Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and Kate Green

2nd reading
Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, notwithstanding the need to ensure legal protections for freedom of speech and academic freedom, because the Bill is a hate speech protection bill which could provide legal protection and financial recompense to those seeking to engage in harmful and dangerous speech on university campuses, including Holocaust denial, racism, and anti-vaccination messages.”

Let me start by making absolutely clear the importance that the Labour party attaches to freedom of speech and academic freedom. Indeed, it might be useful for me to remind the House of the histories of my party and the Conservative party on this issue. The Labour party is the party that enshrined the Human Rights Act 1998 in domestic law, guaranteeing legally protected rights to freedom of thought, conscience and expression. That Act is one of the most important legal measures we have to protect the rights of every citizen of this country. How did the Conservative party respond? By seeking to undermine those rights, voting against their enshrinement in domestic law and subsequently threatening to take them off the statute book altogether.

Nobody should be fooled into thinking that the Conservative party has now changed its stance. Recently, the Conservatives introduced a new law with significant consequences for freedom of expression. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill creates a new criminal offence if a person performs an act that causes “serious inconvenience”. It is a dangerous curtailment of the right to protest, which is fundamental to democracy. That Bill and the one before us tell the House and the country everything they need to know about how this Conservative Government really approach our right to freedom of speech and expression. A group of individuals coming together to protest could face criminal charges for causing serious inconvenience, but because of this Bill a group spreading division and hatred on university campuses would be not just legally protected but able to sue a university or student union that tried to stop them. That is what we on the Opposition Benches object to, and what the whole House should object to: a Bill that amounts to legal protection for hate speech. It has no place on campus, no place in our society and no place on our statute book.

The Secretary of State claimed a moment ago that a legislative framework—including, I was pleased to note, Labour’s Equality Act 2010, to which he referred—to prevent the spreading of hate speech is already in place, but that was not the view of the Government’s Minister for Universities, who, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), acknowledged that holocaust deniers could be protected under this Bill. If the Minister responsible for this legislation believes that the Bill protects or could protect holocaust deniers, that should be a sufficient reason for any Member of this House to oppose it.

It is right, as the Secretary of State said, that we have laws to prevent hate speech, but is not at all clear that they will prevent the kind of harmful speech that will be protected under this Bill. It may not always be the case that there is a victim of harassment as prescribed under the Equality Act if, for instance, there is a meeting to discuss holocaust denial at which only those who support those horrific views are present. Conservative Members have no response on how existing laws will prevent harmful conspiracy theorists—such as anti-vaxxers—who could be protected on campus. Does the Secretary of State’s Bill protect the misinformation that causes damage and concern about vaccines and their efficacy, such as was spread by Professor Andrew Wakefield?

Not only could holocaust deniers have their right to speak on campus legally protected, but if they feel they are denied their right, they could take universities and student unions to court to seek financial recompense. They would be able to seek a pay-out from universities, seeking to cash in on public money—students’ tuition fees—that should fund teaching and learning.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it also opens the door to states that wish to do us harm? There is a lot of open source evidence about the Chinese communist party using students here to propagate anti-Hong Kong stories and other propaganda on behalf of the Chinese Government. Under the Bill, we would have to allow them to go ahead because otherwise they could take us to court, allowing the harm that they could do to students of Chinese origin who might take a different view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, which is clearly shocking. Of course, my question to the Secretary of State would be: if intimidation is involved, why are we not already using the criminal law to address it?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am sorry, but the Secretary of State, in his rant, just does not get it, does he? He knows as well as I do that the Chinese communist party is using universities—placing students and funding activities there. If this Bill goes through as outlined, the Chinese communist party will be able to propagate its propaganda, and if a university was to turn around and say no to it, it could then use this Bill to argue for freedom of speech. He may wish to give a safe haven to that type of activity, but I do not.

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend makes the point perfectly.

