27/10/2015

:00:08. > :00:14.Welcome to BBC Parliament's live coverage from the House of Commons.

:00:15. > :00:19.The main business today is the remaining stages of the welfare

:00:20. > :00:27.reform and work Bill. It aims to make ?12 billion of welfare cuts and

:00:28. > :00:30.apprentices. Member to join me for a apprentices. Member to join me for a

:00:31. > :00:43.round-up of the day in both Houses of Parliament at 11pm this evening.

:00:44. > :00:58.First, we have questions to George Osborne and his team of ministers.

:00:59. > :01:19.Order! Questions to Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, -- Chancellor of the

:01:20. > :01:19.Exchequer. I would like to answer this question together with

:01:20. > :01:21.questions two, three and four. Last night, unelected Labour and Liberal

:01:22. > :01:22.peers voted down the financial measures on tax credits approved by

:01:23. > :01:26.the selected House of Commons, which the selected House of Commons, which

:01:27. > :01:32.raises clear constitutional issues, which we will deal with. We will

:01:33. > :01:38.continue to reform tax credits and save the money needed so that

:01:39. > :01:40.Britain lives within its means. While at the same time, lessening

:01:41. > :01:47.the impact on families during the transition. I will set out the plans

:01:48. > :01:53.in the Autumn Statement. We remain determined to build low tax, low

:01:54. > :02:01.welfare economy that written needs and the British people want to see.

:02:02. > :02:08.6800 children in South Shields are growing up in families which rely on

:02:09. > :02:11.tax credits. One of my constituents told me tax credits at the moment

:02:12. > :02:15.only make it possible for families to feed and clothe their children as

:02:16. > :02:18.it is. If the government keeps making cuts to those who are the

:02:19. > :02:27.lowest paid, we may just give up hope. The public, experts, some of

:02:28. > :02:30.that he is victimising working that he is victimising working

:02:31. > :02:37.parents and their children. So can he give my constituents some hope

:02:38. > :02:43.will give her constituents support, will give her constituents support,

:02:44. > :02:47.and the constituents we all represent in the House, by

:02:48. > :02:53.delivering economic security. Economic security that has seen

:02:54. > :02:58.unemployment fall in her constituency by 44% since 2010. One

:02:59. > :03:00.of the ways we deliver economic security is by controlling

:03:01. > :03:04.welfare bill and making sure the welfare bill and making sure the

:03:05. > :03:11.country lives within its means, that is what we will continue to do. The

:03:12. > :03:14.Chancellor has singularly failed to listen to the SNP and this House

:03:15. > :03:20.when we have said he needs to think again about tax credits. He sounds

:03:21. > :03:25.like he is more keen on dealing with the peers than them. How about he

:03:26. > :03:34.listens to the people and drop these plans once and for all? This House

:03:35. > :03:37.of Commons voted three times for the changes rejected in the House of

:03:38. > :03:41.Lords, and we look forward to the support of the SNP in that

:03:42. > :03:44.constitutional question. But I will make this point, we need to have a

:03:45. > :03:50.welfare system that works, we need welfare system that works, we need

:03:51. > :03:52.wage economy, and we do that by wage economy, and we do that by

:03:53. > :03:55.introducing the National minimum wage and having a welfare bill that

:03:56. > :04:03.the country can afford, that is the best we can do for the security of

:04:04. > :04:05.the people. If the Chancellor had listened to the evidence from the

:04:06. > :04:11.outset, he would not be in this outset, he would not be in this

:04:12. > :04:12.mess. If his backbenchers voted with mess. If his backbenchers voted with

:04:13. > :04:23.their conscience, there would be an alignment of the opinion with the

:04:24. > :04:25.other place. He needs to appreciate he needs to go back to the drawing

:04:26. > :04:33.board with his failed policy that his working -- hates working people

:04:34. > :04:41.the hardest. -- hits. We will deliver what we promised in this

:04:42. > :04:45.Parliament. I remember a time when the Labour Party used to support

:04:46. > :04:54.moving from welfare to work. They have abandoned that approach. We

:04:55. > :04:57.working people, who need controlled working people, who need controlled

:04:58. > :05:19.welfare and a country that lives within its means. He is not your. --

:05:20. > :05:27.here. Does he agree that whatever our views on the tax credit dispute,

:05:28. > :05:28.in overturning the settled will of the elected chamber, the unelected

:05:29. > :05:29.Lords have exercised power of a chamber of parliament in the tax

:05:30. > :05:34.area we are, for at least 100 years, it has been the established --

:05:35. > :05:37.established that they should only established that they should only

:05:38. > :05:48.have the legitimacy of a consultative assembly? He makes an

:05:49. > :05:52.important point. On any five occasions in recent decades have the

:05:53. > :06:01.House of Lords blocked a statutory implement, and never on a financial

:06:02. > :06:05.matter. We had a range of opinions, telling us yesterday that this was

:06:06. > :06:10.unprecedented. It is something we have the address. The Prime Minister

:06:11. > :06:14.made that clear, and that is what we are going to do to make sure that

:06:15. > :06:17.the elected House of Commons is responsible for the tax and spend

:06:18. > :06:27.decisions affecting the people of the country? -- people of the

:06:28. > :06:35.country. I wrote to the Chancellor about a lady in my constituency, who

:06:36. > :06:38.only earns ?11,000 a year, and says that ?31 a week has been cut from

:06:39. > :06:42.her budget. I know he will meet me and discuss this, but surely the

:06:43. > :06:47.have conversations here, and he will have conversations here, and he will

:06:48. > :06:59.responsible and chopped out. What is responsible and chopped out. What is

:07:00. > :07:03.never have to stand should decide never have to stand should decide

:07:04. > :07:06.how the people are tax asked and how how the people are tax asked and how

:07:07. > :07:08.to spend our money. I agree with my honourable friend on the

:07:09. > :07:14.constitutional point, which is a matter of the House of Commons will

:07:15. > :07:18.want to address. I take very seriously the point he raises about

:07:19. > :07:22.his constituent. I have made it clear that we will listen about how

:07:23. > :07:27.to make the transition on the lower welfare, higher wage economy, and we

:07:28. > :07:31.have introduced controversial changes in the last Parliament, for

:07:32. > :07:37.from higher earners. We make from higher earners. We make

:07:38. > :07:41.changes, listening to Parliament, to smooth the transition is to these

:07:42. > :07:43.reforms. So of course we will listen to the House of Commons in this

:07:44. > :07:49.respect. But the end goal is clear. respect. But the end goal is clear.

:07:50. > :07:55.This country cannot have an unlimited welfare budget squeezing

:07:56. > :07:59.out other areas of expenditure. We, at half 1% of the world's

:08:00. > :08:06.population, 4% of the economy, but 7% of the welfare budget. Can the

:08:07. > :08:10.Chancellor stick to his guns on the issue of tax credits? Gordon Brown

:08:11. > :08:14.spent billions of pounds he did not have on tax credits to try to buy

:08:15. > :08:18.agree with me that there is no agree with me that there is no

:08:19. > :08:28.painful way out of huge debt, and he will do well to -- people will do

:08:29. > :08:33.well to remember that. I completely agree with my honourable friend, and

:08:34. > :08:36.spending on tax credits went up three times during the period of the

:08:37. > :08:40.last Labour government. Networking poverty increased during that

:08:41. > :08:46.period, so it had the opposite period, so it had the opposite

:08:47. > :08:50.effect intended. When the country loses control, the people who suffer

:08:51. > :08:54.are indeed the low paid. They are the people who get turned out of

:08:55. > :09:00.work. It is not the richest in the country or the trade unions barons

:09:01. > :09:05.who lose their job. It is the broadest in the country. We can

:09:06. > :09:08.deliver economic security for them, so we will listen on the

:09:09. > :09:12.but we're a to deliver controlled but we're a to deliver controlled

:09:13. > :09:18.welfare and economic security for the working people of this country.

:09:19. > :09:24.The Children's Society estimate there are 10,000 children living in

:09:25. > :09:28.5100 families in Robert who will be punished by the tax credit changes.

:09:29. > :09:32.Provisions will the Chancellor put in place to support them during the

:09:33. > :09:37.transitional period? I will set out transitional period? I will set out

:09:38. > :09:44.in the Autumn Statement how we will do this. The people of Rotherham and

:09:45. > :09:49.the rest of the country want to see this. We have to make choices. Are

:09:50. > :09:55.we prepared to see the country decline, are we prepared to see the

:09:56. > :09:56.budget out of control? Are we prepared to see jobs lost or do we

:09:57. > :09:59.want to continue delivering economic want to continue delivering economic

:10:00. > :10:04.security that sees a record number of people in work and has seen

:10:05. > :10:09.employment increase in Robert? The average taxpayer here now pays ?2000

:10:10. > :10:12.a year in extra tax just because of the government's debt interest

:10:13. > :10:16.payments. Is it not time we saw this payments. Is it not time we saw this

:10:17. > :10:20.tax on the payslips or that those who believe they can spend with

:10:21. > :10:30.impunity including the neglect -- unelected chamber... He is right to

:10:31. > :10:40.call it that. One of the largest items of government spending is

:10:41. > :10:46.paying the creditors the owe, and that crowds out the money we could

:10:47. > :10:50.be paying into education. We have been taking forward and innovation

:10:51. > :10:54.put forward to a backbencher on this side of the House, and we now send

:10:55. > :11:00.attack statement to every taxpayer -- a tax statement to every taxpayer

:11:01. > :11:01.to see how much we spend an interest and how urgent it is to remove this

:11:02. > :11:09.deficit. On the constitutional deficit. On the constitutional

:11:10. > :11:13.point, will the Chancellor read out the specific sentence in the

:11:14. > :11:22.Conservative Party manifesto where he promised he will be cutting tax

:11:23. > :11:32.credits? I am very glad he has a copy of the Conservative manifesto.

:11:33. > :11:36.It is an excellent document that says we're going to deliver better

:11:37. > :12:21.schools for people, put more money into the National Health service,

:12:22. > :12:22.invest in transport, and it says on the document we will make ?12

:12:23. > :12:34.billion of welfare savings. We have introduced wage increases

:12:35. > :12:41.that matched what we were proposing to do by statute. We are already

:12:42. > :12:44.seeing the benefits of the national living wage coming into effect

:12:45. > :12:59.before it is even introduced. We know there are 500,000 more children

:13:00. > :13:07.in poverty since 2010... Half an million more children in poverty

:13:08. > :13:14.since 2010 and potentially 4 million children in poverty by the end of

:13:15. > :13:18.this Parliament if the Chancellor is in listening mode, knowing he does

:13:19. > :13:24.not need to make these cuts in order to balance the budget, why does he

:13:25. > :13:32.not listen to those who say start now with the policy of tax credit

:13:33. > :13:38.gentleman is just not correct on the gentleman is just not correct on the

:13:39. > :13:43.numbers. Child poverty is down by 300,000 since 2010 and the number of

:13:44. > :13:50.children in workless households is half a million fewer that was when

:13:51. > :13:56.this government came to office. It is difficult to take lectures from

:13:57. > :13:58.the SNP about balancing the books. They made forecasts for oil revenues

:13:59. > :14:04.which would have left Scotland with a ?30 billion black hole if they had

:14:05. > :14:08.got their way. We will go on delivering economic security for the

:14:09. > :14:14.people of Scotland and the rest of the UK die taking the difficult

:14:15. > :14:20.decisions that his party ducks. The Chancellor is in denial. Is it not

:14:21. > :14:27.the case, Mr Speaker? Absolute denial that yesterday the 26th of

:14:28. > :14:33.October demonstrated to things. The Chancellor has lost his political

:14:34. > :14:44.touch and his chances of being Prime Minister have gone up in a puff of

:14:45. > :14:47.smoke. All they want to talk about this party political games rather

:14:48. > :14:56.than sorting out the mess that this country was in six or seven years

:14:57. > :15:02.ago as a result of the changes --. Six or seven years ago. As result of

:15:03. > :15:08.the changes we made things have improved and we will go on making

:15:09. > :15:11.the changes. He can go on praising the House of Lords that he has spent

:15:12. > :15:16.his whole life campaigning to abolish and I will go on delivering

:15:17. > :15:21.the reforms to our economy needed to help Scotland continue to grow. At

:15:22. > :15:25.the end of the last Labour government, nine out of ten families

:15:26. > :15:34.with children were eligible for tax credits. Some of them aren't up to

:15:35. > :15:38.?60,000. In other words, they were paying their taxes and getting some

:15:39. > :15:43.back. Isn't it better to reduce taxes in the first place so people

:15:44. > :15:54.keep more of their hard earned income? I think my honourable friend

:15:55. > :15:57.speaks for her Lincolnshire constituents and the whole United

:15:58. > :16:04.Kingdom in saying what we want to do is move to the lower tax, lower

:16:05. > :16:10.welfare higher wage society. We increased the personal allowance to

:16:11. > :16:13.?11,000 and cut taxes for business, reducing corporation tax, expanding

:16:14. > :16:18.employment allows some smaller businesses could take more people

:16:19. > :16:23.on. It is about continuing to deliver record levels of employment

:16:24. > :16:34.in our country and growing economy which today's GDP figures confirm.

:16:35. > :16:37.Can I remind the House that 3 million people out there who have

:16:38. > :16:40.done everything asked of them, bringing up their children, going to

:16:41. > :16:47.work, this is not a constitutional matter. They will lose ?1300 per

:16:48. > :16:51.year. Given what happened in the other place last night, can I

:16:52. > :16:56.reassure the Chancellor that if he brings forward proposals to reverse

:16:57. > :17:03.the cuts to tax credits fairly and in full he will not be attacked by

:17:04. > :17:10.this side of the House. Indeed, he will be applauded. But can you

:17:11. > :17:18.assure us that whatever proposals he brings forward he will not support

:17:19. > :17:21.any that an independent assessment demonstrates will cause any child to

:17:22. > :17:29.be forced to live below the poverty line? I am of course happy to accept

:17:30. > :17:35.any proposals he puts forward but I would make this point. I am happy to

:17:36. > :17:39.listen to those proposals but let me make this point. There is a

:17:40. > :17:44.difference between those who say we want to make no savings to welfare

:17:45. > :17:48.at all, we want to abolish things like the benefit cap, we are not

:17:49. > :17:52.prepared to make savings at all to the tax credit system, and those who

:17:53. > :17:57.have said yes, we do want to move to a lower welfare society but we want

:17:58. > :18:04.help in the transition. If he has puzzles to help in the transition of

:18:05. > :18:07.course I will listen to them but if years promoting uncapped welfare and

:18:08. > :18:11.uncapped borrowing then I don't think the British people will listen

:18:12. > :18:15.to him. The Chancellor has a choice before him. He can push on with the

:18:16. > :18:23.tax giveaways to multinational corporations, press on with tax cuts

:18:24. > :18:30.to the wealthiest few in inheritance tax that he announced in the summer

:18:31. > :18:37.budget, or he can reverse those tax breaks for the few and instead go

:18:38. > :18:47.for a less excessive surplus target in 2019/20 and the end -- and be in

:18:48. > :18:57.a better position. Is he prepared to listen to reason? Is he or anyone on

:18:58. > :19:04.that site willing to step up and show some leadership on this issue?

:19:05. > :19:08.Let's remember, we inherited a tax system where city bankers were

:19:09. > :19:11.paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned them.

:19:12. > :19:18.Multinationals were paying no tax at all. We have introduced a new tax to

:19:19. > :19:22.make sure multinationals to not divert their profits and we have

:19:23. > :19:27.increased capital gains tax to avoid that abuse of tax rates. We are not

:19:28. > :19:34.going to take lectures from the Labour Party on a fair tax system. I

:19:35. > :19:40.would say to him, he in a way reveals what he believes, which I

:19:41. > :19:47.respect, which is to abandon the surplus real and run at the -- run a

:19:48. > :19:52.forever and don't make difficult forever and don't make difficult

:19:53. > :19:54.decisions on welfare you will condemn this country to decline and

:19:55. > :19:57.that means as a result people will that means as a result people will

:19:58. > :20:01.become unemployed and living standards will fall. That is not the

:20:02. > :20:07.Britain I would like to see. We will take difficult decisions to deliver

:20:08. > :20:14.lower welfare, lower tax and a higher wage economy. And this

:20:15. > :20:23.elected House of Commons will carry on with economic plan which delivers

:20:24. > :20:26.that. Mr Speaker, I am in discussions with the Scottish

:20:27. > :20:32.Government on the design of its new fiscal framework. We met on four

:20:33. > :20:38.occasions and a joint statement was released after each meeting. Talks

:20:39. > :20:46.have been constructive and we hope to come to a final agreement in due

:20:47. > :20:50.course. John Nicholson. Does the Chief Secretary remain committed to

:20:51. > :21:04.a funding formula based on Barnett, as promised in the vow? The

:21:05. > :21:09.Government is committed to the Barnett formula and delivering all

:21:10. > :21:17.aspects of this method agreement. -- the Smith agreement. Would the

:21:18. > :21:23.Minister think again on that answer? My constituents have ?2000

:21:24. > :21:26.less per person on public expenditure than constituents in

:21:27. > :21:32.Scotland and we pay the same taxes. How can that be fair? I think it is

:21:33. > :21:38.worth noting that the Barnett formula will continue but it will

:21:39. > :21:43.diminish in importance. For the first time, more than half of the

:21:44. > :21:46.Scottish Government's budget will come from Scottish taxpayers rather

:21:47. > :21:50.Government, which I think will add Government, which I think will add

:21:51. > :21:59.extra accountability to the Scottish Government. I should like to answer

:22:00. > :22:05.question number seven. We have a record number of people in work and

:22:06. > :22:08.the GD PDA to today shows Britain outperforms other western economies

:22:09. > :22:16.but there are global risks and much more can be done to fix our economy.

:22:17. > :22:20.Bottom statement will set out ways we can do this and make tough

:22:21. > :22:29.decisions for Britain to live within our means. The total number of

:22:30. > :22:34.unemployed in my constituency is 219 and youth unemployment is only 36.

:22:35. > :22:38.With my right honourable friend join me in praising institutions such as

:22:39. > :22:45.Henley College who are providing excellent apprenticeship training?

:22:46. > :22:50.It is good to hear about the success of the people in his constituency

:22:51. > :22:55.finding work over recent years, and the business confidence that exists

:22:56. > :23:01.in Oxfordshire. Henley College, which he has spoken about, does an

:23:02. > :23:05.excellent job making sure young people have the skills they need to

:23:06. > :23:10.take opportunities out there in the jobs market and we will go on

:23:11. > :23:20.helping institutions like that by increasing apprentices so we deliver

:23:21. > :23:25.the 3 million apprentices. Unemployment has fallen in my

:23:26. > :23:31.constituency since 2010 but we mustn't be complacent given recent

:23:32. > :23:38.news about difficulties in the West Midlands but would he agree that we

:23:39. > :23:41.should do more to invest in skills such as science and technology so we

:23:42. > :23:48.can equip local people with the skills they need to take future

:23:49. > :23:53.opportunities? I visited a number of the successful businesses in his

:23:54. > :23:56.constituency, exactly the kind of small and medium businesses that are

:23:57. > :24:05.the backbone of the British economy. They need help with training and

:24:06. > :24:12.hills on college -- Halesowen College can help them. As far as I

:24:13. > :24:17.can see has been afraid to publish impact assessments on changes to

:24:18. > :24:21.working tax credits on people taking up or remaining in work. Will he

:24:22. > :24:37.guaranteed that given the decision last night he will look at this and

:24:38. > :24:39.include an impact assessment? We published an impact assessment and

:24:40. > :24:44.equalities assessment distribution or analysis of the measures we

:24:45. > :24:50.produced in the budget. None of those were ever produced by any

:24:51. > :24:55.Labour Chancellor. We continue to provide the information people seek

:24:56. > :24:59.but what matters above all is getting the central judgment right

:25:00. > :25:01.about fixing the economy, dealing with the deficit and delivering

:25:02. > :25:10.economic security for the people she represents. The Chancellor is fond

:25:11. > :25:16.of telling us about 2 million more people in employment when he usually

:25:17. > :25:22.little facial lap of honour around the chamber. Has he is omitted how

:25:23. > :25:26.many of those 2 million people would be hit by the proposed tax credit

:25:27. > :25:33.changes and how many he would be comfortable still hitting with

:25:34. > :25:38.revised changes? We will help with the transition. The measures to do

:25:39. > :25:44.so come alongside the increase in national living wage, increases in

:25:45. > :25:51.personal allowance and action we have taken to cut social rents. It

:25:52. > :25:54.is part of a package to deliver security to people in Northern

:25:55. > :25:58.Ireland and the UK. He remembers what it was like five or six years

:25:59. > :26:01.ago in Northern Ireland with high unemployment, lack of business

:26:02. > :26:06.investment, people looking for work. Now jobs are being created and

:26:07. > :26:09.people are finding work. Has everything been done that needs to

:26:10. > :26:21.be? Absolutely not. Let's work together to make more jobs and

:26:22. > :26:27.investment in Northern Ireland. My local council keep talking about

:26:28. > :26:36.cats. But a management consultant company said there will be 10,000

:26:37. > :26:38.jobs in my constituency. Would do the Chancellor agree that his

:26:39. > :26:43.economic policies have put that on track and we are going forward in my

:26:44. > :26:44.area of the world and making it better for the people who live

:26:45. > :26:55.there? He is right. As a combination of him

:26:56. > :27:01.being in effect the local MP and the fact we have a conservative MP and

:27:02. > :27:07.government, we are delivering more jobs into his part of Lancashire.

:27:08. > :27:13.link road to the port, which they link road to the port, which they

:27:14. > :27:18.campaigned for four decades, but they were never delivered. It has

:27:19. > :27:27.now been built and delivered as part of his efforts. My party wants to

:27:28. > :27:34.deal with the deficit. We think he has gone about it the wrong way.

:27:35. > :27:40.We're worried about certain employment trends, for example a

:27:41. > :27:44.trade Association has warned 20,000 jobs could be at risk due to the

:27:45. > :27:49.announcement of withdrawal of support for solar energy schemes.

:27:50. > :27:53.What steps does the government proposed to take to avoid

:27:54. > :28:02.large-scale redundancies in the solar industry, and what support

:28:03. > :28:06.will the government offer to the industry? We are in constant

:28:07. > :28:12.dialogue, and use has decreased dramatically. We have reduced the

:28:13. > :28:18.subsidy going to solar. There has to be consistency on what Labour will

:28:19. > :28:23.argue for. On the one hand they ask to deal with the energy prices

:28:24. > :28:27.affecting the steel industry, reasonably, then they spokesman gets

:28:28. > :28:40.up and asks to add more cost to energy bills so we subsidise

:28:41. > :28:45.renewals. I recognise all job losses are concerning for those that.

:28:46. > :28:51.Regarding large-scale redundancies, the Jobcentre plus rapid response

:28:52. > :28:58.service can help. They provide support and are working at a

:28:59. > :29:01.colliery in his constituency. We may consider further intervention in

:29:02. > :29:09.other cases where the impact is significant. Thank you. I also

:29:10. > :29:14.welcome the support and retraining packages for steelworkers referred

:29:15. > :29:16.to earlier. There are several hundred workers at the colliery

:29:17. > :29:23.facing redundancy later this year. facing redundancy later this year.

:29:24. > :29:25.And a further 240 power station workers going through a

:29:26. > :29:31.consultation, who are very worried about their future. Will he meet

:29:32. > :29:36.with me urgently to discuss a similar support and retraining

:29:37. > :29:42.package for these workers? I recognise the difficulties faced by

:29:43. > :29:45.many people in his constituency. One thing I will say is that my

:29:46. > :29:50.honourable friend is a real champion for jobs in his constituency. Only

:29:51. > :29:54.last week he ran his fifth annual jobs fear for his constituents,

:29:55. > :29:59.which is part of the reason unemployment is down by more than

:30:00. > :30:02.1000 since the last -- in the last Parliament. I would be happy to meet

:30:03. > :30:09.with him to discuss further what training is available for

:30:10. > :30:17.constituents affect the. 1700 people have lost their jobs in Redcar, and

:30:18. > :30:25.it is expected total job losses will be 9000. How long will it be for his

:30:26. > :30:33.measures to take effect and have jobs again? We're taking a number of

:30:34. > :30:40.measures, tackling unfair practices and speaking on that basis at EU

:30:41. > :30:48.summit. We are dealing with high energy bills and making sure the

:30:49. > :30:52.more -- that more public contracts go to UK steel producers. But the

:30:53. > :30:58.youth he government cannot deal with the world's deal price -- steel

:30:59. > :31:11.price. We're making sure that the situation is as good as it can be.

:31:12. > :31:15.This government has made a long-term science capital commitment investing

:31:16. > :31:20.6.9 billion in the UK's research infrastructure. In the last

:31:21. > :31:27.Parliament we maintained the ring fenced science budget in cash terms,

:31:28. > :31:34.at ?4.6 billion per annum, and provided 1.75 billion of support in

:31:35. > :31:36.research and development tax credits in 2013. Further decisions to

:31:37. > :31:45.support research will be decided at the forthcoming Spending Review. The

:31:46. > :31:48.record does not match the rhetoric. Only yesterday some of the leading

:31:49. > :31:52.companies in the UK were expressing concern that the government had a

:31:53. > :32:01.reported plan to replace research and development investments, could

:32:02. > :32:04.affect them and send them abroad. affect them and send them abroad.

