision and it is, as ever, a balance between two conflicting viewpoints. My job as a Minister at the Treasury is about making sure that consumers are protected, that industries are regulated sufficiently, and that there is the very best possible deal for customers. Withdrawing this product, which is aimed at many old and vulnerable consumers, is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I know that the Minister has very bravely taken this decision to protect the more vulnerable pensioners who are suffering, but what will he and the Treasury be able to do to ensure that pensioners on very low incomes who are trapped in difficult annuities can escape those punishing regimes?

[Simon Kirby]

We are looking at an economy that works for everyone, including those pensioners on low incomes. The Treasury will be considering this very carefully, but my hon. Friend will have to wait until the autumn statement to hear how we are best placed to deal with this. However, those people are absolutely at the centre of our attention, and we will do all we can to help.

Tax Credits: Concentrix

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I am not able to respond immediately from the Dispatch Box to one or two of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. My clear priority and that of HMRC at the moment is to make sure that we resolve the outstanding cases, and in particular the difficult cases for vulnerable constituents. We will then turn our mind to some of the other points that he made. We are not renewing the contract, but we intend to continue to bear down on error and fraud. That is important, as there is a lot in the system, but we have had a great deal of success in recent years in reducing it—the amount of fraud in the system has halved from £800 million to £400 million. We need to continue to bear down on that, because money that is fraudulently obtained is money that is not available to taxpayers. It remains vital that we address that matter. But for the moment, my primary consideration is resolving the difficult cases to make sure that we look after our most vulnerable citizens.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I am a big fan of supporting those people who are trying very hard to get on in life and who depend on tax credits. One of my concerns is that over the next eight months those people will still be dealt with by Concentrix and will still have that fear of being falsely accused and prosecuted, almost, as they go forward. What reassurance can the Minister give that those people will be looked after, and will HMRC carry on with the contract in the future or will it issue it for new tender?

[Jane Ellison]

I have laid out the arrangements we are putting in place. The contract ends next spring. In the meantime, HMRC will support Concentrix on the outstanding cases—in particular, looking at more complex cases and supporting back-office functions while Concentrix staff focus on resolving already open cases. It is important to have a bit of perspective. Concentrix has assisted the Government and, indeed, the taxpayer in correctly identifying a lot of claims as either erroneous or fraudulent. It is important to keep the matter in perspective, but HMRC has made clear its operational intention not to continue the contract beyond the spring.

Tax Credits

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who spoke a lot of sense. I join him in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us a full-day debate.

I fully support the motion and was delighted to put my name to it. I voted against the statutory instrument because I could not support the Government. That was not an easy thing to do. I am proud to be the Conservative Member of Parliament for Stevenage, but I could not support the Government on the statutory instrument.

I support the idea of a high wage, low tax and low welfare society, and I believe that tax credits need to be reformed. They cost more than £30 billion a year and have completely snowballed. Families visit my surgeries all the time and they are very upset about the fact that no two families are treated the same. There are huge overpayments and there are underpayments. It is an incredibly complicated system. Some £1 billion a year is lost in fraud. There are huge issues with the tax credit system, but the problem is the impact the proposed changes would have had on those families with the lowest incomes.

I accept that the Conservative party manifesto said we would reduce the welfare bill by £12 billion. We need to look at that and I will come on to it later. Much of the debate about unemployment benefits is about how they contribute to the welfare bill, but actually they make up a very small proportion of it. For example, the reduction of the benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000 a year was incredibly popular on the doorsteps during the election campaign, but it will save less than £100 million, because it affects fewer than 100,000 families in the whole of the UK. That is an indication of how small a proportion unemployment benefits are of the overall welfare bill.

I stood up for those families whom I believe Labour has left behind. They occupy the centre ground and I want to occupy it, too. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor said in their conference speeches that they also want to occupy the centre ground. Those families get up and go to work. They are trying to do the right thing and to support their families and work themselves out of poverty. They are the families I support and I am happy to fight for them. It is on behalf of those families in my constituency and across the United Kingdom that I voted against the statutory instrument.