I want to ask the Secretary of State about some other uncertainties that the Bill creates. I think he is seeking to say to the House that the Bill would not protect holocaust deniers. However, if a university did not want to provide a room to holocaust deniers, would the proposed speakers be able to seek compensation through the tort created by clause 3? What if nobody turns up to a meeting that has been booked? Would it be lawful to advertise such a meeting? What about other forms of free speech? Will anti-vax campaigners be protected under the Secretary of State’s Bill? Does he believe that a university should be liable under the Bill if it seeks to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation from guest speakers? What about those seeking to spread conspiracy theories or to sow division in our communities? Does he really believe not only that this kind of harmful, hateful, divisive speech should be legally protected on campus, but that those seeking to peddle it can take a university to court for interfering with their right to do so? Those of us on the Opposition Benches believe that there is no place for that on our campuses, and that is why we will be voting for our reasoned amendment this evening.

We have other objections to this Bill. Actually, I cannot understand why the Government think it is needed. An assessment by the Office for Students found that just 53 out of 59,574 events with external speakers were refused permission in 2017-18. Perhaps that was an unusually slow year for cancel culture and there is a real problem. However, last year a survey found, as we have heard, that of 10,000 events with external speakers, only six were cancelled.

Mental Health and Unemployment

Debate between Kevan Jones and Kate Green

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I thank all Members who have contributed to what I think has been a very interesting and rich debate. I especially thank the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for introducing, in a wide-ranging speech, all the issues on which others have expanded.

There is clearly widespread concern about the poor employment outcomes and poor employment experience of people with mental health disorders. Those concerns are wide-ranging. There is obviously a concern about the poor employment rate among people with mental health problems and the fact that unemployment is both a cause and a result of poor mental health. Particular concerns were rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the implications for young people who experience unemployment at the very start of their adult lives. There are also concerns about people with mental health illnesses being dismissed or exiting work prematurely, about a lack of not just joining the workplace but progression in the workplace—relatively reduced chances for promotion—about lack of support in the workplace for people with mental health problems and, as was highlighted in the debate this afternoon, about so-called presenteeism, which is damaging for both the health and well-being of the individual and business productivity.

Such concerns about the cost both to the individual and society have been highlighted a number of times this afternoon. Poorer mental health outcomes are suffered by poorer people, who are less likely to be in employment. We also know that 39% of sickness absence is as a result of mental health problems, amounting to 11.3 million working days lost to our economy each year.

We have also heard concerns about the wider context in which mental health problems in the workplace arise and are then addressed. There are problems with people accessing therapies and treatments to deal early with mental health difficulties, and we have rightly heard quite a bit about stigma and discrimination and what can be done to tackle that.

I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) about the importance of dealing with mental health difficulties among children and young people and intervening early to address them. Many mental health problems begin in childhood—before the age of 18—yet we know that only 6% of spending on therapeutic mental health services is through child and adolescent mental health services, so there is clearly a massive imbalance in the way in which we are spending our resources to address the problems in the pre-adult years, as compared with picking up the pieces afterwards when so much damage has been done.

Concerns were also expressed about the extent to which programmes that should be helping are not doing so. We heard quite a lot about difficulties with the benefits system and problems with some of the work support programmes, which mean we cannot be complacent about an employment rate of 37% among people with mental health problems against an overall employment rate of 77%.

As we heard, in most cases being in work is beneficial for mental health, although in her 2013 report for the Government on mental health and work Dame Carol Black rightly set out a number of caveats to that, including the quality of the job and the degree of autonomy or control that is enjoyed by an employee. However, we also know that people who are not working because of a mental health problem represent the largest proportion of those who would like to be in employment. The reasons why they are not working are partly to do with lack of access to the therapies and care that would make work possible.

We have heard on many occasions of significant delays in accessing so-called talking therapies, and we must be concerned that one driver of the rise in the number of people being placed on the support group of employment and support allowance because of mental health problems may be that people cannot get access to the health care they need.

We must also pay attention to the particular anxiety identified by the independent reviewer, Dr Paul Litchfield, about the very large number of young people in the support group or the work-related activity group of ESA who have mental health difficulties. The fact that we are parking some of those young people on to a benefit without properly intervening early, and the fact that the way in which the system operates exacerbates and encourages a disregard of early intervention, is something I know the Minister expressed his own concerns about in his appearance before the Select Committee recently.

