Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 579: debated on Wednesday 9 April 2014

House of Commons

Wednesday 9 April 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock


[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

International Development

The Secretary of State was asked—

Afghanistan Election (Women)

1. What assessment she has made of the level of women’s participation in the upcoming Afghanistan presidential election. (903613)

Provisional estimates show that approximately 7 million people voted in Afghanistan’s presidential and provincial council election last Saturday. About a third of women voted—a tremendous achievement. That is evidence that support for democratic institutions and women’s participation is making a real difference on the ground.

Early indications show that the role of women in Afghanistan’s elections has taken great steps in the right direction, but what plans are in place to ensure that those hard-won battles for the rights of women are not lost as a result of the international security assistance force draw-down at the end of this year?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point. The Department for International Development committed £20 million of funding to help the UN work to support the elections, including nearly £5 million for a programme to support women’s participation. As we go forward, we must ensure that the constitution that is already in place to support women’s rights is enforced, that we are working at grassroots level and putting more money into community programmes and that across government, for example in the police, women get the chance to play their full role. As far as I and the Government are concerned, we are determined to ensure that those hard-won additional rights for women are not just maintained but built on further.

May I thank the Secretary of State for that reply? I hope that now that the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 has received Royal Assent, she will be able to give the maximum opportunities to protect women and make certain that they are fully empowered.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this gives me a chance to pay tribute to the tireless efforts he made to push through his private Member’s Bill. It has not just set out how important equality is to our Parliament, but has been picked up across the world as an example of the UK’s taking a stand on gender equality.

As we pay tribute to others, it is right for the House again to reflect at the time of these elections on the enormous contribution our armed forces have made and continue to make. It is heartening that in the elections the three front-runners were supportive of the extension of women’s rights in government, but progress has been fragile. It is unacceptable that only 1% of those who serve in the Afghan police force are women. I know that the Secretary of State will share that concern, so what more can be done to ensure that the legal, judicial and policing systems properly reflect a better balance of gender in Afghanistan?

That is the very point that I raised with the Minister of the Interior when I was last in Afghanistan. We are providing technical assistance to enable work on this issue across the board, but one thing that is being considered is bringing in women at more senior levels in the Afghan police to get role models, so that incoming female recruits can aspire and look up to them.

Given that the engagement in democracy is so strong, with the draw-down of ISAF it will be crucial that donor communities continue to provide aid to what is one of the poorest countries in the world, in order to maintain stability. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with US authorities about recognising the importance of that continued aid commitment?

I routinely discuss the work of the donor community with our US colleagues and there will be an important meeting, which the UK will be co-chairing, at the end of this year and perhaps running into early next year that will assess progress against the Tokyo mutual accountability framework. At that point we should have a new Afghan President and Government in place, so that will be a good time to take stock of progress and of the challenges that remain.

Development Framework (Health)

The UK has played a central role in developing successor development goals to the millennium development goals, including through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the UN high-level panel. We want to see progress across the board on health, particularly on maternal and child health. We want a dedicated health goal, and articulated and measured health outcomes targets.

Despite ongoing global commitments, 40 million women gave birth without the assistance of a midwife last year, and families living in the poorest parts of the world are twice as likely to lose their babies as those in the richest nations. Will the Secretary of State use her influence to ensure that there are targets for ending preventable child, maternal and newborn deaths in the post-2015 framework, and to call for universal health coverage and universal access to midwifery?

We are supportive of universal health coverage, which is one of the key means that can improve health outcomes. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of maternal health. We look across the board at how we can do that, including in relation to family planning and what we are doing this summer to combat child and early marriage, which is one reason why maternal health is poor. We will continue to work really hard on that whole agenda.

Great gains have been made under the millennium development goals in the areas of malaria, neglected tropical diseases, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the goals that we will push for post-2015 will ensure that those gains will be maintained and, indeed, enhanced?

Yes, I can. In fact, we want HIV, TB and malaria to be incorporated under a health goal. My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK was one of the leading donors at the global fund replenishment at the end of last year, and will continue to support that important work.

Further to that answer, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will commit to the opportunity identified by the “Malaria No More” campaign to halve malaria deaths again—they have already been halved since 2000—by 2020, and back the proposals to accelerate the reduction in the death rate to zero beyond 2020?

We do want malaria to be eradicated. It is one of the key issues African leaders raise in relation not just to its impact on individuals and families, but its economic impact. The recent Bali World Trade Organisation deal was worth about $10 billion a year to the African economy—that is also the cost of malaria every year regionally.

GAVI Alliance

3. What recent steps she has taken to ensure the future funding and effectiveness of the GAVI Alliance. [R] (903615)

The UK is the largest donor to GAVI. Our support will help fully immunise nearly 80 million children and save around 1.3 million lives during 2011-15. We are working closely with GAVI and partners to ensure that their 2016-20 strategy, currently being developed, provides a sound and cost-effective basis for delivering their mission and saving children’s lives.

May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? To reach every child with immunisation requires not only vaccines but staff. Do the Government support the GAVI 15% to 25% spending target on health strengthening in the international community?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because strengthening health systems and the capacity of health workers is a key answer in addressing the immunisation deficit.

I proudly congratulate the Government on spending 0.7% of national income on eradicating poverty worldwide, much of it on polio eradication. The last three countries with endemic polio all have significant Islamic populations. Is the Department committed to working with religious and Islamic leaders to try to build community support for polio eradication and to protect health workers in those countries?

My hon. Friend raises the issue of the frustrating endgame on polio. GAVI will play a major role in delivering that endgame, but we are working with everyone to try to ensure that vaccinations are seen as good and not some kind of problem.

I declare an arrangement, as I went to Cambodia with Results UK to see the GAVI-funded programme there. I am told that the Government put in £860 million, which raises questions about the future. Will the Government make a commitment to maintaining that level of funding in future for GAVI, which runs a wonderful project?

Right now, GAVI has not stated what its actual target is. We are the largest donor at 33%, and we will continue to support it. We will make a decision in the next few months.

Does the Minister agree that vaccination assistance and the partnership with the Gates Foundation is not only the right thing to do but one of the best ways to help developing economies? It is also something we should sell and explain to the general public.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The economic benefits are huge, and vaccination is considered a development “best buy”. The Gates Foundation is at the forefront of that, and we work very closely indeed with it.

Palestinian Authority

4. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department’s support for the Palestinian Authority. (903616)

The UK is providing effective support for the Palestinian Authority in very challenging circumstances. The Palestinian Authority has developed institutions to the point where the international community has recognised it as technically ready for statehood, and it has made impressive progress in delivering improved outcomes in health and education.

Having just returned from a Select Committee visit to the Palestinian occupied territories and seen the excellent work being done there by the Department, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that its work to support the private sector would be much more effective if Israel lifted many of its restrictions, which can have nothing to do with its essential security, on the freedom of Palestinian business people to develop their economy in areas such as the banking sector, water supply, and even 3G telephone networks?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his appreciation of DFID’s work in the occupied Palestinian territories and glad that he and the Committee had such a useful visit. Israeli restrictions do tremendous damage to the economy and to the living standards of ordinary Palestinians. The simple truth is that they are not allowed to develop their banking or information and communications technology sectors, or to build even their basic infrastructure. Were these restrictions to be lifted, not only would DFID’s work to support the private sector be much more effective, but within a relatively short space of time the Palestinians would probably not need our aid at all.

Is the Minister aware that the World Bank has said that area C of the west bank, particularly the Jordan valley, is vital to the future economic viability of a Palestinian state? Presumably that is why the Department is looking to fund infrastructure projects there. What is his view of the fact that illegal Israeli planning restrictions are stopping those infrastructure projects being built, and for how long will the Government allow Israel to have a veto over economic development in the west bank?

I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I think the Select Committee saw a direct example of the destruction of olive groves when it was there. It is essential that area C is able, through planning arrangements, to develop its economy; otherwise there can be no sensible or useful economic future in the Palestinian territories.

May I confirm what the Minister says—that without access to area C there is no future for a two-state solution or for an economically viable Palestine? The Palestinian Authority pleaded with us to put all possible pressure on Israel to allow access. We met someone from a company who is saying that the cost of land in areas A and B is prohibitive and that without access to area C he cannot develop his business.

I fully concur with my right hon. Friend. I hope that a full understanding of this can be included in the peace talks that we hope are continuing towards a productive and useful conclusion.

What recent representations have the Government made to the Israeli authorities about the continued forcible removal of populations, and property demolition, in the occupied territories? Yesterday the Foreign Secretary met the Israeli Minister for International Relations: was this issue raised with him?

I was also at that meeting, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we raise such matters regularly. It is essential that some kind of normal activity can be permitted in the occupied Palestinian territories; otherwise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) said, there will not be a two-state solution and there is a danger of permanent conflict and tension.

Aid Dependency and Job Creation

5. What steps her Department is taking to reduce levels of aid dependency through the creation of jobs. (903617)

My Department is working hard to grow jobs and end aid dependency. Over the next two years we will more than double to £1.8 billion the amount that DFID invests in job creation and economic development.

Will the Secretary of State set out her objectives for next week’s meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation and say what her Department’s work with the private sector will achieve?

The meeting in Mexico is incredibly important. It will help us to take the next steps to shape responsible business practices that can, in turn, support sustainable and inclusive economic growth in countries that so badly need it.

