NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (RATE CEILINGS) BILL (PROGRAMME)

House of Commons, 15 September 2015.

Tax Credits

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I beg to move,

That the draft Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.

I confirm, as required, that the provisions before the House today are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The aspects of tax credits we are voting on today are amendable by statutory instruments, as laid down in primary legislation in 2002 by the then Labour Government. These and other aspects of welfare reform have of course been debated at length in the Budget debate, as well as in departmental questions and elsewhere. The underlying issues will also be debated in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. In a response to a request from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the Government have brought the vote on the statutory instrument measures to the Floor of the House to allow all hon. Members the opportunity to vote.

Sylvia Hermon (Independent, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Allow me to make a wee bit of progress.

Reforming tax credits and other benefits forms the first of five pillars of the Government’s approach to supporting working Britain. The second is the increase in the personal tax allowance; the third is the national living wage, the fourth is the major extensions to child care provision; and fifth is the overall sound economic management that is delivering growth in the number and quality of jobs, earnings and living standards.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

A couple with two children, in which one works as a senior schools admission official earning £26,000 a year, will be more than £2,500 worse off next year because of the measure the Minister is proposing. Does he recognise that it will wreck the solvency of that working family? What does he think they should do?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

It is important we see these changes in the overall context. I outlined some of the additional elements that are relevant. I certainly accept that they do not all come into play at exactly the same time, but in the course of time they do and by 2017-18 eight out of 10 households will be better off.

Sylvia Hermon (Independent, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene at this early stage. A number of my constituents in Northern Ireland feel extremely aggrieved about the change to the income thresholds for eligibility for tax credits. Before I could support the measure, I have to urge the Minister to give some guarantees on how the Government plan to mitigate its worst effects for families throughout the United Kingdom—not just in Northern Ireland.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I have been talking about some of the other elements, but these are matters on which the hon. Lady has a long track record of campaigning. Northern

Ireland has a particular situation with regard to welfare reform and I hope all parties will come together to get through that. Discretionary payments are designed for housing issues in particular and were increased substantially in the summer Budget. It is possible that local authorities can use some of those funds to help out people who find themselves in particular difficulty, but I am of course very happy to meet her to go through this in more detail.

Mark Spencer (Conservative, Sherwood)

How would families in my constituency be affected by a Government who went back to borrow and spend, who wrecked the economy, who allowed unemployment to rise again? How would that affect the welfare of families working in Sherwood?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

My hon. Friend is correct that everyone benefits from the economic security that comes from the country living within its means.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

If Opposition Members will allow, I will take some time to set out the regulations.

The regulations make three changes to the tax credit system. First, they reduce the working tax credit threshold from £6,420 to £3,850 and the child tax credit threshold from £16,105 to £12,125. Secondly, they increase the taper rate from 41% to 48%, meaning that when a claimant’s earnings reach the new tax credit income threshold, their award will be gradually removed by 48p in the pound, rather than the current 41p, ensuring that state taxpayer help is focused on those who need it most. For recipients of housing benefit, the interaction between the two systems of support means the overall change in the withdrawal rate will be 2p, not 7p.

Thirdly, the regulations reduce the income rise disregard from £5,000 to £2,500, taking it back to its level between 2003 and 2006 and matching the rate of the income fall disregard. Following the introduction of real-time information, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has much more up-to-date information on claimants’ earnings, so there is no good reason to have such a high disregard figure. These three changes form part of a wider set of welfare reforms, most of which are currently under consideration in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, following a request from the Treasury Select Committee, sent us a new analysis showing that lone parents earning less than £20,000 will have marginal deduction rates of either over 90%, if they are on the old legacy system, or 75%, if they are on universal credit. How does the Minister square that with his claims at the Dispatch Box?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I am afraid that high marginal deduction rates have long been a feature of the social security and welfare system. As many Opposition Members know, universal credit will change that by making a substantive change in the withdrawal rates.

Chris Leslie (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham East)

The Minister knows that this is a serious matter, and Members on both sides are concerned about the work incentives

and making sure we do not unfairly penalise people who want to get back into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was right about the rapid increase in the marginal deduction rate to 93% from next April. He needs to address that specific point. How is it not a penalty to work?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

For people in receipt of housing benefit, the change in the marginal withdrawal rate will be 2p in the pound. The changes do not reduce the incentive to work, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, equally important are the incentive, ability and support to work more hours once in work and the fact that there are now more jobs offering more hours. Our reforms to child care are another key part of our support for people who want to increase their hours.

The context to these changes is that, despite making great progress towards balancing the budget, we still ran a deficit of 4.9% last year and are expected to have the second-highest deficit in the G7 in 2015. We need to eliminate the deficit and start cutting the national debt in order to build up our resilience to global economic shocks.

Alan Mak (Conservative, Havant)

Will the Minister confirm that when tax credits were introduced, they cost the Government £1.1 billion a year and this year will cost £30 billion, which is unsustainable, and that these reforms are necessary to balance the country’s books?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

My hon. Friend is right about the rapid escalation in the cost of tax credits—it trebled in real terms up to 2010—and that we are in the business of getting the country back into balance, because when we lose control of the economy, the people who lose out the most are those on the lowest incomes and in the toughest circumstances.

The burden of eliminating the deficit has meant a bigger tax contribution from those on higher incomes and now calls for further reductions in departmental spending while protecting our national health service. A further £5 billion comes from addressing tax imbalances and £12 billion from the welfare budget. That is the mandate on which we were elected. With near record employment, rising wages and stronger business confidence, now is the time to put the welfare system on a more sustainable, long-term footing, moving our country to a higher wage, lower tax, less welfare-reliant economy.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

What a choice!

Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)

I am grateful to the Minister. He talks about an environment in which wages are rising. Wages are rising in some areas, but public sector workers have seen a tremendous reduction in their income capacity, and many of them will be affected massively by what the Government want to do. The Government need to think more about public sector workers, whose wages are not going up.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to note the hard work done by public sector employees. There are pay restraints going on in the

public sector—I do not deny that for a moment—but wages are growing at 2.8% in real terms this year, which is pretty broadly based across the country, while output per head is growing more in the north than the south.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Time is short, so I am going to make some more progress.

For too long in this country—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Order.

David Anderson (Labour, Blaydon)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For clarification, will the Minister please explain that the wages of public sector workers are going up not by 2.8% this year, but by only 1%?

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

That is not a point of order.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

For too long, low pay has been addressed in this country not by genuine reform and driving productivity, but by subsidising it through the tax credit system. In the decade to 2010, tax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms. The changes introduced in this order will build on the last Parliament’s reforms and return real-terms tax credit spending to its 2007-08 levels—a decade into the Labour party’s tenure in government. It is not a stand-alone measure, but part of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor called a “new contract” with working Britain. It says to businesses, “You will have to pay higher wages, but you will get lower business taxes and a stable economy”; it says to people, “You can get higher pay and lower tax, but with less benefit top-up”; and it says to the country, “We are going to spend less and live within our means”. These regulations are an important part of that, and I commend them to the House.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

What we have just heard is a Government in denial about the impact these changes will have on what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has described as “wrecking family finances”. We are here today only because of the efforts of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who wrote to the Prime Minister in July to insist on a full debate on these cuts to tax credits, which were not included in the Tory manifesto. The original intention had been to implement these changes with the scantiest possible parliamentary scrutiny—through a statutory instrument not debated by the whole House, but considered by a short Committee session of no more than 15 MPs and without scrutiny in the House of Lords.

James Cleverly (Conservative, Braintree)

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. Does she not recognise that rebalancing the financial relationship between the state, employers and employees was in the Conservative party manifesto, which was voted on and led to the return of a Conservative Government?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

The hon. Gentleman does not make it any better for his Front-Bench team, as what we have seen is a rise in child poverty. We absolutely agree that we need to find ways to encourage families to come off tax credits, but it should be done by a rise in income and through growth in the economy.

Lyn Brown (Labour, West Ham)

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told the country that the value of tax credits would not fall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s behaviour is putting democracy in peril?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is shocking that a Government who profess to care about democracy should be so afraid of scrutiny.

Today’s changes are substantial and highly controversial, and we oppose them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will in a moment.

These cuts in tax credits will hit working families in every constituency, and they were to be sneaked in through the back door. Indeed, when asked directly during the election campaign whether the Government would cut child tax credit, the Prime Minister said:

“No, I don’t want to do that.”

His statement was repeated on “Question Time” on 1 May. Today’s debate is about a political decision made by the Chancellor which is set to see more than 3 million families lose an average of £1,000 a year.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will in a minute.

This measure is ideologically driven, it is cynical, and it will directly increase levels of poverty in Britain.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

If the measure is passed, will it be Labour’s policy to reverse it?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I am unclear—[Laughter.] I am unclear about why the hon. Gentleman wishes to make this an issue about the Labour party, and not an issue about why his Government have presented the House with a measure that will have a negative impact on his constituents as well. He will have to account to his constituents for the decision that he chooses to make today when they come to his surgery, knowing that—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Order. I certainly want to hear the shadow Minister, and I would expect Conservative Members to want to hear her as well. If they do not, I am sure that the Tea Room awaits them.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, this measure is ideologically driven, it is cynical, and it will directly increase levels of poverty in Britain.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will give way in a minute.

The measure is part of an ongoing attack on the incomes of some of the most hard-working families in our constituencies, the very strivers whom the Chancellor purported to support.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The Chancellor said that Britain deserved a pay increase and Britain was going to get a pay increase. The Tories over there cheered him to the rafters when he increased the national minimum wage, but we now know from a document produced by the House of Commons Library—I have a copy here—that the changes in tax credits will more than wipe out the increase in the national minimum wage. At the same time, the Tories are cutting taxes for millionaires. It is an absolute disgrace.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is indeed shameful that we are seeing a cut in the incomes of the poorest people in our constituencies.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will in a moment.

This measure will attack families in which people are working hard to do the right thing and to achieve what we all want to see: a higher-wage economy in which people are less reliant on tax credits to make ends meet. What is before us today must be called out for what it is. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it amounts to what will be a cut of more than £3.4 billion annually by 2020—a cut that the Government have sought to slip through without even having the courage to carry out an impact assessment.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. I am very pleased that we are taking such a strong stance on tax credits. After the Prime Minister said that he would not cut tax credits, we are seeing the most pernicious and unfair cut imposed on some of the poorest people in society. Is that not why it is right for us to stand up for them today?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are standing up for families who are doing the right thing: going out, working hard and trying to support themselves and their children.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

As a founder member of the drive, initially in London, for the real living wage, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the phoney living wage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not begin to compensate for the tax credit cuts, which will hit those in work particularly hard and will therefore punish the very strivers about whom the Chancellor is always lecturing us?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for highlighting that the living wage will be lower than in any year since 2011. That is another example of this Government’s lack of transparency.

This move today amounts to a huge cut in the income levels of hard-working families.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will give way in a moment.

Effectively, these regulations, which come into force in April next year, will lower the level at which working tax credit starts to be withdrawn from £6,420 to £3,850, and increase the taper rate at which tax credits are withdrawn from 41% to 48%, meaning that for every £1 earned over the threshold there will be a 48p reduction in the level of tax credit entitlement. As a consequence of these changes to working tax credit, the level at which child tax credit begins to be taken away is lowered from £16,105 to £12,125. This change was not announced in the summer Budget, but is a consequence of steepening the taper for working tax credit.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have created a new phenomenon regarding zero-hour contracts? Women cannot get tax credits because of those contracts, as they have no continuity of employment, which affects families in many different ways.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He highlights the collective impact of the decisions this Government are making on the income levels of many of the poorest families in our constituencies.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way.

Far from increasing work incentives, these measures will reduce them. Reducing the work allowances or thresholds and increasing the taper rates mean families will have their incomes reduced earlier and more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Rushcliffe)

Does the hon. Lady accept that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber probably agree that we would like to see Britain move away from being a low pay, low productivity economy to a more advanced, higher productivity, better paid one? Can she explain how she thinks we can possibly move in that direction, even now the economy is recovering, if we do not tackle the absurd level of taxpayer subsidy to low pay from the tax credit system?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Order. I want to hear the hon. Lady’s reply.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. He may first want to explain why he voted against the national minimum wage when it was put to this House. We agree about people needing to come off tax credits, but we would do that through an increase in wages and in productivity.