Why have I been so vocal on this issue? I cannot believe that the impact of the changes was fully understood. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made a very good critique of them. I want to focus on the reduction in the threshold that enables people to apply for and receive tax credits. The reduction from £6,420 to £3,850 is an instant £1,200 cut, so anybody earning more than £6,420 would be hit by a £1,200 cut right away. That is far too much of a blunt instrument.

A teaching assistant who earns £11,000 a year has restrictions on the number of hours they can work. They do a valuable job educating the next generation of society, including future business leaders. I make no bones about the fact that I am very proud of the work they do. My wife is a primary school teacher and I am proud of her. My sister is a secondary school teacher and a large number of my family work in education and do a great job. How can they be expected to go out there and make up a £1,400 cut to their income? It is not possible. That is too much to cut all in one go. Increasing the taper from 41% to 48% would result in cuts of only £200 or £300, but reducing the original threshold would result in a £1,200 cut. I cannot support that, which is why I had to vote against the statutory instrument and why I have not since then been able to support the Government in the Lobby on this issue.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a basic test of the fairness of this package would be for its painful parts, such as the threshold reduction, not to be introduced quicker than its more positive elements, including the living wage, personal allowance increases and other benefits?

[Stephen McPartland]

As Members can imagine, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. People such as teaching assistants and cleaners do a great job in society and we need to be reaching out to them.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions teaching assistants and cleaners. I should probably declare an interest, because I used to be a teacher in receipt of tax credits. When the scheme came into being I was a single parent, and it was only because I had tax credits that I was able to remain in employment. It was a very difficult time and I faced the choice of either going into unemployment and being with my child or remaining in work. It is not just teaching assistants and cleaners who are affected, but other people in society as well.

[Stephen McPartland]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. I mention teaching assistants because I think they are a classic example of people who are constricted in the hours they are able to work. They can work only so many hours a week and so many days a year.

The existing mitigation includes free childcare for three and four-year-olds, but if people do not have a three or four-year-old that is pointless and no help whatsoever. There has been talk about the personal income tax allowance increasing from £11,000 to £12,500. I would like to see it go up to £15,000 by the end of the Parliament, but if people do not earn more than £11,000, it is of no use to them. People on £11,000 will still be hit by the £1,200 or £1,400 cut. That punishes people who are going out to work and doing the right thing. That does not sit right with me and I cannot support it.

[David Morris]

Does my hon. Friend think that a tapering system would be better suited to this policy?

[Stephen McPartland]

That is a possible solution and I am sure that the Treasury is looking into it. I would like to work with the Treasury on how the mitigation could work, and I hope that it will listen.

[Mr David Davis]

Give him a job!

[Stephen McPartland]

I would like to point out that I do not want a job.

Getting back to the people who are on £11,000 a year or thereabouts and who will be particularly punished by the policy as it stands, I am pleased that the Chancellor is now listening. Although I do not agree with what the House of Lords did, I accept that it has brought us to this position. I want the debate to focus not on constitutional issues but on the loss of income for people who have no ability to make it up elsewhere. How can we help those people?

I have talked about the increase in the personal income tax allowance from £11,000 to £12,500, which will cost about £9 billion. The Government spend over £700 billion a year, yet it seems as though if we cannot find this £4.4 billion it will be the end of life as we know it. We all know that that is not the case. There is a way in which the effects can be mitigated.

How do we reform tax credits without punishing those who are trying to do the right thing—those who get up, go to work and try to move their families forward? Some £3 billion of the £4.4 billion saving is down to the change in thresholds that I spoke about—the initial £1,200 cut. It is an incredibly broad instrument that will punish people whether they earn just over £6,420 or £19,000 and it must be mitigated and changed. We have to find a way around that initial £1,200 cut. It is too much and it goes too far.

There is talk of a discretionary hardship fund. I would certainly welcome that for people who are struggling in one way or another. There has been a lot of talk about national insurance. I would like people not to pay any tax on the first £11,000 or £12,000 of their income, but that will not be looked at fully because it would be incredibly expensive. For me, this debate is about how we can help these families.

