House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of the measures in the 2014 Budget on businesses in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Budget represents the next step in our long-term economic plan with a package of measures to deliver economic security for businesses and people in Wales and across the UK.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is entirely right, which is why we have reduced the rate of corporation tax from 28p in the pound to 21p, with a further reduction to 20% next year. For similar reasons, the Wales Bill makes provision for the Welsh Assembly to call a referendum on a lower rate of taxation for Wales, and I hope that it will seize that opportunity.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Given that the future of businesses in Wales depends on the vibrancy of our young workers, is the right hon. Gentleman encouraged by the fact that the Welsh Government’s policies are clearly working, in that the youth unemployment rate has come down faster and further than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Will he be less churlish towards the Welsh Government and praise the jobs growth fund and that achievement?
Mr Jones
Far from being churlish, I commend Jobs Growth Wales for making an important contribution. Having said that, it is a limited contribution, and the important thing is for the Welsh Government to work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we can drive down even further the unemployment rates.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
With businesses in Wales still cautious and a Budget that does little to help the 300,000 people in Wales who are earning less than the living wage, will the Secretary of State now back Labour’s plans to give a tax break to businesses that raise their employees’ pay to at least the living wage, so that work will pay?
Mr Jones
As the hon. Lady knows, we have given every business in Wales relief against national insurance contributions of up to £2,000. We have also taken young people up to the age of 21 out of employers’ national insurance contributions altogether. I very much hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that. It was an excellent Budget for business in Wales.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the net benefits to people in Wales of the UK’s membership of the EU.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
3. What estimate he has made of the level of trade undertaken by businesses in Wales with countries in the EU.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
4. Whether he has recently discussed the importance of UK membership of the EU with leading employers in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The EU remains a vital export market for Wales, together with countries outside the EU, but Wales and the UK would benefit from a renegotiated position within Europe, which is why the Prime Minister has committed to negotiating a new settlement in the European Union, to secure jobs and growth and to enable the EU to become more competitive, flexible and prosperous.
Mr Hanson
Given that 191,000 jobs in Wales are directly dependent on the EU, that £1 billion came to Wales last year from the EU, and that firms such as Ford in the south and Airbus in the north are committed to maintaining our relationship with the EU, will the Secretary of State join me in saying that the EU is good for Britain? The uncertainty that he is creating should be stopped.
Mr Jones
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that membership of a free trade area is extremely good for Britain. Where I disagree with him, I think, is on the level of intervention and top-down meddlesome interference by the EU. The people of this country clearly want a referendum on Europe and only the Conservative party can and will deliver that referendum.
Kevin Brennan
What Welsh business leaders want from their political leaders is certainty about our future in the European Union. Why is the Secretary of State so reluctant to say that being a member of the European Union is good for Wales? Is he personally committed to this country’s future membership of the European Union?
Mr Jones
As I have just made clear to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), I believe that membership of a free trade area is extremely important for Britain, but what the people of this country want is a say on whether they should remain part of the sort of Europe we have at the moment. It is interesting that the Labour party is not anxious to deliver a voice to the people of Wales.
Mr Speaker
No, the hon. Gentleman misses the point. His question has been grouped and his moment is now.
Mr Speaker
He was too busy looking at his iPhone. Let us hear his question.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I am rightly reprimanded, Mr Speaker. I must pay attention.
On the basis that the head of European operations has made it clear that to threaten exit from the EU would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, and that 14,000 jobs in Ford Bridgend and in Dagenham would rely on our not leaving the EU, will the right hon. Gentleman say that he, as the Secretary of State for Wales responsible for protecting those jobs, is personally committed to keeping Wales within the UK and the European Union?
Mr Jones
I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the director of operations for Ford’s manufacturing operations in Europe, Mr Steve Odell. Mr Odell also said:
“there are absolutely some rules and regulations…that are difficult to take”.
We agree with Mr Odell on that and that is why we want the people of this country to have their say on their future in Europe after renegotiation, which only the Conservative party can and will deliver.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people in Wales are deeply concerned about the extra powers that have been given to the European Union, largely by Labour Members, and that it is absolutely right that this coalition Government should seek to renegotiate our position in the European Union and put the results of that negotiation to the people of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is entirely right. This Conservative party intends to renegotiate our position within Europe and to put that renegotiation to the British people in a vote by the end of 2017. We think that that is democracy and it is a shame that the Labour party does not share that view.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to renegotiate and get a better deal from the European Union, but does he not also agree that it is about time we ended the uncertainty and that the only way we can do that is by giving the British people, not just in Wales but across the UK, a say in an in/out vote?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
15. Clearly, one opportunity offered by the European Union is that of greater investment in the energy supply in Wales and potential exports to the EU. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with his colleagues in the European Union on the opportunities for such investment?
Mr Jones
The energy sector is very important for Wales and the Government are investing heavily in energy, including giving support for the new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd. The market between this country and Europe is extremely important—a two-way flow—and our energy interventions will ensure that our energy sector is supported.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
We know that this Government are out of touch, but listening to the Secretary of State this morning I fear that he is completely out of touch with the views of Welsh business about the European Union. Has he spoken to Ford, GE, Hitachi, Citibank, BMW or Airbus, which are all companies that have expressed their concerns? If he has not, does he know how many jobs in Wales are reliant on our membership of the European Union?
Mr Jones
I speak regularly to Welsh businesses—I dare say more frequently than the hon. Gentleman does. What is absolutely clear is that although Welsh businesses value their engagement with Europe, they feel that there is too much regulation and too much meddlesome interference from the European Union. We need to strike a proper balance. That is why we intend to renegotiate our position with Europe and at the end of that process hold a referendum.
Owen Smith
I doubt that the Secretary of State is actively talking to those businesses, because when I talk to them, what I hear are their grave concerns about the uncertainty that he is creating. He did not answer the question. In truth, one in seven jobs in Wales is now reliant on EU trade. Does he not accept that the attitude of his Government and the attitude of a Secretary of State who has referred to Europe as “a basket case” is jeopardising those jobs, and does he not realise that it is only Labour that will secure them? That is why a Labour vote next week is a vote for jobs in Wales.
Mr Jones
What I recognise fully is that the Labour party is reluctant—in fact, it is refusing—to give the British people a vote on this important issue. So far as business is concerned, the hon. Gentleman ought to understand that 72% of companies interviewed in north America for the Ernst and Young attractiveness survey thought that reduced integration in the EU would make the UK more attractive as a foreign direct investment location. He does not understand that; we do, which is why we can and we will give the people of Wales and Britain a vote on their future in Europe.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With 300,000 people in Wales being paid less than the living wage, what impact does the Secretary of State consider uncontrolled immigration from the EU is having on wage levels in Wales?
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
No. 5, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have an iPhone. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Because of chuntering from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) from a sedentary position, the intervention was of no value—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. Be quiet. Silly man. I call Mr Llwyd.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
5. When he last met representatives of farming unions in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
Wales Office Ministers regularly meet the Welsh farming unions, which are an important voice for that vital industry in Wales.
Mr Llwyd
The Minister will know that at the last Budget the annual investment allowance was increased to £500,000 until 2015, but that is restricted to plant and machinery. Will he add his voice to the farming unions’ voice and many others that that should be extended to buildings and infrastructure in the coming years? Will he therefore plead that case on behalf of Welsh farmers?
Stephen Crabb
Those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will raise his question with Ministers at the Treasury and discuss it further. On the whole, business throughout Wales welcomed the measures in the Budget to increase the investment allowance.
Mr Llwyd
On a more specific matter, the Minister knows about the case that I am about to raise with him, because he has a copy of the letter I wrote to his right hon. Friend in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Welsh Black species of cattle is not included on the native breeds endangered list in England; it is included in Wales. As a result, people are unable to export pedigree Welsh cattle over the border to England for those who wish to enter the English countryside stewardship scheme. That is a restraint of trade against Wales, it is unfair and it could be actionable. Will he please get DEFRA moving and get it to register appropriately?
Stephen Crabb
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the case with me and for sending me a copy of that correspondence. He raises an entirely fair and sensible point. The Welsh Black is a fine example of Welsh quality produce. There should not be any bureaucratic or policy reasons why it should not be able to be traded in England on an equal basis. I will look into the matter urgently with my colleagues from DEFRA.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that on 11 June some of the best produce from Wales will be on display and available for Members to sample in the Jubilee Room when we hold Montgomeryshire day?
Stephen Crabb
I was aware of that, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House to make their way to the Jubilee Room on that date and to sample some of Montgomeryshire’s finest produce.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
One of the issues that farmers and farming representatives raise with me is the need for clearer and better labelling and traceability. Some good work has been done at all levels, including the European Union. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling for even clearer labelling so that people can be confident that they are getting Welsh Black, which could be made in Anglesey, in Wales or in the United Kingdom?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and we have recently discussed labelling on the Floor of the House. We need to be careful about not putting extra burdens on business at this time, but clearly, high-quality labelling which provides good, relevant information for consumers, particularly about country of origin, is an important way of marketing Welsh produce on a wider level.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
6. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and others on transport investment in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and key stakeholders across Wales and firmly believe that improving transport infrastructure is a key facilitator of economic growth.
Karen Lumley
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Assembly Government should do their bit in electrifying the South Wales line, as they promised?
Mr Jones
Certainly, the electrification of the South Wales line is important for Cardiff and Swansea and the stations between. We are willing and anxious to perform our part of the bargain that we struck in July 2012. I have had recent discussions with both my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, and I hope that we can find a way forward.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that the Department for Transport took a decision a few months ago to relocate all driver and vehicle licensing services from Northern Ireland to Swansea. What steps is he taking to ensure, along with his colleague, that the services provided to all motorists throughout the United Kingdom will not be adversely affected by this retrograde decision?
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
14. Mid-Wales businesses depend upon good access to the west midlands to maximise their economic opportunities. For those businesses based in Brecon, that means the A438. Will the Secretary of State work with the Welsh Assembly, the Department for Transport and local government to ensure that that route is upgraded, particularly around Hereford, where a bypass is needed to avoid the bottleneck?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that has been the subject of discussion for some time. These routes fall partly under the purview of the Welsh Government and partly under that of the Department for Transport. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about this very issue only this morning.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Mayor of London is now making the case for a £30 billion underground orbital road. Crossrail will cost £16 billion and HS2 will cost £50 billion at least. Considering the historically low levels of transport infrastructure investment in Wales, far below our population share, when will the Secretary of State start making the case for a fair share for Wales via the appropriate funding formula mechanism?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister promised to electrify the railway line from Paddington to Swansea, and now he is saying that it will go to Cardiff and from Bridgend to Swansea, but not the bit in the middle. When will he listen to Swansea business, withdraw from the Punch and Judy performance between the Welsh and UK Governments, and get the project delivered on time and to budget for the Swansea city region’s jobs?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know—I have made it clear previously and I make it clear once again—that the Government are entirely willing and anxious to perform their part of the bargain in the electrification of the Great Western main line. We are having continuing discussions with the Welsh Government, and I hope that they will be fruitful.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on that Department’s operations relating to Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
Wales Office Ministers have regular discussions with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on their operations in Wales and on how best we can support the armed forces in Wales.
Alun Cairns
The success of the St Athan enterprise zone is dependent on access to the MOD runway. The Welsh Government seem to have over-promised and under-delivered on the seven-day access. What progress is being made to ensure that they can take responsibility, so that companies based in St Athan can make the most of the opportunities provided by this MOD asset?
Stephen Crabb
I think that my hon. Friend is referring to an incident that took place only this weekend involving Cardiff Aviation. I have discussed the matter with the Welsh Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, Edwina Hart, and raised it with the Ministry of Defence. Clearly we have a shared interest with the Welsh Government in ensuring that commercial operations at St Athan are a success, and that is what we are working towards.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
8. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and Ministers of the Welsh Government on patient choice in health care on the Wales-England border.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Access to high-quality health care is an important issue for people across the UK, and particularly for those in the border areas. Following last week’s discussions on the matter in this House, I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and the First Minister urging swift action be taken to find a solution to the current difficulties.
Mr Harper
The Secretary of State will know that a number of my constituents—thousands, in fact—are forced to use the NHS in Wales. They will therefore be very concerned by the report published yesterday, “Trusted to care”, which shows serious failings in the treatment of frail older people at two Welsh hospitals. Even the Labour Minister said he was shocked. Do not the people of Wales and my constituents deserve better?
Mr Jones
I think that Members across the House were equally shocked by the contents of the report. I am glad to see that the Welsh Minister of Health has taken some action on the matter, but I repeat that the Government are more than willing to offer our assistance, perhaps by commissioning a Keogh-style inquiry.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Midland Centre for Spinal Injuries at Gobowen provides the highest quality of care to patients from Wales with spinal injuries. They are concerned about the future of specialist services because of NHS reforms in England. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the concerns expressed to me by my constituents?
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
13. Access to cross-border health services is not restricted to the border areas, but access to specialist services is relevant to my constituents. The protocols are not working at the moment. In his discussions with Ministers, will the Secretary of State ensure that cross-border protocols are working for specialist services in particular?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Key to this issue is the cross-border protocol. As a consequence of last week’s debate, I have written to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the Welsh Health Minister, and we will see whether we can improve that protocol.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
9. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and others regarding the future of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Welsh language services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
Wales Office Ministers have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Welsh Language Commissioner, on the delivery of Welsh language services by UK Government Departments and public bodies in Wales.
Hywel Williams
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the HMRC office in Porthmadog offers a first-class service in Welsh to private individuals and businesses that work in that language and that closing that office would be a disastrous step?
Stephen Crabb
I am very aware of the excellent work done by the Welsh language specialist team at Porthmadog. I would like to give him an assurance that the wider changes that are happening to the network of inquiry offices will not impact on the Welsh language service, an important service that we are determined to keep operational.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the cost of living in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
The Government understand the financial pressures facing many households at this time. That is why we have introduced real practical measures to bring down the cost of living in Wales by freezing fuel duty and raising the personal allowance, taking some of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether. We are putting money back into the pockets of hard-working people in Wales.
Robert Halfon
Just as in Harlow, the Conservative-led coalition Government have had a relentless focus on helping people with the cost of living, by freezing fuel duty, freezing council tax and cutting tax for lower earners. Will my hon. Friend lobby the Treasury to go ever further and raise the threshold at which lower earners pay national insurance contributions?
Stephen Crabb
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does campaigning for those on the lowest incomes. Decisions on national insurance contributions are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I share my hon. Friend’s objective. We are determined to return more money to the pockets of hard-working people by taking them out of income tax.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Train fares are high and electrification of the valleys lines is crucial for south Wales. What is the Minister doing to make sure that the Government are making sure that the 2019 electrification timetable will be met?
Stephen Crabb
Improving the rail network in the valleys is an important way of our connecting people in those communities, where unemployment is higher than average, with the new jobs that are being created in Cardiff and Newport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions about electrification of the valleys lines are part of the discussions we are having with colleagues in the Welsh Government and colleagues at the Department for Transport about how we finance that major package of infrastructure improvements for south Wales.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 May.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
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.
Jonathan Edwards
The UK now has 104 billionaires—top of the global league. London alone has 72 billionaires —the top city in the world. Meanwhile, west Wales and the valleys is also top—in the top five poorest regions in western Europe. Is the Prime Minister at all concerned, or is he, like Labour’s Lord Mandelson,
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”?
The Prime Minister
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that what is worth while is the massive fall in unemployment and the increase in employment that we have seen across our country. In Wales, unemployment has fallen by 5,000 in the last quarter and fallen by 25,000 since the last election. That means that in Wales there are 59,000 more people in work. In terms of making sure that the richest in our country pay their taxes, actually we see the richest 1% paying a greater percentage of income tax than ever they did under Labour. We are seeing a broad-based recovery, and I want to make sure that everyone in our country can benefit. That is why we are cutting people’s taxes and allowing people to keep the first £10,000 of what they earn before they pay any income tax.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
At the end of November, Mrs Ann Gloag, a director of the Stagecoach company, acquired Manston airport in my constituency for £1. On Budget day this year, Mrs Gloag announced that she was going into consultation with a view to closing an airport that is worth hundreds of jobs and is a major diversion field and a search and rescue base. Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and I have sought to find a buyer. Last night, the RiverOak company of Connecticut, which already has airport interests, put in an enhanced and realistic offer to keep Manston open, save the jobs, and develop the business. At present, the owners are reluctant to negotiate. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to engage in commercial negotiations, but will he seek to ensure that the Civil Aviation Agency operating licence remains open, that Manston remains open, and that further discussions are held; and will he encourage those discussions to take place?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend has been fighting very hard, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), about the future of Manston airport and recognises that it has played an important role in the local economy and employed local people. Ultimately, the future of Manston remains the responsibility of the airport owner, but it is important that the Government are engaged, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is engaged. He will be speaking to Mrs Gloag about this issue and also contacting RiverOak, the potential purchasers. In the end, it has to make a commercial decision, but the Government will do everything they can to help.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the fall in unemployment. For all those people who have found work, it is good for them and good for their families.
On the subject of high-skilled jobs in the UK, following the appearance of Pfizer at the Select Committee yesterday, can the Prime Minister tell us what further assurances he is seeking from Pfizer about its takeover of AstraZeneca?
The Prime Minister
First of all, may I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has welcomed the fall in unemployment? These are, of course, jobs that he predicted would never come to Britain and would never be there. This is important, because what we see today is the largest-ever quarterly increase in the number of people in work—283,000. We see unemployment coming down, youth unemployment coming down, long-term unemployment coming down, and long-term youth unemployment coming down—and of course, in our growing economy, where our long-term economic plan is working, we see the number of vacancies going up. Hon. Members may be interested to know, in addition, that three quarters of the new jobs over the last year have gone to UK nationals, and also that the employment of Romanians and Bulgarians actually went down in the first three months of this year following the lifting of the controls, which is notable.
In terms of Pfizer and AstraZeneca, this Government have been absolutely clear that the right thing to do is to get stuck in to seek the best possible guarantees on British jobs, British investment and British science. We discussed this last week and one of the most important things we have learned since then is that the right hon. Gentleman was asked for a meeting with Pfizer, but he said he was too busy political campaigning. He quite literally put party politics ahead of the national interest.
Edward Miliband
I am not going to take any lectures from the guy who was negotiating with Pfizer over the heads of the board of AstraZeneca. Pfizer does not need a public relations man—it has the Prime Minister.
For Members on both sides of the House, the appearance of Pfizer at a Select Committee raised more questions than it answered about the so-called assurances. The head of Pfizer said there would be a fall in research and development spending as a result of the takeover. Has the Prime Minister got an assurance that those R and D cuts will not take place in the UK?
The Prime Minister
We want the strongest possible guarantees, but I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman: what is the way of getting those guarantees? Is it getting stuck in with Pfizer and AstraZeneca, battling for the British interest, or is it standing back like him, doing absolutely nothing apart from playing politics? That is the point I put to him. I am clear about what the British interest is: it is British jobs, British science and British R and D, and we will do everything we can to make those guarantees that we have received—the right hon. Gentleman would have got nothing—as firm as possible. As we do so, let us remember that 175,000 people are employed in the life sciences in our country, because we are an open economy that encourages investment. Eli Lilly, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson and e Sci have chosen to come and invest here because it is a great country to come and do business.
Edward Miliband
The problem is that the assurances are “vague”, have “caveats” and are “inappropriate”. Those are not my words, but the words of the president of the Royal Society. The assurances are useless and there is no guarantee on R and D.
Let us talk about jobs. The head of Pfizer said yesterday:
“There will be job cuts somewhere”.
Has the Prime Minister got an assurance that those job cuts will not take place in the UK?
The Prime Minister
We have assurances on the percentage of R and D that will happen here and on investment in Cambridge and in Macclesfield. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether we want further assurances, then yes, we do. Do we want to make sure those jobs stay here? Yes, we do. Do we want more investment in British universities and British science? Yes, we do. The only difference between us is on how to get those things. I say: get stuck in, negotiate hard and fight for Britain. He says: stand up, play politics and put that before the national interest.
Edward Miliband
But the Prime Minister’s negotiations are not working—they are worthless. On R and D and jobs, he has no answer.
Let us try the Prime Minister on another issue: the possible carving up of the merged company. Nobody wants the company to be bought, split up and then sold off. Has he got assurances that that will not happen in the case of this takeover?
The Prime Minister
What we want is a good outcome for British investment and British jobs. We know what happens if you take the approach of the Labour party. Let us remember Kraft and Cadbury. What did we have? We had outright opposition, wonderful speeches about blocking investment and then complete and abject surrender and the closure of plants under Labour. That is what happened. We have learned the lessons of the mistakes Labour made. We are operating under the framework that it left us—which, incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman wrote when he was at the Treasury—and we will get results for British science, British jobs and investment by being engaged rather than standing off and playing politics.
Edward Miliband
We all know what happened the last time the Prime Minister got assurances: he sold off Royal Mail at a knock-down price and the Chancellor’s best man made a killing. That is what happens with the Prime Minister’s assurances.
The truth is that the Prime Minister cannot give us a guarantee, because the chief executive says that he wants to “conserve the optionality” of splitting up the company and flogging it off. Last week, the Prime Minister said he would judge the takeover on
“British jobs, British investment and British science.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 146.]
But he cannot offer us assurances on any of those things. Is it not obvious—he should have a proper test of the public interest, and if the deal does not pass, he should block it?
The Prime Minister
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman raises this issue about the public interest test. It is worth asking which party, which Government and indeed which individual, when he was sitting in the Treasury writing the rules, got rid of that test. It was the right hon. Gentleman. That is what we see: on a day when unemployment is down, on a day when more people are in work, he will try any trick other than to talk about what is happening in our economy. That is the truth. The country is getting stronger, and he is getting weaker.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister might not think it important to talk about a company that is 2% of UK exports and on which 30,000 jobs depend. It is important: it is crucial to our national interest. The truth is that he is not powerless. He is the Prime Minister, and he could act on a public interest test. We are talking about one of our most important companies. Nobody is convinced by his assurances. Why will he not intervene? Because he is falling back on the old idea that the market always knows best and does not need rules. From Royal Mail to AstraZeneca, this is a Prime Minister whose ideology means that he cannot stand up for the national interest.
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks these companies are important, why did he not meet them, rather than going canvassing? That is what he did: he quite literally put his own party political interest ahead of the national interest. What he fails to understand is that, yes, we measure the British interest in British jobs, British science and British investment, but we also measure it in being a country that is open to overseas investment. There is a reason why companies and countries are coming here to make cars, to build aeroplanes, to build trains, to fabricate oil rigs, to make new drugs in our country—it is because we have cut taxes, we welcome investment, we are growing our economy and we have got more people in work. We will take absolutely no lectures from the people who brought this economy to its knees.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted to be greeted by such acclamation.
Stephen Gilbert
The sun is shining, and people are wisely preparing to come to Cornwall for their holiday. When they arrive, however, they will see that some of the recent storm damage still has not been put right. Cornwall does not just need a long-term economic plan; we also need help today. Will the Prime Minister meet me to see what more can be done?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to go on discussing that with Cornish MPs and indeed the Cornish unitary council to make sure we do everything we can to help Cornwall get back on to its feet after the storms. What I have said very clearly is that there is money under the Bellwin scheme, so all the emergency funding that Cornwall had to spend it can claim back, and it still has time to work on that claim. We have also increased the amount of money going through the Environment Agency to repair storm damage, and there is an opportunity for Cornwall to have a real benefit from that money as well. The sun is shining. I am sure that people are preparing to go to Cornwall and I know, when they get there, they will have a very good time.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Q2. This week, the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to account for a £1.2 billion underspend, and it went on to say that this might result in even higher spending in future years. Does the Prime Minister still think that he was right to say that he has balanced the books at the MOD?
The Prime Minister
I seem to remember, coming into government, that we were left with a £38 billion black hole, so if the criticism is that the Secretary of State for Defence is careful with the pounds and the pennies, and makes sure that there is an underspend that can then, on occasion, be carried forward into further investment—to make sure that we have the very best equipment for our troops—I rather suspect that he might plead guilty.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Q3. Stevenage continues to lead the economic recovery, and unemployment figures today show that our long-term economic plan is working. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the educational institutions and businesses in my constituency that have increased apprenticeship starts from just over 200 in 2010 to over 800 a year now?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. In Stevenage, unemployment has fallen by 24% over the past year, which shows that our long-term economic plan is working. Every single one of those people is not just a statistic, but someone who has the dignity, security and peace of mind of a pay packet to help them and their family. Increasing the number of apprenticeships is a vital part of our long-term economic plan. We have seen 1.7 million new apprentices under this Government and are aiming for 2 million. We need to do more to encourage small and medium-sized firms to take on apprentices, but the work is going well.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q4. There has been a 61% increase in the number of working families claiming housing benefit in the Stockton borough. Is that not further proof that the jobs that the Prime Minister claims to have created are generally low-paid, part-time and zero-hours contract jobs that do not pay enough to meet the rent?
The Prime Minister
In the Stockton North constituency, unemployment has fallen by 23% over the past year. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the unemployment figures, he will see that the number of people in part-time work who want full-time work has fallen as, increasingly, people are able to find the full-time work that they want. Of course there is an increase in the number of people who are in work and claiming housing benefit, because there is an increase in the number of people in work. That is what is happening in our country—we are getting the country back to work.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Prime Minister will know that thousands of my constituents in England are forced to use the NHS in Wales. They will be concerned about yesterday’s “Trusted to Care” report, which showed serious failings in the care of frail, older people at two NHS hospitals in Wales. Do not the people of Wales and my constituents deserve better?