The Government have sought to argue that working people will be compensated for the cuts by the increases in the minimum or living wage. That is contested by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that it is “arithmetically impossible”. Although we welcome the increase to the personal allowance and the introduction of the so-called national living wage, as the Low Incomes

Tax Reform Group has stated, any gains from those measures will not negate the impact of these tax credit cuts from April 2016. The IFS recently concluded that families will lose over £1,000 a year on average from cuts to tax credits, while they will gain between £100 and £200 a year at most from the proposed national living wage, and even that is seen as optimistic.

The IFS analysis has also shown that those on the lowest incomes are hit hardest by the Government’s tax and benefits changes. The reduction in annual income over the next five years is most marked for the poorest four income decile groups, highlighting the regressive nature of this Government’s fiscal choices.

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way when there is such stiff competition. Does she agree with Alistair Darling that tax credits are a subsidy to unscrupulous employers who underpay their staff, and that by rebalancing our economy away from tax credits and towards higher pay, everyone will be better off?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

The hon. Gentleman continues to miss the point. We cannot remove tax credits in that way without ensuring first that there is an increase in wages for families so that they can support themselves and not see an increase in household debt.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

On that point, the Institute for Fiscal Studies figures that were given to the Treasury Committee show that the average gain is only £200 for the 8.4 million working age households who are estimated to lose £750 through this measure. Does that not show that the Conservatives’ claim of being the party of working people is a complete fraud?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

My hon. Friend has made his point incredibly well. I now wish to make some progress.

The IFS has also shown that those on the lowest incomes are being hit the hardest by the Government’s tax and benefits changes. It is also of great concern that many tax credit claimants will not be aware of the cuts and will suffer additional hardship from April without any time to adjust their budgets. Cuts in families’ income will have wider economic impacts. For example, the changes will hit local businesses, and less will be spent in our local shops.

It is staggering that the Budget document did not include a distributional analysis of the impact of the Chancellor’s spending decisions. It is no wonder that people believe that that was deliberate and part of the intent to hide the impact of these changes. That pattern has continued today.

Alison McGovern (Labour, Wirral South)

Was my hon. Friend as astounded as I was to hear the Minister say that these changes protect those with the least and are being paid for by those with the most? Not only have the London School of Economics and the IFS demonstrated that the Government have hit those in the lower half of the income distribution, but I have evidence of a real family in Merseyside who will be £32 a week worse off. Does that not prove that what the Government are saying is a falsehood?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can guarantee that all Members in this House will see more people with exactly the same problems in their advice surgeries.

The pattern has continued with no Government impact assessment for the statutory instrument that we are debating today. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has emphasised that fact along with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which complained in a letter last week about the lack of information that it was given on these regulations and the impact of the changes. It also said that more information should be made available to Parliament to allow for proper scrutiny. It said:

“In the case of the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of rates) (Amendment) Regulations, which are affirmative, we would expect Parliament to want more detailed information that clearly explains the changes and potential impacts to ensure that they can be subject to effective scrutiny. We would encourage you to take those steps to make that material available for that purpose.”

The Members who are here today have no official information from the Government about the impact of the changes on which they are voting. I am talking about the impact that those changes are likely to have on their constituents. Instead, we have to use the IFS figures, which are the most authoritative figures available.

Suella Fernandes (Conservative, Fareham)

rose—

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will not give way.

These measures will hit families with children the hardest and impact on child poverty at a time when the Government are also abandoning their commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020, and effectively abolishing the child poverty watchdog. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s remit will now just be social mobility. Tax credits have played an enormous role in tackling child poverty. I hope that Government Members will think twice before they go through the Lobby tonight.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on her promotion and her new appointment. She is now more than quarter of an hour into her speech, but we still do not know where the £3.4 billion would be saved from, if not from this measure? The Opposition cannot be credible if they are still going to go for further deficit spending.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will certainly be pleased to hear him raising their concerns about the likely impact of these changes on their incomes. I hope that he will engage—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] He has heard the answer before from the Labour party. We certainly would not give tax cuts to the very wealthy in this country, which his party has a good record of doing over the past five years.

Around 10 million people—a sixth of the population—will be affected by these changes. Every Member in the House represents some of those who will be hit—around

half the working families in our constituencies. However, it is heartening to read in media reports today that at least five Members on the Government Back Benches are planning to vote against the changes. We have also heard reports, cited by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that the Chancellor spent yesterday talking to anxious Tory MPs and urging them not to defeat him in the vote today, after they took him at his word when he said that the Government represented low-paid workers. I am sorry that Conservative Back Benchers feel let down by their Chancellor, but it is not too late for the Government to change their mind.

It is disappointing that the Government have failed to tackle the real drivers of welfare spending—notably, low pay and the high cost of rent. That failure caused the Department for Work and Pensions to overspend by £25 billion over the last Parliament. The Chancellor has slashed entitlement to housing benefit, including through the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, yet the number of working people being paid housing benefit has still risen by 400,000 since 2010 because working people are not bringing home enough money to pay the rent. The number of people paid less than a living wage has risen by 45% since 2009, with 4.9 million workers today being paid less than the living wage.

This week the Government also launched the most sustained attack on rights at work in 30 years. The Trade Union Bill amounts to a suppression of the democratic rights of ordinary people, and the Government’s cuts to tax credits are a disgraceful attack on the incomes of families up and down the country. Labour would bring down welfare spending not by punishing the most vulnerable but through supporting a higher wage economy, introducing a real £10-an-hour living wage, tackling high rents by addressing the housing crisis, and supporting trade unions to ensure fair pay.

The proposed changes arguably represent the largest single cut to family incomes ever implemented by a Government. I hope that Conservative Members will search their consciences on this issue and vote with their hearts and their heads by joining us in the No Lobby today.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Order. A lot of Members want to get in, so let us crack on with a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mark Garnier (Conservative, Wyre Forest)

I am not going to pretend that it is easy to stand up and speak in favour of something that is, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has said, going to be tough on families, but this is none the less the right thing to do. We have heard a great many estimates of how families are going to be affected, with a variety being produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The one that I have seen gives a figure of £750.

This measure will affect families, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that there are mitigating factors that will make a difference for those families. We have heard about the tax threshold increases, and it is also worth bearing it in mind that many of those families are also small and micro-business owners who have benefited from reliefs on business taxes and small business rate relief. The economy is also a lot better, with very low inflation rates at the moment.

Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Ross, Skye and Lochaber)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that someone working full time and earning £17,000 a year will lose close to £2,000 as a result of these measures? Why do the Government want to punish hard-working families in this way, at the same time as they are increasing the inheritance tax threshold? This is vindictive and nasty.

Mark Garnier (Conservative, Wyre Forest)

I am not sure I recognise the figure of £2,000 on a £17,000 income, and I do not accept that this Government are punishing hard-working people. I see a Government who are doing an enormous amount by reducing the threshold tax rates and by helping small businesses. We have seen more people come into work than there have ever been before. This Government have had a huge number of successes, so I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is describing.

There are two particular reasons why I support this measure, the first of which was highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) in talking about the effect that tax credits have on employers. We do not know exactly the extent to which this has been the case, but without a shadow of a doubt some employers will have been not paying the right salary or pay, given that the Government are subsidising not necessarily those people on low incomes but the employers employing people on low incomes. We also know that if that did happen early on, it is much more difficult to unravel it now, which is why it is very important that we have the new national minimum living wage. It is there to ensure that wages do start going up, although I concede that this does not necessarily cover it all.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

How can employers take account of the tax credits, given that the tax credits are paid according to family circumstance and the wage is not?

Mark Garnier (Conservative, Wyre Forest)

Because employees will work for a wage that they can afford to work at, and if the Government are subsiding those household incomes the employers can take advantage of that. It is difficult—I completely concede that—but it is difficult to unravel this.

Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)

Conservative Members are clear that the macro picture is absolutely right and we have to reduce the welfare bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could do one specific thing that would help enormously? The BBC has withdrawn its online calculator for people who want to know how much they will be affected by this, and online forums suggest that different calculations are produced by different newspapers. Could the Government produce their own calculator so that our constituents can find out—

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Order. Mr Graham, you know you are pushing your luck. The hon. Gentleman has already given way twice and you are taking up your colleague’s time.

Mark Garnier (Conservative, Wyre Forest)

A very wise idea.

The second reason I am very supportive of these changes goes back to the old argument about reducing the deficit. Conservatives made it perfectly clear at the

last election that we would seek to find £12 billion through benefit changes, and that was a manifesto pledge. We were elected with an increase in our number of Members of Parliament and a rise in the sitting MPs’ majorities. We have been asked by the country to deliver on our manifesto pledges, and this is part of that delivery.

We still have a budget deficit, and the tax credits system costs the taxpayer about £30 billion a year. The IFS this morning said that it expects these changes potentially to deliver £6 billion in savings. It is worth remembering that, as has been said, tax credits cost just £1.1 billion when they were first introduced, but that has now ballooned to the current level and that is simply not acceptable. It is also worth remembering that they ballooned in a period of so-called “high economic growth”. The then Chancellor, famous for many things but in particular for claiming to have ended boom and bust, was running a bizarre programme of increasing benefits at the same time as telling us that the economy was fine and growing steadily. Perhaps he knew something that he was not telling us, increasing benefits in anticipation of the collapse caused by the crisis—perhaps he knew it was coming. By 2010, 90% of families with children were receiving tax benefits. Do 90% of families actually need these tax credits, even after all those years of the Labour Government, when we would have thought that the families would be doing better? Apparently, they are not. These tax changes take us back to the real levels in 2007 and 2008.

I wish to finish by discussing one point. I was very struck, as were many Members, by the election whose result we saw on Saturday. I was particularly struck by the number of young people who were voting in that leadership election. They were voting in the name of voting against austerity. They were objecting to what they see as cuts being delivered to them today. In 20 or 30 years’ time, they will have to take responsibility for the mess that they find—we have to do something now. If we hand over the shop to them as we found it five years ago, austerity would not mean some managed cuts; it would mean devastating cuts that would be unbelievably painful. We have to take responsibility for the way things are now. I am not in the business of mortgaging the next generation’s future. I want to take responsibility for the problems we have today and not kick the can down the road. This is not austerity-heavy; it is common sense.

Eilidh Whiteford (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Let there be no mistake: this statutory instrument will mean drastic cuts in the incomes of families with parents in low-paid work. Across the UK, about 7.5 million children live in about 4 million families that are in receipt of tax credits, and the vast majority of those families are in work. The key impact of the measure will be to reduce the incomes of more than 3 million working families by an average of more than £1,000 a year. We have a very short time today to debate a statutory instrument that will, at a stroke, make dramatic cuts to the incomes and life chances of millions of our citizens, and it deserves a lot more scrutiny then we are giving it today.

The Government have tried to argue this afternoon that their changes to benefits and tax credits are part of a plan to encourage people into work, but this measure

overwhelmingly affects people who are already in work. Far from providing incentives for parents to enter the workforce, it actively reduces work incentives and makes it harder than ever for parents in low-paid work to support their families.

This is a hugely regressive measure. Our poorest working families are set to lose a dramatic proportion of their income. If we pass the regulations today, tax credits will start to be withdrawn from any family earning more than £3,850 a year rather than from those earning more than £6,420 a year, as is currently the case. More than half a million families earning less than £6,420 a year will lose out disproportionately because of these cuts to work allowances. That is a massive reduction in the amount that families can earn before tax credits start be withdrawn Combined with the lower level at which universal credit will be withdrawn it means that, for example, a single parent earning £6,410 a year—roughly 20 hours’ work a week on the minimum wage—will lose 48p in tax credits for every pound they earn above the new threshold, which will leave them about £1,200 worse off a year.

One hundred pounds a month probably does not sound like a lot to Conservative Members—[Interruption.] It might not be a lot to them, but for those on low incomes a drop in income of that magnitude will almost certainly mean very difficult choices about very basic things, such as the quality and quantity of the food they eat and how to heat their home. Many poorer families already struggle with heating costs in winter, especially in my part of the world, but it is not only people’s health that is affected by living in cold and damp conditions. This is also about whether children have an adequately heated place to study and do their homework and the long-term consequences if they do not.

