27/10/2015 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Tuesday in Parliament.

The main news from Westminster: calls on the Chancellor

to reverse the cut in tax credits

after the government's defeat in the Lords.

If he brings forward proposals to reverse the cuts to tax credits,

clearly and in full, he will not be attacked by this side of the House.

Indeed, he will be applauded.

And magistrates tell MPs they know of cases where people are

people are attempting to plead guilty to keep their costs down.

Some magistrates have refused to accept an equivocal plea.

In other words, a plea that is a not-guilty,

but they have pleaded guilty.

Some magistrates have refused to accept that plea.

But first, the morning after the night before, and

George Osborne has responded to the defeat the House of Lords inflicted

on the government during the vote on the changes to tax credits.

At Treasury questions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told

MPs the government would continue to reform tax credits.

But it would work to lessen the impact on people who claim them.

Last night, unelected Labour and Liberal peers

voted down the financial measures on tax credits approved

by this elected House of Commons.

That raises clear constitutional issues which we will deal with.

We will continue to reform tax credits and save the money needed,

so that Britain lives within its means, while, at the same time,

lessening the impact on families during the transition.

I will set out the plans in the Autumn Statement.

We remain as determined as ever to build the low tax, low welfare, high

wage economy that Britain needs, and the British people want to see.

Wes Streeting.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

If the Chancellor had listened to the evidence from the outset,

he wouldn't be in this mess, and if his backbenchers had voted

with their feet, with their consciences, there would

be an alignment of opinion between this House and the Other Place.

Instead of manufacturing a phoney constitutional crisis,

why won't he put his toys back in the pram, and appreciate he needs

to go back to the drawing board with his failed policy that

hits working people the hardest?

We will deliver the welfare savings that we were elected to deliver.

We will help people in transition to that lower welfare,

higher wage economy.

Does the Chancellor agree that whatever arguments there may be

in this House on the tax credit dispute, in overturning the settled

will of the elected Chamber, the unelected Lords have exercised a

power that a Chamber of Parliament in the tax area,

where for at least 100 years, it has been well established that

they should have only the legitimacy of a consultative assembly.

I think that the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee

makes an important point.

On only five occasions in recent decades

has the House of Lords ever blocked or rejected a statutory instrument.

Never on a financial matter.

And we had a whole range of opinions, from Lord Butler,

the former Cabinet Secretary, to constitutional experts like

Vernon Bogdanor, telling us yesterday

that this was unprecedented.

It is something that we are going to have to address.

The Prime Minister has made that very clear.

And that is what we have got to do to make sure that the elected

House of Commons is responsible for the tax-and-spend decisions that

affect the people of this country.

The Chancellor is in denial.

Is it not the case, Mr Speaker, absolute denial, that yesterday,

26th of October, demonstrated two things?

The Chancellor has lost his political touch, and his chance of

being Prime Minister has just gone up in a puff of ermine-clad smoke.

Well, as ever, when pressed, actually, all they want to talk

about is party political games, rather than sorting out the mess

that this country was in six or seven years ago, and as a result of

the changes we have made, there are hundreds of thousands of

more people in Scotland with jobs.

Businesses are investing in Scotland, as they are

across the United Kingdom.

And we will go on making those changes.

The 3 million people out there, who have done everything asked

of them, bringing up their children, going to work, this

is not a constitutional matter.

They will lose ?1300 a year.

Can I, given what happened on the Other Place last night,

can I reassure the Chancellor that, if he brings forward proposals to

reverse the cuts to tax credits, fairly and in full, he will not be

attacked by this side of the House.

Indeed, he will be...Indeed, he will be applauded.

But, can he assure us that whatever proposals he brings forward,

he will not support any that an independent assessment demonstrates

will cause any child to be forced to live below the poverty line?

There is a difference between those who say we want to make no savings

to welfare at all, we want to abolish things like the benefit cap,

who are not prepared to make savings at all to the tax credit system and

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

but we want help in the transition.

Now, if he has proposals to help in the transition,

of course I will listen to them.

But if he is again promoting uncapped

welfare and unlimited borrowing, then I don't think the British

people are going to listen to him.

The Chancellor has a choice before him.

He can push on with the tax giveaways to

multinational corporations.

He can press on with tax cuts to the wealthiest

few in inheritance tax, that he announced in his summer Budget.

Or, he can reverse those tax breaks to the few and instead go

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

in a position to avoid penalising 3 million working families with these

tax credit cuts and stick to his self-imposed charter.

Is he prepared to listen to reason on this matter?

Is he willing, or is anyone on that side prepared to step up and

show some leadership on this issue?