The Prime Minister
Those are very concerning reports that need to be studied, because the NHS in Wales is not in a good state. We have seen an 8% cut to the NHS budget in Wales carried through by Labour. In Wales, the last time the A and E targets were met was in 2009 and the last time the urgent cancer treatment target was met was in 2008. We really do see problems in the NHS in Wales. Frankly, the Labour party, instead of chatting to each other on the Front Bench, should get a grip of this issue and sort out the NHS.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q5. The Pfizer boss did give assurances to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee yesterday. He gave an absolute assurance that any takeover of AstraZeneca would result in a fall in research and development in its new drugs in the UK. He gave an absolute assurance that it would result in a fall in UK jobs. The AstraZeneca boss said that it could put lives at risk. How could any Prime Minister worth the title not immediately conclude that the right thing to do in the national interest is to call this in?
The Prime Minister
As I explained to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), we are operating under the legal framework that was put in place by the Government of whom he was a member. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of what was said yesterday, I think he will find that the quotes that he has given are not accurate.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Q6. Does the Prime Minister agree that the building of vital roads, such as the A5-M1 link or the Dunstable northern bypass, will create even more jobs, and that continued infrastructure investment like that is a key part of our long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister
I agree. I have spent some time in my hon. Friend’s constituency, stuck on the A5, and I know how much that remedial work is needed. It is vital for that part of our country. We are investing more in our railways than at any time since Victorian times and more in our roads than at any time since the 1970s. That is key to the success of our long-term economic plan.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q7. Is there a good reason why the Prime Minister will not condemn the tax affairs of Tory-supporting Gary Barlow as morally wrong?
The Prime Minister
I could not have been clearer. I condemn all aggressive tax avoidance schemes—and more than condemning them, this Government have taken legislative action to say to people, to coin a phrase, “We want your money back for good.”
Mr Cash
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will know that my International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 came into force last night. Will he note that it will protect women and girls throughout the world and that, furthermore, in places such as Nigeria and Syria, it provides us with an opportunity to do whatever we can to relieve their tragedy? Will he be good enough to have a word with the excellent Secretary of State for International Development and ensure that we will do whatever we can to use the Act to help people who have been so severely afflicted?
The Prime Minister
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in commending my hon. Friend for his Bill, and on his legislative achievement to get that important measure on the statute book. This year Britain is taking some huge steps forward, using the power of our aid budget and the fact that we have met our aid pledge to try to drive change in our world and end for ever the scandals of forced and early marriage and female genital mutilation. We are in a really strong position to drive change on that.
My hon. Friend mentioned Nigeria, and I can announce that we have offered Nigeria further assistance in terms of surveillance aircraft and a military team to embed with the Nigerian army in its HQ, as well as a team to work with US experts to analyse information on the girls’ location. As I said last week, this was an act of pure evil, and the world is coming together not just to condemn it but to do everything we can to help the Nigerians find these young girls.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q8. Some 50,499 ambulances have waited in queues for at least half an hour at accident and emergency units up and down the country. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing about it is making sure that the £12.7 billion extra that we are putting into the NHS—unlike the Labour NHS cut in Wales—is going to good use. We can see in our NHS that 1.2 million more people are attending accident and emergency, and over this winter period we met our targets for accident and emergency. I remember the last time that the Labour leader raised our hospitals at Prime Minister’s questions—it was back in November, and he has not had a word to say about it since. He predicted a winter crisis, and he sat there day after day, dying for it to happen. It did not happen because we have a strong NHS with more doctors and more nurses serving our country.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Prime Minister is well aware of the wonderful work done by the Royal British Legion Battle Back centre with our brave servicemen and women who have been injured in conflict, through adaptive sports and adventurous training. At the end of this month, I will be joining a team from the Battle Back centre with the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) to raise awareness of that wonderful work. Will the Prime Minister wish us every success in that aim?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly wish well my hon. Friend and hon. Members from across the House who are taking part in that. The Royal British Legion plays an absolutely key part in our country in standing up for veterans and their interests, and ensuring that we raise money and serve them properly. We work very closely with the Royal British Legion in government, and the Battle Back centre that my hon. Friend mentioned is an extraordinary facility in our country. I wish him well and hope that the fundraising goes well.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Q9. When the Prime Minister goes up to Scotland later this week, will he explain to our agricultural producers and rural communities why by 2019 we will be receiving the lowest level of support per hectare not just of any country in the UK, but of any country in the whole EU? Perhaps that explains why he does not want to publish his secret poll on support for independence.
The Prime Minister
On my visit to Scotland I will be explaining how Scotland is better off inside the United Kingdom. We have all the negotiating power of the United Kingdom around the table to get a good deal for Scotland, whereas of course an independent Scotland would have to queue up behind other countries to get back into the European Union. Specifically on agriculture, because of the hard work of my right hon. Friend the agriculture Secretary, we are ensuring that there will be extra support for Scottish farmers, which is absolutely in line with what the Scottish Government have been asking for.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Q10. According to the Watford chamber of commerce, this year Watford will benefit from a total of £1.5 billion in new investment. It has already started: we have a new road, two new train stations, two secondary schools being refitted, and a brand new university technical college. To cap that, today there has been an announcement that the number of unemployed is 667 fewer than a year ago, and I am concerned for that to continue. What is the Prime Minister’s strategy to ensure that it will continue? If he takes my advice, he will come up with something that is one, long term; two, economic; and three, a plan.
The Prime Minister
First of all, may I say to my hon. Friend how welcome it is that unemployment in Watford in the past year has fallen by 30%? We are getting the people of Watford back to work and cutting unemployment. He mentioned important investments such as the Croxley rail link, with the two new stations, and rebuilding schools and building new ones. They are absolutely vital. The long-term plan is not just about jobs and cutting taxes, important as those are. It is also about supporting business, and small business in particular, by building the infrastructure we need. Because we have taken difficult, long-term decisions, we are able to put that extra investment into our roads and railways to build a modern infrastructure for the 21st century.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Q11. In 2011 the Government stated that the ability to see a general practitioner within 48 hours was not a priority. Does the Prime Minister regret that?
The Prime Minister
The Royal College of General Practitioners says that there are something like 40 million more GP appointments since 2010. The patient survey, which was always quoted by Labour Ministers, states that 93% of people say that appointments in the GP system are convenient. Frankly, I want more. As the father of three young children, I know how important it is to get timely GP appointments. That is why we are training 5,000 more GPs, why we now have named GPs for frail and elderly people, and why 1,000 GP centres are now open from 8 am to 8 pm and at weekends.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I regret. I regret the fact that the last Labour Government signed a contract with the GPs that meant that they did not have to offer a service out of hours or at the weekend. Because of the investment we are putting into the NHS, we are providing better services. If he is wondering about a 48-hour target, he might want to ask why Labour scrapped one in Wales.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Ribble Valley council has recently approved its core strategy. Will the Prime Minister reassure local councillors that that will give them extra power to protect those areas within the Ribble Valley that are not already earmarked for development? Will he come and visit the Ribble Valley and see for himself why it is consistently voted one of the best places to live in the United Kingdom, and why local people want to keep it that way?
The Prime Minister
I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and constituencies in Lancashire more broadly. The assurance I can give him is this: when local councils put in place their local plan, they will have far greater ability to determine how much housing and what sort of housing they have, and where it goes. That is what we are trying to put in place. The faster local councils can put in their local plans, the more power and responsibility they will have.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Q12. As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, the number of people who are in work but who have to claim housing benefit to make ends meet is growing, but the cost of that will be an extra £5 billion over the course of this Parliament. Does the Prime Minister consider that a sign of success?
The Prime Minister
The most important thing we have done with respect to housing benefit was to put a cap on it because, when we came to office, some families were claiming £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000. When we put that cap on housing benefit, what was the Labour reaction? Labour voted against it. When we said that in order to make savings housing benefit should not be paid in respect of spare rooms that people are not using, what was Labour’s attitude? Labour opposed it. That is what is happening.
The good news from the hon. Gentleman’s seat in Stalybridge and Hyde is that unemployment is not going up—it is down 31%. Of course, some of those people in work are claiming housing benefit, but because of this Government’s long-term economic plan, more of his constituents are in work and earning.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Extra flood defence funding for the Humber area following the tidal surge in December was most welcome, but many of my constituents are still out of their homes, and there is concern that we get the £300 million that is needed over the next 25 years. MPs are working cross-party and cross-Humber on that. Will the Prime Minister meet us so that we can convince him of the case for treating the Humber, which is so important to our economic recovery, as a special case given its high risk of flooding?
The Prime Minister
I have experienced very positive and good meetings with Humberside MPs on a cross-party basis. We worked very hard to ensure that the Siemens investment went into Hull. That will bring not just jobs to that factory, but, I believe, a whole new industry and supply chain to the area. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss flooding and other issues to ensure we do all we can to protect people’s homes and businesses.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I welcome the efforts to rescue the schoolgirls in Nigeria, but does the Prime Minister agree that the Nigerian Government have not lifted a finger to protect their own citizens in the north when they are attacked by Boko Haram? Will he agree to ask the Nigerian Government to support their own people, and to seek to introduce peace to that unhappy nation?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of overseas development and these affairs. I do not think his description of the Nigerian Government is entirely fair. They face Boko Haram, a very vicious terrorist organisation, and they are investing in and training their armed forces in counter-terrorism abilities. We have worked with them on that and we are willing to do more, particularly if we can ensure that proper processes are in place to deal with human rights issues. We should help across a broad range of areas, not just counter-terrorism, surveillance and helping them to find these people. We should work with the Global Fund for Education to protect more schools—the global fund promoted by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirk—er, and—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown); thank you very much.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
My mother Maud recently celebrated her 102nd birthday. She was just a child in the first world war, but she thinks it is entirely right that, in the centenary of the outbreak of that great war, we honour those who lost their lives. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we also remember all the horses that were lost, as depicted in the wonderful play “War Horse”?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is not just that wonderful play—Joey the horse came on my recent business trip to China and caused quite a stir—but the magnificent memorial in Park lane to all the animals that died in the war. It is important that we not only commemorate the 100th anniversary appropriately this year, but that we commemorate Gallipoli, Jutland, the armistice and the peace that followed.
Mr Speaker
Points of order will follow the statement by the Secretary of State for International Development. If colleagues wish to wait, they can come in later. May I just appeal to colleagues to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so the House can hear the statement by the Secretary of State?
Mr Speaker
Exceptionally, I will allow this point of order because I think it is time-sensitive.
Hazel Blears
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful. Perhaps I should declare an interest, having nominated the hon. Member for New Forest East Dr Lewis (Dr Lewis) for the post of Chair of the Defence Select Committee. There is a range of excellent candidates and I am very concerned that the window for the election is extremely short—just two hours—and closes at 1 pm. I am worried that if Members turn out in great numbers, as I am sure they will between now and 1 pm, they will not be able to get in to vote. I encourage Members to go and vote for what is a very important position for the future of the Defence Committee.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for that point of order, the answer to which I hope will satisfy the House. If hon. and right hon. Members are visibly queuing to vote, they will be able to vote. I should imagine that that would be what the House wants to hear and that is what is right, so I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I think Mr Hollobone was chancing his arm, but he is not now doing so and we are grateful to him for his forbearance.
Health Services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe in fighting to defend the NHS, believe in fighting to defend the NHS services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough, and oppose cuts inflicted by the Conservative-led government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that proposals to scrap GP services at Skelton Medical Centre should be abandoned; further that proposals to scrap GP services at Park End Medical Centre should also be abandoned; further that the Petitioners believe that South Tees clinical commissioning group’s plans to close East Cleveland Hospital’s and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injuries units is short-sighted given the £50 million deficit of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and further that the Petitioners condemn South Tees clinical commissioning group’s decision to close Skelton’s NHS walk-in centre.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage NHS England and South Tees clinical commissioning group to reverse plans to close Park End Medical Centre, Skelton Medical Centre, its NHS walk-in centre and East Cleveland and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injury units.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001352]
CAMRA’s call for a Pubs Watchdog
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I wish to present to the House the pub scandal petition on behalf of the Campaign for Real Ale, which organised this petition through 38 Degrees.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Government should stick to its promise to introduce a watchdog to prevent valued pubs from facing closure due to unfair practices in the pub sector; further that the Petitioners believe that a pubs watchdog is urgently needed to govern the behaviour of large pub companies so that publicans are treated fairly by ensuring that rents and wholesale prices are reasonable; and further that a Petition from UK residents on this subject has received over 44,500 signatures. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stick to its promise and introduce a pubs watchdog to protect valued pubs from the risk of closure.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001353]
Proposed closure of the NatWest branch on Splott Road, Cardiff
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a petition regarding the proposed closure of the NatWest branch on Splott road in Cardiff, which I was pleased to accept at the Carlisle bakery on Splott road in Splott recently.
The Petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners wish to protest against the closure of the NatWest branch on Splott Road, Cardiff, in the constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth and further that a local Petition on this subject has received nearly 300 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons notes the Petition and urges the Government to hold talks with representatives of NatWest to consider the impacts of the branch closure on the local community.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001354]
Mr Speaker
Order. The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.
Sitting suspended (Order, 13 May).
Afghanistan
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on Afghanistan.
First, I would like to pay tribute to the six service personnel who have died serving their country in Afghanistan since the last statement on Afghanistan was delivered to the House by the Defence Secretary on 10 February. They include Sapper Adam Moralee, who was killed on 5 March while preparing equipment for redeployment out of Afghanistan as part of our military draw-down.
On 26 April, five UK service personnel—Captain Thomas Clarke, Acting Warrant Officer Class 2 Spencer Faulkner, Corporal James Walters, Flight Lieutenant Rakesh Chauhan and Lance Corporal Oliver Thomas—were tragically killed in a helicopter crash south of Kandahar. A full investigation is under way into the incident, but there is currently no indication of enemy activity being a contributing factor. It was the third biggest single loss of UK life since 2001.
These deaths are a timely reminder that our troops continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan every single day. Their legacy is realised in the fact that Afghanistan is now neither a safe haven nor a launch-pad for terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life. The tens of thousands of Afghan security forces whom they have helped mentor and who are now securing the country’s future are a testament to that. The sacrifice of our servicemen and women can never be forgotten.
I would like to reiterate my deepest sympathies for those affected by the tragic landslide in Badakhshan province. Relief efforts are under way to help the more than 4,000 people who have been displaced. The UK is closely monitoring the situation and stands ready to provide further assistance. Our recent £10 million contribution to the UN’s Common Humanitarian Fund will ensure that additional relief supplies can be delivered as required.
While the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated, we are seeing some extraordinary progress in Afghanistan. Last month, Afghans took part in provincial and presidential elections, which were organised by Afghans, run by Afghans and the security for which was provided by Afghans. The latest estimates from the preliminary results on voter turnout show that nearly 7 million people voted, 36% of whom were women. This is particularly impressive, given the Taliban threats of violence across the country. With very little support from ISAF—the international security assistance force—the Afghan security forces secured the vast majority of polling centres across the country and helped to prevent any high-profile attacks. Their professionalism and bravery were evident throughout, and their confidence has been boosted by this operational success.
A constitutional transfer of power from President Karzai to his successor will be a milestone for the Afghan people. Until 10 years ago, Afghans had never had the right to choose their leader. Now they are getting a choice, and the UK Government are supporting that democratic process. We continue to support Afghan institutions in making sure that the elections are credible, inclusive and transparent.
The Department for International Development is providing £20 million to the UN’s ELECT II programme—Enhancing Legal and Electoral Capacity for Tomorrow—which ran a voter registration top-up exercise in Afghanistan. This has led to over 3.8 million new registered voters, over a third of whom were women. ELECT II also trained almost 7,000 election commission officials, over 2,000 of whom are women. This includes gender officers for each of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.
Women’s political participation has been a priority for the UK Government in the past year, and it was impressive to see so many women exercising their democratic rights as voters. Although there were no female presidential candidates, it is a sign of how much Afghanistan has changed that three women stood as second vice-president on presidential tickets, and 297 women contested the provincial council elections. The Government’s support for women voters and candidates, through the UN and through DFID’s own programmes, will continue through to the parliamentary elections in Afghanistan in 2015.
We have made it clear that our commitment to Afghanistan extends beyond the time that UK combat forces have returned home. The UK has committed to its current level of development funding until at least 2017. However, if we are to continue our co-operation with Afghanistan in the long term, it is important for the bilateral security and NATO status of forces agreements to be established as quickly as possible. We shall expect to see clear progress and further reforms from the new Afghan President and his Government.
Afghanistan’s economy remains fragile and vulnerable to shocks. Although economic growth and tax revenues have increased substantially over the past decade, uncertainty ahead of the elections, along with the impact of the draw-down of international forces, has led to an economic slowdown in recent months. Through its continued support for Afghanistan’s economic growth and private sector development in the years ahead, DFID will seek to remove barriers to investment, particularly in the agriculture and extractive sectors, and to create economic opportunities for women. The UK will also continue to support greater regional economic integration through infrastructure development and trade.
We hope that the new President will prioritise increasing domestic revenue collection and strengthening the economy by, for instance, passing key legislation, because that is the best way to ensure that the country’s long-term future does not rely on aid from other countries. At an early stage, the UK will be encouraging the new Government to take the further steps on reform that the international community wants to see, such as tackling corruption and ensuring that gains made on women’s rights are strengthened. Some of the bravest Afghans I have met have been women’s rights defenders. Those women risk their lives daily, fighting for rights that men—and, indeed, we women—often take for granted in this country, and the UK Government will continue to support their efforts to secure a better future for Afghan women and girls.
We cannot do this alone. Afghanistan’s future depends on many international actors playing their part, as well as the work that Afghans themselves are doing to secure their country’s future. Afghanistan will inevitably be a key feature of the NATO summit which will take place at the Celtic Manor in Wales in early September. Plans and preparations are well under way for that important NATO event. The UK Government will co-chair a development conference on Afghanistan in the months after the new Afghan Government have been formed, which will provide a timely opportunity for us to focus Afghan and international attention on the long-term economic, social and political challenges that Afghanistan must address.
The turnout for last month’s election shows the will and determination of the Afghan people to secure a better future, but they need our support. By continuing our essential development work and by working together, we can create a stable country where Afghan children have opportunities that were denied to their parents. That will be a fitting and lasting legacy to the service of our troops—those who are now returning home to their families and those who, tragically, are not.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it earlier today.
This year the United Kingdom’s combat mission in Afghanistan comes to an end, and I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the UK service personnel who have been lost in the service of our country. As we approach the close of a 13-year operation, there will be time for reflection on what has been achieved in Afghanistan, but, regardless of those discussions, no one can feel anything other than awe and admiration for the men and women of our armed forces who have served, and continue to serve, our country there. Their courage, their care and their sacrifice are virtues that we should never forget, and the strain on their families and loved ones constitutes a toll that most of us whose relations are not serving in Afghanistan can never fully understand. Just this week, we had a stark reminder that the pain of conflict is not only physical but, increasingly, an often initially invisible injury to mental health.
In this the centenary year of the first world war, new monuments will be built and tributes will be paid to the dead of three generations ago, but I want to ask about a permanent memorial to those who have died in Afghanistan. I have readily been involved in supporting that project, and I hope that the Secretary of State will update the House on the dedication of that important work.
As we all know, the Department for International Development works in some of the most dangerous and demanding places in the world, and Afghanistan presents its own set of unique challenges. For more than 30 years, the Afghan people have seen their communities blighted by conflict and violence. Thirteen of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces report at least one Taliban attack each and every day of the week; nearly half the population is in need of development assistance, and a third of the population is food-insecure, so there is no doubt that development in these circumstances is extremely challenging. The Opposition’s approach will continue to be support for and scrutiny of the Government’s work, and I want to ask the Secretary of State about four specific areas.
First, the Secretary of State rightly spoke about the massive mudslide in Badakhshan province in which 2,000 lives were lost. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, she rightly prioritised the safety and well-being of survivors, but will she now tell the House what assessment her Department has made of the needs of those who survived and, further, what impact, if any, security concerns have on the relief effort?
Secondly, in March this year the Independent Commission for Aid Impact reported on DFID’s bilateral support for growth and livelihoods in Afghanistan. The report raised serious doubts over the long-term sustainability of the progress made and over a lack of strategic coherence, so what steps has the Secretary of State taken to improve the Department’s programmes in the light of those revelations?
Surprisingly, ICAI found that none of the programmes assessed had made any plans for draw-downs, even though, to quote from the report,
“it is likely that they would be affected by more instability and greater risk.”
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that preparations are now well under way in all DFID projects for the impact of this year’s draw-down?
The report made three main recommendations: for a six-month review of current and future projects, and on systems of consultations and independent monitoring. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress she has made in fulfilling those recommendations?
I want to turn to the country’s future and the role of women. As the Secretary of State has rightly said, there has been much change for women in the last 13 years, but there is undoubtedly still an incredibly long way to go. It is right that DFID’s next operational plan has a commitment to tackle violence against women, and I hope she will confirm today that Afghan women’s organisations will be consulted on that plan.
As we approach the second round of presidential elections, the Taliban have this week announced the start of their annual summer offensive. Despite that and despite all the threats, Afghanistan’s women seem determined that their voices and their votes will be heard, so what additional measures have been put in place to protect Afghan women’s right to vote?
Finally, may I turn to the mechanics of the draw-down? Understandably, there are some concerns that the draw-down of the ISAF operation could have grave implications for the sustainability of development gains and the protection of civilians. What assessment has the Department made of the possible need for any extra security requirements for DFID staff and local partners after the military draw-down?
In conclusion, stability in Afghanistan will no longer rely on international military might, but instead on Afghan forces, an improving local economy, the attitude of neighbouring countries and international development funding. DFID staff and their partners will have a continuing role to play in the future of that country. For the sake of the people of Afghanistan, and all the Britons who have served there and continue to serve, this military draw-down must not mean turning away. For all their sakes, the UK’s commitment to building a lasting peace and a viable state must continue.
Justine Greening
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. The first point he raised was how we can make sure we never forget the sacrifice that has been made by our servicemen and women who have served in Afghanistan. I understand that discussions on how we can make sure we commemorate and remember that work are under way in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure it will have further updates to give the House shortly.
In relation to the work ICAI did on DFID programmes in Afghanistan, I think the first point to make is that it recognises, as we do, that Afghanistan is one of the most difficult places in the world to deliver aid. However, it said that we worked effectively with our partners, and, indeed, that
“our livelihoods programmes are delivering significant improvements to thousands of people”,
although the right hon. Gentleman raised some of the serious challenges we still face in making sure that the gains and advances we have made continue. It is probably worth pointing out that some of the training on vocational education has helped about 70,000 young people get into work in Afghanistan. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the livelihoods issue is one of the core elements of the programme going forward. We will work on the ICAI recommendations in the report and any that the IDC has made recently.
On the terrible mudslide and flooding around Badakhshan, the UN is working there on the ground. As the right hon. Gentleman points out, some areas in Afghanistan are harder for aid agencies to reach than others, but we have already made a £10 million contribution to the common humanitarian fund, and we stand ready to assess any further requests. Our current assessment is that adequate support is getting through to people, but he is right to point out that we need to see what we can do to help the people who remain rebuild their lives and get them back on track.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the work on women’s rights. As everyone recognises, this issue presents one of the biggest risks: as troop draw-down takes place and Afghanistan transitions to a future in which it takes responsibility for its own security, and a presidential election results in a new President, it is important that this aspect of progress—the advancement of women’s rights in a country that remains one of the toughest places in the world to be a woman—is not left behind. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made this issue a strategic priority for DFID within Afghanistan. We are undertaking a variety of projects that will continue in the coming years, such as the girls’ education project, and we will support the Government to make sure that the law on the elimination of violence against women is implemented on the ground. That will include working with the Ministry of the Interior and directly with the Afghan police, so that we can make sure that laws are implemented by them and they play their role in protecting and upholding women’s rights on the ground.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as I mentioned in my statement, we have done work on women’s political participation. One of the most encouraging aspects of the recent first round of presidential elections—alongside perhaps less violence than we might have expected—was the number of women who are now exercising their right to vote. DFID played a role in the United Nations Development Programme, supporting the independent election commission, and on the ground in encouraging people to use their vote. In particular, it helped to ensure that women were registered, and that women candidates were supported and understood that they could be not just a voter within the election, but a participant. Some 300 women candidates came forward, and 20% of the provincial election council places will go to women after the election.
We are also ramping up our work on access to justice. We have teamed up with the existing Australian Government programme—a £3 million programme that will mean that we can provide better access to justice for women in six provinces. Of course, the existing Tawanmandi programme, which supports civil society organisations on the ground, continues. I am putting an extra £2 million into that, which should help to provide at least 10 grants to organisations that are focused on working to tackle violence against women.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of draw-down and security. Obviously, I cannot go into the details of that in the House, but he is right to point out that the environment faced not just by our forces but by Foreign Office and DFID staff working in Afghanistan is highly risky, even in the British embassy in Kabul. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those staff members, who do an immensely challenging job in difficult circumstances and are some of the most dedicated people I have come across in this job. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that duty of care to our staff is always of paramount importance.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State very much indeed not just for her statement but for its positive character and for the fact that she is making it, because that indicates DFID’s increasing importance and profile as Afghanistan moves from a situation of troop engagement to development. I want to reinforce the International Development Committee’s view that the test of success in development in Afghanistan will be the progress maintained by women. Indeed, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for emphasising women’s rights and development. Does she agree with me and our Committee that the status of women will be the key to Afghan development, that it is important that women are supported, that all the people of Afghanistan must understand that the progress of women will determine the successful development of their country, and that in that, they will have the full partnership of the UK Government?