I recognise that disadvantage takes many forms, and we have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about social mobility, but the harsh fact is that income poverty is the single biggest driver of long-term disparities in children’s outcomes. Children who grow up in income-poor households are likely to have poorer health throughout their lives. They attain fewer qualifications at school, end up in lower-paid jobs and die younger than their peer group.

Maria Caulfield (Conservative, Lewes)

The hon. Lady says that income-poor families have much poorer physical and mental health as well as educational attainment, but is that the case? The fact is that someone on benefits or welfare has poorer outcomes, so the route out is by gaining work and earning a decent wage.

Eilidh Whiteford (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The hon. Lady is making a ridiculous argument and once again trying to pretend that there are people on welfare and people in work whereas in reality—as illustrated by the tax credit system—many thousands and millions of working people are dependent on benefits because of low pay. That is the key issue in this debate. The Government are attacking low-paid workers, just as they have over the last Parliament, while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society. The deep cuts to the incomes of the poorest families that the Government are trying to enact today will only exacerbate the inequalities we already have in our society and push opportunities even further out of the reach of those who already lag behind.

The most bizarre claim that has been made for the Government’s austerity measures is that they will encourage people to work harder. I think that we should reject the rather insidious implication that people in low-paid jobs somehow do not work as hard as people in better paid jobs, because that is simply not the case. We must remember that those low-paid jobs are often far more physically demanding, and many people who are set to see their incomes cut under this measure are already working very long hours in exhausting and often pretty unrewarding roles.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Does the hon. Lady also reject the glib answer from those on the Government Benches that low-paid workers can somehow just take more hours, because clearly those hours are not available?

Eilidh Whiteford (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In various parts of the country unemployment is still unacceptably high. Whether someone can easily pick up extra hours depends on which part of the country they live in, which sector of the economy they work in and what caring commitments they might have, whether for children or other family members. It is not so straightforward when lots of parents are chasing part-time work between the hours of 9 am and 2.30 pm, when their children are at school. A lot of part-time work needs to be done outwith those hours, when parents have real difficulties accessing childcare.

The charity Gingerbread has today pointed out that some lone parents working full time on the minimum wage with one child will, by 2020, be no better off than non-working lone parents were in 2010. By 2020 many parents working full time will have fallen even further below the minimum income standard than they are at present, but essentially they will be no better off working full time than they would have been had they been out of work five years ago. Where is the work incentive in that? If we really want to incentivise work, we should be increasing work allowances, as my party proposed in the run-up to the general election, not cutting them. That would incentivise work and cut child poverty.

Once again, we have been told today that increases in the minimum wage will compensate for those losses, but the numbers simply do not stack up. Even if the Government proposed raising the minimum wage to the level of the current living wage, which is already £7.85 an hour—well above the Government’s proposed ceiling—the calculation of the living wage is based on not only the cost of living but the assumption that low-paid families are already receiving their full entitlement to tax credits at the current rate.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, trade unions and others have all pointed out that the proposed increases in the minimum wage, and indeed the increases in the personal tax allowance, will not make up for the loss of tax credits. The crucial point is that if we cut tax credits in the way the Government are proposing today, the minimum wage would have to rise substantially further, to around £11 an hour, just to keep incomes standing still in real terms.

Catherine West (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of the proposed changes on the housing benefit bill, particularly in the private rented sector?

Eilidh Whiteford (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The hon. Lady makes a good point, because the cumulative impact of a range of benefit measures is hitting the same people again and again. She makes a valid point, and one that I hope to come to in just a moment.

The bottom line is set out clearly in the OBR’s estimates, which indicate that the higher minimum wage is likely to increase earnings by around £4 billion in total by 2020, compared with social security cuts of £12 billion in the same period, a large portion of which will come out of tax credits. The figures just do not add up. No matter how they repackage their minimum wage and tax changes, the Government are giving a little with one hand but taking a whole lot more with the other.

At the same time as the Government are slashing the incomes of the lowest paid families, the wealthiest families are set to benefit from huge inheritance tax breaks on properties worth over £1 million. For me, that exposes their perverse priorities on families. It is not so much robbing Peter to pay Paul as robbing Peter to pay Rupert and Sebastian.

My colleagues and I were elected on a commitment to fight the austerity agenda being recklessly pursued by this Tory Government. Almost half of all families in Scotland will lose out as a result of these measures, pushing into reverse much of the progress we have made in recent years to reduce child poverty. Around 346,000 children in Scotland will be impacted by these cuts, and the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 100,000 more children in Scotland will be living in poverty by 2020 as a direct result of the UK Government’s changes to tax and benefits.

The Scottish Government are attempting to mitigate the worst excesses of austerity, providing over £300 million between last year and next, but we need to remember that the people affected by cuts to tax credits are in many cases the same people already disproportionately affected by the freeze in child benefit, the freeze in housing benefit, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) noted, pay freezes and other austerity measures. Once again, other public services and the voluntary sector will be picking up the pieces from the collateral damage of the UK Government’s ideological crusade.

Finally, I want to address the removal of child tax credits for a third or subsequent child. This is just a further blow to poor families already struggling. This measure, along with the introduction of the two-child policy in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will push more families with children into poverty, pushing them further behind in health and education, potentially for the rest of their lives. Only about one in six of the families receiving tax credits in Scotland has more than two children. Larger families are a rarity nowadays. By contrast, the majority—more than half the poorest families in Scotland—have only one child. In Scotland, it is in the more affluent areas that people tend to have more children, but across every income group our birth rate is unsustainably low. We need to be supporting family life and encouraging people to have more children if we are to dodge the demographic problems coming up on the inside lane. We should not be putting barriers in the way of those prepared to contribute to our society by doing the essential job of raising the next generation.

This Government have got it very badly wrong. Cutting the incomes of working families will only make it harder to tackle the embedded inequalities that already

blight the life chances of too many children. Work should be a route out of poverty for families, but here in the UK it really is not. This statutory instrument pushes that aspiration even further out of reach. That is why my colleagues and I will oppose it and continue to press for the power to make these decisions in Scotland, for Scotland, in the interests of our people and in line with our commitment to building a fairer society.

Peter Aldous (Conservative, Waveney)

In laying this instrument before the House, the Government are pursuing the right strategic course of supporting working families through the tax system and encouraging earnings growth rather than doing that through the benefits system. For that reason, I shall support it, although I have serious concerns about the impact on working families in the short term over the next two to three years. I urge the Government to address these issues in the coming months before the measures come into effect next April.

The Government are right to be going in this direction. The current system is extremely expensive, and if nothing is done the cost will escalate to unsustainable levels. For me, it is wrong to be promoting what is, in effect, state dependency. It is also wrong that the Government are subsidising employers so that they pay low wages.

Clive Lewis (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman talks about high productivity and high wages, and Labour Members would agree with him on that, but yesterday we watched him file through the Lobby and vote against trade unions. They are one of the key ways that we can raise people’s wages, and he is undercutting them. How does he explain that?

Peter Aldous (Conservative, Waveney)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I am constrained specifically to the issues we are debating.

It is wrong that the Government are subsidising employers in this way. Moreover, the current system of tapering income thresholds and interconnectivity with other benefits is ridiculously complicated and opaque.

I welcome the Government’s proposals to increase the personal allowance and to introduce the national living wage. It is right that working taxpayers, especially those on low pay, should keep more of the money that they earn as an incentive to work. My concern is that in the short term, over the course of the next two to three years, those who will be hit hardest by these measures are working families, often with children, on low wages. These are the hard-working families—the people doing the right thing—that all political parties say they support and must support.

In my constituency, where the median wage is just under £24,000, many people will be seriously affected by these changes. As of May this year, 4,200 families were receiving working tax credits.

Andrew Percy (Conservative, Brigg and Goole)

Representing a constituency where the median salary is even lower, at £17,500, I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s concerns about this measure, and that is why I will not support it. Does he agree, though, that if it goes through, there is

time between now and next year to make changes, be they to national insurance, emergency tax codes, or whatever, to mitigate the impact on the poorest?

Peter Aldous (Conservative, Waveney)

I agree with my hon. Friend. I will come to that when I conclude.

Yes, the rise in the tax threshold and the introduction of a national living wage will help, but, as shown in research by the House of Commons Library, they will not on their own make up for what will be significant reductions in income.

Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I also represent a constituency where wages are quite low. The Government must recognise that the living wage must be brought up so that people are not worse off as a result of the cut in tax credits. We have to drive up the living wage so that we do not take too much money away from them.

Peter Aldous (Conservative, Waveney)

I thank my hon. Friend for that notable intervention.

In my Waverley constituency, the demise of traditional industries, high levels of unemployment, low wages, lack of skills and poor infrastructure have been brakes on growth and job creation for 40 years. Both the previous Government and this Government have taken decisive action to address those problems, to halt and reverse the seemingly never-ending downward spiral of decline: unemployment has fallen significantly since 2010; there has been notable investment in apprenticeships; an enterprise zone has been set up; assisted area status has been granted; and funds have been committed to upgrading the roads and railways. That support and investment is to be both applauded and welcomed, and it will bring new, well-paid jobs to the area. However, it will not do so overnight. In the meantime, a particularly vulnerable group of society will be left very much exposed.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government are pursuing the right course, albeit through choppy waters, and for that reason I shall be supporting the proposals. However, there are real concerns that must be addressed, and I urge Ministers to ensure before next April—possibly in the autumn statement or the next Budget—that those on low incomes are not hit unfairly and disproportionately by the proposals and that they do not have the unintended consequence of undermining the incentive to work.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask for this debate on the Floor of the House for a number of reasons. First, this is the most important aspect of the first Conservative Budget for many years; I have forgotten how many. Yet, by the nature of how the authorities decide how we give or withhold authority, we were not able to vote on the biggest change proposed in that Budget. I therefore think it is important that we have the opportunity to debate it, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving the whole House the chance to debate the “crown jewel” of the first Conservative Budget.

The second reason has already begun to erupt on the Conservative Benches. Not only is this the most significant fiscal change a Conservative Government have made,

but it affects disproportionately the poor. Many Members will want to put on the record their disquiet with the Government—not just Labour Members, as one would expect, but Conservative Members, too.

The figures speak for themselves. We are talking about people at the bottom of the income pile. Just one headline figure tells us that well over 3 million of the lowest paid workers in this country will lose in the region of £1,300 a year. That might affect the standard of living of MPs; it will certainly affect the standard of living of many of our constituents and the choices that they will be able to make, whether they are represented by Opposition or Government Members.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

I will not, partly because I am anxious that other Members have the opportunity to contribute.

I am surprised that the Chancellor is not present—this was my main reason for calling for this debate—because he was clearly the architect of the Budget. He is the most political Chancellor I have known in my whole period in the House of Commons. In the lead-up to the last election, and during it and since, he managed to push Labour into a very unpleasant corner where we were the welfare party and the Conservatives were the party of the strivers. In one single move, he has destroyed his 2020 election strategy. We heard the Chancellor’s very powerful speeches saying that the Conservative party was in favour of individuals who, when they got up in the morning to do grotty jobs for very low pay, passed the windows with the curtains still drawn of their neighbours on benefits. Individuals in this country who still get up with the work motive, which is so important for both economic and human advance, will know as they pass the windows with the curtains drawn that they do so with, on average, £1,300 a year less in their pocket.

It is an advantage to debate this proposed change in the House. The Government may not be harmed that much in the vote, but this issue will rumble and then catch fire in Members’ constituencies when the cuts come through. If Mrs Thatcher would bend under pressure from her Back Benchers when they did not like what they were hearing in their constituencies, I would be very surprised if our most political Chancellor did not bend like her.

Luke Hall (Conservative, Thornbury and Yate)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I will keep my remarks short, because several other colleagues wish to speak.