:32:05. > :32:10.Could he reassure Parliament and Could he reassure Parliament and

:32:11. > :32:18.business that support will remain available? Future plans for the tax

:32:19. > :32:26.credits are matter for the Spending Review, but where I disagree with

:32:27. > :32:50.him is what we have done on the last five years. For each ?1 of tax

:32:51. > :32:53.foregone on around the tax credit stimulates between ?1.53 and ?2.35

:32:54. > :32:53.of additional investment. The tax credit scheme has been increased by

:32:54. > :33:28.170 -- from 175% to 210%. We recently visited our research Centre

:33:29. > :33:36.in my constituency. Does he agree that collaborations between the

:33:37. > :33:41.academic and manufacturing world's are the way forward? I agree,

:33:42. > :33:42.particularly in areas surrounding particularly in areas surrounding

:33:43. > :33:42.the impact and well rounded this the impact and well rounded this

:33:43. > :33:43.productivity, 3.87 times the productivity, 3.87 times the

:33:44. > :33:43.Parliament, local authorities will Parliament, local authorities will

:33:44. > :33:44.be able to attend taxes to spend on be able to attend taxes to spend on

:33:45. > :33:44.services. Elected mayor 's will get services. Elected mayor 's will get

:33:45. > :33:44.greater flexibility over business greater flexibility over

:33:45. > :33:45.rates. Each devolution deal will be rates. Each devolution deal will be

:33:46. > :33:49.spoke, but the deal agreed last Friday with the north-east, but the

:33:50. > :33:51.deal agreed last Friday with the North East commendable oddity

:33:52. > :33:57.includes a new ?30 million a year funding will programme of

:33:58. > :34:04.transferring arrangement in the region. The north-east is keen and

:34:05. > :34:07.determined to slip Whitehall's Alicia, but some people are

:34:08. > :34:14.concerned that hard-pressed civil servants will seek to devolve cuts

:34:15. > :34:18.while maintaining control of spending. To avoid this, will the

:34:19. > :34:26.Chancellor commit to complete transparency on the budget of the

:34:27. > :34:28.devolved function, publishing the full funding figures for the years

:34:29. > :34:35.before and after the Spending Review. Of course we will publish

:34:36. > :34:43.information, but the deal signed last Thursday committed to ?30

:34:44. > :34:46.million of additional funding each year going forward. If she does not

:34:47. > :34:51.think that is a good deal, she should listen to Simon Henning, who

:34:52. > :34:57.is the chairman from her own party, who said the agreement being signed

:34:58. > :34:58.today will bring significant economic benefits and opportunities

:34:59. > :35:02.for businesses and residents in the for businesses and residents in the

:35:03. > :35:17.north-east. She should be welcoming it. Last week 's announcement of the

:35:18. > :35:24.new cluster of flights between China and Manchester. It is this

:35:25. > :35:29.government and this Chancellor who is delivering a clear vision for the

:35:30. > :35:35.North. We had an exceptionally successful visit last week,

:35:36. > :35:43.including the President's trip to Manchester. Important in relation to

:35:44. > :35:48.the Northern Powerhouse was the start of the first direct flight

:35:49. > :35:53.connecting Manchester and the Northern Powerhouse region to China,

:35:54. > :35:59.which will be vital for the connectivity and ensuring economic

:36:00. > :36:06.investment is brought into the region. Last week it was concluded

:36:07. > :36:10.that the Chancellor's decision to devolve business rates to local

:36:11. > :36:14.authorities will lead to an increased council debt levels,

:36:15. > :36:17.cancellation of creditworthiness of governments, and will leave many

:36:18. > :36:21.local councils including Lancashire County Council with your credit

:36:22. > :36:28.rating downgraded. What safeguards rating downgraded. What safeguards

:36:29. > :36:39.can he promised will be put in place to ensure that your -- poorer areas

:36:40. > :36:50.of the Northern Powerhouse do not miss out? He needs to know that over

:36:51. > :36:54.many years, a large number of local authorities have been calling out

:36:55. > :36:57.for this kind of devolution of the tax base, so they have control over

:36:58. > :37:04.their own decisions and the funding given towards them. Many of the

:37:05. > :37:08.local authorities have been calling for these additional powders, they

:37:09. > :37:13.are precisely the Labour authorities in those inner-city areas,

:37:14. > :37:16.Powerhouse, and we intend to deliver Powerhouse, and we intend to deliver

:37:17. > :37:26.on that to make sure there is devolution in the area. The

:37:27. > :37:27.government is fully committed to implementing the cost and effective

:37:28. > :37:33.ring fencing regime, and we remain ring fencing regime, and we remain

:37:34. > :37:40.firmly on track for the separation of banks by January 2019. We passed

:37:41. > :37:45.the last legislation and the ring fencing recommendations this year,

:37:46. > :37:49.and regulatory authority is consulting on second tranche of the

:37:50. > :37:57.roles before publishing the final rules this year. In 2012, the then

:37:58. > :37:58.government of -- Governor of the Bank of England said that unless

:37:59. > :38:03.these regulations were specified, these regulations were specified,

:38:04. > :38:07.there was a risk they would be watered down before implementation.

:38:08. > :38:11.We now see Barclay's Bank joining RBS and Lloyds in the questing

:38:12. > :38:15.significant waivers. Could he reconfirm the commitment and the

:38:16. > :38:23.design principles within the legislation? The government remains

:38:24. > :38:28.committed to introducing a ring fencing regime as recommended in the

:38:29. > :38:33.independent commission on banking. I will not comment on speculation on

:38:34. > :38:39.how individual banks would like to do it because that is the decision

:38:40. > :38:52.as long as they remain compliant to the restrict restrictions. Deadline

:38:53. > :38:56.is 2019. There was a lot of crying wolf. Is she aware of anything that

:38:57. > :39:05.will be sent to foreign parts because of it? The UK recently once

:39:06. > :39:11.again top the ball as the number one location for a global financial

:39:12. > :39:14.centre. We believe our legal system, language, geographic location, our

:39:15. > :39:20.brilliant skilled workforce and many other fact is contribute to the fact

:39:21. > :40:07.that this is an excellent place to locate a global financial services

:40:08. > :40:08.fund. My honourable friend is right to highlight the importance of

:40:09. > :40:10.increased product vividly, which increased product vividly, which

:40:11. > :40:41.will drive growth, raise living will drive growth, raise living

:40:42. > :40:43.standards and ensure a better quality of life. Our plans set out a

:40:44. > :40:44.range of reforms to make sure it remains a dynamic and enterprising

:40:45. > :40:44.authority supported by private and public infrastructure. Does he agree

:40:45. > :40:45.Governor of the Bank of England Governor of the Bank of England

:40:46. > :40:45.European Union in positive terms European Union in positive

:40:46. > :40:46.suggest that if we make sure we do suggest that if we make sure we do

:40:47. > :40:46.get product of a tea right and get product of a tea right and

:40:47. > :40:47.prospects will be very good for the prospects will be very good for the

:40:48. > :40:47.economy, dynamically and in terms of growth? As the Chancellor

:40:48. > :40:48.the best outcome for the UK economy the best outcome for the UK economy

:40:49. > :40:48.is achieving reform over the EU. We want to have a leading role in

:40:49. > :40:49.delivering prosperity and security delivering prosperity and security

:40:50. > :40:49.for every country in the EU, for every country in the EU,

:40:50. > :40:53.particularly integrating the single market. One of the important factors

:40:54. > :40:53.machinery. Our banks doing all they machinery. Our banks doing all

:40:54. > :40:55.can to end the companies to make can to end the companies to make

:40:56. > :40:58.sure they can improve productivity in the company? He is absolutely

:40:59. > :41:05.private investor went, which is why private investor went, which is why

:41:06. > :41:11.primary level of the investment primary level of the investment

:41:12. > :41:23.allowance, and we will develop these opportunities. Does he agree that

:41:24. > :41:30.raising productivity is the route to raising productivity is the route to

:41:31. > :41:30.raising living standards, and the raising living standards, and the

:41:31. > :41:31.commitment to raising corporation commitment to raising corporation

:41:32. > :41:32.tax will all contribute to achieving that? I do agree. Rising

:41:33. > :41:46.productivity increases living standards.

:41:47. > :41:57.Don't manufacture, or build enough. Too much of the economic activity is

:41:58. > :42:02.concentrated in London. The Chancellor may recognise his own

:42:03. > :42:09.words from a speech in July. Why was he so damning about his own record?

:42:10. > :42:13.My right honourable friend has been absolutely consistent in identifying

:42:14. > :42:19.the need to rebalance the economy and export more. Regarding product

:42:20. > :42:23.cavity, the productivity gap has existed for a long time. I can't

:42:24. > :42:34.even pin the blame on the last Labour government. We have to

:42:35. > :42:39.address the shortcomings and this government's programme is doing just

:42:40. > :42:47.that. I thank him for his answer. The Chancellor Institute have called

:42:48. > :42:49.his productivity plan fatally undermined by insufficient measures

:42:50. > :42:55.to improve the skills of the existence workforce. Could that be

:42:56. > :43:00.why the UK's productivity gap has widened to the largest since 1991

:43:01. > :43:06.compared with other G-7 countries? She is right to identify the

:43:07. > :43:09.importance of skills. Skills and human development is at the heart of

:43:10. > :43:17.the productivity plan. The apprenticeship levy is a really

:43:18. > :43:24.important structural thing to improve. Excellent work is being

:43:25. > :43:35.done in the Department for Education. English and maths have a

:43:36. > :43:42.vital high value in the marketplace. Question 13. The Government is

:43:43. > :43:52.committed to raising their income tax personal allowance to 2005 at

:43:53. > :43:57.pounds by the end of the Parliament. This is also with our commitment to

:43:58. > :44:02.raise the higher level to ?50,000. Personal allowance will increase to

:44:03. > :44:08.?11,000 next year and ?11,200 in 2017/18. In raising personal

:44:09. > :44:13.allowance, one of them was powerfully progressive things we are

:44:14. > :44:25.doing to move towards a lower tax, higher pay society, income -- income

:44:26. > :44:30.tax means people in my constituency will be lifted out of paying income

:44:31. > :44:35.tax entirely. Does this not sure conservatives are on the side of

:44:36. > :44:38.working people? Those working 30 hours per week on the national

:44:39. > :44:43.minimum wage will be taken out of income tax altogether and kept out

:44:44. > :44:48.of it and it contrasts with the position in 2010 when people owning

:44:49. > :44:54.just 6500 pounds were paying income tax and those people had recently

:44:55. > :45:01.seen an increase in their marginal rate from 10% to 20%. Raising the

:45:02. > :45:05.personal allowance on its own is not a panacea and will do nothing to

:45:06. > :45:08.address the deep levels of poverty which exist amongst the working

:45:09. > :45:14.poor. Is she concerned at the recent or N S statistics that show 6

:45:15. > :45:21.million jobs pay less than the living wage? The best way we can

:45:22. > :45:28.address poverty is to ensure we have a strong economy with jobs growing,

:45:29. > :45:34.increasing productivity, making sure we have the business investment we

:45:35. > :45:38.need, he pro-business approach, good for job creation and that is why

:45:39. > :45:49.there are more people in work than we have seen before. Topical

:45:50. > :45:55.questions. Topical number one. It is to ensure the stability and

:45:56. > :46:02.prosperity of the country. The Government's defeat in the other

:46:03. > :46:05.place, 4000 families in East Hull would have lost thousands per year.

:46:06. > :46:11.Now that he is in listening mode, would he commit to dropping this

:46:12. > :46:21.vicious assault on hard-working families? In Kingston-upon-Hull,

:46:22. > :46:24.which he represents in this House, unemployment has fallen by 32% since

:46:25. > :46:29.this government came to office in 2010. That is because we have

:46:30. > :46:34.delivered economic security and committed that Britain should live

:46:35. > :46:40.within our means. Yes we will listen to the transition we make to that

:46:41. > :46:45.law welfare higher wage economy that we must go on making savings in our

:46:46. > :46:51.welfare budget or else it will crowd out spending in our NHS and

:46:52. > :46:58.education system and it will mean Hull does not have the resources it

:46:59. > :47:03.needs to thrive and prosper. Wage increases reduce the burden of tax

:47:04. > :47:06.credits on the taxpayer. What assessment does the Chancellor make

:47:07. > :47:19.of wage increases in my constituency in the West Midlands and in the UK.

:47:20. > :47:24.--? The introduction of the national living wage is going to benefit

:47:25. > :47:27.around 300,000 people in the West Midlands, including her

:47:28. > :47:31.constituents. It is part of a package to support the working

:47:32. > :47:40.people she represents and gives the economic security to that West

:47:41. > :47:45.Midlands engine that we want to say. The Chancellor said he would listen.

:47:46. > :47:49.Confirm that he will not be writing to the 3 million families before

:47:50. > :47:54.Christmas telling them their tax credits will be slashed. Surely he

:47:55. > :47:58.doesn't want to go down in history as Scrooge delivering devastating

:47:59. > :48:06.news to millions of people, or does he? Obviously we will inform

:48:07. > :48:15.families once the changes we have made become law. The Channel Tunnel

:48:16. > :48:20.and the Port of Dover are very important pieces of infrastructure.

:48:21. > :48:24.When there are disruptions to services as we saw the summer it

:48:25. > :48:32.causes misery for people in Kent. Would he agree to meet with me and

:48:33. > :48:41.other MPs from Kent to discuss what funding can be available to manage

:48:42. > :48:47.freight in Kent? I would be willing to meet with them to discuss the

:48:48. > :49:00.traffic jams caused by disruption at the Channel Tunnel. We used Manston

:49:01. > :49:03.airport to relieve pressure. I know there is talk of a longer term

:49:04. > :49:09.solution and I'm happy to talk about it. Given the growing evidence that

:49:10. > :49:15.fixed odds betting terminals are being used to launder money, can the

:49:16. > :49:19.Chancellor Usher this as there will be a prominent focus on these

:49:20. > :49:24.machines in this upcoming anti-money-laundering action plan?

:49:25. > :49:27.I'd like to thank her for her question. She will be aware that we

:49:28. > :49:33.are in the process of considering how we implement the fourth

:49:34. > :49:36.anti-money-laundering directive and we will look closely at their

:49:37. > :49:41.evidence and I will encourage her to get in touch with me. The Black

:49:42. > :49:46.Country Local Enterprise Partnership did an excellent job bringing jobs

:49:47. > :49:53.and investment but would the Chancellor agree that the time has

:49:54. > :49:57.come for local enter should partnerships -- local enterprise

:49:58. > :50:07.partnerships to work together with local authorities? I hear the member

:50:08. > :50:13.for Wolverhampton and Worcestershire saying well said. I think in the

:50:14. > :50:20.West Midlands we have the potential for devolution with an elected mayor

:50:21. > :50:27.if we work with the local authorities and the local enters

:50:28. > :50:32.price -- enterprise partnerships and MPs and I think it will give people

:50:33. > :50:35.of the West Midlands control over decision-making, which we have given

:50:36. > :50:43.to people in South Yorkshire, Manchester, the north-east and

:50:44. > :50:47.quayside. In my constituency there are 9000 families with children

:50:48. > :50:52.claiming tax credits. 5500 of these people are working families. The

:50:53. > :50:57.Chancellor said he is listening but he has dismissed every proposal so

:50:58. > :51:06.far. Millions of families need them to change course and make work pay.

:51:07. > :51:10.Will he listen now and introduce transitional relief so these working

:51:11. > :51:16.families will not be out-of-pocket by ?1300? We are listening and we

:51:17. > :51:21.are in particular listen to what we can do to help with their transition

:51:22. > :51:26.to the law welfare higher wage economy we would like to see in her

:51:27. > :51:31.constituency and across the country. We will also take steps to help make

:51:32. > :51:38.sure work pays by increasing the personal allowance to ?12,500. And

:51:39. > :51:42.by introducing the national living wage which will help thousands of

:51:43. > :51:45.people in our constituency and by supporting the businesses in our

:51:46. > :51:54.constituency without which we wouldn't have the jobs employing

:51:55. > :51:58.local people. Since 2010, over 37,000 of my constituents have had

:51:59. > :52:02.their taxes cut, enabling them to keep more of what they are and and

:52:03. > :52:07.some for the first time I been able to accumulate savings. Can the

:52:08. > :52:12.Chancellor assure them that the Government will continue to cut

:52:13. > :52:18.their taxes and support them with future saving? I can give my

:52:19. > :52:32.honourable friend who represents his constituency so well in Bolton, we

:52:33. > :52:44.will go on supporting his constituents and introducing savings

:52:45. > :52:53.and savings allowance and a help to buy Isa. Will he reflected on our

:52:54. > :52:55.thousands of my constituents feel at the prospect of losing thousands of

:52:56. > :53:02.pounds every year through his actions? The people who suffer most

:53:03. > :53:09.when the economy fails and the country feels are the people she

:53:10. > :53:15.talks about, the low paid. They will lose their jobs and they are the

:53:16. > :53:20.victims of economic insecurity. We are determined to deliver economic

:53:21. > :53:23.security and the controlled welfare bill that the people she represents

:53:24. > :53:31.have to pay for through their taxes and we will set out how to ease the

:53:32. > :53:33.transition. The call Ocean government freed pensioners from

:53:34. > :53:44.mandatory annuities and encouraged savings through ices and enrolment.

:53:45. > :53:48.Tax relief to pensions are expensive and favour higher rate taxpayers.

:53:49. > :53:51.Does he agree that sensible reform could be considered to help answer

:53:52. > :53:59.the budget without distance in devising saving? We have taken

:54:00. > :54:04.significant steps to encourage saving, not least giving pensioners

:54:05. > :54:06.control over their pension pots in retirement and trusting those who

:54:07. > :54:17.have saved all their lives without money they have earned to put aside.

:54:18. > :54:23.We are open to consultation on the system of taxation of pensions. It

:54:24. > :54:27.is an open consultation, a Green paper. We have had interesting

:54:28. > :54:35.suggestions about potential reform and we will respond to the filly in

:54:36. > :54:45.the budget. Can you confirm there is nothing in the passing of the

:54:46. > :54:51.charter which restricts the ability to borrow of Scotland? The deal we

:54:52. > :54:57.struck with the Scottish Government on capital borrowing remains intact.

:54:58. > :55:03.What we want to do is strike a new agreement, a new fiscal framework,

:55:04. > :55:07.and we are having a good discussion around capital borrowing powers,

:55:08. > :55:12.resource borrowing powers, and the mechanism to genuinely make sure

:55:13. > :55:15.that Scotland sees both the benefits and bears the costs of any decision

:55:16. > :55:19.taken by the Scottish Government, which I think is the true nature of

:55:20. > :55:32.devolution which I'm sure the SNP want to see. Would he agree with me

:55:33. > :55:38.that we simply must reform this crazy tax credits system that

:55:39. > :55:43.enforces Lope and that we take no lessons from the opposition which

:55:44. > :55:47.failed cities like mine. The tactic of bribing the lowest orders not to

:55:48. > :55:54.improve social mobility and help them but simply to win their votes

:55:55. > :55:59.must end in this country for good? He makes a powerful point that we

:56:00. > :56:04.created a welfare system which subsidises low pay and surely it is

:56:05. > :56:12.better to increase that pay? That is why we are introducing the national

:56:13. > :56:17.living wage. Under the devolution deal the Chancellor committed ?30

:56:18. > :56:21.million a year for a new investment fund for the north-east. Will this

:56:22. > :56:26.be new money or will exist in grant speak at? Where is the guarantees he

:56:27. > :56:38.will not be robbing Peter to pay Paul? We couldn't have reached this

:56:39. > :56:41.agreement without the support of the local Labour council leaders who

:56:42. > :56:45.have come together through the combined authority to strike what I

:56:46. > :56:48.think is a really historic deal. There has been lots of conversation

:56:49. > :56:54.about devolving power to the north-east. Now we will have the leg

:56:55. > :56:55.could mirror with powers exercised in London exercise in the north-east

:56:56. > :57:07.and that is proper devolution. Last week a cider producer told the

:57:08. > :57:12.local press that cider is an agricultural lubricant, wine for the

:57:13. > :57:14.working man. Will he continue to support hard-working people and

:57:15. > :57:28.lubricate the Somerset economy by cutting tax is on cider? I very much

:57:29. > :57:30.remember my visit with the Prime Minister to a cider producer in his

:57:31. > :57:34.constituency before the election, constituency before the election,

:57:35. > :57:42.which turned out to be extremely productive. He will know that in

:57:43. > :57:47.2010 we actually reversed the cider tax that was being proposed by the

:57:48. > :57:57.previous Labour government, and we have helped the producers. I will

:57:58. > :57:59.help support them in the future. The Resolution Foundation found that all

:58:00. > :58:03.tax and benefit measures announced, tax and benefit measures announced,

:58:04. > :58:08.including the National minimum wage, will cost an additional 200 children

:58:09. > :58:18.into poverty. -- push those children. By 2020, there will be up

:58:19. > :58:25.to 600 further children pushed into poverty. Chancellor, you said you

:58:26. > :58:29.listened last night. Will you now share with the honourable members

:58:30. > :58:37.today what constructive action you will take to protect the poor wrist

:58:38. > :58:46.of families and children? -- poorest. She raises her question in

:58:47. > :58:47.to the concerns that have been to the concerns that have been

:58:48. > :58:51.raised about the transition in the welfare reforms we have it forward,

:58:52. > :58:58.so we can continue to help working families. Those families are best

:58:59. > :59:03.help when we have economic security, a controlled welfare budget, a

:59:04. > :59:07.system where we do not subsidise low paid, and we will make sure that in

:59:08. > :59:13.the Autumn Statement we help working families. I did not want to

:59:14. > :59:17.interrupt the question, and I understand why members like to put

:59:18. > :59:23.their enquiries directly to the Minister, but can I please appeal to

:59:24. > :59:32.members not to use the word you in your questions. We go through the

:59:33. > :59:40.cheer for good reasons. -- through the chair. In the past few years

:59:41. > :59:45.unemployment in Tamworth has fallen faster than anywhere else in the

:59:46. > :59:46.country. As my right honourable friend is listening, can he tell the

:59:47. > :59:48.House whether he has heard a House whether he has heard a

:59:49. > :59:53.sensible representation from the Shadow Chancellor or others about

:59:54. > :00:01.how to de-crease business taxation and regulation to create more jobs

:00:02. > :00:07.in the West Midlands? I am sorry to say I have not because the only

:00:08. > :00:10.proposals that have so far being put by the party opposite are for an

:00:11. > :00:16.increase in business taxation, which was in the manifesto, and the Shadow

:00:17. > :00:17.Chancellor was speaking about a potential wealth tax being

:00:18. > :00:23.introduced in this country. To be introduced in this country. To be

:00:24. > :00:30.consistent on this for 30 years. -- consistent on this for 30 years. --

:00:31. > :00:35.high tax, big state economy, where high tax, big state economy, where

:00:36. > :00:42.private businesses do not have a big role to play. I think that is the

:00:43. > :01:19.wrong direction for the country. How much with the public purse be saved

:01:20. > :01:23.CHEERING That is a very decent CHEERING That is a very

:01:24. > :01:24.proposal for the Autumn Statement proposal for the Autumn Statement

:01:25. > :01:24.which we will give proper consideration to! People who

:01:25. > :01:25.been in Parliament with me for the been in Parliament with me for the

:01:26. > :01:25.last 14 years now my views, we last 14 years now my views,

:01:26. > :01:25.should have an elected House of should have an elected House of

:01:26. > :01:26.Lords, but that view has not Lords, but that view has not

:01:27. > :01:26.prevailed in this chamber. But I do prevailed in this chamber. But I do

:01:27. > :01:27.think that while we have an think that while we have an

:01:28. > :01:27.unelected House of Lords, it should unelected House of Lords, it should

:01:28. > :01:31.respect the constitutional election which has -- convention which has

:01:32. > :02:10.existed for 100 years. Order. Demand has exceeded supply. Point of order.

:02:11. > :02:11.The honourable gentleman is being preserved. We will come back to him

:02:12. > :02:12.. First I wish to hear standing . First I wish to hear standing

:02:13. > :02:12.order number 24 application from Doctor Amy Whiteford. I see leave

:02:13. > :02:15.that we discuss the poverty to millions of families following the

:02:16. > :02:17.tax vote yesterday. I would like to apply for an emergency debate

:02:18. > :02:19.understanding order number 24. There are 7 million working age families

:02:20. > :02:22.across the UK eligible for tax credits, and the impact of this

:02:23. > :02:24.change will be to reduce their income by ?1300 per year. In

:02:25. > :02:28.Scotland over 200,000 working families, with 350,000 children are

:02:29. > :02:38.set to lose out, that is an enormous and just -- is proportionate problem

:02:39. > :02:42.for parents. Yesterday's vote, when peers passed amendments to be put on

:02:43. > :02:47.hold subject to analysis, and for transitional protection to be put in

:02:48. > :02:51.into chaos and leads low-income into chaos and leads low-income

:02:52. > :02:59.families in the dark. Members need to know how the government intends

:03:00. > :03:02.Yesterday the wheels came off the Yesterday the wheels came off the

:03:03. > :03:06.wagon spectacularly for the government's austerity reforms, in

:03:07. > :03:13.spite of our valiant whipping effort which solved Tory peers coming up to

:03:14. > :03:17.support the government. Concern about the injustice of these

:03:18. > :03:21.measures is almost unprecedented. I and all I am not the only person in

:03:22. > :03:29.Lords as an affront to a modern Lords as an affront to a modern

:03:30. > :03:32.democracy, but rather bloated second chamber unites to tell the

:03:33. > :03:36.government they have got it wrong, so it is incumbent on the government

:03:37. > :03:40.to listen. When even the leader of to listen. When even the leader of

:03:41. > :03:45.the Tory party in Scotland tells her government that these tax credits

:03:46. > :03:49.again, it is incumbent on the again, it is incumbent on the

:03:50. > :03:54.government to listen. The government tried to present these cuts as part

:03:55. > :04:02.of a package of measures, but we know that they are paltry increases

:04:03. > :04:06.and fall shark of a living wage. This government has chosen to put

:04:07. > :04:10.field austerity agenda, and we need field austerity agenda, and we need

:04:11. > :04:14.answers urgently. What arrangements are now being put in place for the

:04:15. > :04:17.millions of working families set the lookout? Will they give us an

:04:18. > :04:23.assurance that they will not know flood the other place with more Tory

:04:24. > :04:28.appointees turning up like phantoms to do their dirty work? Order. I

:04:29. > :04:33.listened carefully to what she has said and I have to give my decision

:04:34. > :04:42.on this matter without stating any reasons. That is the requirement. I

:04:43. > :04:47.do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under

:04:48. > :04:54.standing order number 24, so cannot submit the application to the House.