He says, abandon your surplus rule, run a deficit for ever,

I profoundly disagree with that central judgment.

I think that, if you borrow for ever,

if you are not prepared to make difficult decisions on welfare,

you are going to condemn this country to decline.

And that means that, as a result, people are going to become

unemployed and living standards are going to fall.

That is not the Britain I want to see.

We are going to go on taking those difficult decisions,

to deliver that lower welfare, lower tax, higher wage economy.

And this elected House of Commons is going to go on promoting the

economic plan that delivers that.

How much would the Chancellor save to the public purse

by abolishing the House of Lords?

LAUGHTER AND SHOUTS OF "HEAR, HEAR!"

Now, now, that is a very decent proposal

for the Autumn Statement, which we will give proper consideration to!

MPs were not finished with the subject just yet.

After Treasury questions, one MP wanted an emergency debate

on tax credits, saying she needed reassurance

for the families affected.

I seek leave to propose that the House should debate

a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.

Namely, the uncertainty caused to millions of UK families,

following the vote on tax credits in the House of Lords yesterday.

Even our unelected, unaccountable and, in my view,

rather bloated second Chamber unites to tell the government that they've

got it very wrong.

Then, it is incumbent on the government to listen.

When even the leader of the Tory party

in Scotland tells her own government that these tax credits are,

"not acceptable" and that they need to think again, then it is incumbent

on the government to listen.

The Speaker did not grant Dr Whiteford

the emergency debate and it prompted a flood of points of order.

Across the House, there is a great deal of genuine

concern about the implications of events in the unelected Chamber

last night, and many of us would welcome your initial view

on the constitutional implications of that.

Can you give me some guidance, Mr Speaker?

Is there not a constitutional role for the Other Place

in giving pause to this House when this House has made a decision that

is out of sync with feelings in the country, so that perhaps this House

can look at that decision again?

Further to the point of order, I wonder what you, Mr Speaker,

will do to remind their Lordships of our declaration of privilege from

1678, declaring that all financial matters pertain to this House.

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

since 1860, and our voice piece, our mouthpiece,

will you, Mr Speaker, bring this to the attention of their

Lordships in no uncertain terms?

The responsibility of the Chair is for order.

Nothing disorderly has occurred.

There has been no procedural impropriety.

That would not have been allowed.

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

the issue or in terms of their views on constitutionality, is a matter

for each and every one of them.

This is now a matter for the government to take forward

as it thinks fit.

The House of Lords has failed in its bid to block moves to speed

up the transfer to individual voter registration.

Everyone on the old head of household system is required to sign

up individually on the register.

Over the summer, the government decided to switch to the new system

by the 1st of December, 2015.

But a Lib Dem, Lord Tyler, warned that 1.9 million people

remained on the old register, and could lose their vote.

At a stroke, ministers are prepared to disenfranchise

huge numbers of electors.

For example, 415,013, in London.

231,345 in Scotland.

And 68,042 in Wales.

Now, it is of course possible that these figures may be squeezed

down as we approach the important elections in May 2016, but it is

still highly likely that people who think they are on the register will

find themselves unable to vote when the time comes. If this order

is allowed to slip through, the register in December 2015, which

will be used as the basis for the next round of constituency boundary

changes, will be missing large numbers of voters. While those

people could reregister between December and April to vote in

the elections next year to which I have referred, these voters will be

irrevocably wiped off the face of our democracy for the purposes of

the constituency boundary review.

They simply won't count when the new constituencies are drawn up.

We are skating on rather thin ice, when the Boundary Commission report

review was prevented from being implemented on the last Parliament,

because he and his colleagues voted against the clerk's advice in an

amendment which was out of order.

If the Noble Lord has actually read what the Electoral Commission has

advised this House, I don't think he would be adopting that position.

Let's be clear.

The government are making a rash decision here.

A decision that is not supported by the Electoral Commission.

They have posed peers to vote for the motion in the name

of their Noble Lords, Lord Tyler.

My amendment just incorporates that what the government are

doing goes against their advice.

The commission cannot take a decision to recommend that we vote

for the motion from Lord Tyler.

The great majority of those registered electors who were

carried over from the old system have now done what was required

to make themselves a full and enduring part

of the new arrangements.

All those who have not done so have now been reminded

at least nine times, in one way or another, of the need for action.

Through the deadline, which the Government set in July,

as it was empowered to do under the 2013 act, it has, in effect,

issued a final call for action.

I did not support the fatal motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats

last night, because I thought it was constitutionally inappropriate,

but I shall support this one.

