27/10/2015 House of Commons

Welcome to BBC Parliament's live coverage from the House of Commons.

The main business today is the remaining stages of the welfare

reform and work Bill. It aims to make ?12 billion of welfare cuts and

apprentices. Member to join me for a apprentices. Member to join me for a

round-up of the day in both Houses of Parliament at 11pm this evening.

First, we have questions to George Osborne and his team of ministers.

Order! Questions to Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, -- Chancellor of the

Exchequer. I would like to answer this question together with

questions two, three and four. Last night, unelected Labour and Liberal

peers voted down the financial measures on tax credits approved by

the selected House of Commons, which the selected House of Commons, which

raises clear constitutional issues, which we will deal with. We will

continue to reform tax credits and save the money needed so that

Britain lives within its means. While at the same time, lessening

the impact on families during the transition. I will set out the plans

in the Autumn Statement. We remain determined to build low tax, low

welfare economy that written needs and the British people want to see.

6800 children in South Shields are growing up in families which rely on

tax credits. One of my constituents told me tax credits at the moment

only make it possible for families to feed and clothe their children as

it is. If the government keeps making cuts to those who are the

lowest paid, we may just give up hope. The public, experts, some of

that he is victimising working that he is victimising working

parents and their children. So can he give my constituents some hope

will give her constituents support, will give her constituents support,

and the constituents we all represent in the House, by

delivering economic security. Economic security that has seen

unemployment fall in her constituency by 44% since 2010. One

of the ways we deliver economic security is by controlling

welfare bill and making sure the welfare bill and making sure the

country lives within its means, that is what we will continue to do. The

Chancellor has singularly failed to listen to the SNP and this House

when we have said he needs to think again about tax credits. He sounds

like he is more keen on dealing with the peers than them. How about he

listens to the people and drop these plans once and for all? This House

of Commons voted three times for the changes rejected in the House of

Lords, and we look forward to the support of the SNP in that

constitutional question. But I will make this point, we need to have a

welfare system that works, we need welfare system that works, we need

wage economy, and we do that by wage economy, and we do that by

introducing the National minimum wage and having a welfare bill that

the country can afford, that is the best we can do for the security of

the people. If the Chancellor had listened to the evidence from the

outset, he would not be in this outset, he would not be in this

mess. If his backbenchers voted with mess. If his backbenchers voted with

their conscience, there would be an alignment of the opinion with the

other place. He needs to appreciate he needs to go back to the drawing

board with his failed policy that his working -- hates working people

the hardest. -- hits. We will deliver what we promised in this

Parliament. I remember a time when the Labour Party used to support

moving from welfare to work. They have abandoned that approach. We

working people, who need controlled working people, who need controlled

welfare and a country that lives within its means. He is not your. --

here. Does he agree that whatever our views on the tax credit dispute,

in overturning the settled will of the elected chamber, the unelected

Lords have exercised power of a chamber of parliament in the tax

area we are, for at least 100 years, it has been the established --

established that they should only established that they should only

have the legitimacy of a consultative assembly? He makes an

important point. On any five occasions in recent decades have the

House of Lords blocked a statutory implement, and never on a financial

matter. We had a range of opinions, telling us yesterday that this was

unprecedented. It is something we have the address. The Prime Minister

made that clear, and that is what we are going to do to make sure that

the elected House of Commons is responsible for the tax and spend

decisions affecting the people of the country? -- people of the

country. I wrote to the Chancellor about a lady in my constituency, who

only earns ?11,000 a year, and says that ?31 a week has been cut from

her budget. I know he will meet me and discuss this, but surely the

have conversations here, and he will have conversations here, and he will

responsible and chopped out. What is responsible and chopped out. What is

never have to stand should decide never have to stand should decide

how the people are tax asked and how how the people are tax asked and how

to spend our money. I agree with my honourable friend on the

constitutional point, which is a matter of the House of Commons will

want to address. I take very seriously the point he raises about

his constituent. I have made it clear that we will listen about how

to make the transition on the lower welfare, higher wage economy, and we

have introduced controversial changes in the last Parliament, for

from higher earners. We make from higher earners. We make

changes, listening to Parliament, to smooth the transition is to these

reforms. So of course we will listen to the House of Commons in this

respect. But the end goal is clear. respect. But the end goal is clear.

This country cannot have an unlimited welfare budget squeezing

out other areas of expenditure. We, at half 1% of the world's

population, 4% of the economy, but 7% of the welfare budget. Can the

Chancellor stick to his guns on the issue of tax credits? Gordon Brown

spent billions of pounds he did not have on tax credits to try to buy

agree with me that there is no agree with me that there is no

painful way out of huge debt, and he will do well to -- people will do

well to remember that. I completely agree with my honourable friend, and

spending on tax credits went up three times during the period of the

last Labour government. Networking poverty increased during that

period, so it had the opposite period, so it had the opposite

effect intended. When the country loses control, the people who suffer

are indeed the low paid. They are the people who get turned out of

work. It is not the richest in the country or the trade unions barons

who lose their job. It is the broadest in the country. We can

deliver economic security for them, so we will listen on the

but we're a to deliver controlled but we're a to deliver controlled

welfare and economic security for the working people of this country.

The Children's Society estimate there are 10,000 children living in

5100 families in Robert who will be punished by the tax credit changes.

Provisions will the Chancellor put in place to support them during the

transitional period? I will set out transitional period? I will set out

in the Autumn Statement how we will do this. The people of Rotherham and

the rest of the country want to see this. We have to make choices. Are

we prepared to see the country decline, are we prepared to see the

budget out of control? Are we prepared to see jobs lost or do we

want to continue delivering economic want to continue delivering economic

security that sees a record number of people in work and has seen

employment increase in Robert? The average taxpayer here now pays ?2000

a year in extra tax just because of the government's debt interest

payments. Is it not time we saw this payments. Is it not time we saw this

tax on the payslips or that those who believe they can spend with

impunity including the neglect -- unelected chamber... He is right to

call it that. One of the largest items of government spending is

paying the creditors the owe, and that crowds out the money we could

be paying into education. We have been taking forward and innovation

put forward to a backbencher on this side of the House, and we now send

attack statement to every taxpayer -- a tax statement to every taxpayer

to see how much we spend an interest and how urgent it is to remove this

deficit. On the constitutional deficit. On the constitutional

point, will the Chancellor read out the specific sentence in the

Conservative Party manifesto where he promised he will be cutting tax

credits? I am very glad he has a copy of the Conservative manifesto.

It is an excellent document that says we're going to deliver better

schools for people, put more money into the National Health service,

invest in transport, and it says on the document we will make ?12

billion of welfare savings. We have introduced wage increases

that matched what we were proposing to do by statute. We are already

seeing the benefits of the national living wage coming into effect

before it is even introduced. We know there are 500,000 more children

in poverty since 2010... Half an million more children in poverty

since 2010 and potentially 4 million children in poverty by the end of

this Parliament if the Chancellor is in listening mode, knowing he does

not need to make these cuts in order to balance the budget, why does he

not listen to those who say start now with the policy of tax credit

gentleman is just not correct on the gentleman is just not correct on the

numbers. Child poverty is down by 300,000 since 2010 and the number of

children in workless households is half a million fewer that was when

this government came to office. It is difficult to take lectures from

the SNP about balancing the books. They made forecasts for oil revenues

which would have left Scotland with a ?30 billion black hole if they had

got their way. We will go on delivering economic security for the

people of Scotland and the rest of the UK die taking the difficult

decisions that his party ducks. The Chancellor is in denial. Is it not

the case, Mr Speaker? Absolute denial that yesterday the 26th of

October demonstrated to things. The Chancellor has lost his political

touch and his chances of being Prime Minister have gone up in a puff of

smoke. All they want to talk about this party political games rather

than sorting out the mess that this country was in six or seven years

ago as a result of the changes --. Six or seven years ago. As result of

the changes we made things have improved and we will go on making

the changes. He can go on praising the House of Lords that he has spent

his whole life campaigning to abolish and I will go on delivering

the reforms to our economy needed to help Scotland continue to grow. At

the end of the last Labour government, nine out of ten families

with children were eligible for tax credits. Some of them aren't up to

?60,000. In other words, they were paying their taxes and getting some

back. Isn't it better to reduce taxes in the first place so people

keep more of their hard earned income? I think my honourable friend

speaks for her Lincolnshire constituents and the whole United

Kingdom in saying what we want to do is move to the lower tax, lower

welfare higher wage society. We increased the personal allowance to

?11,000 and cut taxes for business, reducing corporation tax, expanding

employment allows some smaller businesses could take more people

on. It is about continuing to deliver record levels of employment

in our country and growing economy which today's GDP figures confirm.