Job creation is of course a very worthwhile task, particularly in the emerging economies. Does the Secretary of State agree that secure, dependable jobs that help the indigenous peoples of those nations are what is required to assist those nations?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the most important aspects is to help shape the economic growth that takes place so that, through work, it lifts the largest number of people possible out of poverty. That is precisely the agenda the Department is pursuing.

In every economy across the globe, small businesses are the most secure way to create jobs. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to enhance the provision of finance to small businesses in developing countries?

We are working with a fund for small and medium-sized enterprises that can do precisely that. We have also, with the London stock exchange, focused on the issue of capital markets improving finance more broadly in developing countries—particularly, most recently, in Tanzania.

The garment industry in Bangladesh and elsewhere provides hundreds of thousands of jobs to people trying to work their way out of poverty, but it has too often involved unsafe conditions and poverty pay, and no one in Britain wants to buy clothes made in such conditions. Ahead of the first anniversary of the Rana Plaza disaster, does the Secretary of State now agree that her Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the International Labour Organisation, which protects vulnerable workers, was a short-sighted mistake?

I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the ILO in Bangladesh, and as she knows we have also sent over experts to help with building practices and construction. As the hon. Lady points out, it is nearly a year since the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza building, and we have worked very hard since then with the Bangladesh Government and industry to make sure that we learn from that terrible disaster.

Although I welcome enormously what the Secretary of State is doing, is not one of the problems in creating jobs in developing countries the fact that major trading blocs such as the European Union are stopping market access to them?

Protectionism, including by the EU, ultimately does not help anyone. [Interruption.] That is one of the reasons why getting a deal in Bali was so important. I had the chance to make that point personally to the director general of the WTO yesterday. [Interruption.]

Order. There are a lot of noisy private conversations taking place, notably at this stage on the Opposition Benches, but I want to hear both the questions and the right hon. Lady’s answers, so let us have a seemly atmosphere in deference to Mr Paul Burstow.

Tackling Dementia

6. What steps her Department is taking to support developing countries in tackling the effects of dementia. (903618)

The UK Government support the improvement of dementia care through increased provision of basic health services for the poor. In 2012-13, the UK provided about £1 billion in bilateral health aid to support work to strengthen health systems and health services for the poor.

I thank the Minister for that answer and for the actions the Government are already taking. Given that six out of 10 people living with dementia worldwide live not in developed but in developing countries, that the vast majority of them do not have a diagnosis, and that we know from research by Alzheimer’s Disease International that the burden of dementia is shifting to developing countries, will the Government take further steps to build on the success of the dementia summit held last year to lever action in those developing countries?

I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he has done; indeed, I have met with him to discuss this very issue. Of course, dementia is a growing issue in the developing world. Regarding the Prime Minister’s summit, we have contributed to the Department of Health, which is the lead Department on the issue, and we are dealing full out with communicable diseases. We also, as my right hon. Friend knows, have a campaign on mental health issues.

Development Aid

7. How much international development aid the UK gave in total to Jamaica, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia, India and Bangladesh combined in the last year for which figures are available. (903620)

In 2012 the UK Government gave a combined total of £973 million in bilateral official development assistance to Jamaica, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia, India and Bangladesh.

Between them, those six countries account for 2,900 foreign national offenders in Britain’s prisons, which is more than a quarter of the foreign national offender total, at an annual cost of some £100 million. Will the Department agree to use some of the £900 million spent annually on those countries on insisting on compulsory prisoner transfer agreements as a condition of that aid, and on building prisons in those countries so that they can take their people back?

There is no straightforward correlation between the practicality of building a prison abroad and the number of UK-based prisoners from that country. We do not make our aid conditional on securing a prisoner transfer agreement with each such country. To do so would seriously undermine our poverty and stability programmes, and in any case they are deeply political and very complicated to negotiate. However, more than 19,000 foreign national offenders have been returned since 2010.

Topical Questions

On international women’s day, I announced that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will host a summit in July to step up our global efforts to end both female genital mutilation and early and forced marriage for all girls within a generation. In March, I attended in New York the Commission on the Status of Women, which supported our call for a stand-alone goal on gender and integrating gender throughout the post-2015 development framework. Last week, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the UK is the first G8 country to reach a figure of 0.7% of gross national income on international development, and I am proud that it is this Government who have achieved that promise.

Given the horrific events in Rwanda 20 years ago this week, will the Department redouble its efforts to support conflict prevention in countries such as Sudan, the Central African Republic and, indeed, Syria, so that their people can enjoy the peace and humanity that hitherto has escaped them?

We have had a chance this week to remember the terrible tragedy of the events that took place in Rwanda back in 1994. When we look at progress against the millennium development goals, we know that hardly any has been made in the sort of countries to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, because conflict holds back development. That is why we will continue to focus our efforts on those states to help their people.

T2. What progress is the Government’s International Citizens Service entrepreneur programme making in helping entrepreneurs and small businesses in developing economies? (903630)

At the end of March, I launched the International Citizens Service entrepreneur scheme. This builds on the successful ICS programme that this Government have introduced. It is about matching young people with businesses and entrepreneurs in developing countries, and it focuses on economic development. The programme has had a fantastic response, and the first volunteers will be on their placements this summer. [Interruption.]

DFID has a work in freedom programme, aimed at preventing the trafficking of women and girls from south Asia to countries popular with migrants. Last week, I was in Qatar to see the conditions endured by migrant male workers. As Qatar starts to build the World cup stadiums, the abuses I saw cannot continue. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to extend the work in freedom programme to these workers in Qatar, and that it is important that FIFA and Qatar act to ensure that the beautiful game is not built on the misery of migrant workers?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. We have certainly raised our concerns with the Qatari authorities, including at ministerial and ambassadorial level. Of course, the work in freedom programme, which we are bringing in—this new programme is about to start—is all about helping particularly girls and women who are being trafficked, and we hope to see that programme succeed over the coming years. [Interruption.]

What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with other UK Departments about how Her Majesty’s Government can bring an end to female genital mutilation and early and forced marriage worldwide?

I am delighted to say that the UK will host an international summit on these topics in the summer, hosted by the Prime Minister. We have been working hand in hand with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has done some excellent work domestically on this agenda, too. [Interruption.]

Order. May I politely say to the House that although I understand the air of expectation, we have just had a question about female genital mutilation? We are discussing matters of intense importance in this country and to billions of people around the world. Simple courtesy would dictate that we do actually pay attention.

T3. Tragically, 3,000 children a day die from malaria worldwide. What contribution are the Government making to eliminate child deaths from this dreadful disease, particularly in the Central African Republic, where UN funding is grossly underfunded? (903631)

We have announced up to £1 billion over the next three years for the global fund, which is one of the key mechanisms by which malaria is tackled—it was malaria day yesterday—and, particularly in places such as the Central African Republic, we complement that with humanitarian support as well.

Will the Secretary of State update the House on DFID’s contribution to the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide?

It is 20 years since the Rwandan genocide—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Rwanda over recent days to commemorate that terrible event—but since then, Rwanda has taken huge steps forward in development. It is one of the beacons showing how countries can develop rapidly when there are the resources and the political will. We will continue our work with Rwanda.

T4. I have just returned from a fact-finding mission to Qatar with the construction workers union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, to look at the terrible plight of migrant workers in Qatar. I was reassured by some of the Secretary of State’s comments in reply to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). Will she, however, give the House an assurance that she will make representations to the Qatari authorities to end the kafala system, which is effectively bonded labour, and to stop the appalling circumstances of migrant workers living in abject squalor? Some 1,200 have been killed on construction sites already, and if some action is not taken, 4,000 will be dead before the World cup starts. (903632)

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those issues, and I assure him that we are raising them with the Qatari authorities. I will also do that.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Green Fuels Ltd on its successful entry into the Indonesian market, boosting British exports and reducing Indonesian carbon emissions through a strong partnership between DFID and UK Trade & Investment on the ground?

I congratulate the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He has been a tireless advocate for the role that such businesses, including this one, can play in combating climate change. It is fantastic to see that work get off the ground in Indonesia.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—


This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

The Prime Minister promised by the end of this Parliament to reduce net annual migration to the UK to tens of thousands. Will that promise be met—yes or no?

We have made very good steps forward on migration from outside the EU, which is down by a third and at its lowest level since 1998. That is a success, and we have seen net migration overall come down by around a fifth. What we have not seen is what we saw under Labour, when 2.2 million people net came in over 10 years. That was unacceptable, and we are getting the situation under control.

I spoke recently to a constituent of mine who has just been diagnosed with dementia. Understandably, she is incredibly frightened about what the future might hold for her. The dementia strategy has made great progress, but it comes to an end this month. Will the Prime Minister give his personal assurance that a new dementia framework will be put in place as soon as possible to help my constituents and others to live well with dementia?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I can add that we will continue our dementia challenge, which is about doubling research into dementia and treating it like a disease such as cancer or heart disease. The work we are doing to make sure that local communities are more dementia- friendly must continue, and we must also improve the care that elderly people get in care homes, nursing homes and hospitals. That vital work must continue, too, and we will continue to use our position in the G7 to push the issue globally.

The events of the last week have caused deep concern and anger to the public. What lessons has the Prime Minister learned from his handling of the situation?

First, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is still very deep and very raw public concern about the expenses scandal that rocked the last Parliament. The biggest lesson I have learned is that that anger is still very raw and needs to be acted on. I hope the one lesson that will not be learned is that the right thing to do as soon as someone has to answer allegations is just to remove them instantly, rather than give them a chance to clear their name and get on with their job.

