Oral Answers to Questions

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

[Rishi Sunak]

[Naz Shah]

[Rishi Sunak]

Black History Month

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

While looking into Black History Month within my constituency, I discovered that John Edward Parris was one of the first, if not the first, black footballer for Bradford. More recently, Ces Podd and Joe Cooke can be added to the famous names associated with Bradford and football. I am also pleased to have seen more recently the appointment of our first black female CEO, Therese Patten, to the local NHS district care trust.

However, I was disheartened to learn that we do not have a place locally in which we can find details of the first black nurse, the first black teacher, the first black doctor and so forth. In contributing to today’s debate, for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), I want to highlight that issue, but also ensure that that will change through intervention.

Many colleagues from across the House have made powerful contributions, and I echo much of what has been said, certainly on this side of the House, especially on the Black Lives Matter movement. However, I want to focus my speech on celebrating the contributions of black people across my constituency, because for black lives to really matter their contributions must be remembered, dignified and celebrated. I would take up all afternoon if I mentioned everybody, but I am going to highlight a few.

Since 1 October 2014 in my constituency a flag has been raised to mark Black History Month. I spoke to one of the organisers, a dear friend of mine, Carol Peltier, who runs the Black Health Forum. She has worked in the community for over 25 years, and she and others have been working on recording contributions. I would like to put on record my thanks for the work she is doing.

I want to say thank you to some who are no longer with us and make sure that this House recognises the people of my constituency. I am talking about the contributions of people such as the following: the late Nathaniel Johnson, otherwise known as Maas Arthur, founder of Bradford’s first organisation of African-Caribbean senior citizens in the early 1980s, which is still going today; Aubury Deen, who set up the first black workers support group in Bradford Council; Bobsie Robinson, who ran culture and arts in Bradford; Joseph Flerin and Max Prosper, who helped set up a Bradford West Indian parents association for Saturday schools and the first ever nursery for black children, and also played a part in setting up the Dominica Association in my constituency, along with Maurice Celaire; Corine Campbell, a legendary name in my constituency in Bradford, who ran the community development unit and was a huge community activist and instrumental in setting up MAPA. While MAPA was not in my constituency, many of my constituents certainly accessed it.

I also want to give a big shout out—this is very personal to me—for the late Mikey Roots for his contribution to the local music scene, running Palm Cove just down the road from me. Mikey was a little guy with a big personality, a big heart and an even bigger presence, much bigger even than his long dreadlocks. The late Paul Joseph was also a key figure in the Bradford entertainment scene.

  I would also like to talk about the political history of Bradford. It would be remiss of me not to mention what the Northern Complainants Aid Fund did. It was involved as early as 1978-79 in the case of George Lindo. The campaign started in Bradford. He was a Bradfordian man, and the case impacted on the idea of all-white juries. NCAF, and in particular Courtney Hay and Erskine Grant, also represented Carol Bonehill from Birmingham, a young mother who infamously received a P45 in the card congratulating her on the birth of her daughter. That case was represented in Bradford and it led to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launching a national investigation into pregnancy and discrimination. People from my constituency have impacted on laws made in this House for the betterment of society.

I put on record my thanks to a couple of organisations in particular that have done a huge amount of work. More recently, they are the Windrush Generation, which is run by Nigel Guy, the Dominica Association, the Black Health Forum, the Mary Seacole Centre in my constituency and Frontline, which is also in my constituency. I give huge thanks to Delroy Dacres, who still works tirelessly in Manningham Mills, bringing people together through sports. George Deen, who has retired, has fought really hard in Bradford for people with disabilities. Rev. George Williams has invited me to his church of St Peter’s in Allerton this Christmas. Lots of people from local black churches do a huge amount in my community, especially through covid and stressful periods such as this.

On a lighter note, brothers Chris and Floyd Peltier ran the New Edition nightclub, which is infamous and remembered across the country. Floyd still runs the “All Stars of Comedy”, which has a national reach celebrating black comedy. I give a quick shout out to Owen Williams, although he is not in Bradford anymore, and Trish Cooke. They are Bradfordians, and “Made in Bradford” is a badge I would like to honour them with. Owen Williams is a Bradford lad who is now the CEO of the neighbouring Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust. Trish Cooke is a black woman from Bradford who is now a leading writer of children’s books and TV drama.