This Government were elected just over 4 months ago with a clear mandate to get our country’s books in order, balance our finances and run a surplus. Our manifesto included the commitment to make £30 billion of savings, including £12 billion in welfare. Although the deficit was halved in the last Parliament, Britain is still borrowing too much money, with a budget deficit of 5%. The sheer scale of tax credits is

“subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended”.

Those are the words of the former Chancellor Alistair Darling.

Under Labour, spending on tax credits more than trebled in its 10 years in office. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) pointed out, the original tax credit system cost just £1.1 billion in its first year, but will reach a cost of almost £30 billion this year. Reductions in spending are therefore vital to ensure that we are not burdening our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with more debt than they can ever hope to repay.

In 2010, 90% of families were eligible for tax credits, which was a disproportionate amount. After these Budget changes, that will be reduced to five in 10, which is a much more sustainable number. Ultimately, the changes will return tax credit spending to pre-crisis levels—to the level that it was under Labour Governments in 2007-08—and deliver £4.4 billion of savings in 2016-17.

The Chancellor’s Budget delivered the promised increase in the personal tax allowance, which will rise to £11,000 next April and to £12,500 by 2020. The living wage will be £7.20 an hour, and employers are already pushing wages up to match that figure. That is equivalent to annual gross earnings of £13,100 for someone aged 25 or over working 35 hours a week. The projected increase to £9.35 an hour will increase the figure to £17,100 for someone aged 25 or over working 35 hours a week, which is a huge increase in a basic salary. In general, the losses from the combined effect of the threshold reduction and the taper increase will be greater for tax credit claimants with relatively high incomes, which is vital to ensure that our welfare system is kept affordable and provides support for those most in need.

In summary, the Government have a clear mandate to control our spending, to reform welfare and to balance our country’s finances. The proposed tax changes, combined with the increased personal allowance and the introduction of the first national living wage in the first Conservative Budget for 18 years, demonstrate that this Conservative Government are committed to creating a higher wage and lower tax economy. I believe that these changes will put our welfare system on a long-term sustainable footing, and I will support them today.

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to maintain the value of tax credits. He has broken that promise. He also said on 22 April that the Government were

“using all the tools at our disposal”,

including the “tax and benefit system”, to “make work pay”. Today, we are debating the betrayal of that pre-election commitment.

As we have heard, 3 million working households will lose up to £1,000 each and a single-parent earner on £19,000—a modest income—will lose £2,000. Many extrapolations that are set out in the House of Commons briefing paper and elsewhere show the scale of the losses.

Today, we have heard from Government Members the argument that tax credits are a subsidy for bad employers. In some instances, that is true, but there is scant evidence for the assertion across the board. What is absolutely clear is that the tax credit system is an incentive, particularly for lone parents, to go into the workplace and stay in work. The positive employment incentive of the tax credit system has been almost entirely ignored by the Conservative party.

That masks a success story over the past 10 to 15 years, which has seen a dramatic increase in the number of parents, particularly lone parents, going into the workplace. We should celebrate that fact and support those working parents who have gone into work. A recent piece of research by the New Policy Institute, “Trends in parental employment in London”, demonstrates that success story in employment. Associated with that, there has been a

“large shift away from out of work claims towards in-work claims”.

A rise in the national minimum wage is welcome—indeed, employers should share with the state the responsibility for ensuring that working people enjoy a decent basic income—but it will not offset the huge hit on tax credits. As the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, the new national living wage offers

“little compensation because the boost to gross wages is smaller than the announced fiscal tightening and almost one-third of the increase in gross wages goes to the Treasury in higher tax receipts and lower benefits and tax-credit entitlements.”

The IFS calculates that across the entire population that receives in-work benefits and tax credits, just 20% of the losses that will accrue from the benefit cuts will be returned to those people through the rise in the minimum wage.

Mike Wood (Conservative, Dudley South)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

I will not give way because many people want to speak.

My particular concern is that London has the highest level of child poverty of any region in the country and, with 356,000 families receiving tax credits, almost 750,000 children will be losers as a result of this policy. A study by the Trust for London on the higher costs that are faced by working people and parents in London, which has just come out, shows that even before the tax credit cuts, such families are £54 a week worse off than equivalent families outside London. These cuts will hit the working poor right across the country, but they will hit them harder in London than anywhere else.

As we look towards the election that we will fight next May, I absolutely guarantee that my colleagues will draw attention to those losses for families, and those families will not forgive this Government for betraying their commitment to protect the working poor.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

There is no doubt that this measure is controversial and that it will hurt our constituents. It is a tough measure, but I nevertheless support it strongly because of the wider picture. This country must take the journey from being an economy of high welfare spending, high welfare dependency and high borrowing to being a more competitive country with higher productivity and, most importantly, higher real wages at every level of the economy. That, in turn, will put us on the path to more sustainable prosperity and sound public finances.

I have spoken on tax credits before in the House. I said on Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that they were one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the welfare state. When the Beveridge

report made its recommendations, which led to the welfare state, the third key principle was that state benefits

“should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility”.

My biggest problem with tax credits is that it is overwhelmingly clear that they stifle incentive and opportunity.

Suella Fernandes (Conservative, Fareham)

I agree with my hon. Friend. Tax credits have distorted the principle of welfare, which was to help the most vulnerable in our society who are unable to work. We now have a distorted system of in-work welfare where the state is subsidising wages. It is unsustainable.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. My point about work incentives is based on my experience as a small business owner. I found the situation with tax credits extraordinary. I had members of staff who declined pay rises because they would lose so much from their tax credits, and most common of all were part-time staff who would not go full time because the tax credits were so generous.

Owen Thompson (Scottish National Party, Midlothian)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I will not give way at this moment. People were receiving the equivalent of full-time pay on part-time hours, and in that situation can we blame someone for not wanting to take on more hours? It is a real problem, and many other employers have made the same point to me. The problem is widespread.

Steve Double (Conservative, St Austell and Newquay)

My hon. Friend might be interested to hear that as a small business owner, I share his experience. I have offered pay rises and additional hours to members of my staff, and they have turned them down because of the tax credits that they would lose as a result.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I thank my hon. Friend and emphasise that this is not a fantasy. This is not a think tank or a theory; this is the real world that we have experienced. With tax credits it is difficult to incentivise staff in their interest to make the most of their talent. I genuinely believe that every person was born with incredible skills and talents. We should seek to help people make the most of those talents, but tax credits provide a perverse disincentive to do so and place a ceiling on wages and ambition.

Antoinette Sandbach (Conservative, Eddisbury)

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) have real resonance, in particular for single parents? The welcome childcare changes will not be implemented for some time, and that will lead to a transitional period during which people will be hard hit by these changes.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I do not disagree. As I said, we are having to make a choice about whether the pain that this measure undoubtedly involves—we must be honest and open about that—is a price we have to pay if we are to make the whole country more prosperous on a sustainable basis for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) made an excellent fundamental point about tax credits. At a time of general prosperity, I do not think that the state should be embarking on a widespread expansion of the benefit system and the dependency culture. In 1945 when we set up the welfare state, this country was on its knees and people needed the welfare state.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

I am sorry but I will not give way again. People needed that system to support those who were in desperate circumstances. In May 1997 when the Labour party came to power, we had a strong growing economy and were to have strong global trade for many years after that. We enjoyed low inflation because of the growth of China, and we had a wonderful period of economic growth with low inflation. It was an amazing opportunity for the Government to build for the long term, but in those prosperous times what did they do? They built a £30 billion extension to the welfare system, with nine out of 10 families with children able to qualify for those benefits. That is not a safety net, it is a massive extension of the dependency culture and a total nationalisation of family and household income. That is what we are voting on today.

There is a price to pay, but we are voting on a fundamental principle in this statutory instrument: should this country move forward to an economy based on stronger wages and where people become more reliant on wages to support themselves rather than on benefits and the state? I am proud to go through the Yes Lobby today. I think this is an important measure and a key step towards a competitive, dynamic country that has sustainable prosperity for all.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

What a mean confidence trick the Chancellor carried out in the Budget. Some 3,600 households in my constituency will be affected, including 6,600 children. The Chancellor said:

“Britain deserves a pay rise and Britain is getting a pay rise.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 337.]

He also said that those on the national minimum wage can expect a cash increase and full-time workers can expect their incomes to go up by £5,000 a year. But we now know that the whole package is far from compensated for by the increase in the national minimum wage. People on the national minimum wage will not just be worse off next year, but the year after that, the year after that and the year after that—every year until 2021. The Library’s document tells us that on average they will worse off by £8,945 over the next five years.

Conservative Members cheered the Chancellor to the rafters. Did they understand that the overall package would result in the poorest workers among us having their incomes cut? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions punched the air. Did he not understand that the overall package would result in a cut in the incomes of people on the national minimum wage? Was he being mean or is he just too stupid to be doing his job?

The Chancellor said in his 2010 Budget:

“I am not going to hide hard choices from the British people or bury them in the small print of the Budget documents. The British public are going to hear them straight from me”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]

What happened in the latest Budget then? The Conservatives say that theirs is the party of working people. Here are some working people: a cleaner with one child will be £31.72 a week worse off. An assistant cook will be £32.49 a week worse off, a teaching assistant £32.49 and a health care assistant £35.36—

Chris Philp (Conservative, Croydon South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

No, I have heard the hon. Gentleman so many times. He has to stop reading out the Whips’ handouts: it does not add to the debate.

A nurse with three children will be worse off by £35.91—from the party that claims to be the party of the workers. I have a whole list of worker after worker, all of them worse off as a result of the changes to tax credits.

Conservative Members may have been convinced by the Chancellor that he will make some changes. We have heard them argue that this change is necessary and that we have to make it. Perhaps they think that they have been given a promise that something will be done and some changes made for the people on this list, but I am sick and tired of hearing Tories tell us that we have to make changes. The changes will not hit them: they will hit the poorest income earners in their constituencies. Let the Tories vote for this change tonight. People will not forget that. We will remember that the Tories voted to reduce incomes for families with children. They trooped through the Lobby, claiming to be the party of the workers but voting to reduce their incomes. People will not forget that.

Maria Caulfield (Conservative, Lewes)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I support the proposed changes to tax credits, but I acknowledge that it is a difficult and sensitive issue. I wish to make a few points to explain my reasons for supporting the measure.

While I acknowledge that tax credits were introduced to support low wage workers, it cannot be right in this day and age that people who work long hours, often doing difficult work, are reliant on benefits to supplement their wages because they do not earn enough to live on. The perpetuation of the tax credit system of topping up wages lets employers off the hook when it comes to paying a decent wage. As we have heard, even Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor, has said that tax credits are

“subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended.”

The proposed changes to tax credits deal not only with the economic issues of reducing public spending, but aim to address the inequalities faced by those who find themselves on welfare despite being in work. Life on benefits can have a huge negative impact on life outcomes, even affecting length of life. Living on welfare can have negative outcomes on physical health, on mental health and on educational attainment, to say nothing of the dignity of living on benefits.

Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Caulfield (Conservative, Lewes)

I will not, I am afraid.

It is very important that we make work pay. I have met many constituents who are on tax credits because they are paid so poorly. We are subsidising employers unwilling to pay a decent wage, but relying on the taxpayer to subsidise low wages. Currently, taxpayers, many of whom are earning just above the tax credit limit, are subsidising employers to pay low wages. This must end.

Change to the tax credit system is more than an economic argument to reduce public spending, but reduce it we must. I have heard nothing from Opposition Members on how they would do that if there are no changes to the tax credit system. To facilitate the changes to tax credits, the Government have not just introduced the national living wage but are providing free childcare for 30 hours a week, freezing fuel duty, freezing VAT, national insurance and income tax for five years, and increasing the tax threshold to £11,000 as a step towards raising it to £12,500, thereby keeping more money that people earn in their own pockets.

Changes to tax credits are needed to reduce public spending, as we are accountable to the British taxpayer who is currently subsidising low pay. What message is that to low-paid workers? If people get up early, go out to work, work long hours and come home late, they deserve a decent wage, not a life on benefits. We should, in this place, be pushing the agenda for better wages, instead of accepting that a life on benefits is inevitable. I will be going through the Aye Lobby tonight.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It is unfortunate that we have only 90 minutes to debate the regulations, but it is absolutely right that we should debate them on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has done us a great service in bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. It is worth reflecting, however, that the reason why there is not more public outrage about the proposed changes is a reflection of the sheer complexity of our tax and benefit system. That will have to be addressed—not in this way—in the medium to long term.