:04:55. > :05:00.Order. I am not required to give any reasons. There is a sense in which I

:05:01. > :05:00.am required to give no reasons. But I consider it is important for

:05:01. > :05:07.people beyond this House to find our people beyond this House to find our

:05:08. > :05:09.procedures entirely intelligible, and I think it is worthwhile to note

:05:10. > :05:13.that these important matters have that these important matters have

:05:14. > :05:17.further today, and there is a further today, and there is a

:05:18. > :05:20.schedule to bait on them on Thursday. Members have other means

:05:21. > :05:24.by which to pursue the matter is, by which to pursue the matter is,

:05:25. > :05:26.and I feel sure they will. -- a and I feel sure they will. -- a

:05:27. > :05:35.debate on them. Understanding order debate on them. Understanding order

:05:36. > :05:45.24, I answered on this occasion is no. Point of order, Doctor Liam Fox.

:05:46. > :05:49.Across the House there is a great deal of concern about the

:05:50. > :05:54.implications of the events in the unelected chamber last night, and

:05:55. > :06:00.many would welcome your decision on the implications of that. Many of

:06:01. > :06:03.those believe that those with no accountability have a moral duty not

:06:04. > :06:09.to vote on such issues, and many would consider that rich to question

:06:10. > :06:14.the democratic deficit in the European Union when they have an

:06:15. > :06:20.legislature. Just before I respond, legislature. Just before I respond,

:06:21. > :06:28.I will hear the honourable gentleman. Further to that, I looked

:06:29. > :06:34.through the standing orders last night and discovered the unelected,

:06:35. > :06:41.unaccountable and bloated second chamber actually have no power at

:06:42. > :06:46.all to reject European Union treaties, such as -- but do have the

:06:47. > :06:53.power to reject the elected will of this House. As a defender of elected

:06:54. > :06:56.members of parliament, will the Speaker be issuing guidance to us as

:06:57. > :07:08.to how we may ensure how the elected will of this House prevails? Well, I

:07:09. > :07:14.think I will wrap up at the end. Let us hear from the honourable

:07:15. > :07:20.gentleman. The day would not be complete without him. I am grateful

:07:21. > :07:22.for that. I am also grateful to hear the late conversion of members on

:07:23. > :07:29.the opposite side to democracy and to reject an unelected chamber. But

:07:30. > :07:33.can you give me some guidance, is there not a constitutional role for

:07:34. > :07:39.the other place in giving applause to this House, when it has made a

:07:40. > :07:47.decision making a decision out of sync to the country, so that can be

:07:48. > :07:54.looked at again? -- giving a pause. Order. I said to him, he is a very

:07:55. > :08:09.distinguished taxi driver by profession. He will be aware of the

:08:10. > :08:24.principal of waiting in one queue. I principal of waiting in one queue. I

:08:25. > :08:31.wonder what you will do to remind wonder what you will do to remind

:08:32. > :08:31.their Lordships of our declaration their Lordships of our declaration

:08:32. > :08:33.of privilege from 1678, declaring that all financial matters

:08:34. > :08:34.pertaining to this House, a pertaining to this House, a

:08:35. > :08:40.privilege that the House of Lords has only now ignored three times

:08:41. > :08:51.since 1860, and as our vice police -- mouthpiece, will you take this

:08:52. > :08:52.increasingly concerned about the increasingly concerned about the

:08:53. > :08:55.across the benches. Has there ever across the benches. Has there ever

:08:56. > :09:00.the Exchequer to be outflanked as a the Exchequer to be outflanked as a

:09:01. > :09:17.the House of Lords? the House of Lords?

:09:18. > :09:32.LAUGHTER Point of order. Can I point out that we have had a

:09:33. > :09:33.election this year, and consistently election this year, and consistently

:09:34. > :09:34.the question was asked whether the government had any intention to cut

:09:35. > :09:35.it was not the intention. It is it was not the intention. It is

:09:36. > :09:37.parliamentary conduct -- convention that the House of Lords does not

:09:38. > :09:42.overturn manifesto commitments. But this was not in the manifesto, and

:09:43. > :09:55.there is concern about this measure. Mr Doherty. The House of

:09:56. > :10:01.Lords is causing angst today. Could the Speaker forgive my evidence as a

:10:02. > :10:08.new member and how late to me, and many of my colleagues how the

:10:09. > :10:11.unelectable, unaccountable barons of Scottish peerage will be conducting

:10:12. > :10:21.their affairs while we cannot vote on issues in this House, they will

:10:22. > :10:28.vote in the other? The short answer which have the character of a

:10:29. > :10:31.rhetorical enquiry is no. Let me say with all courtesy to the House that

:10:32. > :10:40.I was keen to hear all of the points of order before responding, and I

:10:41. > :10:45.intend no discourtesy to the House when I say this. The responsibility

:10:46. > :10:55.of the chair is for order. Nothing of the chair is for order. Nothing

:10:56. > :11:00.disorderly has occurred. There has been no procedural impropriety that

:11:01. > :11:06.would not have been allowed. Whether would not have been allowed. Whether

:11:07. > :11:10.people like what happened last night, on the substance of the

:11:11. > :11:21.issue, or in terms of the fuse unconstitutionality, is a matter for

:11:22. > :11:25.each of them. -- there are views. As I said last night, from the chair,

:11:26. > :11:33.in response to a point of order from the Shadow Chancellor, this is now a

:11:34. > :11:37.matter for the government to take forward as it thinks fit. And I say,

:11:38. > :11:39.with reference to the point of order from the chair of the Welsh affairs

:11:40. > :11:44.select committee, the honourable select committee, the honourable

:11:45. > :11:51.gentleman flatters me. He does not need guidance from me in how to go

:11:52. > :11:59.about his duties, and neither does any other member. It is not for the

:12:00. > :12:06.chair to put a gloss on matters that transpired. Interest, members are

:12:07. > :12:09.not that interested in my gloss or my response to the points of order,

:12:10. > :12:12.they simply wanted to get their views on the record. And they have

:12:13. > :12:26.done that. I will indulge you. I would refer

:12:27. > :12:30.back to the House's claim of privilege and this has been a claim

:12:31. > :12:34.we have made for many centuries and I would have thought that you are

:12:35. > :12:40.the defender of this House's privileges and this is beyond the

:12:41. > :12:47.immediate political debate. The matter is currently in dispute are

:12:48. > :12:58.inevitably of what I will call a high octane character. In such

:12:59. > :13:04.circumstances, if I may polite -- lightly said, I don't think it helps

:13:05. > :13:07.matters if the chair ads in substantive terms without

:13:08. > :13:14.exceptionally good reason to the total number of evaluative comments

:13:15. > :13:20.already made. I think it would be better not to do so. I do jealously

:13:21. > :13:25.guard the rights of this House but I must rest with what I have said,

:13:26. > :13:33.that nothing procedurally improper has taken place. Let's wait to see

:13:34. > :13:39.how matters are taking forward. As I said to the member for Gainsborough

:13:40. > :13:50.last week, in the final analysis, each house knows what its powers are

:13:51. > :13:54.and are not. I wonder whether it would be in order for a motion to be

:13:55. > :14:07.debated on the floor of the House congratulating the House of lords?

:14:08. > :14:11.The short answer to the honourable gentleman is that would be entirely

:14:12. > :14:17.orderly at the honourable gentleman for example secured a Backbench

:14:18. > :14:24.Business Committee debate. It is not for me to encourage such a debate

:14:25. > :14:30.nor to discourage it but the answer to the question is as I have

:14:31. > :14:37.stated. If there are no further points of order perhaps we can now

:14:38. > :14:48.proceed with the Ten Minute Rule Bill motion. I beg leave be given

:14:49. > :14:54.for me to bring in a bill to amend the system of benefit sanctions and

:14:55. > :15:00.establish hardship payment payments and for connected purposes. People

:15:01. > :15:04.in my constituency have no food streets today. Until recently they

:15:05. > :15:10.have claimed employment and support allowance or jobseeker's allowance.

:15:11. > :15:15.Payments have been stopped and they have been sanctioned. As things

:15:16. > :15:21.stand, they have no immediate right of appeal. Some of these people may

:15:22. > :15:27.have made a mistake in their paperwork or have been late for an

:15:28. > :15:32.appointment. They may lack the necessary IT skills to use universal

:15:33. > :15:38.job match or have been asked to do something by staff that they did not

:15:39. > :15:44.do. Whatever their actions, the consequences carry too heavy a

:15:45. > :15:50.burden. They have no means to sustain themselves. This is an

:15:51. > :15:54.unacceptable state of affairs. This is a central issue that my proposed

:15:55. > :15:59.bill addresses. It will ensure that all those who were sanctioned will

:16:00. > :16:03.automatically and immediately receive their hardship payments and

:16:04. > :16:10.these payments will not require to be repaid. Their current system has

:16:11. > :16:22.punished military veterans for selling poppies. It has removed the

:16:23. > :16:25.sole source of income from those who could not complete a medical

:16:26. > :16:30.assessment because they were having a heart attack at the time. One of

:16:31. > :16:35.my constituents was recently sanctioned on the strength of

:16:36. > :16:40.hearsay evidence that she had been incarcerated, despite this being

:16:41. > :16:44.untrue. It cannot be right that sanctions are applied on this basis.

:16:45. > :16:49.The system administering these punishments is deeply flawed. Many

:16:50. > :16:54.of those affected are not even aware of their rights. I have met

:16:55. > :16:58.constituents who are not told about hardship payments by staff at the

:16:59. > :17:03.local job centre, or even how to appeal. That is why this proposal

:17:04. > :17:07.gives those facing sanctions and automatic rights to these payments.

:17:08. > :17:14.This will ensure uniformity in their application. In my view, anyone who

:17:15. > :17:18.lacks the means to buy food or heat their homes is a vulnerable person.

:17:19. > :17:24.There is currently a formal appeals process. When invoked, 50% of these

:17:25. > :17:31.appeals against sanctions are upheld. Half of them. This is a

:17:32. > :17:37.system which is at best 50% correct. If there was another process in this

:17:38. > :17:42.land which resulted in half of the judgments being overturned, there

:17:43. > :17:50.would be a national outcry. The human impact of sanctions is such

:17:51. > :17:53.the DWP staff have been given guidance on dealing with victims who

:17:54. > :18:01.have been pushed towards self harm or suicide. It is right staff have

:18:02. > :18:05.measures in place to support people driven to their limit but it is

:18:06. > :18:11.tragic that this is seen as a central part of the welfare system.

:18:12. > :18:16.The DWP has not been able to use their experience to provide any

:18:17. > :18:21.credible evidence whatsoever that this system of financial penalties

:18:22. > :18:31.works to get people back into stable employment. The Government have

:18:32. > :18:34.failed to adequately respond. This chamber has heard time and time

:18:35. > :18:41.again that this is an ideological crusade against the poor and not an

:18:42. > :18:50.evidence based mechanism to help people find work. It is driving

:18:51. > :18:56.people to food banks. Food banks exist because they identified a need

:18:57. > :19:00.which requires to be met. They should not be necessary extension to

:19:01. > :19:05.the UK's failing system but they are. The Social Security system

:19:06. > :19:10.today is not doing what it says on the tin and the vulnerable cannot

:19:11. > :19:15.wait any longer for this government to get it right. Research carried

:19:16. > :19:20.out by the Child poverty action group found 20-30% of food bank

:19:21. > :19:27.users said household benefits had been stopped or reduced because of

:19:28. > :19:31.sanctions. They said accepting help from Fairbanks was difficult and was

:19:32. > :19:38.described as unnatural, embarrassing and shameful. What does it say about

:19:39. > :19:43.us if fellow citizens have to rely on charity to sustain themselves?

:19:44. > :19:52.The protection of the vulnerable should be a central tenet of any

:19:53. > :19:57.government's work. It is not something which should be devolved

:19:58. > :20:01.to the kindness of others. Other research showed that when women are

:20:02. > :20:04.sanctioned it tends to disproportionately affect them

:20:05. > :20:15.because caring responsibilities often falter them. Further,

:20:16. > :20:20.charities have seen a reduction in DWP advisers using flexibility

:20:21. > :20:27.dealing with parents facing sanctions. This leads to lone

:20:28. > :20:32.parents being sanctioned erroneously only to have the decision

:20:33. > :20:39.overturned. According to catlike gingerbread that is 42% compared to

:20:40. > :20:46.30% non-lone parents. I am proud of this bill has the cross-party

:20:47. > :20:50.support of nine female MPs. Six months ago the work and pensions

:20:51. > :20:58.committee called for a review of benefit conditional sanctions cos of

:20:59. > :21:07.their concerns of the factors must -- of the effectiveness. Instead of

:21:08. > :21:09.a fundamental review of the whole system, this government proposes

:21:10. > :21:15.what they call a yellow card system. A yellow card? Mr Speaker, a

:21:16. > :21:23.yellow card is something you get during a football or a rematch. This

:21:24. > :21:28.is no game. Such terminology is unhelpful and inappropriate. A

:21:29. > :21:32.rethink of the process is required. The tired argument that this helps

:21:33. > :21:36.people to find work has not been proven while evidence of poverty

:21:37. > :21:43.inflicted on victims is growing larger by the day. It must be

:21:44. > :21:45.reformed here because the limited powers over wealth offered by the

:21:46. > :21:51.Conservative government to the Scottish Parliament specifically

:21:52. > :22:00.precludes measures to mitigate against the system I have described.

:22:01. > :22:08.There should be powers to mitigate them backed of Tory policies. This

:22:09. > :22:13.government continues to punish the poor and the relentless assault must

:22:14. > :22:21.come to an end. The bill I bring to the House today will not address all

:22:22. > :22:25.the issues of the system, I wish it could. I continue to support a full

:22:26. > :22:34.moratorium on all of sanctions until a review can take place. I believe

:22:35. > :22:36.I've propose a simple and pragmatic measure which would address the

:22:37. > :22:43.fundamental issue of people being knowingly left in destitution. This

:22:44. > :22:48.bill will ensure those sanctioned would automatically receive a

:22:49. > :22:53.hardship payment and it would not need to be repaid. No one should be

:22:54. > :23:00.left without by our social security system. The Government should not

:23:01. > :23:02.abandon those who need it the most. Ministers must reconsider their

:23:03. > :23:13.position on this issue. It is the right thing to do. My proposal would

:23:14. > :23:19.be helping the vulnerable. The sanction is why people in every part

:23:20. > :23:23.of the country do not have the means to eat today. It is one of the key

:23:24. > :23:29.reasons why food bank use in Scotland and the UK is at an

:23:30. > :23:34.all-time high. The system it supports is flawed and needs reform

:23:35. > :23:40.urgently. It is why I believe this bill is necessary so I urge this

:23:41. > :23:44.House to support me today. The question is that the honourable

:23:45. > :23:54.member have leave to bring in the bill. I rise to oppose this bill. I

:23:55. > :23:57.congratulate the honourable lady on bringing forward her bell and I've

:23:58. > :24:06.leave she used to be a member of the Conservative Party. She has

:24:07. > :24:09.regressed since those heady days. It seems a long time since she espoused

:24:10. > :24:13.any Conservative principles. I wouldn't want people to run away

:24:14. > :24:16.with the idea from listening to this debate that people across the

:24:17. > :24:22.country and this House are opposed to renovate sanctions in the wake

:24:23. > :24:26.she set out. Many of us are supportive of the sanctions regime.

:24:27. > :24:31.We should point out that sanctions have always played a part of the

:24:32. > :24:35.benefit system in this country. It wasn't introduced by this

:24:36. > :24:40.government, it has always been a part of the benefit regime, and an

:24:41. > :24:47.essential part to make sure people do what they are requested to do in

:24:48. > :24:56.return is for those benefits. Many of my constituents contact me to say

:24:57. > :25:04.they think the requirements should be more onerous and not less so as

:25:05. > :25:08.she seems to suggest. I refute her starting point which is that

:25:09. > :25:12.sanctions are a bad thing. In my opinion, sanctions are a good thing

:25:13. > :25:16.and the least to the taxpayer should expect when people do not abide by

:25:17. > :25:21.the requirements which are understandably made of them in

:25:22. > :25:27.return for claiming benefits. With regard to the hardship fund, which

:25:28. > :25:30.the honourable lady refers to, it seems she was peddling some

:25:31. > :25:38.information which may not actually turn out to be quite as it seems.

:25:39. > :25:43.The first point is that job-seekers can apply for a hardship payment

:25:44. > :25:49.which is 60% of their normal benefit payment. Job seekers who are

:25:50. > :25:56.seriously ill or pregnant can receive 80% of their normal benefit

:25:57. > :25:59.payment. It seems that if it were to go higher than that there would be

:26:00. > :26:06.no point in sanctions in the first place. If people will just have the

:26:07. > :26:12.sanction replaced in full by a hardship payment there would be no

:26:13. > :26:16.point in a sanction. She should also have pointed out in her remarks,

:26:17. > :26:22.which also makes her bill rather redundant, that those with

:26:23. > :26:25.children, all PSA recipients and anyone categorised as vulnerable can

:26:26. > :26:32.claim hardship payments from day one of their sanction. She omitted that.

:26:33. > :26:38.She gave the impression that wasn't the case. That is the case. Other

:26:39. > :26:47.job-seekers cannot claim for the first 14 days of the sanction. The

:26:48. > :26:50.most vulnerable are protected. Claimants are told regularly about

:26:51. > :26:54.the availability of hardship payments, contrary to her claim.

:26:55. > :26:57.Improvements have been made to ensure payments are made within

:26:58. > :27:04.three days and the vast majority who applied to actually receive hardship

:27:05. > :27:08.payments. She mentioned about the review of sanctions, the independent

:27:09. > :27:12.review of sanctions and I think she should bear in mind that Matthew

:27:13. > :27:17.Oakley who did the independent review of sanctions actually said,

:27:18. > :27:23.and I quote, he key element of the mutual obligation underpinning the

:27:24. > :27:28.effectiveness and fairness of the Social Security system at sanctions.

:27:29. > :27:35.She didn't point that out in her remarks. The chairman of the Select

:27:36. > :27:41.Committee also said that he was pleased the Government accepted many

:27:42. > :27:47.of the committee's criticisms and recommendations for change. Given

:27:48. > :27:52.the hardship payments were already available to the most vulnerable

:27:53. > :27:55.people from the first day, given most people in the country supported

:27:56. > :28:01.the principle that there should be sanctions when people do not fulfil

:28:02. > :28:05.their obligations, and I have to say there is a big stick as you like on

:28:06. > :28:12.reasons why people may avoid being sanctioned, it is the idea people

:28:13. > :28:15.can just miss an appointment for five minutes and be sanctioned is

:28:16. > :28:20.for the birds. It may that is what they tell her at her surgery,

:28:21. > :28:36.perhaps they want her sympathy. I suspect the truth is different.

:28:37. > :28:42.I know the SNP do not like hearing criticism. They do not -- are not

:28:43. > :28:49.need to get used to it here. In need to get used to it here. In

:28:50. > :28:53.summary, the SNP would do well to listen to other people's opinions

:28:54. > :29:05.from time to time. They may learn something. Order. Mr Angus MacNeil,

:29:06. > :29:10.of statesmanship, which is my of statesmanship, which is my

:29:11. > :29:14.long-term ambition for you. Like the colleagues to your left and right is

:29:15. > :29:24.the right course. Calm. Trying to the right course. Calm. Trying to

:29:25. > :29:33.get the honourable gentleman to become statesmen may even be beyond

:29:34. > :29:36.you. But given that the most vulnerable already have access to

:29:37. > :29:41.hardship payments from day one, given that the sanctions regime is a

:29:42. > :29:43.good thing, given that what the honourable lady is proposing goes

:29:44. > :29:45.beyond the recommendations of the Oakley review, and beyond the

:29:46. > :30:05.recommendations of the select committee, giving that

:30:06. > :30:19.people... For that particular reason, I do not intend to deprive

:30:20. > :30:27.her of her day in the limelight and have a division on this particular

:30:28. > :30:32.point. But I thought it was worthwhile pointing out that many

:30:33. > :30:36.people in this House, or many people in the country, do not accept her

:30:37. > :30:40.criticisms of the sanctions regime for benefits. Order. Question is

:30:41. > :30:42.that the honourable member have that the honourable member

:30:43. > :30:45.leave to bring in the Bill. The ayes leave to bring in the Bill. The ayes

:30:46. > :30:45.have it. -- ayes. Who will bring in the bill? Margaret Ritchie, Corey

:30:46. > :31:20.Wilson, and myself. Benefits actions regime. Second

:31:21. > :31:46.reading, what day? 4th of December 2015. Thank you. Order. We come now

:31:47. > :31:55.to the programme motion, the whip to move? Thank you. Question is, the

:31:56. > :32:02.programme number to be motion as on programme number to be motion as on

:32:03. > :32:02.proposed it? No, we have to put the proposed it? No, we have to put the

:32:03. > :32:08.question. As many of that opinion, say aye. On the contrary, no. The

:32:09. > :32:19.ayes have it. Did he wish to contribute on this matter? This is

:32:20. > :32:22.the programme motion. It is a good job he didn't because he can't.

:32:23. > :32:30.Because it has been carried. And we're moving on! But he will get his

:32:31. > :32:35.opportunity. The ayes have it. The clerk will now lead the orders of

:32:36. > :32:47.the day. Welfare Reform and Work Bill to be considered. We begin with

:32:48. > :32:50.new clause won -- one, with which it will be convenient to consider new

:32:51. > :33:00.clause eight and amendments nine to 55. I call the shadow Secretary of

:33:01. > :33:08.State, Mr Ruan Smith. -- Owen Smith. I rise for the second time. It is in

:33:09. > :33:17.my name and that of my rubble friends, and my Shadow DWP team. It

:33:18. > :33:20.is a straightforward new clause, which would repeal the tax credits

:33:21. > :33:29.regulations, income thresholds and regulations, income thresholds and

:33:30. > :33:34.determination of rates 2015. It is a shame we do not have the Secretary

:33:35. > :33:38.of State here today to debate it. I do not know what else he is doing,

:33:39. > :33:44.but he has been noticeable by his absence in the debate over tax

:33:45. > :33:49.in 25 studios and other arena to in 25 studios and other arena to

:33:50. > :33:56.debate this issue, and looked high and low for a government Minister of

:33:57. > :33:58.any strike to discuss this, and there have been noticeable by their

:33:59. > :34:02.absence. -- they have been. I am absence. -- they have been. I am

:34:03. > :34:07.delighted I have got three ministers opposite today to contest this

:34:08. > :34:13.and I am pleased for the and I am pleased for the

:34:14. > :34:15.opportunity. But it is a shame that the Secretary of State is not here,

:34:16. > :34:21.because I would have started by reminding him of something he said

:34:22. > :34:27.to the House, on several occasions, that he is a great believer in

:34:28. > :34:30.second chances. The Secretary of State for work and pension said that

:34:31. > :34:37.he believes Britain should be a nation of the second chance. On the

:34:38. > :34:40.side of the House, we entirely agree on this with the Secretary of State

:34:41. > :34:45.for work and pensions, and it is one of the very few things on which I do

:34:46. > :34:50.agree with him. We should believe in second chances, and I said to

:34:51. > :34:56.ministers and the House today that we have a second chance. We have a

:34:57. > :35:01.second chance after yesterday's vote in the House of Lords, in the other

:35:02. > :35:06.place, in which we were called in this House to think again, in which

:35:07. > :35:12.I think the other place spoke not just for themselves but for the tyre

:35:13. > :35:15.country, to ask us to think again to give a second chance to repeal the

:35:16. > :35:22.going to hit so many people across going to hit so many people across

:35:23. > :35:23.this country. When touring the studios in recent days, what I have

:35:24. > :35:28.heard from is the suggestion that heard from is the suggestion that

:35:29. > :35:33.the vote by the other place yesterday presaged a constitutional

:35:34. > :35:39.crisis in this country. Interest, I think what it did was stop a

:35:40. > :35:44.financial crisis. A financial crisis for the 3 million families who will

:35:45. > :35:50.when they recommendations are when they recommendations are

:35:51. > :35:59.implemented next year. The message from the other place is to pause,

:36:00. > :36:02.before they lick the envelopes on these 3 million letters they are

:36:03. > :36:06.intending to post out at Christmas to tell those families across the

:36:07. > :36:15.country that they can anticipate a 10% reduction in their incomes. On

:36:16. > :36:22.average, reduction of ?1300 for each of those 3 million working families.