In closing, I simply say this: Bradford is a better place because of its diversity, and if we really mean it when we say “Black Lives Matter”, it cannot be without the history of black contribution to places such as Bradford and beyond.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On 10 May, the Prime Minister announced that the country would be easing out of lockdown, despite analysts highlighting that his calls were coming early, and that without a vaccine and a proper track and trace system we would fail to reduce the rise of the virus. In July, he set out plans for significant normality by Christmas and said that people should start going back to work if they could. He talked about opening sports stadiums and big venues by October. In August, the Chancellor announced his flamboyant flagship policy for people to eat out to help out. At the end of August, the Government launched an entire ad campaign to try to get people back into their offices for work. Three weeks later, the Government’s message changed to say that people in England should work from home if they could and that pubs and restaurants were to be placed under 10 pm curfews to reduce social mixing and slow the spread of the virus. If businesses, employees and this country needed one thing they could have hoped for during this crisis it was some sort of clarity in communication, but the Government and this Prime Minister failed to provide even that.

For those in constituencies such as mine, which have spent the past two and a half months in further local restrictions, the impact on the local economy has been far more drastic. The unemployment rate in my constituency is the highest in Yorkshire and the Humber, and seventh highest in the country, Figures released today by End Child Poverty show that Bradford West has had the highest rate of rising child poverty in Yorkshire and the Humber over the past four years.

The Government were late planning the furlough scheme. The first reported case of the coronavirus confirmed by the chief medical officer in England was on 31 January. The Treasury did not announce plans for significant funding to support businesses and individuals until the Budget on 11 March and it was not clear to the Treasury until the following week that the furlough scheme would even be needed. The furlough scheme had gaps where people who had started their new job after 11 March were not eligible for the scheme and were missed out. The self-employed income support scheme has failed many, especially the new businesses that have started up, as the scheme pays out based on profit made, not on actual business turnover, and most businesses make very little, if any, profit in the first few years, yet they still have expenditure.

Let me share some examples of people in my constituency. We have Art of Acoustics in Clayton. According to Musicians Union research, 87% of musicians will be earning less than £20,000 this year, well below the UK average income of £29,600, while 65% are facing financial hardship right now, 47% have been forced to look for work outside the music industry, and 36% do not have any work at all. John and Lauren, landlords of The New Inn pub in Thornton in my constituency, said today: “It’s the local situation. Our turnover is massively down, the pub’s appeal has changed, people feel uncomfortable coming into the pub.”

The Government need to listen to businesses more and seriously rethink this, as they are currently at risk from a health and safety perspective as well as facing the economic risk. The Image Mill in Thornton, which provides photographers, says: “We have fallen through the gaps as most do not have premises and are not eligible for business grants. With the 15-person wedding restriction, there are less weddings. We have missed the wedding season and we’re waiting until next year.” That has a real domino effect.

Becky from Thornton Furnishings says: “People feel the Tories are the party of business but their catastrophic mishandling of this crisis only proves they are the party of incompetence and one that does not care for small businesses or the health and wellbeing of people. I can say with certainty as a business owner I will not be voting Tory at the next election.” I think Becky really sums it up for the whole of my constituency regarding the failures of this Government.

Bradford West needs more support. I urge the Chancellor to address that. I said this yesterday and I will say it again and again: Bradford West needs some targeted support not just for its businesses but if we are not to fail the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I see that she is nodding, so she has informed him. It is very important for good order in the Chamber that if a specific criticism is being made, the Member being criticised should be informed. That is perfectly in order.

The hon. Lady asks me how she might draw attention to—excuse me, please stay back there. I am addressing the hon. Lady; you have to sit down. [Interruption.] Yes, no matter what is going on in here, it is important that we keep social distance, and are seen to keep social distance, at all times.

The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chair is not responsible for remarks made and points brought forward by right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber, nor is it for me to adjudicate as to whether what has been said is or is not accurate—which is fortunate, because that would be a full-time job. However, the hon. Lady has asked me how she might draw attention to the point that she has made, and I would say to her that she has already done so.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of making corrections, this morning during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister suggested that 93% of the current income of people in pubs and the hospitality industry would be ring-fenced or supported, which is actually untrue and is very confusing for my constituents. I did not have the honour of informing him, but given that Twitter is awash with it, I am sure that he is well aware of this.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

First, I must say to the hon. Lady that she heard my answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). This is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair. I have to say to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) that as she was criticising a Member—whoever that Member might be—she ought to have informed the hon. Member that she was intending to do so. Once again, it is a point of debate and it is not for me to adjudicate on the accuracy of statistics, but she has drawn her important point to the attention of the House and, indeed, to those on the Treasury Bench.