Justine Greening
I pay tribute to the work the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee does in scrutinising my Department and the work we do in Afghanistan. I can assure him that we will continue to play our role, as a key donor, in helping the Afghanistan Government to continue to make progress on women’s rights. It is fantastic that we now have a statutory duty to look at gender equality in international development, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), so we will continue to do that work. His legislation has sent a message across the world about the UK’s stance on the rights of women and girls, and it will permeate our entire work.
Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State may know, I am leading for the Defence Committee until we have the outcome of the election that everybody is awaiting with bated breath. We have produced our latest report on Afghanistan, which was published yesterday. It makes a number of recommendations, including two major ones. The first is that we continue to have a proper, co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to the process of transition and its aftermath, in what is likely to be an uneven peace, uneven development and an uneven security situation. The second is that there should be a national evaluation, across government, of the whole of the period in which we have been in Afghanistan. Although our reports are aimed largely at the Ministry of Defence, which will respond on the lessons learned, this is a cross-government issue, so will the right hon. Lady also be able to respond, as the Secretary of State for International Development, to our report?
Justine Greening
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have sought to work hand in hand with the Ministry of Defence on policy in Whitehall, but also on the ground where MOD and DFID staff operate together. We have seen that in the provincial reconstruction team, which until March was based in Helmand and has now transitioned staff back to Kabul. There are of course continuing lessons to be learned, as his Committee’s report highlights. The military have a highly effective process for identifying lessons to be learned in the long term, but I am sure the UK Government will want to look strategically across the whole campaign, including the DFID element of the work we have done, to see what lessons can be learned once the mission is over.
Mr Speaker
Order. Nobody can deny that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) used his temporary leadership opportunity comprehensively, and I hope he is satisfied with the result. Mr William Cash.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In my earlier question to the Prime Minister, I mentioned Nigeria and Syria, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear today, Afghanistan is also right at the top of the tree regarding gender equality and international development, and I am grateful to her for her remarks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank not only her but the staff in her Department, the Minister of State and others for playing an active and very supportive role on this issue. That extends to the whole House, including members of the Opposition, who gave their support to the International Development (Gender Equality) Bill to ensure that it went through Parliament. I thank them all very much indeed, because it will do a huge amount to help women and girls throughout the world.
Justine Greening
It was a wonderful message that we sent out: that not just the Government but the whole of our Parliament regards the issue of women and girls’ rights and prospects as so important to what we are doing. It is fantastic that my hon. Friend has put his thanks on the record, and in fact most of our thanks go to him for developing the Bill and taking it through.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the 297 humanitarian workers in Afghanistan, men and women, who lost their lives in 2002, many of whom were Afghans but also from the expatriate community? In order to continue that valuable work in a deteriorating security situation, measures must be taken to protect human rights defenders. What is the Secretary of State doing about that?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. A lot of the UK Government’s work has been on prevention: improving the underlying conditions for women in Afghanistan. Of course other countries—for example, the United States and Canada—have also focused on helping women who have already suffered physical violence. I assure her that we will continue to work at the national level with the new Government and the new President who will be in place after the elections are finally concluded. We will also work at the provincial level and we will continue, through programmes such as Tawanmandi, to work at the grass-roots level with these organisations, whose people I have met both here and in Afghanistan, to do what we can at an individual community-based level to make sure that those women are supported and can get on with their work. As she points out, some of these people pay the ultimate price. I met someone who was over in London recently who said that she would be happy to lose her life if that is what it took for women’s prospects in Afghanistan to improve in the long term. That was an amazing statement for her to make, and the UK Government will certainly play their role in trying to ensure that people can go about that work safely.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Secretary of State identified the importance of economic development and of revenue collection. I know that DFID and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs support a number of countries around the world on the revenue development side. Has that been considered for Afghanistan? Is it already happening?
Justine Greening
It is already happening; we are doing work with the tax revenue authority of Afghanistan. The good news is that since 2004-05 tax revenues increased from just $250 million to more than $2 billion by 2011-12. So things are moving in the right direction and we will continue that work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Encouragingly, the Afghan security forces have grown in stature and in strength. It is important that Apache helicopter support is equally strong, so that the actions on the ground and in the air can be equal. What support for helicopter training will be given to Afghan security forces, and will the international security assistance force leave its Apache helicopters behind for the forces to use?
Justine Greening
Clearly this issue of going beyond training troops to making sure there is the capability alongside them to support them in the air as well as on the ground continues to be discussed. We are discussing how that can be sustained post-2014. Obviously, that sits alongside the work we are doing to set up the Afghan national army officer academy, which took in its first battalion of officers back in October. This legacy will see a continued improvement and numbers of well-trained army officers coming through, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that an equipment and logistics strategy needs to sit alongside it.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The participation of women in the electoral process is to be welcomed, and I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment on that. What commitments have we secured on access to education for women and girls once we have withdrawn?
Justine Greening
I have spoken on a number of occasions with President Karzai about how important education is, and he is emphatic that he sees providing it as the biggest thing we can do, long term, to improve the prospects for women in Afghanistan. That is why on my most recent visit there last November I announced further investment by the UK Government to reach about a quarter of a million girls in some of the hardest-to-reach areas to get them into education. This will certainly continue to be a key part of what we work on.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State is aware, the poppy crop is an important source of funding for criminal and insurgency networks. What progress is her Department making on persuading farmers towards alternatives, particularly in Helmand province?
Justine Greening
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, getting successful long-term change in that area is extremely challenging work for us. Fundamentally, we need to see security on the ground and then alternative livelihoods that prove more compelling prospects for farmers. The reality is that that is an extremely long-term programme. We will continue to do our work on livelihoods, which ICAI recognised was having a significant impact, but nobody is under any illusion about the scale of the challenge.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I echo the Secretary of State’s tribute to those whose courage and sacrifice has been shown in Afghanistan, including those, such as Corporal Daniel Nield of my constituency, who died there, and all the armed forces, civilians and intelligence staff who have served in that country? Underpinning the progress of women’s participation, which she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) spoke about, has been the enormous sixfold increase in the participation of children in Afghan schools—now 40% of them are girls. Does she agree that a whole generation of Afghan girls owe their thanks not only to their Afghan teachers, policy makers and the international community, but to this country, for transforming their life chances?
Justine Greening
I agree with that. When the Taliban were in power almost no girls were going to school, whereas now more than 2 million of the 6 million-plus children at school are girls. That is crucial, but, as we see, it continues to be a challenge to make sure that we get equal opportunities for both boys and girls in Afghanistan. That is why our education programmes particularly focus on getting girls into school.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Twenty Afghan interpreters have died while serving with British troops and 3% feel they are going to be unsafe if they remain in Afghanistan after the troops withdraw. How many have applied to come here since the Secretary of State’s last statement? How many have been given permission to do so? How many have been refused?
Justine Greening
I do not have those details with me, but I am happy to provide them to the right hon. Gentleman after this statement. As he will be aware, we looked particularly at the issue of interpreters and, more broadly, local staff who are intimidated and at risk as a result of being part of our efforts to help bring security and stability to Afghanistan. We have a very thorough process for making sure that where there is extreme risk of intimidation we are able to take further steps that go beyond simply helping people get into different work in Afghanistan to potentially relocating them. What I propose to do is send him a short note updating him on what we are doing for interpreters, and the extent of progress and use of that scheme.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Afghan electoral law requires a run-off election if no candidate achieves more than 50% in the presidential election. The run-off election has already been postponed and it has been suggested that it might not need to take place if one of the candidates can develop a majority coalition. Does the Secretary of State agree that the rule of law should prevail and the run-off election should take place? What can her Department do to ensure that that happens?
Justine Greening
We all want to make sure that the electoral process happens effectively, and I talked about the need for it to be fair, inclusive and transparent. DFID has done a huge amount of work with other donors supporting the United Nations programme to make sure that that can happen. We will all have to see what happens in the second round of the presidential election, but what we can say from the first round is that, basically, the process worked: most of the polling stations were open as planned; people were able to get to them and to cast their vote; and where there were complaints those are now being assessed by the complaints commission. That is a good first step but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, there are challenges ahead. We will continue to do what we can to make sure that those presidential elections are successful.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The long-term security and development of Afghanistan is very much influenced by the regional context and Afghanistan’s neighbours. Given that there will be a change of Government in India on Friday, will the Secretary of State speak with her colleagues in other Departments to try to impress upon India and Pakistan the importance of resolving regional security issues, as that would be of great benefit to Afghanistan in the long term?
Justine Greening
I met the Prime Minister of Pakistan a couple of weeks ago when he was visiting the UK and I raised with him the issue of the importance of this relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan and, in particular, of improving it. That applies both from a political and security perspective, which is crucial, and because of the economic opportunities that are there for both countries if they can get stability and then start to grow the economic relationship. That also stands true for India, and I have no doubt that my colleagues in the Foreign Office will follow up on the point the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I, too, ask about poppy growing? My constituents in Kettering wish to know what has been done, what is being done and what can and cannot be done to tackle poppy growing without endangering fragile local economies in Afghanistan, which remains the major source of heroin that comes into the western world.
Justine Greening
Principally, there are two strands of work in which DFID has been engaged. One has been to work alongside the Home Office on a counter-narcotics strategy that has involved working with the Afghan police and the security services. The second is the work on livelihoods. We all recognise how difficult it is to get communities to change practices and livelihoods in which they have been engaged for so long. We have undertaken work in this area, but recognise that more needs to be done, which is why we want to stick with this for the long term.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and her Department will be aware of the huge mineral reserves and resources that exist in Afghanistan. What discussions has she had with the Administration in Kabul about the distribution of licences for the exploitation of those resources, what benefits are there for local people, and who in the long term will get the riches out of Afghanistan?
Justine Greening
That is an important question. We have seen in other countries how mineral extraction has filled the pockets of the few and how the opportunity for shared prosperity has been missed. We do not want to see that happen in Afghanistan. The value of minerals in Afghanistan is estimated to range from $2 trillion to $3 trillion. There is a huge opportunity there. DFID has worked with the Afghan Ministry of Mines on the minerals law, which has, I think, now passed through Parliament. That should provide a legal framework for responsible investment. We will be doing further work to ensure that those concessions that the Government give are ones that ensure not only that companies profit from extracting minerals but that Afghanistan itself starts to reap the rewards of having those resources.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In a recent debate in the House, Members raised the important correlation between inclusive economic growth and respect for all human rights, including freedom of thought and belief. What discussions have my right hon. Friend and her colleagues had with the Afghan Government about that important relationship in respect of economic development?
Justine Greening
We talked more broadly about the economic and social progress that Afghanistan needs to continue to make, which includes people’s human rights. Obviously, a constitution is in place now. Part of the Tokyo mutual accountability framework was all about ensuring that that constitution gets implemented and holds for individuals in their daily lives on the ground. It is good that, two years on from that Tokyo meeting, we are having a ministerial meeting to look at development. We need to see not only that donors are living up to the commitments that they made—the UK is—but that the Afghan Government are getting on with the process of reform, economic development and security improvements, not least of which is the final signing of the bilateral security agreement.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State mentioned the upcoming NATO summit in south Wales and the inevitable focus on Afghanistan at that summit. She will no doubt be aware of the significant Afghan diaspora communities in south Wales. What discussions has she had about outreach and the potential engagement of those communities, many of which are making a massive contribution not only to communities in south Wales, but to peace, development and stability in Afghanistan? Perhaps her officials will meet me to discuss how we can take that matter forward.
Justine Greening
That is an excellent suggestion. We are working across Government in preparation for the NATO summit. It is fantastic that we are hosting it, and that we are hosting it in Wales. I very much want to make the most of that opportunity to reach out to those diaspora groups that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Commission for Aid Impact gave an amber-red rating for a third of the projects, including the growth in livelihood project, which is relatively poor. Does the Secretary of State think that there is an argument for looking again at the process by which development officers identify, select and allocate funding to those projects?
Justine Greening
One thing I have tried to strengthen in DFID is programme management capability, which includes the way in which and the speed with which we respond to programmes that are not on track. We look at Afghanistan, and other such places, because it is such a challenging environment for us to deliver and monitor projects while they are happening on the ground. The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly good point, and I can assure him that this is a good time for us to look at our Afghanistan programme given the transition that has taken place in the delivery of our projects—some of our projects used the provincial reconstruction team in Helmand, but now we have retrenched within Kabul. I assure him that we are planning ahead to understand what the next three-year outlook should be for our livelihoods programmes and to make them a success.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to emphasise the importance of regional economic integration for the future of Afghanistan. Will she say a bit more about how the UK Government can influence regional players to ensure that that integration becomes a reality?
Justine Greening
The Foreign Office has played an important role in bringing together Afghanistan and Pakistan in so-called trilateral talks, which were hosted here in the UK. Our Prime Minister led those talks with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and President Karzai of Afghanistan. That gives us a good platform for playing a constructive role. My Department is talking with countries in the region about their infrastructure needs, which will potentially provide the backbone for economic growth to take place successfully.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Progress has undoubtedly been made in Afghanistan, and one can only hope and pray that, in the years to come, the sacrifice of our brave service personnel will not be forgotten. The Secretary of State quite rightly alluded to the participation of females. She talked about 297 women contesting provincial council elections, but she did not say how many candidates there were in total.
Justine Greening
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. Something like 480-plus council places were being contested as part of the elections. A minimum of 20 will go to women, so we expect at least 92 women to have been elected. I will provide him with an update of the male aspect of those elections once I get back to my Department.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Secretary of State recognises the enormous social and economic progress made in Afghanistan. Therefore, can we once again pay tribute to our armed forces for the selfless sacrifices they have made over the past decade to make that progress possible?
Justine Greening
We can never say thank you enough to our servicemen and women for their efforts and work. I have had the privilege of meeting them when I have been out in Afghanistan. It is not just what they do but the way that they go about it—their professionalism, their attitude. They really represent the cream of our country. I think they have done an amazing job. They have been working in a country that has seen so much conflict for so many decades, and are finally starting to get it on track for a long-term better future. We can be immensely proud of the role that our armed forces have played.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
I also pay tribute and associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about our armed forces personnel, including those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. My constituent Sergeant Gary Jamieson lost three limbs in an improvised explosive device attack only six days after arriving in Afghanistan. In 2012 the International Development Committee visited Afghanistan, and we were disappointed to see that a lot of DFID staff were deskbound for security reasons. That inevitably affects our ability to measure progress on the ground. Has that situation improved?
Justine Greening
I have also considered what steps we can take to enable our staff to be better placed to get out in the field and monitor projects. We do as much as we can but, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, duty of care and making sure our staff are safe is of paramount importance. We must take that into account when designing our programmes, so that we understand what the risks are in relation to our challenges of monitoring and evaluation and we amend our programmes accordingly.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I know that the Secretary of State will share the concern of many of us that the number of women and girls who have been killed and injured in Afghanistan has increased, possibly threefold in targeted areas. Why does she think that is and what measures has her Department put in place to help tackle this awful crime?
Justine Greening
On the ground in Afghanistan we see a continued daily physical threat to many people all over the country, whether they are a journalist, as we saw recently in Kabul, part of the security service or the army, or a woman. The challenge is to ensure that although we still see such challenges we do not back off from trying to tackle them. We know that the Taliban needs to engage in the peace and reconciliation process if we are to see long-term stability for Afghanistan. Ultimately, DFID can continue to help create the best possible conditions on the ground for women to play a role, take part in elections, have a voice in their community and have the chance of education and employment. That is the role that we can play.
Points of Order
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the vexed issue of appropriate workplace grievance procedures, what colleagues across the House need is a funding mechanism contained within their office budget that allows them and their staff to access independent dispute mediation services that are entirely separate from the House of Commons and its political parties. Will you kindly promote this need further in your routine discussions with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Members’ personal advice service?
Mr Speaker
I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on all matters and he has encapsulated them very pithily in that point of order. The issue of the grievance procedure is ongoing and is the subject of much wider discussions, so I think the fairest thing for me to say today is that I have noted what he has said. The Leader of the House will have done so, too, and I feel sure that there will be further opportunities for those concerns and alternative ideas to be aired. I hope that that is helpful.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order with some reluctance. There are rumours running across the House that a decision has been made or is about to be made that the security of the House of Commons will be turned over from the Metropolitan police to a private provider, such as G4S. As this rumour has been in the newspapers and is running around the Palace of Westminster, can you put our minds at rest that it has not and will not be decided?
Mr Speaker
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for 35 years this month, that we simply do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House. I say to him in all candour and amiability that if he wants to discuss such matters we can do so, but we do not do so on the Floor of the Chamber. Suffice it to say that I know about these matters and am very comfortable about the interests of the House, and I know that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House also know about these matters. We are all very sanguine. It would be irresponsible to get into a discussion of these matters on the Floor of the House and whatever sedulous temptations are lobbed my way I do not intend to do so. I am sorry, but we must leave it there.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised earlier in the week by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), I would like to raise the issue of Members visiting other constituencies on parliamentary or official business. I know that you have spoken in the past of this matter and of your disappointment that prior and timely notification is not always given by colleagues. In recent months, no fewer than five shadow Ministers have visited my constituency without giving notice. I have raised this issue on a case-by-case basis with them and, indeed, had a meeting with the shadow Chief Whip, but this discourtesy continues. I do not wish to name the Members involved, but in the interests of clarity I should be grateful if you reminded the Opposition that parliamentary convention dictates that prior and timely notification is required from all colleagues.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. For the avoidance of doubt, let me just say that this matter has regularly been raised by Members on both sides of the House, frequently referring to Members on the other side of the House. As Members would expect, I am being strictly and scrupulously impartial and this is not a question of one side needing to get the message rather than the other. The convention is, I think, clear. If an hon. Member is visiting the constituency of another hon. Member on parliamentary or official business, in which category I include party political business, there is an obligation to notify the Member whose constituency is to be visited and to do so in a timely way. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House faithfully to adhere to that convention and in that spirit I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point and for doing so in the way that he has.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said in response to a question from me, “I think he will find that the quotes that he has given are not accurate.” First, I did not read out any quotes in my question, and secondly, what I reported to the House about what the head of Pfizer said about job losses and cuts in research following a takeover is entirely accurate. Do we have any redress when the Prime Minister thinks that he can casually traduce an hon. Member just because the facts are inconvenient to him?
Mr Speaker
I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is continuing the debate. He is doing his best to suppress a puckish grin, as he is perfectly well aware that such redress as he sought has just been made available to him through his use—some might say abuse—of the points of order procedure. I think we will leave it there for today. By the way, the hon. Gentleman says that he has been traduced. I have known him for 13 years and have never regarded him as a particularly delicate or sensitive soul and he bears no scar as far as I can tell—[Interruption.] No more than the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) feels any scar, I suspect, from our robust exchange earlier. He is a good-natured colleague and I think he understands the spirit in which proceedings need to be conducted and the importance of making progress. It is good to see him back in his seat.
Food Labelling (Sugar Content)
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that sugar content on food labelling be represented in terms of the number of 5ml spoonsful per 100g; and for connected purposes.
The intention of the Bill is simple: to have the number of teaspoons of sugar contained in a food product clearly displayed on the front of the packaging. I declare my interest as a type 2 diabetic. I am glad to see the Minister responsible for public health and the shadow Minister responsible for public health in their places today.
Sugar is a killer. High-sugar diets are the main contributor to two of the most serious health risks facing the United Kingdom today: obesity and diabetes. People are simply not aware of the amount of sugar they are eating. Our annual sugar intake is 33.7 kg per capita, which is equivalent to eating nearly 34 average-sized bags of sugar each year. That is 15.4 kg higher than the world average and the United Kingdom is the 18th largest consumer of sugar in the world.
The dangers of sugar have been known for many years, but fragmented regulation and successive Governments’ reluctance to act have led to a distinct lack of progress. In 1972, John Yudkin wrote a fascinating book entitled “Pure, White and Deadly”. As the name suggests, the book presents a startling account of how sugar is killing us, addresses why people are so addicted to it and explains that if we do not change our habits we face a crisis. Seen as controversial at the time, Mr Yudkin’s text was bought back into print in 2012 with a foreword from childhood obesity expert Dr Robert Lustig, who viewed the book as prophetic. It seems that there is and has been for many years a widespread desire to remain ignorant of the dangers of sugar, perhaps in the hope that they will cease to exist.
The UK is facing an epidemic of diabetes and obesity. The statistics are alarming. Each year, 59,000 people die unnecessarily as a result. Obesity and diabetes-related illnesses combined cost the NHS an estimated £15 billion a year. Health and nutrition experts involved in Action on Sugar led by Professor Graham MacGregor and Dr Aseem Malhotra recently met and warned the Secretary of State that the cost is likely to rise to £50 billion a year. For diabetes, 80% of the available funding is spent treating preventable complications. If the number of people with diabetes continues to rise at the current rate, it is estimated that in 10 years’ time 5 million British people will have diabetes.
It is clear that, contrary to what Mary Poppins promised, a spoonful of sugar will not help the medicine go down; it will result in people needing more and more medicines. There is a huge knock-on effect of eating too much sugar, given that diabetes and obesity increase vulnerability to other health conditions. In an article in The Spectator, Dr Max Pemberton said:
“As a doctor . . . I’d rather have HIV than diabetes.”
Comparing HIV to my own condition really brought home its severity. Dr Pemberton believes that diabetes sufferers and those treating them are complacent about the condition because of a lack of communication about its dangers. Dr Charles Alessi, chair of the National Association of Primary Care, and Professor John Deanfield of University College London warned recently about the higher risks of diabetes sufferers getting dementia.
The responsibility deal was introduced by the Government in 2011, with the aim of reducing calorie intake by 5 billion a year. Although many companies signed up to the voluntary pledge, there is no legal responsibility to act on their words. Sugar is not even mentioned as one of the benchmarks. Binding legislation, together with the inclusion of sugar labelling, would be much more effective. The Government have acknowledged the huge costs that knock-on health issues caused by excessive sugar consumption bring to the NHS. However, there is no clear action plan towards achieving these laudable aims.
Many retailers make a huge contribution to the problem. For example, WH Smith should be ashamed of itself for forcing its staff to harass customers at the counter to purchase endless chocolate bars. Let us take my weekly stop at junction 15 on the M1 at the Welcome Break in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). There, an embarrassed shop assistant offers me two chocolate bars for the price of one each time I buy a newspaper. Lidl, to give it credit, has removed sweets from the checkout. I am delighted to tell the House that last week our Tea Room offered only fruit as the last stop before the till, after years of there being only chocolate on offer.
There is still more that retailers can do. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons should lead the way with their own brands offering more no-sugar alternatives. They should also bring in clearer signage in supermarkets, which could focus the minds of shoppers on purchasing healthier products. There should be better layout in shops. Fixtures such as carousels should display only sugar-free products, as is currently done for gluten-free, kosher and sometimes halal foods. That would help busy people locate healthier options much more quickly.
Let us all take one more step in the war on sugar and commit to one sugar-free day a week. When I asked the Prime Minister to do this, as the House may recall, he said he would attempt to do this after asking Mrs Cameron. I intend to table a parliamentary question to see how he fared.
Labelling of food and drinks has improved. All packaged products are required to display a list of fat, saturated fat, calories and carbohydrates in grams, with the percentage of the recommended daily allowance that that constitutes. Many companies, such as Waitrose, have adopted a traffic light system on the front of packaging to allow customers easily to see how healthy a product is by the colour. However, products marketed as low-fat often have a very high sugar content to compensate for the flavour lost in the reduction of fat. A typical low-fat yoghurt contains five teaspoons of sugar, muesli can contain eight teaspoons, a can of coke contains seven teaspoons and a caramel frappuccino sold in cafés near the House contains around 11 teaspoons of sugar. Mr Speaker, could you imagine eating a stack of 11 sugar cubes as you sit in the Chair today, or this week when your and your son Oliver’s beloved Arsenal seek to win their first silverware in nine years? Imagine eating 11 cubes of sugar as you watch that final at Wembley.
I commend newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Express for producing special pull-out charts with information on how many teaspoons of sugar there are in each product. Every household should have such a chart. The main problem with our existing system is that the information on the back of packaging is so small. Unless people are like Gillian McKeith and are attentive to the contents of everything they consume, they are not likely to go around the supermarket with a magnifying glass and a calculator to check the contents of a product. It is not realistic to expect people to work out that one sugar cube weighs around 2.3 grams and to calculate how much sugar a product contains. Sugar labelling with a clear teaspoon sign fills a void that currently exists in people’s understanding. It will expose how much sugar is in each product.
Our country is facing an epidemic as a result of excessive high-sugar diets. People must wake up to the dangers of this addictive and poisonous foodstuff before it is too late. Reforming packaging could help millions of people to improve their health, extend their lives and manage existing medical conditions, and significantly reduce costs to the NHS. Sugar is toxic. It is essential that we act, and I hope the House will support this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Keith Vaz, Caroline Lucas, Mark Durkan, Ann Clwyd, Jim Shannon, Sarah Champion, Dr Julian Huppert, Neil Carmichael, Phil Wilson, Mark Pritchard, Valerie Vaz and Michael Fabricant present the Bill.
Keith Vaz accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 210).