There was a lot in the Minister’s speech with which I could agree quite easily. When he spoke about the importance of raising the personal tax allowance, the very welcome increases to the minimum wage and the importance of providing better childcare provision, those are all things with which I could have no difficulty. The difficulty I have with the regulations is that at a stroke they negate the benefits the Minister outlined. It ought surely to be a matter of common consensus in all parts of the House that the best route out of poverty is through work, but what the Government are doing today is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am sorry, but I am short of time.

The average household in social housing could lose up to £1,700 a year under the changes. That means for every extra £1 earned, they will lose up to 93p in benefits. That is why the Government are not true to their stated intent to encourage people off welfare and into work by bringing forward changes of this sort.

To understand why today’s statutory instrument is the wrong measure at the wrong time, it is worth reflecting on what happened to people’s employment circumstances after the 2008 crash. We expected steep rises in unemployment, and sure enough it went up, but not to the extent we expected, because employers kept people in work. However, their wages were frozen or reduced and those in part-time employment saw their hours cut. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel—at last, we are seeing some wage inflation—but surely at this moment the Government should be encouraging people to take more hours, not removing the incentives to do so.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution, and one of the most significant. He said the Government’s proposals were strategically correct. He might well be right about that, but what he said thereafter in the rest of his contribution indicated they were tactically inept. I address myself to him and other Government Members who share his concerns, because they are part of the most powerful group in the House: Government Back Benchers. The Government have a majority of 12, so it needs only six of them to vote with us to take this down and make them think again. I say to him, because I know he is a genuine man, that if he has not had his assurances and compensations before the vote, he will not get them after it.

Alan Mak (Conservative, Havant)

The tax credit reforms before the House must be viewed in the wider context of the measures in the summer Budget and other Budgets to help working people: the £9 living wage, giving 2.5 million people a direct pay rise; the income tax, national insurance and VAT freeze for the next five years; the rise in the personal allowance; the doubling of the amount of free childcare; the council tax freeze; and the cut in fuel duty.

The hard truth is that our tax credit system is unaffordable, unsustainable and requires reform to help those working people who pay for it. The statutory instrument, which I am pleased to support, will do that. The system cost £1.1 billion in its first year. This year, it will cost taxpayers £30 billion. We spend more on family benefits than France, Germany and Sweden. Even the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) said it was unsustainable. The statutory instrument focuses tax credits on the lowest income groups to help them in their lives.

The only welfare system that is sustainable and credible is a welfare system that is affordable. We can support those most in need only if we protect the system by reforming the system, rather than allowing it to implode under its own weight. Britain is home to 1% of the world’s population and generates 4% of the world’s income, yet it pays out 7% of the world’s welfare. This is a drag on our competitiveness in the world and our economy at home. I support the statutory instrument and urge other Members to do the same.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the points made, particularly by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). The Government do not recognise the £1,350 figure

quoted, because it does not take account of the gains to households from the national living wage; the increased personal allowance; the fact that households in receipt of housing benefit will see some offsetting increase to their entitlement; or the improvements in childcare provision.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), whom I welcome to her place, said the Government had not published a distributional analysis, but we have, and it is available online. It shows that the distribution of public spending across the income quintiles was unchanged between 2010-11 and now and that those at the top of the income distribution are paying more. I urge hon. Members to evaluate these changes in their wider context and our record in government: helping businesses create 2 million extra jobs; lowering income tax for 29 million people; ruling out increases to income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions; extending free and subsidised childcare—we are soon to do much more; and of course ensuring that Britain gets a pay rise with a national living wage.

We must get Britain’s finances on a solid, sustainable footing, because the surest way to make working people worse off, as we sadly saw in the past, is to lose control of the public finances. Welfare spending needs to be reformed—for the benefit of those who pay for it, as well as those who use it. We are doing this as part of a package to move to a less welfare-reliant, lower-tax and higher-wage economy. I commend the regulations to the House.

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).

The House divided:

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I beg to move,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of Euston Station in the London Borough of Camden;

(b) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers and changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in the London Borough of Camden;

(c) amendments, to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Aston Le Walls, Boddington and Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth and Marston St Lawrence in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Coleshill, Cubbington, Kenilworth, Long Itchington, Offchurch, Stoneleigh, Ufton, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Dickens Heath and Hampton-in-Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;

vii. the City of Birmingham;

(d) amendments, to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Amersham, Calvert Green, Denham, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon and Wexham in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Boddington and Culworth in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Cubbington, Curdworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Shustoke, Southam, Stoneleigh, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Hints with Canwell, Curborough and Elmhurst, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, King’s Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire;

vii. the City of Birmingham.

(e) amendments relating to the extension of the Chiltern tunnel in the parishes of Amersham, Little Missenden and Great Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire;

(f) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e);

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is

empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Before I start, may I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) to her post as the shadow Secretary of State in the new Politburo—sorry, shadow Cabinet? She is already on record as continuing to support HS2, which will be music to the ears of her Labour colleagues who run our great cities in the west midlands and the north. I look forward to working with her. Indeed, many of the momentous decisions facing us will have implications for our infrastructure for many years to come.

The motion instructs the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill to consider two sets of amendments: the first set relates to changes at Euston and elsewhere in the London borough of Camden, and the second set to changes along the rest of the route. These are the third and fourth such additional provisions that have come before us, and I am sure that many in the House will now be familiar with the hybrid Bill process. However, for the benefit of new Members, I hope that the House will indulge if I give a brief explanation.

The purpose of this motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions from those who may be affected by the proposed changes.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman what the requirements are of the landowners and occupiers? Is this related to compensation, as many people in my constituency have been badly hurt by the lack of compensation?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

This is not specifically related to the compensation issue. This is about the minor changes and some other more substantial changes that we are making. This is about the principle of the hybrid Bill Committee being allowed to consider these changes and about people being given the opportunity to look at the environmental statement, and also to petition the Committee if they are affected. Indeed, the purpose of this motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions from those who may be affected by the proposed changes.

Tulip Siddiq (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn)

I agree that constituents should be allowed to petition, but there is a fee for petitioning. Will the Minister consider getting rid of that fee to allow easy access for those who might not be financially able to petition?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

The £20 fee is a matter for the House. I can reassure colleagues that anyone who has already petitioned will not be asked to pay a second fee. I do not believe that a £20 fee is prohibitive in this particular case.

An explanatory note of the changes was made available to the House last week. Although it is not the purpose of this debate to discuss the changes in detail, it is clearly important that Members understand the principle of them. If the motion is passed, those who are directly and specially—to use the legal term—affected by these changes will be able to petition the Select Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms). The Select Committee will then consider their case for changing the scheme.

First, let me turn to the proposals in relation to Euston. In April 2014, the House gave a Second Reading to the High Speed Rail Bill. At the time, the Secretary

of State, having considered Sir David Higgins’s recommendations, said that we would seek to develop more comprehensive proposals for the redevelopment of the station to maximise the economic potential and regenerate a site that has been neglected. Since then, HS2 Ltd has worked with Network Rail and Transport for London, as well as engaging with the local community to develop such a proposal. Indeed, I have visited the area myself with Frank Dobson, who used to represent the area around Euston. I am pleased to see his replacement, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his place on the Labour Benches today.

The proposal announced today will substantially reduce the disruption to the travelling public, provide an enhanced underground service and do much more to support the wider regeneration of the local area. It is also fully compatible with the redevelopment of the remaining conventional station, which is for Network Rail to bring forward in due course.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on the stories in the weekend press that there would be a substantial increase in the cost as a result of these changes, as well as a reduction in the number of platforms for the inter-city services?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I can certainly put the right hon. Gentleman right on that point. Eleven new platforms will be built for HS2 at the station, and 11 will remain in the current station to serve the existing network. Five approach tracks will remain, and there will be four for a period of approximately three years during construction. Works on the existing tracks and platforms will enable existing services to be accommodated. Those works will be undertaken prior to the start of the construction of the main HS2 works.

High Speed 2 will provide a step change in capacity on the west coast main line by enabling long-distance passengers to make their journeys much faster on the new line. This will free up space on the existing network for faster, more frequent trains. Indeed, it will also free up space on those platforms. I want to make it clear that for the existing west coast main line, the number of platforms will be reduced from 18 to 11, while the number for HS2 will increase from zero to 11. This means that there will be 22 platforms in total, which is four more than at present. The HS2 trains will also be longer, and the way in which they load their passengers will make it easier for people to get on them. That is because there will be a system similar to the one used by Eurostar, in which passengers come down escalators on to the platforms. This will avoid the situation of everyone trying to rush down to one part of the platform as the train starts to load.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

The people on the Committee are clearly good people and they are doing a very good job. It is all very well giving them the power to consider more options, but will the Minister give us an idea of how many of the recommendations he intends to accept?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

We have already accepted a number of the recommendations. Indeed, some of the additional provisions are the result of our accepting recommendations

in situations where there was a need to take over additional land. I will give the House a couple of examples where we have listened to the Committee and accommodated its suggestions, which have now become part of the additional provisions.

I shall return to the points I was making about Euston. Delivering the additional benefits will mean that construction will need to be in two stages, so while construction disruption will be more localised, it will last for seven years longer overall. The peculiarities of the hybrid Bill process mean that an additional provision is required only when additional powers or land are required. The vast majority of our revised Euston proposal can be delivered using the powers and land that are already within the hybrid Bill. The information in the explanatory note therefore sets out only those small new areas of land and additional works that are required to give effect to our new vision for Euston.

However, the supplementary environmental statement that will accompany the additional provision, if this motion is passed, describes the environmental effects of the revised plans for Euston, to ensure that those affected are fully aware of the details of our proposals. In addition to the Euston station-related changes, the additional provision includes other minor changes in Camden, such as additional parking for London Zoo, the provision of space to allow lorries to turn and the inclusion of some listed buildings within the relevant schedule to the Bill.

I turn now to the second set of additional provisions, known as AP4, which contains changes proposed outside Camden. These additional provisions include almost 70 mostly minor amendments—including eight in your own constituency, Mr Speaker—to powers relating to changes up and down the line of route outside Camden. These changes have come about following a combination of negotiations with petitioners and the recommendations of the Select Committee, as well as the continuing development of the design of the railway. Right hon. and hon. Members in the relevant constituencies were written to in July with an outline of these changes. As with the Camden changes, an explanatory note was sent to Members last week.

The most notable changes are: first, in response to the Select Committee’s recommendation, an extension of the northern end of the Chilterns tunnel past South Heath—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) as this is a result she can bank and it is a tribute to her campaign and that of her constituents for this extension; secondly, the relocation of a recycling facility known as a “bottom ash plant”, from a site in Castle Bromwich to a site off the route in Tyseley in the west midlands, delivering on an agreement with Birmingham City Council to avoid any interruption in service; thirdly, the relocation of a school in Water Orton in Warwickshire, as agreed with North Warwickshire Borough Council; fourthly, the relocation of vent shaft works from Salusbury Road to Canterbury Works, both in the London Borough of Brent; and finally, the provision of extra track at Greenford railway station in west London to support the transportation of excavated material from the scheme by rail—something we wish to see wherever possible.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

AP3 and AP4 affect my constituency much less than AP2, but given that the Minister described how he made a

site visit to the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), will he make a visit to the affected roads in my constituency, which are largely in the NW10 area? No visit has been made since the one by the Select Committee in March, and since then all these additional provisions have come forward and the composition of the Committee has changed. Will he come to witness the disruption, disturbance, noise and nuisance that residents in these roads feel they will suffer as a result of living in a building site for the next 10 years? That is how they see it.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I would be delighted to come to have a look at the problem. I believe the hon. Lady’s constituency has the ventilation shafts which will be the problem and that there is a local laundry facility available for many people who do not have washing machines, so it is important that we look at how they can still have that facility. [Interruption.] That is the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). Sorry, I got confused. As we have new Members representing that area, I would be delighted to visit once again to hear about that issue. If any additional problems are caused by these additional provisions, I would be happy to look at them and meet local people. If the leader of the local council would also like to attend, I would be delighted to see her, too.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive explanation he has given of the changes and the two tranches. Will he also tell us what the Department’s outline estimate is of the additional costs of these changes?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

Some of these will be less expensive—indeed, that is one of the purposes of some of the changes we have suggested—and other changes will be within the budget that we have outlined, so there will be no need to have an overall increase in the budget. HS2 Ltd did, however, make provision, when planning for this project, for some changes that it expected the Select Committee may propose. I might expand on that a little later in my comments.

