Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Helen Whately Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Yes, I will be very happy to comment on that. I have no problem with a local authority looking to make a reasonable return from its car parking asset to ensure that it can maintain it and support its wider corporate objectives. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that some seem to view parking as a cash cow or, even worse, have some deluded anti-motorist position and think that if they whack their car parking charges up massively everyone will get the bus instead. The reality is that people look at one town centre and then look at another town centre or an out-of-town shopping centre and say, “If that place is just going to try to rip me off and view me as a cash cow, I am going to go somewhere else.” We particularly notice that in certain Labour-run local authorities—Calderdale might be one. They take a view that is more anti-business and anti-growth and decide to try to milk motorists by imposing charges that in reality will just put people off, or, even worse, are deliberately used to target those who work in the town centre and, because of where they live, cannot use public transport. In some market towns and cities people living in surrounding rural areas have little choice about how they travel to work. If their annual charges go up—or season tickets or daily prices—that will hit their income, effectively taxing it via the back door. I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that. Some councils seem to view parking as a cash cow, and we need to make it clear that while there is no problem with making a reasonable return, we do not want councils to engage in the rip-off behaviour that we see from some private sector operators. At the end of the day, a council has a wider duty to its whole area, not just to what it thinks it can get away with when making money from parking.

Overall, the Bill is welcome. As I touched on in response to an earlier intervention, having two systems makes sense: one for lowering charges and a completely different one for putting them up. Over the past few years, the Government have looked to strengthen the fairness of the enforcement of parking charges.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way.

[Kevin Foster]

I will give way in a moment.

I can think of an example from my constituency. Crossways car park in Paignton is a privately run car park in the town centre. It looks cheap on the outside, but people discover a rather nasty surprise when they go in: the ridiculously strict enforcement of the private sector operator. I will perhaps say more about that in another debate, but people receiving £100 fines for minor infractions is starting to have quite an impact. The House has rightly moved to ensure that local authorities cannot use extreme enforcement and to get rid of cowboy clampers, but I want the law to be structured to protect motorists, which is why my new clause is about making it clear that the new system should be used only to decrease the price of parking. My hon. Friend has been waiting patiently, so I will now give way.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is clearly extremely well versed in such matters, so I want him to help me fully understand his new clause. The Bill proposes to make it easier for councils to decrease parking charges, and my hon. Friend wants to ensure that it is not so easy for councils to increase parking charges, but my understanding is that that is also the thrust of the Bill, as councils would have to consult before increasing charges. Will he explain why he feels that the Bill does not achieve what he is trying to achieve with his new clause?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. To be clear, I absolutely welcome the thrust of the Bill, as I have said on a couple of occasions, and making it easier to reduce car parking charges by having two separate systems. The Bill removes the need for formal adverts in local newspapers and reduces the length of consultation periods when prices are being reduced, but I tabled the new clause to probe whether that is the Bill’s definitive intention. I do not note any specific wording stating that the Bill is purely about decreasing parking charges. I accept that that is absolutely the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, and I look forward to the Minister confirming that that is the Government’s intention, but I felt that it was appropriate to explore the matter further. I had hoped to see specific mention made of reducing charges, and I will consider withdrawing my new clause based on the commentary I hear today, but it is right to explore whether the Bill is purely about decreasing car parking charges.

A decrease in charges could perhaps be used to encourage people to attend special events. Classic examples of when many councils may decide to use such measures are Armistice Day or Remembrance Day. Many councils have a policy of not enforcing standard parking charges on certain days of the year, but that is legally a bit messy. People should pay in theory but may see a sign saying, “We are not enforcing the rules today.” The Bill would allow that sort of thing and allow discounts on particular days or for particular events. The other classic examples are Christmas day and Boxing day. Both are easily included in orders about off-street parking, but that is more difficult with moveable feasts. I fully accept that councils should not draw up exhaustive lists of every single event or every day on which they may want to take 50p off car parking or make it free for an hour or two. As I have said, I welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I want it to be clear that it is only about creating a system to make it easier to reduce, not increase, car parking charges.

The Bill is worthwhile and I am delighted to see it making progress. It is about reducing burdens, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that money is not spent on pointless consultations—something that I will mention in the not too distant future when discussing my Bill—but I want its intention to be clear. That is why I tabled the new clause, which I hope will provide the basis for some debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. Again, I stress that I absolutely welcome the Bill, making it easier to reduce car parking charges for particular events, but that is not explicit in the Bill.

Our legislation and debates should be clear. Someone sat in the Gallery or watching at home should be able to understand our exact intention from reading the Bill and when we make provisions. If I go down the Dog and Duck tonight and say, “Someone is thinking of making provisions about something under legislation,” the response would be, “What on earth are you talking about?” not, “Oh yes. They’re talking about offering a discount deal in the car park the next time there is an event.” That is why it is appropriate to explore the Bill in more depth on the Floor of the House and to suggest this new clause. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and to deciding whether to press the new clause to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I shall do my best to focus on the content of the Bill. I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on bringing in this brief but important Bill, which, as other Members have said, could be of such benefit to our constituents. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who has talked about the many benefits of the Bill. Although I will try to stick to the topic, I will follow his example in ensuring that I do not duck the issues that need to be raised.

I am very lucky to represent a constituency that is peppered with historic towns and villages. In particular, there is the historic market town of Faversham and the villages of Lenham and Headcorn. I mention those not because the other villages are not worthwhile and worth visiting, but because those three all have car parks. The car parks are very important, as they allow residents to access the shops and services in each of those centres. Despite the pressures and the appeal of out-of-town shopping, supermarkets and the internet, those centres are doing pretty well.