Not least because, arguably, the constitutional issue

at stake today is perhaps even more important than the ones

your Lordships debated last night.

The struggle for the right to vote defines the history

of our democracy,

and electoral registration makes that right a reality.

The core of what we're debating comes down to the accuracy

of the new electoral registers.

Do we keep on the new electoral registers ghost entries,

entries who may have moved house, died, or may never even have

existed in the first place?

Are these ghost entries living, breathing voters, as the noble lord

Lord Tyler calls them, or hundreds of thousands of database errors,

which need to be removed ahead of the important elections next year?

We believe that, after 18 months of transition, and more than a decade

of waiting, as we enter a year of elections,

and possibly a referendum on Europe - possibly -

the time has come to move fully to the new system.

You are watching Tuesday in Parliament with me,

Georgina Pattinson.

Still to come:

A chilly reception, as the Met Office loses its BBC contract.

Well, back to the battle over the Government's plan

for cuts to working tax credits.

In spite of the delay to the changes imposed by the defeats

in the House of Lords, opposition MPs have attempted once again to

kill off the cuts for good.

But amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, put forward by

Labour and the SNP, were rejected.

Opening debate on the legislation, Labour condemned the insistence

from ministers that the cuts would be offset by tax changes

and the new National Living Wage.

It is completely fallacious to suggest that

if you give extra money, through increasing the personal allowance

or increasing the national minimum wage, you will offset the losses.

Only 25% of the losses will be offset by the national minimum wage,

and only for 25% of the population.

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker, very straightforwardly, a con.

Under the last Government, spending on tax credits rose

from ?6 billion to ?30 billion, but at the same time,

in-work poverty actually rose by 20%.

Why does he think that's happened if it's such a great success?

What does the honourable gentleman say to

many of my constituents who've contacted me,

who are just above the tax credit limit,

and whose hard-working taxes are subsidising low pay?

Will my honourable friend categorically explain, in the

simplest of terms, that we wouldn't do what the Government are doing?

It has taken ?4.2 billion off the lowest-paid in society.

People losing ?1,300, it pushes 200,000 kids into poverty -

that's not what we are going to do.

Our view today is the Government should repeal these measures.

Our view is it is wrong to seek to balance the books,

in this country or any country, on the back of the working poor -

on those with low and middle incomes, doing the right thing.

It's the wrong thing to do and we will not do it.

I don't want to see people badly damaged by a premature reduction

in a benefit payment when the other things are not working for them, and

they end up with too little money.

There would then have to be recourse to the hardship fund

and all the other things that are going to be in place anyway.

So it's in our mutual interest that this process is done smoothly,

but it cannot be done by ignoring the problem, pretending that

the Welfare Bill is currently fine,

pretending there are no disincentives in the system.

Let me say it loud and clear - the SNP will oppose these ideological,

regressive and utterly punitive tax credit cuts, with every opportunity

open to us, today and every day,

because we realise the damage this will cause

to working family incomes, to levels of poverty,

to levels of child poverty, in these isles,

and to the social cohesion in every community in the United Kingdom.

We have heard it again today, that, all but...

As the tax credits come off, we are going to have tax cuts, we

are going to have additional child support for looking after children.

We're going to have reductions in rent and all of those things

will mitigate against it.

And, of course, on top of that, we're going to have the increase

in the National Living Wage.

But the tax credit cuts are coming in immediately.

These things are going to be brought in over a period of time.

The Government is very pragmatic and sensible, and it will be responsive.

LAUGHTER

The Government is going to make announcements in the

Autumn Statement, and that will completely and adequately deal with

the issue that has been raised.

These cuts are going to hit hard-working families, who are

struggling to make ends meet, and, perhaps most important of all from

the Government's point of view, these changes are actually going to

reduce the incentive to work, something which I thought

the Government favoured.

The Chancellor has said he has listened to concerns from colleagues

in this House, and will come forward with proposals in the Autumn

Statement to achieve the goal of reforming tax credits, saving the

money needed to secure our economy, while at the same time, helping

in the transition to these changes.

I do not believe these new clauses are appropriate, therefore,

for inclusion in the bill.

And amendments from Labour and the SNP were rejected

by majorities of 39 and 34 votes.

Now, there's some evidence defendants are pleading guilty,

even though they claim to be innocent,

MPs on the Justice Committee have been told.

Why? To keep costs down.

The Criminal Courts Charge was introduced by the

Coalition Government, and ranges from ?150 to ?1,200.

The bill is greater if you are convicted under a trial, rather than

pleading guilty at an early stage.