It should also be recognised that the changes set out in the additional provision are only a fraction of those that we have made to the scheme to address petitioner concerns. Many changes can be made within the existing Bill powers and so do not require an additional provision. Those include changes such as improved noise mitigation at Wendover and mitigations of the impacts on Bechstein’s bats—a species of vesper bats—in Sheephouse Wood in Buckinghamshire. The Bechstein bat is a particularly at-risk species and it is important that we protect the woodland habitat it uses.

The overall phase 1 budget is not expected to increase as a result of those changes, including the Euston proposals. Many of the changes come at no additional cost, some actually produce small savings and others are absorbed by the contingency set aside at the outset specifically for the purpose of addressing petitioner issues. If this motion is successfully passed, both these additional provisions will go through the same process, although the timings will be different for each. The relevant additional provision, an environmental statement

describing the likely significant environmental effects of these changes and a supplementary environmental statement describing any new or different significant environmental effects of other proposed changes that do not require a change to Bill powers will be deposited in Parliament, council offices and libraries in affected areas. For the additional provision affecting Camden, these documents start to be deposited tomorrow. For the additional provision affecting other areas of the route, these documents will be deposited from 12 October.

A public consultation on the environmental statement will be held. The responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading. For the additional provision affecting Camden, the consultation will run from tomorrow until 6 November, and for the other additional provision, the consultation will run from mid-October.

There will also be a petitioning period for those directly and specially—to use that term again—affected by the changes in this additional provision to submit petitions against them. The petitioning period will run as usual for four weeks. For the additional provision affecting Camden, it will begin on Friday 25 September and end on Friday 23 October for all petitioners. For the other additional provision, the petitioning period will begin in mid-October for all petitioners. Newspaper notices will be published in national and local newspapers over two consecutive weeks following the deposit of each additional provision alerting the public to the changes and to the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation as appropriate.

Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)

To ensure that enough people are aware of the additional petitioning process, will my hon. Friend explain how people who are visually impaired or who might not have access to the local and national newspapers will get the information about these new changes?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I will look into what we can do to ensure that people who are visually impaired can access the information. For the vast majority of people affected by the changes, they will be no surprise. In many cases, we have made them in negotiation with the landowner or other interested parties, including local authorities. Indeed, some of them respond to petitions so there will be delight that the changes have been proposed, although other people who might be affected might well want to petition about them.

Taken as a whole, these two additional provisions mark a major step towards completion of the hybrid Bill’s progress through the Select Committee. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to seize the opportunity that a redeveloped Euston station offers not only to the local area but to the nation as a whole. They also demonstrate our willingness to respond to the concerns of petitioners and the Select Committee to make beneficial changes to the project, and I therefore commend them to the House.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

I thank the Minister for his kind words and for providing advance sight of his statement. It is a true honour to take up the

post of shadow Secretary of State and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher). He did an excellent job on behalf of passengers and road users and was never afraid to stand up for their best interests. I am sure that he will perform admirably in his new role shadowing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at a critical time for that brief.

As a supporter of HS2, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in my new role in this debate. I extend the gratitude of my party, and I am sure of the whole House, to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) and for Preston (Mr Hendrick) and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for stepping up and joining the Committee. It has now heard several hundred petitions and there is general agreement that it is making both swift and fair progress. It is performing a vital role, improving and refining the project, and its work would not be possible without the professionalism of the Clerks and the contributions of petitioners, including Members of this House. They all deserve our thanks.

I know that a number of Members’ constituencies are affected by the proposals contained in these changes and it is important that they have time to address the Minister, so I shall keep my remarks brief.

We do not seek to obstruct the passage of these provisions, because some of the changes will reduce planning blight for petitioners and provide some measure of certainty for those who live along the route. They also provide an important mechanism for implementing the instructions of the Committee and the outcome of negotiations with petitioners, such as the longer Chilterns tunnel.

I know that a number of hon. Members have concerns, and I shall make way for them shortly, but before I do so I want to put some questions to the Minister about the revised proposals for Euston station. They can only be described as a partial proposal for redevelopment. It is clear that the Government and Network Rail have yet to develop an integrated plan for Euston which is, as I am sure Members on both sides the debate will agree, restricted by its inadequate design and compares poorly with the neighbouring terminal stations of King’s Cross and St Pancras. Yet last year the Chancellor said:

“I’m thinking that maybe we should go for a really big redevelopment of Euston. There is a really big opportunity for jobs and for housing in the area.”

Does the Minister believe that these proposals live up to those aspirations, or is this another case of the Chancellor’s rhetoric on rail being rather better than the reality?

The Minister said that it is for Network Rail to bring forward proposals on the development of the remaining station, yet Network Rail’s capacity to plan and deliver major upgrade projects is under exceptional scrutiny, not least in connection with the eagerly awaited Shaw, Bowe and Hendy reviews. What assurance can he offer the House that Network Rail is in a position to fulfil the function that he has set out today, and that it will not be blown off course in the coming months as a result of Government or regulatory action?

It is difficult to see how a high-speed extension to Euston can be planned in a manner that provides the maximum assurance for taxpayers’ money if there is no corresponding plan for the existing station. Surely we need

an integrated solution for Euston. I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the plans debated today will in no way inhibit the later replacement of the 1960s station.

Andrew Bridgen (Conservative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Lady started by saying that she supports HS2, but can she confirm, for the House’s information, whether the new leader of her party is, because he has voted against it in the past?

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said that he supports investment in high-speed rail, and so do I. I am sure that Members on both sides of the debate would agree that the specific proposals can be improved further. Indeed, that is the subject of today’s debate.

Residents of Camden face years of disruption as a consequence of the proposals outlined today. The disruption might now be less intense than originally proposed, but the construction period will be prolonged. What consideration has been given to the feasibility of conveying construction materials by rail, as has happened during the Crossrail development, rather than by road, in order to reduce the impact on residents?

Furthermore, and incredibly, this is the fourth proposal for Unison—[Interruption.] The fourth proposals for Euston, I mean. [Interruption.] It was a Freudian slip. That is along with all the uncertainty that this situation has caused for local residents. The situation is clearly inadequate. It is vital that the Department, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd work as closely as possible with Camden Borough Council and campaigners to find a solution that works both for the railway and for local residents. Speaking as an observer of previous discussions over the past three years, I am not convinced that every effort has been made to date.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who is no longer in his place, noted that it was suggested in the press at the weekend that the overall number of platforms at Euston might be reduced. Careful planning to manage the disruption to existing services is essential, and contingency measures such as diverting commuter services into Crossrail should be considered. But I note that the lack of capacity on the west coast main line is also a constant and enduring source of delays and cancellations. Has there been a fundamental change in the Government’s policy, or will there still be a net gain in the number of platforms at Euston?

A number of compensation schemes have been established for people who live along the planned route, some of which have been withdrawn, and awareness of others appears to be low. The HS2 residents commissioner has said:

“It is vital that those who are eligible for the Government’s property compensation and assistance schemes get clear information and know what they are entitled to.”

Will the Minister set out for the House what support is available to residents, including those who live outside the rural support zone? When the House debated the second set of additional provisions in June, I cited the Committee’s pre-election report, which stated:

“The incoming Administration should make an early decision on whether to proceed with Phase Two and, if it decides to proceed, quickly finalise the Phase Two route.”

The precedents set by the Government and the Committee for phase 1 are of direct relevance to phase 2, particularly on compensation.

Some three months on, the Government’s position is no clearer. We have been told that they will set out the way forward on phase 2 later this year, but of course that is not the same thing as confirmation of the route. I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to return to this House, I hope before the end of the year, to provide some clarity on phase 2 and the introduction of the relevant legislation.

I noted that the Minister said that these changes would result in some small cost variances. I would be grateful if he could tell the House what is the net cost impact of the changes proposed in the motion.

We remain supportive of the additional provision process, and indeed of this important project. I assure the House that the Opposition will subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny when it enters that Committee stage.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) to the Opposition Front Bench. She is very familiar with HS2 from her previous work, and I am sure she will properly discharge her duties, despite disagreeing entirely with me on the merits of the project. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind remarks, and welcome the Secretary of State to his place on the Front Bench. It is good to see that this project is still engaging the Department fully.

The parliamentary process for High Speed 2 is both lengthy and confusing. The petitioning and consultation processes are time-consuming and very arduous for my constituents and others who give evidence to the Committee, who have busy and demanding lives, and have not chosen to be affected by this project.

The additional provision process is another example of how opaque our procedures are here. There is a lack of information on additional provisions 3 and 4. While that is not entirely helpful to colleagues, it is certainly confusing to constituents, who want it explained to them why a motion like this can come before the House and be voteable on, yet the inherent details that will come with the major announcements from the Department are not available. I understand the intricacies of the House, but it is hard to explain them to constituents.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I am sure that interested constituents watching the proceedings of the House will be aware that this is just opening the door to the opportunity to engage and petition. We are kicking the ball into play, and it is up to those who wish to petition and engage in the process to play the match.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful for that. Anything that we can do to clarify the position for our constituents is much appreciated.

Notwithstanding the complexities of legislating for a major infrastructure project, I am very grateful for the HS2 Committee’s recommendation of the proposal for extended tunnelling through the Chilterns area of

outstanding natural beauty, now known as C6, and the Government’s decision to adopt it. The extension of the tunnel from the originally proposed Mantle’s Wood portal to the South Heath green tunnel north portal will provide vital extra protection to our ancient woodlands and communities. It recognises the enormous efforts that my constituents, many national organisations, local organisations and I have made to try to save our area from real environmental damage.

While of course I am pleased that the Committee has proposed this additional mitigation, we must not forget that a large swathe of the area of outstanding natural beauty remains exposed to the railway itself. Unfortunately, the recommendation of C6 still falls short of what is required to protect the area fully from the severe impacts of this project. A long, continuous, fully bored tunnel throughout the entire AONB is really the only way adequately to protect our natural countryside and communities. I urge the Committee, and the Minister and his officials, to continue to look at the long tunnelling proposals. Indeed, I was hoping that I could encourage the Minister and his officials to think of this less as a railway in my constituency and more of a tube line, and continue the tunnelling to the end of the AONB.

Additional provision 4 contains two further amendments affecting Chesham and Amersham that I am keen to see implemented and consulted on carefully. Shardeloes park in Amersham will, I hope, benefit from an improved design for the protection of its walled kitchen garden and grade II listed building. However, I remain concerned about the effects of construction on other historic buildings in the area, particularly in the nearby village of Little Missenden. In addition, there will be a realigned footpath south-west of Potter Row in South Heath, and I look forward to receiving more specific details of that amendment and that relating to Shardeloes gardens.

Many of my constituents will be affected by the proposals in AP4, particularly the changes that will provide for extra tunnelling. I encourage the Government to make sure that the dates for the release of the supplementary environmental statement, as well as those for petitioning and the deadlines for consultation responses, are published as widely as possible. As the Select Committee is hearing from petitioners in the Chilterns, it is crucial for my constituents to be able to plan their evidence accordingly and be as fully prepared as possible. In particular, the prompt release by HS2 Ltd of all the relevant noise data for the South Heath area would be appreciated, as people will be “directly and specially affected”—to use the legal terms—by the extra tunnelling. They may also, as I know the Minister acknowledges, wish to return and petition on the additional changes.