Can I remind the House that 3 million people out there who have

done everything asked of them, bringing up their children, going to

work, this is not a constitutional matter. They will lose ?1300 per

year. Given what happened in the other place last night, can I

reassure the Chancellor that if he brings forward proposals to reverse

the cuts to tax credits fairly and in full he will not be attacked by

this side of the House. Indeed, he will be applauded. But can you

assure us that whatever proposals he brings forward he will not support

any that an independent assessment demonstrates will cause any child to

be forced to live below the poverty line? I am of course happy to accept

any proposals he puts forward but I would make this point. I am happy to

listen to those proposals but let me make this point. There is a

difference between those who say we want to make no savings to welfare

at all, we want to abolish things like the benefit cap, we are not

prepared to make savings at all to the tax credit system, and those who

have said yes, we do want to move to a lower welfare society but we want

help in the transition. If he has puzzles to help in the transition of

course I will listen to them but if years promoting uncapped welfare and

uncapped borrowing then I don't think the British people will listen

to him. The Chancellor has a choice before him. He can push on with the

tax giveaways to multinational corporations, press on with tax cuts

to the wealthiest few in inheritance tax that he announced in the summer

budget, or he can reverse those tax breaks for the few and instead go

for a less excessive surplus target in 2019/20 and the end -- and be in

a better position. Is he prepared to listen to reason? Is he or anyone on

that site willing to step up and show some leadership on this issue?

Let's remember, we inherited a tax system where city bankers were

paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned them.

Multinationals were paying no tax at all. We have introduced a new tax to

make sure multinationals to not divert their profits and we have

increased capital gains tax to avoid that abuse of tax rates. We are not

going to take lectures from the Labour Party on a fair tax system. I

would say to him, he in a way reveals what he believes, which I

respect, which is to abandon the surplus real and run at the -- run a

forever and don't make difficult forever and don't make difficult

decisions on welfare you will condemn this country to decline and

that means as a result people will that means as a result people will

become unemployed and living standards will fall. That is not the

Britain I would like to see. We will take difficult decisions to deliver

lower welfare, lower tax and a higher wage economy. And this

elected House of Commons will carry on with economic plan which delivers

that. Mr Speaker, I am in discussions with the Scottish

Government on the design of its new fiscal framework. We met on four

occasions and a joint statement was released after each meeting. Talks

have been constructive and we hope to come to a final agreement in due

course. John Nicholson. Does the Chief Secretary remain committed to

a funding formula based on Barnett, as promised in the vow? The

Government is committed to the Barnett formula and delivering all

aspects of this method agreement. -- the Smith agreement. Would the

Minister think again on that answer? My constituents have ?2000

less per person on public expenditure than constituents in

Scotland and we pay the same taxes. How can that be fair? I think it is

worth noting that the Barnett formula will continue but it will

diminish in importance. For the first time, more than half of the

Scottish Government's budget will come from Scottish taxpayers rather

Government, which I think will add Government, which I think will add

extra accountability to the Scottish Government. I should like to answer

question number seven. We have a record number of people in work and

the GD PDA to today shows Britain outperforms other western economies

but there are global risks and much more can be done to fix our economy.

Bottom statement will set out ways we can do this and make tough

decisions for Britain to live within our means. The total number of

unemployed in my constituency is 219 and youth unemployment is only 36.

With my right honourable friend join me in praising institutions such as

Henley College who are providing excellent apprenticeship training?

It is good to hear about the success of the people in his constituency

finding work over recent years, and the business confidence that exists

in Oxfordshire. Henley College, which he has spoken about, does an

excellent job making sure young people have the skills they need to

take opportunities out there in the jobs market and we will go on

helping institutions like that by increasing apprentices so we deliver

the 3 million apprentices. Unemployment has fallen in my

constituency since 2010 but we mustn't be complacent given recent

news about difficulties in the West Midlands but would he agree that we

should do more to invest in skills such as science and technology so we

can equip local people with the skills they need to take future

opportunities? I visited a number of the successful businesses in his

constituency, exactly the kind of small and medium businesses that are

the backbone of the British economy. They need help with training and

hills on college -- Halesowen College can help them. As far as I

can see has been afraid to publish impact assessments on changes to

working tax credits on people taking up or remaining in work. Will he

guaranteed that given the decision last night he will look at this and

include an impact assessment? We published an impact assessment and

equalities assessment distribution or analysis of the measures we

produced in the budget. None of those were ever produced by any

Labour Chancellor. We continue to provide the information people seek

but what matters above all is getting the central judgment right

about fixing the economy, dealing with the deficit and delivering

economic security for the people she represents. The Chancellor is fond

of telling us about 2 million more people in employment when he usually

little facial lap of honour around the chamber. Has he is omitted how

many of those 2 million people would be hit by the proposed tax credit

changes and how many he would be comfortable still hitting with

revised changes? We will help with the transition. The measures to do

so come alongside the increase in national living wage, increases in

personal allowance and action we have taken to cut social rents. It

is part of a package to deliver security to people in Northern

Ireland and the UK. He remembers what it was like five or six years

ago in Northern Ireland with high unemployment, lack of business

investment, people looking for work. Now jobs are being created and

people are finding work. Has everything been done that needs to

be? Absolutely not. Let's work together to make more jobs and

investment in Northern Ireland. My local council keep talking about

cats. But a management consultant company said there will be 10,000

jobs in my constituency. Would do the Chancellor agree that his

economic policies have put that on track and we are going forward in my

area of the world and making it better for the people who live

there? He is right. As a combination of him

being in effect the local MP and the fact we have a conservative MP and

government, we are delivering more jobs into his part of Lancashire.

link road to the port, which they link road to the port, which they

campaigned for four decades, but they were never delivered. It has

now been built and delivered as part of his efforts. My party wants to

deal with the deficit. We think he has gone about it the wrong way.

We're worried about certain employment trends, for example a

trade Association has warned 20,000 jobs could be at risk due to the

announcement of withdrawal of support for solar energy schemes.

What steps does the government proposed to take to avoid

large-scale redundancies in the solar industry, and what support

will the government offer to the industry? We are in constant

dialogue, and use has decreased dramatically. We have reduced the

subsidy going to solar. There has to be consistency on what Labour will

argue for. On the one hand they ask to deal with the energy prices

affecting the steel industry, reasonably, then they spokesman gets

up and asks to add more cost to energy bills so we subsidise

renewals. I recognise all job losses are concerning for those that.

Regarding large-scale redundancies, the Jobcentre plus rapid response

service can help. They provide support and are working at a

colliery in his constituency. We may consider further intervention in

other cases where the impact is significant. Thank you. I also

welcome the support and retraining packages for steelworkers referred

to earlier. There are several hundred workers at the colliery

facing redundancy later this year. facing redundancy later this year.

And a further 240 power station workers going through a

consultation, who are very worried about their future. Will he meet

with me urgently to discuss a similar support and retraining

package for these workers? I recognise the difficulties faced by

many people in his constituency. One thing I will say is that my

honourable friend is a real champion for jobs in his constituency. Only

last week he ran his fifth annual jobs fear for his constituents,

which is part of the reason unemployment is down by more than

1000 since the last -- in the last Parliament. I would be happy to meet

with him to discuss further what training is available for

constituents affect the. 1700 people have lost their jobs in Redcar, and

it is expected total job losses will be 9000. How long will it be for his

measures to take effect and have jobs again? We're taking a number of

measures, tackling unfair practices and speaking on that basis at EU

summit. We are dealing with high energy bills and making sure the

more -- that more public contracts go to UK steel producers. But the

youth he government cannot deal with the world's deal price -- steel

price. We're making sure that the situation is as good as it can be.

This government has made a long-term science capital commitment investing

6.9 billion in the UK's research infrastructure. In the last

Parliament we maintained the ring fenced science budget in cash terms,

at ?4.6 billion per annum, and provided 1.75 billion of support in

research and development tax credits in 2013. Further decisions to

support research will be decided at the forthcoming Spending Review. The

record does not match the rhetoric. Only yesterday some of the leading

companies in the UK were expressing concern that the government had a

reported plan to replace research and development investments, could

affect them and send them abroad. affect them and send them abroad.