Basic macroeconomics suggests to me that if we take £4.4 billion off the people who earn the lowest incomes, that is £4.4 billion that will be taken straight out of the economy, because it will be taken out of the pockets of people who would have spent it right away. Every pound that is taken off those people is a pound that is taken out of the shops in their local economies. It just does not make sense.

I do want to work with the Treasury. I can be a prodigal son and be returned to the fold, I am sure.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Can I join you?

[Stephen McPartland]

I think you are a little more disliked than I am.

There is huge fear out there among the public. We need to come forward with proposals as fast as we can. I want the Treasury to talk to us, listen to us and work with us. I warn the Treasury that if it does not come forward with mitigation proposals that we find acceptable, we will continue to raise the issue and try to look after the poorest in society. I accept that Britain has 1% of the world’s population, generates 4% of the world’s income and spends 7% of welfare spending. That is too much. I am proud of the Conservative party and will continue to put fairness at the heart of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for initiating it. It has been a very good cross-party debate. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for their contributions.

Dare I say that I am becoming a little more mature in years? I am now the Chair of a Select Committee and can afford to be a little more independent. It is not, however, always easy to further one’s ambitions in a party if one stands up for what one believes to be right. We are standing up for what we believe to be right. It is fundamental that people who work are better off than those who do not. As a Conservative, I believe that we should be encouraging people into work because they will be better off, but if we are not careful, the policy will drive people back on to benefits and take us in the opposite direction from where we want to go.

I support what the Chancellor has done in taking millions of people out of tax, raising the thresholds, halving the deficit, driving the economy and creating vast employment in the country. I come from a constituency with only 1% unemployment, but the average salary, for full and part-time employees, is £18,700 and the number of families claiming both working and tax credits is more than 22%. In addition, the average house price is £190,000—the prices are quite high because it is a beautiful part of the country to live in. However, we have to make sure we support people who are working hard across the country. That is why we need to take this opportunity.

I disagree entirely with what the House of Lords did, but it has given us an opportunity to reconsider. May I be so bold as to say that it does not matter how many spin doctors and people who are clever with figures we have? When someone on a low income who relies on tax credits knows that that money is being taken away from them, it is absolutely real. I hate to say it, but on this occasion, the Government and the Chancellor have to be absolutely certain about how many people will be affected and what we will do about it.

I very much support the national living wage, but the Government and the Chancellor need to help the many small companies in our constituencies to pay it. As people get more in their pockets and more from their employment, we can reduce tax credits and the state subsidy on employment. We all get that. We all know what has got to be done, but we cannot do it at the speed we are doing it and take money from perhaps millions of people. It is simple arithmetic. For someone on a low salary, £1,300 is a huge amount of their disposable income—we must remember that this is about disposable income.

I am optimistic. I have always been optimistic in my life because I believe there are always solutions, and I believe there is a solution to this because the Chancellor is a very clever man. I am sure he is listening and will come back to the Chamber with some proposals. These people, whether they are cleaners or classroom assistants, whether they work in the health service, the private sector, the tourism industry or on farms, are all hard-working, and we must be a party and a Government who support hard-working people. We have done that up until now, and we have just lost our way a little, but we can come back out of the wilderness and put this right.

[Stephen McPartland]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is at its greatest when supporting people getting on in life and providing a safety net for those who need it?

[Neil Parish]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I am in politics today to try and make that happen. It is why many of us on the Conservative Benches are prepared to stand up and be counted. It is right that we do so, and our constituents expect it. The Chancellor will say, “We must eradicate the deficit”, and yes, we must, but if we are six months or—dare I say it?—a year late in doing that, people will understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless). Indeed, I am one of those who have visited his constituency on holiday, and I remember one evening being bitten alive by midges on Clatteringshaws loch. We had to escape into our car and smoke cigars to keep them away—of course nobody under the age of 18 was in the car at the time, I hasten to add.

One noticeable thing that happened earlier this month, and which may not have come to everybody’s attention, was that the International Monetary Fund—not an organisation I have always had a lot of sympathy for, particularly when I was living in Tanzania in the 1990s—made a remarkable statement under its excellent managing director Christine Lagarde: excessive inequality damages growth and the economy. It is amazing and very welcome that the IMF has come to that conclusion. It has come to that conclusion not just in respect of developing countries, but in respect of any country.