The constituency of the right hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is also affected by the provisions. Some landowners in the constituency have been affected by multiple additional provisions in the past. With each AP in which more land is taken, the impact on the landowner’s business increases. As such, would not it be right and proper, once all the additional provisions have been published and the true aggregate impact is known, for those affected landowners to be afforded an opportunity to present to the Select Committee again, in order to summarise the overall impact? The right hon. Gentleman also feels that there is a limited explanation as to why additional land is required. One affected landowner who has seen the additional provision

knows he is going to lose more land, but claims he has had no explanation as to why. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take that into consideration.

Once again, my constituents in Chesham and Amersham will have a very small window between their petition date and the release of AP4 in mid-October. I ask the Committee in particular to be mindful that many petitioners will not necessarily have the time or resources to study AP4 prior to their first petition appearance, and that points may need to be picked up in further detail if a petitioner decides to submit another petition on AP4. I hope that any final decision on a long tunnel in the Chilterns will not take place until after AP4 has been consulted on and all Chilterns petitions heard, so that the Committee will then be in possession of all the arguments for and against the recommendation as it stands.

I ask the Minister whether it would be possible for me to meet HS2 Ltd officials soon after the release of AP4, in order to understand more closely the specific details and aid my constituents in any way I can. Perhaps my colleagues in Buckinghamshire could be similarly briefed.

The deadline for submissions in response to the AP2 supplementary environmental statement ends this Friday, 18 September. I plan to submit a response myself, but, along with several of my constituents who have contacted me, I have found it very difficult to distinguish which aspects of AP2 will be made redundant or affected by AP4. I ask the Minister to be aware that that has been a significant issue during the AP2 consultation period, which gives a further reason for the details on AP4 to be released as quickly as possible. I also continue to have concerns about compliance with the public participation requirements of the Aarhus convention, and situations such as the confusion surrounding AP2 and AP4 do little to assuage them.

I am also concerned that constituents who were affected by the original, pre-AP4 plans and who have conducted their business or made plans accordingly now find themselves in a better position following the adoption of AP4. I would like reassurances from Ministers that the Department will look carefully and favourably on those cases, because it is invidious to have told someone that they are going to lose their business and for them to go on to make arrangements as a result, only to then find that their business premises have in fact been saved by AP4.

I thank my constituents for all their work thus far. I also thank the Select Committee for its work. It is fair to mention the Clerk, Neil Caulfield, who has given exemplary assistance to my office and my constituents.

I hope that the Select Committee will continue to listen to the arguments made by petitioners from Chesham and Amersham and, if the project goes ahead, ensure that it is executed in what I consider the right way. It should ensure that our manifesto promises on the environment are adhered to, not sacrificed on the alter of this project. That still causes a great deal of concern not just among my constituents and other people, but to the Government’s assessment institution, the Major Projects Authority, which continues to afford it an amber/red classification.

Finally, I want to say that I have worked hard with many people and organisations over many years, and inch by inch, we are getting more tunnels in the Chilterns.

My appeal to the Minister is: just tunnel to the end of the area of outstanding natural beauty and protect it. At least, we would then have the satisfaction of knowing that it was a job well done.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I obviously support the motion because it is important for my constituents to have the chance to petition the Select Committee. That does not, however, mean that I support the proposals or HS2. I oppose HS2 on cost and on merit: it will not achieve its stated objectives.

The impact of HS2 on my constituency—on residents, businesses and the environment—will be devastating. It is a major cause of concern to very many of my constituents. Such is the concern throughout the constituency that it is raised with me daily. The plans for changes at Euston station have a long and sorry history. Standing back, we can see that not the least reason for that is that it does not make sense to bring a 21st-century, high-speed railway into a densely populated part of north London simply because that is where the conventional station is.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

There was a lot of disruption for the constituents of the hon. and learned Member—or for the people who are now his constituents—when the work was done at King’s Cross station. Do they consider that the work was worth while, now that the station has been finished?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

That is a false comparison, as I am sure the Minister knows. The situation in and around King’s Cross cannot be compared with the densely populated area around Euston. We only need to look at a map, as I am sure the Minister knows, to see that the situations are not comparable. In fairness and in respect to my constituents, it is not right to make such a point when, anxious about their situation, they are coming to me daily. When I address them at meetings, I can see the anxiety on their faces. Please let us address the motion with respect to them, not make false comparisons. The Minister knows that the two situations are simply not comparable.

We have had plans, amended plans and further amended plans for Euston, but the only sensible plan is to abandon the project altogether. Far from being an improvement on the other plans, this plan is the worst of the lot. It leaves my constituents with all the pain and none of the gain. I want to focus particularly on the phased approach.

The plan offers and sets up decades of blight with no assurance about when the project as a whole will be finished. I will spell that out, because this is what it means for my constituents. Phase 1 will take up to 2026 and phase 2 will then go up to 2033, while the development of the eastern side of the station has no start or finish date. That amounts to 16 to 20-plus years of works and blight, so we can see why my constituents are coming to me daily and why they are so concerned.

Under the proposal, we will have half a station, but it will take twice the time. I will have children born in my constituency who will grow up and probably leave school knowing nothing other than construction works at what is likely to be the biggest construction in Europe. I have people at the other end of the scale who will retire in the next few years and probably spend their entire retirement

with the construction works going on. That is what this plan means for many thousands of people in the Euston area.

The Secretary of State described the plans in one document as

“essential for the local community”.

That beggars belief and is testimony to the failure of HS2 and others to listen to what the local community is saying.

I pose the following questions for the Minister. First, the hybrid Bill was premised on a new station being delivered at Euston by 2026. What is now proposed is half a station by 2033. How did HS2 Ltd get its planning so hopelessly wrong that we are in that situation? Secondly, why is HS2 Ltd no longer able to build a new station at Euston by 2026? Is it the cost, the impact on existing users or some other reason?

Thirdly, and I would like some detail on this, what is the current budget for the new station at Euston? How do the current costs compare with the estimated costs in March 2010, when the route for phase 1 was announced, and November 2013, when the hybrid Bill was deposited in Parliament?

Fourthly, the extended construction completion time of 2033 and beyond will blight the lives of up to 17,000 people in my constituency who live within 300 metres of the construction work. What is the proposal to compensate them for that?

Fifthly, appendix A to the explanatory note before the House states that

“The development principles in the EAP include promoting ‘comprehensive, commercial-led, mixed-use development above and around the new and existing stations’.”

That is at odds with the No. 1 objective in the Euston area plan:

“Prioritising local people’s needs: To ensure that new development meets local needs by ensuring homes, jobs, businesses, schools, community facilities and open space lost or affected by HS2, should it go ahead, are reprovided in the Euston area.”

I ask for an assurance from the Minister and, if appropriate, the Secretary of State that they recommit to that No. 1 objective in respect of local needs. Sixthly, by what date will the Government commit to re-provide new social housing, open spaces and community facilities on the land acquired for the new station?

My constituents are entitled to answers to those questions. The plan for Euston is a mess and there is a lack of information in the provisions. HS2, Network Rail and Transport for London need to step up and listen to local residents and businesses, who speak with a clear voice in opposition to these plans.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make a short contribution.

I support the motion and, in particular, the AP3 proposals. Before I turn to those, I thank the Minister and the officials of HS2 Ltd and Network Rail who put on a helpful briefing for Members last week. That was particularly useful in helping us to visualise the proposed changes at Euston station.

I am a long-standing supporter of HS2, not least because of the benefits that will be delivered to my constituents in Milton Keynes by the freeing up of capacity on the west coast main line for additional commuter, regional and inter-city services. Notwithstanding that support, I and many of my constituents have been concerned about the impact on the commuter services into and out of Euston during the construction phase. I have been reassured by the presentation last week and the motion before us today that, during the construction phase, the current timetable will be maintained with minimal disruption. There will be some disruption at weekends and at other times, as is inevitable with large-scale infrastructure projects. I am grateful for that reassurance.

An earlier additional provision that we considered opened up the prospect that the west coast main line could be connected to Crossrail services and some commuter services could be diverted directly on to Crossrail. I simply ask for that option to be kept on the table should any further restrictions at Euston be required.

An article in The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend seemed to indicate that there would be a permanent reduction in capacity for the classic services at Euston when HS2 is complete, but all my information suggests that the reverse is true. In addition to the additional capacity on HS2, if my figures are correct, there will be a doubling of commuter seats into and out of Euston at peak hours once HS2 is complete. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I can confirm that. The revised plans include so-called path X, which is an underpass that allows much more flexibility in the way Euston can be used. When phase 1 of HS2 is open, we estimate that about 30% of passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and get on to Crossrail, or perhaps go to Heathrow on Crossrail 2, and that will take the pressure off Euston station for the remainder of the construction period.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

I am grateful for that reassurance. One feature of the revised plans for Euston that I was pleased to see is the flexibility of its design. If in future Crossrail 2 is developed to go through Euston, the station has been designed in a way that could easily incorporate that.

I make one personal plea to the Minister. It may not be entirely within his gift, but perhaps he could use his good offices to encourage people at Network Rail or elsewhere—in the design there is room for this—to put back the old Euston arch, which was shamefully destroyed, or at least taken away, when Euston was redeveloped in the 1960s. That was a grave mistake. As well as building a brand new railway line for the future, hopefully we can make reference to our architectural history and put back the Euston arch somewhere.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I am glad that we have clarified the purpose of this debate. When we debated AP2, some of us believed that we were to consider the detail of the proposals, but no detail was available. I understand from the Minister’s letter of 8 September that this is simply a permissive motion to allow debate in the Bill Committee, and that there will be an opportunity to challenge matters there.

We were promised an environmental statement to deal with matters of detail, but I am afraid that the statement on AP2 did not exactly do that. It was written in a peculiarly liturgical style that was highly repetitious and confusing, and did not clarify matters. It took several meetings and correspondence with HS2—HS2 now responds promptly and with courtesy, although it did not used to—before such clarification was possible. Where significant proposals affect the route, I ask that the technical details be expressed as clearly as possible so that we and our constituents can understand them.

I will not pass judgment on the Euston scheme or vote against the motion, but I will raise some notes of caution. This is not the first significant change to the proposals for Euston, but it is a significant change. When I put it to HS2 that seven extra years will be required to complete the scheme, it said that a long time had been allowed for the rebuilding of Reading station, but that was completed 18 months early. All that says to me is that these time frames are notional, and for the building and rebuilding of the station we are looking to 2033—a very long time.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked why this change is happening. It is happening because it is potentially better, or less disruptive, for existing users of Euston station. However, it will undoubtedly be worse for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others who have to navigate their way around the Euston area.

Who is in charge of these projects and who will ensure that they function properly? Euston and Old Oak, which is in my constituency, are by far the two biggest projects within this huge project. Euston will have 22 platforms, 11 of them new, and Old Oak will have at least 14 new platforms, including Crossrail and the Great Western main line, not to mention overground and underground services. These are massive and complex schemes that will take place in very built-up areas. We should all pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for fighting her corner and to other Members with rural seats, but the compensation on offer and the regard that is had to urban areas is clearly less than is the case elsewhere. That is as true of my constituency as it is of Camden, but there are differences. Fewer residents will be affected, I am pleased to say, around Old Oak than around Euston, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) has said—if they will be affected, they will be mightily affected and for many years.

I suspect, however, that the Euston scheme will receive more scrutiny because it is a landmark site in the centre of London. In Old Oak, we are in danger of getting second best, such as a sort of industrial warehouse environment rather than something more prestigious—although having seen the design for the entrance to Euston, I have to say that it looks like the entrance to Le Grand Macabre: I am not sure that the designers have got it quite right yet.

I urge the Government to turn their mind to the operational and logistical configuration at Euston and Old Oak. The rumour is that the two will be joined together and the mayoral development corporation will be extended to include Euston. That is not a sensible idea. I did not think that the mayoral development corporation was a sensible idea for Old Oak, which involves three boroughs—albeit three boroughs that are

co-operating very closely. I doubt that the London Borough of Camden will wish to have all its planning and regeneration powers seized by the Mayor, whoever that is, although I am sure that it will want to co-operate—as we do—with the GLA. The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation is now a statutory body with statutory powers that was set up by this House, whereas Euston has an area planning board, which is not a statutory body and effectively relies on the good will of the co-operating parties.