I was asking about the Prime Minister’s handling of the situation and the lessons he has learned, and he had no answer. In his letter to the former Culture Secretary today, he wrote:

“I think it is important to be clear that the Committee on Standards cleared you of the unfounded allegations made against you”.

Can he now explain what, in his view, she did wrong?

The former Culture Secretary set out the reasons for her resignation in her letter, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that the former Culture Secretary was accused of a very serious offence by a Member of Parliament. She was accused of housing her parents at public expense. She was cleared of that allegation, and I thought it was right in those circumstances—other people can take their own view, but I am talking about my view—to allow her to make her apology and to continue with her job. I think that was the right way to handle the situation. Other people can take their own view, but I think that if people clear themselves of a serious offence, you let them get on with their job—you let them try to do their job. That is actually the right thing to do.

I have to say to the Prime Minister that it will be completely unclear to the country why the former Culture Secretary is not still in her job, because he thinks that she did nothing wrong. Let me explain to him—[Interruption.]

Order. This session will be conducted in an orderly way, however long it takes. I happen to know that there are children here today observing our proceedings. I would like to think that the House will show a good example. Let us see if we can.

What she did wrong was to refuse to co-operate with an inquiry, breach the code of conduct for MPs, and give a perfunctory and inadequate apology to this House, as people on all sides have been saying. The Prime Minister said six days ago that she had “done the right thing” and that we should “leave it at that”. Does he now recognise that that was a terrible error of judgment?

As I say, I think that it was right to allow her the chance to get on with her job. There is one weakness in the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. If he thought that was the case, why did he not call on her to resign? He seems to be the first Leader of the Opposition, probably in history, to come to this House and make his first suggestion that someone should resign after they have already resigned.

Now I have heard everything—it is my job to fire members of his Cabinet! This is about him and the fact that he still does not understand what the former Culture Secretary did wrong. The reason the public were so appalled was that if it had happened in any other business, there would have been no question of her staying in her job. Why was he the last person in the country to realise that her position was untenable?

It is very clear. She did do some things wrong. That is why she was asked to apologise, and she did apologise. It was not right not to co-operate properly with the Committee, and she apologised for that. It is rather extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman comes here, having not said that she should resign, saying that she should have resigned. It shows all the signs of someone seeing a political bandwagon and wanting to jump on it. He is jumping on this bandwagon after the whole circus has left town.

Where I agree with the right hon. Gentleman is that there is still more that needs to be done to deal with the problems of expenses that we suffered in the last Parliament. We have made some big steps forward. I am not sure that everybody knows this, but any expense complaint from 2010 onwards is dealt with by an independent body and not by MPs. That is right. The Committee of MPs that does the work on the past cases now has members of the public sitting on it. That is right. Let us do more to reassure the public about the scandal of expenses and how we are dealing with it. I am very happy to hold meetings with party leaders and the authorities of this House. It is absolutely right that we should do everything we can to show that this is a good and honest Parliament with good and hard-working people in it. That is the assumption that I start from, and I make no apology for that.

The Prime Minister describes it as a “bandwagon” and a “circus”. This is about members of the public in this country being absolutely appalled at the conduct of his Government over the last week. That is what it is about. It is about members of the public who cannot understand why he did not act. He said in his foreword to the “Ministerial Code”:

“the British people…expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down.”

Does he not realise that his failure, even now, to recognise what went wrong has undermined trust not only in his Government, but in politics?

What we see is absolutely transparent: the right hon. Gentleman came here today determined to play politics in every single way that he could. That is absolutely clear. Since 2010—[Interruption.]

I think that Members across the House know that since 2010—since the last Parliament—a lot of changes have been made. We have independent members on the parliamentary Committee; the publication of all meetings, visits and gifts for Ministers; the publication of all special adviser salaries; and the publication of Government spending. Is there more to do? Yes, absolutely, there is more to do. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about doing it, he will sit down with other party leaders and the authorities of this House. Let us ask what we can do to put it beyond doubt that this is a good and honest Parliament with hard-working people. If he wants to play politics and he wants a good soundbite on the news, he should carry on. If you’re serious, get serious.

I will have meetings with the Prime Minister any time about how we reform the systems of this House—of course I will—but he just doesn’t get it. That is what he has shown today. He needs to learn profound lessons about how he runs his Government. The former Culture Secretary went not because of her bad conduct but because of her bad press. The Prime Minister promised in opposition to be an apostle for better standards, and he has spent the last week being an apologist for unacceptable behaviour.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is leadership to fire someone at the first sign of trouble rather than actually give someone a chance to get on with the job, that is actually not leadership, but weakness. If that is his recommendation for leadership, I do not think the country will have any of it.

I call Mr Tim Farron. [Interruption.] Order. There should not be a collective groan. The hon. Gentleman is good-humoured about it, but—[Interruption.] Order. The House will hear the hon. Gentleman. I call Mr Tim Farron.

Thank you—that is much better.

Does the Prime Minister agree that people living in rural Britain have as much right to decent-quality and safe health care and hospital services as anybody else? If he does, will he help to intervene directly, and help me personally, to ensure that Morecambe Bay hospitals trust does not downgrade, sell off, offload or close Westmorland general hospital in Kendal?

Representing a rural constituency, I know how important it is that people have access to good health services, and I know how important it is that we get health and social services to work better together, which is the key to success in so many of our areas. My hon. Friend asks me to look into a specific case, and I am happy to do that.

Q2. In the light of this week’s historic visit by the Irish President Michael D. Higgins to the UK, building on the legacy of President Mary McAleese and of Her Majesty’s historic visit to Ireland in 2011, does the Prime Minister agree that Anglo-Irish relationships have never been stronger, and that if we are to build lasting reconciliation across these islands, we need the full commitment of his Government, along with the Irish Government, to ensure that the potential prospects of the Haass process are delivered and implemented? (903599)

First, I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a landmark visit of the Irish President to this country, coming three years after the Queen’s extraordinary visit to the Republic of Ireland. I absolutely agree with him that Anglo-Irish relations are at an all-time high, and the Taoiseach Enda Kenny and I are absolutely committed to building on that relationship. All the time we are thinking of new things that Britain and Ireland can do as good neighbours and good friends. On the Haass talks, I do think it would be good if we could make some progress on that issue. It is something that the parties in Northern Ireland started themselves, and I would urge them to continue it.

Q3. On the day when BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” has put the distinguished geneticist Professor Nazneen Rahman at No. 3 in its power list, I am pleased to remind the Prime Minister of his challenge to me to suggest practical policies that could address the damaging and long-standing under-representation of women in science and engineering careers. So what is his response—[Interruption.] (903600)

The Opposition do not regard this as a serious matter—I thought they did.

What is the Prime Minister’s response to the thoughtful report, published last week, which I commissioned to meet his challenge, called “Through Both Eyes”, by the campaign group ScienceGrrl?

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning and working so hard on this issue? It is really important for the future of our country—not just for gender equality but for our economic future—to get more women into STEM subjects and into engineering. I support the National Centre for Universities and Businesses’ target of doubling the number of female engineering graduates by 2030. We are working with employers, professional bodies and academic institutions to implement the Perkins review of engineering skills, and I think one of the most powerful things is role models like the one that my hon. Friend mentioned in his question.

Q4. Did the Prime Minister or any of his staff ask the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) to resign her position as Culture Secretary, and if not, should he have? (903601)

My right hon. Friend has set out the reasons for her resignation in a letter today, and I think people should accept that. I have given the fullest possible answers I could about my attitude of working with colleagues and giving them the chance to get on with their jobs. That is the right approach.

Q5. Thanks to the Government’s long-term economic plan, youth unemployment has been slashed by 42% in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister think that the opening of a new university technical college and a new free sixth-form college in Salisbury will enhance the ability of young people in south Wiltshire to compete in the global race? (903602)

My hon. Friend is entirely right in every word, because we see a decline in youth unemployment. The figures in Salisbury and the south-west are remarkable—the long-term youth claimant count has come down by 37% in the past year. To further drive down youth unemployment, we need to ensure that the training opportunities and education are there. That is why university technical colleges are so important.

Youth unemployment is still too high. When we strip out those in full-time education, it is 8.7%. That is much lower than France, Italy, Spain or the EU average, but it is still too high and we are committed to getting it down.

Q6. My constituent, Paul Cowdrey, is to lose his home after raising concerns about overcharging by solicitor Michael Sandler. That solicitor from hell found a loophole by which he could sue my constituent for complaining. The Solicitors Regulation Authority described Sandler as “morally reprehensible” but said it is powerless to act. Will the Prime Minister look at that case and intervene to stop solicitors running rings around their regulators? (903603)

I am happy to look into that case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the legal regulators and the legal ombudsman, which were improved over previous years, are independent of the Government. It is therefore not possible to intervene directly, but I can arrange for a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister with responsibility for legal services to discuss what remedies are open to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If that meeting will be helpful, I will certainly put it in place.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan is due to visit the United Kingdom later this month. Will the Prime Minister discuss with him specifically the reform of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, which are often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities, including the Christian community? Will he urge Prime Minister Sharif to ensure that all those who are prosecuted under those laws get justice, including a British national?

I reassure my hon. Friend that I will raise that issue with Prime Minister Sharif when he comes to the UK. In the run-up to Easter, it is important to remember how many Christians are still persecuted around the world, including Christians persecuted under things such as the blasphemy laws. I will raise that important issue and look forward to meeting the Pakistan leadership.