Just last year, Faversham was a rising star award winner in the Great British High Street awards. I take great pleasure in regularly shopping in the town. There are lots of small shops that provide goods and services that can be quite hard to find. If someone goes to the supermarket or an out-of-town store, they are unlikely, for instance, to be able to get their pictures framed. In town, they can get a fabulous selection of flowers in the florist—an appropriate bunch can be made up for them to take to an event. A yarn shop has recently opened, serving the boom in knitting, sewing and crafts. There are new shops opening in the town as well as many historic sites to visit.

These towns and villages are managing despite the pressures that they are under, but it is not easy. Sadly, Faversham had to say goodbye to its sweetshop just a couple of weeks ago. It was a lovely feature of the town, as all its sweets looked so attractive. That has now fallen foul of the pressures we have been discussing, as well as our attempts to live healthier lives. Perhaps the children of Faversham are not eating so many sweets now. I know that my son will miss going to that shop when we cycle into town; it has been a destination for us.

I value our towns and village centres enormously, as I know many of my constituents do. It is not just about the shops that we can visit, but the way in which these centres serve as a community meeting place. People in the market square, or in the marketplace in Faversham, will often bump into somebody they have not seen for a while. For me, it is a great way to catch up with constituents and councillors. I almost always meet not one but several people as I go through Faversham. My husband knows not to expect me back at the time I have said, as I will inevitably meet several people and have long conversations as I go through.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of keeping town centres vibrant and strong and, as she says, centres of the community is to ensure that car parking prices vary depending on the events that are going on and to encourage people to go into the town? Prices should also be competitive.

[Helen Whately]

That is exactly why I am discussing the value of town and village centres and their importance to the community. Car parking charges can help towns and villages to play exactly that role.

As I was saying, chance meetings in the town or villages centre are a valuable part of keeping communities strong. We need our communities to get stronger again, so chance meetings are really important. I would not deny that large out-of-town shopping centres have an important role to play. Some of my constituents will go to the Bluewater centre when they want to get clothes or do a big shop. It is not in my constituency, so I am not a regular visitor there, but I know it has a role to play. Nevertheless, it is not the place where people are going to bump into somebody they have not seen for a while, or at least they are not so likely to.

It is difficult for our towns and villages to compete with destination shopping sites and with the internet, and parking charges are a factor in that. Other Members have referred to the Federation of Small Businesses, the Portas review and several other sources that say that car parking charges are a significant factor in people deciding where they are going to shop. In a rural area, as much as we want to encourage people to use other modes of transport, the reality is that the car is how most people need to travel, so parking charges are a factor in most people’s shopping decisions.

For the sake of our towns and villages, many of us would like to see car parking charges that are as low as possible. Nevertheless, having discussed this with some of my local councillors, I do understand that it is not as simple as just putting charges down to the lowest possible level, or getting rid of them altogether. The revenue needed to maintain car parks is an element. Also, if there is a station near the town centre, we do not want the town centre car park to be used for all-day station parking. There is a risk that were car parking charges to be completely got rid of, such a car park would just be used for station parking and there would be no footfall from people coming and going because they would not be able to use the car park to get to the shops. It is therefore important for there to be flexibility in the level of parking charges.

It is also important for a council to be able to experiment and find out what works. Critically, as the Bill would allow, we must enable councils to reduce car parking charges at certain times and for special events. If there is a station in the town, it may be impossible to have very low parking charges all the time, but the charges could be reduced for specific events. Faversham is a fantastic town for special events. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the food festival in Malton in his constituency; well, Faversham has a food festival and a separate beer festival—we do not have to have them on the same day! Actually, it is known as the Faversham Hop festival; I shall be called out if people think I have been calling it the beer festival. Incidentally, a lot of people come to that particular festival by train; hon. Members may understand why.

We have a food festival, and also a hat festival. We have a nautical festival, because Faversham is nautical town as well as a beer town, a transport festival, and markets on the first and third Saturdays of the month. There are many events to come to in Faversham, and those could be days for the council to drop car parking charges. Or, the council might experiment with dropping the charges on days when the town is quieter as a way to bring people into the town when no event is taking place. The point is that the Bill is about giving councils more flexibility so that they can make changes and test what works to bring more footfall into the town. That is why I am delighted to support the Bill.

It is worth emphasising, however, that increasing car parking charges is another matter. Such increases should be consulted on with some rigour, because they are a concern for residents and businesses. Given how parking charges affect people’s decisions, increasing them could clearly be a concern for businesses and some might worry that they would be put out of business, so it is absolutely right that there should be consultation if car parking charges are to increase.

I checked with my local councils what their thoughts were about the Bill. I was in touch with Councillor David Burton, the chair of the transportation committee of Maidstone Borough Council, which is one of the two councils that my constituency overlaps with, and he said that he was happy with the Bill and that it will place no extra burdens on local councils. I thought that that was a good thing to hear. He flags up how he thinks that the excellent modern transport Bill will be valuable. He emphasises that councils will have to move quickly to keep up with the pace of change.

I certainly welcome the fact that my local councils have been good at introducing payments by smart phone for car parking charges—a method that is helpful, when thinking of flexibility, in enabling people to pay as they leave or to top up easily while they are parked. It is important that councils use such things to help to support local towns and villages and the shops in them.

To conclude, I very much support town and village centres and want to see them thriving. I am therefore delighted to support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

One of our priorities, in the interests both of social fairness and of improving the productivity of the economy, will be to address the huge—one might say almost grotesque—disparities between economic performance in the different regions and nations of the UK. That will be a central part of our productivity agenda, which will be a key cornerstone of our long-term economic plan.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Since the referendum, some businesses in my constituency have put investment and recruitment on hold due to uncertainty. They welcome the policies that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. I also welcome the indication that he will look at further fiscal stimulus in the autumn statement, but that is some time off. May I press him to reveal a bit more about the options that he might consider to support the economy and businesses?