Deregulation Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Table | |
|---|---|
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
First day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the sale of alcohol and amendments to Clauses 45 to 49; amendments to Schedule 18 | 3.00 pm |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to health and safety at work and amendments to Clause 1 | 5.00 pm |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to apprenticeships and amendments to Clauses 3 and 4 and Schedules 1 and 13 | 7.00 pm |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to driving and to roads, railways, tramways and other means of transport and amendments to Clauses 6 to 10 and 30 to 33 and Schedules 2 and 3 and 8 to 10 | Three hours before the moment of interruption |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to TV licensing and amendments to Clauses 51 and 52; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration | One hour before the moment of interruption |
Deregulation Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Part 5A notice | section 110A(2)” |
“relevant licensing authority, in Part 5A | section 110N” |
“relevant person, in Part 5A | section 110D(11)”. |
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003.
Norman Baker
The effect of the new clause is to create a new light-touch form of authorisation for community groups or certain businesses, such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation providers, to sell small amounts of alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003—the new part 5A notice.
It may be helpful to the House if I first give some background and explain the problem that we are trying to solve with the new measure. Last year the Government carried out an extensive public consultation on various proposals in its alcohol strategy. This of course included our efforts to tackle alcohol harms. On that front we have already achieved much. For example, we have reformed the Licensing Act 2003 and introduced new tools and powers to make it easier for local police and licensing authorities to close down problem premises and crack down on alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder.
At the same time, the Government’s public consultation last year recognised that sometimes regulation can be excessive, even needless. No one wants to stop a responsible drinker enjoying a drink responsibly. The Government’s approach is all about balance. We want to free up the police and local enforcement agencies to tackle alcohol harms while giving them greater discretion to manage low-risk alcohol sales. The Government has also made it clear that it wants to cut red tape and pointless regulations, but I stress that that must not be at the expense of necessary safeguards against alcohol harms. This new measure is about striking that balance.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister talks about alcohol harms, about which we are all concerned, but would not the new clause increase the consumption of alcohol rather than reduce it?
Norman Baker
I do not think that it will increase the consumption of alcohol; rather it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and do so in a way that means that alcohol is consumed in low quantities and safely, as I will set out.
Our public consultation last year recognised that the existing alcohol licensing regime is a touch bureaucratic in some respects. For some small voluntary groups and bed-and-breakfast establishments, for example, the existing premises licences and temporary event notices regimes are pointlessly costly and burdensome. The restrictions and scrutiny are disproportionate for their low-level, low-risk needs. The first of these are the community groups with local membership, including charities and not-for-profit organisations, which carry out activities in local areas and wish to sell small amounts of alcohol at small-scale events throughout the year. I should confirm that alcohol provided as part of a ticket price or in return for a donation is usually defined in law as a sale.
We are thinking here of local groups, such as the women’s institutes or local residents’ groups, or the church choir that wants to offer a glass of wine to audience members in the interval, and other groups who hold occasional events, for example, lunches and plays at which they wish to provide very small amounts of alcohol to attendees. Such groups often operate from different venues in their local communities. Groups such as the women’s institutes, thriving church organisations and other local charities are not just about “Jam and Jerusalem”; sometimes they might also be about a glass of warm beer or chilled chardonnay. But refreshments aside, their wider activities are part of the fabric and lifeblood of thriving local communities, which I hope all in this House support. No one wants to tie them down with unnecessary bureaucracy if we can help it.
The existing options for an alcohol licence are often unsuitable in such cases. The cost of obtaining a single premises licence is between £100 and £1,900 a year, with an additional associated cost of obtaining a personal licence of approximately £75. Temporary event notices must be given each time and only a limited number—12 at the moment—can be allowed each year for the same premises to ensure appropriate safeguards against crime and disorder and public nuisance because they provide for larger scale, higher risk events.
The other group we looked at was small businesses that want to sell small amounts of alcohol in a similar low-risk environment as part of a wider service. We specifically have in mind providers of bed and breakfast or other similar overnight accommodation who may wish to offer a glass of wine or a beer to welcome their guests at the end of a long day’s travel or with an evening meal. Even if not charged for directly, this alcohol is in law a sale. The burden of a premises licence in such cases seems to many, including me, to be excessive.
We did consider options such as directly exempting such activity from the licensing process and consulted on other ideas such as greater local discretion on temporary event notices. However, the coalition Government is committed to tackling the harms that alcohol can cause, as I mentioned a moment ago, and recognises the need for important safeguards to guard against those harms and the risk of loopholes. We believed that creating a new tailor-made authorisation was the best option.
In the response to the public consultation on alcohol, we announced our intention to create a new authorisation called the community and ancillary sellers notice. This will be a cheaper, simpler and easier alternative to other types of authorisation, such as a premises licence or using multiple temporary event notices. Since that announcement, we have been working with colleagues across Government to develop the proposal. It has been designed to remove unnecessary licensing burdens and costs for community groups, and for some small businesses in the licensing process, so it is right that it should be part of the Deregulation Bill.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I welcome this sensible deregulatory move. The Minister keeps referring to small amounts of alcohol. Will he define what that refers to?
Norman Baker
I am happy to help my hon. Friend. We are today looking at the principle of the establishment of the scheme, and it is perfectly proper that the detail of that should be subject to consultation, with Members of the House, the Local Government Association and others, and we will not take a firm view on that until the consultation has taken place.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I should be grateful if the Minister updated the House when he gets that. My wife and I have often disagreed on what a small amount of alcohol is. I would be grateful if, on behalf of husbands around the country, I could make her aware of the legal definition.
Norman Baker
I hesitate to intervene in the Perkins household as to what a small amount of alcohol might be. This is a proper matter for consultation. We need to take into account, for example, whether any alcohol consumed could in theory lead to disorder. We would not want that to occur under this regime. We also want to ensure that we do not encourage drink-driving, and so on. Those are the considerations that we will take into account, but we genuinely want to hear from those who respond to the consultation process what they regard as a small amount. It is the principle that we are concerned with today.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am terribly enthusiastic about the Minister’s general all-party, cross-party approach to getting rid of unnecessary regulation. I absolutely agree with him, but I have just come from a meeting of crowdfunders, who are really hurt by the fact that a Government who believe in deregulation have just introduced the regulation of crowdfunding through the Financial Conduct Authority, which is doing great harm to a growing industry.
Norman Baker
That is a bit off my beat, if I may say so. Obviously, the Government believes in regulation where it is appropriate, but it also believes in removing regulation where it is not appropriate, and that is a balance that it tries to strike in what it does.
Getting an authorisation under the new community and ancillary sellers notice will be simple and straightforward for eligible users and for the local licensing authorities. Users will fill out a simple form and send it to the council to notify it of their intentions to provide alcohol under the new notice. The fee, which we want to keep as low as possible, will accompany the notice. Under the provisions, business users or ancillary sellers will need to specify a single premises from which they will be making alcohol sales, and community groups will be able to name up to three premises at which they will be holding events under the notice.
Licensing authorities will be able to reject a notice where it is appropriate on grounds of preventing crime and disorder, preventing public nuisance, promoting public safety, or protecting children from harm.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am interested in what the Minister has to say. Did the drinks industry contribute to the consultation, and was it enthusiastic about or resistant to the new clause?
Norman Baker
The drinks industry responded to the alcohol strategy. It would be astonishing if it had not done so. Obviously, its comments were taken into account, but so were the comments of others who were concerned, for example, about alcohol harms. As I mentioned a moment ago, we tried to strike the correct balance, ensuring that we do not encourage alcohol harm, while removing unnecessary bureaucracy where its removal has no adverse impact.
With regard to the notices, it is also worth pointing out that the local police and environmental health authority will also have a say. If they have concerns, they can say so before such a notice is given, and once an authorisation has been agreed, the notice may be revoked by a similar light-touch process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
How will the law be tightened for holders of licences who sell alcohol to those who are under age, particularly for those who are persistent offenders?
Norman Baker
Let me be clear that this is not an attempt to change the law relating to under-age alcohol sales. The requirements for alcohol sales that apply at present will apply in future. As I mentioned a moment ago, if we find that local police object and that individuals are taking advantage of the process in order to sell alcohol to those who are not entitled to it, obviously that will lead to the licence being revoked, and possibly to criminal action if the police and Crown Prosecution Service so determine.
Kelvin Hopkins
Was there consultation with representatives of those who work in accident and emergency departments on Fridays and Saturdays and who have to put up with people who are seriously inebriated, and often injured, causing terrible problems for the staff?
Norman Baker
There was certainly an open consultation on the alcohol strategy generally. I am well aware of the link between alcohol and violence, as both matters are within my portfolio at the Home Office, but I must stress that this proposal is about very low levels of alcohol being consumed in controlled events and in certain circumstances involving, for example, church choirs and bed-and-breakfast establishments. That is a far cry from the problems we sometimes see on our streets on a Friday or Saturday night. I want to stress that alcohol harm and disorder would in no way be accelerated by this process; quite the reverse. We are simply taking a non-threatening, problem-free alcohol environment and simplifying the bureaucracy that surrounds it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about these matters, but let me assure him that we take alcohol harm very seriously indeed.
Mr Sheerman
On that point—and it is a serious one, as those of us who have campaigned on the wrongful use of alcohol know—there used to be different laws for those who charge for alcohol and those who give it away for free, for example as an act of hospitality in commercial premises. Will that continue, or will it end under this scheme?
Norman Baker
As I mentioned a moment ago, if a bed-and-breakfast establishment offers alcohol to guests when they arrive, that is deemed to be a sale, even if an indirect one, because essentially it is included in the overall price of the overnight accommodation. That is how it is regarded in this legislation.
The provisions allow for other safeguards. Users of the new notice will be responsible persons for the purposes of criminal offences in the Licensing Act 2003, such as the selling of alcohol to children. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As with other authorisations under the 2003 Act, the provisions in the Bill will be underpinned by more detailed regulation, on which the Government will consult.
We also intend such regulations to cover the amount of alcohol that can be sold. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). We intend that a limit on the amount of alcohol that can be given to an adult within 24 hours will generally apply, or an average of that amount for adults attending a community event. Precise limits will be subject to consultation. We want the system to operate in a light-touch, practical way. Details, such as the level of the fee, the qualifying criteria—the types of community groups and the size of businesses, for example—and what discretion licensing authorities will have, will all be matters for regulation, most of which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby giving Members full opportunity to take part in discussions and decisions. We are looking forward to working with key partners on the detail of the measure and are consulting publicly on this.
This is a radical new licensing authorisation that will help to achieve the Government’s aims of helping community groups and particular small businesses while at the same time maintaining important public health and public safety safeguards. I commend it to the House.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister was not with us in Committee and so might not be aware that we had many discussions on how best to characterise the Bill. Was it a rag-bag, a hodge-podge or the Christmas tree Bill to end all Christmas tree Bills? An hon. Friend of mine asserts that although it began as a Christmas tree Bill, it has grown and grown to the point that it now bears a closer resemblance to the Blackpool illuminations. New clause 5 is one such example.
However, given the nature of new clause 5, perhaps a cocktail Bill is a better metaphor. Perhaps it is a particularly strong Cosmopolitan—one that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Or perhaps it is an Old Etonian, which I understand is a mix of gin, bitters and crème de noyaux—guaranteed to leave one with a crashing headache the morning after. That is because the Bill still contains nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis gripping this country, it is still focused more on removing burdens from Ministers and officials than on helping the people and businesses of this country, and it still contains grave attacks on workers’ rights and health.
James Duddridge
I was with the hon. Lady not only in Committee but at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, when I think a broader view was taken. If she does not think that the Bill contains the right deregulatory measures, what would the Opposition bring forward to help solve some of the real problems she is discussing?
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I am sure he is aware, when we heard evidence in Committee we discussed some other options for deregulation. I do not intend to set out our deregulatory programme now—I am sure that you would not consider that to be in order, Mr Deputy Speaker—but I feel that the Opposition have the right, and indeed the duty, to comment on the fact that the entire contribution the Bill will make in savings is estimated to be £10 million over 10 years. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would consider that to be a radical benefit.
New clause 5 and new schedule 1 insert a new part in the Licensing Act 2003 to introduce a new procedure for authorising the sale of alcohol where that sale is part of a community event, as we have heard. The Opposition absolutely believe that it is right to remove unnecessary regulatory and legislative burdens from individuals, civil society, business and public sector organisations, including the Women’s Institute and other organisations to which the Minister referred.
Although we do not oppose the proposal, we have some concerns about which we are seeking assurances from the Minister. In Committee we discussed temporary event notices, the sale of chocolate liqueurs and other minor changes to licensing. Indeed, when we had a short debate on what constitutes a low level of alcohol consumption, I had a flashback to our debate on how many Mars bars’ worth of liqueurs it would take to intoxicate a child. At no stage did the Minister present at the time indicate that the Government were considering introducing what I think—I am sure the Minister will agree—is a large change to a complex licensing regime at this stage.
Introducing changes in that manner has become something of a hallmark of this Government. However, I understand that the Bill was written in draft about a year ago and that long before that Ministers were looking for proposals to put in it, so will the Minister explain why this proposal has been tabled at the last minute? The result is that interested parties have not had the opportunity to scrutinise it. Why the rush? The regime has been in place for 11 years, and although we support the aims of the amendment, we do not feel that the manner of its introduction is warranted. It is not the way to make changes to a complex licensing regime.
Will the Minister assure the House that any secondary regulations that are brought forward as a consequence of these changes will not be introduced in that way? Will he tell the House what consultation was undertaken with licensing authorities, in particular, and whether they support the change? How much time, if any, were they given to respond to it? I note that the Minister spoke of consultation following the consultation on the alcohol strategy, but the Local Government Association was certainly surprised by the inclusion of these proposals in this manner.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) criticised the Government’s overall approach to alcohol. The Minister thought he was criticising the Government’s alcohol strategy, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is very difficult to discern an alcohol strategy to criticise. It is hard to criticise what does not exist, though it is right to criticise the fact that it does not exist. What kind of strategy introduces changes in this piecemeal manner? There is a document on the Government’s website entitled “Alcohol Strategy”, yet it is anything but a strategy. These seemingly random changes, introduced with very little notice, do not give Labour Members or stakeholders outside the House any confidence that Ministers are working hard towards any kind of specific objective or plan.
Kelvin Hopkins
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity when he says that he is concerned about alcohol harm, but I cannot see that as being consistent with this clause, which liberalises alcohol sales and use. It is a deregulatory measure, not a regulatory measure. I am a regulator rather than a deregulator. I believe profoundly in the nanny state where it is going to protect lives, particularly the lives of young people and vulnerable people, as in the case of alcohol.
Britain has a very serious alcohol problem, with appallingly high levels of binge drinking reported only this week, when we were compared very unfavourably with many other countries. We are simply not taking the alcohol problem seriously. It is all very well to say, “Have a drink when you arrive at your bed and breakfast—a little tincture to warm you up for the evening and get you started before you have your bottle of wine with dinner later on”, but it encourages a more relaxed culture of alcohol consumption when we should instead be raising concerns about it. Alcohol liver damage has increased massively in recent years. We have seen rising numbers of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. There is an enormous burden on the national health service, especially in A and E departments at weekends. I wonder what the British Medical Association and the unions representing the staff in those departments feel about this.
Oceans of cheap alcohol are still being sold in supermarkets and bought and consumed illegally by young people, often with the collaboration of older people. These things are still not being addressed seriously. Vast numbers of people are drinking under age. They are being hooked on alcohol young so that they will spend their lives drinking and making more profits for the drinks industry. I am not a spoilsport. I enjoy alcohol myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you may have observed, though not, I hope, to excess. Nevertheless, I am aware of its dangers. Making the culture more liberal and relaxed reduces rather than increases concerns about alcohol and makes us less likely rather than more likely to be self-controlled.
My most serious concern is about the thousands of babies born severely and permanently damaged by alcohol consumed in their mothers’ pregnancy. A more relaxed attitude towards alcohol consumption as regards Women’s Institute functions, going to bed and breakfasts and so on will do nothing to dissuade women who are seeking to become pregnant, or who are pregnant, from consuming alcohol.
The scientific research that I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions shows that even small amounts of alcohol cause damage to babies. If one is drinking oneself, one is causing damage to oneself. Even an alcoholic has a choice about whether to drink, but an unborn baby does not have a choice as to whether its mother does so. This is very unfair on mothers, and on women, but we have to think about the children and what happens to them. We do not even have notices in every maternity clinic giving advice to women not to drink at all if they are seeking to conceive or if they are pregnant, yet apparently—I have not visited one recently—they all have warnings about smoking, which is less dangerous to foetuses than alcohol.
The alcohol culture is being fed into our general culture surreptitiously by the drinks industry. It is ever so nice and cuddly when it talks about these things, but it is actually talking about an addictive drug that causes terrible problems. Providing advice to all women from the age of puberty onwards about the dangers of alcohol to unborn children is absolutely crucial. Until the Government put on every drink canister a warning to women that they should not drink at all during pregnancy—accompanied by a symbol of a pregnant woman, as happens in the United States—I will not be satisfied and will continue to pursue the issue.
We need minimum unit pricing. It is possible, even now, to buy vast quantities of alcohol very cheaply, including 3-litre bottles of cider, in supermarkets. A simple unit price of 50 p per unit would be reasonable. It would have no effect on beer drinkers in pubs or on the average wine drinker, but it would stop oceans of very cheap alcohol being handed to children and others who abuse alcohol.
The Government have to wake up and take alcohol seriously. Although this liberalising measure is cuddly, nice and warm and we all like the idea of women’s institutes having a little wine in the evening—that is fine—what we are actually doing is encouraging more alcohol consumption rather than less, and creating a more relaxed environment and culture for the consumption of alcohol. That is a mistake, given Britain’s serious problem with alcohol.
Norman Baker
Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). If he is going to judge the Government’s alcohol strategy, it is important that he does so in the round, rather than simply assuming that what we are discussing today represents its totality. The reality is that the Government has taken a number of steps to deal with alcohol harms and continues to do so.
The Home Office works in close conjunction with the Department of Health on these matters. We have made it easier for local police to close down problem premises. We have banned sales of alcohol below cost price. We are challenging the industry very firmly to make progress on the sorts of issues referred to by the hon. Gentleman, including the availability of high-strength, cheap 3-litre bottles of cider. I am also pushing the industry on how alcohol is promoted, particularly in supermarkets. We are taking a whole range of actions to try to deal with alcohol harms.
It is important, as part of a sensible strategy, to identify what the problems are and deal with them firmly, but we should not apply the same sledgehammer approach—if one may call it that—to an area where there is no problem, and there is no problem with a women’s institute offering someone a glass of wine. That is what today’s debate is about. The hon. Gentleman needs to judge the strategy in the round rather than assume that this represents its totality, as he appeared to do in his contribution.
Kelvin Hopkins
In all kinds of ways, Britain seems to resist imposing rules that seem restrictive, but in the end we are forced into them. I remember people opposing the wearing of crash helmets on motorcycles, while seat belts were not made compulsory here until years after other countries had done so. I also remember resistance to the breathalyser—it is only Barbara Castle who had a bit more courage and gumption to push it through—but now we recognise that drinking and driving is wrong. Is not the Minister just part of a long tradition of resisting change that will ultimately come about?
Norman Baker
I am in a long tradition of providing pragmatic answers to the problems that present themselves and of responding to them in a measured, rather than over-zealous, way. We have to remember that we have to take people with us—we need to win hearts and minds. I also think that Britain is less authoritarian than many other countries. Some countries appear to be happy for their Governments to direct their way of life more than we do, but people in this country do not like being directed by the Government of the day and it is right that we respect that healthy response.
Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who, unless I am mistaken, does not appear to know that we actually did consult on the alcohol strategy, including a question on the ancillary sellers’ notice, which matured into the provision under discussion. It is not true to say that there has been no consultation on the strategy or the measure, because there has been a consultation.
Chi Onwurah
I did not say that there had been no consultation on the alcohol strategy; I said that no discernible alcohol strategy had come out of it and that the measures were not tabled in Committee or when the Bill was initially submitted.
Norman Baker
With respect, the hon. Lady said both things and the record will show that. There was a consultation, as part of the alcohol strategy, on a new, light-touch authorisation to reduce burdens on ancillary sellers of alcohol. That is what we are discussing this afternoon. It was consulted on, comments were fed back and they have informed the way in which we have taken matters forward.
Kelvin Hopkins
In my defence, I was opposed to what the previous Government did and I raised these matters with the then Secretary of State.
Norman Baker
I am almost tempted to say that that is a compliment, but that goes without saying and the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record for the benefit of the House.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central does not think that much is happening in terms of an alcohol strategy. Perhaps she has not noticed that her own local authority in Newcastle has introduced a late-night levy, which appears to be working rather well. I was very pleased to go there and join local councillors in launching it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time, but once again his ascription to me of a lack of knowledge is not accurate. I am very familiar with Newcastle’s late-night levy. Indeed, I discussed it with the leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, only yesterday evening. In some ways, it is the burden of cuts on local authorities across the country and on the police that makes such levies necessary. In this case, it was businesses in Newcastle that wished to introduce it.
Norman Baker
Indeed they did, and I think they made a very wise decision and that businesses and the public in Newcastle will benefit from the Government’s sensible option of a late-night levy. I hope that other councils up and down the country will follow the example of the hon. Lady’s council and introduce such a levy, which not only helps deal with public disorder, but provides a necessary income stream to recognise the cost of disorder to a particular city.
I appreciate that the hon. Lady’s focus has been on the Deregulation Bill rather than on the subject of alcohol so she will not have had sight of all the issues, but she said that we have blocked the public health licensing objective. That is not true. The matter remains under consideration. The fact is that if she looks at the local alcohol action areas, she will see that they are being used as a pilot for what might be done for public health licensing objectives. I agree that there is a public health issue about alcohol that should be taken into account, but it is not as simple as it is sometimes made out. That matter is being taken forward under the guise of the local alcohol action areas introduced by the Government.
The hon. Lady mentioned fees, and I reiterate that they will be subject to consultation. She wondered whether local councils are out of pocket, and asserted that they are out of pocket as a consequence of handling the present licensing regime. Taking that at face value and assuming she is right for the purpose of this discussion, if that is the case, the introduction of a light-touch regime will divert people from what is—according to her—presumably a loss-making activity for local councils to one that is rather simpler and will therefore reduce the loss for local councils. That is the logic of her position, so I hope that she will welcome the measure on that basis. I confirm that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be a full opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the discussion as the measure is taken forward in a sensible way.
Lastly, I can tell the hon. Member for Luton North that minimum unit pricing remains an option. It is on the radar—it has not been ruled out—and it will be particularly on the radar if the alcohol industry does not respond sensibly to the challenges made by the Government. I commend the new clause to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 1
‘Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003
“Part 5A
sale of alcohol at community events etc and ancillary business sale of alcohol
Conditions for permitted sales
110A General conditions
(1) A sale by retail of alcohol is a permitted sale by virtue of this Part if—
(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations made under that section) or the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations made under that section) are satisfied in relation to it, and
(b) the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) below are satisfied in relation to it.
(2) The sale must take place on premises specified in a notice that complies with section 110D (a “Part 5A notice”).
(3) No counter notice under section 110J must have been given in relation to the Part 5A notice.
(4) The sale must take place during the period of 36 months beginning with the date when the Part 5A notice takes effect.
(5) The sale must take place between 07.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m.
110B Community event conditions
(1) The community event conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (7).
(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that is—
(a) of a prescribed description,
(b) does not trade for profit, and
(c) meets any prescribed criteria.
(3) The sale must be ancillary to an event that—
(a) is taking place on the premises,
(b) is organised by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,
(c) has been advertised in advance, and
(d) meets any prescribed criteria.
(4) The sale must take place on the premises during the course of the event.
(5) The alcohol must be sold for consumption on the premises during the course of the event.
(6) The number of persons present on the premises at the time of the sale must not exceed 300.
(7) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be community event conditions.
110C Ancillary business sales conditions
(1) The ancillary business sales conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (6).
(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that—
(a) is of a prescribed description, and
(b) meets any prescribed criteria.
(3) The sale must take place on premises that—
(a) are managed by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,
(b) are of a prescribed description, and
(c) meet any prescribed criteria.
(4) The sale must be ancillary to the provision of goods or services to a person on the premises where the sale takes place.
(5) Except in prescribed circumstances, the alcohol must be sold for consumption on those premises.
(6) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be ancillary business sales conditions.
Part 5A notices
110D Conditions for validity of notices
(1) A notice complies with this section if the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (10) are satisfied in relation to the notice.
(2) The notice must specify whether—
(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations under that section), or
(b) the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations under that section),
will be satisfied in relation to sales of alcohol on the premises in question.
(3) The notice must specify (for the purposes of section 110A(2))—
(a) in the case of a notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions, the set of premises to which it relates;
(b) in the case of a notice that specifies the community event conditions, no more than three sets of community premises, each of which must be wholly or partly in the area of the same licensing authority.
(4) The notice must be given, on behalf of the body by or on whose behalf the sale of alcohol on the premises would take place, by a person who is aged 18 or over and is concerned in the management of the body.
(5) The notice must be given to the relevant licensing authority, accompanied by the prescribed fee.
(6) Unless the notice is given to the relevant licensing authority by means of a relevant electronic facility, a copy of the notice must be given to each relevant person.
(7) The notice must be in the prescribed form.
(8) The notice must specify the date when it takes effect.
(9) The specified date must be at least 10 working days, but no more than 3 months, after the day on which the notice is given.
Where subsection (6) applies, the notice is treated as given only when that subsection is complied with.
(10) The notice must contain any other information that regulations require it to contain.
(11) In this Part, “relevant person”, in relation to any premises, means—
(a) the chief officer of police for any police area in which the premises are situated;
(b) the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health.
110E Special restriction on giving of notices
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Part 5A notice is given on behalf of a body, and
(b) a counter notice under section 110J is given in relation to the Part 5A notice.