Q7. Is the Prime Minister aware that, for 3 million low-income families, for every £3 they gain through the higher personal tax allowance, they will lose £2 straight away through universal credit? Is he simply giving with one hand but taking away from low-paid Britain with the other? (903604)

I think the hon. Gentleman is profoundly wrong, because the point of universal credit is that people always keep a reasonable share of every extra pound earned. The difference between universal credit and the systems put in place by the previous Government is that, under the latter, people often faced over 100% marginal tax rates effectively when they were in work. Universal credit will change that. That is why I thought Labour was in favour of it. If Labour Members have changed their minds about that, as they often do about other things, perhaps they should tell us.

Q8. The number of apprenticeship starts in my constituency is now at a record high. Next week, I am holding the second Halesowen and Rowley Regis apprenticeship fair at St Michael’s school in Rowley Regis. Does the Prime Minister agree that investing in apprenticeships and skills is a critical part of our long-term economic plan to give local people in the black country the skills they need to get good quality jobs and secure their future? (903605)

I join my hon. Friend in what he says. We have seen 185,000 apprenticeship starts in the west midlands under this Government. We now have 1.6 million nationwide, so we are on target for 2 million during this Parliament. I want to ensure that we continue to grow apprenticeships and see an increase in the quality of apprenticeships. Crucially, we want to see better information for young people in school when they are deciding the pathway they want to take, whether it is an academic pathway through university or looking at apprenticeships. We will be doing more on that front.

Q9. Despite all the progress achieved in Northern Ireland, a recent poll found that 67% of 15 to 24-year-olds think their future lies outside Northern Ireland, with 70% citing their view that local politicians were not capable of agreeing a shared vision for the future as a factor in that. Does the Prime Minister agree that that should act as a wake-up call to those who continue to indulge in the politics of division and fear to start showing real leadership to inspire young people and give them hope for a shared and better future in Northern Ireland? (903606)

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she does on this front. Anyone who believes that change is not possible or that politicians cannot rise to a challenge in Northern Ireland will have been struck—as I was—by seeing Martin McGuinness around the table at Windsor castle, toasting the Queen at the banquet celebrating British-Irish relations. People have come a huge way and we need to continue that vital work, including the work to fight racism and sectarianism wherever it arises. Above all, what we need is politicians in Northern Ireland to build a shared future, to take down the peace walls, and to make sure that the economy can grow and opportunities are there for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Thirty-five thousand runners in last year’s London marathon raised £53 million for good causes. I will run again this Sunday for the Forget Me Not children’s hospice in Huddersfield. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing all the runners good luck, including a record contingent from this House, including the children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), and the shadow Chancellor?

Over the cornflakes this morning I saw a very attractive picture of my hon. Friend in his shorts and the shadow Chancellor in a curious pair of black leggings. I bow down to the bravery of colleagues who are taking part—26 miles is a very long way, and I certainly could not manage it. I am full of admiration for them and for the money that they will raise for excellent causes. I pay tribute to all hon. Members on both sides of the House who are taking part.

Q10. My constituent, Sue Martin, suffers from myalgic encephalomyelitis and has been waiting more than nine months for her personal independence claim to be processed. She now has to borrow from her 84-year-old mother just to get by. Why does the Prime Minister think that is acceptable? (903607)

All delays in these sorts of payments are not acceptable: we have to make sure that benefits are paid on time. What we are trying to do with the personal independence payment is to introduce it gradually so that we ensure that the quality of decision making is good.

Last week, I was privileged to meet Walter Kammerling, a holocaust survivor. Is the Prime Minister aware of another appalling persecution occurring today, which is the ethnic cleansing of the Hazara community in Afghanistan and Pakistan? They are a gentle, religious, tolerant Islamic people who educate their sons and their daughters. Will he meet the all-party group on this issue, which is ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), to discuss the situation?

We should be absolutely clear that the Afghanistan that we have been supporting, and will continue to support, must be a multiracial and multi-ethnic country that includes Pashtuns, Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks and the many other nationalities that make up that country. It is vital for its future, and I am happy to look at the evidence that my hon. Friend has and perhaps arrange any appropriate meetings.

Q11. Some 2,400 jobs have been destroyed in Leicester and Corby, and last Friday 650 in Newport, by one single firm that specialises in cynically buying up firms, degrading the pay and conditions of staff and then abandoning them to unemployment. What protection will the Government give to those blameless, hard-working people who suffer from the scourge of that new vulture capitalism? (903608)

I am happy to look at the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but—in terms of the job situation in the UK at present—in the last week we have had 8,000 jobs from Birmingham city airport, 12,000 jobs from Asda and more than 1,000 jobs from Vodafone. What we are seeing is businesses wanting to locate in Britain, take people on in Britain and grow in Britain, but if the hon. Gentleman has an example of bad practice, I am happy to look at it.

Q12. In 1967, the abortion term limit was set at 28 weeks. In 1990, it was reduced to 24 weeks. Given that it is now 2014, a quarter of a century on, and given recent breakthroughs in antenatal and neonatal care, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time to reduce the abortion term limit to 22 weeks? (903609)

I have always made my own personal views on this clear. There have been opportunities recently in Parliament to vote on this issue. It is always open to Members of Parliament to bring forward legislation, to amend existing Bills and for the House to debate this. That has happened relatively recently, but it continues on the Government Benches, as I am sure it does on the Opposition Benches, to be an entirely free vote issue.

Q13. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his Cabinet ask the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) to resign? (903610)

My right hon. Friend took her own decision and has communicated that decision in a letter. I really think that Opposition Members should respect that decision.

A cloud hangs over the job prospects of 700 mineworkers in my constituency at Kellingley colliery. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure the future of the pit and the livelihoods of those men and women?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important, despite the difficulties UK Coal faces, that the Government do everything they can, within the rules that are laid down, to look at whether there is help and assistance that we can give. That is exactly what is happening. I am being kept up to date with this, on sometimes a daily basis. I can assure him that it is getting the Government’s attention.

Q14. In the spirit of a new positive case for the Union previewed this week by Lord Robertson, can the Prime Minister perhaps give us his view as to which of the four horsemen of the apocalypse will be the first to descend on an independent Scotland? (903611)

My view is an entirely positive one about what this United Kingdom has achieved together in the past and what we can achieve in the future. I think the ones who take a narrow, inward-looking and rather selfish view about the future are Scottish National party Members.

The surgeon general of the armed forces has raised concerns about the impact of longer NHS waiting times on soldiers based in Wales. Does the Prime Minister agree that NHS outcomes for my constituents, including soldiers, are simply not good enough, and that the Welsh Government could be undermining the operations of the armed forces and are potentially in breach of the military covenant?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have seen an 8% cut to the NHS budget in Wales. The last time A and E targets were met was 2009. The last time cancer treatment targets were met was 2008. Over a third of people miss out on access to diagnostic services within eight weeks. There is a truly dreadful record when it comes to Labour’s NHS in Wales. There is a huge contrast now with the NHS in England—properly funded, well run and meeting the key targets—and the shambles in Wales.

Q15. Five years ago, in one of the worst scenes since the Good Friday agreement, my constituent Sapper Patrick Azimkar and his colleague Mark Quinsey were shot and killed outside their barracks in County Antrim. Their families still await justice. Will the Prime Minister look into this case, and into the use of Diplock trials in Northern Ireland? (903612)

First of all, may I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the families of Sappers Azimkar and Quinsey? This was a despicable terrorist attack and I fully share the desire that the perpetrators are brought to justice. Just because we are trying to deal with the legacies of the past does not mean that crimes that have been committed should not be properly prosecuted and those responsible convicted. I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland met the parents of Sapper Azimkar to discuss their concerns. The Diplock trial system in Northern Ireland was abolished in 2007 and replaced by provisions allowing non-jury trials only in specific sets of circumstances. These provisions lapse every two years and consideration will be given to whether they ought to be renewed for a further two years in 2015.

People in my constituency will have been reassured this week by the International Monetary Fund’s upgrading of the country’s growth forecast, but does my right hon. Friend agree that they will be even more reassured to know that our long-term economic plan is working in east Lancashire following this week’s announcement by Red Rose Drylining that it has created 30 new apprenticeships?

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Let us look at what has been happening in Britain this week. The IMF has said that the UK will grow faster than any other G7 country, new jobs are being created at Asda in Birmingham and at Vodafone, and there are the extra apprenticeships in east Lancashire that my hon. Friend mentioned. The trade deficit is falling, and employment is rising. Britain is on its way back.

During the Committee stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), assured the Committee that those who were refused legal aid could still apply under the new exceptional funding scheme, and described that as “a vital safeguard”. Between April and December 2013, 617 family law applications were made and eight were allowed. What kind of safeguard is that?

I will look very closely at the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but the key point is that we must ensure that our legal aid system is affordable. When we compare our system with those of similar common-law countries, we see that we are still spending far more per head than, for instance, Australia and New Zealand. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is no good for Members of Parliament to come to Parliament every week and vote against every single spending decision, while not recognising that we must get our deficit down in order to help our economy to recover.

Will the Prime Minister take a few minutes over the Easter recess to read at least the winning entry in the Institute of Economic Affairs Brexit competition, the results of which were announced last night? I am sure that, if he does read it, it will give him some good ideas about why leaving the European Union should become part of our long-term economic plan.