Repeated reports have recommended the much more effective joining up of employment support and mental health services. I very much welcome the introduction of specific indicators for mental health and employment in the NHS outcomes framework, but we also know that there are long delays in accessing therapies and that doctors can be reluctant to identify a mental health problem or sometimes fail to recognise that a patient could work or that work would be beneficial for that individual. The introduction of the fit note offers doctors the opportunity to provide more useful fitness advice to patients with mental health conditions, but there remains a significant challenge to ensure that health care service professionals support rather than work against the grain of increasing and sustaining employment.

We also know that stigma and employers’ fear play an important part in the poor employment outcomes of those with mental health disorders. Half of employers say that they would not employ someone with a mental health condition, although I strongly suspect that a large majority of them in fact already do so. Too often, sickness absence as a result of a mental health problem leads to dismissal under capability procedures or to early exit or early retirement. The introduction of fees for employment tribunals under this Government makes it harder for an individual who has been forced out of work to gain redress, which I guess could make it more likely that employers will put people under pressure to leave a job.

As has been said, we need the workplace environment to be much more effective in supporting people with mental health disorders. A few days ago, I met representatives from my own union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and they highlighted some of the difficulties that their members were facing at work. They talked about the stressors that people face at work, including unrealistic performance targets, zero-hours contracts and the insecurity associated with them, low pay and the difficulty of balancing family and working life.

Those problems are not confined to one particular industry sector. Workers in the public sector—teachers, probation officers, police officers and people in the armed forces, for example—also experience high levels of pressure and stress. We should also note that those pressures cut across all levels of jobs, from the most senior to those in basic and entry-level jobs. In fact, stress is particularly high among lower-paid workers who do not enjoy autonomy and control over how their working day is spent, or who feel that they have low status at work. Stress levels among low-paid and more junior workers can be particularly high.

There are lots of opportunities for us to intervene to improve workplace support. We have heard some helpful and imaginative suggestions and examples this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will comment on the role of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to this agenda. There is a real opportunity for managers to work with trade union workplace representatives to address some of the issues. There is also an important role for the public sector, as an exemplar employer, to adopt appropriate strategies to support staff as well as proactively recruiting those with a history of mental ill health, as was rightly suggested by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).

Sir Stephen O’Brien, who is chair of the Barts Health NHS Trust, was recently commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition to advise my party on a mentally healthy society. He has suggested that accreditation schemes could do more. In addition, we need to pay attention to manager training and to providing information in the workplace to enable people to self-refer to mental health services, as well as to the positive use of the fit for work scheme, which is something the USDAW representatives told me that people were quite fearful of. The scheme could be helpful in supporting people to get back into work quickly, and I hope that employer bodies will take positive steps to engage with and reassure their workers about the way in which they are using the new scheme.

The Government also have an important role in supporting into employment those who are out of work as a result of a mental health problem. Despite the raft of initiatives and pilots described in the Government’s disability and employment strategy, the number of people being placed in the employment and support allowance support group is rising, and labour market programmes that ought to be getting more people back into work are continuing to let them down. The Work programme has been a failure for those with a mental health condition, as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, getting just 6.7% of them back into work. The black-box approach and the national contracting regime have shut out specialist provision, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and others. We have also seen a 20% reduction in the number of specialist disability employment advisers in jobcentres. As the Minister acknowledged in a written ministerial statement on 18 December, the Access to Work programme last year suffered from significant delivery problems, which will have inhibited access to some of the support that could have been provided through the mental health component of the programme. That could have enabled more people, more quickly, to have functioned better at work.

There is a problem with the Work programme’s absence of a specialist programme for people who have been placed on ESA for mental health and indeed other chronic health conditions and disabilities, which means they are not getting the tailor-made support they need. That is why Labour has said that we would introduce a specialist programme of work support for those who have been on ESA for more than three months, which would mean that by commissioning that support locally, we will be able to make much better use of the kind of specialist organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that have expertise in mental health and employment, and will be able to offer appropriate support.