Coronavirus Bill

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

This debate has been carried out in a constructive spirit and I hope that the Government listen to all suggestions, but this issue is a real concern. If this emergency lasts—which I am afraid it is going to—and people are put in situations where they are close to their abusers, we must still have some sort of safeguards in place, particularly in our courts system.

Our prisons cannot become laboratories for transmission, and neither can our immigration detention centres—a point that I hope the Paymaster General will pass on to the Home Secretary.

The issue of burial has clearly caused great controversy. I know that the Paymaster General is one of the people who have come up with the final version on this matter, and I thank her for the efforts that she has made. This issue is clearly vital for Muslims and those of the Jewish faith. Clearly, they need to be in a position where we respect their rights about burial as far as we possibly can. The wording of Government amendment 52 is now much stronger, and I welcome that, but the Government could also communicate with local authorities as to how they want that measure to be interpreted in the days and weeks ahead.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Members have said that a 100% guarantee that nobody will be cremated against their wishes would be very welcome. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has been doing on this matter in recent days; it has been most welcome. I am pleased that the Minister has listened to that campaigning work, and I hope that we will be able to get reassurance on that point.

On restricting freedoms—and there are, quite frankly, draconian restrictions of freedom in this Bill including in relation to mass gatherings, the closure of ports and borders, and detention powers over potentially infectious people, which I read as applying to children and adults—the Government must do only what is necessary and proportionate. We must also be wary of restricting the right to protest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments will have been heard, and I am sure that point will be clarified, but in all this, whether it is about key workers or new policy of this ilk that has been announced, the objective is to keep as many people at home as possible, including children. That principle would underlie any policy on what is actually essential. The bottom line, as the shadow Secretary of State outlined in his remarks, is that if we stay at home, we will be helping to save lives, protecting the NHS and fighting the virus. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Naz Shah]

I would like first on this occasion to pay my respects and put on record my thanks to our brave NHS staff, our key workers and everyone in our nation playing their part in combating the covid-19 outbreak, and also my advance thanks to the police, who have been given extra responsibilities by the Prime Minister this evening to police people’s social distance when they go out.

I will not be moving my amendment, but instead thank the Government for their amendment, which actually strengthened my proposal. However, it is still important to say a few words about that. I have been truly heartened by the cross-party support that I have received in this process from every part of this House. It really does demonstrate how, at times of crisis, democracy can work and can respond positively to the concerns out there in the community. I would like to say thank you for that spirit of unity.

This truly is a difficult time for everyone in our nation. They are not normal times with today’s emergency Bill. We know how life as we know it will have to change, and the origins of this Bill have caused huge distress to religious communities, especially those of Muslim and Jewish background. Death is a sensitive time for everyone, and losing a loved one is difficult for us all. We all want dignity in death for our loved ones, and the idea that, in extreme circumstances, when capacity issues arise, the deceased would have to be cremated was something hard to bear, especially for those from the Muslim and Jewish faiths, which strongly oppose cremation. I further thank the Minister for clarifying in the assurance and the guarantees that she has just given that nobody will be cremated against their wishes.

The aim of my amendment was to give, in such difficult circumstances where capacity issues arise for local authorities, further legal protection and to ensure that the next of kin and the relevant faith institutions were consulted, in order to provide added support and protect the deceased from being cremated. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and the hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for co-sponsoring my amendment, and the more than 110 cross-party MPs who formally showed their support. I also thank the all-party group on British Muslims for its tireless work behind the scenes, as well as community organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, Wifaqul Ulama, the British Board of Scholars and Imams, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

I thank individuals such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who could not be here tonight; Qari Asim MBE, the adviser to the Government; Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, Vakas Hussain, and all those individuals and organisations who played a huge role silently in the background, influencing and putting in tremendous effort to work through this process. I have never done a campaign like it in 24 hours. I must also put on the record my thanks to Joseph Hayat of British Muslim TV for doing the one-minute video, which was absolutely amazing.