My hon. Friend and I agree on many things, but I am afraid that that is not one of them. However, I will happily look at the Institute of Economic Affairs pamphlet as a potential piece of holiday reading, and see how it competes with alternatives such as, perhaps, the novel written by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), which is obviously another possible choice for the festive period.

Agricultural Accidents (Records)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Health and Safety Executive to record certain details of agricultural accidents and to report those details annually; and for connected purposes.

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and of the fact that I breed Hereford cattle myself.

In 2006, my constituent Ian Jackson, a vet, was tragically killed by a runaway heifer in Weobley, Herefordshire. He died from injuries sustained after he was attacked and crushed against a lorry. In 2007, my constituent Mick Daw was killed by a Belgian Blue bull in Stoke Prior, near Leominster. Mr Daw had gone to the assistance of another man who was trying to move the bull.

The Health and Safety Executive has reported six deaths so far this year from accidents involving cattle. Last year seven people were killed, there were five deaths in the previous year, and there were six in the year before that. The Health and Safety Executive’s agriculture statistics show that 29% of fatal injuries to the public between 2001 and 2012 were caused by livestock, and that that was the most common cause. That is nearly a third of fatal injuries.

The statistics for injuries are similar or worse. Since 1 April 2013 another two members of the public have been killed following incidents with cattle. There is a case ongoing in our courts at the moment resulting from a rambler being found dead. Over the past four years 24 people have been killed in incidents with cattle, and more than 600 people are injured by animals each year. I am sure we all feel that too many people are dying in livestock-related incidents and we should be doing more to stop this problem.

The Health and Safety Executive has a record of all these incidents, but the same data are not recorded in each case. For example, I could not tell the House what breed of cattle were involved in most of the 24 deaths. That is despite the Government acknowledging the fact that some breeds are dangerous. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 lists seven breeds of dairy bull that are prohibited at all times from fields with public footpaths. Breed information, which is easy to access from cattle passports, is not automatically recorded and it must be.

There is no requirement under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 or other health and safety legislation for the breeds of cattle involved in incidents to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Currently, such a report includes the following: the date of the incident; the severity of the incident— either death or injury; who was involved—the owner, the occupier, or someone contracted or working for them or a member of the public; and a brief description of the incident. Any further detail is at the discretion of the investigator and based on whether any information—cattle breed, for instance—is deemed relevant to the inquiry.

I want to ensure that the necessary details are recorded so we have useful information from which we can learn from these tragic incidents and help prevent future deaths in the countryside. This Bill will ensure the Health and Safety Executive records the following: cattle breed; age of livestock; type of livestock—cows, heifers, bullocks or steers, cows with or without calves or bulls—and their age; details of those injured; whether a right of way was involved; whether the person was accompanied by a dog; whether the person was trespassing; if tuberculosis testing was taking place; and any other relevant and useful information. The Health and Safety Executive will also continue to record the details it currently records.

This change will ensure a uniform list of details is recorded for each and every incident involving cattle. This Bill will provide us with the right data so we can then advise farmers about health and safety concerns and protect them and the public.

The Country Land and Business Association says it is

“always keen to reduce the number of incidents between people and animals.”

The National Farmers Union supports increased detail in the recording of incidents. Indeed, much of the previous list of extra information to be recorded was provided by the NFU. I can tell the House that the Ramblers, too, agrees with the need for increased data collection. Janet Davis, its senior policy officer on rights of way, went so far as to say:

“Scrupulous data collection .... of all kinds is essential.”

As the House knows, supermarkets are very keen to promote ethically sourced British beef. Indeed Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op all sell products with the red tractor assurance. The popular food assurance scheme covers production standards including food safety, hygiene, animal welfare and the environment. However, red tractor assurance, other assurance schemes and the supermarkets themselves do not take into consideration whether the cattle they use are dangerous. That is because they cannot; there are no available statistics. However, if the supermarkets had access to data identifying dangerous breeds of cattle would they not then source their meat from breeds that pose less of a threat to farmers?

Twenty-four deaths in four years is far too many not to take action to address the situation. Increased information and learning might help us to prevent future incidents. We need to ensure the relevant changes are made to legislation now so the Health and Safety Executive records the appropriate details. Once this vital information starts to be recorded, I believe it will prove a useful tool to farmers, their spouses and all those working in agriculture or walking in the country.

I want to help people make sensible and informed decisions on the types of cattle they buy, farm and place in fields that have public access. Nobody wants more “’elf and safety”, but the Health and Safety Executive records some data already. I want it to do it better and to make those data relevant and useful. Until we get the facts, we cannot use our judgment. Poor judgment can cause accidents, and accidents with large animals can be fatal.

Question put and agreed to.


That Bill Wiggin, Neil Parish, Martin Vickers, Richard Benyon, Sir Edward Garnier, Sheryll Murray and Jesse Norman present the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be presented (Bill 200).

Finance (No. 2) Bill

(Clauses 1, 5 to 7, 11, 72 to 74 and 112; Schedule 1; any new Clauses and any new Schedules relating to tax relief in connection with the costs of childcare, or income tax allowances for parties to a marriage or civil partnership, or air passenger duty, or the rate of the bank levy, or the subject matter of Clause 1, or the subject matter of Clauses 5 to 7 and Schedule 1.)

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clause 11

Tax relief for married couples and civil partners

I beg to move amendment 3, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—

55F Review

(1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2014, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review of the impact of the tax relief for married couples and civil partners introduced under this Chapter.

(2) The review must in particular include—

(a) a calculation of the proportion of married couples and civil partners who are eligible for the tax relief in the financial year 2015-16;

(b) an assessment of the impact of this tax relief on those who are neither married nor in civil partnerships;

(c) the cost to the Exchequer of this tax relief; and

(d) an assessment of alternative tax reliefs that would benefit a greater number of families.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.’.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hoyle. I rise to speak to the Opposition’s amendment to clause 11 regarding the coalition’s proposed tax relief for married couples and civil partners. Before I begin, let nobody be in any doubt that the Opposition believe that marriage and civil partnerships are a force for good in society. Making a binding lifelong commitment to a partner in that way is truly to be celebrated. Let us not pretend, however, that the Government’s marriage tax allowance, introduced by clause 11 of this year’s Finance Bill, is anything other than a complete and utter dud of a policy.

If that is the case, why in 13 years did the Labour Government not do a single thing—such as introducing a transferrable tax allowance, for example—to recognise married couples in the tax and benefits system? They did not do a single thing.

We know what the Chancellor thinks about this marriage tax allowance. He thinks that the idea is a turkey, both politically and economically. Indeed, an article in The Daily Telegraph went so far as to say—[Interruption.] I hear groans from those on the Government Benches. The article went so far as to say that the Chancellor

“loathes the idea. He is not a social conservative and hates the notion of bribing anyone down the aisle. He has made sure the marriage tax break will not come into effect until the very last weeks of this government—and it will be so small as to be unnoticeable. To resolve the impasse, Treasury officials were asked to see whether they could dump the agenda on to Iain Duncan Smith, so the Chancellor could wash his hands of it. But a tax cut has to come from the Treasury.”

I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is touched by the hon. Lady’s warm support. Will she share with the House her thoughts on, and specifically answer, the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)? Why did the Labour Government do nothing to support the institution of marriage in 13 years?

The answer lies in what I have already said; the Labour Government did a huge amount to support all families up and down this country, particularly families with children. Even the Chancellor seems to agree that £3.85 a week is not going to bribe anybody down the aisle or persuade anyone to stay in a marriage if they decide they are going to leave it. The question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) does not seem to acknowledge the fundamental issues with the Government’s proposal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty with this proposal is shown in the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Robert Joyce, the senior research economist there, says:

“The policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the income tax system”.

So the argument that has been made by the Government is false, in the sense that it gives an impression about this policy which is not actually true. He goes on to say that

“it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an income tax system which makes some people worse off after a pay rise has something wrong with it.”

On the basis of my hon. Friend’s insightful intervention, I am looking forward to his speech on this matter. He makes the point well, and it is the point that I am seeking to make. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said:

“This policy is not about children and families…it does nothing for millions of families with children struggling to make ends meet.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that although this marriage allowance is not going to persuade people to go or not to go down the aisle, it does recognise what marriage and stable relationships really bring both to children and to the couples? Does she think that in 13 years the Labour party might perhaps have considered it?

Today, we are discussing the merits of this Government proposal in this Bill. We think it is a dud of a policy, and the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary seem to think so, too. I will set out all the reasons why it is a dud, but talking about whether the previous Labour Government considered this policy does not address the issues we are debating today—this policy and our amendment to it. If Government Members are so keen for there to be genuine support for families, for children and for marriage, they should welcome our amendment proposing a proper review on the impact of the tax relief that the Government are suggesting as part of this Bill and exploring alternative tax reliefs that could benefit a greater number of families and, potentially, a greater number of married couples, given the Government’s proposition’s clear deficiencies in recognising most marriages.

Does the hon. Lady agree with the principle that there should never be a financial disincentive for people to be married and remain in a marriage?

The proposal under consideration only gives any sort of tax benefit, small though it is, to a third of married couples. I am surprised that Government Members are not more keen to explore the potential alternatives to this dud policy.