:36:23. > :36:28.If we in this House were presented by the government with a proposal to

:36:29. > :36:33.cut our salaries by 10%, there would be uproar on the government benches.

:36:34. > :36:38.There would be uproar on all of these benches. But the truth is,

:36:39. > :36:43.working families in this country, people going out and doing difficult

:36:44. > :36:48.low and middle paid jobs, three million and more of them, are being

:36:49. > :36:54.told that they are going to face a cut in their incomes of 10%. At the

:36:55. > :37:04.stroke of a pen next year. It is simply not adequate. I will give

:37:05. > :37:42.credit system supported people on credit system supported people on

:37:43. > :37:45.wages in excess of ?60,000. Can you give the House at what figure he

:37:46. > :37:47.thought the income should be when people could no longer get support

:37:48. > :37:57.through the tax credit system? How much would you need to earn before

:37:58. > :37:57.needing the support? -- not needing the support. I would start with a

:37:58. > :37:58.different figure, telling the honourable gentleman and they people

:37:59. > :37:58.in his constituency who will be hit if this change, but they must

:37:59. > :37:59.him what he thinks is there or just him what he thinks is there or just

:38:00. > :38:00.about asking them to take a 10% cut in their income. That is

:38:01. > :38:01.substantive issue. That is the substantive issue. That is the

:38:02. > :38:01.being blown by himself and other being blown by himself and other

:38:02. > :38:01.for other changes elsewhere in the for other changes elsewhere in the

:38:02. > :38:03.government's finances, none of which government's finances, none of which

:38:04. > :38:07.answer this central question. Is it right, is it fair to ask

:38:08. > :38:11.hard-working families to take the hard-working families to take the

:38:12. > :38:15.cup to their income? Tax credits have changed enormously. It is

:38:16. > :38:17.unfair to say they were the creation of the last Labour government.

:38:18. > :38:58.Successive governments have seen family support, income support

:38:59. > :38:58.evolve over many years. It has gone through different iterations.

:38:59. > :38:59.Different governments have seen different ways to do what we believe

:39:00. > :39:00.in, which is making work they. The levels that have changed and the

:39:01. > :39:01.changed over time but it is a net changed over time but it is a net

:39:02. > :39:01.economy to keep people in work. This economy to keep people in work. This

:39:02. > :39:01.will diminish work incentives for will diminish work incentives

:39:02. > :39:02.people I know that he and I hope to people I know that he and I hope to

:39:03. > :39:03.support. But he must recognise that the system creates a circumstance

:39:04. > :39:08.where some employees are turning down promotions and turning down

:39:09. > :39:11.over time because it would affect over time because it would affect

:39:12. > :39:21.tax credits. Surely we would be better with people who that if they

:39:22. > :39:21.took extra hours are promotion that took extra hours are promotion that

:39:22. > :39:26.they'd be better off. There is no they'd be better off. There is no

:39:27. > :39:27.evidence that supports this. It would be nice to believe that if we

:39:28. > :39:34.were to withdraw the amount people were to withdraw the amount people

:39:35. > :39:36.have, withdraw the subsidy, as he would describe it, you might see

:39:37. > :39:41.some employers increase the payments to people. You might see wages go

:39:42. > :39:46.up, but I do not suggest that is true. And I do not suggest there is

:39:47. > :39:50.any evidence to support it. I think the reality is that tax credits have

:39:51. > :39:55.been a necessary subsidy for low wages. I welcome the decision by the

:39:56. > :40:00.government to increase the national minimum wage. I applaud what the

:40:01. > :40:05.government is doing in increasing that. It is the right thing to do.

:40:06. > :40:12.They could get on with it a little faster and stop spinning it as a

:40:13. > :40:19.national living wage. It is a welcome step by them. But there is

:40:20. > :40:22.no evidence that if you simply withdraw at a stroke the subsidy,

:40:23. > :40:25.that employers think they have to put up the wages because they will

:40:26. > :40:33.struggle to survive on what they are on. I will give way. I am very

:40:34. > :40:39.grateful. Surely the answer to the first question is that tax credits

:40:40. > :40:43.must ensure a decent, reasonable standard of living, which is where

:40:44. > :40:53.it starts. That sort of standard has been defined by large numbers of

:40:54. > :40:59.people, and is very well understood. Yes, but let me be clear. Tax

:41:00. > :41:07.credits are a success. They have kept people in work in this country.

:41:08. > :41:12.We have seen a shift in the volume, for example, of single parents in

:41:13. > :41:17.work. In 1997 it was around 43% of single work in this country. Today

:41:18. > :41:23.it is 65%. The reason for that is tax credits. That is what has made

:41:24. > :41:29.it possible for thousands of constituents in my patch and all of

:41:30. > :41:32.the constituencies of the members of this House to stay in work, despite

:41:33. > :41:38.the fact we have seen declining wages. I will give way.

:41:39. > :41:43.He is making a good speech talking about working families and he is

:41:44. > :41:48.right to do so but there has been little mention about the impact tax

:41:49. > :42:01.credits cuts will have on working family carers. Carers allowance

:42:02. > :42:07.working 16 hours a week, carers will be badly hit. They cannot work more.

:42:08. > :42:11.Does my honourable friend believe those working carers should be

:42:12. > :42:15.protected from government cuts because ministers do not seem to

:42:16. > :42:21.recognise it? If the Government were to provide us with any sort of

:42:22. > :42:28.detailed worthwhile impact in back -- impact assessments, they should

:42:29. > :42:32.undertake that kind of assessment. They should look at the net benefit

:42:33. > :42:36.to society made by working mothers, carers and all of these people whose

:42:37. > :42:41.efforts are not being calibrated by the Government but who will, we know

:42:42. > :42:51.categorically, lose out as a result of these tax credit changes. Thanks.

:42:52. > :43:00.Would he agree with me that of the 7700 families in my constituency,

:43:01. > :43:05.three quarters who are working, who will lose thousands if the cuts go

:43:06. > :43:10.ahead, those who will find it hardest include those living in the

:43:11. > :43:25.private renting sector which the Government refuses to regulate,

:43:26. > :43:30.whose rent has gone up by 11.5%,? It is not just those people who are

:43:31. > :43:34.renting and suffering from sky-high increases in private renting. It is

:43:35. > :43:41.all occupiers, the Government purports to speak for them. They

:43:42. > :43:48.will be harder hit by this measure, proportionally, than many other

:43:49. > :43:54.sectors of housing. Because reducing their eligibility for tax credits

:43:55. > :43:57.will mean some of those people receive more in housing benefit so

:43:58. > :44:02.there is an offsetting increase in housing benefit costs as a result of

:44:03. > :44:07.the decrease in eligibility for working tax credits will stop if you

:44:08. > :44:12.are an owner occupier you will not get that offsetting increase and

:44:13. > :44:16.somebody earlier on spoke about the impact of this on our economy. The

:44:17. > :44:22.self-employed are another group who will be hard by these changes. 60%

:44:23. > :44:28.of small businesses, 5.2 million across the country, at sole traders.

:44:29. > :44:33.90% according to the Royal Society of arts of the increase in jobs, the

:44:34. > :44:36.jobs miracle the Government likes to speak of, are self-employed in

:44:37. > :44:44.recent years. That is the Royal Society of arts. 90% is the

:44:45. > :44:53.suggestion. It may or may not be true but it is a very large

:44:54. > :44:57.proportion. It is welcome to an increase in employment. The point I

:44:58. > :45:03.make is that 60% of those self-employed sole traders are

:45:04. > :45:14.eligible presently for tax credits. Which is why various groups and

:45:15. > :45:20.respected conservative economists think this is a false economy. It

:45:21. > :45:25.will damage the incomes of working people and the economy. One group

:45:26. > :45:34.said it would be devastating for our economy. An employer contacted me

:45:35. > :45:38.this week in despair because employees have been reaching out to

:45:39. > :45:45.mitigate against the loss in income mitigate against the loss in income

:45:46. > :45:47.from tax credits cuts but he is having to consider reducing staff

:45:48. > :45:51.numbers to meet the requirements of the new increased minimum wage will

:45:52. > :45:59.stop does he agree that these changes will not only result in

:46:00. > :46:06.income reductions but job losses? I fear that may be correct. I think

:46:07. > :46:09.the lack of forethought, the lack of analysis and scrutiny the Government

:46:10. > :46:14.has given these measures, the way in which we try to push it through both

:46:15. > :46:19.houses in double quick time is a measure of their fear that what the

:46:20. > :46:23.analysis will reveal all the fundamentally misconceived economics

:46:24. > :46:30.of this move that is designed to make an ideological political point.

:46:31. > :46:35.The honourable gentleman speaks endlessly of the success of tax

:46:36. > :46:43.credits. Maybe he could explain why under the last government spending

:46:44. > :46:52.rose from six to ?30 billion on tax credits? Why did that happen if it

:46:53. > :46:58.was such a great excess -- success. He should start by explain to the

:46:59. > :47:02.few thousand 700 constituents in his constituency who will lose out as a

:47:03. > :47:08.result of the measures he will no doubt vote for an speak for today. I

:47:09. > :47:13.will answer the question. The truth is that under the last Labour

:47:14. > :47:17.government, when this iteration of tax credits was introduced, the

:47:18. > :47:23.steady-state amount of money we spent on it was ?23 billion per

:47:24. > :47:31.annum. In 2009/10, after the crisis, it went up to 30 billion. The

:47:32. > :47:35.bankers' recession saw a spike in the necessary spending on tax

:47:36. > :47:39.credits and it has stayed at 30 billion under his government.

:47:40. > :47:46.Another measure of the rotten economic record of this government.

:47:47. > :47:50.I give way. What does he say to many of my constituents who have

:47:51. > :47:53.contacted me who are just above the tax credit limit and his

:47:54. > :48:00.hard-working taxes are subsidising low pay? I would first of all is

:48:01. > :48:05.said to the 3000 odd people she has in her constituency who are going to

:48:06. > :48:08.be hit by this that they should be ringing her up and asking her why

:48:09. > :48:13.she is voting for a 10% reduction in their income because I think they

:48:14. > :48:24.would be interested to hear her justification. Would he agree with

:48:25. > :48:29.me that a problem for some of the people on the benches opposite who

:48:30. > :48:32.are in denial over this issue, the inertia of the Government

:48:33. > :48:37.intervention to save steel jobs, last night defeated at Commons, puts

:48:38. > :48:43.to bed the falsehood that the Tories are the party of the workers. Would

:48:44. > :48:49.he agree? I think it is one of the more risible statements I have heard

:48:50. > :48:52.from the Government. A measure of contempt with which they hold

:48:53. > :49:00.certain sections of the British public that they think they can pull

:49:01. > :49:04.the wool over their eyes. They are cutting the wages of working people

:49:05. > :49:10.of this country. 3.3 million families to be hit to the tune of

:49:11. > :49:16.1300 pounds. 200,000 children put into poverty next year. 600,000

:49:17. > :49:23.children over the period. 70% of cuts falling on working mothers. Tax

:49:24. > :49:30.credit cuts destroying the economic miracle the Tories like to talk of.

:49:31. > :49:35.90% of these cuts devastating for those involved. The statistics speak

:49:36. > :49:41.for themselves. In a moment I will describe the human impact of the

:49:42. > :49:44.cuts. Does he agree that there is an inherent contradiction in government

:49:45. > :49:47.policy that parents of a young family who came to see me in my

:49:48. > :49:53.constituency last week told me they work at, pay their way, trying to do

:49:54. > :49:55.the right thing to set an example for their children, so shouldn't the

:49:56. > :50:03.Government support them rather than punish them? They should. I cannot

:50:04. > :50:07.understand how on earth even this Chancellor who is pretty slipshod on

:50:08. > :50:12.occasion when it comes to analysing the impact of his measures, can at

:50:13. > :50:20.have allowed this one to slip through the net. A pasty tax and a

:50:21. > :50:25.caravan tax, maybe, but a ?4.2 billion hit on the workers they

:50:26. > :50:32.propose to support is extraordinary. Let's would be an statistics for the

:50:33. > :50:38.moment because on Friday I was in my constituency in a former pit village

:50:39. > :50:44.and I met entirely by chance a young woman called Kersten who was

:50:45. > :50:50.bringing her daughter home from school. She is a nursery nurse, a

:50:51. > :50:55.nursery manager in a small private run nursery just outside the

:50:56. > :51:01.village. She works 21 hours per week and those are all the hours

:51:02. > :51:05.available. The nursery is only open in the mornings and she works all

:51:06. > :51:13.five days. She then looks after our daughter. She owns ?611 per month,

:51:14. > :51:23.from her 21 hours of work at ?8 per hour. Above the new minimum wage we

:51:24. > :51:29.will see next year. She is set to lose 100 -- ?1300 of her ?7,000

:51:30. > :51:38.earnings as a result of these cuts. It is an enormous drop. She told me

:51:39. > :51:43.she didn't know how she would manage and she did not understand how

:51:44. > :51:49.without the ?128 she gets in tax credits each month she would be able

:51:50. > :51:53.to make ends meet. I talked through what she needed to pay out each

:51:54. > :51:58.month for the housing association, three-bedroom house she lives in,

:51:59. > :52:02.what she needs to pay for the council tax, what she needs to pay

:52:03. > :52:10.for insurance and to run her car to get to work. There was nothing left

:52:11. > :52:20.over. The ?120 she spends from tax credits that she receives pays for

:52:21. > :52:26.food, clothes, books for a child for school. It is beyond the Ken of

:52:27. > :52:31.orderly people that the Government can be asking them to pay the price

:52:32. > :52:37.for what is a banker recession which has led to this crisis in the

:52:38. > :52:44.economy and lead to a Tory government cutting the incomes of

:52:45. > :52:49.working people. Thank you. The issue with regards to family tax credits,

:52:50. > :52:55.when it is all boiled down and the arguments have been fine tuned, it

:52:56. > :52:59.simply means this is an ideological attack from the Government on the

:53:00. > :53:07.lowest paid in our communities. Does he agree with me and the IFA is who

:53:08. > :53:14.say that these lower paid people are being specifically targeted? It is

:53:15. > :53:23.extraordinary that this government can't describe as they have done tax

:53:24. > :53:27.credits, and I quote, as a bribe. That is the way in which successive

:53:28. > :53:30.ministers, including the missing Secretary of State for Work and

:53:31. > :53:36.Pensions, have described tax credits for working people. They do not talk

:53:37. > :53:41.about protecting pensioners' benefits as being a bribe either

:53:42. > :53:45.Conservative Party to pensioners, and I would ever say that. I think

:53:46. > :53:52.it is just for them to protect those benefits. But it is extraordinary

:53:53. > :53:55.that they seek to demonise working people doing the right thing on low

:53:56. > :54:06.and middle incomes as a bribe. It is wrong. I've been listening carefully

:54:07. > :54:11.and I am hearing a great deal of criticism but what I have not heard

:54:12. > :54:15.at any proposals from the opposite party as to how welfare should be

:54:16. > :54:20.put on a more sustainable footing, on how they would like to see work

:54:21. > :54:23.he and how they will reduce the deficit and the debt and are they

:54:24. > :54:29.proposing instead there should be cuts to public services? I am not

:54:30. > :54:43.suggesting that. That is a nonsense. Let me what through what

:54:44. > :54:51.the Government is proposing to do. Thank you. Perhaps he shares my

:54:52. > :54:53.concern that under the last government, the Coalition

:54:54. > :54:58.Government, the projected savings meant to come from housing benefit

:54:59. > :55:05.and Employment Support Allowance changes never materialised. It was

:55:06. > :55:07.not made. Perhaps members opposite should be challenging the Secretary

:55:08. > :55:12.of State and calling for as resignation. If they had any guts

:55:13. > :55:23.they would. Abject failure on housing benefit. The bid has kept

:55:24. > :55:39.going up. We know they have failed on that and they will continue to

:55:40. > :55:43.fail in future. I give way. My good friend mentioned the word bribe. Is

:55:44. > :55:53.the real bride in this bill that which will be given to the children

:55:54. > :55:58.of dead millionaires with inheritance tax to the detriment of

:55:59. > :56:02.people hit by tax credits cuts? He makes an excellent point that

:56:03. > :56:09.politics is always a choice. Priorities. Who you stand up for and

:56:10. > :56:14.speak for and whose side you are on and it is very clear that in this

:56:15. > :56:17.bill and this House, the Conservative Party are on the side

:56:18. > :56:22.of millionaires, the wealthy and standing up against working people,

:56:23. > :56:30.against the ordinary people of Britain. They will not forgive them.

:56:31. > :56:39.The honourable gentleman talks about choices. He spoke earlier of a ?4.4

:56:40. > :56:45.billion hit. Is he suggesting that instead he is posing a ?4.4 billion

:56:46. > :56:49.subsidy for the large companies that the party opposite continues to

:56:50. > :56:51.criticise on a daily basis in terms of shortages of wages that should be

:56:52. > :57:06.paid? support offered to working people,

:57:07. > :57:13.including the 3800 in his constituency, for whom he has a

:57:14. > :57:24.choice today. Is he going to stand up for them or is he going to roll

:57:25. > :57:26.over and cut their wages by 10%? That is the choice he has. It is

:57:27. > :57:29.real political choice, and as a new real political choice, and as a new

:57:30. > :57:39.member he should think carefully member he should think carefully

:57:40. > :57:42.about it. Let us turn to what the government are proposing to do by

:57:43. > :57:44.from the Chancellor yesterday. He from the Chancellor yesterday. He

:57:45. > :57:45.looked a little ratty as he told the looked a little ratty as he told the

:57:46. > :57:47.cameras he would think again. He is cameras he would think again. He is

:57:48. > :57:52.obviously not very keen on having to do it. But there was at least

:57:53. > :57:54.hint that there will be transitional hint that there will be transitional

:57:55. > :57:57.measures, and we have had hints as measures, and we have had hints as

:57:58. > :58:02.to what they may be. Let me run through a few of those that the

:58:03. > :58:05.government on notice will scrutinise extremely carefully what the net

:58:06. > :58:10.of all the minimum wage. Very of all the minimum wage. Very

:58:11. > :58:18.proposing to increase it to ?7.20 proposing to increase it to ?7.20

:58:19. > :58:23.by 2020 is a good measure. by 2020 is a good measure.

:58:24. > :58:28.government were to take it to ?9.20 government were to take it to ?9.20

:58:29. > :58:33.next April the 1st, on the day that next April the 1st, on the day that

:58:34. > :58:38.it would not offset the losses for it would not offset the losses for

:58:39. > :58:43.average families. Not by a long chalk. Post families on 40 hours a

:58:44. > :58:52.week, 1 parent earning would still be losing ?600 a year, if they were

:58:53. > :58:55.earning around ?15,000. So that is not going to offset the losses. Let

:58:56. > :59:02.us take the second thing. Childcare allowance. Even if the government

:59:03. > :59:10.were to go straightaway to the 30 hours a week proposed for England,

:59:11. > :59:12.again looks under resourced. They are planning to do it for 300

:59:13. > :59:18.million, so we will see how we get on with that. Even if they were to

:59:19. > :59:26.do that, the same family banking the ?9 rise in the minimum wage would be

:59:27. > :59:33.around ?500 worse off. Let us look at the third element. The increase

:59:34. > :59:43.in the personal allowance. The government have made other welcome

:59:44. > :59:49.measures in increasing... They are speaking about it going to ?12,500

:59:50. > :59:57.at the end of this Parliament. A welcome measure. This is the target

:59:58. > :00:05.-- it misses the target. Because those people who set between ?3500

:00:06. > :00:09.and earnings when the government is proposing to start taking away the

:00:10. > :00:19.tax, and ?12,500 at the end of this he read, we'll all be worse off. --

:00:20. > :00:21.this period. They will all be worse off. It is completely fallacious to

:00:22. > :00:27.suggest that if they give extra suggest that if they give extra

:00:28. > :00:29.money through increasing the personal allowance or increasing the

:00:30. > :00:38.national minimum wage that you will offset the losses. Only 25% of the

:00:39. > :00:50.losses will be offset and only for 25% of the population. It is very

:00:51. > :00:54.straightforwardly con. As we saw in the evidence session before

:00:55. > :00:58.yesterday's debate, the Resolution Foundation has said clearly, the

:00:59. > :01:08.question of tax credits, is question of tax credits, is

:01:09. > :01:13.unfortunately tax credits. Give way. Would he agree with me that the 6700

:01:14. > :01:19.families losing out with the tax credit cut to their income will not

:01:20. > :01:24.be compensated, and it is arithmetically impossible that the

:01:25. > :01:30.changes proposed will do so? You do not need to take my word for that,

:01:31. > :01:33.you take the word of Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal

:01:34. > :01:36.Studies, as that is what he said, it is impossible for the offset the

:01:37. > :01:42.government has spoken about, which I just listed, to compensate the

:01:43. > :01:47.losses of those hard-working companies in all other

:01:48. > :01:49.constituencies will have. The government knows it is true, which

:01:50. > :01:54.is why they have been absent in those television studios in recent

:01:55. > :01:59.days. They do not need to hear it from me. Give way. On the question

:02:00. > :02:07.of offsetting losses, he will be aware that in my constituency for

:02:08. > :02:10.those and families are going to be affected. They will lose ?1000 each,

:02:11. > :02:17.which amounts to ?4 million being taken out of the local economy. Has

:02:18. > :02:20.he considered the impact of that? I have considered it. Reducing

:02:21. > :02:25.aggregate demand by taking money out of the pockets of working families,

:02:26. > :02:28.those people with the highest propensity to spend money locally in

:02:29. > :02:38.thing to do. It is a false economy. thing to do. It is a false economy.

:02:39. > :02:46.We know it to be true, so why on earth the government would do it. I

:02:47. > :02:52.give way. I wanted to add a little bit of detail because members

:02:53. > :02:59.opposite seem to be raising cases of people and questioning it. The

:03:00. > :03:05.example I quoted earlier, a carer on carers allowance will get ?62, and

:03:06. > :03:11.can earn ?110. That is what they are run, ?62, plus a maximum of ?110.

:03:12. > :03:18.They will be hit very hard by the loss of working tax credits, people

:03:19. > :03:24.689,000 of those people, those 689,000 of those people, those

:03:25. > :03:29.wonderful carers, committed to looking after family members. Not

:03:30. > :03:34.one member of the party opposite seems to have recognised this

:03:35. > :03:40.massive issue. I really think that ministers have two answer to 689,000

:03:41. > :03:49.carers, why they are doing this to them. And why on earth have they not

:03:50. > :03:57.conducted any sort of analysis to illustrate the benefits to our

:03:58. > :04:01.society they are contributing? We all know that they are making an

:04:02. > :04:10.enormous contribution and we all know in our heads that they are

:04:11. > :04:12.precisely the people who are going to lose out, working mothers,

:04:13. > :04:16.carers, people who cannot expand carers, people who cannot expand

:04:17. > :04:18.to lose money, but are doing the to lose money, but are doing the

:04:19. > :04:39.right thing. They are in work, right thing. They are in work,

:04:40. > :05:45.striving hard. They might well be better off

:05:46. > :05:52.Of course he will listen to the debate but it is not just listening

:05:53. > :05:57.that is required, changes required. I caught also the honourable member

:05:58. > :06:07.for South Cambridge, who spoke, I thought, brilliantly, eloquently,

:06:08. > :06:11.forcefully last week. In respect of the deficit, she said to pull

:06:12. > :06:16.ourselves out of debt we should not be forcing those working families

:06:17. > :06:23.into debt. We should not be forcing working families into debt to deal

:06:24. > :06:27.with the debt to this country has been left by the bankers' recession

:06:28. > :06:32.government to fix it. He still government to fix it. He still

:06:33. > :06:37.hasn't answered a very simple question. If this measure saves over

:06:38. > :06:42.?4 billion, how will the party opposite find it? Will be cut

:06:43. > :06:47.spending on other measures like health education, or will the

:06:48. > :06:52.increase taxes or borrowing? Which option will he choose? I think he

:06:53. > :06:59.should answer the question to the few thousand 700 members in his

:07:00. > :07:12.constituency who are going to lose out. The National audit office

:07:13. > :07:17.suggested that ?140 million was wasted on the early stage of

:07:18. > :07:23.universal credit. Is he aware that could have helped 108,000 people now

:07:24. > :07:28.punished for that failure to face to the withdrawal of tax credits or

:07:29. > :07:35.21,500 people over the course of Parliament? Should it not have been

:07:36. > :07:40.better spent? A brilliant point and well made. There are myriad examples

:07:41. > :07:45.of waste and incompetence in their handling of our DWP budget under

:07:46. > :07:53.this budget, not least the enormous increase in housing benefit. The

:07:54. > :08:00.party opposite not fail to understand what tax credits are all

:08:01. > :08:04.about? Actually tax credits were a successful policy in moving people

:08:05. > :08:08.into work and in particular underpinning the major progress in

:08:09. > :08:14.letting single parents going to work. When we speak about saving

:08:15. > :08:16.money, could we not see it in the context of the success of the tax

:08:17. > :08:26.credit policy in moving people from work closeness into sustainable and

:08:27. > :08:33.climate? She speaks with enormous experience and expertise on this

:08:34. > :08:41.matter and is right. Tax credits were a success. 1997, 40 3% of

:08:42. > :08:49.single parents went to work. Today it is 65%. That is the measure of

:08:50. > :08:55.that success. It is a 50% increase, a 50% increase in the number of

:08:56. > :09:07.people with children, single parents at work. A measure of the success. I

:09:08. > :09:12.will give way in a moment. To the honourable member from Cardiff, a

:09:13. > :09:17.great working-class city. Perhaps he did reflect on the views of those

:09:18. > :09:22.colleagues, one of his colleagues who said it would be remiss of them

:09:23. > :09:29.not to recount the extraordinary levels of feeling in Plymouth, this

:09:30. > :09:33.bright, vibrant blue-collar city, and with the last general election

:09:34. > :09:39.results of new and first-time Tory voters having serious objections to

:09:40. > :09:43.tax credit reforms. He knows that stands for his constituency of

:09:44. > :09:51.Cardiff as well. I hope he will reflect on that when he speaks. He

:09:52. > :09:58.spoke about policy success and Cardiff truly is a working people's

:09:59. > :10:01.city. Will he comment on the leadership of this government on

:10:02. > :10:10.national living wage? Water will he said to the staff in companies

:10:11. > :10:19.already benefit... Benefiting from matching the living wage? I now use

:10:20. > :10:23.new to the House but he should come in at the beginning of the debates

:10:24. > :10:25.because I have already said I applaud the Government for what

:10:26. > :10:34.they're doing increasing the national living wage. -- minimum

:10:35. > :10:38.wage. It is bogus to describe it as a living wage, which is why the

:10:39. > :10:42.living wage foundation will not describe it as such. I wish they

:10:43. > :10:49.would provide us with a true living wage in London and elsewhere. In his

:10:50. > :10:58.wealthy part of Cardiff, he has over 3000 constituents who benefit from

:10:59. > :11:02.tax credit cuts and I ask him to reflect on whether it is right

:11:03. > :11:08.forward of purpose, ideological or economic, to ask those hard-working

:11:09. > :11:16.families to pay this bill because it is not fair or just and I don't

:11:17. > :11:23.think it should go ahead. I am listening carefully to what he has

:11:24. > :11:28.to say. It has to be paid for, as I'm sure Lord Lawson would admit.