(2) No further Part 5A notice may be given in respect of any premises specified in the notice, whether on behalf of that body or on behalf of another body that is an associate of it, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the counter notice is given.
(3) However, the restriction in subsection (2) ceases to apply if the counter notice is revoked under section 110K or quashed by a court.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a body is an associate of another body if it would be an associate of the other body for the purposes of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (see section 32(4) to (6) of that Act).
110F Date when Part 5A notice takes effect
(1) A Part 5A notice takes effect on the date specified under section 110D(8).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a counter notice is given under section 110J in relation to the notice.
(For the case where a counter notice is revoked or quashed by a court, see section 110K(2).)
110G Acknowledgement of notice etc
(1) This section applies where a relevant licensing authority receives a notice that is, or purports to be, a Part 5A notice.
(2) The authority must give written acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice to the person who gave it.
(3) The acknowledgment must be given—
(a) before the end of the first working day following the day on which it was received, or
(b) if the day on which it was received was not a working day, before the end of the second working day following that day.
(4) If the licensing authority is of the opinion that the notice does not comply with section 110D, the authority must as soon as possible give to the person who gave the notice written notification of the reasons for its opinion.
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the time by which acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice must be given in accordance with subsection (3), the person who gave the notice has been given a counter notice under section 110J.
110H Theft, loss etc of Part 5A notice
(1) Where a Part 5A notice is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, the person who gave the notice may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a copy of the notice.
(2) The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
(3) Where an application is made in accordance with this section, the licensing authority must issue the applicant with a copy of the notice (certified by the authority to be a true copy) if it is satisfied that the notice has been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.
(4) This Act applies in relation to a copy issued under this section as it applies in relation to an original notice.
Objections and counter notices
110I Objection to Part 5A notice by a relevant person
(1) Where a relevant person who is given a Part 5A notice is satisfied that allowing alcohol to be sold on the premises (or any of the premises) to which the notice relates would undermine a licensing objective, the relevant person must give a notice stating the reasons for being so satisfied (an “objection notice”)—
(a) to the relevant licensing authority,
(b) to the person who gave the Part 5A notice, and
(c) to every other relevant person.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply at any time after the relevant person has received a copy of a counter notice under section 110J in relation to the Part 5A notice.
(3) An objection notice may be given only during the period beginning with the day on which the relevant person is given the Part 5A notice and ending with the third working day following that day (“the three-day period”).
(4) The restriction in subsection (3) does not apply to an objection notice based on—
(a) things occurring after the end of the three-day period, or
(b) information that the relevant person was unaware of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, until after the end of that period.
110J Counter notices
(1) Where a relevant licensing authority receives a Part 5A notice, the relevant licensing authority may—
(a) give the person who gave the Part 5A notice a counter notice under this section;
(b) give a copy of the counter notice to each relevant person.
(2) Where the relevant licensing authority receives an objection notice given in compliance with the requirement imposed by section 110I(3), the relevant licensing authority must decide whether to give a counter notice (and, if it does so decide, give that notice) no later than whichever of the following is the earlier—
(a) the day before the date when the Part 5A would take effect (see section 110D(8));
(b) the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the objection notice is received by the relevant licensing authority.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised at any time after the Part 5A notice takes effect unless an objection notice under section 110I has been given, by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, in relation to the notice.
(4) The counter notice must—
(a) be in the prescribed form, and
(b) be given in the prescribed manner.
110K Counter notices: revocation etc
(1) A relevant licensing authority must revoke a counter notice given under section 110J if—
(a) the counter notice was given in consequence of one or more objection notices under section 110I, and
(b) the objection notice or (as the case may be) each of them is withdrawn by the person who gave it or is quashed by a court.
(2) Where a counter notice is revoked or is quashed by a court—
(a) the counter notice is disregarded for the purposes of section 110A(3), except in relation to any time before the day on which it is revoked or quashed,
(b) the Part 5A notice takes effect on that day, and
(c) the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible notify the person who gave the Part 5A notice of the date on which it takes effect.
Rights of entry, production of notice, etc
110L Right of entry where Part 5A notice given
(1) A constable or an authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, enter premises to which a Part 5A notice relates to assess the likely effect of the notice on the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
(2) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by this section must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.
(3) It is an offence intentionally to obstruct an authorised officer exercising a power conferred by this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(5) In this section “authorised officer” means—
(a) an officer of the licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated, or
(b) if the premises are situated in the area of more than one licensing authority, an officer of any of those authorities,
authorised for the purposes of this Act.
110M Duty to keep and produce Part 5A notice
(1) This section applies whenever premises are being used for sales of alcohol which are, or are purported to be, permitted sales by virtue of this Part.
(2) The person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a copy of the notice is either—
(a) prominently displayed at the premises, or
(b) kept at the premises in the custody of that person or of someone who is present and working at the premises and whom that person has nominated for the purposes of this section (a “nominated person”).
(3) Where a copy of the Part 5A notice is kept in the custody of a nominated person (and not prominently displayed at the premises) the person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a notice—
(a) stating that the Part 5A notice is in the nominated person’s custody, and
(b) specifying the position held at the premises by the nominated person,
is prominently displayed at the premises.
(4) It is an offence for the person who gave the Part 5A notice to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (2) or (where it applies) subsection (3).
(5) Where—
(a) a copy of the Part 5A notice is not prominently displayed at the premises, and
(b) no notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3),
a constable or authorised officer may require the person who gave the Part 5A notice to produce a copy of it for examination.
(6) Where a notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3), a constable or authorised officer may require the nominated person to produce a copy of the Part 5A notice for examination.
(7) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) or (6) must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.
(8) It is an offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to produce a copy of a Part 5A notice in accordance with a requirement under subsection (5) or (6).
(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(10) In this section “authorised officer” has the meaning given in section 110L(5).
Supplementary
110N The relevant licensing authority
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the “relevant licensing authority”, in relation to any premises, is determined in accordance with this section.
(2) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions or in the case of Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to only one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is, subject to subsection (3), the authority in whose area the premises are situated.
(3) Where the premises are situated in the areas of two or more licensing authorities, the relevant licensing authority is—
(a) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or
(b) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of the authorities as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.
(4) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to more than one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is—
(a) if there is only one licensing authority in whose area each set of premises is wholly or partly situated, that licensing authority;
(b) if each set of premises falls partly in the area of one authority and also partly in the area of another, such one of them as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.”’.—(Norman Baker.)
This amendment inserts the new Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003 (see the explanatory statement to amendment NC5).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Schedule 18
Legislation no longer of practical use
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
I beg to move amendment 58, page 157, line 11, at end insert—
‘Mining Industry Act 1920 (c. 50)
3A The Mining Industry Act 1920 is repealed.
3B In consequence of paragraph 3A, in Schedule 4 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, omit the entry for the Mining Industry Act 1920.
Mining Industry Act 1926 (c. 28)
3C (1) In the Mining Industry Act 1926, omit section 20 (which confers power on coal-mining companies to establish profit sharing schemes irrespective of the terms of their articles of association).
(2) The repeal made by sub-paragraph (1) is to have no effect in relation to any scheme still in existence that was established, and is being carried on, in reliance on the power conferred by section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 75 and 59.
Amendment 4, page 162, line 22, at end insert—
Part 7A
Civil Law
Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)
34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.
The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly-used provision.
Government amendment 60.
Amendment 73, page 163, line 12, at end insert—
‘Part 9 Communications
Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988
37 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
38 Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Reception and re-transmission of wireless broadcast by cable) is revoked.’.
Section 73 was introduced in the 1980s to encourage cable roll-out as a competing platform to terrestrial (analogue) television. This has clearly now been achieved and cable is a highly-effective and well-resourced competitor to Sky and Freeview.
The Solicitor-General
This group contains amendments to schedule 18, which makes provision for repealing legislation that is no longer of practical use. Before I outline the amendments, may I say how much I welcome re-encountering the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whose very helpful and constructive approach in Committee has improved the Bill?
The Mining Industry Act 1920 and section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926 will be repealed as they are no longer needed for mining and quarrying. Most of the Mining Industry Act 1920 has already been repealed, and we now seek to repeal the remaining provisions. That will not affect rights to ownership. The remaining sections are outdated administrative arrangements. For example, functions were originally conferred on the Board of Trade, but were long ago transferred to the Secretary of State through a transfer of functions. Sections 18 and 22 concern the powers to make drainage schemes for groups of mines, but they are now dealt with by negotiations between mine owners and other local landowners. Sections 25 and 26 are technical provisions.
Overall, the only matter that needs to be mentioned is section 20 of the 1926 Act, which provides for the establishment of profit-sharing schemes. It of course pre-dates the nationalisation and privatisation of the coal mining industry, as well as modern companies legislation. Such legislation should apply to coal mining companies in the same way as it applies to any others, so there is no need for any special provision. However, the amendment contains a saving provision, because it would clearly not be fair to undermine any existing profit-sharing schemes, and they will be allowed to continue.
Most of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has already been repealed. Section 37, which relates to the licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities, disapplies the requirements of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. That Act has already been repealed, so the saving provision is no longer of any practical effect.
Amendment 59 will extend the repeal of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985 to Northern Ireland. EU legislation in 1984 set up a system of production—the milk quota system—in which, in essence, each producer was allocated a quota. That will end on 31 March 2015, so the underlying EU legislation will cease to be effective next April. The amendment will allow the Bill to repeal and revoke all relevant UK legislation relating to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.
Amendment 60 will ensure that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 will cease to have effect in England, although it will continue to apply in Wales. The saving provision has become redundant in England. Essentially, sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980, which have been repealed, enabled landlords to grant assured tenancies for newly built or newly repaired dwellings. The vast majority of tenancies were converted in 1989 into new style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Sections 56 to 58 were repealed subject to a saving provision, which is now being abolished because there are no longer any assured tenancies under the 1980 Act in existence in England, and it is therefore redundant.
To turn to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would require the Government to revoke section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for raising that important issue. The effect of section 73 is that public service broadcasters cannot charge cable services for the inclusion of their channels on these services.
Section 73 is part of a much wider framework supporting the availability of television and investment in television programming in the UK. A variety of rules and regulations affect the production, availability and ease of discovery of public service programming and its relationship with the different platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—that carry it. They include the obligations on public service broadcasters to offer their content to all relevant platforms, the rules governing payments by broadcasters for technical platform services and the powers for regulators to compel these services to carry public service broadcast content.
This is an area with many competing interests. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced a policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” last year. The Government stated that their policy objective was zero net charges, where fees for access to the main platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—would be cancelled out by charges made by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so creating a zero net charge regime. That is close to the current market position, and it recognises the benefits to platforms, public service broadcasters and consumers.
Section 73 is an integral part of that picture, but the arrangement is under pressure. Online services rely on section 73 to exploit public service broadcaster content, but no benefit flows back to the public service broadcaster.
The Solicitor-General
There is litigation about that at present and my hon. Friend, who is right to raise the issue, will know that a case about to be heard in the Court of Appeal has a bearing on the issue. Because the case is sub judice, I cannot say much more about it, but it would be wrong to impose timetables for resolving the issues as regards satellite and cable without taking into account the situation—once it is definitive—as regards online services. I will obviously listen to my hon. Friend’s arguments, but he might want to think about whether the Government are right to wait for the decision from the Court of Appeal before taking action that might not be appropriate.
Philip Davies
The problem is that the litigation has been going on for four years already. Of course there are competing interests, but does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that section 73 was created in the 1980s, when the Government wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network? Given that that policy objective has been achieved, the section should surely be repealed.
The Solicitor-General
I agree to a considerable extent with the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is no question that the legislation was introduced to help cable roll-out. However, it is the definition of a cable service that is at issue in the Court of Appeal case. It is correct that it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point, where the Court of Appeal will soon be able to list the case and, hopefully, determine it. Having waited for that period for a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to act in haste and perhaps repent at leisure. I will be interested to hear his remarks and I think that there will be time for him to make them—I hope so, anyway.
I am pleased to announce that the Government will support the defamation amendment—amendment 4. It is a sensible amendment. As the House will be aware, the Government have made a commitment to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. Their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 stated that
“repealing Section 13 would be the wisest course of action”
and that the Government
“intends to do so when Parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allows.”
There has long been discussion about the provision. The 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that section 13 be repealed. The Government agree with the conclusion of those Committees that section 13 is at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, which it is the privilege of this House as a whole to enjoy, not just individual Members. Section 13 also creates an imbalance, because one party to a proceeding may choose to use the parliamentary record when the other party does not wish that to happen. The provision has never been used and it creates an anomaly. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept amendment 4.
Chi Onwurah
I echo the pleasure that was expressed by the Solicitor-General at the reunion of the team that had so many lively and, at times, constructive debates in Committee.
The Opposition do not oppose Government amendments 58, 75, 59 and 60. However, I would like to make a small point about process. Will the Solicitor-General clarify for the House why time is being spent on removing obsolete legislation in parallel with the Law Commission’s statute law repeal programme? Given the resources available, the Law Commission’s work has been of a very high quality. We finished the Committee stage of the Bill with but seven minutes to spare, as the Solicitor-General will well remember, and we will not have time to discuss all the amendments we would like to discuss on Report.
The Solicitor-General
I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the Law Commission does a fantastic job. It is preparing the measures that she mentions. That does not mean that if a Department knows that it has a piece of redundant or useless legislation, it cannot ask the House to get rid of it. There is not an either/or choice; we can do both.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Solicitor-General for that clarification. However, I think that the House should focus on that which will make the most difference to our constituents and the cost of living crisis. We should not seek to work in parallel with the Law Commission. However, I take his point. Although I am sad to see the repeal of the Mining Industry Act 1920 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, I agree with him that they do not serve a useful purpose at this time. It seems that this Tory Government are tidying up the last bits of mess that were left by the last one in undermining those great industries. I agree that, at this stage, those Acts perform no purpose.
We have some sympathy with amendment 73 on copyright, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We only wish that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport showed as much focus on the long-term future of the communications industry as the hon. Gentleman. As the Solicitor-General said, it is an anomaly that the BBC and other public service broadcasters have to pay cable companies for the transmission of their programmes, which so many of us enjoy. I should declare an interest because I served for six years at Ofcom, which regulates all the companies concerned.
It is impossible to explain to anyone outside the industry why it is not the Pay-TV companies that pay the BBC and ITV to carry their great content, but the BBC and ITV who pay the Pay-TV companies to do so. That cannot be right. We are glad that the discussions that the Solicitor-General mentioned have resulted in reductions in transmission fees to net zero. However, we do not feel that net zero is good enough. Public service broadcasters create fantastic, valuable and creative content that is the envy of the world, and they should be paid for it.
The Solicitor-General said that the legislation is complex and we recognise that. However, we question what work the Government are doing in this area. They dropped their communications Green Paper two years ago. Since then, we have had no meaningful communications strategy, even though the industry is critical to our economic and cultural future. There does not appear to be any work going on in the area now. The policy paper that the Solicitor-General mentioned so enthusiastically, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, does not look into the future in any meaningful way. I remind the House that Labour’s Communications Act 2003 looked 10 years into the future.
Chi Onwurah
As my hon. Friend says, it was forward thinking. However, those 10 years have elapsed and we are left bereft of a long-term strategy. With no communications Green Paper and no communications strategy, is it any wonder that it is left to Members such as the hon. Member for Shipley to raise such key issues? Having said that, we are not confident, given the lack of strategy and long-term vision, that the Government would have a handle on the impact of repealing this measure. We therefore find it difficult to support amendment 73.
I will turn briefly to amendment 4 on defamation. As the Solicitor-General said, it has cross-party support and it appears to be sensible, so we will support it.
Philip Davies
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and I am grateful for her kind words. From what she said I understood that there is overall, general support—if perhaps not specific support—for my point. This is the second day running on which my amendments seem to have had more support from the Labour Front Bench than from the Government Front Bench—a rather uncomfortable position in which to find myself, but I am grateful nevertheless.
I will speak briefly because time is limited and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) wishes to contribute. Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was created in the 1980s, when the Government—understandably—wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network to stimulate competition with terrestrial TV. That was a noble aim, but it has been achieved. The cable network now reaches half the population, and there is fierce inter-platform competition between pay-TV platforms and free-to-air TV platforms. It is therefore clear that section 73 is completely outdated and not achieving the purpose for which it was intended. That purpose has already been achieved, so the measure needs to be repealed.
Since cable TV derives even greater value from public service content, and delivers less and less in return as more adverts are skipped on pay TV, section 73 is preventing the normal commercial response, which would be to commercially negotiate the supply of content, putting at risk investment in the programmes that people want to see. Why should public service broadcasters, which are investing heavily in the UK’s creative economy, subsidise the business models of large global companies such as Liberty Global? That is clearly not fair. The litigation that the Solicitor-General mentioned has already taken four years and could still take a while longer, and I am not sure that we can afford to sit back and wait more years, while the issue is kicked into the long grass in such a way. Under the Communications Act 2003, public service broadcasters must, under their current licences, offer their public service broadcast channels to cable and satellite platforms so that consumers will not lose out if that is repealed.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, the Opposition have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but we were not clear whether it means that things would be opened up for negotiation—whether or not to pay; how much to pay—or whether no payments and no broadcasting would be possible. That is our uncertainty.
Philip Davies
It would enable a normal commercial arrangement to be reached, but it would not do anything to stop the terms of the Communications Act 2003, under which broadcasters must offer their public service broadcasting channels to cable and satellite platforms. That would still be the case, but the amendment would enable a commercial negotiation to take place, which would be fair to both parties. Otherwise, the situation works for neither party; it is to everybody’s advantage that an agreement is reached. Terrestrial broadcasters want their content on cable, and cable wants that content out there, so there is reason for reaching an agreement.
The Solicitor-General
I am carefully following my hon. Friend’s logic and he is looking at two aspects: pay TV and satellite. The fastest-growing area, however, is online, which is what the court case is about. Does he recognise that it would be a mistake to leave matters on the basis he suggests, without taking account of the online position? That needs to be tackled once we know the court decision.
Philip Davies
All these matters need to be tackled, and my amendment seeks to say just that to the Government. The problem is that they are not being tackled and are causing an unfair disadvantage to public service broadcasters. That is my point. Pay-TV companies are charging monthly subscriptions for access to pay TV, when most of the viewing is on public service broadcasting channels, which are an essential part of the offer being made. For example, ITV invests around £1 billion a year on programming, the majority of which is original UK content, driving UK economic growth and provided free to viewers at no cost to the taxpayer. Continuing to do that depends on its being able to make a commercial return on its investment, which at the moment it does not.
Section 73 currently allows platforms and online operators to extract increasing amounts of value from free-to-air content, with no return to investors, rightsholders and talent, or the UK creative economy. Those platforms are perfectly happy to pay for other channels on ITV, such as ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4, through normal commercial negotiations, so it is hard to understand why they would not also be prepared to do that for the main channel. Section 73 of the 1988 Act is completely outdated and does a great disservice to public service broadcasters. It has created unfair terms and conditions for public service broadcasters, and even if the Government do not accept my amendment, I hope that they will consider the issue and come back soon with proposals to deal with this serious anomaly concerning cable TV and online content.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I will not speak for long as I am aware that one of my former colleagues, a fellow survivor of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), also wishes to contribute.
On behalf of Members across the House, I thank the Clerks for their assistance on the Committee, particularly Liam Laurence Smyth, the Clerk of the Journals, who so skilfully kept most members of the Committee in order. I felt quite intimidated as a member of that Committee because we had such august parliamentarians as the hon. Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)—now promoted to shadow Education Secretary—and of course yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, the most able member of the Joint Committee, who ensured that we kept things right.
Amendment 4 stands in my name and those of the hon. Member for Stone and others, and—as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, having served on the Committee—it is the second attempt by a Joint Committee to get this legislation removed from the statute book.
Briefly, back in the mid-1990s, Mr Neil Hamilton, then a Member of Parliament, was seeking to sue The Guardian for defamation over what turned out to be true allegations about his cash links with Mohamed Al-Fayed. As I am sure the whole House knows, under parliamentary privilege Members are not allowed to use parliamentary proceedings in a civil or criminal case. Mr Hamilton persuaded the then Conservative Government to introduce a clause that allowed a Member of Parliament to waive their privilege, so that they could use parliamentary proceedings as evidence in a defamation case when suing a newspaper. However, it was done in such a way that a newspaper could not also seek to have parliamentary privilege waived. That created an unfair playing field and, frankly, was done to help Mr Hamilton, who it then turned out was a liar and a crook—that is probably why he is a member of UKIP these days. The Joint Committee in 1999 and again last year recommended that the measure be taken out of statute because it was unfair on newspapers and an abuse of privilege.
Obviously, the amendment is supported by the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) made clear our support last Thursday during the debate on parliamentary privilege. I welcome the fact that the names of the Solicitor-General and the Deputy Leader of the House now appear next to the amendment. I assume that they speak for both parts of the coalition and that the Government will be addressing the issue. To conclude, this is about silly legislation that should never have been introduced, and I welcome the fact that the Government are taking the Joint Committee’s recommendation on board.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your service on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege along with me and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), not to mention the litany of others—the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned them, so I do not need to. Amendment 4 is necessary, and I will refer to articles 163 to 170 of the Committee’s report, which include our recommendations for the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, just to get that on the record and make it easier for people to follow what is being said—we do not have much time to go into all the ins and outs.
The hon. Gentleman has explained the background to this issue, but I will add one or two further points. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General stated, the proposal was endorsed by the 1999 Joint Committee, and most recently by the 2013 Joint Committee, in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker. The 1999 Joint Committee stated that,
“the enactment of section 13, seeking to remedy a perceived injustice, had created indefensible anomalies of its own which should not be allowed to continue”.
That is why it recommended that section 13 be repealed. The fundamental flaw identified by the 1999 Joint Committee was that,
“the section undermined the basis of privilege: freedom of speech was the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual Member in his or her own right, although an individual Member could assert and rely on it.”
The 1999 Committee noted that,
“the anomaly that section 13 was available only in defamation proceedings and not in any other form of civil action”
or criminal action. The Committee pointed out that,
“since the exercise of section 13 is a matter of individual choice, where two people are involved in the same action, one may choose to waive privilege and another may not.”
The 1999 Committee recommend that,
“the mischief sought to be remedied by section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 should be cured by a different means: the replacement of section 13 with a short statutory provision empowering each House to waive Article 9 for the purpose of any court proceedings, whether relating to defamation or to any other matter, where the words spoken or the acts done in proceedings in Parliament would not expose the speaker of the words or the doer of the acts to any legal liability.”
That approach was supported by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and by Dr Adam Tucker and Geoffrey Lock, a former head of the research division in the House of Commons Library.
The Newspaper Society opposed any discretionary power to waive privilege, the use of which would be unpredictable and retrospective. It argued that,
“the power of waiver could create a chilling effect, by the mere threat or possibility of its use, which would be detrimental to openness of debate and press reporting of proceedings in Parliament.”
In its response to the Government consultation, the legislative council of Western Australia argued that,
“it was preferable for privilege not to be waived for any reason, in order to avoid the potential for the waiver being used for purely political purposes.”
Our Clerk of the House of Commons, the distinguished Sir Robert Rogers, who is sadly retiring, told us that his preference would be for the repeal of section 13, “without replacement”. The Media Lawyers Association took the same view.
In evidence, the Government told the 2013 Committee:
“There are clearly problems with Section 13 of the Defamation Act. It is at odds with the principle that freedom of speech is a privilege of the House, not just individual members and it can create an imbalance where one party to proceedings can choose to use the parliamentary record but the other cannot.”
At that time, the Government told us that,
“the Government is not aware of any instances in which anyone has used the power of waiver and as such it would not appear to be a pressing priority to repeal Section 13.”
On reflection, the Government have decided that repealing section 13 is a good idea. We are grateful to them for following our recommendation.
I ought to say that, initially, there was an attempt to include the proposal in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill but, as a result of consultation, members of the Committee agreed that it was better to include it in the Deregulation Bill, which is why we are debating it. The Committee recommends the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. That is all I have to say for the time being.
The Solicitor-General
I commend the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He summarised the position extremely well and I am glad that the proposal is going ahead.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the Government will bring forward proposals for consultation when the court case, which is set down for later this year, has concluded. I ask him not to press his amendment to a Division on the basis that the Government are taking the issue seriously.
In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the coherent strategy set out in the connectivity paper covers all the main issues: electronic programme guides, PSB prominence, bundling, switching off content, zero net fees, investment policy, child protection on the internet, internet access and comprehensive programme issues. It is a proper document, and she unfairly belittled it.
The only other point I wanted to make before commending the amendments is on the Law Commission, which does a marvellous job. I should like to put on the record the Government’s gratitude to Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, who heads it, and all the people who work for it. It is a marvellous institution.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Schedule 18
Legislation no longer of practical use
Amendments made: 75, page 159, line 32, at end insert—
‘Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (c. 12)
The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 is repealed.’.
This amendment repeals the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in the United Kingdom. The only operative provision is section 37. Section 37 provides for the disapplication of the requirements of the Coast Protection Act 1949, which has been repealed.
Amendment 59, page 162, line 2, at end insert—
‘The Milk (Cessation of Production) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/958 (N.I. 9)) is revoked.’.
This amendment revokes the Milk (Cessation of Production) ( Northern Ireland) Order 1985. All schemes made under this Order were revoked in 2007, and it is not intended to make any further schemes under it. The underlying European milk quota system is intended to cease with effect from 31 March 2015.
Amendment 4, page 162, line 22, at end insert—
Part 7A
Civil Law
Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)
34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.