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Helen Whately Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman will see references to ensuring a sustainably funded higher education system balanced in the interests of the beneficiaries of the system and the taxpayers underwriting it. It is clear and transparent. It is in black and white.

It is right that graduates contribute towards the cost of their education while being protected from the costs upfront. That is what is delivered by the progressive system of taxpayer-backed student loans with generous repayment terms that we introduced during the previous Parliament.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

I need to make some progress, I am afraid. I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene shortly.

The changes set out in this statutory instrument come at a time of increased resources going to universities. Total income has risen from £24 billion in 2012-13 to £26 billion in 2013-14, and is forecast to rise to £31 billion by 2017-18. Our system supports the financial sustainability of the sector while ensuring that higher education is open to all. As the OECD’s director of education put it, England is

“one of the very few countries that has figured out a sustainable approach to higher education financing”.

He recently added that England has

“made a wise choice — it works for individuals, it works for government.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

These equality impact assessments were released to the NUS. The equality duty is an ongoing duty on Government, impact assessments are refined as new evidence emerges, and we published the most up-to-date version of it on 5 December. The Committee has had well over a month to assess that impact assessment. The changes to student support contained in the regulations work in the same spirit as the last Parliament’s reforms. The Government were elected on their fiscal record, with a commitment to eliminate the deficit. This change makes a significant contribution to achieving that goal. Converting maintenance grants to loans will generate grant savings of around £2.5 billion a year, which will have an immediate impact on the record-breaking deficit that this Government inherited. We do not recognise the estimates of the economic saving cited.

[Helen Whately]

Will the Minister give way?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am going to press on and conclude my remarks, because the shadow Minister needs to make his closing remarks, too.

Those who disagree with the provisions contained in the regulations should submit their proposals to generate equivalent grant savings from elsewhere. I note that the Labour party has in the past year proposed competing higher education funding policies, although they share one common feature—their significant cost to the taxpayer. Labour’s leader said in July that fees should be removed completely, with grants retained. That was costed by the Labour party itself at £10 billion. Ahead of the election, it was briefly proposed that fees be reduced to £6,000, which would have cost £3 billion. Those policies move us backwards. They are unsustainable.

I was therefore particularly interested to read Ed Balls’ comments in this week’s Times Higher Education, where he spoke about the “blot on Labour’s copybook”:

“We clearly didn’t find a sustainable way forward for the financing of higher education.”

He said that if the electorate

“think you’ve got the answers for the future, they’ll support you.”

We have set out a clear plan for the future to ensure that higher education finances are sustainable and that more people can benefit from higher education. Has the Labour party decided on its approach?

When the tuition fee reforms were made in the last Parliament, there were those who predicted a sharp fall in participation in higher education, particularly by those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, that did not come to pass, and the latest application figures from UCAS, although provisional, show that, in spite of our proposed changes to maintenance, application figures are similar to last year’s figures.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South referred to the grant-to-loan switch in FE. Loans were introduced in the further education sector in 2013-14 to remove the barrier of meeting the upfront cost of tuition fees; we are debating loans for living costs in HE, and I do not believe that is a valid comparison.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Helen Whately Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The OBR assesses the Government against our fiscal targets, and that is the point of having an independent fiscal council. May I make a suggestion to the Scottish Government and the Scottish nationalists? Why not get on and create an independent fiscal council in Scotland? It is something they are refusing to do.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, this summer Operation Stack brought Kent to a standstill, so I welcome his announcement of a quarter of a billion pounds investment in Kent’s infrastructure to keep Kent moving. Does he agree that investment in infrastructure is vital for Britain’s economic growth, national security and public services?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I completely agree. It is extraordinary for the Government to describe tax credits as “a bribe”. That is how successive Ministers, including the missing Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, have gone out of their way to describe tax credits for working people. They do not talk about protecting pensioners’ benefits as a bribe by the Conservative party to pensioners—and I would never say that; it is entirely just to protect pensioners’ benefits. By describing tax credits as a bribe, they are even seeking to demonise working people on low and middle incomes who are doing the right thing. That is entirely wrong.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I am listening carefully and I hear a great deal of criticism. What I have not heard from Labour Members are proposals on how welfare should be put on a more sustainable footing, on how they would like to see work pay, and on how they would reduce the deficit and the debt. Are they instead proposing cuts to public services?

[Owen Smith]

No, obviously I am not suggesting that for a minute. That is a nonsense thing to say. Let me walk through what the Government are proposing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady makes a useful point. I am aware that Brent is one of the areas where the benefits cap will be particularly keenly felt, but all our big conurbations are affected, especially those where there is a large gap between the incomes of the wealthiest and people who are earning what in any other part of the country would be a decent wage, but in certain parts of the UK is not enough to live on.

I am glad to see that Labour Members have supported amendment 56, which I intend to press to a vote this evening. I shall also address some of the related amendments, 57 to 65, all of which would affect support for those distanced from the labour market, whether under employment and support allowance or universal credit. They would remove the provisions in the Bill that seek to reduce ESA for those in receipt of the work-related activity component.

I want to be absolutely clear that SNP MPs will oppose the proposals in clauses 13 and 14, which are an outright attack on people who are seriously sick, disabled, or living with debilitating long-term health problems. We are talking about people who are so seriously incapacitated that even the Government’s own stringent assessment process has deemed them unfit for work at present. Slashing support for sick people will not help them recover more quickly. In fact, money worries are one of the things that often slow down people’s recovery from serious illness. We have just heard a powerful speech delivered from the Government Benches about support for people who are terminally ill, but sometimes people recovering from illnesses that could go either way need a long time to recover, and they do not always get the support and the sympathy they need.