:11:29. > :11:33.Could he shared any light on how it we can close the gap on the ?4

:11:34. > :11:49.billion cited as Mac I have only heard polemic. He could start by

:11:50. > :11:54.offering the inheritance tax cut, that would give around 1 billion.

:11:55. > :11:59.The 50p cut for millionaires, another ?3 billion. He could choose

:12:00. > :12:05.to do what the Chancellor already chose to do in the past, which is to

:12:06. > :12:10.delay the point at which the Government gets the budget into

:12:11. > :12:28.surplus. He has done it once, move the goalposts once, so why not

:12:29. > :12:33.again? Will my honourable friend categorically explain in the

:12:34. > :12:40.simplest of terms that we would not do what the Government are doing

:12:41. > :12:48.which has taken ?4.2 billion from the lowest paid in society, people

:12:49. > :12:54.who have ?1300, and pushing 200,000 kids into poverty, that's not what

:12:55. > :12:56.we will do. Let me be really clear that our view today is the

:12:57. > :13:03.Government should repeal these measures. It is wrong to seek to

:13:04. > :13:07.balance the books in this country or any country on the back of the

:13:08. > :13:10.working poor. Those with low and middle income is doing the right

:13:11. > :13:16.thing. It is the wrong thing to do and we will not do it. I will bring

:13:17. > :13:28.my remarks taking collusion in a moment. I want to reflect on what

:13:29. > :13:35.this means for the public. I think we can agree in this House that

:13:36. > :13:43.politics is held in pretty low esteem in this country in recent

:13:44. > :13:46.years. People feel we are not as a political class straight with them,

:13:47. > :13:54.we do not keep our word or say what we mean. The problem with this

:13:55. > :14:00.change is that it is simply going to compound that fundamental mistrust.

:14:01. > :14:06.The Prime Minister said before the last election on a live on national

:14:07. > :14:13.television that he was not going to cut child tax credits. He is going

:14:14. > :14:19.to. That is a fundamental misleading of the British public. Other

:14:20. > :14:23.ministers said categorically, and I will quote. Another government

:14:24. > :14:28.minister when asked when the Conservatives would cut tax credits,

:14:29. > :14:39.he said, no, we are going to freeze them for two years, we are not going

:14:40. > :14:47.to cut them. It was a fundamental lie and the country knows it. When

:14:48. > :14:50.you add that with the smoke and mirrors from the Government about

:14:51. > :14:55.how they intend to offset these cuts, we are as a group, and this

:14:56. > :15:01.government as a political party, is deepening profoundly mistrust in our

:15:02. > :15:08.politics. For them to describe themselves as the worker party is

:15:09. > :15:12.laughable. They are the party who are cutting the incomes of the

:15:13. > :15:17.workers of Britain and they should be ashamed of it and they should

:15:18. > :15:26.stand up today and vote with us for a new clause one and repeal the tax

:15:27. > :15:32.credit cuts. Repeal of tax credit regulations 2015. Will the new

:15:33. > :15:40.clause be read a second time? John Redwood. Prosperity not austerity,

:15:41. > :15:43.that is what we want. My consistent advice to government ministers

:15:44. > :15:49.dealing with economic matters and benefits is that they should always

:15:50. > :15:55.have in front of their minds indeed in everything they do should promote

:15:56. > :16:02.less austerity and more prosperity for the many. We wish to have a more

:16:03. > :16:06.prosperous people and to do that the outlines of how you do it are very

:16:07. > :16:14.clear and I fully support the Government's vision and objectives.

:16:15. > :16:18.First thing you do is work and make sure people come out of unemployment

:16:19. > :16:22.into work and people who are working part-time who wants to work full

:16:23. > :16:27.time have the opportunity to go on to work full-time and people in

:16:28. > :16:33.full-time work that is not well paid have the chance to be promoted into

:16:34. > :16:36.a better paid job, the chance for better skills and training, can work

:16:37. > :16:43.with their employer so they can have a more productive and better paid

:16:44. > :16:47.job. In this area, this government and its coalition predecessor has

:16:48. > :16:56.been so much more successful than the Labour government of 2005-10. To

:16:57. > :17:03.create more austerity, you follow a Labour government on its policies

:17:04. > :17:08.from 2005-10. The increased borrowing, spending, combined with

:17:09. > :17:14.over lax regulation of banking, something I warned them about.

:17:15. > :17:17.Putting those two together you bring the economy down. Many people lost

:17:18. > :17:22.their jobs altogether and a large number of people had to take a pay

:17:23. > :17:27.cut. Most people lost their bonuses are opportunities to work overtime

:17:28. > :17:32.because the great recession unleashed on this country did so

:17:33. > :17:36.much damage. The first thing people want is the security in the

:17:37. > :17:40.knowledge that economic policies are prudent and sensible so there is

:17:41. > :17:47.more chance of more people working and more chance of people having

:17:48. > :17:51.better paid jobs. He makes a very good point about the importance of

:17:52. > :17:55.allowing people to keep more of their money when they work longer

:17:56. > :18:00.hours. How does he square that commitment with the fact the changes

:18:01. > :18:06.coming in next April will increase the tapers on higher earnings so

:18:07. > :18:15.people will be subject to 80p in the pound when they work extra hours.

:18:16. > :18:19.The problem with welfare reform is you either have a very large number

:18:20. > :18:22.of people facing a moderate rate of withdrawal or a more limited number

:18:23. > :18:28.of people facing a high rate of withdrawal. All the time you have

:18:29. > :18:32.means tested benefits, and our system is riddled with them, you

:18:33. > :18:37.will have to make the difficult choice about whether there is a fast

:18:38. > :18:41.move of benefits when people's income goes up or whether it is a

:18:42. > :18:46.slower move and whether you have fewer or more people affected by the

:18:47. > :18:56.taper, but Labour never solved that problem. It brings me to my second

:18:57. > :19:00.fundamental pillar of government strategy, which I support after the

:19:01. > :19:04.promotion of work and better paid work, it is to tax people less,

:19:05. > :19:09.particularly people on lower incomes. That is something both the

:19:10. > :19:20.coalition and this government wants to do. I trust that as the

:19:21. > :19:22.Chancellor thinks about his Autumn Statement he is in listening mode

:19:23. > :19:29.and rightly so he thinks about the tax element in the mix of his

:19:30. > :19:34.policies. The more he can do to take people out of tax or lower the tax

:19:35. > :19:37.rate upon them, the more he is going to succeed in promoting prosperity

:19:38. > :19:44.and the more they will offset the and the more they will offset the

:19:45. > :19:48.impact of benefit changes. He speaks of prosperity that he will know as

:19:49. > :19:59.well as I do that one of the cheap drivers is small business -- chief

:20:00. > :20:03.drivers. How does he square that? The Government is trying to

:20:04. > :20:07.encourage people to earn more in self-employment. That is the whole

:20:08. > :20:22.point of the policy. The idea is to create better incentives. That is

:20:23. > :20:30.true for them as well as people in employment. I'm sorry they messed up

:20:31. > :20:36.his question. I have raised in this chamber the issue of almost 700,000

:20:37. > :20:42.carers who are working. Many of the members opposite speak about people

:20:43. > :20:46.increasing their hours. There are sets of people who cannot increase

:20:47. > :20:47.their hours will stop my honourable friend mentioned them and I

:20:48. > :20:54.the 700,000 working carers who mentioned them. What does he said

:20:55. > :20:58.cannot give themselves more hours and are not allowed to earn more

:20:59. > :21:12.than ?110 and will be badly by these cuts? I have already described the

:21:13. > :21:16.employers can take and the employers can take and the

:21:17. > :21:23.Government can encourage. We want them to have better opportunity,

:21:24. > :21:26.more skill to work with their employers to get opportunities to

:21:27. > :21:32.justify pay rises. The Government is using the force of the law to

:21:33. > :21:35.increase minimum wages as part of the policy of the driving wages

:21:36. > :21:41.succeed in getting wages upwards in succeed in getting wages upwards in

:21:42. > :21:45.this country to levels we would find acceptable is to a productivity

:21:46. > :21:49.revolution. It has to come from working smarter and better, not

:21:50. > :21:52.necessarily longer hours or harder but smarter and better with the

:21:53. > :22:07.right investment and the right back-up from employers. Would he

:22:08. > :22:10.accept that it is not necessarily people who are on working tax

:22:11. > :22:23.credits you are on the minimum wage. The overlap is only around 25%. It

:22:24. > :22:28.will miss 75% of those recipients. We are in one country and we are

:22:29. > :22:36.trying to at greater of the many. I am surprised by calling people

:22:37. > :22:40.tribes. He is right that some people will face a reduction in tax credits

:22:41. > :22:43.and will not benefit from the minimum wage because they are

:22:44. > :22:50.already earning above that. That is true. If he would listen carefully

:22:51. > :22:52.that is why I support a strategy for prosperity which first of all

:22:53. > :22:58.promotes more people into better pay and that doesn't just mean someone

:22:59. > :23:06.currently on the low-wage. I want someone on a better rich to have the

:23:07. > :23:10.opportunity. So people will work for smart employers and smarter ways.

:23:11. > :23:21.They would get pay rises. Not all will. The more the Government can do

:23:22. > :23:28.to help is the best way to better jobs. If you are thinking next year

:23:29. > :23:33.I might have a better job or a pay rise or a bonus that I can benefit

:23:34. > :23:38.from, you go with more of a spring in your step in if you're going to a

:23:39. > :23:42.low paid job with a bad players and giving you options are break in

:23:43. > :23:46.life. Some members opposite think that is funny. I would hope they

:23:47. > :23:52.would recommend that to employers in their constituency. That is how to

:23:53. > :23:57.create a more prosperous society. I'm trying to stress that we need to

:23:58. > :24:05.get taxes down. It is a separate pillar of the strategy. We come to

:24:06. > :24:11.the difficult bit. That is the point of the row today and probably all of

:24:12. > :24:16.last week and next week by the looks of the way Parliament is going. The

:24:17. > :24:19.issue is at what rate do you withdraw the benefit support as

:24:20. > :24:26.people become more prosperous because they are in work, better

:24:27. > :24:29.paid work, paying less tax? There are difficult judgments to be made

:24:30. > :24:37.and I am pleased that my right honourable friend the Chancellor...

:24:38. > :24:47.But I will be looking at all three elements of the package, pay and tax

:24:48. > :24:52.as well as benefit withdrawal. I want to end up in a world were fewer

:24:53. > :24:56.people are on benefits because their pay and tax cuts are efficient is to

:24:57. > :25:00.give them a better lifestyle. Then we will have a more affordable well

:25:01. > :25:10.fill system which enables us to run an economic... The problem the

:25:11. > :25:17.opposition faces, as some have pointed out, is that there is no

:25:18. > :25:20.answer from them. We know they could overspend and over borrow and crash

:25:21. > :25:24.the economy and being now waits to hear from them how they would get

:25:25. > :25:29.the money under control if they are to be trusted again with government.

:25:30. > :25:34.They don't want to cut non-benefit expenditure so surely they should

:25:35. > :25:45.accept the case I am making to get more people out of benefits forever.

:25:46. > :26:02.But there are difficult choices to be made. What answers will be given

:26:03. > :26:10.to my constituents who have a spring in their step about this while

:26:11. > :26:14.thousands of children will be thrown into poverty who are on tax

:26:15. > :26:18.credits? Are just talking about avoiding that and getting women to

:26:19. > :26:21.prosperity and out of poverty and how we can work with her

:26:22. > :26:25.constituency and elsewhere to promote more jobs, better businesses

:26:26. > :26:32.and lower taxes which must be the medium to long-term answer. There

:26:33. > :26:37.was row going on about the pace of change and the detail of the tables

:26:38. > :26:41.on the timing and so forth. My right honourable friend will look at all

:26:42. > :26:46.those things because I don't want to see people badly damaged by

:26:47. > :26:50.premature reduction in benefit reduction when other things are not

:26:51. > :26:54.working and they end up with too little money and we would have to

:26:55. > :26:58.make records of the hardship fund. It is in our mutual interest this

:26:59. > :27:02.process is done smoothly. It cannot be done by ignoring the problem and

:27:03. > :27:09.pretending the welfare bill is currently fine

:27:10. > :27:17.I am sure the honourable lady doesn't want to see hard-working

:27:18. > :27:21.people taxed more. I am sure she doesn't want to see reverse

:27:22. > :27:24.incentives in the system, where tax credit send a message to some people

:27:25. > :27:29.but actually you should not work more, or you should not do more in

:27:30. > :27:33.yourself employment because it would adversely affect your tax credit

:27:34. > :27:37.rewards. We need to get that balance right. It clearly hasn't been

:27:38. > :27:41.right. The tax credit bill has gone up too much. Until recently, there

:27:42. > :27:45.was too much unemployment in the economy. It's certainly not clear

:27:46. > :27:49.evidence of the success of tax credits that they have built up very

:27:50. > :27:53.rapidly during a period of big redundancies and a very, very big

:27:54. > :27:57.squeeze on pay. Now we have those things reversing, we have things

:27:58. > :28:03.coming back into the workforce, we have pay rising, now is the time to

:28:04. > :28:08.be looking at the pace of benefits and I give way to the front bench. I

:28:09. > :28:13.am grateful to the Right Honourable Gentleman for giving way. He's been

:28:14. > :28:17.gracious with his time. . Does he not accept that the disincentive to

:28:18. > :28:22.work extra hours that he talks about us all wanting to avoid is going to

:28:23. > :28:27.be increased by reducing the eligibility only threshold and by

:28:28. > :28:32.increasing the taper, the amount of money that is taken away for every

:28:33. > :28:36.extra pound and every extra hour worked? I have already been quite

:28:37. > :28:40.honest in saying that you have a difficult choice in government. Do

:28:41. > :28:45.you want fewer people facing a sharper tabor, or more people facing

:28:46. > :28:49.a more gentle tabor? There are no easy answers to that, and I look

:28:50. > :28:53.forward to the judgment of the government when they complete their

:28:54. > :28:56.listening and thinking about it. The opposition is refusing to see all

:28:57. > :29:01.three parts of the package. You can't answer his question as simply

:29:02. > :29:05.as he would like, because it depends what else happens on taxation, rates

:29:06. > :29:10.of pay, inflation and all of the other things that are going on, to

:29:11. > :29:14.work out if people are worse off all better off, and to the extent they

:29:15. > :29:18.are worse off, how much worse they are worse off. My advice to the

:29:19. > :29:23.government is that the strategy is right, more from paid, more from tax

:29:24. > :29:28.cuts and then you can cut the benefits because people do not need

:29:29. > :29:31.them so much. You must listen carefully as a government to

:29:32. > :29:35.criticisms, if it is too far, too fast, or catching some people you

:29:36. > :29:38.don't want to catch. I am sure my right honourable friend will want to

:29:39. > :29:42.come back to that in the Autumn Statement, and he will tell us what

:29:43. > :29:47.he is thinking. The direction of travel must not be to simply make

:29:48. > :29:51.big increases in benefits again. The direction of travel must be to find

:29:52. > :29:55.other answers so that more people can enjoy prosperity from work

:29:56. > :29:59.earnings and lower taxes. I thank the honourable member for giving

:30:00. > :30:03.way. I wonder if he would like to comment on two issues, the first is

:30:04. > :30:06.the legitimacy and authority that the Government has in approaching

:30:07. > :30:12.cuts to tax credit at all, since the Prime Minister repeatedly denied he

:30:13. > :30:16.would do so during the run-up to the general election. That is the first

:30:17. > :30:18.issue. The second issue is the unequivocal evidence from the

:30:19. > :30:24.Institute for Fiscal Studies and others that the maths on this issue

:30:25. > :30:29.simply does not add up, asking people to work harder for less is

:30:30. > :30:33.quite simply an unacceptable proposition. Well, I agree on the

:30:34. > :30:38.latter point, I don't want people to work harder for less. I described

:30:39. > :30:41.the world I want to live in, how some of my constituents enjoy that

:30:42. > :30:48.world and I wanted to be available to many more. I want people to work

:30:49. > :30:51.with more skill, smarter, so they can earn more because their company

:30:52. > :30:55.can afford it. As to the Prime Minister's promise, I heard the

:30:56. > :30:59.Prime Minister in the election rule out cutting child benefit. As I

:31:00. > :31:03.understand it, there are no proposals to cut child benefit.

:31:04. > :31:06.Myself, when I was asked about welfare, I made it clear I wanted

:31:07. > :31:11.the bill for total welfare to come down and I did expect welfare

:31:12. > :31:14.reform, and that would include some reductions in welfare payments and

:31:15. > :31:23.eligibility. I personally don't think I have anything to answer on

:31:24. > :31:26.this score. I was entirely honest with my electorate and they very

:31:27. > :31:28.kindly trusted me with the job with a big majority. I think there are

:31:29. > :31:31.many people in this country with a grown-up view to welfare, who don't

:31:32. > :31:36.want it to be penalising people who really need it, but who think it is

:31:37. > :31:40.high time it is reformed and that we depend more on work and tax

:31:41. > :31:45.reduction on low and middle levels of pay, rather than we have done in

:31:46. > :31:49.the past. I urge my right honourable friend to preserve the spirit of his

:31:50. > :31:53.reforms, to look very carefully at the detail, because we don't want

:31:54. > :31:57.bad cases in the way that being conjured out of the air without

:31:58. > :32:01.proper facts at the moment from the opposition benches. But, above all,

:32:02. > :32:05.we don't want to go back to the Labour boom and bust economy, where

:32:06. > :32:07.generous welfare, far from creating more jobs and more prosperity,

:32:08. > :32:19.helped bring the thing down. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy

:32:20. > :32:23.Speaker. I beg to move the amendments in this group in my name

:32:24. > :32:30.and the name of my honourable and right honourable colleagues. We will

:32:31. > :32:37.also be supporting the new Clause 1. Could I pay tribute at this stage

:32:38. > :32:42.to the efforts of Corri Wilson and Hannah Bardell, who worked so

:32:43. > :32:52.assiduously on par for the SNP and also to Mhairi Black. My wife has

:32:53. > :32:55.always suggested to me that it provides context and depth to a

:32:56. > :32:59.speech if there is a quote early on. As it would happen, in this

:33:00. > :33:03.occasion, regarding tax credit cuts, I have one which was tenuously

:33:04. > :33:09.delivered in the last few days. It goes like this. It is not

:33:10. > :33:12.acceptable. The aim is sound, but we can't have people suffering on the

:33:13. > :33:18.way. The idea there is a cliff edge in April before the uptake in wages

:33:19. > :33:23.comes in is a real, practical human problem and the Government needs to

:33:24. > :33:27.look at it again. Who is this quote attributed to? That would be Ruth

:33:28. > :33:30.Davidson MSP, the leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland, as

:33:31. > :33:35.she called upon this government to have some movement on this issue by

:33:36. > :33:40.the Autumn Statement. Now, after last night's vote in the other

:33:41. > :33:43.place, it is time for the Government to rethink these outrageous

:33:44. > :33:47.proposals. They have managed to unite quite a considerable swathe of

:33:48. > :34:01.political and civic society against these plans. In fact, after last

:34:02. > :34:05.night, the Chancellor stands alone in supporting these cuts. If they

:34:06. > :34:08.will not listen to the opposition benches, the charitable and

:34:09. > :34:11.voluntary organisations, third sector organisations, if they will

:34:12. > :34:17.not listen to anybody else, surely they will listen to their own leader

:34:18. > :34:20.of their own party in Scotland? The SNP is completely opposed to the UK

:34:21. > :34:29.Government's continued attack on low-income families, as we do

:34:30. > :34:32.support the Labour amendment to repeal the legislation that will

:34:33. > :34:37.affect three and 50,000 children and 200 families in Scotland. Let me

:34:38. > :34:43.say, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say it loud and clear, the SNP will

:34:44. > :34:46.oppose these ideological, regressive and utterly punitive tax credit cuts

:34:47. > :34:51.with every opportunity open to us, today and every day, because we

:34:52. > :34:57.realise the damage this will cause to working families, to levels of

:34:58. > :35:01.poverty, levels of child poverty in these isles and to the social

:35:02. > :35:05.cohesion in every community in the United Kingdom. The amendment is my

:35:06. > :35:10.colleagues and I support in this group would bring about the repeal

:35:11. > :35:14.of the 2015 tax credit regulations and overturn those cuts. Shut the

:35:15. > :35:19.Government decide to press ahead with the cuts in the face of the

:35:20. > :35:22.hostility across this chamber, and from conservatives up the road, then

:35:23. > :35:29.they must consider forms of mitigation. It must act to protect

:35:30. > :35:34.vulnerable families with a delay and a fully implement a transitional

:35:35. > :35:39.period. This is covered in our new Clause 8, which we will be pushing

:35:40. > :35:43.to a vote later on. In light of the vote in the other place, I would

:35:44. > :35:50.expect this is already being considered by the Government

:35:51. > :35:53.benches. The new clause 8 means that the legislation related to the water

:35:54. > :35:58.tax credits and the relevant entitlement within Universal Credit

:35:59. > :36:01.shall not take effect until the Secretary of State has implemented a

:36:02. > :36:04.scheme for full transitional protection for a minimum of three

:36:05. > :36:10.years for all families and individuals currently receiving tax

:36:11. > :36:16.credits before the 5th of April 2015, and such transitional

:36:17. > :36:20.protection will be renewable after three years with parliamentary

:36:21. > :36:23.approval. The transitional arrangements are important, as there

:36:24. > :36:27.were none put in place through the tax credit regulations 2015. This

:36:28. > :36:32.means the tax credit cuts will come through immediately from the day

:36:33. > :36:38.they are implemented in April 2016. Those in receipt of tax credits will

:36:39. > :36:46.apparently be getting an unwelcome letter detailing the cuts just weeks

:36:47. > :36:49.before Christmas, given no time whatsoever for working families to

:36:50. > :36:58.effectively plan for an average cut of ?1300. For families living wage

:36:59. > :37:01.packet to wage packet, who are utterly dependent on tax credits to

:37:02. > :37:04.keep them from falling below the breadline, this cut will be

:37:05. > :37:12.devastating and impossible to plan for in such a short space of time.

:37:13. > :37:17.Our amendments 49, 50 and 52 are to ensure relevant benefits, child

:37:18. > :37:21.benefits and tax credits increase in line with the Consumer Price Index,

:37:22. > :37:27.Amendment 51 is consequential, 53 and 54 are ensure the current child

:37:28. > :37:33.tax credit arrangements remain in place. Amendment 55 remove changes

:37:34. > :37:36.to the entitlement to the child element of Universal Credit. These

:37:37. > :37:42.are all amendments that were pushed by my colleagues on the Bill

:37:43. > :37:47.Committee. The Government did not accept any of those, but did pledge

:37:48. > :37:51.to come back with more information, which has not yet materialised. Why

:37:52. > :37:55.on earth has the Government decided to rush this bill from the

:37:56. > :38:01.committee, which only finished on Thursday, to this final stage today?