Could he reassure Parliament and Could he reassure Parliament and

business that support will remain available? Future plans for the tax

credits are matter for the Spending Review, but where I disagree with

him is what we have done on the last five years. For each ?1 of tax

foregone on around the tax credit stimulates between ?1.53 and ?2.35

of additional investment. The tax credit scheme has been increased by

170 -- from 175% to 210%. We recently visited our research Centre

in my constituency. Does he agree that collaborations between the

academic and manufacturing world's are the way forward? I agree,

particularly in areas surrounding particularly in areas surrounding

the impact and well rounded this the impact and well rounded this

productivity, 3.87 times the productivity, 3.87 times the

Parliament, local authorities will Parliament, local authorities will

be able to attend taxes to spend on be able to attend taxes to spend on

services. Elected mayor 's will get services. Elected mayor 's will get

greater flexibility over business greater flexibility over

rates. Each devolution deal will be rates. Each devolution deal will be

spoke, but the deal agreed last Friday with the north-east, but the

deal agreed last Friday with the North East commendable oddity

includes a new ?30 million a year funding will programme of

transferring arrangement in the region. The north-east is keen and

determined to slip Whitehall's Alicia, but some people are

concerned that hard-pressed civil servants will seek to devolve cuts

while maintaining control of spending. To avoid this, will the

Chancellor commit to complete transparency on the budget of the

devolved function, publishing the full funding figures for the years

before and after the Spending Review. Of course we will publish

information, but the deal signed last Thursday committed to ?30

million of additional funding each year going forward. If she does not

think that is a good deal, she should listen to Simon Henning, who

is the chairman from her own party, who said the agreement being signed

today will bring significant economic benefits and opportunities

for businesses and residents in the for businesses and residents in the

north-east. She should be welcoming it. Last week 's announcement of the

new cluster of flights between China and Manchester. It is this

government and this Chancellor who is delivering a clear vision for the

North. We had an exceptionally successful visit last week,

including the President's trip to Manchester. Important in relation to

the Northern Powerhouse was the start of the first direct flight

connecting Manchester and the Northern Powerhouse region to China,

which will be vital for the connectivity and ensuring economic

investment is brought into the region. Last week it was concluded

that the Chancellor's decision to devolve business rates to local

authorities will lead to an increased council debt levels,

cancellation of creditworthiness of governments, and will leave many

local councils including Lancashire County Council with your credit

rating downgraded. What safeguards rating downgraded. What safeguards

can he promised will be put in place to ensure that your -- poorer areas

of the Northern Powerhouse do not miss out? He needs to know that over

many years, a large number of local authorities have been calling out

for this kind of devolution of the tax base, so they have control over

their own decisions and the funding given towards them. Many of the

local authorities have been calling for these additional powders, they

are precisely the Labour authorities in those inner-city areas,

Powerhouse, and we intend to deliver Powerhouse, and we intend to deliver

on that to make sure there is devolution in the area. The

government is fully committed to implementing the cost and effective

ring fencing regime, and we remain ring fencing regime, and we remain

firmly on track for the separation of banks by January 2019. We passed

the last legislation and the ring fencing recommendations this year,

and regulatory authority is consulting on second tranche of the

roles before publishing the final rules this year. In 2012, the then

government of -- Governor of the Bank of England said that unless

these regulations were specified, these regulations were specified,

there was a risk they would be watered down before implementation.

We now see Barclay's Bank joining RBS and Lloyds in the questing

significant waivers. Could he reconfirm the commitment and the

design principles within the legislation? The government remains

committed to introducing a ring fencing regime as recommended in the

independent commission on banking. I will not comment on speculation on

how individual banks would like to do it because that is the decision

as long as they remain compliant to the restrict restrictions. Deadline

is 2019. There was a lot of crying wolf. Is she aware of anything that

will be sent to foreign parts because of it? The UK recently once

again top the ball as the number one location for a global financial

centre. We believe our legal system, language, geographic location, our

brilliant skilled workforce and many other fact is contribute to the fact

that this is an excellent place to locate a global financial services

fund. My honourable friend is right to highlight the importance of

increased product vividly, which increased product vividly, which

will drive growth, raise living will drive growth, raise living

standards and ensure a better quality of life. Our plans set out a

range of reforms to make sure it remains a dynamic and enterprising

authority supported by private and public infrastructure. Does he agree

Governor of the Bank of England Governor of the Bank of England

European Union in positive terms European Union in positive

suggest that if we make sure we do suggest that if we make sure we do

get product of a tea right and get product of a tea right and

prospects will be very good for the prospects will be very good for the

economy, dynamically and in terms of growth? As the Chancellor

the best outcome for the UK economy the best outcome for the UK economy

is achieving reform over the EU. We want to have a leading role in

delivering prosperity and security delivering prosperity and security

for every country in the EU, for every country in the EU,

particularly integrating the single market. One of the important factors

machinery. Our banks doing all they machinery. Our banks doing all

can to end the companies to make can to end the companies to make

sure they can improve productivity in the company? He is absolutely

private investor went, which is why private investor went, which is why

primary level of the investment primary level of the investment

allowance, and we will develop these opportunities. Does he agree that

raising productivity is the route to raising productivity is the route to

raising living standards, and the raising living standards, and the

commitment to raising corporation commitment to raising corporation

tax will all contribute to achieving that? I do agree. Rising

productivity increases living standards.

Don't manufacture, or build enough. Too much of the economic activity is

concentrated in London. The Chancellor may recognise his own

words from a speech in July. Why was he so damning about his own record?

My right honourable friend has been absolutely consistent in identifying

the need to rebalance the economy and export more. Regarding product

cavity, the productivity gap has existed for a long time. I can't

even pin the blame on the last Labour government. We have to

address the shortcomings and this government's programme is doing just

that. I thank him for his answer. The Chancellor Institute have called

his productivity plan fatally undermined by insufficient measures

to improve the skills of the existence workforce. Could that be

why the UK's productivity gap has widened to the largest since 1991

compared with other G-7 countries? She is right to identify the

importance of skills. Skills and human development is at the heart of

the productivity plan. The apprenticeship levy is a really

important structural thing to improve. Excellent work is being

done in the Department for Education. English and maths have a

vital high value in the marketplace. Question 13. The Government is

committed to raising their income tax personal allowance to 2005 at

pounds by the end of the Parliament. This is also with our commitment to

raise the higher level to ?50,000. Personal allowance will increase to

?11,000 next year and ?11,200 in 2017/18. In raising personal

allowance, one of them was powerfully progressive things we are

doing to move towards a lower tax, higher pay society, income -- income

tax means people in my constituency will be lifted out of paying income

tax entirely. Does this not sure conservatives are on the side of

working people? Those working 30 hours per week on the national

minimum wage will be taken out of income tax altogether and kept out

of it and it contrasts with the position in 2010 when people owning

just 6500 pounds were paying income tax and those people had recently

seen an increase in their marginal rate from 10% to 20%. Raising the

personal allowance on its own is not a panacea and will do nothing to

address the deep levels of poverty which exist amongst the working

poor. Is she concerned at the recent or N S statistics that show 6

million jobs pay less than the living wage? The best way we can

address poverty is to ensure we have a strong economy with jobs growing,

increasing productivity, making sure we have the business investment we

need, he pro-business approach, good for job creation and that is why

there are more people in work than we have seen before. Topical

questions. Topical number one. It is to ensure the stability and

prosperity of the country. The Government's defeat in the other

place, 4000 families in East Hull would have lost thousands per year.

Now that he is in listening mode, would he commit to dropping this

vicious assault on hard-working families? In Kingston-upon-Hull,

which he represents in this House, unemployment has fallen by 32% since

this government came to office in 2010. That is because we have

delivered economic security and committed that Britain should live

within our means. Yes we will listen to the transition we make to that

law welfare higher wage economy that we must go on making savings in our

welfare budget or else it will crowd out spending in our NHS and

education system and it will mean Hull does not have the resources it

needs to thrive and prosper. Wage increases reduce the burden of tax

credits on the taxpayer. What assessment does the Chancellor make

of wage increases in my constituency in the West Midlands and in the UK.

--? The introduction of the national living wage is going to benefit

around 300,000 people in the West Midlands, including her

constituents. It is part of a package to support the working

people she represents and gives the economic security to that West

Midlands engine that we want to say. The Chancellor said he would listen.