I am deeply concerned by the Government’s rhetoric on this matter. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) hit a raw nerve earlier when she suggested that some of the Government’s language has been deeply inappropriate, but as recently as the summer Budget the Chancellor said it was a “perverse incentive” for ESA claimants to receive more than jobseeker’s allowance. When a person has been assessed as not currently fit for work, I fail to see how reducing their income by 30 quid a week will get them into work faster.

Today, the Disability Benefits Consortium has released figures suggesting that 70% of disabled people surveyed say that the cut will make their health worse, not better. There are other important considerations to take into account, however, particularly for those with long-term disabilities or health conditions that compromise their ability to work over long periods. A lifetime of disability or the development of a long-term condition already erodes the financial assets and resilience of too many people, including carers. About one third of disabled people already live in poverty, and sick and disabled people who are unable to work—many disabled people do work, of course, and hold down steady jobs—face many costs that might not be immediately evident. For example, they might need to heat their home throughout the day at a higher temperature than would be necessary for a more active and fit person. They also incur those costs over a long period. In contrast, the vast majority of people on jobseeker’s allowance are on it for fairly short periods. About 60% of people on JSA move off the benefit within six months, whereas almost 60% of people in the work-related activity group need that support for at least two years.

Let us face it, most of us could, with a wee bit of effort, cope with a very low income for a week or two, but for those who face an extended period out of the labour market because of their health, £73 a week is just not sustainable. People will be eating poorly and will be unable to heat their home and clothe themselves adequately on such sums. Any one of us in this Chamber could find our lives, or the lives of the people we love, transformed at any moment by serious illness or disability. Earlier this afternoon someone described this as a civilised society, but in my view to be a civilised society we need an adequate safety net. We need to remember that returning to employment immediately is just not an option for people who have been deemed not currently fit for work.

I agree entirely with the Labour Front Benchers that the language the Government have been using has vilified and stigmatised sick and disabled people. Talking about “perverse incentives” implies that they are malingering. That is not the case. I do not think that a perverse incentive involves being so ill that one cannot work. When this part of the Bill was discussed in Committee, the Government seemed to suggest that they planned to use the savings from the cuts to ESA to provide additional funding for tailored employment support for disabled people. God knows, that is badly needed, given the fairly woeful performance of parts of the Work programme, but the only figure I have seen mooted by the Government is an increase of £90 million in employment support, whereas the measures are expected to save in the region of £640 million. Based even on the most rudimentary arithmetic, that seems a fairly paltry portion of the savings. I am also not convinced that it is the best use of resources given the direct adverse impacts on low-income, disabled and sick people. I would welcome detail from the Government on that, because from where we are standing now it looks extremely thin.

New clause 9 and amendments 57 to 65 all seek to reverse the proposals to introduce further conditionality on parents and responsible carers of very young children. I am particularly concerned about the potential impact on one-parent families. There is quite a lot of evidence that many lone parents are already struggling to comply with the new conditionality regime. We have seen disproportionate numbers of lone parents sanctioned, for example, and in recent days we have seen a massive U-turn by the Government in acknowledging that the sanctions regime is not working. I met representatives of One Parent Families Scotland just over a week ago and was gobsmacked by some of the examples they highlighted of struggling parents being sanctioned in extenuating and extremely difficult circumstances.

Currently, lone parents of children under five do not actively have to seek work, but they do need to attend work-focused interviews or work-related activity. Under this group of amendments, parents will be expected to be available and ready actively to seek work from the time their youngest child starts school, but not before. These proposals, which were pushed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and supported by the lone parent charity Gingerbread, take account of the very real logistical hurdles faced by those who are parenting single handed, and do not unnecessarily penalise those children who are already more likely to be poor as a consequence of their family circumstances. The Government’s proposals increase the risk of sanctions for parents of very young children, which can only be detrimental not just for them but for our society as a whole.

That leads me on rather neatly to new clause 12, which is in my name and which I also hope to push to a vote tonight. It would compel the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the sanctions regime. I have called for an independent review previously in the House. In the last Parliament, as we have already heard, the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee called for a full independent review. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) eloquently called for that review, because it is manifestly clear that the new sanctions regime is just not working, as it is failing lots of very vulnerable and disadvantaged people. It is failing not just lone parents, but sick and disabled people, particularly those with invisible or fluctuating conditions such as mental health problems. We can see the fall-out from that in the explosion in the number of food banks in our constituencies and in almost all the communities that we serve.



Last week, we had tacit acknowledgement from the Government that the system is not working when they made their U-turn, announcing their so-called “yellow card” warning scheme pilot. They also showed a new willingness to consider reviewing those classed as at risk to include homeless people and those with mental health problems. I welcome those steps; they are an important change of tone in the Government’s approach, but we need action now and not in the new year—that part of winter when these problems will already have become a lot worse. We must recognise that these steps also fall far short of the independent root-and-branch review that is really needed.

If we are to move towards a more workable system, we need a solid evidence base and to understand better how sanctions have differential impacts on claimants who are disabled, those with protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity, those with long-term health problems, including mental health problems, and those who are bringing up bairns single handed.

Finally, new clause 10 aims to ensure that any changes to the age of eligible claimants for housing benefit must be made by primary legislation rather than by regulation through the back door. New clause 11 offers protections for young people who cannot, for whatever reason, live with their parents. The Government said that they plan to cut housing benefit for 16 to 21-year-olds, but we on the SNP Benches do not think that that should be done through regulation. It is another example of a policy for which there is a very poor evidential base and which needs proper scrutiny. Some 60% of the young people set to be affected by this measure live in social housing. In other words, they are already likely to be deemed vulnerable by their local authority. Their age should not matter, but their need for support most certainly should. Again, this seems entirely arbitrary, and, again, we have seen none of the promised detail of support for those who are particularly vulnerable. I am forced to conclude that the Government have not thought through the implications of their slash-and-burn approach to our social security system.