I agree with the comments made about the opportunity presented by the individual placement and support programmes run from a number of NHS trusts. I had the privilege of visiting the IPS team in south Manchester a few months ago, where I heard about the successes it achieves, both in placing people into, and sustaining them in, work, and in reducing the incidence of hospitalisation. We know, including from an international study—the equalise study—that such interventions can be cost-effective compared with other vocational support for some people, yet too often people are being referred to this kind of support too late. I will be interested to hear the Minister update us on the Government’s thinking on IPS and what the current learning is. I would also be interested if he commented on what I was told in south Manchester, which was that the NHS is funding these IPS programmes but if Work programme providers have referred or introduced someone to that IPS service, the Work programme provider claims the outcome payment. It seems mad that the Department for Work and Pensions is paying a Work programme provider when all the work is being done and all the cost is being borne in the NHS. I hope the Minister might be able to say something about that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is exactly what is happening to the charity I mentioned in my contribution. It is doing all the work and the Work programme provider is doing nothing for individuals, apart from making a phone call at the end to ascertain whether that person has actually got a job and then claiming the money from the Government.

[Kate Green]

That is absolutely not how those contracts should be working. If subcontracting to specialist organisations is taking place from the Work programme, the organisations to which those subcontracts are being let should be properly rewarded. We face a number of problems in this area. First, a lot of local organisations do not have the opportunity or the wherewithal to participate in these programmes at all. As my hon. Friend says, those that can or try to participate find that the programmes are utterly economically unviable for them because they are not paid for the work they do.

Finally, I wish to pick up on the discussion introduced by a number of colleagues about the operation of the benefits system, and how that bears on those with mental health conditions and their chances for employment. The hon. Member for Windsor was absolutely right to talk about the complexity and forbidding nature of some of the system. I hope the Minister is not going to tell me that universal credit is going to resolve all that, because I do not think it will. In particular, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the gateway into the system is as much a part of the problem as the way in which the benefits system is designed. Although it is right that moving people into employment is in many cases going to be good for their mental health, moving them into poorly paid jobs which leave them still struggling to make ends meet will not make them feel that their well-being is being holistically addressed. Poorly paid, poor-quality jobs are, in the long run, just not going to be consistent with good mental health. I also say to the Minister—and he will know this—that there has been a massive upsurge in sanctioning benefit claimants under this Government, which must mean that a number of those who are being caught are those with mental health problems.

Of course there must be conditions for benefits and sanctions for wilful non-compliance, but inappropriate sanctioning causes not only financial hardship for many but huge anxiety and stress. Despite repeated protestations from Ministers that there are no targets for sanctions in Jobcentre Plus, we hear again and again anecdotal reports that such targets—at least at managerial level—do exist. It is also true that the new regime is now much more punitive. Sanctions bite harder and last longer and a culture has grown up in which claimants are being sanctioned inappropriately.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was told of a case in the west midlands of a Work programme participant who was unable, because of his mental health condition, to discuss his situation in a public forum, as was required by his provider. The resulting anxiety left him unable to engage at all with the Work programme and he was sanctioned for 14 days.

It would be useful to know what analysis Ministers are undertaking of the people affected by sanctions who have a mental health condition. It is really quite shocking that we have so little information on their fate when a sanction has been imposed. I want to be clear that, under a Labour Government, there will be no targets for sanctions, that we will insist that assessors and decision makers at every stage of the process from the work capability assessment to the imposition of conditions to decisions about sanctions properly take account of the mental health of the claimant, and that expert advice will be available to ensure that relevant information is considered, with penalties on assessors for poor advice.

May I also highlight the concerns that arise from the recent regulations to allow data-sharing in relation to universal credit recipients with a range of other service providers, including housing associations, credit unions and debt advice agencies? Constituents have said that they are concerned that this could lead to data-sharing about their mental health, which they have not authorised and do not want to happen. The Minister must be clear about what protections will exist when the new regulations take effect.