Confirm that he will not be writing to the 3 million families before

Christmas telling them their tax credits will be slashed. Surely he

doesn't want to go down in history as Scrooge delivering devastating

news to millions of people, or does he? Obviously we will inform

families once the changes we have made become law. The Channel Tunnel

and the Port of Dover are very important pieces of infrastructure.

When there are disruptions to services as we saw the summer it

causes misery for people in Kent. Would he agree to meet with me and

other MPs from Kent to discuss what funding can be available to manage

freight in Kent? I would be willing to meet with them to discuss the

traffic jams caused by disruption at the Channel Tunnel. We used Manston

airport to relieve pressure. I know there is talk of a longer term

solution and I'm happy to talk about it. Given the growing evidence that

fixed odds betting terminals are being used to launder money, can the

Chancellor Usher this as there will be a prominent focus on these

machines in this upcoming anti-money-laundering action plan?

I'd like to thank her for her question. She will be aware that we

are in the process of considering how we implement the fourth

anti-money-laundering directive and we will look closely at their

evidence and I will encourage her to get in touch with me. The Black

Country Local Enterprise Partnership did an excellent job bringing jobs

and investment but would the Chancellor agree that the time has

come for local enter should partnerships -- local enterprise

partnerships to work together with local authorities? I hear the member

for Wolverhampton and Worcestershire saying well said. I think in the

West Midlands we have the potential for devolution with an elected mayor

if we work with the local authorities and the local enters

price -- enterprise partnerships and MPs and I think it will give people

of the West Midlands control over decision-making, which we have given

to people in South Yorkshire, Manchester, the north-east and

quayside. In my constituency there are 9000 families with children

claiming tax credits. 5500 of these people are working families. The

Chancellor said he is listening but he has dismissed every proposal so

far. Millions of families need them to change course and make work pay.

Will he listen now and introduce transitional relief so these working

families will not be out-of-pocket by ?1300? We are listening and we

are in particular listen to what we can do to help with their transition

to the law welfare higher wage economy we would like to see in her

constituency and across the country. We will also take steps to help make

sure work pays by increasing the personal allowance to ?12,500. And

by introducing the national living wage which will help thousands of

people in our constituency and by supporting the businesses in our

constituency without which we wouldn't have the jobs employing

local people. Since 2010, over 37,000 of my constituents have had

their taxes cut, enabling them to keep more of what they are and and

some for the first time I been able to accumulate savings. Can the

Chancellor assure them that the Government will continue to cut

their taxes and support them with future saving? I can give my

honourable friend who represents his constituency so well in Bolton, we

will go on supporting his constituents and introducing savings

and savings allowance and a help to buy Isa. Will he reflected on our

thousands of my constituents feel at the prospect of losing thousands of

pounds every year through his actions? The people who suffer most

when the economy fails and the country feels are the people she

talks about, the low paid. They will lose their jobs and they are the

victims of economic insecurity. We are determined to deliver economic

security and the controlled welfare bill that the people she represents

have to pay for through their taxes and we will set out how to ease the

transition. The call Ocean government freed pensioners from

mandatory annuities and encouraged savings through ices and enrolment.

Tax relief to pensions are expensive and favour higher rate taxpayers.

Does he agree that sensible reform could be considered to help answer

the budget without distance in devising saving? We have taken

significant steps to encourage saving, not least giving pensioners

control over their pension pots in retirement and trusting those who

have saved all their lives without money they have earned to put aside.

We are open to consultation on the system of taxation of pensions. It

is an open consultation, a Green paper. We have had interesting

suggestions about potential reform and we will respond to the filly in

the budget. Can you confirm there is nothing in the passing of the

charter which restricts the ability to borrow of Scotland? The deal we

struck with the Scottish Government on capital borrowing remains intact.

What we want to do is strike a new agreement, a new fiscal framework,

and we are having a good discussion around capital borrowing powers,

resource borrowing powers, and the mechanism to genuinely make sure

that Scotland sees both the benefits and bears the costs of any decision

taken by the Scottish Government, which I think is the true nature of

devolution which I'm sure the SNP want to see. Would he agree with me

that we simply must reform this crazy tax credits system that

enforces Lope and that we take no lessons from the opposition which

failed cities like mine. The tactic of bribing the lowest orders not to

improve social mobility and help them but simply to win their votes

must end in this country for good? He makes a powerful point that we

created a welfare system which subsidises low pay and surely it is

better to increase that pay? That is why we are introducing the national

living wage. Under the devolution deal the Chancellor committed ?30

million a year for a new investment fund for the north-east. Will this

be new money or will exist in grant speak at? Where is the guarantees he

will not be robbing Peter to pay Paul? We couldn't have reached this

agreement without the support of the local Labour council leaders who

have come together through the combined authority to strike what I

think is a really historic deal. There has been lots of conversation

about devolving power to the north-east. Now we will have the leg

could mirror with powers exercised in London exercise in the north-east

and that is proper devolution. Last week a cider producer told the

local press that cider is an agricultural lubricant, wine for the

working man. Will he continue to support hard-working people and

lubricate the Somerset economy by cutting tax is on cider? I very much

remember my visit with the Prime Minister to a cider producer in his

constituency before the election, constituency before the election,

which turned out to be extremely productive. He will know that in

2010 we actually reversed the cider tax that was being proposed by the

previous Labour government, and we have helped the producers. I will

help support them in the future. The Resolution Foundation found that all

tax and benefit measures announced, tax and benefit measures announced,

including the National minimum wage, will cost an additional 200 children

into poverty. -- push those children. By 2020, there will be up

to 600 further children pushed into poverty. Chancellor, you said you

listened last night. Will you now share with the honourable members

today what constructive action you will take to protect the poor wrist

of families and children? -- poorest. She raises her question in

to the concerns that have been to the concerns that have been

raised about the transition in the welfare reforms we have it forward,

so we can continue to help working families. Those families are best

help when we have economic security, a controlled welfare budget, a

system where we do not subsidise low paid, and we will make sure that in

the Autumn Statement we help working families. I did not want to

interrupt the question, and I understand why members like to put

their enquiries directly to the Minister, but can I please appeal to

members not to use the word you in your questions. We go through the

cheer for good reasons. -- through the chair. In the past few years

unemployment in Tamworth has fallen faster than anywhere else in the

country. As my right honourable friend is listening, can he tell the

House whether he has heard a House whether he has heard a

sensible representation from the Shadow Chancellor or others about

how to de-crease business taxation and regulation to create more jobs

in the West Midlands? I am sorry to say I have not because the only

proposals that have so far being put by the party opposite are for an

increase in business taxation, which was in the manifesto, and the Shadow

Chancellor was speaking about a potential wealth tax being

introduced in this country. To be introduced in this country. To be

consistent on this for 30 years. -- consistent on this for 30 years. --

high tax, big state economy, where high tax, big state economy, where

private businesses do not have a big role to play. I think that is the

wrong direction for the country. How much with the public purse be saved

CHEERING That is a very decent CHEERING That is a very

proposal for the Autumn Statement proposal for the Autumn Statement

which we will give proper consideration to! People who

been in Parliament with me for the been in Parliament with me for the

last 14 years now my views, we last 14 years now my views,

should have an elected House of should have an elected House of

Lords, but that view has not Lords, but that view has not

prevailed in this chamber. But I do prevailed in this chamber. But I do

think that while we have an think that while we have an

unelected House of Lords, it should unelected House of Lords, it should

respect the constitutional election which has -- convention which has

existed for 100 years. Order. Demand has exceeded supply. Point of order.

The honourable gentleman is being preserved. We will come back to him

. First I wish to hear standing . First I wish to hear standing

order number 24 application from Doctor Amy Whiteford. I see leave

that we discuss the poverty to millions of families following the

tax vote yesterday. I would like to apply for an emergency debate

understanding order number 24. There are 7 million working age families

across the UK eligible for tax credits, and the impact of this

change will be to reduce their income by ?1300 per year. In

Scotland over 200,000 working families, with 350,000 children are

set to lose out, that is an enormous and just -- is proportionate problem

for parents. Yesterday's vote, when peers passed amendments to be put on

hold subject to analysis, and for transitional protection to be put in

into chaos and leads low-income into chaos and leads low-income

families in the dark. Members need to know how the government intends

Yesterday the wheels came off the Yesterday the wheels came off the

wagon spectacularly for the government's austerity reforms, in

spite of our valiant whipping effort which solved Tory peers coming up to

support the government. Concern about the injustice of these

measures is almost unprecedented. I and all I am not the only person in

Lords as an affront to a modern Lords as an affront to a modern

democracy, but rather bloated second chamber unites to tell the

government they have got it wrong, so it is incumbent on the government

to listen. When even the leader of to listen. When even the leader of

the Tory party in Scotland tells her government that these tax credits

again, it is incumbent on the again, it is incumbent on the

government to listen. The government tried to present these cuts as part

of a package of measures, but we know that they are paltry increases

and fall shark of a living wage. This government has chosen to put

field austerity agenda, and we need field austerity agenda, and we need

answers urgently. What arrangements are now being put in place for the

millions of working families set the lookout? Will they give us an

assurance that they will not know flood the other place with more Tory

appointees turning up like phantoms to do their dirty work? Order. I

listened carefully to what she has said and I have to give my decision

on this matter without stating any reasons. That is the requirement. I

do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under

standing order number 24, so cannot submit the application to the House.