Economic Update

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and that is why all Secretaries of State have been tasked by me to engage with their affected industries to see whether there are further specific measures of support that are worth our exploring.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s measures for small businesses, and especially in my constituency lots of people have been in touch with us about them, but they will only be effective if they are timely, so when will the cash grants be available to small businesses in real terms? Will he also consider the idea that, when landlords get mortgage breaks, they pass them on to their renters, and how will we ensure that actually happens?

[Rishi Sunak]

On the processing of the cash grants, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary is working on this at pace. It will require local authorities to write to the recipients of small business rate relief to collect their bank details, which they do not hold centrally, so that they can then provide the cash payment, but I can assure the hon. Member that that work is happening at pace.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robertson]

I agree entirely. My concerns are therefore completely grounded in animal welfare. This topic is just one element of a wider debate we should be having on animal welfare at slaughter, including ensuring that the existing animal welfare standards that we have in place are met. I hope that we can encourage a sensible debate on this issue.

As a nation, we are increasingly concerned with animal welfare on a broad range of issues, and rightly so. The Government have an excellent record on animal welfare, responding to demands for mandatory CCTV in slaughter houses, addressing plastics in the oceans and tackling the illegal ivory trade. Today, we had a ten-minute rule Bill on animal sentience that will impose a duty on public bodies to have due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings when formulating or implementing policy. The Government are committed to doing that, so I ask them to consider some of the things that I am suggesting.

Consumers are rightly concerned about the quality of life of animals before slaughter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said. That also extends to concerns about the ending of animals’ lives, which is a concern for farmers across my constituency, who feel strongly that the animals they have carefully bred should not suffer unnecessarily in their final minutes. I therefore suggest that the Government look at banning non-stun slaughter, if they feel that the evidence points that way and that it would be appropriate. That is a position based on scientific evidence and supported by the BVA, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is saying this, but does he agree that the truth is that the debate about banning slaughter has an impact on, and is correlated with, the rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism? It is used as a tool by Tommy Robinson et al. and by newspapers to propagate headlines such as “Halal secret of Pizza Express” and “Brit kids forced to eat Halal school dinners”. It goes into that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point.

As I was saying, a range of approaches are being taken and a ban would not be unprecedented. As we have already heard, there is considerable support for clearer labelling and for preventing the production of non-stunned meat beyond the needs of our domestic market. I ask the Government to consider the full range of approaches that has been taken across the world and, if they are not prepared to consider a ban, to investigate those other options.

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while we are having the debate, we must ensure—I cannot speak for the other countries that he named—the religious freedom that our democracy is so proud of? In this instance, we are talking about two religious communities, the Jewish community and the Muslim community, which are directly affected by the debate and what he is proposing.

[Mr Robertson]

I made it clear at the beginning that the debate is about animal welfare, and I certainly do not want to suggest what is right and wrong with regard to religion; the debate should not be seen as that in any way. I have given way an awful lot, so I will have to move on a bit. I was going to go through the EU law on slaughter, which is contained in a Council regulation, but I will have to speed up, otherwise the Minister will not have a chance to respond.

In response to the hon. Lady’s point, as I have mentioned, while some slaughter practices do not allow pre-stunning, in accordance with religious rites, some halal authorities consider that pre-stunning is permissible, provided that the stun does not kill the animal and that the animal could have theoretically regained consciousness. That is an important point, because many consumers of meat may not buy it if it is signified as halal because they believe it is from an animal that was not stunned. That represents an unnecessary loss to the market.

I ask the Government to address the evidence being put forward by organisations such as the BVA and RSPCA. There have been a number of stark illustrations, which I referred to earlier. I will not go through them all again, but I am happy to send hon. Members copies of the BVA submission if they would like.

In the absence of a ban, we could move forward in other ways. The first way forward is to look at over-production. If non-stun slaughter is to continue, I ask that we ensure that supply only meets demand and does not exceed it. For example, in Germany, abattoirs are permitted to slaughter animals without stunning only if they show that they have local religious customers for the request. To obtain that permission, applicants need to fulfil several requirements, including on slaughter procedure, species and the number of animals. I ask that the Government take steps to require abattoirs to illustrate levels of demand and issue licences on that basis.