In conclusion, I am glad that we have had this debate this afternoon and that we have shared our aspirations for the best employment chances and rights at work for those who suffer mental illness. As we all know, warm words will not be enough. There must be a rigorous focus on access, support and measurable outcomes. One in four of us will suffer mental illness at some point in our lifetime. We cannot afford the waste of potential when, so often, worklessness is the result.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kevan Jones and Kate Green

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to follow the Minister in opening this debate. As he has said, this Bill marks an important step on the long road to justice for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. I welcome the progress that has been made so far, but the Minister is right to say that we should take this opportunity to see whether we can go a little further before the Bill completes its passage through the House.

I am very pleased to see so many colleagues present, many of whom represent constituencies where the disease is prevalent as a result of their industrial history. I know it will be important for colleagues on both sides of the House to be able to speak about their communities’ experiences, over many decades, of the consequences of this terrible disease. Although I totally share the Minister’s wish for the Bill to make progress through this House so that a scheme can be put in place and payments can flow to victims in the next few months, I do not think we are so pressed for time this evening that we should not give the opportunity to every one of our colleagues to make the case on behalf of their constituents, because this issue is felt very deeply in many of the communities they represent.

I know that many colleagues will want to join me in paying particular tribute to the asbestos victims support groups, which have done so much to campaign for a fairer deal for victims and to keep parliamentarians briefed, not only for this debate, but over many years.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will my hon. Friend also add the congratulations of the House to the trade unions, which have not only campaigned on behalf of asbestos victims, but won literally millions of pounds of compensation for people who would not have got it unless they had been members of a trade union?

[Kate Green]

I am very happy to join in that tribute to the work of trade unions, a number of which have worked over many years not only to advocate the cause of individual victims, but to maintain the pressure that has ultimately led to the scheme under discussion.

I also pay tribute to our colleagues in the House of Lords who have already carefully scrutinised and, as the Minister said, improved the Bill. In particular, I acknowledge the work of my noble Friend Lord McKenzie, who, under the previous Labour Government, launched the consultation that has resulted in this Bill. I pay tribute to his assiduousness and his determination to secure justice for the victims of this terrible disease. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord Freud, who has demonstrated his equal determination and commitment to righting a long-standing and terrible wrong by introducing the proposed scheme.

The Bill follows a series of earlier pieces of legislation passed by previous Labour Governments to improve the lot of victims of asbestos-related and industrial diseases. In 1969, Labour introduced the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, requiring employers to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment. In 1979, Labour introduced and secured the passage of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which provides lump sum compensation payments to people suffering from certain dust-related diseases or, if they have died, to their dependants, when a claim for damages is not possible because the employer or employers are no longer in business. In 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme, which provides lump sum payments for people suffering from diffuse mesothelioma who are unable to claim compensation from other sources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

There are two questions wrapped up in that one question. First, on present figures, what does it appear the industry can afford? I will say something about that in a moment. Secondly, does the industry have to pass on the cost to its customers, or could it choose to absorb it? We are talking about roughly 10% of the total value to the industry of the employers’ liability market. I appreciate that that is not a small sum, but as colleagues have pointed out, the industry has had decades to accumulate profits as a result of the premiums it has collected.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is not just about the accumulated profits to which my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) have referred: insurance companies are still making huge profits. Lloyd’s of London made £2.7 billion in 2012, Royal and Sun Alliance made £233 million between January and June 2012, and Aviva made £605 million between January and June 2013. These companies are not unprofitable, so their attitude to a levy costing £350 million is an insult to the victims.

[Kate Green]

I hope we bring the industry to understand that it would be right and proper for it to be more generous to the victims than the current scheme appears.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and Kate Green

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I, too, am keen to ask the Minister some questions, similar to those put by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

I completely share other hon. Members’ concerns about securing much better protection for the consumer, but given that the amendments have been introduced rather hastily I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be a level playing field for different business types and, in particular, that access to independent legal advice from independent solicitors will be protected for claimants.