Order. I am not required to give any reasons. There is a sense in which I

am required to give no reasons. But I consider it is important for

people beyond this House to find our people beyond this House to find our

procedures entirely intelligible, and I think it is worthwhile to note

that these important matters have that these important matters have

further today, and there is a further today, and there is a

schedule to bait on them on Thursday. Members have other means

by which to pursue the matter is, by which to pursue the matter is,

and I feel sure they will. -- a and I feel sure they will. -- a

debate on them. Understanding order debate on them. Understanding order

24, I answered on this occasion is no. Point of order, Doctor Liam Fox.

Across the House there is a great deal of concern about the

implications of the events in the unelected chamber last night, and

many would welcome your decision on the implications of that. Many of

those believe that those with no accountability have a moral duty not

to vote on such issues, and many would consider that rich to question

the democratic deficit in the European Union when they have an

legislature. Just before I respond, legislature. Just before I respond,

I will hear the honourable gentleman. Further to that, I looked

through the standing orders last night and discovered the unelected,

unaccountable and bloated second chamber actually have no power at

all to reject European Union treaties, such as -- but do have the

power to reject the elected will of this House. As a defender of elected

members of parliament, will the Speaker be issuing guidance to us as

to how we may ensure how the elected will of this House prevails? Well, I

think I will wrap up at the end. Let us hear from the honourable

gentleman. The day would not be complete without him. I am grateful

for that. I am also grateful to hear the late conversion of members on

the opposite side to democracy and to reject an unelected chamber. But

can you give me some guidance, is there not a constitutional role for

the other place in giving applause to this House, when it has made a

decision making a decision out of sync to the country, so that can be

looked at again? -- giving a pause. Order. I said to him, he is a very

distinguished taxi driver by profession. He will be aware of the

principal of waiting in one queue. I principal of waiting in one queue. I

wonder what you will do to remind wonder what you will do to remind

their Lordships of our declaration their Lordships of our declaration

of privilege from 1678, declaring that all financial matters

pertaining to this House, a pertaining to this House, a

privilege that the House of Lords has only now ignored three times

since 1860, and as our vice police -- mouthpiece, will you take this

increasingly concerned about the increasingly concerned about the

across the benches. Has there ever across the benches. Has there ever

the Exchequer to be outflanked as a the Exchequer to be outflanked as a

the House of Lords? the House of Lords?

LAUGHTER Point of order. Can I point out that we have had a

election this year, and consistently election this year, and consistently

the question was asked whether the government had any intention to cut

it was not the intention. It is it was not the intention. It is

parliamentary conduct -- convention that the House of Lords does not

overturn manifesto commitments. But this was not in the manifesto, and

there is concern about this measure. Mr Doherty. The House of

Lords is causing angst today. Could the Speaker forgive my evidence as a

new member and how late to me, and many of my colleagues how the

unelectable, unaccountable barons of Scottish peerage will be conducting

their affairs while we cannot vote on issues in this House, they will

vote in the other? The short answer which have the character of a

rhetorical enquiry is no. Let me say with all courtesy to the House that

I was keen to hear all of the points of order before responding, and I

intend no discourtesy to the House when I say this. The responsibility

of the chair is for order. Nothing of the chair is for order. Nothing

disorderly has occurred. There has been no procedural impropriety that

would not have been allowed. Whether would not have been allowed. Whether

people like what happened last night, on the substance of the

issue, or in terms of the fuse unconstitutionality, is a matter for

each of them. -- there are views. As I said last night, from the chair,

in response to a point of order from the Shadow Chancellor, this is now a

matter for the government to take forward as it thinks fit. And I say,

with reference to the point of order from the chair of the Welsh affairs

select committee, the honourable select committee, the honourable

gentleman flatters me. He does not need guidance from me in how to go

about his duties, and neither does any other member. It is not for the

chair to put a gloss on matters that transpired. Interest, members are

not that interested in my gloss or my response to the points of order,

they simply wanted to get their views on the record. And they have

done that. I will indulge you. I would refer

back to the House's claim of privilege and this has been a claim

we have made for many centuries and I would have thought that you are

the defender of this House's privileges and this is beyond the

immediate political debate. The matter is currently in dispute are

inevitably of what I will call a high octane character. In such

circumstances, if I may polite -- lightly said, I don't think it helps

matters if the chair ads in substantive terms without

exceptionally good reason to the total number of evaluative comments

already made. I think it would be better not to do so. I do jealously

guard the rights of this House but I must rest with what I have said,

that nothing procedurally improper has taken place. Let's wait to see

how matters are taking forward. As I said to the member for Gainsborough

last week, in the final analysis, each house knows what its powers are

and are not. I wonder whether it would be in order for a motion to be

debated on the floor of the House congratulating the House of lords?

The short answer to the honourable gentleman is that would be entirely

orderly at the honourable gentleman for example secured a Backbench

Business Committee debate. It is not for me to encourage such a debate

nor to discourage it but the answer to the question is as I have

stated. If there are no further points of order perhaps we can now

proceed with the Ten Minute Rule Bill motion. I beg leave be given

for me to bring in a bill to amend the system of benefit sanctions and

establish hardship payment payments and for connected purposes. People

in my constituency have no food streets today. Until recently they

have claimed employment and support allowance or jobseeker's allowance.

Payments have been stopped and they have been sanctioned. As things

stand, they have no immediate right of appeal. Some of these people may

have made a mistake in their paperwork or have been late for an

appointment. They may lack the necessary IT skills to use universal

job match or have been asked to do something by staff that they did not

do. Whatever their actions, the consequences carry too heavy a

burden. They have no means to sustain themselves. This is an

unacceptable state of affairs. This is a central issue that my proposed

bill addresses. It will ensure that all those who were sanctioned will

automatically and immediately receive their hardship payments and

these payments will not require to be repaid. Their current system has

punished military veterans for selling poppies. It has removed the

sole source of income from those who could not complete a medical

assessment because they were having a heart attack at the time. One of

my constituents was recently sanctioned on the strength of

hearsay evidence that she had been incarcerated, despite this being

untrue. It cannot be right that sanctions are applied on this basis.

The system administering these punishments is deeply flawed. Many

of those affected are not even aware of their rights. I have met

constituents who are not told about hardship payments by staff at the

local job centre, or even how to appeal. That is why this proposal

gives those facing sanctions and automatic rights to these payments.

This will ensure uniformity in their application. In my view, anyone who

lacks the means to buy food or heat their homes is a vulnerable person.

There is currently a formal appeals process. When invoked, 50% of these

appeals against sanctions are upheld. Half of them. This is a

system which is at best 50% correct. If there was another process in this

land which resulted in half of the judgments being overturned, there

would be a national outcry. The human impact of sanctions is such

the DWP staff have been given guidance on dealing with victims who

have been pushed towards self harm or suicide. It is right staff have

measures in place to support people driven to their limit but it is

tragic that this is seen as a central part of the welfare system.

The DWP has not been able to use their experience to provide any

credible evidence whatsoever that this system of financial penalties

works to get people back into stable employment. The Government have

failed to adequately respond. This chamber has heard time and time

again that this is an ideological crusade against the poor and not an

evidence based mechanism to help people find work. It is driving

people to food banks. Food banks exist because they identified a need

which requires to be met. They should not be necessary extension to

the UK's failing system but they are. The Social Security system

today is not doing what it says on the tin and the vulnerable cannot

wait any longer for this government to get it right. Research carried

out by the Child poverty action group found 20-30% of food bank

users said household benefits had been stopped or reduced because of

sanctions. They said accepting help from Fairbanks was difficult and was

described as unnatural, embarrassing and shameful. What does it say about

us if fellow citizens have to rely on charity to sustain themselves?