A second way forward is to ensure that the supply of non-stunned meat is for domestic demand. I ask the Government to examine export patterns and consider whether the export of non-stunned meat from the UK reflects the intentions of the derogation from EU law. Again, I could give figures on how the export of non-stunned animals has increased considerably over the past few years, but time does not permit it.

A third way forward relates to the important issue of labelling, which several hon. Members have raised. It is essential for a number of reasons, including the misconceptions that people may have about certain products such as halal, and on the basis that consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from, how it was reared and how it was slaughtered. There is a wider issue about food labelling, and many people want the country of origin of food to be labelled more precisely and accurately. That can form part of the discussions about labelling.

Technical and Further Education Bill (First sitting)

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Q The Bill supports the occupational categories of quality apprenticeships set out in that excellent document, the “Post-16 Skills Plan”; they include construction, and engineering and manufacturing. That is fantastic and a real step forward. Do you both believe that the Bill provides an effective ability to redefine those categories as economic sectors evolve? Secondly, do you believe that the mechanisms are in place to enable businesses and employers to have a meaningful role in redefining those categories as things progress?

Lord Sainsbury: It comes back to the original question. You have to have a certain amount of flexibility. As far as I can make out, that flexibility is there, and it is important. Of course, it is also important that we do not let the system degenerate, whereby everyone goes back to saying, “I want something specifically for my business or a very small group of businesses.” It is very important that one keeps down the number of routes, but exactly what categories they include will have to be for the people running those routes to say. I think we have made quite a good stab at doing that, but there are one or two cases where you can certainly argue about whether we got the right job in the right route.

Peter Lauener: It is absolutely vital that the institute actively manages the system of apprenticeship standards. For the past couple of years, while new standards have been developed by trailblazer groups, we have not had that picture of what the overall system would look like. Lord Sainsbury’s report helps enormously with that. An early priority for the institute is to develop that map, communicate it, review it actively and spot areas that need updating. I imagine that one or two of the early standards will, with hindsight, look a little bit narrow, so they ought to be reviewed. Every standard has a review date anyway, but the institute, through its route committees, will need to actively manage that.

One of the great virtues of the German system is its absolute clarity about the number of apprenticeships, routes into apprenticeships and things like that. If you talk to people in Germany, they often say, “We’d like the system to be more flexible.” I think the institute has the opportunity from the start to build in that flexibility and responsiveness to the changing labour market.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Q I have a quick question about the idea that this is going to turn into another 11-plus. What reassurance can you give us about what you have put in place to ensure that the technical route will be as prestigious as the academic route?

Lord Sainsbury: There has been a very long-running argument about this. It is useful to look at the experience of other countries. If you do that, you see that pretty well every developed country has a system of two routes: an academic route and a technical education route. There is quite a variation in the point at which people choose between the two routes, but most of them have it. In most of the successful countries you find the two routes are equally well valued, so there is not a problem of the technical education route being considered inferior. You can have these two routes and both of them be highly valued.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why in our system the technical route is undervalued. I think the answer is because it is a very bad system that does not deliver what people want on the system. What they want above all is to be able to take a qualification and for that qualification to work in the marketplace. What that means is that you can go along to an employer and say, “I have got this qualification,” and the employer will give priority to you over somebody who has not got the qualification. That is not true of our system. The first thing you have to do to make the technical education route valued is to make it deliver for young people something of value to them, which is the ability to get a better job with security. That is the issue. It is not about age of selection or the fact that you have two routes.

Peter Lauener: I agree 100%.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will move on to the next panel, who are all here. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

David Hughes, Professor Alison Fuller, Richard Atkins CBE, Bill Watkin and Ian Pretty gave evidence.

Local Government: Ethical Procurement

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is lovely to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

Spending is inherently political, as we can see when we think about the Chancellor, and austerity and its effect on communities. Watering down and limiting the impact of local democracy because of disagreement about Government policy is wrong. Only this week a constituent came to see me about divesting from the West Yorkshire pension fund. I will take that up on behalf of my constituent, and it is only fair that councils make their decisions ethically.

If we are to have a nanny state that tells councils where they can and cannot invest, where will the line be drawn for procurement? I am disheartened, because Conservative Members are trying to skew the debate and turn it into an anti-Israel debate. BDS is about upholding international law. Nobody in the House is saying we should boycott Israel; what we are saying is that councils and people should have a legitimate right to make decisions on procurement.