The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly used provision.
Amendment 60, page 163, line 12, at end insert—
Part 9
Housing
Housing Act 1988 (c. 50)
36 (1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 (saving provision in respect of repeal of sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980) ceases to have effect in relation to tenancies of dwelling-houses in England.
(2) Accordingly, in that paragraph of that Schedule, after “tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.’.—(Oliver Heald.)
This amendment provides that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 ceases to have effect in relation to tenancies of dwelling-houses in England (and so will continue only for Wales). This is because no assured tenancies under section 56 of the Housing Act 1980 remain in existence for England.
New Clause 2
Requirements to wear safety helmets: exemption for Sikhs: Northern Ireland
‘(1) Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/246) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8).
(2) In paragraph (1), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
(3) In paragraph (2), in sub-paragraph (a), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
(4) In paragraph (5), in the opening words, for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
(5) After paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) This Article does not apply to a Sikh who—
(a) works, or is training to work, in an occupation that involves (to any extent) providing an urgent response to fire, riot or other hazardous situations, and
(b) is at the workplace—
(i) to provide such a response in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury, or
(ii) to receive training in how to provide such a response in circumstances of that kind.
(6B) This Article also does not apply to a Sikh who—
(a) is a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a person providing support to Her Majesty’s forces, and
(b) is at the workplace—
(i) to take part in a military operation in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury, or
(ii) to receive training in how to take part in such an operation in circumstances of that kind.”
(6) In paragraph (7)—
(a) omit the definitions of “building operations”, “works of engineering construction” and “construction site”;
(b) before the definition of “injury”, insert—
““Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006;”;
(c) at the end insert—
““workplace” means any premises where work is being undertaken, including premises occupied or normally occupied as a private dwelling; and “premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft,
(b) any installation (including a floating installation or one resting on the seabed or its subsoil or on other land covered with water or its subsoil), and
(c) any tent or moveable structure.”
(7) In paragraph (8), in sub-paragraph (b), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.
(8) In the heading, for “on construction sites” substitute “at workplaces”.
(9) Article 13A of that Order (protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with requirements as to wearing of safety helmets) is amended as follows.
(10) In paragraph (1)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “on such a site” substitute “at such a workplace”.
(11) In paragraph (3), for “Paragraphs (7) and (8)” substitute “Paragraphs (6A) to (8)”.’.—(Oliver Heald.)
This new clause extends the scope of the exemption under Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, currently limited to construction sites, so that turban-wearing Sikhs will be exempt from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet in a workplace of any kind (subject to exceptions set out in Article 13(6A) and (6B), as amended).
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.
The Solicitor-General
New clause 2 deals with the wearing of safety helmets by the Sikh community in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to extend the provision in the Bill to Sikhs in Northern Ireland. We discussed the issue in Committee and it was hoped that it would be possible to introduce such a measure. Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet while on a construction site. It also protects employers from liability should a Sikh suffer injuries as a consequence of choosing not to wear a helmet. The new clause extends the scope of the exemption to all workplaces, subject to certain very narrow exclusions, and extends the limited liability provisions associated with the exemption for other persons, such as employers.
The exemption in the 1990 order was limited to construction sites because, at the time, only workers in the construction industry were mandated to wear safety helmets. Legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets have since developed and now extend to a number of other industries in which a risk assessment identifies the need for specialist head protection.
There are certain jobs and industries in which the wearing of a turban may come into conflict with legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets or other coverings. Employers in non-construction sectors must therefore balance their obligation to protect the health and safety of their employees against their duty not to discriminate against a turban-wearing Sikh employee on the grounds of religion or race.
Philip Davies
Surely one of the cornerstones of British law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. Either people should have to wear helmets for safety reasons or they should not. If a Sikh can decide not to wear a safety helmet on religious grounds, why cannot other workers decide not to wear them on grounds that they choose for themselves? Why should we have different laws for different people in this country? Many people find that troubling and offensive.
The Solicitor-General
An important history and a religious ethic applicable only to Sikhs are involved in this matter. It is a religious tenet for a Sikh male to wear a turban—that is not true of other religions. It is therefore a special circumstance. While addressing that, I should say what a great contribution the Sikh community makes in our country. Sikhs should be free to practise their religion and that central tenet of it. In certain circumstances, it would be wrong to allow a person not to wear their helmet because of the extreme danger involved—for example, when a fireman goes into a burning building. The circumstances where this provision cannot be followed are very narrow.
Mr Speaker
It is very generous of the Minister to offer the opportunity of a break in the proceedings. It would be churlish of me turn down his offer.
The Solicitor-General
Knowing that the House wants to know the answer, I give way. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
We are grateful to the Minister, particularly for his sensitivity to the sensibilities of colleagues.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Select Committee on Defence: 479 votes were cast, with one spoilt ballot paper. The counting went to seven stages and 438 valid votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 220 votes. Mr Rory Stewart was elected Chair, with 226 votes. The other candidate in that round was Dr Julian Lewis, who received 212 votes. Rory Stewart will take up his post immediately.
May I be the first, on behalf of all colleagues in the House, warmly to congratulate the hon. Gentleman? I am sure I speak for all colleagues when I thank all the other candidates who took part in the election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on both the intranet and the internet for public viewing.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to say a huge thank you. It has been an enormous privilege to stand alongside colleagues who have approached this in such a collegiate and kind fashion. I have so much to learn from them. I am a very young and inexperienced new Member and this is a very great honour. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity, perhaps on behalf of all of my colleagues, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on his great success and undertake, as far as I can on behalf of those of us who are members of the Committee, to serve loyally behind him in the months that lie ahead? I thank the Clerks of the House, who carried out the election with absolutely immaculate efficiency.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman. His remarks are typically gracious and I think will be acknowledged by the House. If there are no further colleagues wishing to detain the House—they are very welcome to do so in exceptional circumstances, but if they do not choose to do so it is best that we move on. I thank the Minister, who is always sensitive to the atmosphere in the House.
Mr Brazier
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have made the generous offer, Mr Speaker, it falls to those of us who are sitting members of the Committee and competitors to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on a remarkable victory and say how much we will enjoy serving under him.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be a shame not to join the party. I can only thank all those who supported me, congratulate the winner, commiserate with the other hon. Members who stood and say that I am very sorry for whoever it was who hoped to replace me on the Intelligence and Security Committee—[Laughter.] They will have to wait a little longer.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman. With that, I think we should now return to the business of the House. I call the Minister, Oliver Heald, to continue his oration.
Deregulation Bill
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Solicitor-General
I echo the good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and commiserate with the worthy runners up.
On the Opposition’s amendment 72 to clause 1, the effect of clause 1 is to exempt self-employed persons from health and safety law, except those on a prescribed list of activities, which is to be laid in regulations.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I believe that a draft list was given to Members in Committee. I tried to obtain it in the Library, but was told that it is not available until the consultation starts. Would it be possible to at least have a copy of what was given to the Committee?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, I am sure that that would be possible. I am looking to the Box and to my Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind me to see whether that can be achieved. A list was certainly provided. It is not definitive. It was produced on the basis that regulations would be produced and in place by the time of Royal Assent, that there would be proper consultation, and that the Health and Safety Executive would be involved. The idea is that the House has an opportunity to see them and that there is proper consultation on them.
The Government believe that we should reduce the number of administrative hoops that self-employed people have to jump through to free them up to continue to do their jobs unhindered and to continue to contribute to the UK’s economic growth. Currently, section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on every self-employed person to have regard to, and protect against, the risks that their undertaking creates both to themselves and others, regardless of the type of activity they are undertaking.
Toby Perkins
Will the Minister expand on what the hoops are that self-employed people will no longer have to jump through? In practical terms, for any self-employed person who has the time or inclination to watch the debate, what is it that they will no longer have to do that they would previously have found so burdensome and obstructive to their responsibilities?
The Solicitor-General
I will come on to that in a moment. Let me just say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that the prescribed list of undertakings has been compiled to include high hazard industries or activities. They will be prescribed if one of four criteria is met: where there are high numbers of self-employed people in a particular industry with high rates of injuries or fatalities, for example agriculture; where there is significant risk to members of the public, for example fairgrounds; where there is potential for mass fatalities from, for example, explosives, fireworks and so on; and where there is a European obligation to retain the general duty on self-employed persons, for example in construction, where there is a Council directive imposing duties on the self-employed. That is the nature of the way the list is being compiled.
In answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), at the moment, a self-employed accountant or an author working at home would be under a duty to carry out a risk assessment. He said in Committee that that would be a quick and easy thing to do, but the point is that every self-employed person in the country—we are talking about millions of people—has that duty. The perception that they have an onerous burden on them was identified by Professor Löfstedt at King’s College, the leading expert in risk assessment, who was asked to examine this for the Government. The amendment seeks to limit the number of self-employed persons covered by section 3(2) of the 1974 Act. The change would mean that only self-employed persons who conduct an undertaking of a prescribed description would be covered by the duty. That is what the regulations will prescribe.
The change has been proposed as a result of the recommendations of Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in his report, “Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety legislation”, which was published in 2011. He recommended that self-employed persons be exempt from health and safety law where they pose no potential risk of harm to others through their work activity.
“Prescribed” is defined by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to mean prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. This clause therefore enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purposes of bringing self-employed persons within the scope of section 3(2), where their undertaking poses a significant risk of harm. Committee members will have seen a list of prescribed undertakings, which will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary procedure. The list is designed to strike a careful balance between the need to free self-employed people from unnecessary burdens while still providing the important protections to those who need them. The clause was debated in Committee, and the Committee voted for it. I thus urge the hon. Member for Chesterfield and his colleagues not to press the amendment and I urge Members to accept Government new clause 2.
Toby Perkins
I am pleased to speak to new clause 2 and to support amendment 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and me. I start by declaring my interest as a member of Unite the Union, which has made representations on this issue, and by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to discuss these amendments. We are grateful to the Government and others who supported our demand for proper time to debate the important health and safety aspects of the Bill. We felt that the original programme motion might well have denied Members that opportunity.
Let me respond first to the Minister’s comments about new clause 2. Labour Members warmly welcome the intention to allow Sikhs to wear turbans in place of head protection in all workplaces. Making such a change is important to our Sikh communities and for our country as a whole. I am pleased that the Minister was able to announce the extension of the exemption to Northern Ireland. That will be pleasing to the Sikh community in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain. The turban is not only the most visual part of a Sikh’s faith, but a proud part of our island story. We want the contribution of Sikhs to be visibly demonstrated in workplaces across the country. The Minister was absolutely right to speak warmly of the contribution that Sikhs have made to Britain. The success of this approach was seen in 2012 when Guardsman Jatinderpal Bhullar became the first turban wearer on guard duty outside Buckingham palace.
Despite our broad and deep support, we feel that the new clause could be clarified, so let me make a couple of suggestions for the Minister to consider as further improvements. First, on the blanket exclusion for emergency response services and military personnel, we believe that each case should be considered according to its individual merit. What further steps can the Minister take on that? The pace of technological change in the future will never be as slow as it is today—amazing though that may seem to us now—so it would be prudent to keep the mechanisms for making such amendments as flexible and responsive as possible. Why has the Minister not opted to have exclusions set outside the primary legislation as a statutory instrument simply to allow changes to the law to move with the time?
The Solicitor-General
The exclusion does not amount to a blanket exemption. It applies only in hazardous operational situations in which the wearing of a safety helmet is considered necessary. That means that all other means of protecting the Sikh must be considered and rejected before that legal requirement would kick in. It is based on circumstances specific to the particular Sikh, and only a very hazardous situation would require this to happen.
Toby Perkins
The Minister may not have understood what I was talking about or I may not have understood what he was talking about. I believe that there is a blanket exemption to the exclusion with respect to emergency response services and military personnel.
The Solicitor-General
The exemption applies to the emergency services and the armed forces, but it is not a blanket one. It applies only in hazardous operational situations in which the wearing of the helmet is necessary. The narrow circumstances about a particular Sikh are looked at, and then the decision is made. The aim is that it should apply only in such circumstances as the burning building that I mentioned earlier.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister clarify the definition of “workplace”, as concerns have been raised that the term could be ambiguous and confusing? Could he offer some clarification and perhaps tighten up the definition and the language more generally? For example, would a Sikh working within a vehicle be considered to be working in a workplace?
Toby Perkins
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then allow the Minister to respond.
James Duddridge
I am a little confused. If I read it correctly, new clause 2 relates purely to Northern Ireland and replicates what we have already discussed in Committee in respect of Great Britain. Will the shadow Minister confirm that point, as well as the Minister who seems to want to leap to his feet? I am concerned about whether we are looking at the general principles that apply to Great Britain or whether the Northern Ireland rules are different. If they are, why is that the case?
Toby Perkins
That is an interesting point. It is important, of course, to get clarity for Sikhs in Northern Ireland but also for Sikhs across Britain. The Minister spoke more broadly, which is important.
It has been brought to our attention that one interpretation of section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 could have the effect of permitting an employer to use the defence of having a legitimate aim when forcing a Sikh employee to wear a safety helmet in the workplace. This could undermine the new clause’s intention in a similar way to the definition of a workplace. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point in his summing up. I hope that the Minister will listen to and engage with those concerns. All Members—possibly with one exception—want to see this important change delivered, so I hope we can work together on a cross-party basis to achieve it.
Just as it is important to update and clarify legislation on behalf of Sikh workers, so it is important constantly to review all regulations to ensure that there are no unnecessary burdens that undermine growth. We fear, however, that little of that will be achieved in this wide-ranging—albeit limited in its positive effect—Bill. Fundamental questions need to be answered about the kind of economy and the kind of workplaces that Britain should have now and in the future.
We sometimes hear voices on the right of the political spectrum arguing that health and safety has gone mad and too far in Britain. Labour Members, however, are proud that Britain was a safer place in which to work at the end of the last Government than it had ever been before. We were proud, too, that we delivered the first Olympics in history without a single death occurring during its construction. In the last 20 years, there has been a clear downward trend in the number of fatal injuries in the workplace. In 1993-94, 300 people were killed at work; in 2012-13, that number had fallen to 148. It is proof that strong health and safety legislation, advice and guidance make a difference. When almost 150 people a year still set out for work one morning and never return home, there cannot be any cause whatever for complacency on health and safety.
Interestingly, in corresponding on Twitter with my constituents and others about the fact that we would debate health and safety legislation today, I received a response from a constituent in Derbyshire. He said, “I bet you’re not going to mention Europe when you get into that debate, because a lot of our health and safety legislation has come from Europe and we should be out of Europe so that we can get rid of all this health and safety legislation.” When I looked at his profile on Twitter, I found out that he had recently joined UKIP—so he is in the right place, at least. It is interesting that, at a time when 150 people a year are still dying at work, we should hear voices on the right saying that we need to get out of Europe so that we can get rid of all these health and safety rights and, presumably, increase the number of people who die at work. That was quite a revealing contribution.
Toby Perkins
Now we shall hear from someone who has far more responsible views on health and safety in general, although his views on Europe may be different from mine.
Kelvin Hopkins
It is a matter of considerable pride to me that the TUC drove forward the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as part of a deal with the Government on pay. I think that that is one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed by a Labour Government this century—I mean last century.
Toby Perkins
I share my hon. Friend’s tremendous pride in the Act, and he is right to observe that very significant steps were taken in the 1970s. It should also be acknowledged that further steps were taken during the 13 years of Labour government through consultation and work with colleagues in Europe, and that Europe is a much safer workplace for it.
Back in 1993-94, 20 years ago, self-employed workers accounted for a sixth of all workplace deaths. In 2012-13, they accounted for a third of such deaths. In other words, the self-employed are twice as large a proportion of all those who die at work now as they were 20 years ago. If the Government are serious about driving down workplace deaths, reducing health and safety requirements for the self-employed seems a pretty odd way to start.
A few years ago funds for the Health and Safety Executive were cut by 35% in a single year, which has led to fewer inspections and the issuing of improvement notices. The present Government slowed the progress that we had been making on health and safety. However, we entirely reject the idea that the fact that Labour made that progress means that we favoured excessive regulation. Indeed, we are glad that the important work of the Better Regulation Commission—which was formed as part of the last Government’s commitment to deregulation, and which has played an important part in removing unnecessary burdens and ensuring that more are not unintentionally created when new regulations are introduced—has continued under the present Government.
The House of Commons Library estimates that businesses benefited to the tune of £3 billion a year as a result of the various deregulatory measures introduced by the last Government. A comparison between that scale of savings and this pygmy of a Bill sends a clear message about who was serious about backing business. However, a sensible approach to regulation is about proportionality, consistency and clarity, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the idea that making workers less safe or less well off is being done in the name of small businesses.
This Tory-led Government clearly have a view of the type of workplace that they want Britain to be. The Tory vision of the working Britain of the future is of a place in which everyone’s position and rights are insecure and enfeebled employees live in constant fear of losing their jobs, with low security, low wages and zero hours: an easy-in, easy-out workplace. The Tories think that a workplace that is engaged in a race to the bottom makes for a competitive economy.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Is there not also a danger that if legislation removes health and safety cover from self-employed people, employers will have an incentive to give employees a bogus status of self-employment, regardless of whether that is appropriate?
Toby Perkins
A substantial part of my speech will deal with precisely that point, because I think it represents perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the Bill. When the Minister presented his idea, he was probably told that it was good news that authors would no longer be suing themselves because their chairs were the wrong height. However, the real impact of the Bill is exactly as my hon. Friend has described it.
When people ask the Government what they will do about zero hours and the exploitation of workers, the Government misunderstand the question. The easy sacking of workers and the reduction in their rights is not an accident of Tory policy; it is Tory policy. It is precisely what Tory Governments have always been about. Of course, this is not actually called a Tory Government, but it certainly feels pretty much like one. This is what Tory Governments have always done, and they should be honest about that, rather than claiming that they are acting in support of small businesses or in anyone else’s name.
I was a small business owner myself for five years before I entered Parliament, and I entirely reject the idea that impoverishing workers and stripping them of their rights was done in my name or at my request. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. It is very unfair of them to introduce measures such as this, and then claim that they are doing it in order to support small businesses. In fact, they are doing it because it is what Tory Governments always do.
As the Minister said, this idea originated in Professor Löfstedt’s report on health and safety regulations, which was published in 2011. We supported most of the report’s recommendations, but we think that the professor failed to understand the nature of the British labour market when he said that the rights of the self-employed in Britain were greater than those granted by some of our European competitors, and, in particular, failed to appreciate the huge growth in false self-employment in this country to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) referred.
At the end of the last Government, the World Bank said that Britain was the easiest place in Europe in which to set up a new business. That is a key feature of our economy, and in itself it is something to be celebrated. Indeed, the idea that people should pluck up the courage to go it alone and start a new business, should challenge the established order and should find new ways of innovating and different ways of doing things—adopting the values and attributes of entrepreneurs—is very closely aligned with the history of the Labour party. Challenging the established order is precisely what the Labour party has always done. Of course we support people who want to set up their own businesses, but the healthy push towards starting up new firms that was established under Labour—with the spirit of adventure coursing through the veins, and ambition bursting through every pore—is very different from the growing move towards bogus or forced self-employment that we have seen under the present Government.
Unite has drawn attention to the fact that many workers in the care sector have been pushed into false self-employment, with the result that people on whom much of the fabric of a decent society depends can be sacked without warning, receive no holiday or sick pay, have reduced benefit entitlements, and are denied access to employment tribunals. They do not want to set up their own businesses or become entrepreneurial, but they are being told that the only way in which they can care for the old people for whom they have cared for so many years is to become self-employed. It is important to recognise the difference between those who want to be self-employed and those who are being forced into it.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does this not demonstrate how out of touch the Conservative party and its Liberal Democrat poodles are with the views of the general public? Last week, the results of a Survation poll clearly showed that the overwhelming majority of the British public do not want public services to be delivered by the private sector; they want public services to be delivered by directly accountable public servants who are democratically available for scrutiny by locally and nationally elected politicians.
Toby Perkins
That is an important point. The exact nature of the alliance that was formed will have to be left to the history books to judge. Were the Liberal Democrats willing accomplices who wanted to support everything that the Tory Government did, or were they, as my hon. Friend put it, poodles who were simply excited by the idea of ministerial office, and who decided to join in when they did not really support what was being done?
I suspect that, as we head towards the 2015 general election, a whole array of Liberal Democrat Ministers will suddenly emerge and say, “They made me do it. I did not really want to pursue that policy. There were tough decisions to be made.” They will try to claim some little bauble: “We may have tripled tuition fees, VAT may have gone up and workers’ rights may have been taxed, but we got something out of it.” We shall see whether, when they bring their agenda to the 2015 election, they throw off the clothes that they have worn for the last five years and claim to be different. What an exciting time we have to look forward to.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. May I suggest that if the Liberal Democrats vote with us this afternoon, they may save themselves a little bit of shame?
Toby Perkins
The idea that the Liberal Democrats might be able to save themselves a bit of shame is a novel concept—perhaps my hon. Friend is being a little bit too ambitious—but we shall none the less listen with great interest to what they say.
The Solicitor-General
The hon. Gentleman, in his lurch to the left, seems to have forgotten that when his party was in office, it was in favour of a tenfold increase in contracting out in the NHS, and in favour of flexible working. Those were the things of which his party spoke, as new Labour. Is the hon. Gentleman old Labour?
Toby Perkins
I am one-nation Labour, and one-nation Labour attempts to bring all these different strands of our movement together. There is a huge amount of value in having a flexible work force, but if that works against the best interests of workers, it is reasonable that workers will question whether that is a price worth paying. Some important points have been made about public opinion and we should listen to them. It is also right to consider how, in a modern economy, we bring the best of the private and public sector together. That is what I am in favour of, and that is what the Labour party is in favour of.
Chris Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that it serves nobody’s interests to indulge in this race to the bottom and force people into this bogus self-employment, when the reality is that it is an excuse for exploitation? If people have got less money in their pocket, they have less money to spend in the wider economy. That has a negative impact, and we end up in a downward spiral and a situation whereby, as the figures I have seen today from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show, in the last 12 months this so-called economic miracle that we are seeing under this Government has resulted in the top 300,000 seeing an increase in their income after tax, but the rest—29 million taxpayers—have seen a reduction. Bogus self-employment and forcing people into self-employment is contributing to that.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an important contribution and he is right. The issue of bogus self-employment, and the broader issue of the vision this Government have for our economy, is working very badly for people in our constituencies and working quite well for a small number at the top. It was ever thus; this is what the Conservative party was set up to do. It was set up to ensure that the rights of a privileged few were protected and to try to convince enough of the lower orders to buy into it in the meantime. That is why the Conservatives did not want the lower orders to have the vote for 100-odd years. We all know where they are coming from, and no doubt if they could get rid of the lower orders having the vote now, they would do it again.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Surely one of the tests for the way this Government handle the economy will come very shortly when interest rates go up and the small businesses and entrepreneurs that they boast about cannot get loans to facilitate their business transactions?
Toby Perkins
That is another important dimension. We are in danger of straying slightly from our amendment, but it is important that we see this amendment in the context of the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) also made an important point about the impact of all of this on our economy. Not only does it undermine employment rights and leave his constituents and mine worse off, but it also hits taxpayers in the pocket, because according to the Treasury’s own estimate, around 300,000 workers in the construction sector alone are effectively in bogus self-employment. That costs the Treasury more than £380 million every year so there is less money going into our public services and into the public coffers because of this issue. This is far from being a construction-site problem, however. That has happened over many years, but in a whole variety of areas—care workers, as spoken about earlier, bookkeepers, sales agents, and from the factory floor to the shop floor—staff who look to all of us to be employers are legally self-employed. While bogus self-employment has previously been predominantly a tax and rights issue, an exemption in respect of health and safety only increases the incentive for employers to pursue this route as a model of recruitment, reducing safety in the workplace, making it an optional extra rather than a hard-won right.
That changing environment places huge responsibilities on us as law-makers, and they must not be overlooked. Labour in government maintained a flexible workplace, not always, I have to say, to the delight of colleagues across the movement who would have liked further protection. We recognised there was a balance to be struck, however, and we still do, but we did that in a way that aimed to ensure that protection against the exploitation of individuals was not sacrificed in exchange. If these Tories really were the workers’ party, they would understand that a flexible workplace that works against the public interest is bad for Britain and bad for business, too.
Returning to this new clause, no self-employed person has ever been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution only for risking their own health. Given that the Bill’s intention is that only people who pose no risk to anybody will be exempt, there will be no practical impact on businesses or individuals. The Health and Safety Executive consulted on Ofsted’s proposals in 2012 and the majority of those responding to the consultation opposed the idea. All in all, I and many other small business owners would recognise the picture painted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which has said that many low-risk, self-employed individuals are
“de facto, already exempt…They will never be routinely inspected. And they are not going to sue themselves if they have an accident!”
If there are no known cases of the self-employed suing themselves and no prosecutions that are being prevented, this is a solution in search of a problem to solve.
The problem it in fact attempts to solve is the perception that this Government have over-promised and under-delivered on regulation. Whenever we hear the Minister defend this, he does not have a lot to say about anyone who will positively benefit. What he says is that there will be a perception that there is less people have to do before they become self-employed. Well, he can say that to the carers, who are being told that they are now self-employed when looking after the old lady they have been looking after for the past 20 years. He should ask whether that removes a disincentive to them setting up a business. That is the reality of what is happening under this Government.
Toby Perkins
I never cease to be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend, so I will give way to him again.