The protection of the vulnerable should be a central tenet of any

government's work. It is not something which should be devolved

to the kindness of others. Other research showed that when women are

sanctioned it tends to disproportionately affect them

because caring responsibilities often falter them. Further,

charities have seen a reduction in DWP advisers using flexibility

dealing with parents facing sanctions. This leads to lone

parents being sanctioned erroneously only to have the decision

overturned. According to catlike gingerbread that is 42% compared to

30% non-lone parents. I am proud of this bill has the cross-party

support of nine female MPs. Six months ago the work and pensions

committee called for a review of benefit conditional sanctions cos of

their concerns of the factors must -- of the effectiveness. Instead of

a fundamental review of the whole system, this government proposes

what they call a yellow card system. A yellow card? Mr Speaker, a

yellow card is something you get during a football or a rematch. This

is no game. Such terminology is unhelpful and inappropriate. A

rethink of the process is required. The tired argument that this helps

people to find work has not been proven while evidence of poverty

inflicted on victims is growing larger by the day. It must be

reformed here because the limited powers over wealth offered by the

Conservative government to the Scottish Parliament specifically

precludes measures to mitigate against the system I have described.

There should be powers to mitigate them backed of Tory policies. This

government continues to punish the poor and the relentless assault must

come to an end. The bill I bring to the House today will not address all

the issues of the system, I wish it could. I continue to support a full

moratorium on all of sanctions until a review can take place. I believe

I've propose a simple and pragmatic measure which would address the

fundamental issue of people being knowingly left in destitution. This

bill will ensure those sanctioned would automatically receive a

hardship payment and it would not need to be repaid. No one should be

left without by our social security system. The Government should not

abandon those who need it the most. Ministers must reconsider their

position on this issue. It is the right thing to do. My proposal would

be helping the vulnerable. The sanction is why people in every part

of the country do not have the means to eat today. It is one of the key

reasons why food bank use in Scotland and the UK is at an

all-time high. The system it supports is flawed and needs reform

urgently. It is why I believe this bill is necessary so I urge this

House to support me today. The question is that the honourable

member have leave to bring in the bill. I rise to oppose this bill. I

congratulate the honourable lady on bringing forward her bell and I've

leave she used to be a member of the Conservative Party. She has

regressed since those heady days. It seems a long time since she espoused

any Conservative principles. I wouldn't want people to run away

with the idea from listening to this debate that people across the

country and this House are opposed to renovate sanctions in the wake

she set out. Many of us are supportive of the sanctions regime.

We should point out that sanctions have always played a part of the

benefit system in this country. It wasn't introduced by this

government, it has always been a part of the benefit regime, and an

essential part to make sure people do what they are requested to do in

return is for those benefits. Many of my constituents contact me to say

they think the requirements should be more onerous and not less so as

she seems to suggest. I refute her starting point which is that

sanctions are a bad thing. In my opinion, sanctions are a good thing

and the least to the taxpayer should expect when people do not abide by

the requirements which are understandably made of them in

return for claiming benefits. With regard to the hardship fund, which

the honourable lady refers to, it seems she was peddling some

information which may not actually turn out to be quite as it seems.

The first point is that job-seekers can apply for a hardship payment

which is 60% of their normal benefit payment. Job seekers who are

seriously ill or pregnant can receive 80% of their normal benefit

payment. It seems that if it were to go higher than that there would be

no point in sanctions in the first place. If people will just have the

sanction replaced in full by a hardship payment there would be no

point in a sanction. She should also have pointed out in her remarks,

which also makes her bill rather redundant, that those with

children, all PSA recipients and anyone categorised as vulnerable can

claim hardship payments from day one of their sanction. She omitted that.

She gave the impression that wasn't the case. That is the case. Other

job-seekers cannot claim for the first 14 days of the sanction. The

most vulnerable are protected. Claimants are told regularly about

the availability of hardship payments, contrary to her claim.

Improvements have been made to ensure payments are made within

three days and the vast majority who applied to actually receive hardship

payments. She mentioned about the review of sanctions, the independent

review of sanctions and I think she should bear in mind that Matthew

Oakley who did the independent review of sanctions actually said,

and I quote, he key element of the mutual obligation underpinning the

effectiveness and fairness of the Social Security system at sanctions.

She didn't point that out in her remarks. The chairman of the Select

Committee also said that he was pleased the Government accepted many

of the committee's criticisms and recommendations for change. Given

the hardship payments were already available to the most vulnerable

people from the first day, given most people in the country supported

the principle that there should be sanctions when people do not fulfil

their obligations, and I have to say there is a big stick as you like on

reasons why people may avoid being sanctioned, it is the idea people

can just miss an appointment for five minutes and be sanctioned is

for the birds. It may that is what they tell her at her surgery,

perhaps they want her sympathy. I suspect the truth is different.

I know the SNP do not like hearing criticism. They do not -- are not

need to get used to it here. In need to get used to it here. In

summary, the SNP would do well to listen to other people's opinions

from time to time. They may learn something. Order. Mr Angus MacNeil,

of statesmanship, which is my of statesmanship, which is my

long-term ambition for you. Like the colleagues to your left and right is

the right course. Calm. Trying to the right course. Calm. Trying to

get the honourable gentleman to become statesmen may even be beyond

you. But given that the most vulnerable already have access to

hardship payments from day one, given that the sanctions regime is a

good thing, given that what the honourable lady is proposing goes

beyond the recommendations of the Oakley review, and beyond the

recommendations of the select committee, giving that

people... For that particular reason, I do not intend to deprive

her of her day in the limelight and have a division on this particular

point. But I thought it was worthwhile pointing out that many

people in this House, or many people in the country, do not accept her

criticisms of the sanctions regime for benefits. Order. Question is

that the honourable member have that the honourable member

leave to bring in the Bill. The ayes leave to bring in the Bill. The ayes

have it. -- ayes. Who will bring in the bill? Margaret Ritchie, Corey

Wilson, and myself. Benefits actions regime. Second

reading, what day? 4th of December 2015. Thank you. Order. We come now

to the programme motion, the whip to move? Thank you. Question is, the

programme number to be motion as on programme number to be motion as on

proposed it? No, we have to put the proposed it? No, we have to put the

question. As many of that opinion, say aye. On the contrary, no. The

ayes have it. Did he wish to contribute on this matter? This is

the programme motion. It is a good job he didn't because he can't.

Because it has been carried. And we're moving on! But he will get his

opportunity. The ayes have it. The clerk will now lead the orders of

the day. Welfare Reform and Work Bill to be considered. We begin with

new clause won -- one, with which it will be convenient to consider new

clause eight and amendments nine to 55. I call the shadow Secretary of

State, Mr Ruan Smith. -- Owen Smith. I rise for the second time. It is in

my name and that of my rubble friends, and my Shadow DWP team. It

is a straightforward new clause, which would repeal the tax credits

regulations, income thresholds and regulations, income thresholds and

determination of rates 2015. It is a shame we do not have the Secretary

of State here today to debate it. I do not know what else he is doing,

but he has been noticeable by his absence in the debate over tax

in 25 studios and other arena to in 25 studios and other arena to

debate this issue, and looked high and low for a government Minister of

any strike to discuss this, and there have been noticeable by their

absence. -- they have been. I am absence. -- they have been. I am

delighted I have got three ministers opposite today to contest this

and I am pleased for the and I am pleased for the

opportunity. But it is a shame that the Secretary of State is not here,

because I would have started by reminding him of something he said

to the House, on several occasions, that he is a great believer in

second chances. The Secretary of State for work and pension said that

he believes Britain should be a nation of the second chance. On the

side of the House, we entirely agree on this with the Secretary of State

for work and pensions, and it is one of the very few things on which I do

agree with him. We should believe in second chances, and I said to

ministers and the House today that we have a second chance. We have a

second chance after yesterday's vote in the House of Lords, in the other

place, in which we were called in this House to think again, in which

I think the other place spoke not just for themselves but for the tyre

country, to ask us to think again to give a second chance to repeal the

going to hit so many people across going to hit so many people across

this country. When touring the studios in recent days, what I have

heard from is the suggestion that heard from is the suggestion that

the vote by the other place yesterday presaged a constitutional

crisis in this country. Interest, I think what it did was stop a

financial crisis. A financial crisis for the 3 million families who will

when they recommendations are when they recommendations are

implemented next year. The message from the other place is to pause,

before they lick the envelopes on these 3 million letters they are

intending to post out at Christmas to tell those families across the

country that they can anticipate a 10% reduction in their incomes. On

average, reduction of ?1300 for each of those 3 million working families.