Let me make some progress. We are left in a position in which the Minister now finds himself trying to defend a policy that neither his boss nor his deputy support. It is an absolute farce, but clearly Government Members do support it, and quite vehemently. I hope to persuade them to consider the Opposition amendment and take a second look at the policy. If that fails and the policy is implemented in the Finance Bill, I want them to agree to review its impact within six months of its implementation to ensure that it is having the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people.

What is it about this policy that is so bad? Frankly, it is hard to know where to start. Let us begin by looking at who will benefit from this highly restrictive and very complicated measure, which will allow couples to transfer up to £1,050 of their income tax personal allowance to their spouse with effect from April 2015. Of course it applies to married couples and those in civil partnerships, but not just to any old marriages or any old civil partnerships. No, the Government have decided that there is a very particular form of marriage or civil partnership that they wish to recognise in the tax system. Unintentionally, misleading statements were made by the Prime Minister to this House—[Hon. Members: “What!”] Unintentionally, I said. The marriage tax allowance introduced by clause 11 applies only to those couples where one spouse is a basic rate taxpayer and the other does not use their full personal allowance. That scenario has been described by the “Don’t judge my family” campaign as a fantasy 1950s family with a breadwinner and a home maker. The policy will therefore exclude married couples and civil partners on the very lowest incomes where both spouses earn below the income tax personal allowance; couples where both spouses, possibly both basic rate taxpayers, have incomes higher than the personal allowance and therefore have no unused portion to transfer; and couples where either spouse pays the higher rate or the additional 45% rate, with an ever increasing number having been drawn into the 40 pence rate under this Government.

How many people are we taking about? How many households across the country will benefit from the Government’s flagship policy for supporting families? Their own recent estimates suggest 4.2 million couples, which equates to a grand total of one in three married couples and civil partnerships in this country. Two thirds of married couples and civil partnerships will not benefit from a policy intended to recognise marriage in the system.

I agree that there is a flaw in what the hon. Lady is discussing. Presumably, like me, she wishes to see that relief being extended not just to those on the basic rate but to a greater number of married couples with children. That is the logical conclusion of what she is saying, unless she admits once and for all that the Opposition do not support marriage in the tax system.

We have a much better suggestion as to how the money that has been allocated to the marriage tax allowance can be used to support millions of taxpayers up and down the country, including families with children. So what about those families with children who are hoping in vain for any sign of support from this Government whose tax and benefit changes will result in households being, on average, £974 a year worse off by 2015 than they were in 2010? The Exchequer Secretary, who is in his place, has conceded that of Britain’s 7.8 million families with children, just 1.4 million will benefit from this policy. Yes, that is right—one in six families with children will gain from this marriage tax allowance. To put it another way, five in six families with children will not get a penny from this Government’s flagship policy to support them.

The policy does nothing for widows, widowers, lone parents, long-term co-habiting couples, the 300,000 children living with grandparents or kinship carers or for the spouse who has left their partner for good reason, perhaps because of domestic abuse. It will not help the wife who has been left to bring up the kids after the husband has run off with another woman. If her husband chooses to marry that other woman, who have the Government decided will get the reward within the tax system? It is him.

How much will the allowance be worth for those lucky married couples who will be eligible? Just how much value are Ministers putting on the role of marriage in our society? Yes, for the one in three couples who will benefit, it could be worth up to £200 a year, almost £3.85 a week. To put that into language that people on the Labour Benches might understand—that is just over one pint of beer or a one-off peak game of bingo a week! Who does the Government expect to reap the benefits from this largesse? Let us take a look at their own assessment of the equality impact, which clearly states that while

“couples will benefit as a unit...the majority...of individual gainers will be male.”

But it is not just any old majority. The Government’s own assessment indicates that a staggering 84% of individual gainers will be male.

Before last year's autumn statement, we knew that the net impact of this Chancellor’s tax and benefit changes since 2010 would hit women three times harder than men, not least as a result of his decision to give a £3 billion tax cut to the top 1% of earners in this country, 85% of whom just happen to be men. As a result of the autumn statement 2013, in which the marriage tax allowance was confirmed, that appalling record has worsened even further, such that the Chancellor’s tax and benefit strategy is now hitting women a staggering four times harder than men, raising a net £3.047 billion from men, and £11.628 billion, or 79%, from women—[Interruption.] I hear the word scandalous uttered from a sedentary position, and I quite agree.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for making such powerful points. When these points are put to the Government, they always say that the financial circumstances are such that there must be cutbacks somewhere. Is it not ironic that the Government are putting forward a policy that is so badly thought out that if anyone were asked to choose a priority for public spending, this would not be it? Should we not be taking real measures to tackle problems such as the bedroom tax and the changes in universal credit, all of which will cause much more damage than any benefit that this will bring about?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the disproportionate benefit of the marriage tax break to men. Does she not agree that the argument that couples will benefit as a unit completely fails to recognise financial coercion in relationships, and that those who get the money have the power?

My hon. Friend raises an important point and it goes to the heart of so many of the changes that this Government have made. So many of the decisions that they have made time and again in Budget after Budget have hit women hardest. Back in September 2011, a leaked No. 10 memo admitted that the Government had a problem with women, and promised a new communications campaign to turn things around, but it clearly has not worked. A key recommendation of a No. 10 communications campaign to be female friendly was to “focus on more visible women leaders”, but until this morning women made up only four of the 23 Cabinet members and that figure is now down to three. Let us not let the Deputy Prime Minister off the hook. Only four out of 25 Lib Dem Ministers are women—[Interruption.] Government Members are shouting, “What has that got to do with this measure?” I wonder whether one of them would like to intervene.

During her research for the debate, did the hon. Lady become aware of the fact that 93% of young teenagers still living with both parents are with married parents? That is quite a powerful statistic.

That is an interesting statistic. I know that the hon. Gentleman is committed to the principle of this measure, but I and other Opposition Members are trying to make the point that the policy is not only dud as regards its practical application but further compounds the unfairness in how the Government have made their decisions in Budget after Budget. Let us remember when hon. Gentlemen question what my point has to do with this measure that we know that the majority of gainers from the policy are men.

Does my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was seriously suggesting that £3.85 a week would encourage more couples to stay married? There is no evidence of cause and effect at all.

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the matter. It demonstrates what is wrong with this policy and how ill-conceived it is.

The intervention from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was interesting, but should he not acknowledge that only one in six of those families will benefit from any of this?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Our opposition to this measure is that it disproportionately impacts on women and benefits men and that it does not recognise five out of six households with children up and down the country who are, as we know, struggling to make ends meet.

The problem with the hon. Lady’s point is that she is looking at married couples individually. The change is that, rather than wholly going down the route of an individualised tax system, as has happened in the past, this policy considers married couples. Married couples are benefiting and, if we asked them, they would say that they are benefiting as a couple and as a household. They are not hiving off men against women, which is what she seems to be doing.

The tax system works on an individual basis and this proposal introduces incredible complexity to the tax system. I shall cover that in more detail and explain the cost implications. Government Members obviously think that the costs are worth it, but I would be very careful about the concept that all married couples will happily share all their money and any tax gain—although, admittedly, we are talking about £3.85 a week. That seems to be rolling the clock back somewhat and assuming a level of communication within households that I do not think it is the Government’s place to assume.

Women are more than £26 a week—a week—worse off in real terms since 2010, and after significant progress under Labour, when the gender pay gap fell by more than 7%, it is now rising again for the first time in five years. The gap between women’s median weekly earnings in the private sector and the public sector has increased between 2009-10 and 2012-13 from 28% to 31%. The same gap for men has decreased from 17% to 14%. At the same time, the cost of child care places, which we debated at length yesterday, has risen by an average of 30% on this Government’s watch, five times faster than pay.

Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that the Chancellor’s tax and benefits strategy since 2010 has raised a net £3.047 billion, or 21%, from men and 79%, or just under £12 billion, from women. That includes the Budget 2010 tax credit cuts, which took £2.7 billion from women and only £750 million from men, the 2010 spending review, under which reductions in child care support through tax credits took £343 million from women but just £47 million from men, and the three-year child benefit freeze, which has taken £1.26 billion from women and £26 million from men. That, of course, contrasts with the £3 billion tax cut that was given to the top 1% of earners in this country, under which 85% of the gainers are men, and this marriage tax allowance, under which 84% of the gainers will be men. This issue goes to the heart of the clause and of why we are tabling our amendment.

The hon. Lady is being most generous in giving way. Why does she imagine that 80% of the population covered by the OECD have a tax system that rewards marriage, including countries such as France, Germany and the United States?

We must consider this clause in the context of the current situation. We know that families up and down the country—in fact, all households—are facing a cost of living crisis. We have had three years of a flatlining, stagnating economy and households up and down the country have been paying the price for that. We have a Government who are introducing measures that will benefit a small proportion of married couples—only one in six households with children—and under which 84% of the gainers will be men, when we know that those who have paid the bulk of the price so far for the deficit reduction strategy that the Government have been pursuing have been women. It is a question of priorities, and this Government seem to have them completely wrong.

I want to check that I heard the hon. Lady correctly. She talked about a flatlining, stagnating economy, so I wonder whether she heard the International Monetary Fund say yesterday that we have the fastest rate of growth in the IMF and in the whole of the G7 at 2.9%.

I think that Government Members would love to try to whitewash and erase from the memory of the public the past four years, three of which have had zero—that is, flatlining—growth in the economy. People will be £1,600 worse off on average in 2015 than they were in 2010 and whatever growth is happening in the economy now is happening despite, not as a result of, the Government’s economic policies. I urge hon. Members to exercise caution in saying that everything in the garden is rosy when people out there are struggling to make ends meet.