In my opinion tax credits have been a means of reducing inequality and particularly excessive inequality in this country. That is why when I spoke in the Opposition-led debate last week I urged the Government to look again at the policy, especially its timing. I am very glad the Chancellor has said he will do that and will bring forward measures. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary because he has always been listening and is a great credit to his position, as indeed is the Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind him, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore).

I mentioned two other things last week, one of which was predictability. Income is about predictability; it is not just about levels of income, and if we cannot predict our income it is a great driver into relative poverty. We see that all over the world. The proposals originally before us would lead to cuts of perhaps 10% or 15% in people’s income without their knowing what is going to happen, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and others have said. They would be getting a letter in December or January for something starting in a couple of months and would not have an opportunity to correct that.

I also mentioned the problem of scarcity. For those with a low income things are more expensive. The inflation rate is much higher for people on low incomes than for people on higher incomes. They are not buying electronic equipment, which comes down in price every year, or flying with Easyjet on holiday, both of which have brought the inflation rate down. We need to bear that in mind. The inflation rate may be 0% at the moment, but it is certainly not 0% for people on the lowest incomes.

[Stephen McPartland]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real poverty in this country is poverty of education, of opportunity and of aspiration and that the people on the lowest incomes are trying to work their way out of that poverty?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Absolutely; if we see everything in terms of income we are a poorer society, as John F. Kennedy once so magnificently said.

Members have also talked about the fallacy of trickle-down economics—and it is a fallacy. It was supposed to be the way in which the poor would get richer, but, as I have seen around the world, that is rubbish. What we need is surge-up economics, because those on lower incomes spend their money locally, and it goes into taxes and VAT. Of the £4.4 billion, probably several hundred million pounds will be spent on VAT and will come straight back into the Treasury. So we have to remember the consequences and effects on the local economy of the loss of this spending power, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said. If one thing is to be reduced, we must see the other sources of income increase simultaneously.

There is also the impact on those on fixed incomes such as carers, which I mentioned last week and other Members have mentioned. Full-time carers who will not see rises in their income often have no opportunity to go out and work more hours. There is also the impact on the self-employed, and indeed on farmers in my constituency who have seen their milk prices, their only source of income, fall. They are reliant on tax credits as much as anyone else. Sometimes, people see them as asset-rich because of their farmland, but they are the ones providing our milk, wheat and other things on which we rely, week in and week out. Their incomes are low, and they, too, rely on tax credits.

I want to look to the future. Other hon. Members have mentioned areas in which we could raise the extra income to offset the cost of delaying the tax credit reductions. I mentioned a couple last week and I shall not repeat them. I want to make a couple of points about the future, however. The first is about national insurance. There has been talk in the past about merging national insurance and income tax, but I think that would be a big mistake. It is incredibly important to have a progressive national social insurance system to which people contribute—even those on low incomes, perhaps at a very low rate—in which they feel they have a stake and from which they are entitled to receive benefits if the need arises. I urge the Government to look closely at how we can improve the national insurance system, rather than getting rid of it. Perhaps we should consider adopting something like the German system, to which we would contribute more but which would provide guaranteed benefits for when people were sick or out of work and for when they eventually retired.

Secondly, we need to look at our savings. We do not save enough; that is a fact. If we look at other countries around Europe, such as Italy, we see that they are far better at saving than we are. The Japanese are excellent at saving. We have one of the lowest savings rates. When my colleagues and I produced a report on social stability last year, we emphasised the importance of introducing a lifetime savings account, which could perhaps be supported through tax-free contributions over the course of a person’s lifetime. People would be able to draw down funds from such an account at difficult times in their lives, perhaps if they became seriously ill or were out of work. Such an account could eventually be converted to become part of their pension. That would encourage people to put aside money, supported by the state, to top up any benefits they might need to claim. Those benefits are always likely to be fairly basic, because they are paid out of the state system, but it is to be hoped that people would still be able to live on them.

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement this week, but I encourage him to look at all the incredibly important points that have been made by Members on both sides of the House in a spirit of co-operation. Above all, I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for his initiative and his sagacity in bringing forward this debate.