If we in this House were presented by the government with a proposal to

cut our salaries by 10%, there would be uproar on the government benches.

There would be uproar on all of these benches. But the truth is,

working families in this country, people going out and doing difficult

low and middle paid jobs, three million and more of them, are being

told that they are going to face a cut in their incomes of 10%. At the

stroke of a pen next year. It is simply not adequate. I will give

credit system supported people on credit system supported people on

wages in excess of ?60,000. Can you give the House at what figure he

thought the income should be when people could no longer get support

through the tax credit system? How much would you need to earn before

needing the support? -- not needing the support. I would start with a

different figure, telling the honourable gentleman and they people

in his constituency who will be hit if this change, but they must

him what he thinks is there or just him what he thinks is there or just

about asking them to take a 10% cut in their income. That is

substantive issue. That is the substantive issue. That is the

being blown by himself and other being blown by himself and other

for other changes elsewhere in the for other changes elsewhere in the

government's finances, none of which government's finances, none of which

answer this central question. Is it right, is it fair to ask

hard-working families to take the hard-working families to take the

cup to their income? Tax credits have changed enormously. It is

unfair to say they were the creation of the last Labour government.

Successive governments have seen family support, income support

evolve over many years. It has gone through different iterations.

Different governments have seen different ways to do what we believe

in, which is making work they. The levels that have changed and the

changed over time but it is a net changed over time but it is a net

economy to keep people in work. This economy to keep people in work. This

will diminish work incentives for will diminish work incentives

people I know that he and I hope to people I know that he and I hope to

support. But he must recognise that the system creates a circumstance

where some employees are turning down promotions and turning down

over time because it would affect over time because it would affect

tax credits. Surely we would be better with people who that if they

took extra hours are promotion that took extra hours are promotion that

they'd be better off. There is no they'd be better off. There is no

evidence that supports this. It would be nice to believe that if we

were to withdraw the amount people were to withdraw the amount people

have, withdraw the subsidy, as he would describe it, you might see

some employers increase the payments to people. You might see wages go

up, but I do not suggest that is true. And I do not suggest there is

any evidence to support it. I think the reality is that tax credits have

been a necessary subsidy for low wages. I welcome the decision by the

government to increase the national minimum wage. I applaud what the

government is doing in increasing that. It is the right thing to do.

They could get on with it a little faster and stop spinning it as a

national living wage. It is a welcome step by them. But there is

no evidence that if you simply withdraw at a stroke the subsidy,

that employers think they have to put up the wages because they will

struggle to survive on what they are on. I will give way. I am very

grateful. Surely the answer to the first question is that tax credits

must ensure a decent, reasonable standard of living, which is where

it starts. That sort of standard has been defined by large numbers of

people, and is very well understood. Yes, but let me be clear. Tax

credits are a success. They have kept people in work in this country.

We have seen a shift in the volume, for example, of single parents in

work. In 1997 it was around 43% of single work in this country. Today

it is 65%. The reason for that is tax credits. That is what has made

it possible for thousands of constituents in my patch and all of

the constituencies of the members of this House to stay in work, despite

the fact we have seen declining wages. I will give way.

He is making a good speech talking about working families and he is

right to do so but there has been little mention about the impact tax

credits cuts will have on working family carers. Carers allowance

working 16 hours a week, carers will be badly hit. They cannot work more.

Does my honourable friend believe those working carers should be

protected from government cuts because ministers do not seem to

recognise it? If the Government were to provide us with any sort of

detailed worthwhile impact in back -- impact assessments, they should

undertake that kind of assessment. They should look at the net benefit

to society made by working mothers, carers and all of these people whose

efforts are not being calibrated by the Government but who will, we know

categorically, lose out as a result of these tax credit changes. Thanks.

Would he agree with me that of the 7700 families in my constituency,

three quarters who are working, who will lose thousands if the cuts go

ahead, those who will find it hardest include those living in the

private renting sector which the Government refuses to regulate,

whose rent has gone up by 11.5%,? It is not just those people who are

renting and suffering from sky-high increases in private renting. It is

all occupiers, the Government purports to speak for them. They

will be harder hit by this measure, proportionally, than many other

sectors of housing. Because reducing their eligibility for tax credits

will mean some of those people receive more in housing benefit so

there is an offsetting increase in housing benefit costs as a result of

the decrease in eligibility for working tax credits will stop if you

are an owner occupier you will not get that offsetting increase and

somebody earlier on spoke about the impact of this on our economy. The

self-employed are another group who will be hard by these changes. 60%

of small businesses, 5.2 million across the country, at sole traders.

90% according to the Royal Society of arts of the increase in jobs, the

jobs miracle the Government likes to speak of, are self-employed in

recent years. That is the Royal Society of arts. 90% is the

suggestion. It may or may not be true but it is a very large

proportion. It is welcome to an increase in employment. The point I

make is that 60% of those self-employed sole traders are

eligible presently for tax credits. Which is why various groups and

respected conservative economists think this is a false economy. It

will damage the incomes of working people and the economy. One group

said it would be devastating for our economy. An employer contacted me

this week in despair because employees have been reaching out to

mitigate against the loss in income mitigate against the loss in income

from tax credits cuts but he is having to consider reducing staff

numbers to meet the requirements of the new increased minimum wage will

stop does he agree that these changes will not only result in

income reductions but job losses? I fear that may be correct. I think

the lack of forethought, the lack of analysis and scrutiny the Government

has given these measures, the way in which we try to push it through both

houses in double quick time is a measure of their fear that what the

analysis will reveal all the fundamentally misconceived economics

of this move that is designed to make an ideological political point.

The honourable gentleman speaks endlessly of the success of tax

credits. Maybe he could explain why under the last government spending

rose from six to ?30 billion on tax credits? Why did that happen if it

was such a great excess -- success. He should start by explain to the

few thousand 700 constituents in his constituency who will lose out as a

result of the measures he will no doubt vote for an speak for today. I

will answer the question. The truth is that under the last Labour

government, when this iteration of tax credits was introduced, the

steady-state amount of money we spent on it was ?23 billion per

annum. In 2009/10, after the crisis, it went up to 30 billion. The

bankers' recession saw a spike in the necessary spending on tax

credits and it has stayed at 30 billion under his government.

Another measure of the rotten economic record of this government.

I give way. What does he say to many of my constituents who have

contacted me who are just above the tax credit limit and his

hard-working taxes are subsidising low pay? I would first of all is

said to the 3000 odd people she has in her constituency who are going to

be hit by this that they should be ringing her up and asking her why

she is voting for a 10% reduction in their income because I think they

would be interested to hear her justification. Would he agree with

me that a problem for some of the people on the benches opposite who

are in denial over this issue, the inertia of the Government

intervention to save steel jobs, last night defeated at Commons, puts

to bed the falsehood that the Tories are the party of the workers. Would

he agree? I think it is one of the more risible statements I have heard

from the Government. A measure of contempt with which they hold

certain sections of the British public that they think they can pull

the wool over their eyes. They are cutting the wages of working people

of this country. 3.3 million families to be hit to the tune of

1300 pounds. 200,000 children put into poverty next year. 600,000

children over the period. 70% of cuts falling on working mothers. Tax

credit cuts destroying the economic miracle the Tories like to talk of.