I will not be on the wrong side of history in this House. It was a shameful patch in our history when this House voted against sanctions on South Africa. That is not how I want to go down in history. I feel that we are moving towards governing in the shadows, with people making bigger and bigger decisions without bringing them to the House and without due democratic process. A smaller and smaller group of people is making decisions that affect bigger and bigger issues. That is surely not acceptable to the House.

To raise the matter of international law again, in 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that all states have an obligation not to provide aid to Israeli violations of international law. The question is international law, not boycotts. I feel very disheartened that Conservative Members are trying to stifle debate by bringing up the issue of anti-Semitism, and that narrative is playing out while we are trying to have an honest conversation. That is all it is about. In local procurement, should we not go green or buy fair trade? We need to stop what is happening at some point, and here is where it must stop. We cannot endorse the change, and we cannot carry on with it. I certainly will not vote for it.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

If the hon. Gentleman would listen carefully, he would know that that is why I say I support a strategy for prosperity that first promotes more people into better pay. I am not just talking about those who are currently on a low wage; I want someone on a better wage also to have the opportunity for more pay. Some of my constituents do; they will be promoted, they will work for smart employers in smarter ways, and they will get pay rises, although not all will. The more the Government can do to help, encourage and support, so that many more people can get those opportunities of better pay, the more we will like it. I hope the Opposition parties will agree that that is the best way to greater prosperity. It is also the best way to better jobs. If someone goes to work every day thinking that next year they might have a better job, a pay rise or a bonus they can benefit from, they will go with more of a spring in their step than if they are going to a low-paid job with a bad employer who is not giving them any options and not giving them a break in life. [Interruption.] I see that some Opposition Members think that that is a funny idea, but I hope they would join me in recommending this approach to employers in their constituency as well as in mine, as that is how we create a more prosperous society. I am just trying to stress that we also need to get taxes down.

That deals with the second pillar of this excellent strategy. We need better work and more better-paid work, and less tax on that work so that people are more prosperous. We then come to the difficult bit, which is the point of the row today, all of last week and probably all of next week, by the looks of how Parliament is going at the moment. The issue is: at what rate do you withdraw the benefits support as people become more prosperous because they are in work, not out of work, because they are in better-paid work and because they are paying less tax? There are difficult judgments to be made, and I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is in listening mode. I look forward to his autumn statement—unlike the Labour party, I will be looking at all three elements of the package. I will be looking at pay and tax, as well as benefit withdrawal.

Perhaps unlike Labour, I want to end up in a world where far fewer people are on benefits, because their pay and the tax cuts are sufficient to give them a better lifestyle. We will then have a more affordable welfare system that enables us to run an economic policy more likely to deliver better prospects, more jobs and more success for business. As some of my Conservative colleagues have sought to point out, the problem the Opposition face is that no answer is coming from them. We know that they were able to overspend, over-borrow and crash the economy. We are now waiting to hear from them about how they would get the money under control, were they to be trusted again with government. We know that they do not want to cut non-benefit expenditure, so surely they have to accept the case I am making: that we need to get more people out of benefits altogether, and that requires a combination of the good things—promoting work, promoting better pay and lower taxes—and the not-so-good things, such as actually having to make some difficult choices on benefits.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

What answer do I give my constituents? They have a spring in their step because they are getting all these promotions and things the right hon. Gentleman talks about, yet 34,000 children in my constituency who are on tax credits will be thrown into poverty. Can he explain that?

[John Redwood]

We have just been talking about how we can avoid that. We have been talking about how we can get those people out of poverty and into prosperity and how we can promote, in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere, more jobs, better businesses and lower taxes, which must be the medium to long-term answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

3. Whether he plans to make changes to the Government's proposals to reform tax credits.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

4. If he will bring forward transitional provisions for the proposed changes to the tax credits system.

[The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

Last night, unelected Labour and Liberal peers voted down the financial measure on tax credits approved by this elected House of Commons. That raises clear constitutional issues that we will deal with. We will continue to reform tax credits and save the money needed so that Britain lives within its means, while at the same time lessening the impact on families during the transition. I will set out these plans in the autumn statement. We remain as determined as ever to build the low tax, low welfare, high wage economy that Britain needs and the British people want to see.