I therefore seek a fuller explanation from the Minister of how it is intended that referral fees will be defined. Specifically, to what extent does he see marketing activity by solicitors and others as covered—or not covered—by the provisions? For example, as has already been suggested, if a high street solicitor takes on some work, but realises that he or she does not have the expertise to pursue the case and therefore refers it to another solicitor and arranges some form of fee sharing, how is it intended that this should be treated under the provisions? Some solicitors have grouped together to pool their marketing budgets. Is the intention of the Minister’s amendments to outlaw pooled marketing completely or to cover it in regulation? It would be useful to have some clarification on that.

I welcome what the Minister said in answer to my earlier intervention about alternative business structures, but I am curious to know what his assessment is of the possibility that more and more large claims management companies will seek to handle all such business in-house and will stop using the services of other legal firms or legal experts. Has he made any assessment of the possibility of the provision of such services being concentrated in a way that reduces consumer choice and independent advice, and will he say what steps he might take to address that?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome the banning of referral fees, and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing it. The scandal is that, frankly, it should have been done years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I campaigned hard to expose the scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme, which created a feeding frenzy not just for solicitors but for claims management companies. As I have said before—and to answer the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I frankly do not care if they all go bust, because they are not needed in this process. If people need legal advice, they go to a solicitor. Claims management companies have acted like parasites on the access to justice model that we have had in this country for many years.

I find it ironic that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that I was referring to Blackburn as a middle-England constituency, because I was not. The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I, along with one or two other Members, argued hard about the scandal surrounding the miners compensation scheme. One of the key points was referral fees and the amount of money received not only by solicitors but by unscrupulous trade unions and unscrupulous claims handling companies. The issue was regulated in 2004, with referral fees being made legal. However, in the case of the miners compensation scheme it was quite obvious that referral fees were being paid and that the Law Society was turning a blind eye—I always refer to the Law Society as the best trade union in the world, because it does such a good job of protecting its self-interest.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and Kate Green

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree. The changes being made to housing benefit will not do anything to help families stay together. My hon. Friend is a London Member, so he will know that families will be forced to move out of central London because of the Government’s changes to housing benefit rules. That is one of the inconsistencies of this Government. On the one hand they say that a tax break of £150, or £20 a week, will help to keep the social unit together, and on the other they—the same Minister, I hasten to add—pursue policies on housing benefit and other benefit changes that will not help at all to keep families together but will lead to the root cause of most of these issues: the poverty that affects such individuals.

I turn to some of the problems with the Bill as framed, and to what we have before us. New clause 5 is not the measure in the Conservative party’s most recent election manifesto. This proposed change includes married couples but excludes civil partners, who would not be covered by the new clause. When there was an outcry and complaints about what had been proposed at the election, the Prime Minister included civil partners at the last minute.

People would have to opt in to this system and elect to transfer their part of an allowance. That would be very unfair to many people who do not understand tax codes. I have just got my annual tax return and I keep putting it to one side, as most people do, until the deadline arrives. Introducing a system whereby people have to elect to transfer a certain allowance may well help the more articulate middle-class people who can do that when they fill in the form, but I am not sure that some of the people on poor council housing estates in Glasgow whom the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is trying to address will have the wherewithal or knowledge to do it even if they knew that the option was available.

The Government have told us that they wish to simplify the tax system, but the new clause would make it a lot more complicated. In trying to bolster marriage, it would help certain groups of people but not others. Whenever we do anything with the taxation system, we should try to make it as user-friendly as possible. If someone opted to move their allowance around, that would be quite complicated because people’s incomes change throughout the year, so they might have a certain allowance available in one year but not another. The system would incur not only the £3 billion-plus cost of having it open to everyone but the cost of trying to work out how the tax office would administer it. In that respect, the new clause is not well thought out.