Our amendments in this group seek to protect low income households, sick and disabled people and children. They offer the Government a way to mitigate the worst impacts of the legislation and help us all better to understand how we can genuinely improve our social security system. I hope that the Government will take some of that on board this evening.

[Helen Whately]

Over the past few weeks, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee, of which I am a member, has had to make some difficult decisions, but they were decisions that the electorate showed in May that they wanted us to make. The decisions that we have had to make can be seen both in this Bill and in the summer Budget.

I do not support the Opposition’s proposed new clause 2, but its wording shows that they do recognise that these reforms are part of a broader and coherent plan. They are part of a package of measures to create the kind of economy and society that people want. I am not talking about a society in which people spend years on benefits and low pay but one in which work pays, people keep more of what they earn and everyone has a chance to be better off.

[Dawn Butler]

In the context of people earning more, does the hon. Lady believe that we should take into the consideration the Living Wage Foundation’s report on how much the living wage should be?

[Helen Whately]

When the announcement on the national living wage was made, the Living Wage Foundation supported it, and I hope that Labour Members can do the same.

[Jo Churchill]

This is only a minor point, but the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said earlier that the minimum wage is £6.50, yet it actually went up to £6.70 on 1 October. Knowing how much we are paying people is the first step. A living wage is what we are driving towards so that people have more in their pocket—[Interruption.] At the moment the national minimum wage is £6.70, and we are driving it up to £7.20.

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

[Dawn Butler]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) might be inadvertently trying to mislead the House in that the living wage is actually £9.15 an hour, according to the Living Wage Foundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) is in the middle of her speech, and this is a debating point rather than a point of order, so can we please continue?

[Helen Whately]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Labour’s new clause calls for an impact assessment. There have already been several impact assessments, but the strongest one of all was that made by the thousands of people in May who voted for a Conservative Government on a manifesto that pledged to build a stronger economy with more jobs and lower taxes, to move from deficit into surplus, to protect public services such as the NHS, and to bring down the welfare bill. Labour Members oppose these reforms. They want to keep on taxing people and using that tax to subsidise below-the-breadline wages.

It is time to break that cycle, and these reforms will do that. They include the national living wage, from which 2.7 million people will receive a direct increase in income and at least 3 million more will get a knock-on benefit. Would Labour Members seek to delay that? If so, they would already be too late, because the benefits are already being felt. Wages are going up, and 200 companies have committed to increasing their lowest rates of pay in advance, including Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Lidl, IKEA, Asda, and British Gas.

[Mr Anderson]

Does the hon. Lady have any idea what her Government plan to do about the people who have been left behind with pay increases—the 5 million or so public sector workers who have had their pay frozen or cut over the past seven or eight years? What do the Government intend to do to bring them up to the living wage, because they have not had a pay rise for more than seven years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

Public sector workers are getting a 1% pay rise. Over the past few years, private sector pay has, in the main, been frozen while public sector pay has continued to go up.

I will move on to the Opposition amendments on the benefits cap. The Government intend to reduce the cap to £20,000, or £23,000 in London. We should be clear that that is the net figure, so it would amount to a salary of about £25,000 before tax. We have heard some rather mixed messages from Labour Members. Their leader has said that he wants to cap benefits overall but not for individuals. I am sure that it will become clear today exactly where they stand on the amendments tabled by SNP Members, who I understand do not want any reductions in the benefits cap. Benefits should be a safety net. We need a benefits system that is sustainable and therefore affordable and fair. It cannot allow people to do better on benefits than in work. That creates the wrong incentives. It is also deeply unpopular and therefore unsustainable in its own right. Surely Opposition Members have had conversations with people who are just above the threshold that would allow them to receive most benefits. They must understand their legitimate anger when they see their taxes funding a lifestyle they cannot afford.

[Peter Dowd]

Is the hon. Lady aware that 70% of the money that the Treasury will save as a result of cuts to tax credits will come from working mums?

[Helen Whately]

It was pointed out in Committee that people who receive benefits also pay tax. I do not think we should try to parcel people up in different tribes or groups. This is about getting the right thing for the country, trying to help everybody make the most of their opportunities and making work pay.

I have certainly had difficult conversations on the doorsteps in my constituency, because the majority of employees in Faversham and Mid Kent are paid less than £20,000 per annum. At its current level the benefits cap has been working. More than 16,000 capped households have moved into work, and households subject to the cap are 41% more likely to get into work. We know that work is the best way out of poverty and I believe that everyone in this House wants to see people move out of poverty. We should make the benefits cap work harder. That is what this is about.

[Graham Stuart]

It is shocking that Opposition Members find themselves unable to talk about the jobs miracle of the past five years. We have created more jobs in this country than the rest of Europe combined. That is the dignity that people want. What we did not need was people who were on 16 hours a week and disincentivised from taking on any extra work because they would lose out if they did so. That is the mess that Labour left behind and we are disentangling it so that we can create a fairer society for everybody.

[Helen Whately]

I thank my hon. Friend for making his point so forcefully.

I will move on to the proposed amendments to clause 13. The Bill Committee heard evidence of the damage that a long period or a life on welfare can do to people. Our witnesses talked about people who had been out of work for a long time having their confidence destroyed, and about how they begin to feel that they are not capable of changing their lives. We were also told that 61% of people in the work-related activity group want to work, yet only 1% come off that benefit each month. I am sure that many of us know of people who find it difficult to get into work for all sorts of reasons, such as mental health problems, and need extra help to do so. The current system is not working well enough. Not only does clause 13 remove financial disincentives, but, critically, and hand in hand with that, the Government have committed new funding to help that group of people into work, which is a response to what they really want.