Chris Williamson
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely, and I had the privilege of serving on the Committee with him. Does he agree that this is a very wide-ranging Bill? A hell of a lot of effort has been put into it by Ministers, yet it has achieved so very little. Has there ever been a Bill where so much effort has gone in with so very little impact and positive outcome for the British people?
Toby Perkins
That is an interesting point, and it brings to mind a gentleman who was a team mate of mine at Sheffield Tigers rugby club. He had a huge neck and giant shoulders—he was a great big bear of a man—but from the waist down he had, short, very thin legs. He was one of those people who, when he stood up, apparently shrank, so he earned the name “the giant little man”, and this is a giant little Bill. There is huge scope to it and very little that is got out of it at the end—but I am digressing slightly.
That was, in fact, precisely the point I was about to come on to in my speech, so I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Alongside the minuscule benefit and very real consequences for the bogus self-employed, there is also the confusion that is likely to be caused and the messages that sends about health and safety as being an optional extra, rather than something businesses should always attend to.
Entrepreneurs and micro-business owners might wrongly believe they are now exempt from health and safety obligations towards clients and visitors to their premises. We know that that is not the reality of what this Bill does, but it is all about perception. If people are now being told, “If you’re self-employed, you don’t have to worry about health and safety,” it is unsurprising if that is the explanation people hear.
In its evidence to the Joint Committee, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health described the decision to exempt certain self-employed individuals as “unnecessary, unhelpful and unwise”. It foresaw a lowering of standards and a lack of clarity about who was, or was not, covered.
The current system is clear and there is no compelling reason for this change. There is no list of self-employed martyrs brought to the courts because of badly adjusted blinds in their offices, who, having fought the issue to the highest court in the land, have now decided that, because the glare on the screen was a bit bright and it hurt their eyes, they will sue themselves. This group of people does not exist as one for us to stand up for in this place, so there is no compelling reason for this change.
For all the reasons I have outlined, we think this is a much-mistaken clause and our amendment would simply remove it. However, even if the Government do not listen to all the voices arguing against the clause in its entirety, there are serious and important flaws in its drafting that they really should look at. It will be interpreted—the Solicitor-General admitted as much in Committee—such that the exemption from the exemption will be based on whether someone’s work is in a job that is considered to pose a risk to them or to others. However, it pays no attention to whether they are responsible for the safety of their workplace. So a self-employed person working in someone else’s workplace, who to all intents and purposes appears to be employed, is in fact self-employed, has no say in the quality of the health and safety regulations administered there, and would be exempt from protection. The clause makes no reference to whether they are responsible for the safety of their workplace—it assumes they would be, but as we have heard, that is not the case—or to whether the workplace itself is dangerous. So, someone who is in a dangerous workplace, but in a job that is considered not dangerous, will not be covered. For example, because a sales agent selling construction goods on a building site on a self-employed basis is not in a dangerous job, they would be exempt from protection on health and safety grounds, despite working in an environment in which an average of almost 60 people have died every year during the past 13 years.
James Duddridge
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has just said and confirm that it is correct? Anybody who goes on to a construction site—be they a customer, a passing individual, a self-employed person or an employed person—is subject to health and safety relating to that geographic zone. Their employment status does not matter. Whether they are a full-time employee, self-employed, a customer or a salesman, they still get that health and safety protection.
Toby Perkins
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is making a disingenuous point. There might be certain legal protections associated with the workplace—or place of being; it would not be a “workplace” in some of the cases he cites—but there would be no protection as an employee whatsoever.
The issue of people in non-dangerous jobs working in dangerous environments must not be ignored. The message that health and safety is now an optional extra if staff can be got on to self-employed contracts is very serious indeed. In Committee, Labour sought to work with the Tory-led Government to find a way around these problems. We sought clarification from them on exactly what jobs will be excluded, asked for reassurance that significant protections will be in place, tabled amendments and made suggestions, but all those were rejected. If the House does not support our amendment today, clause 1 will mean weaker health and safety protection for the growing army of employed self-employed people, and uncertainty in the minds of the self-employed about whether they have obligations in the first place. The Government are sending out the message that health and safety is not something for all workplaces at all times, but something to be negotiated and traded away. This will be a slap in the face for the families of anyone killed in their workplace, including those of the 50 self-employed people who lost their lives at work last year. I call on the House to support our amendment and to say loud and clear, “Britain is safer today. We are not going back.”
James Duddridge
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, although I do feel we are going round in circles somewhat. Having sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee with eminent Members of the Lords and Commons—plus myself—and having then had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee and, during that time, chairing the Regulatory Reform Committee, I feel “regulationed out”, just as a number of business people do.
I want to concentrate on amendment 72, but first I want briefly to discuss Government new clause 2. I would appreciate it if the Minister cleared up the confusion over whether Northern Ireland is being treated exactly the same as Great Britain in respect of Sikhs. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) used the opportunity, completely reasonably, to look back at some of those arguments, rather than at a differential between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I remember visiting the small Sikh community in Southend as a candidate in 2004, and expecting them to raise lots of technical religious issues and issues relating to the Sikh community. However, they wanted to discuss law and order, good education for their kids and lower taxation, and did not bring up the issue we have been discussing; however, that does not make it unimportant, and it is a good one to raise. The omission of Northern Ireland in our initial considerations was not great, and it is good that the Government are now remedying that.
There was much discussion, both during pre-legislative scrutiny and in Committee, of the issue addressed by amendment 72, and the Opposition clearly disagreed with the general principle being put forward and questioned the need. I am disappointed that they could not propose something more sophisticated than just knocking out the whole of clause 1. At times I felt that there was a degree of consensus on some of these issues, so I am disappointed that a more nuanced alternative has not been found. However, using amendment 72 as a probing amendment is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head but I am saying that, although health and safety was rightly a concern, it was a barrier to setting up a legal entity early on in both cases. He asks, from a sedentary position, what the reason was for that. When someone is setting up a new business—this is certainly what I found—they ask what things they have to consider and then prioritise them. So there is no point in someone even thinking of setting up a business unless they have customers and a product, and unless they can do it in a profitable way over time and have the financing in place. Those things are in the person’s mind, but then there is another level of issues for them to consider: where do they go? How do they employ people? What are the health and safety considerations?
Early on, when someone is setting up the company, they should be able to set aside the health and safety things and say, “When I am forming that company, as an individual with only myself to be concerned with, health and safety, at that juncture, is not something that I need to concern myself with as a barrier to entry into that workplace.” Having established the business, the person can then go on to look at all those details before they start engaging employees or start risking health and safety in any way. My fear is that, in itself, it is a barrier to starting that business and, thus, to employing people.
Chris Williamson
The hon. Gentleman would have more credibility on the concerns he is articulating about the barriers facing businesses starting up if he had supported the amendment in Committee, which called for a review of the licensing regime. For example, someone setting up a restaurant needs to comply with seven or eight different licences. Surely that would be a more appropriate approach to take, rather than undermining health and safety.
James Duddridge
It would be an additional benefit to look at these things sector by sector, as the Better Regulation Commission is doing—and is reducing regulation. However, I fear I am straying slightly, as we have done today, away from the pure health and safety issues. The hon. Member for Chesterfield kindly took an intervention on the concept of who is protected on a building site and I must admit that I am still confused. There is a case for stopping people being self-employed from an employment rights perspective—we can debate that, although not today. But although these bogus self-employed individuals take themselves out of a certain type of health and safety liability, by being on the site—by being in the care home or on the building site—they are subject to health and safety rules. There may be a case to make that those rules are too weak or that they are not the same as in an employment relationship, but people are still subject to them.
As I said at the start, something more nuanced could have been proposed, because there is a risk that people do not set up businesses because they are concerned about the overall level of bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the World Bank, saying that we are already at the cutting edge for being able to set up businesses, but if we do not look to move forward and constantly improve, as our competitors are doing, biting at our heels, we will fall behind in business growth, in growth and in employment. I say that on a day when I learned from the BBC that employment is at its highest level since 1971, when records were first kept. There is no health and safety protection if one does not have a job. Getting people into employment is a step in the right direction, and getting people involved in high-quality jobs with high-quality health and safety is a further improvement, but it is still a stepping stone. For those reasons, while I support Government new clause 1, I would vote against amendment 72 if it were pushed to a vote.
John McDonnell
May I first say that I welcome the new clause relating to the Sikh community? I chair the all-party group on the Punjabi community in Britain, and for a number of years there has been an issue, and it is helpful to get it out of the way now, once and for all. Others have also received representations on the matter, so today’s debate has been useful.
I will be straight with the Minister: I am really worried about this part of the Bill. Before I go into that, I will, like others, outline my background. First, let me refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Unite has just made a contribution to my constituency party for campaigning. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority tells me that we do not have to declare such payments, but I have anyway. I have not received the Unite briefing, but I understand that it has been lobbying on this matter.
I come to this matter from a trade union background—from the shop floor. When I first left college, I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers. Obviously, health and safety was a critical issue for mineworkers. However, it concerned not just those working in the mines but those involved on the surface, in deliveries and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has described the process of health and safety at work. The trade unions initially tried to tackle health and safety issues on an industry-by-industry basis. The reason the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 came about was that we wanted comprehensive overall protection, which is why it was a global Bill; we did not want anyone to miss out. Individual pieces of legislation would not have given us that comprehensive cover.
At that point in time, self-employment was not a big issue, but it is now. The expansion of self-employment in this country—my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) gave some figures on that—has been massive. That is partly because people who have lost their job or who have had their job privatised in some form have been pushed into self-employment; some choose it willingly, but others choose it because it is the only option. It is a fact that deaths at work and occupational injuries for the self-employed are twice the rate for the directly employed. If we look at recent TUC statistics on deaths, we will see that there have been 16 fatalities in the past four months, the bulk of which were among the self-employed. Clearly, therefore, there is an issue of health and safety among the self-employed.
Up until now, the simplicity of the legislation has meant that everyone knows that they are covered no matter what. No matter where they are working or what aspect of self-employment they are involved in, they know they are covered by the legislation. My worry is that legislating to solve one problem produces much bigger problems. I accept that there may be an element of truth behind some of the myths of the health and safety culture. Some small examples may be run in the Daily Mail, and we will all agree that they are daft, but the bulk of health and safety legislation protects people. There are too many people dying or being seriously injured at work at the moment. When we meet the families of victims, we understand why health and safety is such a cornerstone, and so essential in protecting people at work. As soon as we try to resolve some of the smaller exaggerations of the health and safety at work legislation, we then open up the possibility of absolute confusion about what is going on.
We will spend the next few months on the consultation about the list. Endless hours will be spent trying to identify what activities are included on the list and what activities are not included. We have already heard something like that today with the issue of what happens in the construction industry.
I have been dealing with Crossrail. Some Members may be aware that a few weeks ago, after a fatality at Crossrail, an extremely damning report about health and safety attitudes on the Crossrail project was published in the media. I am meeting Crossrail management and the unions to try to see how we can resolve those matters. It will be argued that Crossrail will be covered by these provisions because it is part of the construction sector, but the question comes up of what will happen with deliveries to Crossrail sites. Will they be covered when they are purely on the construction site or will they be covered on their way to a Crossrail site?
We will have endless debates and arguments about what happens in construction, which is the area where self-employment has grown in recent years. We have heard about false self-employment, and a lot of construction workers today are basically told to be self-employed or they will not get a job. It is as simple as that and if they try to argue against it they do not get work the following week. That is one of the big battles being joined at the moment by Unite and other unions, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
I used to do an awful lot of work in financial services for people who worked on construction sites. Nearly all of them worked under the old construction industry scheme, or CIS, under which they were classified as self-employed. That was permanent throughout the construction sector throughout the past 20 or 30 years. Surely people being self-employed within the construction industry is nothing new.
John McDonnell
No, it is not, but a lot of those workers who were directly employed have in recent years been forced into self-employment against their will. That is the only way that they have been able to get work. If we consider the role of agents in a lot of this, we can see that it is a way of avoiding taxation for some.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Denning many years ago when dealing with this very issue of bogus descriptions? Somebody controls the place of work, the rate of pay and the hours that are worked. We can call a Mini a Rolls-Royce, but it is still a Mini.
John McDonnell
I have been involved in some of the direct action campaigns on sites across London over the past two years. Few major firms are left in London that employ people directly; they now employ individuals who are classified as self-employed. They have not gone into self-employment willingly, but have been forced into it simply to get the work.
Let me go back to my major theme. Throughout its history, our health and safety legislation has been based on the precautionary principle of trying to ensure that we prevent as much as we possibly can the risks of individual sectors. I have seen the list that the Minister has kindly supplied us with this afternoon and, to be frank, I think—I am not saying this in any critical way—that if we are going to go down the route of having a list system, it would have been better for us to have had the list well in advance for consultation and discussion. Nevertheless, that is what we will have now.
Let me give some examples from the list. The category for high-risk activities relating to public safety includes the:
“Organisation and operation of exhibitions, fairgrounds, amusement parks, theme parks, zoos, circuses, public fireworks displays and adventure activities,”
but not festivals and concerts, which have some of the highest risks of such outside activities. For offshore activities, it includes
“operators, owners, installation managers, well operators and any persons under various Offshore Regulations”,
but some of the highest risk in the offshore industry is land-based, at the port, before the equipment is transferred out.
In years to come, we will define item by item what is on the list and what is not. It is all well and good publishing a list of what is covered, but if people want absolute clarity we should also publish a list of what is not included. Let me give another example, which I think came up in Committee. If a plumber—they are largely self-employed—is working in a person’s home, will they be covered or not? Are electricians working in people’s homes covered or not? I am not sure from this list, and that is the issue. All our health and safety legislation up to now has been based on the precautionary principle of comprehensive coverage so that everyone is protected, including the workers and the general public in whose environment they are working, but we are now in a situation where no one will know or be absolutely clear about their coverage. As a local MP I have used health and safety legislation on a number of occasions to get the local authority to take action against self-employed workers on particular sites that are putting the general public at risk.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an important contribution. He is right to say that there is a perception that health and safety is sometimes over-zealously pursued, but the real problem that the Government are trying to solve is their polling position. They are trying to show people that they are taking action in this area, they want to be able to tell businesses about all the deregulation they are undertaking, but they are not solving the problems facing small businesses.
John McDonnell
If the Government are going to legislate on the basis of hearsay and almost prejudice, they wind up with legislation that renders itself ineffective in the long run. I genuinely cannot see how the list could be implemented effectively.
The Solicitor-General
I am following the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he should appreciate that the detailed regulations will be consulted on, which will include proper definitions. He has a list of activities, but the consultation will bore down into the detail. If he or his constituents have particular concerns, he will be able to raise those points and the Government will take account of them.
John McDonnell
That worries me even more. I make this not as a party political point, but as a practical governmental point: that means that the legislation is a leap in the dark, before we know in any detail the consequences of what we are doing.
The Government have been looking at the matter for three years now. I met Lord—I have forgotten his name. He got the sack after having a few drinks too many at a reception. I met the original Lord who was consulting on this. He turned up with an individual who I thought was his butler. It was an adviser. He eventually got the push because he had a few drinks too many and said some unwise words. He was so impressive that I cannot remember his name. I met him three years ago when the measure was first mooted. We went through examples of what he thought was unnecessary health and safety legislation in certain areas. One of the areas he was looking at was shops, so I introduced him to the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which explained to him that health and safety matters were a worry in shops where its workers were.
From that original prejudicial approach, I thought the Government were going to lay out in detail how the duties would be implemented. To introduce the legislation without such detail in such an important area will render the legislation ineffective and put people at risk.
John Cryer
What my hon. Friend says about risk is right. In Committee, we asked time and again for a definitive list. The Government kept amending the list. I do not know which version we are on now, but we are almost at the end of the parliamentary process on the Bill, and the Government are now saying that they will consult. That should have been done right at the start of the process; if it had, we would now know what we were dealing with.
John McDonnell
There are times when one legislates on the principle and then rolls out the practical implications, but I agree with my hon. Friend that in this instance, because of the legislation’s significance and because the detail is so important to whether it is viable, in the three years when the consultation was supposed to be going on we could have drilled down into the detail and then come back with effective legislation, which would have achieved some element of consensus. Instead we have absolute confusion, and in health and safety matters that means risk. I will vote for the amendment, but I deeply regret the way in which the legislation has been brought forward. The risks that will be incurred will affect many of us, throughout all these different industries, but more broadly, as self-employment now grows, not only will self-employed workers be put at risk, but the general public as well. That is why the Minister needs to think again very seriously.
Chris Williamson
I rise to speak in support of amendment 72 and I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the proposals for the Sikh community, which are a welcome step.
I do not know whether it is because the Solicitor-General is behind the proposal, but to me it represents a lawyer’s charter. My hon. Friend has already made the point that the prescribed list simply adds to the confusion rather than providing clarity. I am a simple chap, an ex-bricklayer who certainly benefited from the health and safety regime, and I would like to know what is wrong with the present legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) referred to the futility of the proposition in terms of those who are self-employed and not at any great risk, but who have never been prosecuted or are likely to take action against themselves in any event, but my real concern is that the Government are creating significant confusion, which will put people at greater risk.
Other hon. Members have made the point that self-employed people are on average twice as likely to die at work as employed workers. At a time when 4.2 million people are self-employed that is a growing concern, and not just for the individuals who are putting themselves at greater risk and who will go to work one day, as my hon. Friend said, and never return. That is devastating for the families of those individuals, and it is a complete waste of human life. In crude monetary terms, it has a negative impact on the economy, because their productive life is lost to the economy.
We have to take account not only of those who are more likely to die, but of those self-employed workers who are more likely to sustain an industrial injury, and this proposal will make matters worse. We have already spoken about people being forced into self-employment and bogus self-employment. People who are in effect employed earners but are forced into a self-employment do not benefit from the protections accorded to employed earners, and that should be a matter of concern for all of us.
I shall take my previous life in the construction sector as an example. Because of the confusion, we do not know from what the Government have said whether self-employed earners working in a domestic setting will be covered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has pointed out.
John McDonnell
We have only one copy of the list—that is how we have been treated today—but we shall share it. I will give one example, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to respond to it. According to the list, construction is covered overall, and a number of activities are listed under construction. However, there are sites where there is no construction going on but there is painting and decorating, which is not listed. If no construction was going on and some self-employed painters and decorators—there are a large number of them—turned up to work on the site, they would not be covered because their work would not be construed as construction. However, painting and decorating is actually quite a risky occupation, for the painter and decorator and for the public, because of the use of ladders, scaffolding and so on.
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is potentially an incredibly hazardous occupation, for the very reason he outlines: the use of ladders, scaffolding and so on.
John McDonnell
Painters and decorators are not covered, but people on high wires in circuses are. This is getting bizarre.
Chris Williamson
That is the point, is it not? The beauty of the existing legislation is that it is very clear. Even a former bricklayer like me can understand it. We know that everybody is covered by it. The Government are saying, “We are the great deregulators and we want to free up the self-employed to become great entrepreneurs”, but the reality is that they are creating a huge amount of confusion and putting people at risk, which will put a greater burden on our national health service. The reality is that more and more people who are forced into bogus self-employment schemes will find themselves at much greater risk.
I mentioned in an earlier intervention the concerns and fears of an individual setting up a business for the first time about the impact of health and safety obligations. The Government had the opportunity in Committee to do something that would have genuinely benefited those considering setting up in self-employment for the first time: reviewing the plethora of licences—150-odd—that local authorities are responsible for. I gave the example of a restaurateur, who must comply with eight or nine licensing regimes. Yet the Government had no sympathy and I believe they even voted against the proposal. I actually tabled another amendment, which regrettably has not been selected, to increase the period in which a review could take place, which we initially called for in Committee.
The Government try to give the impression that they are on the side of entrepreneurs and the self-employed, but the reality is quite the opposite because they are putting people at greater risk. The race to the bottom reduces people’s terms and conditions, and this all has a negative impact on the wider economy. There are 4.2 million self-employed people in the country, but instead of its being a cause for celebration I am concerned that many of them are earning very low incomes. That has a negative impact on the wider economy, because they have less money in their pockets to make a difference. The Prime Minister constantly goes on at PMQs about the number of new jobs being created, but he is silent about the fact that many of them are part time or involve zero-hours contracts, and self-employment comes into that. Many people are forced into self-employment because they have no alternative. They are forced to accept a pittance of a wage.
We also know from recent statistics that there has been a huge increase in the number of people who cannot afford to pay their rent because they are on such low incomes and so are having to claim housing benefit.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield and for Hayes and Harlington have made clear, the amendment is absolutely sensible. The Government have been singularly incapable of providing any legitimate justification for their proposal. They are going to create a lawyers charter. The most significant growth that will come out of this is for lawyers, because it is bound to lead to challenges through the law courts. Is that what we really want? I would suggest not. What is wrong with the existing legislation? It is straightforward and simple. We are not all lawyers like the Solicitor-General; perhaps he can understand it with his great intellect. As I said, I am just a simple bricklayer, and I can understand the current legislation, but I cannot understand what is before us today.
John Cryer
My hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I served on the Committee, where this was one of the most controversial elements of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, the list has gone through all sorts of vexed changes and debates. In Committee, we were already on the third or fourth version. The sorts of questions he has asked today—“Why is this on the list?”, “Why is that not on the list?”—were being asked then.
The Solicitor-General
I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the lively debate on this subject, but only one list was produced for Members, and it is the list that has been produced today.
John Cryer
If I am mistaken, I apologise. I remember seeing at least two versions, but perhaps I have got that slightly wrong. Nevertheless, there is still controversy over why certain occupations are on the list and others are left off. I am concerned that the Bill is nearing the end of its progress, yet nobody is quite sure what will be on the list and what will not. The Solicitor-General said in Committee that the Government would consult on the issue, but that should have been done some months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, the discussions have been going on for about three years and it is only now that we are getting anywhere near some sort of public consultation.
Toby Perkins
It may well be that there was only one piece of paper, but in Committee it was as if there was an organic process by which the interpretation of the list and the meaning of the Bill changed in front of our very eyes. I am not entirely sure whether that is reflected on a piece of paper, but it was very clear that what it meant either was not entirely understood or that it changed as we sat in Committee.
John Cryer
Perhaps I am a victim of my own fevered imagination when it comes to the list, but I thought I remembered seeing different versions. My hon. Friend is right about the list.
The Solicitor-General
It may be that what the hon. Gentleman is remembering is the different approach taken by the Joint Committee. It came up with different proposals, to which the Government responded with the list.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Is the maritime sector on the list? I have been advised that it is not. Was there any discussion in Committee about whether the sector—ferries, ships and so on—should be on the list?
John Cryer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I do not remember any specific discussion about whether maritime occupations should be on the list. Perhaps that was partly because we had a separate, lengthy and passionate discussion about maritime investigations. The RMT represents not all but most seafarers, and that discussion took place, oddly enough, just after it was announced that Bob Crow had passed away, and I think that added to the passion in the debate.
John McDonnell
There is a reason for the concern. It has been argued that there is not an awful lot of self-employment in the maritime sector, but there is. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do, because he was involved in this, the issues with the Thames cruises, where there is self-employment: individual families own their own boats and there is a licensing regime. Health and safety still needs to be applied to them, but they do not seem to be anywhere near the list.
John Cryer
I do not have the list in front of me, but I accept what my hon. Friend says. One of the things that has changed in the past few years—this has happened relatively recently—is that an awful lot of industries now have extensive groups of self-employed people. My hon. Friend mentioned that earlier in his career he worked for the National Union of Mineworkers. It is not particularly widely recognised that most miners—there are not many of them around nowadays, because successive Conservative Governments massacred the deep-mining industry—are self-employed or agency workers, and many of them are on virtually zero-hours contracts.
I think there is a view that anyone working at a deep mine in Hatfield or any of the others that still exist does so for an employer on a normal pay-as-you-earn basis. The reality is that most people who work in mines are self-employed in a very dangerous industry, and some of them—probably those who work on the surface, rather than those who work underground—will be removed from health and safety cover as a result of this Bill. At the very least, confusion will reign, because nobody is quite sure whom the Bill covers and whom it does not.
One of the many bases of this Bill is the idea that there is still a hard and fast division between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. That traditional view of the workplace was accurate 30, 40 or 50 years ago, but it does not apply now, because increasing numbers of people are self-employed and increasing numbers of people come under what Labour Members would call bogus self-employment. These are people who have been shifted to a self-employed status, sometimes against their will. There are examples of work forces who wake up one morning to discover that they are suddenly self-employed, having not been consulted. Before the Solicitor-General is moved to intervene, I know that that is illegal, but I think it is indicative of the world of work that we have today.
Disreputable employers already have several incentives for moving people to self-employed status, including the ability to abandon many of their normal responsibilities—the duty to pay national insurance, sick pay, holiday pay and so forth. More and more companies are now offering different routes for shifting work forces to self-employment. In Committee, I gave the example of the role of payroll companies, which go to normal construction companies—this happens a lot in construction—and say, “Give us your payroll responsibilities. We’ll look after paying the work force. We’ll shift them all to self-employed. As a result, you will escape responsibility for paying NI, holiday pay, sick pay and all the rest of it.” Another impetus is the fact that, because of the cuts to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it does far fewer compliance inspections than it did five or six—or even two—years ago. The idea that employers will be caught out shifting people to bogus self-employment by HMRC is less likely; it is more likely that they will get away with it.
The Bill provides another incentive to companies—not just those in construction, but in other industries as well—to move people to self-employment so that they can escape their responsibilities. If someone running a construction company who does not particularly care about his or her employees is told, “Well, if they’re not self-employed, they’re not covered by health and safety”, that is another incentive, encouragement or green light to employers to engage in such processes. Some of the processes are legal or on the fringe of legality, but many employers are still getting away with it. The irony is that many of the most dangerous industries, such as construction and agriculture, already have a very high level of self-employment. In some industries, we are moving to a position in which we are seeing the virtual abolition of regular full-time employment.