I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest. For completeness, so that we have the full picture, can she say what proportion of tax is paid by men and what proportion of benefits are paid to women?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has entered the debate, because the Liberal Democrats are key to today’s measure, and I shall go on to explain why. I think we know that there is long-term inequality. The mere fact that 85% of those who benefit from the tax cut from 50p are men speaks volumes about how this country is weighted. The majority of wealth is held by men. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I urge caution as the Liberal Democrats are in an interesting position today when it comes to how they will vote not only on this measure in the Bill but on our proposed review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that evidence stretching back over several decades shows that when money is paid to the main carer of a child, usually the mother, that money is more likely to be spent on the children? A Government about to preside over a startling rise in child poverty should be mindful of that when they introduce a measure such as this.

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly pertinent point, and expresses her case powerfully. Child poverty is set to increase by a staggering amount under this Government, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly said that that is a direct result of the tax and benefit changes that they have implemented. The measure, which Government Members are keen to support, will do nothing to alleviate child poverty or to turn the tide of increasing child poverty over the next few years.

The hon. Lady has cited the IFS, which has conducted an analysis of the distributional impact of the transferrable allowance, demonstrating that it is profoundly progressive, disproportionately benefiting those in the bottom half of the income distribution scale. Perhaps she would read us all the research, rather than a selective part of it.

The hon. Gentleman is incredibly selective. If he genuinely believes that the policy will transform the Government’s appalling record on child poverty and the impact of their tax and benefit changes on women, he is deluded.

My hon. Friend is making a good case for the amendment. Only a third of families will get £200 a year extra, but the average family will be £974 a year worse off by the time of the next election, which shows the iniquitous state of affairs that the measure will create.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would add that it is not a third of families who will gain from the policy—it is a third of married couples. Five in six households with children, whom many would consider to be families—particularly the Opposition, but perhaps not the Government—will not gain anything from the policy, which only compounds the child poverty issue about which the Government seem complacent.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the reading of the figures by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was highly selective? Perhaps the bottom half of the income distribution scale benefits from the measure, but the very poorest will not benefit at all, because they are not tax payers.

Absolutely. That is why many people, including married couples, will not gain anything from the policy, which is why I am astounded by the vehement support for a policy that does not properly recognise marriage in the tax system, which Government Members are usually keen to do.

To conclude the point that I am making about the impact of the measure, I shall give one example of the women who are particularly hard hit by it: low-paid, new mums, who are losing almost £3,000 during pregnancy and their baby’s first year as a result of cuts to child benefit; cuts to the health in pregnancy grant; the axing of the higher rate of tax credit for families with babies under one; restrictions in the Sure Start maternity allowance; and the Chancellor’s “mummy tax”, which will cost new mums £180 by 2015 in real terms—not to mention cuts in public services and the disappearance of Sure Start centres, with three closures a week, which will impact on mums, dads, families and, indeed, married couples up and down the country for years to come.

The policy is a total turkey in terms of its reach and the benefits it brings. Even the Chancellor thinks so, as does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—and I am sure that we will hear what the Exchequer Secretary thinks later in the debate—but what about its cost and complexity? Surely, Ministers must have learned from the child benefit fiasco, and would not seek to introduce a new, complex aspect to the taxation system—that fiasco must have given them a few grey hairs—or one that might require significant additional administration and input from the taxpayer. Oh—but they are doing so! Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has issued a tax information and impact note on the policy that suggests that it will have an Exchequer impact of £515 million in 2015-16, rising to £820 million by 2018-19.

The note is a little less candid about how much the policy will cost HMRC to administer and how many additional staff will be required at a time when the HMRC budget has been slashed and its work force significantly depleted. It simply states:

“HMRC will incur additional costs on the introduction and administration of the transferable allowance. The highest expenditure will be in 2015-16, when HMRC will introduce the application processes to enable everyone who is entitled”—

which is not many—

“to benefit from the transfer. During 2014-15, HMRC will refine its costs as part of its work on the new IT to provide on-line services for customers, other customer support and the new internal IT to link spouses and civil partners’ income tax records.”

Given the lack of clarity in HMRC’s impact note, I submitted a written question on the issue, to which the Exchequer Secretary kindly replied and explained:

“The detail of how this policy will be administered by HMRC is being developed.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 642W.]

Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary would enlighten us about exactly what impact the policy will have on HMRC, which is already coping with the loss of 18,700 full-time equivalent staff, or 26% of its work force, between 2010 and 2016? Equally concerning is the impact that the policy is expected to have on employers. The Government’s tax information and impact note neatly sums up the problem, clearly stating that

“it is estimated that in 2015-16, the cost across 1.6 million employers and pension providers of processing PAYE tax codes to reflect transferred allowances may be up to £5.8 million. In subsequent years, the additional cost across employers and pension providers may be up to £0.8 million. There are also likely to be negligible one-off costs in 2015-16 due to employers and pension providers familiarising themselves with the change to the legislation.”

The cost to employers of processing this shabby policy is thought by the Government themselves to be up to £5.8 million in its first year. Surely there are better ways for that money to be spent. The Institute for Fiscal Studies indicates that the precise costs of this policy for the Government, HMRC and employers

“will depend on the rate of take-up, as people will presumably have to make an active claim to HMRC to benefit, and the extent to which individuals change their behaviour in order to qualify.”

My hon. Friend will have attended previous debates on this issue. Indeed, only yesterday in the Chamber, lectures were being given by Government Members about the need to simplify the tax code. Does she not find surprising the support for measures such as the one that we are debating today?

Indeed. Government Members often lament red tape and the complexity of the tax system. I am not entirely sure that they will be thanked for adding to it in this way and putting the burden of implementation on employers.

The apparent onus on taxpayers proactively to apply for this allowance is a concern that has been raised more widely. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has pressed the Government to ensure that a claim for the marriage tax allowance can

“be made on paper, as well as online; digital exclusion affects disproportionately people on low incomes, the very people to whom this relief is directed. It is particularly important that a paper copy is available since, in some cases, taxpayers will seek assistance from the voluntary and charitable sector with, perhaps, only one spouse being physically present at such meetings.”

LITRG goes on to urge that

“the claim/election process will be made as simple as possible—preferably a joint election rather than separate claim and election.”

I look forward to the Minister’s response to those concerns.

The complexity of the Government’s marriage tax allowance proposal has been commented on by the IFS, which stated, when the measure was first announced:

“One striking feature of the policy is that it complicates the income tax system. A transferable personal allowance for married couples capped at £1,000 and then withdrawn using a cliff-edge at the higher-rate threshold is not the simplest to understand. It is three years since another cliff-edge at the higher rate threshold was announced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference as a way of effectively means-testing Child Benefit, only to be removed and replaced with a less egregious taper at Budget 2012. The amounts involved here are less than in that case, which perhaps explains the willingness to cliff-edge again rather than implement a taper. Nevertheless, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an income tax system which makes some people worse off after a pay rise has something wrong with it.”

One might think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, a Government who have so boasted about being committed to tax simplification would want to avoid further complicating the system. At the launch of the Office of Tax Simplification, the Chancellor commented:

“A decade of meddling and intervening has made the tax affairs of millions of families and businesses across the UK extremely complicated. We need to sort out this mess.”

What does the Office of Tax Simplification make of the marriage tax allowance, which will clearly make the tax affairs of couples and employers more complex? We do not know because, in the words of the Exchequer Secretary in response to a written question I tabled:

“The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) has not made an assessment of the proposals for a transferable tax allowance.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 642W.]

Why on earth not? What could Ministers possibly fear from the outcome of such an assessment?

It may be clear now that the Opposition oppose the Government’s marriage tax allowance and will vote against clause 11. We believe that the marriage tax allowance is perverse and unfair. It is a poorly targeted use of resources and is overly complex, and our amendment to clause 11 presses the Government to undertake a proper review of the cost, the impact and the benefits for those who will receive it and for the overwhelming majority of married couples and families who will not benefit at all.

Amendment 3 calls on the Government to ensure that any such review includes an assessment of alternative tax reliefs that would benefit a much greater number of families, because we are not just opposing the marriage tax allowance today. Indeed, we have said that a future Labour Government would scrap this policy and use the money saved, together with funding from a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to reintroduce the 10p starting rate of tax, meaning a tax cut for 24 million people on low and middle incomes, by contrast with the 4.2 million couples who will benefit from the marriage tax allowance. Crucially, almost half of those benefiting from a new 10p tax rate would be women.

We know that the Liberal Democrats are apparently implacably opposed to the policy introduced by clause 11 and secured a deal in the coalition agreement to go so far as to abstain on the measure. I believe it was before the 2010 general election that the now Deputy Prime Minister described the Conservatives’ proposal for a transferable tax allowance for married couples as

“patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age.”

I know that Liberal Democrats have, as some might say, an irritating habit of saying one thing before a general election, then doing precisely the opposite—university tuition fees and the VAT bombshell spring to mind—or of saying one thing at any point in the electoral cycle and doing precisely the opposite: for example, 46 Lib Dem peers voted to retain the bedroom tax just 24 hours after their party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), said it was something his party could not “continue to support”. Although the Liberal Democrats may be thinking about abstaining on clause 11 as it stands, it is difficult to see how they could sit on their hands this afternoon and vote against our reasonable amendment.