[Neil Coyle]

What message does the hon. Lady think she is sending to the 8,000 people with progressive and incurable conditions in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group when she says they should be working rather than receiving support?

[Helen Whately]

I had a conversation recently with the company that does the work assessments. We talked about the importance of people with progressive conditions not being put in groups that would lead to them being made to work if it is not possible for them to do so. We should not assume, however, that just because someone has a progressive condition they do not necessarily want to work and be helped to do so.

Although many people knock jobcentres and are critical of them, the Committee also heard about the effective work they do across the country in supporting people, particularly those faced with barriers, to get into work. I have heard of some great examples in my own constituency in Kent.

In summary, many important and valid points have been raised in Committee and in this Chamber. The amendments, however, propose to pull apart a package of considered changes to welfare, including tax changes such as increases to the personal allowance and access to free childcare, as announced in the summer Budget. That package of measures is about making work pay and helping people into work.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I am just summing up, so the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way.

Opposition Members are not offering a credible alternative or, in fact, any alternative. Throughout the Committee stage and today’s debate we have heard many criticisms, but a complete absence of positive proposals to make the welfare system more effective at getting people off welfare and into work—this is an opportunity for Opposition Members to make such proposals—and to make the welfare system more sustainable and affordable.

Hand in hand with criticising the Bill, Opposition Members should say what they would do to make work pay and help people into work; what savings they would make to ensure the welfare bill is more sustainable; what cuts they might make to public services—for instance, whether they would cut the NHS or reduce its funding—and what taxes they would put up, other than raising the top rate, which they know does not raise extra revenue; or would they just keep on borrowing, which is increasing the debt for future generations?

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I am just summing up, so I will not give way, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

Coupled with that is the desire of Opposition Members to keep a welfare system that does not work and does not help enough people into work, when we now—with the economy growing, plenty of jobs and wages going up—have an opportunity to do something about it. We have a plan, and in the absence of a plan of their own, I encourage them to back ours.

[Mr Anderson]

This debate should be about people, not constitutional niceties or the economy. It is not about some faceless, inanimate objects, but real people at the sharp end. I have been asked by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, with which I work as the chair of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy, to raise the impact of these changes to support, which build on the cuts and challenges brought in by the coalition Government during the past five years. It has real concerns about the changes to ESA, JSA, housing benefit, tax credits and the new universal credit. It has asked me to raise the cases of real people, and that is what I will do.

I want to talk about Bill. After 25 years as a coalminer, he had to retire in his early 40s. He had long-term health problems and died at the age of 48. Joy, who as a young girl swam with Durham County, went into the world of work and then, in her early 20s, was struck down by a disease. She died at the age of 53, from heart failure. Joanne, a girl who was born with defects, spent a lifetime struggling to get on in her life. A lovely young woman, she died at the age of 42, cruelly, after suffering for a long time. Jacqueline died from a massive heart attack at the age of 40. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) has left the Chamber, but she was one of his constituents. Ian, a young boy who struggled through his early years, was just starting to develop, but died at the early age of 19 from a heart attack, beside a swimming pool while doing what he did best.

These five people had three things in common: they were all part of my family; they all suffered from myotonic muscular dystrophy; and, to a greater or lesser extent, they all looked for support from the welfare state. These people’s lives were happy if tough, but ultimately they were short-lived. Thank God that the people who went before them had the guts, nous and determination to build a welfare state that meant they could live a reasonably secure and stable life.

No doubt Conservative Members would say that my family were part of the dependency culture. Do you know what? They would be absolutely right. These members of my family were dependent on the state for help with the costs of medication and of care, and they were dependent on the state for day-to-day living costs, as well as for help with transport, mobility, housing and hospitalisation. If they were alive today, they would no doubt be in the direct sights of Conservative Members, so I will now use the language that has been used today.

This Government have demonised people who depend on the welfare state, and through a clear strategy of dog-whistle tactics, they have worked to convince many in this country that anyone on benefits is a scrounger. They have led people to believe that if anyone passes a house with closed curtains while on the way to work in the morning, they can safely assume that anyone inside is a bone-idle waster who needs to be ridiculed and demonised.

Tax Credits

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

We are making these necessary changes for the future of all sorts of families, but more than anybody for the sake of our children. The hon. Lady will know that the best way to address poverty is through work, and that is what we have been doing. She will also know the statistics—that where a child is in poverty and a parent moves into work, in 75% of cases they move out of poverty as a result, and that where a parent moves from part-time to full-time work, 75% of children also move out of poverty.

From next April, we will have the national living wage, which by 2020, when it will be worth more than £9 an hour, will mean over £5,000 more in gross full-time pay for someone on the minimum wage today.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that the Labour party does not seem to understand that tax credits involve the taxpayer subsidising businesses paying low wages, which has to change?

[Damian Hinds]

As always, my hon. Friend is correct, and she brings me on to my next point. Already, more than 200 firms, including some of our biggest employers, have announced they intend to pay staff at or above the national living wage before it comes into effect, which has helped to push private sector wage growth to 4.4%, according to latest figures, at a time of low or no inflation.

Then there are the wider things we have done on living costs. We have frozen council tax and fuel duty. On childcare, we have already introduced 15 hours for the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds, which is just through its first full year of operation and still ramping up. From 2017, there will be 30 hours for working families with three and four-year-olds, and just the additional 15 hours will be worth £2,500 per child per year.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is better to have a sustainable welfare system that protects the vulnerable while at the same does not allow companies to get away with paying lower wages than they otherwise were. I hope he supports our national living wage, especially the fact that it means someone working at the national minimum wage today will get at least £5,000 more a year by 2020 because of our national living wage.