The Chairman of the Magistrates Association, Richard Monkhouse,

was asked, how many magistrates had resigned over the charge?

We don't have exact numbers.

We know it's certainly in excess of 50.

We know that...

As chairman, I get a lot of e-mails and letters from magistrates who

have specifically quoted this,

maybe not as the only reason, but as the final straw

to a number of reasons.

There are some who have said, no, this is it,

I cannot bring myself to do this.

We are in a difficult position,

because we are judicial officeholders,

and if we...

If I or Malcolm appear in the press saying,

this is a stupid charge, it shouldn't be awarded,

and then the following day sit in court and have to deliver that,

that's actually moving us away from what we're there to do.

We are there as magistrates.

We are there as judicial officeholders.

A couple of cases I've read are people who have said that they

wanted to pay the fine themselves, and then were reprimanded for that.

I just wondered...

You travel up and down the country, if you've come

across any incidents of that?

Well, that one reported case is the only case I've heard of,

and, clearly, it's inappropriate for a judicial officeholder to

make that offer, kind and thoughtful though it might be.

We might all have thought about it, but, actually, there are rules.

And it's like saying to somebody who you've just awarded

a six months' prison sentence to,

"If you can't do it all, I'll do the first month for you."

Some of the evidence we've heard has been about people who are innocent

of a crime, pleading guilty as a result of this.

What evidence have you got from your members about

the propensity of that happening?

Well, we have some anecdotal evidence that some magistrates have

refused to accept an equivocal plea.

In other words, a plea that is "I'm not guilty but I'm pleading guilty."

They've actually refused to accept that plea.

That's happened in the past, and the frequency

of that seems to be increasing,

but I think we are far too soon down that journey.

This only came in in April.

The Government stats are only...

The last lot of Government stats show to March 2015, so there will

be no evidence in the official data of what has actually happened,

how the proportionality of guilty pleas to not-guilty pleas

might have changed.

That will be a very interesting piece of stats to look at.

Finally, there's a cold front blowing in.

The Met Office has provided the information used

in BBC weather forecasts since the first radio bulletin in 1922,

but the BBC says it has to secure the best value for money

for licence fee payers,

and now the contract has been put out to tender.

MPs expressed their concerns,

as the plans got a frosty reception in Westminster Hall.

My main reason for raising my concerns and seeking

this debate are primarily about the wider national interest.

The historic relationship between the Met Office and the BBC, and

the relationship with both to Government, have been, and in my

view, remain, integral to national resilience and emergency planning,

and in times or arenas of conflict, even of national security.

The BBC is about to embark on its

ten-year charter renegotiation renewal.

This is the chance for the BBC to agree its size,

its scope, and its strategy, within the financial envelope

provided by the licence fee.

And given the financial constraints on

the corporation, by the funding levels already announced by the

Government, there is a widespread consensus that the BBC will have to

do less if it's to protect quality.

Yet, in a briefing provided to me, in response to my concerns about the

BBC decision, the BBC says it wants, and I quote,

to enhance our position as

the leading destination for weather information, with ambitions to be

the best provider of weather information in the

United Kingdom, and in the world.

Mr Streeter, we already have the world's best

provider of weather information.

It's called the Met Office.

This feels to me like another example of the BBC trying to do

everything and grow its empire, rather than do what the words of

its director-general Tony Hall says it should be doing, which is,

and I quote, "partnering with others".

Many have therefore argued that the decision

of the BBC to end its contract with the Met Office has been taken

purely for commercial reasons.

Dr Grant Allen, atmospheric physicist at the University

of Manchester, a leading expert in the field, has said, in my opinion,

and I quote, the BBC's decision was taken on cost grounds and not

on predictive skills grounds.

We would, therefore, get less accurate weather forecasts

from the BBC than before, if the BBC gets rid of the

Met Office, and that is sad news.

I find it difficult to divorce this decision and this debate from

the wider context of the charter renewal process, and the sustained

attack the BBC is coming under from the Government and its friends.

The BBC is under immense pressure at the moment to

prove to the Government and the wider public that it is

efficient and good value for money.

The Met Office will continue to provide the official UK forecast,

official guidance and warnings, as the single authoritative voice,

as it were, during high-impact weather events -

storms, gales, flooding, and the like.

And as with all broadcasters, we expect the BBC to continue to

carry the Met Office's national severe weather warnings.

So, that applies to all broadcasters, regardless

of who they are using to provide their

day-to-day weather forecasting.

Ed Vaizey there.

That's it from Tuesday in Parliament.

I'll be here for the rest of the week, so from me,

Georgina Pattinson, goodbye.