We know that the Lib Dems apparently secured the policy of free school meals for every child in reception, year 1 and year 2 from September 2014, reportedly in exchange for agreeing to abstain on the marriage tax allowance. We of course back the policy, having piloted the idea in government in County Durham and Newham, with excellent results, but there are very real concerns about the way in which the policy was announced, and how it will be implemented. The initial pledge was for a “hot, nutritious meal at lunchtime”, but that is now being described as an aspiration. Ministers are now simply referring to a free, nutritious school lunch.

Many thousands of schools across the country simply do not have the facilities to ensure this provision. The Liberal Democrats have stated that around £80 million of the additional £150 million capital funding required for the project will come from an underspend in the Department for Education and an additional £70 million would be new money from the Treasury. [Interruption.]

I hear hon. Members on the Government Benches chuntering from a sedentary position. They seem very disturbed by the Liberal Democrat policy of free school meals and do not see how it is linked to the marriage tax allowance. Would they like to confirm that that was not an agreement, as has been reported?

Order. The advice is not needed. There is a definite link, and if Members were to listen a little more closely, they would understand where the link is between the choice and where the money can be spent. Less advice and more listening might help all of us.

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his clarification. The link is clear. It is to do with the allocation of resources and the agreement that has been made. It also goes fundamentally to the heart of the Liberal Democrats and how they intend to vote on the matter. We believe they are likely to abstain on the measure, although we have not had that confirmed. We hope and assume that although they will abstain on the Government’s motion in relation to implementing the marriage tax allowance, they will support our call for a review. If the measure goes through, they would have as much of an interest as we would in ensuring that it is properly reviewed and monitored in the months to come, and that the Government take seriously the proposals for possible alternatives that benefit a larger number of families throughout the country.

The Opposition believe that the money allocated to the marriage tax allowance could be put to much better use elsewhere. That is why we have pressed the Chancellor to scrap it, and to use the money to give tax help to many more working people instead, including more married couples and more families.

I am interested that the Opposition want to give tax cuts to hard-working people, yet they voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, which provided a tax cut for 25 million people.

The Bill is inadequate as it entirely fails to recognise the cost of living crisis facing many households, including families and married couples, throughout the country, and does nothing to address the problems that people are facing. The review proposed by amendment 3 would be an important first step in looking at how the Government can allocate the available resources to help more people than a few carefully selected types of married couples whom they have deemed should benefit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of the married couples tax allowance as proposed by the Government is the situation of what might traditionally have been called the deserted spouse, often the wife who was left? What would happen in that situation? That is a very real issue to be answered.

Order. May I say once again that we must have shorter interventions? I know that many Members wish to speak. We have been going for a long time and have not even got to the Back Benches yet.

Although my hon. Friend’s intervention took longer than Mr Deputy Speaker might have liked, it was a very good intervention.

I would be interested to hear what Government Members think about the fact that this provision could very much reward men who desert their spouses, leave them with the children to care for, and then receive a tax benefit, but only if they marry the woman they ran off with.

I will be interested to hear what the Minister and Government Back Benchers have to say about the total inadequacy of this policy in terms of its outreach, implementation, cost to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and cost to employers to implement. I urge all hon. Members, particularly the Liberal Democrats, although they are severely under-represented today, to support us. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) for being here. I hope that he will not sit on his hands and will back our amendment.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will be voting against Labour’s amendment. Although the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is a very engaging spokesman for her party, her speech was mischievous, disingenuous, mealy-mouthed, patronising, leftie drivel—typical middle-class, tofu-munching, Guardian-reading Labour nonsense that said, “We know best what’s good for working people, not you.”

The hon. Lady referred to our friends the Liberal Democrats. I am disappointed that more of them are not here. It is awfully hard to dislike the Liberal Democrats, but it is well worth the effort.

I am delighted that in clause 11 the Government have brought forward this very important change in the tax system, for which I have consistently campaigned since the last general election. We retain the bond of trust with the electors by introducing a proposal that we promised at that time to introduce by the 2015 general election.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not eat tofu, although I do not think that those who do need to be quite so insulted. Are we to assume from his comments that he is wedded to this policy regardless of how inadequate its reach and implementation will be?

The hon. Lady’s comic timing is exemplary. I will develop my more detailed arguments, if she will allow me, given that she had the thick end of 46 minutes to develop her own. That is probably the record for an Opposition spokesman—or spokesperson—although I accept that it was on the Opposition’s amendment.

This has been a long time coming—

Indeed—47 minutes, as my hon. Friend says. However, it has definitely been worth waiting for.

In presenting a 10% partly transferable allowance, clause 11 may not yet be worth a huge amount, but it is of seminal importance in supporting marriage in the tax system. For the past 15 years, our tax system has been unusual in not recognising marriage, or indeed any other aspect of family responsibility. Our fiscal policy has been extraordinarily individualistic. Clause 11 changes that by inserting into our system of independent taxation the transferable allowance that former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, the architect of independent taxation, has argued it always should have had. I genuinely believe that qualifying the individualism of our current fiscal policy should be something we can all agree on, and that should appeal to Labour Members. The Opposition spokesperson failed on two occasions to answer the specific question of why, in 13 years in office, her party failed to support the institution of marriage in the tax system in any meaningful way. That is regrettable on her part, because it is disingenuous to say, “We disagree with the policy but, incidentally, this is how you can improve it.” It is churlish and mean-spirited from a party that claims to support the family in the tax system, and children as well.

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion on this issue, but what would he say to a couple in his constituency who are both earning the minimum wage and will not benefit from this policy?

I will come to the specifics later. However, my hon. Friend—I am pleased to call him that because we serve on the Public Accounts Committee together—will know that many of his constituents in Redcar on low wages have benefited from our personal allowance changes. Indeed, many of them have been taken out of tax altogether, as have people across the north-east of England. He will know, too, as will the Opposition spokesperson, that unemployment has significantly fallen in the north-east and there are now more jobs available than in 2010. [Interruption.] We will not take any lectures from Labour, which doubled youth unemployment between 1997 and 2010.

I would have hoped that Labour Members supported these proposals, particularly this clause, because they are progressive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a very helpful chart demonstrating how the provision will disproportionately benefit those in the lower half of the income distribution—a point astutely made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). This is not a provision for the middle classes, as Labour critics sometimes suggest. The truth is that the failure of our income tax system to have regard for marriage in recent years has been very odd, as the Prime Minister said in response to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in June 2010:

“I simply do not understand why, when so many other European countries—I remember often being lectured when I was on the other side of the House about how we should follow European examples—recognise marriage in the tax system, we do not. I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system…We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]

The difference is that the tax provisions on Christmas parties and parking bicycles are extended to all. This provision is for a very narrow segment of married people and those in civil partnerships; it is hardly an example of a general principle of marriage.

I do not think we all attend Christmas parties or cycle. [Interruption.] The more serious point, which I will elucidate further if the hon. Gentleman will generously allow me, is that there is demonstrable evidence that the institution of marriage has a positive net impact on society, cumulatively, particularly on children. There is nothing ignoble about using the tax system in a mature democracy to support behaviour that is good for society overall.

Not at the moment. I know the hon. Lady is very keen, and I am sure she will try to get in later.

Given the scale of the public benefits associated with marriage, it is not at all surprising that most people in the developed world live in countries that recognise marriage, as I said earlier in an intervention. There are numerous examples of this benefit that I could highlight, but given the constraints on time I will mention just a few. Regardless of socio-economic status and education, cohabiting couples are between two and two and a half times more likely to break up than equivalent married couples. Women and children are significantly more vulnerable to violence and neglect in cohabiting, rather than married, families. Three quarters of family breakdown in families with children under five comes from the separation of non-married parents. Children are 60% more likely to have contact with separated fathers if the parents were married. Separated fathers are more likely to contribute to their child’s maintenance if the parents were married. Growing up with married parents is associated with better physical health in adulthood and increased longevity. Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders, accounting for 70% of all young offenders.

I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman is being very careful with his use of words in saying that there is an association between marriage and some of the outcomes he describes. What he cannot demonstrate, however, is whether there is cause and effect, because we do not know whether there are other personal characteristics that make those couples more likely to be married and whether they also result in those beneficial outcomes.

I will not take issue with the hon. Lady’s intervention, because it is quite sensible. Nevertheless, the evidence-based data in support of marriage in the tax system have been accumulated over a very long period and are very clear. It is incumbent on the Government not to disregard that evidence, but to take account of it in formulating their fiscal policies.

The list goes on and the findings are put in context by the fact that the Relationships Foundation calculates that the costs of family breakdown amount to £44 billion per annum and that family breakdown outside marriage is the real driver. As the Centre for Social Justice has demonstrated, of every £7 spent as a result of the breakdown of young families, £1 is spent on divorce, £4 on unmarried dual-registered parents who separate, and £2 on sole-registered parents. That is why the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say in response to a question about how the policy could reduce the deficit:

“If we are going to get control of public spending in the long term in this country, we should target the causes of higher spending, one of which is family breakdown. We should do far more to recognise the importance of families, commitment and marriage”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 429.]

I am aware of the arguments that the relationship between marriage and better policy outcomes is merely a coincidence and that the real driver for those better outcomes has nothing to do with marriage and is based on other considerations, especially income. Those arguments simply do not make sense. Apart from anything else, the fact that the millennium cohort study demonstrates that the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples makes it plain that marriage is a significant, independent determinant of stability.