A business-led economy in which hard work is rewarded, entrepreneurs are encouraged and aspiration is applauded —that is at the heart of our Budget. Above all, it is a Budget that supports business. For all the rhetoric one hears from politicians, Governments do not create jobs; businesses do. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said last week:

“It is only when businesses are thriving that the people of our country can thrive too.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 482.]

It is only a strong and growing economy that allows us to invest in the NHS and schools; and it is only a strong and growing economy that allows us to spend money on protecting our most vulnerable citizens. Anyone who is successful in business should be congratulated and not condemned.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the introduction of a national living wage, which will increase the pay of the worst paid and help make work pay?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of the new national living wage is just what she says—it will mean working people earning even more, and it will go on to boost productivity, too.

Aggressive regressive policies that penalise honest labour have no place in the modern world. That is why we have already cut the main rate of corporation tax to 20%, rewarding productive companies and boosting UK competitiveness. It will now fall further to 19% in 2017 and just 18% in 2020, making it the lowest in the G20. More than a million businesses will see their tax bill fall as a result, allowing them to invest more in their staff and facilities.

That is not all. As corporation tax falls, tax allowances for growing businesses will rise. The annual investment allowance will be set at £200,000—its highest-ever permanent level, while the employment allowance will increase by £1,000 to £3,000, cutting employer national insurance contributions still further. By next year, businesses will be able to employ four people full time on the national living wage and pay no national insurance at all. By April next year, we will publish a business tax road map, setting out our plans for business taxes over this Parliament and giving employers the information they need to plan ahead.

From September 2017, working families with three and four-year-olds will receive 30 hours of free childcare—twice what they currently receive. This will help the parents themselves, but it will also get more skilled employees back in the workforce sooner—a real bonus for British business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the assault on the aspirations of young people all the way from school to when they get a job. We remember that the Government stopped the Building Schools for the Future programme, which helped to give our young people a decent place to work. The Government took away the education maintenance allowance when people got to college and trebled their tuition fees when they got to university. Now, when they leave university the Government tell them that they should not earn as much as everybody else and that they will not extend the increase in the national living wage to those under 25.

Let me return to research and development. Although I welcome putting the annual investment allowance on a more long-term footing and the corporation tax changes, which also help, I would ask Ministers, who have suddenly perked up, this: where was the action on business rates for small businesses in this Budget? They create two thirds of private sector jobs, so where was the news for them?

Reducing the tax burden is all well and good, but in order to invest people need to be able to raise the finance to do so. According to the Bank of England, net lending to small firms has fallen by more than £1 billion in the past year and it continues to be an issue. Towards the end of his time in office, the Secretary of State’s predecessor joined us in championing a state-backed investment bank and put in place the British Business Bank, which we support. Now that he is no longer in post, and with the Government flogging off the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank has had no guarantees of future funding in the spending review and faces an uncertain future. I note that there was just one mention of it in the Red Book. I am happy to give way to the Business Secretary if he wants to answer this question: can he confirm today whether the Government plan to sell off the British Business Bank, too, and can he rule out doing that in this Parliament? The silence is deafening.

Let me turn now to infrastructure. We must end the dither and delay in making decisions on projects that not only increase our productivity but iron out regional imbalances and help people travel around in a more cost-effective way. In the Red Book, we are told that the Government believe that a modern infrastructure network is vital, so why, having commissioned the Davies report on aviation, do they appear to be locking themselves into a holding pattern right through until the autumn before coming into land and making a decision on this important matter? Our aviation industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, contributes more than £50 billion to GDP and pays the Exchequer more than £8 billion in tax every year. We have been clear that we will make a swift decision on this matter in the national interest. If the commission’s proposals to build a third runway at Heathrow can meet our tests, including consistency with our climate change obligations, we will take swift action to back them. I suspect that the Business Secretary agrees with me and all I say to him is that he needs to face down the opposition arising in Cabinet and do the right thing.

As for the regional growth policy, there has been a lot of chat about the northern powerhouse, so let me make a few observations. We cannot build a powerhouse if there is no power to connect our northern cities. The decision to shelve northern rail electrification, such as for the TransPennine Express route between Manchester and Leeds, was a kick in the teeth to the areas and regions of the north, and plans for a northern Oyster card do not make up for it. If I have one criticism of the Government’s overall approach to devolution, it is that they should be seeking to make every region a powerhouse rather than simply having a northern powerhouse.

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[David Rutley]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was hardly worth the wait. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman should have been paying attention to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) actually said. She came out very strongly against the whole package of working tax credit changes. If he had listened to my remarks, rather than try to intervene with a Whip’s question, he would have realised that that is exactly what I am doing myself.

The Government will say that they have moved on pay. Again, however, there is a big difference between rhetoric and reality. The Government’s cuts to tax credits overwhelmingly outweigh their measures on pay. I welcome the proposed rises in the national minimum wage, which is still what it is. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see that the Chancellor has joined us. He has failed to explain why raising the minimum wage was so wrong only a few short weeks ago during the general election campaign, in view of our manifesto commitment, or how he came to agree with us so soon after the general election. Nevertheless, imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. We are pleased to observe that the party that forced the last all-night sitting in the House in an attempt to block the introduction of the national minimum wage by the last Labour Government now agrees with us not only that it is important and necessary, but that it should go up. However, we should be clear about the fact that it is not a living wage.