The Government have got themselves into a bit of a logjam on this. The Prime Minister is clearly committed to this policy. His Back Benchers are now worried that it cannot be implemented because of the coalition agreement. Huge amounts of public money would be used, but would it have any effect on child poverty? No, it would not, and neither would it affect most families. Moreover, it would help people without any children, including pensioners.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Leaving aside couples where there are no children in the household, does my hon. Friend agree that married couples typically tend to come from the better-off social classes and that, while I am sure that this is not what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) intends, a tax break for marriage would therefore benefit the better-off?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has great experience in this area, and she makes a clear point. People on lower incomes and possibly of lower educational standing than others will not look at the tax system and say, “I’m going to stay married because somehow I will be financially better off.” That is why it is important to simplify the tax system.

If we are looking to help children, this proposal would not do that. Indeed, some aspects would be detrimental to families, especially put alongside the Conservatives’ existing proposals on changes to the tax and benefits system. We need an honest debate on the family, child poverty and how we can build communities. By investing in Sure Start and child tax credit, the last Labour Government raised a whole group of individuals out of poverty. That was the way to do it. If money is tight, it needs to be targeted very carefully.

The approach that has been put forward, which recognises marriage, is not targeted and will not have the effect that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wants. That is unfortunate, because I think that he is well intentioned and has just come to the wrong conclusions. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the new clause. I do not think that they will, because it is not what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined in the manifesto or in the lead-up to the general election. It will be interesting to see how much pressure the Liberal Democrats can bring to bear to ensure that this proposal never sees the light of day. The coalition agreement says that they can sit on their hands if it is brought forward.

In conclusion, the individuals who are trying to address this issue, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough who is well intentioned and thoughtful in trying to do the best for families, have got it wrong in thinking that the answer is marriage. The root cause of social breakdown is not that people are not married, but poverty. We need to ensure that not only the tax system, but the benefits system and everything else, supports families, whether the parents are married, single, in a civil partnership or whatever. As has been said, and as the modern part of the Conservative party recognises, the modern family comes in all shapes and sizes. One size does not fit all and one solution does not fit all. Giving a pathetic sum of money to support marriage will not relieve child poverty; nor will it ensure that people stay together longer if the taxman will raid their savings or income if they do not. I do not think that this is the answer, and if it goes to a vote I will oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. First, I have been struck this evening by the interventions by Government Members about the opportunity for couples to make a choice—particularly that which many of them would like to see, which is for one parent in the couple, often the mother, to take some time out of the workplace to stay at home and care for children. They seem willing to spend money on offering that choice to mothers in couple relationships and to spend more on offering it to mothers in married couple relationships, but not to offer it to single mothers. The economic pressure on single mothers to go out to work to support their children is being ratcheted up by this Government. If it is right for children to have a parent at home for a time, not necessarily just when the children are very young, it must be right irrespective of the marital status of the parents. Government Members must think about the child-focused approach to deploying resources. If we think it right that parents should have the choice to be at home with their children, all parents must have that choice, not just those in married relationships.

In response to the interesting and important point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about what goes on in other European countries, let me say that one of the distinguishing factors is that the experience of poverty among lone parent families in this country and the much lower experience of such poverty in other European countries shows that one can design a fiscal system so that lone parenthood need not be a determinant of poverty. It need not lead families and children into poverty. This is about the redistributive choices that we make in our fiscal system. When we have such pressure on the public finances, making a choice to spend money on favouring a group of families, many of whom are already economically advantaged, rather than focusing spending on those who are most economically disadvantaged is a strange priority, particularly given that we have no evidence of the efficacy of spending money on keeping people married as a route to keeping them out of economic disadvantage.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend talks about international comparisons, but does she agree that there is also no evidence in European countries or anywhere else that having a tax system that encourages marriage leads to more stable marriages or more coherent family units?

[Kate Green]

It is very clear that putting the weight of expectation for supporting marriage on the fiscal system is a very unrealistic and unlikely way of providing adequate support for strong couple relationships. Of course everybody wants strong couple relationships to be sustained and of course it is right to use every instrument of public policy that we can—cost-effectively and in terms of outcome—to do so, but the evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is not that we should give tax breaks to the already better-off, and particularly not to the already better-off who do not have children, if we are concerned about child well-being. The evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is about a much broader landscape of social and emotional support. It is about early relationship and social education in schools and ensuring we have strong services to support families in the community, including the universally welcome Sure Start services and the very good-quality child care and play facilities that can be available to support parents in raising their children.