:38:02. > :38:06.If it is serious about bringing about more detail and explaining the

:38:07. > :38:11.potential mitigation we are to expect, why not flesh that out? What

:38:12. > :38:15.this rush really points to is that these cuts are purely about making

:38:16. > :38:23.savings and that they are therefore Ideologically driven. These changes

:38:24. > :38:25.are fundamentally regressive. They disproportionately target those in

:38:26. > :38:29.low-income households and punish them for this Government's

:38:30. > :38:33.ideological obsession with austerity, and ideological obsession

:38:34. > :38:40.that is failing socially and economically. For our part, the SNP

:38:41. > :38:45.stood on a manifesto that was fundamentally anti-austerity. But it

:38:46. > :38:50.also plotted a more responsible path for bringing down the deficit. We

:38:51. > :38:56.have argued for a 0.5 increase in departmental spending this year for

:38:57. > :39:01.this parliament, which would have released ?140 billion to invest in

:39:02. > :39:05.capital projects, boost growth and narrow income inequality. The plan

:39:06. > :39:10.would also have resulted in a budget deficit of just 2% by the end of

:39:11. > :39:16.this Parliament. Our plan was backed by an IMF report earlier this year,

:39:17. > :39:20.which highlighted that reducing income inequality not only leads to

:39:21. > :39:25.reduced poverty, but it also boosts growth. So, by extension, the policy

:39:26. > :39:30.of cutting tax credits and thereby increasing income inequality is

:39:31. > :39:35.going to drive more of our citizens into poverty and is, in fact, going

:39:36. > :39:39.to harm growth and therefore harm this Government's apparent aim of

:39:40. > :39:43.reducing the deficit. As well as being socially destructive, as an

:39:44. > :39:48.extension of the INF's thinking, this policy is economically

:39:49. > :39:51.incompetent as well. On that point, I am very grateful to the honourable

:39:52. > :39:56.member, I wonder if he would agree with me that what we have had from

:39:57. > :39:59.the SNP as a responsible approach to delivering sustainable growth that

:40:00. > :40:02.will drive up wages and employment, and if he contrasts that with the

:40:03. > :40:08.benches opposite, particularly through the last five years of what

:40:09. > :40:11.we see going forward, ?375 billion quantitative easing, the Bank of

:40:12. > :40:15.England has had to bail them out on monetary policy because, quite

:40:16. > :40:20.simply, they have not delivered on fiscal policy. I absolutely welcome

:40:21. > :40:25.my honourable friend's contribution. To go further, when we are talking

:40:26. > :40:28.about affordability and about sustainability, it seems perfectly

:40:29. > :40:34.feasible for this Government to be able to press ahead with what is

:40:35. > :40:41.apparently ?167 billion worth of Trident nuclear weapons. Absolutely

:40:42. > :40:49.shocking and deplorable. They see fit to find for Ford ?5 billion in

:40:50. > :40:57.welfare cuts to these tax credits. -- four 5p. This Government is

:40:58. > :41:04.to the Social Security programme in to the Social Security programme in

:41:05. > :41:10.the name of a budget surplus, and in doing so waging a war on low-income

:41:11. > :41:15.households. With the honourable gentleman agree that the cost of

:41:16. > :41:19.Trident he has mentioned is over the lifetime of the project, while the

:41:20. > :41:26.honourable gentleman is talking about an annual figure for the

:41:27. > :41:33.savings? ?167 billion, by my book, by anybody estimation, a vast sum of

:41:34. > :41:39.money. It would also count to ?3 billion per year, which goes some

:41:40. > :41:45.way to at least squaring the circle with tax credit cuts. Just to add to

:41:46. > :41:50.the omnishambles, there was no tension whatsoever of the wholesale

:41:51. > :41:56.cuts to tax credits in the Conservative manifesto. There were

:41:57. > :41:59.just two references to tax credits in the manifesto, neither referred

:42:00. > :42:05.to anything like the proposals we have in front of us now. This is the

:42:06. > :42:09.central plank of this Chancellor's first budget since the election and

:42:10. > :42:13.he has based all of his sermons on the back of this. You would have

:42:14. > :42:18.thought it would have merited at least a passing reference, a hint,

:42:19. > :42:21.maybe? In fact, the only hint we got an election campaign was one from a

:42:22. > :42:26.Question Time debate in which the Prime Minister hinted at his

:42:27. > :42:30.opposition to to tax credits. Either the Chancellor has convinced him

:42:31. > :42:34.into a pretty major U-turn or the Prime Minister was telling porkies

:42:35. > :42:44.to Mr Dimbleby and the electorate. In a subsequent Question Time

:42:45. > :42:48.programme, it showed a Conservative voter devastated at what this

:42:49. > :42:53.government is proposing. She feels let down, misled, and I bet she

:42:54. > :42:55.isn't the only one. What all this demonstrates is that this

:42:56. > :43:00.government, not at the moment, does not have a mandate to push these

:43:01. > :43:03.changes through. It was not in the manifesto and when explicitly asked

:43:04. > :43:09.about the matter, the Prime Minister, to give him the benefit of

:43:10. > :43:13.the doubt, I suppose, was at the very least obfuscating on the

:43:14. > :43:16.matter. And a similar obfuscation came in the Chancellor's summer

:43:17. > :43:21.budget, where he suggested that these cuts to tax credits would be

:43:22. > :43:27.minimum wage. The reality is that minimum wage. The reality is that

:43:28. > :43:31.the full rise in the minimum wage will not come into effect until

:43:32. > :43:36.2020, four years after the tax credit cards start. Even when the

:43:37. > :43:40.full rise comes into effect, it is still not going to mitigate the tax

:43:41. > :43:45.credit cards, so why did the Government decides to undermine and

:43:46. > :43:51.sabotage the real living wage campaign by labelling their minimum

:43:52. > :43:55.wage rise as such? Next year, the minimum wage rise is 65p short of

:43:56. > :44:00.the real living wage, and by 2020 the living wage is forecast to be

:44:01. > :44:03.closer to ?10 per hour, and therefore still higher than the

:44:04. > :44:08.predicted minimum wage rise announced by the Chancellor.

:44:09. > :44:12.Besides, the real living wage is calculated taking tax credit into

:44:13. > :44:15.consideration. So the Chancellor is going to be even further behind the

:44:16. > :44:20.curve when the revised living wage is announced. And it is another myth

:44:21. > :44:25.that raising the personal tax allowance will mitigate either, as a

:44:26. > :44:29.large number of people in receipt of tax credits do not end enough to

:44:30. > :44:36.reach either the old or the new tax threshold. This is a ?1.4 billion

:44:37. > :44:40.tax cut which disproportionately benefits the rich, and no, free

:44:41. > :44:46.childcare will not compensate either, given that less than 10% of

:44:47. > :44:49.those in receipt of tax credits received childcare support for the

:44:50. > :44:56.under fives. What all this comes down to is that these cuts will

:44:57. > :44:59.leave so many families much, much worse off, and yesterday Paul

:45:00. > :45:03.Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, gave

:45:04. > :45:06.evidence to the work and pensions select committee, where he said that

:45:07. > :45:11.there was no way to mitigate the cards to tax credits in any other

:45:12. > :45:16.way than amending the cuts themselves, a point of view shared

:45:17. > :45:21.by the Resolution Foundation. Indeed, the House of Commons library

:45:22. > :45:30.has calculate it that the cumulative effect of the summer Budget on a

:45:31. > :45:34.typical family earning the minimum wage, the independent analysis from

:45:35. > :45:38.the House of Commons library shows that in 2016-17, the first year that

:45:39. > :45:46.these changes will take effect, a family in that situation will be

:45:47. > :45:51.?1500 worse off. By 2020-21, that family in that circumstance will be

:45:52. > :45:57.over ?2000 worse off per annum. How on earth cannot be described as like

:45:58. > :46:01.making work pay? In fact, the various attacks on low income

:46:02. > :46:06.working households fly in the face of the UK Government's own rhetoric

:46:07. > :46:11.and rationale of making work pay and that employment is the best route

:46:12. > :46:16.out of poverty. It has been estimated that almost 60% of

:46:17. > :46:20.children in poverty in Scotland, from working families. The latest

:46:21. > :46:23.poverty statistics show that 65% of children living below the relative

:46:24. > :46:30.poverty line across the UK were living in families where at least

:46:31. > :46:34.one parent works. As shameful as it is, I'm not surprised therefore that

:46:35. > :46:37.this bill attempts to repeal most of the Child Poverty Act and weakens

:46:38. > :46:41.the UK Government's commitments and obligations on child poverty. Let us

:46:42. > :46:46.be clear, the measures in this bill are, without doubt, going to plunge

:46:47. > :46:51.so many more children in our society into poverty. And it is shameful

:46:52. > :46:55.that it has taken a vote in the other place to perhaps shame this

:46:56. > :47:00.government into providing an independent report on the impact of

:47:01. > :47:03.the cuts, especially on children living so close to or in poverty at

:47:04. > :47:07.the moment. In terms of action on these matters in Scotland, the Smith

:47:08. > :47:12.Commission recommended that tax credits remain reserved to this

:47:13. > :47:16.place, and in Scotland we will clearly use the powers we are due to

:47:17. > :47:20.receive to the best of our ability, and we will use our powers to do our

:47:21. > :47:24.best to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, and we

:47:25. > :47:29.have got a good track record of mitigating against the worst of the

:47:30. > :47:33.UK Government's welfare cuts, such as the ?100 million to ensure that

:47:34. > :47:37.no-one pays the bedroom tax, or the ?40 million invested in local

:47:38. > :47:43.government to ensure that council tax benefit was not CAD in Scotland,

:47:44. > :47:50.when it was in England. But when 85% of welfare remains reserved and 75%

:47:51. > :47:54.of taxation, 70%, it will be hard to fully mitigate the UK Government's

:47:55. > :47:58.plans once again, so Scotland must have full control of all universal

:47:59. > :48:03.credit to pull children and families out of poverty, and that must be

:48:04. > :48:07.devolved with the appropriate resources. Our amendments also

:48:08. > :48:14.addressed the two child limit for tax credits. This will impact

:48:15. > :48:18.872,000 families according to the IFS, who are currently receiving an

:48:19. > :48:24.average 3600 and the pounds worth of support for third and subsequent

:48:25. > :48:27.children. I struggle to see how this policy can be seen as anything other

:48:28. > :48:33.than social engineering, as it tends that having more than two children

:48:34. > :48:39.is a luxury for the rich. -- it hints. I would appreciate if anyone

:48:40. > :48:43.on the Government benches can explain how an exemption for rape

:48:44. > :48:48.victims will work - will a conviction have to be in place, with

:48:49. > :48:53.a police statement be required for the claim form? It is just totally

:48:54. > :48:58.and at the absurd and highlights the absurdity of a two child rule and

:48:59. > :49:01.the tax credit cuts in general. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I end with

:49:02. > :49:08.another quote, and these will now be familiar words no doubt to the

:49:09. > :49:11.Treasury bench after the honourable member for South Cambridgeshire

:49:12. > :49:15.delivered them so eloquently last week. And I quote, a country and its

:49:16. > :49:17.economy does not function if the people who run the engine cannot

:49:18. > :49:22.afford to operate it. We need every afford to operate it. We need every

:49:23. > :49:26.teaching assistants, care worker, clean and shop worker to secure this

:49:27. > :49:30.economic recovery, to pull ourselves out of debt we should not be forcing

:49:31. > :49:34.those working families into it. The Prime Minister has asked us to

:49:35. > :49:38.ensure that everything we do pass as the family test. Cutting tax credits

:49:39. > :49:43.before wages rise does not achieve that. Showing children that their

:49:44. > :49:46.parents will be better off not working at all does not achieve

:49:47. > :49:51.that. Sending a message to the poorest and most vulnerable in

:49:52. > :49:55.society that we do not care does not achieve that either. She goes on, I

:49:56. > :49:59.believe that the pace of these reforms is too fast and too hard, as

:50:00. > :50:03.the proposal stand too many people will be adversely affected,

:50:04. > :50:10.something must give. I agree. It is time that this government gave in

:50:11. > :50:14.and scrapped these tax credit cuts. If any of the members opposite who

:50:15. > :50:18.agree with the member for South Cambridgeshire or the party leader

:50:19. > :50:22.in Scotland cannot just vote them through and hope mitigation will

:50:23. > :50:28.follow, voting them down is the only answer, and we need that to happen

:50:29. > :50:33.today. Finally, Madame Deputy Speaker, I should declare an

:50:34. > :50:38.interest before I sit down. In my constituency, 11,300 children and

:50:39. > :50:43.6000 families are currently in receipt of tax credits. The child

:50:44. > :50:49.poverty rate currently sits at more than one in five in my constituency.

:50:50. > :50:54.The statistics will not be the worst, but they are utterly shameful

:50:55. > :50:58.nonetheless. I am not here to accept cards which would make matters

:50:59. > :51:04.worse, and neither should any other MP, but that is what will happen if

:51:05. > :51:09.these cuts are accepted by this house. An average of ?1300 will come

:51:10. > :51:14.out of the household budgets of the lowest income families in this

:51:15. > :51:19.country, and perhaps you and I could cut our cloth to suit, Madame Deputy

:51:20. > :51:22.Speaker, but the very definition of qualifying for tax credits means

:51:23. > :51:27.that recipients do not have enough to get by and do not have enough

:51:28. > :51:31.resources to accept this level of cut without severe ramifications. It

:51:32. > :51:34.will be on the consciences of every honourable and right honourable

:51:35. > :51:39.member who voted to accept these cuts. They will have to accept that

:51:40. > :51:43.choosing between heating and eating is a price worth paying. They will

:51:44. > :51:51.have to accept that food poverty is a price worth paying. They will have

:51:52. > :51:54.to the lives of disadvantaged families on their consciences.

:51:55. > :51:59.Please support the amendment in my name and in the name of my

:52:00. > :52:05.honourable friend is. Order. First of all, I should make it clear, at

:52:06. > :52:10.last, members have risen because they want to speak. It is very

:52:11. > :52:15.confusing for the chair if you do not stand up at the beginning of the

:52:16. > :52:18.debate when you want to speak, because I cannot then tell how money

:52:19. > :52:24.people wish to speak. At the moment I can say that approximately eight,

:52:25. > :52:28.nine, QC?! You see?! Why can't people just stand up? It is not very

:52:29. > :52:32.difficult, schoolchildren do it! Stand up when you want to speak! I

:52:33. > :52:37.can see a significant number of people want to speak, I cannot put a

:52:38. > :52:41.time limit on this stage in the seedings, but we have less than half

:52:42. > :52:50.an hour of debate left, and so I appeal for brevity. Perhaps three or

:52:51. > :52:53.four macro minutes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your

:52:54. > :52:58.permission, I would like to be very briefly against the proposed new

:52:59. > :53:02.clause 1. I think we first of all need to be very clear as a nation

:53:03. > :53:08.about the scale of the challenge that we face. The budget deficit has

:53:09. > :53:13.been halved, but still we have an enormous budget deficit. We are

:53:14. > :53:17.spending far more than we earn. And against that backdrop, the increase

:53:18. > :53:22.in welfare spending is an important thing that must be addressed, and if

:53:23. > :53:26.we take the specific measures of tax credits, the amount of spending on

:53:27. > :53:30.tax credits has risen from ?6 billion when Gordon Brown first

:53:31. > :53:36.introduced it to ?30 billion now. That is money... I will in a moment.

:53:37. > :53:38.That is money which is being borrowed in order to pay welfare,

:53:39. > :53:42.borrowed money to pay for welfare borrowed money to pay for welfare

:53:43. > :53:48.expenditure. It is not a sensible idea, I will give way. Would the

:53:49. > :53:52.honourable member agree with me that this is like a cake, the whole piece

:53:53. > :53:55.of welfare spending, but it is the failure of this governments to

:53:56. > :54:00.address the higher cost of housing and bring down the housing benefit

:54:01. > :54:07.bill, because that is the key to solving your problem. Well, I think

:54:08. > :54:13.that... Order! It is not my problem, it is somebody else's problem. Thank

:54:14. > :54:17.you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we need to be clear about the

:54:18. > :54:23.problems with tax credits, just three facts about them. The first is

:54:24. > :54:26.that under the last Labour government, 1.4 million people

:54:27. > :54:30.remained an out of work benefits almost the entire period. Secondly,

:54:31. > :54:34.the number of workless households doubled, and thirdly the level of in

:54:35. > :54:40.work poverty rose by 20%. We are in a situation where there has been a

:54:41. > :54:44.massive increase in expenditure on welfare, a massive increase in

:54:45. > :54:47.expenditure on tax credits, and it is not actually delivering the

:54:48. > :54:52.reduction in poverty that we all so desire. And there is a reason for

:54:53. > :54:58.that. I will give way to the honourable gentleman opposite. Thank

:54:59. > :55:01.you very much. I think the honourable member for giving way.

:55:02. > :55:05.Would he agree that if you are concerned about in work poverty, tax

:55:06. > :55:14.credits played a role in tackling in work poverty? This is precisely the

:55:15. > :55:18.point that I would like to get onto. The reason why, despite the increase

:55:19. > :55:22.in expenditure on tax credits, we still continue to have these

:55:23. > :55:27.dreadful is that it sticks in terms of dealing with poverty, is because

:55:28. > :55:31.it is a flawed model. -- these dreadful statistics. It is a flawed

:55:32. > :55:35.model based on taxing people on the minimum wage who can barely afford

:55:36. > :55:40.to pay tax, recycling it through the system and using that to top of low

:55:41. > :55:44.sensible model on which to proceed, sensible model on which to proceed,

:55:45. > :55:49.and it is perhaps no surprise that the former... I will give way one

:55:50. > :55:54.more time, but I am aware of Madam Deputy Speaker's injunction. I

:55:55. > :55:57.think, as we understand from survey after survey, that millions of

:55:58. > :56:01.people are going to be worse off as a consequence of this. What is the

:56:02. > :56:06.honourable gentleman going to say to his constituents who have lost ?1300

:56:07. > :56:11.on average out of their income? What are you going to say to those

:56:12. > :56:15.people? I would say to those people that this government has got a clear

:56:16. > :56:19.and coherent plan for helping people on the lowest incomes, that consists

:56:20. > :56:22.of three elements. The first is to increase the amount of money that

:56:23. > :56:29.you can earn without paying any tax, an increase by the end of this

:56:30. > :56:33.Parliament to ?12,500. That is lifting people working 35 hours a

:56:34. > :56:38.week on the minimum wage out of tax altogether. Secondly, we are

:56:39. > :56:45.introducing a national living wage, which will increase wages to ?9 per

:56:46. > :56:48.hour. And thirdly, we are introducing a number of other

:56:49. > :56:52.measures, such as free childcare, which will help those who are in

:56:53. > :56:58.most need of it. I think that is a far better model to move from a

:56:59. > :57:03.situation where you have a low wage economy with high tax and high

:57:04. > :57:07.welfare, to a higher wage, lower welfare and lower tax model. I have

:57:08. > :57:10.to say to the honourable gentleman, the ladies and gentleman opposite,

:57:11. > :57:15.we have a moment now when we can deal with this. Because we have

:57:16. > :57:22.record high levels of private sector wage growth, 4.4%, according to the

:57:23. > :57:26.latest figures, because unemployment continues to fall, because growth

:57:27. > :57:29.remains strong, because we are introducing a national living wage,

:57:30. > :57:34.we have a moment where we can reform tax credits. If we don't seize this

:57:35. > :57:41.opportunity, future generations will not thank as for continuing to

:57:42. > :57:45.saddle the economy and taxpayers with ?30 billion worth of subsidies

:57:46. > :57:50.for low wages. I think now the moment is right to do this.

:57:51. > :57:56.As I said, it forms part of a coherent vision, where we cut taxes

:57:57. > :58:00.for those on the lowest paid, we increase their pay through the

:58:01. > :58:04.National Living Wage and help them access childcare, through free

:58:05. > :58:08.childcare. I have to say to members opposite, they are just opposing

:58:09. > :58:14.this wholesale. If they wish to remove ?4.4 billion worth of public

:58:15. > :58:18.spending savings, which is what the new Klaus 1 proposes, they have to

:58:19. > :58:22.be able to tell constituents how they will afford that. Do they

:58:23. > :58:28.propose to put up taxes on hard-working people? Do they propose

:58:29. > :58:31.to cut spending on health? Do they propose to cut spending on

:58:32. > :58:36.education, or defence? Or do they intend to carry on borrowing? I must

:58:37. > :58:40.say, the signals from both parties opposite are that they want to carry

:58:41. > :58:45.on borrowing. Every pound we borrow in this generation is a pound that

:58:46. > :58:52.future generations have to repay. That is why I would urge all members

:58:53. > :58:56.to grasp this opportunity to reform welfare, to reform tax credits, as

:58:57. > :59:01.part of a conference of package which helps those on the lowest

:59:02. > :59:05.wages. If we fail to do so, those members should justify to their

:59:06. > :59:12.children and grandchildren why we have saddles them with such high

:59:13. > :59:16.debts. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I first of all say that we will be

:59:17. > :59:20.supporting the changes which are being proposed here today. Not

:59:21. > :59:26.because we are opposed to all welfare reform, in fact, I think the

:59:27. > :59:30.record of our voting here and the fact that against the odds we have

:59:31. > :59:33.tried to drive some of the welfare reform changes in Northern Ireland,

:59:34. > :59:42.the sensible ones, indicates we don't take this kind of blanket view

:59:43. > :59:47.that welfare reform is bad for stop. Some of it is necessary, some of it

:59:48. > :59:51.is wrong-headed. It is wrong-headed for a number of reasons. It is

:59:52. > :59:55.wrong-headed because, first of all, I don't even believe it is going to

:59:56. > :00:01.achieve what the Government are setting out to achieve. We have

:00:02. > :00:04.heard time and again, and we have heard it again today, that the

:00:05. > :00:10.Government wants to make work pay, for those that go out every day to

:00:11. > :00:15.employment, is asked to have a reward for that. There has to be an

:00:16. > :00:20.incentive. All of the indications are, and all of the assessments are,

:00:21. > :00:26.that these proposals, because of their timing, because of their

:00:27. > :00:32.scale, will not make work pay. In fact, the OBR said it will be a

:00:33. > :00:38.disincentive to work. On one hand, the rewards are being taken of

:00:39. > :00:44.people, but the mitigation is not going to be added quick enough.

:00:45. > :00:47.Therefore, we are going to find that the very objective is that the

:00:48. > :00:51.government has set out to achieve is not going to be achieved. The second

:00:52. > :01:01.thing is this, we are not dealing with people who have got, in most

:01:02. > :01:05.cases, anyway, who have got a large buffer of savings, additional

:01:06. > :01:09.income, which can help them overcome their timing difficulty which there

:01:10. > :01:14.is with these proposals. We are talking about people who are on low

:01:15. > :01:18.wages, who probably, every penny they earn, goes into their living

:01:19. > :01:24.expenses. Despite what has been said, and we have heard it again

:01:25. > :01:33.today, as the tax credits come off we are going to have tax cuts, we

:01:34. > :01:37.are going to have additional child support for looking after children,

:01:38. > :01:42.we are going to have reductions in rent, all of those things will

:01:43. > :01:45.mitigate against it. Of course, on top of that, we will have the

:01:46. > :01:50.increase in the National Living Wage. But the tax credits cuts are

:01:51. > :01:55.coming in immediately, these things are going to be brought in over a

:01:56. > :01:58.period of time. I will give way, yes. Thank you to the honourable

:01:59. > :02:03.member for giving way. Would he agree with me that one of the ways

:02:04. > :02:07.of bringing down the entirety of the welfare bill is actually true

:02:08. > :02:12.building more homes, so that we don't spend 60 billion in a

:02:13. > :02:15.parliament on housing benefit? Again, I agree, although I have to

:02:16. > :02:19.say that is not a short-term answer either, it is a long-term answer and

:02:20. > :02:24.is certainly not going to deal with the particular issue that we have

:02:25. > :02:31.here today. You know, if we take the tax reductions, which will not

:02:32. > :02:35.affect all of the people who are on low wages, because they will not hit

:02:36. > :02:39.the threshold, if we even take the childcare, which only affects a

:02:40. > :02:43.fifth of the people that will find that their tax credits are cut, and

:02:44. > :02:48.take the National Living Wage increases, it is not going to apply,

:02:49. > :02:52.for example, to people under 25. There is a whole swathe of the

:02:53. > :02:56.population that will not benefit from this. Many of them will have

:02:57. > :03:03.families, as well, of course. Here is the point, the principal way in

:03:04. > :03:08.which the Chancellor has said this issue is going to be addressed is

:03:09. > :03:11.through the increase in the National Living Wage. And yet, a whole

:03:12. > :03:19.swathes of the population will not be affected by it. For that reason,

:03:20. > :03:23.many people are going to be left less well off. Even when all of

:03:24. > :03:29.those things are added together, it is still estimated that, with the

:03:30. > :03:33.tax credits being and the tax threshold is being increased, the

:03:34. > :03:37.childcare element, the housing element, of course that does not

:03:38. > :03:40.apply to the people in the private rental sector anyway, and the

:03:41. > :03:44.National Living Wage, people are still going to find themselves come

:03:45. > :03:49.on average, a third less well off. That is going to affect many of our

:03:50. > :03:55.constituents. Can I just say to the members on the benches opposite, you

:03:56. > :04:02.should actually be very thankful that the House of Lords swapped

:04:03. > :04:06.their red benches for red flags last night. Because they have probably

:04:07. > :04:09.done the Conservative Party a favour. Many of the people that are

:04:10. > :04:14.going to be affected by these changes are the natural supporters

:04:15. > :04:18.of the party opposite. They are the strivers of society, the people that

:04:19. > :04:22.want to do better, the people that want to improve themselves, the

:04:23. > :04:28.people that probably do luck to some of the other policies the Government

:04:29. > :04:32.has put forward. But those are the people that are going to be hit

:04:33. > :04:38.hardest by this, and I suspect the Government has got off Dohuk with

:04:39. > :04:40.this. For that reason, I believe that the measures should be

:04:41. > :04:44.overturned tonight and that the Government has to have a complete

:04:45. > :04:48.rethink. Can I say to the members opposite, if the Government is

:04:49. > :04:52.really serious about a rethink, they should be supporting these

:04:53. > :04:56.amendments anyway! So, we can have a radical rethink, rather than a

:04:57. > :05:03.tinkering of a policy which is going to be detrimental. Just one last

:05:04. > :05:08.point, the question is rightly asked, what is the alternative? Were

:05:09. > :05:13.there many alternatives? This represents less than 1% of total

:05:14. > :05:16.government spending. Surely to goodness, across departments, two

:05:17. > :05:23.thirds of a percent of savings can be found? To finance the bill that

:05:24. > :05:28.would be caused by dropping these tax credit changes? Over the life of

:05:29. > :05:32.the parliament, then we can work towards a sensible rebalancing,

:05:33. > :05:38.where employers paper proper wages and the State house to pay less

:05:39. > :05:42.subsidies? Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all share a belief in

:05:43. > :05:46.the welfare state. In a civilised country like ours, it is right that

:05:47. > :05:51.we offer help to the most needy. But these amendments, as tabled, are

:05:52. > :05:57.myopic and ill thought out. They forget about the sustainability and

:05:58. > :06:00.the fairness. Our welfare system is immensely unfair in its

:06:01. > :06:09.discrepancies. The clauses which it seeks to amend, 9 and ten, together

:06:10. > :06:13.frees the main rates of most working age benefits for child benefit

:06:14. > :06:19.uncertain elements of working benefits and child tax credits. That

:06:20. > :06:23.is from 2016-17. There are important exemptions for protecting the

:06:24. > :06:28.vulnerable, like pensioners and those who are disabled, reflecting

:06:29. > :06:35.compassion and proportion. Why are we doing that? We are doing that

:06:36. > :06:41.because since 2008, wages have risen by 12%. But for most working age out

:06:42. > :06:48.of work benefits, the rise has been 21%. How can that possibly be fair

:06:49. > :06:55.or justifiable, that the amount that people are receiving on benefits has

:06:56. > :07:02.been increasing at a faster rate and more than the amount that people are

:07:03. > :07:07.receiving in work? So, the freezers contained in Clauses 9 at 10, go to

:07:08. > :07:14.the heart of the problem to reverse this damaging trend. I want to make

:07:15. > :07:18.three key points about Clauses 9 and 10, they support the original

:07:19. > :07:29.concept of welfare, as designed and intended by its father, Beverage.