At least three issues need to be addressed. The first is the competing interests of the locality and the national interest in an important national scheme—which I support. The second is ensuring that the planning and regeneration powers—and the conflicts of interest in bodies that have both at their disposition—are dealt with transparently and accountably. The third is the competent management of the scheme. I agree with what the leader of Camden Council said about insufficient integration between what Network Rail is doing with the existing station and what HS2 intends to do. Exactly the same could be said about the integration of Crossrail and HS2 at Old Oak. We have to get this right in the economic interests of regenerating the area, in the national interests of ensuring that the country can be proud of these projects, and in the interests of local people living in the area. That is simply not happening at the moment.

I shall finish with an anecdote about my meeting yesterday with my clinical commissioning group. Hon. Members may wonder what that has to do with this issue, but it was part of my continuing campaign to persuade the CCG not to close down large parts of the acute hospital services in west London. I pointed to Old Oak and said, “Well, here are 24,000 new homes and there are 50,000 being built locally. How are you going to deal with that with much less provision?” “Oh don’t worry,” they said, “we have been assured”—I am sure the same is exactly true for Euston as well—“that these will just be occupied by young professional people of working age and they won’t really need health services in the way that other people do.” I wish somebody had told me that. Who is taking these decisions? Who, in smoke-filled rooms—probably not smoke-filled rooms in the health service these days—is making decisions about major infrastructure projects, looking decades or more ahead, without democratic input, without the input of local residents and businesses, and without the proper scrutiny of us in this House and of local authorities?

Tulip Siddiq (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn)

Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), I agree with the right to give residents the opportunity to come and petition if they feel that High Speed 2 is not affecting their areas in the way it should. I should make it clear that my overall stance is to oppose HS2. I have been campaigning against it for six years. I was a councillor for the Regent’s Park ward, where more than 300 council homes will be devastated and demolished. I sat through many a HS2 meeting in which HS2 Ltd was severely incompetent as regards taking forward the wishes of the community and listening properly to the grievances outlined. I hope HS2 Ltd will engage more with residents, both in Camden and in Hampstead and Kilburn.

I turn to the additional provisions that affect Hampstead and Kilburn—both Camden and Brent are in my constituency. The three items I will highlight are affected by the issues at hand today. The first is the acquisition of additional land at Alexandra Place. Alexandra Place is already to be the location of a vent shaft. The amendment will allow vehicles to turn at Dinerman Court. Some 84 existing landowners are already inconvenienced, but another 46 new landowners will now be impacted by the changes. What protection will the landowners have and have they been taken into consideration?

The second item I am worried about is the disruption of a grade II listed building on the Alexandra Road Estate. The situation changes with the amendment at hand today. It does not alter the builders’ plans and no new people will be affected—just to be clear—but it constitutes an admission that the listed buildings legislation can be contravened and that they will now have the right to exercise their powers to override it, as enshrined in the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill. That is potentially an important admission and opens the way for questions about how the listed building will be protected while building works are taking place. I would be grateful for any reassurance the Minister can give me about the listed building.

The Minister is well aware of the loss of the launderette. Indeed, he mentioned it earlier. The residents live in apartments that do not have washing machines. This issue has been raised in my surgeries and in the public meetings I have attended. I would be grateful for any reassurance I could pass on to residents that the launderette will exist, along with the shops on that road. They are a lifeline for a lot of people who live in the area, many of whom are disabled and cannot venture any further on to Finchley Road.

Finally, this is the part I am most concerned about: the proposed moving of a vent shaft to Canterbury Road. This is in one of the most deprived areas in my constituency. It is being regenerated and the residents have been living in the middle of a building site for nearly 10 years, and now a vent shaft is being proposed right in front of the school. My worry is that a proper feasibility study has not been done to assess the impact on the students travelling in and out of the school, and on students inside the school.

I reiterate that south Kilburn is the most deprived area of Hampstead and Kilburn. People in the area, such as Pete Firmin, Liz, Ladi and Councillor Rita Connelly, are campaigning to ensure the removal of the vent shaft. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the vent shaft should go in this area, where it would affect children, being on the school route, and new landowners. I invite him to visit the location to assess for himself whether it is appropriate to locate it there, putting residents through even more building work and inconvenience for the next 10 years.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

With the leave of the House, I will make a few remarks in response to the debate.

The fundamental point of the debate is to allow petitions to be submitted to the hybrid Bill Committee, so, while many of the points are perfectly reasonable ones to make, they should be directed to the Committee for it

to consider and then, if necessary, make recommendations on. That said, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) made some points I need to address, particularly about how Euston station can be developed. We are all in awe of the development of King’s Cross and St Pancras stations and the regeneration of the surrounding area. People used to go to King’s Cross for all the wrong reasons; now they go for the right reasons. It is a great place to be.

We need such regeneration around Euston, although I recognise the points about there not being quite so much spare land around there. It is important that we work with Network Rail and Transport for London to co-ordinate the approach. Our Euston proposal is fully compatible with the redevelopment of the remaining Network Rail station and has been developed with Network Rail and TFL. The improvements to the underground station at Euston will be transformational. When the new Victoria development opens, we will get a taste of how a new state-of-the-art underground station can help commuters and particularly of how the tidal flows of people need not in conflict in the way they often are in other areas. On project delivery, Sir Peter Hendy and his team are looking at how Network Rail can work more effectively.

The hon. Lady mentioned excavated material being removed by rail. Extended construction at Euston station will allow more excavated material to be removed by rail, as there is capacity to do so. We will work to maximise what can be taken out by rail. The fewer trucks the better for noise and congestion and for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. I am a London cyclist myself. We know that, sadly, heavy construction vehicles are often involved in accidents. Despite the prowess and training of drivers and the modification of vehicles, accidents still occasionally happen. I can also confirm that there are no changes to the compensation schemes. The scheme in urban areas, compared to country areas, recognises the character of those areas and the effect that construction and development can have, particularly on property prices and people.

The hon. Lady asked about the net cost of the changes. I can confirm that the net cost is zero. The overall cost of phase 1 remains £21.4 billion at second quarter 2011 prices. Any changes that add costs simply draw down the contingency not set aside for that purpose. We always knew we would need to draw down the contingency—for example, to meet the cost of the Chiltern tunnel extension, the cost of which was more than £40 million, at second quarter 2011 prices, excluding the contingency. I hope I have reassured the House that the project is deliverable within budget.

The hon. Lady also asked whether we would return to the House to provide clarity on phase 2 and legislative plans. I can confirm that the Government will outline the way forward for phase 2 before the end of the year, including confirmation of the plans for legislation.

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South)

The Minister says that the Government will announce the way forward. Is that the same as confirming the line of route?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

On phase 1, the line of route is certainly becoming much closer to being confirmed, but on phase 2 there is obviously a lot more work to be done with local authorities and leaders of the great cities of the north,

as we call them, to ensure that we get that right. Some criticism has been voiced today that we keep coming back with new change proposals, but it is important that we react to the points that people make, as the Committee reacts to petitions, for example. We have reacted to ensure that we can deliver a state-of-the-art station at Euston and minimise the impact on local people during the construction phase.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned the supplementary environmental statement. Let me repeat that for Camden it will be available from tomorrow for consultation until 6 November, while the consultation period on the AP4 area will commence in mid-October—I cannot give an exact date—and will run for six weeks.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) talked about the phased approach and how that would certainly mean disruption for a longer period, but we need to consider disruption not only to the residents affected by vehicles, noise, dust and so forth, but to the commuters who use the station. Delivering the project in the way we have outlined today will mean having more capacity through that station. I am pleased to reassure Members that some of the coverage at the weekend about reductions in platform space is not correct. There will be an opportunity to make sure that we keep the passengers going through.

As I mentioned in an intervention, Old Oak Common will become one of this country’s most important stations—it will be as well known as King’s Cross, Victoria and Waterloo. Indeed, at least 30% of the passengers will alight there to get on to Crossrail and then to a number of locations around London. As for other areas where it might be quicker to go through Euston when the line is complete, passengers will be able to use Old Oak Common as a connection. To come to Westminster, for example, it will take only three minutes longer via Old Oak Common than it would be via Euston. Many people may get used to Crossrail and like to use the new facilities.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and indeed the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), mentioned the provision of social housing. It is important, particularly in the more deprived areas of our capital, to have good social housing provision. We have already committed to replacing lost social housing at Euston. We have purchased the Netley development and we are funding the construction of more social housing in the area—all with the aim of ensuring that social tenants are required to move only once.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras also asked why the whole station would not be ready by 2026. If we look at the project—phase 1 to Birmingham and phase 2, the Y section—we find that capacity will not be needed until later for additional trains coming from Leeds and Manchester, and many other trains will start their journey further north in Scotland.

I think I have covered a number of the points raised. The ability to divert into Crossrail will be maintained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made clear. As for the environmental statement, there will be an ability to prioritise local needs. The hybrid Bill does not take powers for over-site development, which will all be subject to the normal local planning process, so it will need to conform to the

local planning strategy. I am sure that there will be tremendous opportunities at Euston for other development in the area, which will capitalise on the new station.

Finally, I come to the Euston arch. I can tell Members that the Secretary of State is very keen to see the resurrection of the Euston arch. We think we know where the bits are. The Euston Arch Trust aims to re-form the arch, and it is for that trust to bring it forward through a local planning application. We have a location for the new Euston Square gardens for the arch to come forward. Personally, I wonder whether a holograph might be even better, but I can certainly confirm that the Secretary of State is very keen to see the arch resurrected.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I thank my hon. Friend for letting me intervene before he finishes. Towards the end of my speech, I raised the position of constituents who were affected by HS2 before the announcement of AP4, which has now been reversed by the Chiltern tunnel extension. Will HS2 Ltd and the Government stand by their proposals to the landowners who were previously affected, or will their position change?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

Petitioners will be able to petition if they have locus standi, which is the legal term. We will look at the petitions as they are presented to check whether that is the case, but if people are affected by these changes, they will be able to petition. If, for example, there is no fundamental change in their circumstances on the part of the route to which the tunnel will not extend, they will not be able to present an identical petition for the identical reason that they did so on the previous occasion. It is important for the effective operation of the Committee that we do not open up more petitions that do not relate to the specific changes in AP3 and AP4.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Will my hon. Friend clarify one more point?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

Just once more.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am thinking of circumstances in which a constituent has effectively lost their business because it was disrupted by the HS2 works, and has made alternative arrangements, with great difficulty and at a financial cost. Now that AP4 has introduced extended tunnelling, they would have been in a much better position, because their business could have been saved. Will the door still be open for them to negotiate with the Department for the compensation that would have been due to them had AP4 not come into existence?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

I think I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Because we have improved the scheme from an environmental point of view, it will not have the impact that was envisaged on that particular business. I should be happy to receive representations from my right hon. Friend explaining the exact position, and we will look at them in the context of the compensation packages that we have announced.

I commend the instruction to the House, and hope that it will receive the support that it deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–

(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–

(a) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of Euston Station in the London Borough of Camden;

(b) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers and changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in the London Borough of Camden;

(c) amendments, to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Aston Le Walls, Boddington and Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth and Marston St Lawrence in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Coleshill, Cubbington, Kenilworth, Long Itchington, Offchurch, Stoneleigh, Ufton, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Dickens Heath and Hampton-in-Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;

vii. the City of Birmingham;

(d) amendments, to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill, relating to:

i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon;

ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;

iii. the parishes of Amersham, Calvert Green, Denham, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon and Wexham in the County of Buckinghamshire;

iv. the parishes of Boddington and Culworth in the County of Northamptonshire;

v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Cubbington, Curdworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Shustoke, Southam, Stoneleigh, Water Orton, Weston under Wetherley and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;

vi. the parishes of Hints with Canwell, Curborough and Elmhurst, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, King’s Bromley and Lichfield in the County of Staffordshire;

vii. the City of Birmingham.

(e) amendments relating to the extension of the Chiltern tunnel in the parishes of Amersham, Little Missenden and Great Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire;

(f) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e);

(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is

empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–

(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and

(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Business without Debate — Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 10 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

Constitutional Law

Dangerous Drugs

Defence

International Development

European Union Documents

EU General Budgets for 2015 and 2016