To isolate money and spend it in the fiscal system rather than direct our attention to what genuinely supports strong family relationships and children in whatever family structure they are growing up is in my view a misapplication of public funds, particularly at a time when those public funds are constrained. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is particularly strange to spend money on couples who have no children if we are concerned about child well-being, rather than to spend money in a way that specifically focuses on the well-being of kids. I am very concerned that the new clause would take money from those with higher levels of need and give it to many couples in lesser need. I accept that, as hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist Benches have said, some married couples are in low-income groups and in straitened circumstances, but in general we would be diverting resources to better-off families from lower-income families, and particularly from lower-income families with children.

Finally, let me address the issue of the couple penalty, about which we have heard a great deal and about which I am deeply sceptical. Let us start by remembering that there are economies of scale of living with another adult in one’s household. It does not cost twice as much for two adults to live in a household as it costs one. The couple penalty that has been much talked about by Conservative Members fails to identify that the material circumstances of children in lone-parent families are measurably worse than those of children in couple families. Whatever the intellectual and fiscal modelling might suggest about a financial couple penalty, the reality—the outcome—is that there is no such couple penalty. Indeed, the penalty works in quite the opposite way. To seek to extend the material advantage that couples enjoy at the expense of single parents seems to me a strange choice for a Government who are particularly concerned about social mobility and improving the prospects of the most disadvantaged children.

I hope that hon. Members will consider the new clause very carefully and the fact that it simply fails to achieve the laudable goals of Members on the Government Benches to improve the prospects of some of our most disadvantaged children. I hope that they will look instead at how best we can direct resources to support parents who are bringing up children on their own, usually through no choice or fault of their own. I hope that they will relieve what is often a burden from the parents who are often proud to take on that burden and who deserve to be rewarded for taking it on, as they are the parents who stay and make the commitment. Surely they are the parents to whom we should be giving extra financial support if there is extra financial support to be made available. I really do plead with Members on the Conservative Benches, and with DUP Members who I think are giving them some support this evening, to think again about the likely effect of such a new clause and about the children who would lose out. I am sure that their intentions are honourable, but I am afraid that the results will be anything but.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kevan Jones and Kate Green

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That will be a double whammy for those new families. Something like 30,000 children in the north-east will also lose out through the abolition of the child trust fund. Their families will then be hit by the VAT increase, on top of the huge expense of a new child, which will have a disproportionate effect, as my right hon. Friend points out. It will have an even greater effect on low-income families and people who are on benefits.

We spoke earlier about where the burden of the cuts will fall. It was obviously a first outing for the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), and the Government have obviously run out of people to put on the Front Bench, judging by the performance that we saw. She tried to argue that VAT was not a regressive tax, although the Liberal Democrats said throughout the election campaign that it was. She also tried to argue that the increase would not affect the poorest in society.

One of the great things about being a Member of Parliament is that we have access to a great Library here. I suggest that all hon. Members go and take a look at the excellent document on VAT and the new standard rate of 20%. Turn to page 4, which has a very useful graph that shows that, as a result of this increase, the poorest will pay some 19% more as a proportion of their net household income, while the richest will pay less than 11%. People in North Durham who are on benefits and those made unemployed over the last few weeks will find themselves being hit straight away next year by this tax. Also affected will be a lot of small businesses, shops and others.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the poor are hit so particularly hard is that for them this is not discretionary spending, but spending on essentials? While the rich might face paying out a higher proportion of their expenditure, that is because they choose to incur that extra expenditure, while poorer families are being fleeced for expenditure on items for which they have no choice but to spend.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Unlike the hon. Member for North East Somerset, who might be able to forgo a visit to the tailor once this year, some of the families he is talking to will not have a choice about whether to buy a new pram or other essential equipment for their baby. I have some further examples to put to the House.