:07:30. > :07:34.When his report was published, enshrined the key principles of what

:07:35. > :07:38.welfare should stand for, to help those who found themselves in

:07:39. > :07:44.occasional, exceptional need, to help people cope with unexpected and

:07:45. > :07:50.temporary afflictions of sickness and unemployment. I thank the

:07:51. > :07:55.honourable lady for giving way, is she aware that the current

:07:56. > :07:58.Government proposals would affect 740,000 children with families,

:07:59. > :08:02.where there are children with disabilities? What I am aware of is

:08:03. > :08:07.that the reforms are part of a package which includes an increase

:08:08. > :08:14.to free childcare to 30 hours, which is worth about ?5,000, which is

:08:15. > :08:17.going to help working families combine work and childcare. That is

:08:18. > :08:24.how we are going to help children. The work is the root out, not

:08:25. > :08:29.benefits. His guiding principles were clear, the individual has to

:08:30. > :08:33.take greater responsibility, alongside the state establishing a

:08:34. > :08:41.national minimum, ensuring the most vulnerable are looked after while

:08:42. > :08:44.enabling sustainability. The key problem with the existing welfare

:08:45. > :08:49.system is that it has allowed businesses to act in a way which is

:08:50. > :08:54.both unpalatable and bad for the economy. It has facilitated the

:08:55. > :09:01.underpayment of workers, which has sanctioned the chronic and training

:09:02. > :09:04.and underinvestment of staff. If a business or employer knows the low

:09:05. > :09:10.wages are going to be topped up by the state, what is the point of

:09:11. > :09:16.investing in its workforce? What is the point in investing in training

:09:17. > :09:20.or promotion? Thank you for giving way. I'm just wondering of the

:09:21. > :09:24.honourable member thinks it is fair that businesses get a taper on the

:09:25. > :09:28.increase in wages, and they are complaining that the tax credits

:09:29. > :09:33.subsidised businesses, but the poorest people in society do not get

:09:34. > :09:39.that taper, they get their income could write away in April. How is

:09:40. > :09:47.that fair? The point is that the Government is very pragmatic and

:09:48. > :09:51.sensible. And it will be responsive. The Government is going to make

:09:52. > :09:54.announcements in the Autumn Statement and that will completely

:09:55. > :10:00.and adequately deal with the issue that has been raised. But I go back

:10:01. > :10:04.to my original point... I am on limited time, and I want to make

:10:05. > :10:09.progress. So, it is absolutely important that we make work pay by

:10:10. > :10:13.preventing businesses from continuing to underpay their staff.

:10:14. > :10:20.The next point that I want to make is that we need to make sure that

:10:21. > :10:26.the reforms come as part of a package. That everybody keeps that

:10:27. > :10:31.in mind. The new measures on free childcare, the rise in the personal

:10:32. > :10:35.allowance, the tax law on income tax, VAT and national insurance,

:10:36. > :10:42.there are very welcome introduction of the National Living Wage, it

:10:43. > :10:45.already ensures that household incomes will rise over the course of

:10:46. > :10:49.the Parliament, that people will be able to keep more of the money that

:10:50. > :10:53.they earn, rather than pay it in tax, which will just go to more

:10:54. > :10:58.Government expenditure. I wanted to make this point, the manner in which

:10:59. > :11:04.the opposition has behaved is shameful. Prior to the election,

:11:05. > :11:08.there were suggestions they were going to back our reforms on

:11:09. > :11:13.welfare, acknowledging that it had become unsustainable and costly.

:11:14. > :11:18.They equivocated and suggested support. Even in July, the

:11:19. > :11:22.honourable member for Camberwell and pack was clear in his support for

:11:23. > :11:26.the reforms put forward. Now what we have seen is opportunism and a

:11:27. > :11:34.politicisation of an issue where consensus is required. I think that

:11:35. > :11:38.is shameful and it indicates... It undermines the opposition's lack of

:11:39. > :11:42.integrity and decency when we need cross-party support on this

:11:43. > :11:50.difficult issue. I support the clauses as originally drafted and

:11:51. > :11:55.expect the other side to do so, too. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May

:11:56. > :11:59.I start by welcoming my honourable friend, the member for Airdrie, to

:12:00. > :12:03.his position as I move across to the business brief. I'm quite sure the

:12:04. > :12:05.social Justice team has in its realms, from his speech just there,

:12:06. > :12:22.a very talented member. I raised as bigoted amendments -- I

:12:23. > :12:27.rise to speak of amendments. The SMB's position is against the

:12:28. > :12:31.Government's two child policy. The SNP wholeheartedly condemns the

:12:32. > :12:37.intentions of the Tory Government to restrict tax credits to two

:12:38. > :12:41.children, which, by its definition, excludes many of the poorest

:12:42. > :12:45.children in society from the Social Security system, going against the

:12:46. > :12:49.principles to which it was set up. It also strays into an area of

:12:50. > :12:52.policy-making that I have to say I've never thought I would see

:12:53. > :12:57.suggested by any Government with a shred of compassion for its people.

:12:58. > :13:00.Hidden away in the red budget book were the words, the Department for

:13:01. > :13:05.Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who

:13:06. > :13:13.have a third child as a result of rape or other exceptional

:13:14. > :13:15.circumstances. One line, don't detail. How much disrespect can this

:13:16. > :13:19.country take? Madam Deputy Speaker... Wilmer honourable friend

:13:20. > :13:22.agree with me that it is appalling that not only that statement in the

:13:23. > :13:28.budget statement but there has been no explanation as to how it will

:13:29. > :13:34.work over the course of this Bill? I couldn't agree more. Madam Deputy

:13:35. > :13:37.Speaker, the reality is that the two child poverty will hit over 872,000

:13:38. > :13:42.families who receive support for families who receive support for

:13:43. > :13:44.third and subsequent children. The Government's own child poverty

:13:45. > :13:49.strategy recognises the risk of poverty is much more significant in

:13:50. > :13:52.larger families than smaller ones. Currently one third of children

:13:53. > :13:56.living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps

:13:57. > :13:59.it is a reason why the Tory Government also seeks to airbrushed

:14:00. > :14:13.child poverty from the statute books. It is easy for this Tory

:14:14. > :14:16.Government to espouse theories and claim that adjusting financial

:14:17. > :14:18.support to two children will make poorer families rethink their

:14:19. > :14:20.financial choices. It is based on the false and that all children are

:14:21. > :14:23.planned and it is possible to financially plan for children, a

:14:24. > :14:26.fact we are aware is not the case. What if your second pregnancy turns

:14:27. > :14:31.out to be twins or triplets? What about the many families supported or

:14:32. > :14:35.led by kinship carers? Perhaps the party opposite needs a biology

:14:36. > :14:39.lesson or a simple lesson in humanity. It is simply not the case

:14:40. > :14:44.that such eventualities can be planned for, so are we telling

:14:45. > :14:51.families across these nations to stop having children just in case?

:14:52. > :14:54.Many of my colleagues on the floor of my house and I have raised the

:14:55. > :14:59.sensitive issue of children resulting from rape. And even more

:15:00. > :15:04.insensitive plan from the party opposite to make women justify their

:15:05. > :15:08.children in front of DWP caseworkers. Many domestic abuse

:15:09. > :15:11.charities have raised concerns and rape Scotland have warned the plan

:15:12. > :15:17.is inherently unworkable. They have asked how DWP workers will prove

:15:18. > :15:23.someone has or has not been raped, and has said they think many would

:15:24. > :15:26.find explaining the situation extremely uncomfortable. Many women

:15:27. > :15:30.don't report to the police they have been raped, or go years without

:15:31. > :15:36.reporting or speaking about it, so they cannot be expected to explain

:15:37. > :15:39.it to a DWP worker. Madam Deputy Speaker, what training well a DWP

:15:40. > :15:44.worker have to deal with rape victims? It is clear this is an

:15:45. > :15:47.unrealistic, ill thought out and unhelpful proposal. Even on the

:15:48. > :15:53.evidence before the work and pensions committee, stakeholders

:15:54. > :15:57.described this as unpalatable. Keir Starmer wrote in the Guardian

:15:58. > :16:02.recently that a rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save

:16:03. > :16:06.money. Madam Deputy Speaker, I could not agree more. It just goes to show

:16:07. > :16:09.that at the height of the Tories' in sensitivity they will quite

:16:10. > :16:14.literally leave no full rebel group untouched in their scramble to come

:16:15. > :16:18.as they say, balance the books. This policy will ultimately result in a

:16:19. > :16:22.complete abuse of rape victims' privacy leading to potentially

:16:23. > :16:35.serious emotional damage on children, should they become aware

:16:36. > :16:38.they are a child policy provision from tax credit and universal credit

:16:39. > :16:42.in order to ensure no child or victim should go through the torment

:16:43. > :16:49.associated with justifying a third child due to such a horrific crime

:16:50. > :16:54.being inflicted. I'm sure the honourable lady is about to

:16:55. > :16:58.conclude. If we as parliamentarians are here to legislate for those we

:16:59. > :17:02.represent, then let's legislate well and with compassion. And with good

:17:03. > :17:06.conscience. These provisions do not make good legislation, they are

:17:07. > :17:12.wrong for our society and wrong for this generation, so, please, think

:17:13. > :17:16.again and boat with us. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I spoke the

:17:17. > :17:20.other day about how tax credit reform is part of moving to the

:17:21. > :17:24.higher wage, higher productivity, hire opportunity economy that this

:17:25. > :17:26.Government is building. I have been talking to the Chancellor

:17:27. > :17:31.behind-the-scenes on welfare reform for many months and I can say he

:17:32. > :17:35.very much is listening. Welfare reform is, however, an essential

:17:36. > :17:41.part of the broad package of reforms that is helping return our nation

:17:42. > :17:56.and its people to a sound financial future, and the opposition offers no

:17:57. > :17:58.alternative. In my professional life before this House I was involved in

:17:59. > :18:01.the pensions and savings industry, and I know how important saving is

:18:02. > :18:04.to building people's future and their economic resilience. I believe

:18:05. > :18:09.reform of the National Insurance system is a good way to deal with

:18:10. > :18:13.hurdles to advancing at work and provide scope for transitional

:18:14. > :18:17.arrangements in the budget. This can address the impact of tax credit

:18:18. > :18:21.reform on those with the lowest regular incomes. Insurance

:18:22. > :18:25.businesses work by taking premiums from people and investing them over

:18:26. > :18:30.long periods, usually in dividend paying and other shares that grow in

:18:31. > :18:34.value substantially over time, to generate returns that are then

:18:35. > :18:37.available to those who need to claim on the skin. Unfortunately our

:18:38. > :18:48.current national insurance contributions are not invested the

:18:49. > :18:51.same way. They are spent year in, year out on the current claims of

:18:52. > :18:53.those using the NHS and state pension, or lent out to other

:18:54. > :18:55.Government departments for their spending. We should add major

:18:56. > :18:59.savings reform by reforming national insurance so that the genuine

:19:00. > :19:03.low-cost contribution investment scheme is created which people can

:19:04. > :19:06.use to supplement their entitlement under the state pension system

:19:07. > :19:10.itself and to make available under certain circumstances and head of

:19:11. > :19:14.retirement age. Credits could be offered to the lowest paid, even if

:19:15. > :19:17.they don't meet the threshold for payment of traditional national

:19:18. > :19:22.insurance, to kick off their contributions and get used to saving

:19:23. > :19:26.water supplement some payments by employers, or to provide

:19:27. > :19:29.transitional funds. These could be substantial. The investment scheme

:19:30. > :19:37.could be available to others who wanted to make a contribution. I

:19:38. > :19:40.believe this should be accompanied by tapering of the threshold for

:19:41. > :19:43.payment of the additional National Insurance contributions and tapering

:19:44. > :19:45.the rates to make the marginal incentive to work more efficient at

:19:46. > :19:50.the same time as letting people keep more of their earnings. This can be

:19:51. > :19:54.paid for by tapers on the higher limit and rate of national insurance

:19:55. > :19:59.obligations and entitlements for those on the highest incomes,

:20:00. > :20:02.particularly the entitlement eligibility of very high income

:20:03. > :20:07.retirees. I know that the principle is already established in the fact

:20:08. > :20:12.that state pension entitlement cannot pass in its entirety from

:20:13. > :20:17.spouse to spouse, and that entitlement to state pension is not

:20:18. > :20:20.an asset. Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe this measure could make

:20:21. > :20:26.available several billion pounds. But tax credit reform is not an

:20:27. > :20:31.option, it is essential to moving to a higher wage economy, better to

:20:32. > :20:36.provide for all of our futures. The form of national insurance is a neat

:20:37. > :20:39.solution, not inconsistent with our manifesto, neither is reform of the

:20:40. > :20:46.working tax credit system as part of our overall package of reform. I

:20:47. > :20:50.rise in support of new clause one although it is still not entirely

:20:51. > :20:56.clear to me what the Labour Party's position is on this. Here, the

:20:57. > :20:59.Labour Party have tabled new clause one, which is in effect a fatal

:21:00. > :21:04.motion, whereas in the other place they would only support transitional

:21:05. > :21:07.protection. I assume they are now fully opposed to the tax credits

:21:08. > :21:15.cuts. I won't give away because I have to finish at 2:57pm. Tax

:21:16. > :21:18.credits will hit 4000 families in my constituency, 7000 children and

:21:19. > :21:23.collectively they will lose something like ?4 million. These

:21:24. > :21:27.cuts are going to hit hard-working families who are struggling to make

:21:28. > :21:30.ends meet, and, perhaps most important ball from the

:21:31. > :21:34.Government's point of view, the changes will reduce the incentive to

:21:35. > :21:43.work, something which I thought the Government favoured. Contrary to my

:21:44. > :21:48.honourable friend, I do not think that tax credits are a pat on the

:21:49. > :21:55.head, I think they are something essential in terms of supporting

:21:56. > :22:00.families. I will give way briefly. The honourable gentleman did mention

:22:01. > :22:03.the fact that he was going to his beak about this. Will he not agree

:22:04. > :22:07.with me that when I spoke about a pat on the head I was talking about

:22:08. > :22:13.the original tax credit when nine out of ten families were receiving

:22:14. > :22:18.it, sometimes up to ?60,000 salaries are rather than low income? Changes

:22:19. > :22:23.were made to tax credits to take that into account. But I think what

:22:24. > :22:28.we now have is that tax credit are needed to support people who are in

:22:29. > :22:32.low paid work who are not suddenly going to see their salaries rise

:22:33. > :22:37.dramatically in a way that compensates them for the loss of tax

:22:38. > :22:39.credits. These cuts are regressive, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they

:22:40. > :22:43.should be opposed by this House, and I hope that will happen in relation

:22:44. > :22:51.to the boat that is about to take place in relation to new clause one.

:22:52. > :22:56.Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by welcoming the

:22:57. > :23:01.honourable member for Airdrie to his new position, I wish him well. And

:23:02. > :23:06.the honourable lady the Livingston in her new role as well. This would

:23:07. > :23:10.have amendments intends to prevent the Government from making future

:23:11. > :23:14.changes to controlled welfare spending. We can't support these

:23:15. > :23:19.amendments. The Government's approach is clear, our mission is to

:23:20. > :23:24.get wages up, taxes down and welfare under control. New clause 16 to

:23:25. > :23:30.revoke the tax credits regulations 2015 and new clause eight seeks to

:23:31. > :23:33.delay the introduction of the tax credit regulations until the

:23:34. > :23:37.Government has put in place a scheme of transitional protection for

:23:38. > :23:41.existing tax credit claimants for a minimum of three years. The House

:23:42. > :23:46.will recall the Government brought the boat on these regulations to the

:23:47. > :23:49.floor of the House on the 15th of September, rather than being

:23:50. > :23:55.scrutinised upstairs in committee, in order to allow for wider

:23:56. > :23:59.discussion on the regulations and allow all honourable members the

:24:00. > :24:04.opportunity to debate and vote on the issue, and this House voted in

:24:05. > :24:08.favour of the regulations. Further, this has discussed these regulations

:24:09. > :24:15.in the opposition day debate on the 20th of October and again voted in

:24:16. > :24:19.favour of them. As the House will also be aware, last night an elected

:24:20. > :24:24.Labour and Liberal Democrat Lords voted against tax credit

:24:25. > :24:28.regulations, raising constitutional issues that the Prime Minister will

:24:29. > :24:37.address. The Chancellor has said... I will. If the constitutional issue

:24:38. > :24:45.not that politicians should not lie to people in the manifesto? Well, I

:24:46. > :24:49.can only guess that the honourable lady is making a strange reference

:24:50. > :24:54.to the Conservative manifesto. We were very clear in our manifesto

:24:55. > :25:01.that we are still only halfway through the job of getting the

:25:02. > :25:04.deficit down to zero. It still stands at ?3300 for every household

:25:05. > :25:08.in the United Kingdom and we said, very clearly, in the election

:25:09. > :25:14.campaign that we needed to make, as part of that effort, ?12 billion of

:25:15. > :25:18.welfare savings. What was not, of course, in our manifesto, Madam

:25:19. > :25:24.Deputy Speaker, was the national living wage. Madam Deputy Speaker,

:25:25. > :25:27.the Chancellor has said he has listened to concerns from colleagues

:25:28. > :25:31.in this House and will come forward with proposals in the Autumn

:25:32. > :25:35.Statement to achieve the goal of reforming the tax credits, saving

:25:36. > :25:39.the money needed to secure our economy while at the same time

:25:40. > :25:43.helping in the transition to these changes. I do not believe these new

:25:44. > :25:49.clauses are appropriate, therefore, for inclusion in the bill. I now

:25:50. > :25:53.turn to amendments 49-52, which in tend to prevent the freeze of

:25:54. > :25:57.working age benefits and child benefits and tax credits for four

:25:58. > :26:01.years. The freeze of the main rates of the majority of working age

:26:02. > :26:10.benefits, child benefit and tax credits, will, in total, contribute

:26:11. > :26:15.some ?3.5 billion of savings by 2019-20 two the objective of deficit

:26:16. > :26:19.elimination which we were just discussing. It will further put

:26:20. > :26:22.welfare on a fairer and more sustainable footing, so we can

:26:23. > :26:26.continue investment in our National Health Service and in our schools

:26:27. > :26:32.even as we get the national finances back into balance. Madam Deputy

:26:33. > :26:39.Speaker, there is an imbalance in a system which, as my honourable

:26:40. > :26:44.friend pointed out so well, a system which has seen average earnings rise

:26:45. > :26:50.by 12% since 2008, whereas working age benefits such as jobseeker's

:26:51. > :26:54.allowance have risen by 21%, and to the individual element of child tax

:26:55. > :27:01.credit has risen by 33%. This freeze will help reverse that trend,

:27:02. > :27:03.helping earnings to grow faster than benefits for the strengthening

:27:04. > :27:08.incentives to work and deliver the savings necessary to bring the

:27:09. > :27:11.overall welfare bill down. Nonetheless, the Government will

:27:12. > :27:14.continue to offer protections to the most vulnerable. We know the best

:27:15. > :27:18.way to support people is to help them move closer to the Labour

:27:19. > :27:23.market, but of course we also realise that this isn't possible for

:27:24. > :27:28.everyone. That is why we have made many important exemptions to the

:27:29. > :27:32.four-year freeze. We have exempted pensioner related benefits, personal

:27:33. > :27:43.independence payment, disability allowance and attendance allowance

:27:44. > :27:44.relating to the additional, as well as statutory payments, carers

:27:45. > :27:45.allowance, the support group component of EFA, and disability

:27:46. > :27:56.element in tax credits. I'm grateful to my honourable friend

:27:57. > :27:58.for giving way. The list he has given to the House underscores

:27:59. > :28:04.entirely the compassionate conservative approach which we are

:28:05. > :28:12.taking the these issues. In sharp contrast to the parties opposite who

:28:13. > :28:17.seek to lecture but have no remedy. Madam Deputy Speaker, he is right.

:28:18. > :28:31.It is right that those exemptions are made. Amendment 53... I will.

:28:32. > :28:37.Can the member be clear that the half a million disabled people

:28:38. > :28:44.receiving employment support allowance will not be protected

:28:45. > :28:48.under the measures he just outlined? People in the work-related activity

:28:49. > :28:55.group, by definition, are people who are to be helped to move closer to

:28:56. > :29:02.the labour market. I have said in the list of exemptions that I have

:29:03. > :29:07.read out that the amount which is specific to the additional cost of

:29:08. > :29:11.disability is protected. As we discussed in committee. If you will

:29:12. > :29:19.forgive me because I need to have stopped by three or 5pm. Amendment

:29:20. > :29:24.53 and 55 seek to remove clauses 11 and 12 from the Bill and Amendment

:29:25. > :29:28.54 seeks to retain the payment of the family element of tax credit for

:29:29. > :29:35.all persons responsible for a child or young person born before 2022.

:29:36. > :29:39.The government wants to ensure that the system is fair to those who pay

:29:40. > :29:45.for it as well as those who benefit from it. Radley, benefits system

:29:46. > :29:49.adjusts automatically to family size, while for many families who

:29:50. > :29:56.are only in receipt of income from work, they would not see the budgets

:29:57. > :29:58.change in the same way when they have more children. The government

:29:59. > :30:03.wants to encourage families in receipt of benefits to make the same

:30:04. > :30:08.financial choices about the number of children as those families

:30:09. > :30:12.supporting themselves solely through income from work. If you will

:30:13. > :30:16.forgive me. That is why the government has proposed changes to

:30:17. > :30:19.child tax credit and the Universal Credit set out in clause 11 and

:30:20. > :30:24.class 12 respectively. The government will look at the

:30:25. > :30:28.important issues around exemptions through secondary legislation which

:30:29. > :30:36.is a better way of dealing with these matters as we discussed in

:30:37. > :30:41.committee. We looked at -- it can be done with proper reflection and

:30:42. > :30:44.working together with experts. I want to make it clear that the

:30:45. > :30:52.changes will not affect families already receiving the child and

:30:53. > :30:54.family element including such families who subsequently leave

:30:55. > :30:59.Universal Credit for a period of less than six months and families

:31:00. > :31:03.who make a new claim who have been in receipt of tax credits for more

:31:04. > :31:07.than two children in the last six months. In addition, the government

:31:08. > :31:10.will continue to support larger families through child benefit, paid

:31:11. > :31:17.for all qualifying children in a household, and at a higher rate for

:31:18. > :31:21.the first child. In conclusion, these amendments oppose our clear

:31:22. > :31:26.mandate to find welfare savings and to restore fairness to the system by

:31:27. > :31:30.making sure that wealth pays -- work pays. We have balanced the vital

:31:31. > :31:33.task of making sure that spending is under control, while ensuring that

:31:34. > :31:38.support is there for those who need it most. I urge honourable members

:31:39. > :31:43.to withdraw these amendments. The question is that new clause one be

:31:44. > :31:44.read a second time. As many as are of that opinion see aye. On the

:31:45. > :33:17.contrary, no. Clear the lobby. read a second time. As many as are

:33:18. > :33:26.of that opinion see aye. On the contrary, no. Vicky Foxcroft, and

:33:27. > :39:50.Angela Rayner. For the now smack, Simon Kirby. -- noes.