There has always been a difference between the minimum wage and the living wage. Re-badging the new national minimum wage as a living wage will not help the Chancellor, because ordinary working people can see a political con for what it is. The Living Wage Foundation was quick off the mark on Budget day in making that very point. The inconvenient fact for the Chancellor is that the living wage—the real living wage—is calculated on the assumption of a full take-up of tax credits, the very tax credits that the Chancellor has just cut. To make up for the loss of those tax credits, a real living wage would have to be considerably higher than what the Chancellor is now promising working people in Britain.

The new national minimum wage rate of £7.20, when it is introduced next year, will be lower than the current living wage of £7.85. In effect, the Chancellor, who says that he stands with working people, will offer working people in 2016 the 2011 living wage, and we will not let him pretend otherwise. In the end, the simple truth is that the wage increases that are on their way are not enough to make up for the loss of tax credits.

Twenty-four hours after the Chancellor delivered his Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies dismissed his claim that increasing the minimum wage would compensate working people. The IFS said:

“the key fact is that the increase in the minimum wage simply cannot provide full compensation for the majority of losses that will be experienced by tax credit recipients. That is just arithmetically impossible.”

The IFS also said that the biggest change, which sounded very technical, was the reduction in the work allowance. It explained:

“The work allowance is the amount that a claimant can earn before benefit starts to be withdrawn. Significant allowances were an integral part of the design of UC”

—universal credit—

“intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work. This reform will cost about 3 million families an average of £1,000 a year each. It will reduce the incentive for the first earner in a family to enter work.”

A regressive Budget with a work penalty of £1,000 a year: that is what the Government have delivered to ordinary working people in our country—and while they hit those ordinary working people, they also fail to address a central economic challenge—productivity. That is the puzzle that it is crucial for us to crack and solve, because getting it right is vital if we are to achieve higher living standards, sustained GDP growth, and effective deficit reduction, but this Budget failed the productivity test.

[Helen Whately]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not give way for another Whip’s question. I must make some progress.

Productivity has stagnated under this Government, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised its productivity forecast downwards for next year and the three years after that. It has also confirmed that the Chancellor will miss his target of increasing exports to £1 trillion by a staggering £367 billion by 2020. Productivity has been revised down and the current account deficit has widened to 5.9% of GDP, becoming the largest annual peacetime deficit since at least 1830. However, all that the Government had to offer was a damp squib of a productivity plan on the Friday after the Budget—a patchwork of existing schemes rather than a substantial reform to boost skills, business growth and wages, and, in relation to infrastructure, output that is lower than it was five years ago.

There are, of course, some measures in the Budget that we will support, not least those that started life—[Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Members are cheering, because the measures that I am about to mention started life on our Benches as our manifesto commitments. I welcome the Government’s new-found zeal in dealing with non-doms and with the so-called carried interest loophole involving private equity managers. Conservative Members were not so vocal on such matters just a few weeks ago, but I am glad that they have had a rethink since the general election, and have found their voices when it comes to our policies.

We will, however. stand against measures that are wrong and unfair. Apart from the overall package of measures on tax credits, we are deeply concerned about the impact of removing student maintenance grants from the poorest undergraduates, about the lowering of the level of benefit for those who cannot currently work and are in the work-related activity group, and about the Government’s strategy on child poverty, which essentially boils down to their changing the definitions because they will miss their target otherwise. Every Budget is about choices. This should have been a Budget to bring the deficit down and help people into work and into better work by creating the high-skill, high-pay jobs needed to boost productivity. Instead, it penalises those already in work. It is people on low and middle incomes, the ordinary working people of Britain, who will pay the price for this Chancellor’s choices, and we will stand with the ordinary working people of Britain by voting against this Budget tonight.

Productivity

Helen Whately Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely agree. These decisions and the extra 2 million new jobs created might have had some impact on productivity in a statistical sense, but we have done what a one nation Government should do. It is markedly different from the behaviour of other Governments during past recessions. It is different, too, from measures taken by countries such as France. French productivity may be higher, but France created fewer jobs between 2010 and 2015 than did Yorkshire. The French labour market is so regulated and expensive that French companies opt out by failing to hire. Higher productivity can mean lower employment and vice-versa.

A second cause of optimism about increased productivity is the output to come. Companies have had to work harder to win or maintain a stagnant order book, perhaps moving labour to roles such as sales and marketing, which would not count as “output” in the national accounts until the product was sold. As this effort bears fruit, the productivity rates will benefit. A similar argument can be put for research and development. Thanks to this Government’s programme of incentives to increase R and D, investment has proved strong. The output from R and D is not apparent, and not included in the GDP data, but as these returns filter through, R and D will, as the Bank of England reports,

“bring about a relatively prompt and significant improvement in productivity growth”.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the roll-out of high-speed broadband is vital in constituencies such as mine and his for the productivity of rural businesses?

[Huw Merriman]

I agree that high-speed broadband is essential. It would create capacity and productivity in areas that infrastructure might find hard to reach.

These factors will, I believe, allow the UK to overcome the impact on productivity from cyclical and sector changes, such as the scaling back of financial services and the artificial productivity that financial services might have created during the last 10 years.

The third cause of optimism is the new workforce. Although a high proportion of the 2 million jobs are highly skilled, some are obviously lower skilled and might not yet contribute as much to the UK’s productivity. This is part of the investment in people, via new jobs and apprenticeships, which will take people up the career ladder to increased productivity. Giving a job opportunity to someone who was previously on welfare can transform their lives and, as they reach their potential, I believe that will help our economic productivity as well as enriching the cause of social justice in this country.

I am led to conclude that the nation has experienced significant support, thanks to action taken by the Government since 2010 that has allowed UK plc to increase the UK employment rate by 2 million jobs. Naturally, with the definition of productivity being the unit of output per unit of labour, that may have impacted on overall productivity rates, but I believe we stand right to increase our productivity as long as the Government stand their course on the route ahead.