90% of these cuts devastating for those involved. The statistics speak

for themselves. In a moment I will describe the human impact of the

cuts. Does he agree that there is an inherent contradiction in government

policy that parents of a young family who came to see me in my

constituency last week told me they work at, pay their way, trying to do

the right thing to set an example for their children, so shouldn't the

Government support them rather than punish them? They should. I cannot

understand how on earth even this Chancellor who is pretty slipshod on

occasion when it comes to analysing the impact of his measures, can at

have allowed this one to slip through the net. A pasty tax and a

caravan tax, maybe, but a ?4.2 billion hit on the workers they

propose to support is extraordinary. Let's would be an statistics for the

moment because on Friday I was in my constituency in a former pit village

and I met entirely by chance a young woman called Kersten who was

bringing her daughter home from school. She is a nursery nurse, a

nursery manager in a small private run nursery just outside the

village. She works 21 hours per week and those are all the hours

available. The nursery is only open in the mornings and she works all

five days. She then looks after our daughter. She owns ?611 per month,

from her 21 hours of work at ?8 per hour. Above the new minimum wage we

will see next year. She is set to lose 100 -- ?1300 of her ?7,000

earnings as a result of these cuts. It is an enormous drop. She told me

she didn't know how she would manage and she did not understand how

without the ?128 she gets in tax credits each month she would be able

to make ends meet. I talked through what she needed to pay out each

month for the housing association, three-bedroom house she lives in,

what she needs to pay for the council tax, what she needs to pay

for insurance and to run her car to get to work. There was nothing left

over. The ?120 she spends from tax credits that she receives pays for

food, clothes, books for a child for school. It is beyond the Ken of

orderly people that the Government can be asking them to pay the price

for what is a banker recession which has led to this crisis in the

economy and lead to a Tory government cutting the incomes of

working people. Thank you. The issue with regards to family tax credits,

when it is all boiled down and the arguments have been fine tuned, it

simply means this is an ideological attack from the Government on the

lowest paid in our communities. Does he agree with me and the IFA is who

say that these lower paid people are being specifically targeted? It is

extraordinary that this government can't describe as they have done tax

credits, and I quote, as a bribe. That is the way in which successive

ministers, including the missing Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions, have described tax credits for working people. They do not talk

about protecting pensioners' benefits as being a bribe either

Conservative Party to pensioners, and I would ever say that. I think

it is just for them to protect those benefits. But it is extraordinary

that they seek to demonise working people doing the right thing on low

and middle incomes as a bribe. It is wrong. I've been listening carefully

and I am hearing a great deal of criticism but what I have not heard

at any proposals from the opposite party as to how welfare should be

put on a more sustainable footing, on how they would like to see work

he and how they will reduce the deficit and the debt and are they

proposing instead there should be cuts to public services? I am not

suggesting that. That is a nonsense. Let me what through what

the Government is proposing to do. Thank you. Perhaps he shares my

concern that under the last government, the Coalition

Government, the projected savings meant to come from housing benefit

and Employment Support Allowance changes never materialised. It was

not made. Perhaps members opposite should be challenging the Secretary

of State and calling for as resignation. If they had any guts

they would. Abject failure on housing benefit. The bid has kept

going up. We know they have failed on that and they will continue to

fail in future. I give way. My good friend mentioned the word bribe. Is

the real bride in this bill that which will be given to the children

of dead millionaires with inheritance tax to the detriment of

people hit by tax credits cuts? He makes an excellent point that

politics is always a choice. Priorities. Who you stand up for and

speak for and whose side you are on and it is very clear that in this

bill and this House, the Conservative Party are on the side

of millionaires, the wealthy and standing up against working people,

against the ordinary people of Britain. They will not forgive them.

The honourable gentleman talks about choices. He spoke earlier of a ?4.4

billion hit. Is he suggesting that instead he is posing a ?4.4 billion

subsidy for the large companies that the party opposite continues to

criticise on a daily basis in terms of shortages of wages that should be

paid? support offered to working people,

including the 3800 in his constituency, for whom he has a

choice today. Is he going to stand up for them or is he going to roll

over and cut their wages by 10%? That is the choice he has. It is

real political choice, and as a new real political choice, and as a new

member he should think carefully member he should think carefully

about it. Let us turn to what the government are proposing to do by

from the Chancellor yesterday. He from the Chancellor yesterday. He

looked a little ratty as he told the looked a little ratty as he told the

cameras he would think again. He is cameras he would think again. He is

obviously not very keen on having to do it. But there was at least

hint that there will be transitional hint that there will be transitional

measures, and we have had hints as measures, and we have had hints as

to what they may be. Let me run through a few of those that the

government on notice will scrutinise extremely carefully what the net

of all the minimum wage. Very of all the minimum wage. Very

proposing to increase it to ?7.20 proposing to increase it to ?7.20

by 2020 is a good measure. by 2020 is a good measure.

government were to take it to ?9.20 government were to take it to ?9.20

next April the 1st, on the day that next April the 1st, on the day that

it would not offset the losses for it would not offset the losses for

average families. Not by a long chalk. Post families on 40 hours a

week, 1 parent earning would still be losing ?600 a year, if they were

earning around ?15,000. So that is not going to offset the losses. Let

us take the second thing. Childcare allowance. Even if the government

were to go straightaway to the 30 hours a week proposed for England,

again looks under resourced. They are planning to do it for 300

million, so we will see how we get on with that. Even if they were to

do that, the same family banking the ?9 rise in the minimum wage would be

around ?500 worse off. Let us look at the third element. The increase

in the personal allowance. The government have made other welcome

measures in increasing... They are speaking about it going to ?12,500

at the end of this Parliament. A welcome measure. This is the target

-- it misses the target. Because those people who set between ?3500

and earnings when the government is proposing to start taking away the

tax, and ?12,500 at the end of this he read, we'll all be worse off. --

this period. They will all be worse off. It is completely fallacious to

suggest that if they give extra suggest that if they give extra

money through increasing the personal allowance or increasing the

national minimum wage that you will offset the losses. Only 25% of the

losses will be offset and only for 25% of the population. It is very

straightforwardly con. As we saw in the evidence session before

yesterday's debate, the Resolution Foundation has said clearly, the

question of tax credits, is question of tax credits, is

unfortunately tax credits. Give way. Would he agree with me that the 6700

families losing out with the tax credit cut to their income will not

be compensated, and it is arithmetically impossible that the

changes proposed will do so? You do not need to take my word for that,

you take the word of Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal

Studies, as that is what he said, it is impossible for the offset the

government has spoken about, which I just listed, to compensate the

losses of those hard-working companies in all other

constituencies will have. The government knows it is true, which

is why they have been absent in those television studios in recent

days. They do not need to hear it from me. Give way. On the question

of offsetting losses, he will be aware that in my constituency for

those and families are going to be affected. They will lose ?1000 each,

which amounts to ?4 million being taken out of the local economy. Has

he considered the impact of that? I have considered it. Reducing

aggregate demand by taking money out of the pockets of working families,

those people with the highest propensity to spend money locally in

thing to do. It is a false economy. thing to do. It is a false economy.

We know it to be true, so why on earth the government would do it. I

give way. I wanted to add a little bit of detail because members

opposite seem to be raising cases of people and questioning it. The

example I quoted earlier, a carer on carers allowance will get ?62, and

can earn ?110. That is what they are run, ?62, plus a maximum of ?110.

They will be hit very hard by the loss of working tax credits, people

689,000 of those people, those 689,000 of those people, those

wonderful carers, committed to looking after family members. Not

one member of the party opposite seems to have recognised this

massive issue. I really think that ministers have two answer to 689,000

carers, why they are doing this to them. And why on earth have they not

conducted any sort of analysis to illustrate the benefits to our

society they are contributing? We all know that they are making an

enormous contribution and we all know in our heads that they are

precisely the people who are going to lose out, working mothers,

carers, people who cannot expand carers, people who cannot expand

to lose money, but are doing the to lose money, but are doing the

right thing. They are in work, right thing. They are in work,

striving hard. They might well be better off

Of course he will listen to the debate but it is not just listening

that is required, changes required. I caught also the honourable member

for South Cambridge, who spoke, I thought, brilliantly, eloquently,

forcefully last week. In respect of the deficit, she said to pull

ourselves out of debt we should not be forcing those working families

into debt. We should not be forcing working families into debt to deal

with the debt to this country has been left by the bankers' recession

government to fix it. He still government to fix it. He still

hasn't answered a very simple question. If this measure saves over

?4 billion, how will the party opposite find it? Will be cut

spending on other measures like health education, or will the

increase taxes or borrowing? Which option will he choose? I think he

should answer the question to the few thousand 700 members in his

constituency who are going to lose out. The National audit office

suggested that ?140 million was wasted on the early stage of

universal credit. Is he aware that could have helped 108,000 people now

punished for that failure to face to the withdrawal of tax credits or

21,500 people over the course of Parliament? Should it not have been

better spent? A brilliant point and well made. There are myriad examples

of waste and incompetence in their handling of our DWP budget under

this budget, not least the enormous increase in housing benefit. The

party opposite not fail to understand what tax credits are all

about? Actually tax credits were a successful policy in moving people

into work and in particular underpinning the major progress in

letting single parents going to work. When we speak about saving