:39:51. > :44:26.Order, order! The ayes to the right, 281, the noes

:44:27. > :44:35.to the left, 320. The ayes to the right, 281, the noes

:44:36. > :44:41.to the left, 320. The noes have it, the noes habit. New clause eight to

:44:42. > :44:44.be moved formally? The question is that new clause eight be added to

:44:45. > :44:50.the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the

:44:51. > :47:04.contrary, "no". Division, clear the lobby.

:47:05. > :47:12.The question is that new clause eight be added to the bill. As many

:47:13. > :52:56.as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no".

:52:57. > :56:43.Order, order! The ayes to the right, 285. The noes

:56:44. > :56:52.to the left, 319. The ayes to the right, 285. The noes

:56:53. > :56:56.to the left, 319. The noes habit, the noes habit.

:56:57. > :57:02.Unlock. We now continue clause two with which it will be convenient to

:57:03. > :57:17.consider new clauses 3-5, new clause seven and new clauses amendments

:57:18. > :57:22.35-48, 56, 29, 31, 21, and 57-65. To move new clause two?

:57:23. > :57:33.It is a pleasure to be here, my first occasion at the dispatch box.

:57:34. > :57:38.Madam Deputy Speaker, at the time of the second reading, I conveyed my

:57:39. > :57:46.concerns about the bill that is currently going through the House. I

:57:47. > :57:50.am afraid, after a few weeks in committee, I have not changed my

:57:51. > :57:58.opinion. I said then I thought it was a wicked Bill and I still feel

:57:59. > :58:04.that. Amendments 56 and 20, which I will speak to first, if I may, seek

:58:05. > :58:10.to leave out clause 13 and 14 to prevent the cuts to the work-related

:58:11. > :58:14.act and to the limited capability to work element for Universal Credit.

:58:15. > :58:19.We believe it is unjust and unfair that disabled people and people with

:58:20. > :58:24.serious health conditions who have been assessed as part of the work

:58:25. > :58:28.capability assessment process has not capable for work should have the

:58:29. > :58:40.Social Security support cut by nearly ?30 from ?102.15 to ?73.

:58:41. > :58:44.There is compelling evidence which analysed the additional costs facing

:58:45. > :58:49.disabled people and found that on average they spend an extra ?550 a

:58:50. > :58:54.month associated with the disability. The government's

:58:55. > :58:59.proposed cuts to people is on top of a whole host of other cuts for

:59:00. > :59:08.disabled people since 2010. It has been estimated that by 2018, 20 8p

:59:09. > :59:13.will have been taken from 3.8 million disabled people. And with

:59:14. > :59:21.the policy changes as part of the welfare reform act. This cut is on

:59:22. > :59:26.top of the frieze to other Social Security support and ?3.6 billion in

:59:27. > :59:33.cuts to social care. The Member for Pontypridd has already argued for

:59:34. > :59:40.the need for a cumulative assessment of the benefit cuts, as defined in

:59:41. > :59:44.clause two. But why has this not happened already? And why has the

:59:45. > :59:48.government is not also undertaken a tumour of impact assessment of the

:59:49. > :59:51.latest proposed cuts on disabled people, given this is a requirement

:59:52. > :59:59.under the 2010 the 2010 equalities act? Why I am grateful to the

:00:00. > :00:04.Minister for her response to me raising this in committee, there is

:00:05. > :00:07.the inference that there is only one model that can be used to analyse

:00:08. > :00:12.the distributional effects of a policy. And that is a flawed

:00:13. > :00:16.judgment. Indeed, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is surprised

:00:17. > :00:21.by the suggestion that this cumulative modelling is not

:00:22. > :00:25.possible, given that they are also undertaking a cumulative impact

:00:26. > :00:28.assessment. I understand that the commissioner has written to the

:00:29. > :00:35.government is to highlight the resources available to do this work

:00:36. > :00:38.and perhaps again in the minister's response, they will be able to

:00:39. > :00:43.enlighten us with whether they have changed their mind. In the same

:00:44. > :00:47.way, the government has failed to provide the evidence to substantiate

:00:48. > :00:51.the claim that working families on low incomes will be better off in

:00:52. > :00:55.spite of having tax credits taken from them. For example, through the

:00:56. > :00:59.introduction of the new national minimum wage and changes to personal

:01:00. > :01:04.allowances or extending childcare. The meagre offering of an impact

:01:05. > :01:08.assessment on clauses 13 and 14 has failed to provide reassurance to

:01:09. > :01:12.disabled people that they will not be subjected to serious financial

:01:13. > :01:15.hardship. Although the assessment estimates that approximately 500,000

:01:16. > :01:21.disabled people and their families will be affected by this cut, there

:01:22. > :01:25.is no analysis of the impact that this will have on a number of

:01:26. > :01:28.disabled people who will be pushed into poverty. We know that disabled

:01:29. > :01:36.people are twice as likely... I'm happy to give way. I am not sure if

:01:37. > :01:42.my my honourable present about an hour ago when the Minister suggested

:01:43. > :01:47.from the front bench that this was a good idea for people on the

:01:48. > :01:55.work-related activity group, to lose 30% of the benefits, because the

:01:56. > :02:01.reason for it is to move them near employment. How ridiculous it is

:02:02. > :02:05.that?! I agree with my honourable friend. I will move onto the section

:02:06. > :02:10.specifically about incentivising work and how, example, people with

:02:11. > :02:22.progressive conditions, how can you incentivise them? I am grateful to

:02:23. > :02:26.you. On the specific issue of trying to help people in the work-related

:02:27. > :02:31.activity group get into work, does she agree with me that the current

:02:32. > :02:36.system is not working as it should be and we need to spend more money

:02:37. > :02:40.in helping them to find jobs because it is harder for them to find jobs

:02:41. > :02:48.than other people. That is precisely why we should be transferring money

:02:49. > :02:52.towards helping them to get jobs. I thank the honourable gentleman for

:02:53. > :03:03.his intervention but his question belies the fact. ?640 million is

:03:04. > :03:07.being withdrawn. 100 million is defined as meant to be providing

:03:08. > :03:14.support in some undisclosed manner. There is no information from the

:03:15. > :03:19.government about how this will support disabled people to get back

:03:20. > :03:23.into work. If I could move on. Again, there is no analysis of the

:03:24. > :03:27.impact this will have on a number of disabled people being pushed into

:03:28. > :03:33.poverty. As I mentioned a moment ago, disabled people are twice as

:03:34. > :03:38.likely to live with persistent poverty as non-disabled people and

:03:39. > :03:43.80% of disability poverty is caused by excess costs. Last year, there

:03:44. > :03:48.was an increase in 2% of disabled people pushed into poverty, the

:03:49. > :03:51.equivalent of 300,000 people. Again, the Minister's recent reply to me

:03:52. > :03:59.did not address this particular point so I would be grateful if they

:04:00. > :04:02.could explain, given that half a million disabled people will be

:04:03. > :04:06.affected and will lose ?30 a week, nearly a third of the weekly and

:04:07. > :04:09.come, what is the government's estimate of the increase in the

:04:10. > :04:15.number of disabled people living in poverty? Again,... I am happy to

:04:16. > :04:20.give way. I welcome my honourable friend to her rightful place on our

:04:21. > :04:24.benches. Is she aware that in the other place, although it will carry

:04:25. > :04:29.out an independent review, that they will look at poverty? Would she

:04:30. > :04:33.encourage the government to interact with that, particularly around

:04:34. > :04:38.poverty and the impact on health and local authority costs as a result of

:04:39. > :04:46.this reduction? Again, my honourable friend makes a great point. And the

:04:47. > :04:50.HRC are able to undertake this analysis. Other organisations, other

:04:51. > :04:53.bodies are doing this. So why not the government? Surely this is what

:04:54. > :04:58.we should expect from the government in terms of how they are in

:04:59. > :05:03.permitting policy. There are real concerns from disabled charities and

:05:04. > :05:09.disabled groups, and also from Lord Holmes, the chair of the HRC's

:05:10. > :05:14.disability committee. They believe the extent to which the impact on

:05:15. > :05:20.disabled people has been fully assessed is of real concern. In

:05:21. > :05:26.relation to incentivising work, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might

:05:27. > :05:29.remember at the second reading that the Secretary of State stated that

:05:30. > :05:33.the current system discourages claimants from making transitions

:05:34. > :05:37.into work. And what about people with progressive conditions such as

:05:38. > :05:42.Parkinson's, MS or motor neuron disease? They have no prospect of

:05:43. > :05:49.recovery. They have undergone a work capability assessment and have been

:05:50. > :05:52.found not fit to work. As the government seriously saying that

:05:53. > :05:56.this measure is going to incentivise this group of disabled people into

:05:57. > :06:00.work? They have already been found not able to work through the

:06:01. > :06:02.government's on assessment process. The condition is not going to

:06:03. > :06:11.change, it is a progressive condition. Can I also welcome my

:06:12. > :06:17.honourable friend to the front bench and can I raise with her, as the

:06:18. > :06:21.chairman of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy, the information

:06:22. > :06:25.they have shared with me is that this will actually have the opposite

:06:26. > :06:28.effect of what is supposed to be happening. Rather than being an

:06:29. > :06:33.incentive, it will mean that people will struggle to carry on with the

:06:34. > :06:38.independence that they need, because the difference of this ?30 is, I

:06:39. > :06:40.will not be able to get my mobility benefit and I will not be able to

:06:41. > :06:44.get around as well, so I will be get around as well, so I will be

:06:45. > :06:48.less likely to get work than if I was left the way I was. My

:06:49. > :06:52.honourable friend makes an entirely valid point. In terms of

:06:53. > :06:56.incentivising people to work, disabled people will find it more

:06:57. > :07:00.and more difficult to live lives that are fulfilling, that enabled

:07:01. > :07:03.them to make contact and to fulfil their potential, as everybody should

:07:04. > :07:14.have the right to do. I will give way. I am most grateful. I am also

:07:15. > :07:24.the chairman of the MS all-party group. I wonder if she takes heart,

:07:25. > :07:31.as I do, that ministers on the side of the House are part of a party

:07:32. > :07:34.which brought forward by new legislation with regards to

:07:35. > :07:38.disability rights, and that should give us a comfort that ministers on

:07:39. > :07:44.the Treasury bench will make sure that no policy will leave people

:07:45. > :07:52.behind. Again, I thank the honourable gentleman for his

:07:53. > :07:55.comments, and I think it is right that we acknowledge the role in 1995

:07:56. > :08:00.of the then government in bringing through the disability

:08:01. > :08:05.discrimination act. I think it is entirely right to acknowledge that

:08:06. > :08:14.but this bill flies in the face of that legacy. I hope that at the end

:08:15. > :08:21.of today, the government will be able to such reassurance because

:08:22. > :08:27.there has been nothing put in to date. During the Bill committee, the

:08:28. > :08:40.ministers said that these cuts will not affect currently on this... But

:08:41. > :08:45.does that mean that people... Will people be deemed to have a different

:08:46. > :08:47.form of this regressive condition? Will they require different or less

:08:48. > :08:53.support or will the government finally accepted that apart from

:08:54. > :08:57.being dehumanising and exacerbating the work conditions, this system is

:08:58. > :09:05.not fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul so the people are

:09:06. > :09:09.not placed in the ES a rag group. Madame Debbie Speaker, if the

:09:10. > :09:15.government was serious about supporting disabled people into

:09:16. > :09:29.work, the would-be measures in place to help them. There are only 68

:09:30. > :09:33.employers who currently act to support the 1.3 million disabled

:09:34. > :09:41.people who are able to and want to work. Does the government also

:09:42. > :09:45.intend to have that system extended to work beyond those who moved into

:09:46. > :09:48.a new job last year? What is going to happen about the appalling ratio

:09:49. > :09:56.of one disability employment adviser to 600 disabled people? What?! What

:09:57. > :10:04.are the estimate on the impact to disabled people from this measure.

:10:05. > :10:07.My honourable friend has just said the most astounding thing I have

:10:08. > :10:18.heard in the chamber for a very long time. One work adviser for 600

:10:19. > :10:25.people? So in the course of a year, each person might get attention once

:10:26. > :10:31.in that year? Has been any assessment of the absurdity and the

:10:32. > :10:34.ineffectiveness of that, as contrasted with the marvellous

:10:35. > :10:41.suggestions from the Member for Gloucester that we were hearing a

:10:42. > :10:45.little while ago (!). This was actually a figure that was revealed

:10:46. > :10:51.in our work as a Select Committee when I was on that Select Committee.

:10:52. > :10:56.Yes, it was absolutely shocking that if we are trying to say that this

:10:57. > :11:01.bill is about encouraging people into work, there are absolutely no

:11:02. > :11:06.measures in place in the Bill that support it. My next point is, what

:11:07. > :11:10.exactly is the work bit in this welfare reform work Bill? We're at

:11:11. > :11:14.the report stage, and we have still not and should these basic

:11:15. > :11:20.questions. All we know from the government's impact assessment is

:11:21. > :11:23.that by 2020, approximately ?640 a year will have been cut from Social

:11:24. > :11:29.Security support to disabled people and that is on top of the ?23.8

:11:30. > :11:33.billion that has already been taken from disabled people in terms of

:11:34. > :11:37.support. And ?100 million a year which will be providing unspecified

:11:38. > :11:41.supports to help disabled people into work. Quite frankly, it is a

:11:42. > :11:47.disgrace and disabled people deserve better than this. Madam Deputy

:11:48. > :11:50.Speaker, you will recall, I am sure, the government's reluctance to

:11:51. > :11:59.publish data on the people on incapacity benefit and employment

:12:00. > :12:03.support allowance who died. And on the Thursday before the last August

:12:04. > :12:06.bank holiday, five months after the Information Commissioner had ruled

:12:07. > :12:11.that the government must publish this data, it was finally published.

:12:12. > :12:27.This data reveals that the death rates for people on IBESA in 2013

:12:28. > :12:30.was four times... People in the ES a support group are 6.3 times more

:12:31. > :12:36.likely to die than the general population and people in the ESA

:12:37. > :12:40.WRAG group, the group that we are intending, through this bill, to

:12:41. > :12:44.deduct a third of their weekly income, I'm more than twice as

:12:45. > :12:49.likely to die. 2.2 times more likely to die than the general population.

:12:50. > :12:53.The government has continually tried to malign, vilify and demonise

:12:54. > :12:59.people on disability and other Social Security benefits. Calling

:13:00. > :13:00.them shirkers and scroungers. And that has been picked up by the

:13:01. > :13:11.media. I'm very grateful to the honourable

:13:12. > :13:17.lady, who hitherto has been getting the very fought for and considered

:13:18. > :13:21.speech -- very thoughtful. It may not be up to me as a new member of

:13:22. > :13:24.the House to say it but the last line she has uttered has

:13:25. > :13:33.fundamentally undermined the cause of her argument and I would invite

:13:34. > :13:38.her to reconsider it. I appreciate it is strong language. I do

:13:39. > :13:43.appreciate that. But I can only provide... Can I finish, if I may? I

:13:44. > :13:47.can only provide him with the evidence. In 2010, the use of the

:13:48. > :13:59.term scrounger by the mainstream press has increased by more than

:14:00. > :14:03.330%. We should always be mindful in terms of the language we use as

:14:04. > :14:17.leaders, and how this is perpetuated. This is maintained... I

:14:18. > :14:23.hope that... Can I advertise my honourable friend not to take any

:14:24. > :14:26.lectures from the team opposite when they are asking you to calm down in

:14:27. > :14:32.terms of your language against the disabled, because constantly for the

:14:33. > :14:36.last five years they have targeted disabled people, poor people, and

:14:37. > :14:50.low-paid people in this country. No apologies required! One of the

:14:51. > :14:55.reasons I have used this language to draw this to the House's attention

:14:56. > :15:05.and more widely, because I am sure I am not the only one who remembers

:15:06. > :15:08.the Autumn Statement a few years ago when the Chancellor used language

:15:09. > :15:12.about closed curtains and people were going out to work and it was

:15:13. > :15:19.clear what was in third in that, so I use this language very carefully.

:15:20. > :15:29.I think we all have responsibility and iris speeds -- and I repeat, 330

:15:30. > :15:33.times more the language in the media and we all have responsibility,

:15:34. > :15:37.including leaders in this country. The innuendo is that people with a

:15:38. > :15:40.disability or illness might be feigning death, and it is

:15:41. > :15:48.frighteningly grotesque. As a former public health consultant I speak

:15:49. > :15:52.with some knowledge in this. It is recognised incapacity benefit and

:15:53. > :15:57.ESA are good population health indicators, and that should be

:15:58. > :16:03.recognised. The release of the Government's own data proves this

:16:04. > :16:05.point. Disabled people on ESA WRAG are a vulnerable group of people who

:16:06. > :16:13.need our care and support, not humiliation. Can I give her an

:16:14. > :16:18.invitation to come to the opportunities fair in my

:16:19. > :16:23.constituency on November the 6th, specifically focused on helping

:16:24. > :16:27.people in the WRAG category of ESA to find opportunities to find their

:16:28. > :16:30.way back into work? It will be similar in tone to the first

:16:31. > :16:34.disability confident there that we held a year ago and I'm sure she

:16:35. > :16:38.would want to encourage members on all sides of the House to hold these

:16:39. > :16:48.events and champion people like that trying to find jobs. Can I ask him

:16:49. > :16:52.then, in return, two also ask how members of his constituency who are

:16:53. > :16:58.on ESA WRAG will be affected and whether in fact they will have to

:16:59. > :17:02.cut back on such journeys and workfare is because of the cut the

:17:03. > :17:07.Government is likely to impose? Up and down the country there is good

:17:08. > :17:13.word about supporting people back into work. This measure is not one

:17:14. > :17:18.of them. I'm afraid I'm not going to give way any more, I'm conscious of

:17:19. > :17:25.time. These cuts are punitive and wrong. They fly in the face of the

:17:26. > :17:29.Conservative party's pledge to protect disabled people's benefits.

:17:30. > :17:33.With this cut to ESA W WRAG support, without anything to replace it, the

:17:34. > :17:39.Government is condemning more disabled people and their families

:17:40. > :17:44.to live in poverty. I will be urging all members to do the right thing to

:17:45. > :17:50.have clause 13 and 14 removed from the bill. Moving on to new clause

:17:51. > :17:52.four, this requires that the Government undertake a full

:17:53. > :17:59.independent review of their sanctions regime by the of March

:18:00. > :18:03.2016. It is with considerable regret that after the work and pensions

:18:04. > :18:07.select committee report earlier this year which also recommended an

:18:08. > :18:11.independent review on benefit sanctions, that the Government has

:18:12. > :18:15.failed to recognise the real concerns with their new sanctions

:18:16. > :18:20.regime, either in response to the bill committee or in response to the

:18:21. > :18:24.Select Committee's report. I have been campaigning for an independent

:18:25. > :18:28.review into sanctions for nearly two years now and in that time not only

:18:29. > :18:32.have I had constituents coming to me with stories of how they have been

:18:33. > :18:35.sanctioned, for example a constituent going through a work

:18:36. > :18:39.capability assessment was told he was having a heart attack while

:18:40. > :18:43.undergoing the assessment and told to go to hospital only to receive a

:18:44. > :18:47.letter to weeks later to say he had been sanctioned. In addition to

:18:48. > :18:52.that, people up and down the country have got in touch with their stories

:18:53. > :18:55.of how they had been sanctioned, for example for being a few minutes late

:18:56. > :19:00.to an appointment with an adviser, but increasingly got quite

:19:01. > :19:04.unreasonable issues are such as attending their mother's funeral,

:19:05. > :19:10.being hospitalised, or, absurdly, for going to a job interview. But

:19:11. > :19:15.then there was another category of reasons for being sanctioned, and I

:19:16. > :19:18.still have the e-mail from one of my constituents who has received a

:19:19. > :19:22.letter saying he will be sanctioned for nonattendance in a meeting with

:19:23. > :19:28.his adviser at the job centre, but he had evidence that he had been

:19:29. > :19:33.there! The penny dropped when, again, another of my constituents

:19:34. > :19:38.who had worked in job centres across greater Manchester the 20 years came

:19:39. > :19:42.to me and told me that, as part of the new sanctions regime introduced

:19:43. > :19:46.at the end of 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions had targets

:19:47. > :19:50.for sanctions. As he described it, claimants were deliberately being

:19:51. > :19:56.set up to fail whether they had done anything wrong or not. The work and

:19:57. > :20:01.pensions select committee also became concerned whilst conducting

:20:02. > :20:05.their inquiry in 2013 into the role of Jobcentre plus in the reformed

:20:06. > :20:09.welfare system and at that stage recommended that, I quote, DWP

:20:10. > :20:13.should launch a second broader independent review of conditionality

:20:14. > :20:16.and sanctions to include investigation of whether the process

:20:17. > :20:19.is being applied appropriately, fairly, proportionately and in

:20:20. > :20:26.accordance with the rules across the job centre network.

:20:27. > :20:32.I am grateful. I'm concerned about the issue she made about Targett

:20:33. > :20:37.sanctions, it is a serious allegation to make. It is possible

:20:38. > :20:43.to meet people from all. Walks of life who may have some professional

:20:44. > :20:49.insight but their word alone is not enough. Can she substantiate what

:20:50. > :20:54.she found out to make us believe it is genuinely true? The honourable

:20:55. > :20:58.gentleman makes my point for me, that is why we need the independent

:20:59. > :21:02.review. There was enough evidence to leave real concerns about this. The

:21:03. > :21:07.Select Committee thought the minister had agreed to this but, as

:21:08. > :21:11.stated in paragraph 100 in the report, unfortunately the minister

:21:12. > :21:16.reneges on this promise. In addition to these serious ethical issues,

:21:17. > :21:21.there were and still are concerns about a number of people affected

:21:22. > :21:26.and particularly in the case of ESA claimants, the meteoric rise in the

:21:27. > :21:35.use of sanctions. Thank you for giving way. Do you recall, may I

:21:36. > :21:40.remind you that in the summertime, the honourable member, in the

:21:41. > :21:43.summertime the Department for work and pensions admitted inventing

:21:44. > :21:49.quotes from fake benefits claimants for sanctions leaflets, and the

:21:50. > :21:53.sanctions leaflets had to be withdrawn pretty quickly. I don't

:21:54. > :21:57.know if you remember that. Again, my honourable friend makes such a

:21:58. > :22:00.valuable point. This is one of the reasons why this needs to be

:22:01. > :22:05.investigated, why we need to have an independent review, and this is the

:22:06. > :22:09.final time I will give way. I am grateful and May I congratulate the

:22:10. > :22:12.honourable lady on her position at the dispatch box. You have done far

:22:13. > :22:20.better than I did. I sat with the honourable lady on the work and

:22:21. > :22:22.pensions select committee into the evidence for benefit sanctions

:22:23. > :22:24.target and we did not find any evidence on the job centres we

:22:25. > :22:30.visited during that investigation. I have two outstanding job centres and

:22:31. > :22:34.have seen no evidence of any targets whatsoever. How can she stand at the

:22:35. > :22:37.dispatch box and said there are targets for sanctions when there is

:22:38. > :22:42.no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that they exist? I thank

:22:43. > :22:48.the honourable gentleman for his kind of Marx and I understand his

:22:49. > :22:56.wife is also working in the Jobcentre plus another previous

:22:57. > :22:58.life. But my whole point again, reiterating my response to the

:22:59. > :23:02.honourable gentleman, was that, yes, there is some evidence it is

:23:03. > :23:05.happening but we need to have a better view and understanding, and

:23:06. > :23:13.that is why we need an independent review. I'm grateful to my

:23:14. > :23:16.honourable friend forgiving way. If there were an independent review,

:23:17. > :23:20.does she agree with me that it would be really good to take evidence from

:23:21. > :23:25.the National Audit Office, who said that it may not be that the targets,

:23:26. > :23:29.from an office in the Minister's office, but the performance

:23:30. > :23:32.management of the job centre amounts to targets, because what they

:23:33. > :23:37.measure does not take account of the numbers of people who are supposed

:23:38. > :23:41.to go back into work or the quality of the advice they are given. Again,

:23:42. > :23:47.she makes a valid point, the fact that there are targets, and again

:23:48. > :23:52.the Select Committee reported on this, for getting people of low,

:23:53. > :24:01.getting them off the books, they themselves are targets. So, in

:24:02. > :24:09.addition to the very serious ethical issues, let me come unto that, I

:24:10. > :24:13.will show exactly why we believe this is happening. Very serious

:24:14. > :24:19.ethical issues, there has also been the meteoric rise in the use of

:24:20. > :24:27.sanctions, so ESA sanctions have increased from 60,360 degrees

:24:28. > :24:32.between June 2010 October 2012, the 245,679 between November 2012 and

:24:33. > :24:40.March 2015, and that corresponds with when the new sanctions regime

:24:41. > :24:45.was introduced. People on DSA are people who are disabled or have

:24:46. > :24:48.serious health conditions. The new sanctions regime is also

:24:49. > :24:55.particularly punitive, so it is not just a week or two that you are

:24:56. > :24:59.without financial support. The minimum is now four weeks.

:25:00. > :25:06.Subsequent misdemeanours can mean up to three years sanctions, previously

:25:07. > :25:11.the maximum was six. It has particularly affected young people,

:25:12. > :25:15.disabled people and lone parents. In 2013-14 it became clear that

:25:16. > :25:19.although no other benefits, for example housing benefit, were meant

:25:20. > :25:24.to be affected, that was not happening, so automatically in some

:25:25. > :25:28.cases housing benefit was being stopped, and obviously you can see

:25:29. > :25:34.the implications in terms of families getting into debt as a

:25:35. > :25:38.result of this. The fact that since January 2014 on aborigine and half