The TUC issued a briefing earlier today. Many Government Members think that the TUC is populated by blokes who are blood-soaked lefties and all about 8 ft tall, with biceps the size of Bournemouth.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I both worked at the TUC, and I do not think we fit that description.
John Cryer
I cannot imagine two more moderate figures in the House than my two hon. Friends. The reality is that the TUC is a very moderate organisation. When I worked as a political officer at Unite, I dealt extensively with it, particularly with the then general secretary, Brendan Barber. Whatever the views of Conservative Members, a person could not wish to meet a more moderate man—almost outrageously moderate—than Brendan Barber. His successor, Frances O’Grady, is a similarly moderate person.
The TUC briefing points out:
“The Bill states that the proposals are being done ‘for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals’. In fact it does the opposite as it does not actually change the situation for those who genuinely do not pose a risk to others and only creates complete confusion for all the other self-employed.”
That very mildly and moderately expressed point of view raises the genuine concern that the provision will create confusion for an awful lot of the work force, many of whom work in some of the most dangerous sectors of the economy.
Kelvin Hopkins
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I had the pleasure of working at the TUC for five years, during which the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was brought in. There is no doubt that thousands of lives have been saved and thousands of injuries prevented as a result of that Act.
I remember that, as a student in the 1960s, I worked in the vacations. I think I am probably the oldest person here. [Interruption.] Well, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is extremely old. In those days, we typically worked in factories during the holidays. I remember the horrendous lack of health and safety—unguarded machines, poisonous chemicals, no hard hats—but that was the life people led. I used to put the guards on the machines that I worked on. They were lying on the ground, but their use was not enforced.
Katy Clark
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is highly concerning that the Health and Safety Executive has received such huge funding cuts and that there has been such a reduction in workplace health and safety inspections?
Kelvin Hopkins
Yes, indeed. One of my former colleagues at the TUC, Sir Bill Callaghan, who used to be the chair of the Health and Safety Commission, was alarmed at the threats to the funding and the future of the Health and Safety Executive. Interestingly, when the HSE did a consultation exercise on this issue, a majority of respondents were against what the Government are proposing. The HSE is obviously under-resourced. I want it to be strengthened and to have more resources so that it can save more lives and prevent more injuries.
I will give another anecdote about a recent experience. There were two men working on the pavement outside my house with a diamond-edged cutting disc—the sort of machine that is used to cut stone, brick or concrete. They had no goggles, no hard hats and no ear defenders. I went up to ask what they were doing. I was not going to comment on health and safety. They were clearly eastern European and did not understand English very well. The TUC has said:
“Migrant workers are also more likely to be self-employed and are more likely to have a poor command of English, which means that they need support and guidance from the HSE. Sex out of ten Rumanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were working as self-employed.”
We are talking about a whole sector. Hundreds of thousands of people will be less likely to be protected by health and safety regulations and laws. I think we ought to strengthen the Health and Safety Executive and the 1974 Act. We ought to provide the resources that are needed to ensure that it is enforced properly. There are a number of points that I was going to make, but they have been made strongly by my hon. Friends.
John McDonnell
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has seen the list. In the past, we have raised the risks on the docks, where self-employment is increasingly becoming the norm. My dad used to be a Liverpool docker and he lost a finger as a result of an industrial accident. Although offshore activities are listed, there is nothing about the docks. That whole sector is excluded from the list, yet it is an extremely dangerous area of activity.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am sure we could find many areas where health and safety risks are not being addressed, even under existing legislation. We want such legislation to be strengthened, not weakened, but because of the logic of the situation the list of exemptions will inevitably mean that more people die or suffer injuries as a result of the clause. I strongly support my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and other hon. Friends, in calling on the Government to abandon clause 1, accept the amendment, and return to common sense.
Katy Clark
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which indicates that the trade union Unite recently made a financial donation to the Labour party in part of my constituency. I am not sure whether I am strictly required to make that reference, but Unite is hugely concerned—as are all British trade unions—about the Government’s stance on this matter.
As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the recommendation in the Bill came from the Löfstedt review of health and safety regulation. The Löfstedt committee did not hold a unanimous position, however, and the TUC nominee on the Löfstedt review, as well as the MP representing Labour, were clear that they were opposed to the position taken. Indeed, in autumn 2012 when the Health and Safety Executive consulted on exempting some of the self-employed from health and safety provisions, the majority of those who responded to that consultation—including a majority of the self-employed—were opposed to the proposal. Despite that, it has been included in the Bill.
The proposal was also opposed by professionals involved in health and safety. Indeed, their chartered body, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, stated:
“This is a very short-sighted and misleading move, it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion.”
That confusion has been illustrated clearly by the debate today, particularly on the list of types of employment, self-employment, and the sectors that would be included under the health and safety provisions, and those that might not be.
At the moment, all self-employed people have a legal duty to ensure that they protect others from harm resulting from their work activity. The strength of the health and safety legislation in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is its simplicity, and the fact that the test and legal obligation involved is simple and applies to everybody. One problem with other areas of employment protection is that it is often an employee who may receive some form of right or entitlement, rather than workers in general, which means that many people try to avoid obligations by using devices such as zero-hours contracts. The fact that the Government are proceeding down such a path for health and safety is a negative development that I believe we will all regret in years to come.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) indicated, fatality rates for those in self-employment are far higher than for those who are employed. The current fatality rate is 1.1 person per 100,000 for the self-employed, compared with 0.4 per 100,000 for employees. In part, that might be because self-employed people are more likely to be found in more dangerous occupations. However, the statistics on people with the same occupation show that self-employed people seem to have higher fatality rates.
Migrant workers are more likely to be self-employed and therefore more likely to be affected. They are obviously more likely to have a poor command of English, which probably means that they are more in need of clear guidance. Six out of 10 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were self-employed. No statistics are currently kept on the number of people who are killed, injured or made ill as a result of the actions of the self-employed, whether relating to self-employed people themselves or the general public.
We know that the problem of deaths and illnesses associated with work is extremely significant. Worldwide, 2.3 million die as a result of incidents at work every year. Hazards, the health and safety magazine, estimates that, in Britain, work kills 1,400 people each year, and that 50,000 die in work-related incidents. Health and safety legislation is far from red tape. It has saved probably hundreds of thousands of lives since it came into effect in 1974. The Government are trying yet again in the Bill to take away that protection for the self-employed. It is a bad day for Britain. I ask the Minister to think again and to look at the legislation. I ask him to protect the simplicity of the 1974 Act and ensure that all workers and all at work are covered by it.
The Solicitor-General
We have had a lively debate, featuring contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), and the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark).
I will begin with the two points made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the Northern Ireland provision—new clause 2. The meaning of “a workplace” does include a vehicle or a motorcycle. I believe I have answered his point on a “blanket provision”. His other point was on article 13A of the 1990 order, which he described as section 12. The point is that the measure relates to the protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with the requirements to wear safety helmets. Subsections (9) to (11) of new clause 2 amend article 13A so that any person who attempts to impose a requirement on a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet at a workplace—rather than just on a construction site—contrary to article 13 of the 1990 order, would be discriminating against the Sikh individual under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Avoiding that liability would not be considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
On health and safety law, it is worth starting by making the point that the Bill saves £300 million and is designed to lift burdens from business. I thought the Professor Löfstedt process was belittled somewhat by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, but there is no question but that he is highly regarded in the field. The process was done in an academic way, involving industry representatives. At the end of it, he made the point that there is a case for following a similar approach to other countries and exempting from health and safety law those self-employed people—those who are not employees—whose workplace activities pose no potential risk or harm to others. The debate has been conducted by some hon. Members as though the Government want to put people in danger, but all the dangerous activities will be exempt. We are trying to get off the backs of people who want to make jobs: those who want to go out and be self-employed and employ others.
Chris Williamson
The Solicitor-General says he wonders about the Labour party, but I wonder about him. Listen, if the Solicitor-General is so concerned and thinks that this is such a wonderful piece of legislation and the prescribed list is so clear, why does he not think that painting and decorating is a hazardous occupation? Does he not think that maritime is a hazardous occupation? If this is the prescribed list will he tell us, as I challenged him to in my contribution, what is not on it? Painting and decorating is not on it and that is clearly a hazardous occupation. What else is not on it? He says that there are no hazardous occupations that are not covered by the list.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is becoming a speech. It is supposed to be an intervention. We have heard the speech once and we do not need to hear it again.
The Solicitor-General
On some of the early points that were made, this is a matter—
The Solicitor-General
Hang on. This is a matter of exempting people in safe occupations from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We are doing that for self-employed people because we want to encourage business. The process being followed to do this is very carefully thought through. The proposed prescribed list will ensure that self-employed persons conducting undertakings where they are most at risk of serious injury or fatality will not be exempt from the law. There is, therefore, an element of the debate that is just not part of the Government’s policy or the Bill. The hon. Gentleman mentions painting and decorating. That is covered, because the description of construction, which is on the list, includes painting and decorating. I will come on to some of the other points that have been made in a minute.
The measure has been described as having particular reference to bogus self-employed contracts, but that is not the case. This does not change the law: no employment law will be changed by the Bill. A number of other points were made. It was suggested that we should look only at the evidence of consultants—the institution that was mentioned—who give advice to people on health and safety. It is the job of members of such institutions to go out and give health and safety advice to people who want to set up in business and be self-employed, so it is not a shock to find that they are not keen on having 1 million or 2 million people exempted from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Equally, we are told that this is a lawyers charter. Lawyers give advice and they are not saying what one would expect—that this measure will help them in some way.
The Solicitor-General
No, I am going to continue for a moment.
I was asked about support from organisations with a business background. Yes, they support these provisions. [Interruption.] Well, it is true; they do. There are people who benefit from having an extensive health and safety law that enables them to go out and give advice about these issues, and clearly they have a point of view. Those who want to represent small businesses are in favour of this measure because it helps people to set up in business.
The Solicitor-General
I will give way in a few seconds.
Another point was raised about confusion between the workplace—[Interruption.] There was confusion in much of what was said between the place where the work takes place and the activity. It is the activity that is going to be exempted. If something is a dangerous or hazardous activity, it will be exempted from the change, so that people will be safe. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about the docks, but if someone is doing something dangerous or hazardous there, they will be exempt. There is a separate regime for maritime activity, which is organised differently by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the enforcing authority for that area of endeavour.
Toby Perkins
The Solicitor-General is making a bizarre contribution, which is adding to the confusion rather than resolving it. He argues that if someone is doing an activity that is prescribed as safe but in a dangerous place, they will not be covered by the legislation. Does he not understand that the people who fund his party are those who will end up saving money, while the people in the trade unions are those who, over the years, have done the dying. That is why they feel so strongly about health and safety, which needs to be protected. The Solicitor-General needs to clear up the confusion, not add to it.
The Solicitor-General
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has existed for a good period of time and done important work, but it is reasonable to exempt from it people who are in safe occupations or are self-employed after an academic study has found no reason for them to be regulated. What is wrong with that? It beggars belief that the party that is supposed to be campaigning for work—the Labour party, is it not?—is opposing the entrepreneurship that would make more work available.
The Solicitor-General
I have one or two more points to make, and then I shall see if I can give way again. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.
Chris Williamson
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the provisions are clear and that there is no confusion, but clearly there is confusion. Why cannot the Solicitor-General see it? I thought he was a solicitor with a legal brain, so surely he must be able to understand it. [Interruption.] He is a barrister, even; my goodness me. Can he not see that this is not an exhaustive list, and that it will therefore create confusion? There is no problem with the legislation as it stands, so why is he trying to change it? He is in search of a problem that does not exist.
The Solicitor-General
There certainly is confusion on the Opposition Benches because Opposition Members simply do not understand deregulation or entrepreneurship. If we say, “Here is a list”, they say, “Well, it is not defined enough.” and when we explain that there will be a full consultation on all the definitions, they say, “But that is even worse”. How can it be worse? It is obviously a process that has been going on in a measured and sensible way. It is designed to deregulate, to enable business to thrive in our country and to enable us to continue the improved growth we are seeing. It is a way of enabling employment to continue to grow in our country.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about looking at the polling, but he should look at the polling, because the people of this country are starting to turn to the Conservative party and to recognise the achievements of the Conservative-led coalition. It is the Labour party that should be worried, because not a single one of its policies would help this country. Labour has a negative approach; in Committee, no solid or positive proposal was made.
A deregulation Bill that saves £300 million, made up of many small measures, is something that Labour Members simply do not understand. They say that this or that measure will not save that much money, but when all the measures are taken together, we see a change—a transformation. This Bill is about reducing burdens on business, and about the future of our country.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 72, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Toby Perkins.)
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 1, after subsection (4) at end insert—
‘(4A) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of this section coming into force, lay a Report before both Houses of Parliament setting out—
(a) what information has been shared or is intended to be shared by virtue of this section,
(b) by what process the Commissioners and Secretary of State agreed on the information to be shared,
(c) which departments and agencies will have access to that information and for what purpose,
(d) whether some or all of that information was shared or will be shared in anonymised form,
(e) whether that information included or will include—
(i) confidential information, or
(ii) personal data (including sensitive personal data) as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, and
(f) how the provisions of this section fit with the Government’s data sharing strategy.’.
Government amendments 5 to 9, 74, 10 and 11, 27 to 35, 55 and 56.
Tom Brake
New clause 1 provides for an information-sharing gateway between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Secretary of State to support the new apprenticeship funding arrangements. The gateway was previously contained within clause 4 of the Bill, and new clause 1 allows it to operate independently from the arrangements in clause 4. As I set out in Committee, routing funding through employers will mean that the Secretary of State will make arrangements with HMRC, and regulations will set out how the administration of the scheme would operate. The Government published a technical consultation on apprenticeship funding reform in March, which sought views on two payment mechanisms: PAYE—pay-as-you-earn; and an apprenticeship credit. The consultation closed on 1 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to announce our next steps later this year.
Clause 4 provides for the use of HMRC systems to administer the apprenticeship payments, but we must also provide for appropriate information flows. The use of HMRC systems means that information will need to be shared between HMRC and the Secretary of State for the purposes of administering the payments. New clause 1 provides for the disclosure of information between HMRC and the Secretary of State or persons providing services on behalf of the Secretary of State in connection with approved English apprenticeships.
The new clause also allows the information-sharing gateway to operate independently of arrangements in clause 4. That will allow flexibility, should it be needed, in any future arrangements. As new clause 1 sets out, information can be shared only provided it is in connection with approved English apprenticeships. The routing of apprenticeship funding to employers will mean that the Government will need to have the facility to check an employer’s credentials. For example, the Government will want to know that the person they are paying is who they say they are, and the new clause will allow the Government to cross-check information with HMRC data.
New clause 1 is a sensible way to validate employer and apprentice data, potentially minimising the burdens on employers and helping to reduce the potential for fraud. As is normal in relation to HMRC information, the information-sharing gateway is provided for in primary legislation and ensures that taxpayers’ information is safeguarded, with a criminal sanction protecting against unlawful disclosure of identifying information. Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential on the new clause, and would leave out the information-sharing gateway provisions in clause 4.
The Opposition’s amendment (a) to new clause 1 seeks a reporting requirement in connection with the new information-sharing gateway that the Government are introducing in the new clause. To direct apprenticeship funding via employers securely and in a way that safeguards public funds, government must be able to verify an employer’s identity and credentials. New clause 1 will allow the Government to do that by providing for an information-sharing gateway between HMRC and the Secretary of State, so that information already held by government can be used to validate payments without placing additional reporting burdens on employers—the Government want to avoid that. Subject to the detailed design and operation of the payment system, which is still to be confirmed following the recent consultation, examples of the types of data that may need to be shared in order to validate payments and manage the risk of fraud include: employers’ PAYE references; apprentices’ national insurance numbers; and details of the amounts that have been paid.
The Opposition amendment is not necessary. Many hon. Members will be aware that information sharing within government is quite normal, provided there are sufficient safeguards. The House will note that the new clause only allows HMRC to share information for the purposes of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to approved English apprenticeships. HMRC can disclose information only to the Secretary of State or a person providing services on behalf of the Secretary of State—not to anyone else. The Secretary of State, or his service provider, can only disclose information to HMRC to request information from it or for the purposes of arrangements for the administration of apprenticeship payments made under clause 4.
Chi Onwurah
It is fitting that for the last debate in this Parliament we should be speaking of apprenticeships, as they are so important to the future of our country, and of data sharing, which is an increasingly important issue to many constituents.
Labour believes that the better use of data can reduce the costs of public services and improve them while making them faster, more efficient, more individual and more personal. In certain areas, such as health, data sharing could lead to new applications and innovative ways of predicting service need and supporting service provision, so we support data sharing in the public interest, but we must ensure that citizens are in control. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear in his Hugo Young lecture, information on individuals should be owned by and accessible to the individual, not hoarded by the state.
It is therefore deeply troubling that the Government have tabled a last-minute new clause to the Bill to authorise data sharing among the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and persons providing services to them when it comes to apprenticeships. This may be both necessary and useful—the actual data to be shared may be entirely harmless—but it should be done transparently, with the right safeguards and accountability in place, and it should be done as part of a coherent strategy. This is clearly not the case here. The “person providing services” could be anyone, from individual consultants to big multinational companies.
The Government have form on this. In February, their shambolic handling of care.data saw them take what at its origin was potentially a good idea, linking together our individual GP data to improve health care and support new treatments, and single-handedly destroy everyone’s confidence in it. In April, the Government announced that tax data would not only be shared but would be sold to private firms, causing real fear and further eroding public trust in the Government’s ability securely and safely to share our data. I shall come back to those two examples.
We therefore tabled amendment (a) to ask what information was being shared, with whom, by what process, with what accountability, and how it fitted into the Government’s data sharing strategy. If the Minister can answer all those questions, perhaps the amendment will prove superfluous. If not, why not?
Yesterday, in another example of Labour standing up for ordinary people, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) sought to amend the Consumer Rights Bill to create a framework allowing individuals to have more rights over their personal data. The aim was to empower individuals through access to data to have a better understanding of their finance, energy bills, health and shopping habits.
I mention the excellent work of my hon. Friend to make it absolutely clear where the Opposition stand. We believe in the potential of data sharing, we recognise the power of data, but we believe that that power should be with the people, not with big business or Government.
The substance of many of the proposals on apprenticeships is such that we support them, but this last-minute new clause needs further debate and probing. To begin with, even without the data concerns, why are the Government using the Deregulation Bill for this purpose. Is that how they see deregulation: making life easier for them, rather than for citizens and businesses? Around half the proposals in the Bill do just that.
Let us move on to our specific concerns. The Government hold significant data on individuals, companies and organisations in order to deliver services and meet statutory duties. Sharing data across different Government Departments, with local government and with third sector agencies could help improve services while reducing costs and the burden on service users. How many times have we been frustrated at having to give one Government Department exactly the same information that we have already given another? How many times have businesses complained about repetitive form-filling? Data sharing can help reduce the burden on individuals and businesses. Labour supports that. With regard to apprenticeships specifically, small businesses often complain to me about the perceived bureaucracy.
However, there are also legitimate concerns about privacy, individual rights and the risk that Government data stores might be targets of cybercrime. The Government have been heavily criticised for their handling of health data in the care.data project, in that it was difficult for individuals to opt out of sharing their health data, which could then be sold on to the private sector. That data-sharing project has now been paused. In April the well-known author and advocate of data sharing Ben Goldacre withdrew his support from the project, stating:
“a government body handed over parts of my medical records to people I’ve never met, outside the NHS and medical research community, but it is refusing to tell me what it handed over, or who it gave it to”.
Our shadow Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), said that the Government needed to do three things: make it easier for concerned patients to opt out of the proposals; ensure data are genuinely anonymous; and make the Secretary of State accountable for the use of patients’ data. Accountability, transparency and choice—that is what we were asking for, and that is what we are asking for in this amendment.
One might have thought that the Government had learnt from care.data, but it seems not. In April they were at it again, proposing to “sell off” some HMRC data to private sector companies. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), a former Minister, called the proposals “borderline insane”, while the Opposition sought urgent Government explanations. Incompetent handling of data sharing reduces people’s trust and makes it more difficult to implement data-sharing projects that genuinely and responsibly deliver a public good.
Our amendment also relates to HMRC data, so we are at a loss to understand why the Government have not learnt from their experience, or indeed from their own consultation, because last year HMRC consulted on data sharing. In December it announced:
“The Government has decided to proceed with the proposal to remove legal restrictions that currently limit HMRC’s ability to share general and aggregate information for public benefit… HMRC accepts that it will need to be clear and transparent on what is meant by ‘public benefit’. In addition, HMRC accepts that it will need to set in place comprehensive governance, policies and processes, including the evaluation of benefits, risks and costs of a disclosure, before any data is shared or published.”
Can the Minister explain where they are? In April, the Treasury said:
“We shall be consulting further on implementing the proposals for sharing anonymised data, and would only take forward specific measures where there was a clear public benefit and subject to suitable safeguards.”
Yet since the consultation in December we have seen no coherent, concrete proposals, only ad hoc policy, on-the-hoof announcements and this proposed legislation.
The Government deliberately confuse open data and data sharing. The Open Data Institute says:
“Data sharing is providing restricted data to restricted organisations or individuals….Open data is providing unrestricted data to everyone.”
As the chief technology officer of the Open Data Institute said a few days ago,
“confusion is understandable when the government tries to justify its data sharing as satisfying its wider open-data policy.”
With open data, everyone can see the data. However, the new clause is not about open data but about Government deciding to share potentially sensitive data with people they choose without explaining the what, why or who. The Minister talked about an “information-sharing gateway”, the definition of which I do not see in the Bill, and mentioned employers’ PAYE reference numbers and national insurance numbers as some of the information that would be shared. I think he will agree that that is potentially sensitive information. To comply with HMRC’s guidelines, he will need to set out the safeguards and processes, and how the data will be anonymised if appropriate.
The Open Data Institute says:
“Open data is not a ‘valuable revenue stream’ for government. It is a public good.”
Does the Minister agree? Will he guarantee that these data, as part of the “information-sharing gateway”, will not be sold off and will remain within the public sector? As part of Labour’s policy reviews of digital Government and the creative industries and digital, we are developing policies for a coherent data strategy that puts citizens in the driving seat. That is why we are asking the Government to report to the House in six months to explain what information is being shared, with whom, by what process, and with what accountability—and, crucially, how that fits in with the Government’s data-sharing strategy.
In fact, I have not yet been able to identify a Government data-sharing strategy, but perhaps the Minister can help. There is a data-sharing policy unit within the Cabinet Office, so I would have thought that some policy might be coming out of it. The unit recently met representatives of civil society, who have many concerns about data sharing, and agreed that it was necessary to map out the current data-sharing landscape, but we do not know how far they have got with that. This new clause, which is not set in the context of any data-sharing strategy apart from the Minister’s reference to an “information-sharing gateway”, suggests that they have not got very far at all.
Finally, I would like to share with the House an unfortunate occurrence that I recently suffered. My wallet was stolen, including my European health insurance card. Obviously, I was very upset about that, but I was pleased to discover that an automated line was available 24/7 through which I could replace it for free. I rang it up and heard the following message: “The NHSBSA has a data-sharing agreement with other Government agencies. By continuing this call, you signal your awareness and agreement to data sharing.” I was somewhat surprised by that. If this Government believe that all it takes to signal agreement to data sharing—or an information-sharing gateway—is a voicemail, why are they introducing primary legislation in order to enable it?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last year, I attended the Chelsea flower show. I was given two tickets by Japan Tobacco International, which I declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Two weeks ago, I submitted three questions on e-cigarettes. Although I understand that JTI has no commercial interest in e-cigarettes, on reflection I think I should have made sure that I declared it in my interests when I filled out the form. I do not want to pre-judge any inquiry by the Standards Committee, but I made sure that I came here at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the House was aware of my mistake. It was not my intention to mislead anybody. I just want to make sure that what I have been doing is put on the record.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and the speed with which he has come to the House to say it. I think the House will acknowledge that. We will leave it there.
Tom Brake
It was perhaps remiss of me not to say how much I have enjoyed resuming our jousts across the Chamber on the Bill. I remind the House that the Bill will save businesses £300 million over 10 years, and that it will save the public sector £30 million. The Opposition say that it amounts to nothing, so in practice they are saying that £300 million of savings are not worth having. In our view, they are worth having.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) has welcomed apprenticeships and the growth in their number. That is something on which we can all agree.
On to the issue of data sharing and the use of data, the hon. Lady underlined how, under the new Labour party proposals, citizens will be in control of their data. That is of course an interesting departure from what Labour Members did in government. With such things as identity cards, the retention of innocent peoples’ DNA, the massive database they wanted to create and indeed CCTV, they did the complete opposite of giving citizens control over their data.
The hon. Lady suggested that new clause 1 is a last-minute amendment, but of course it is not. It was flagged up in Committee, where we discussed the need for HMRC to share taxpayer information with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and others. I am therefore surprised that she was surprised.
Chi Onwurah
To be absolutely clear, the original Bill had a provision for the disclosure of information to the commissioners, but only for the purpose of arrangements made under clause 4(1), which very narrowly defines the purpose as being for payroll administration. However, new clause 1 is much broader, in that it is for anything
“in relation to…English apprenticeships.”
When the Bill comes back from the Lords, perhaps the provision will cover anything in relation to any BIS functions whatsoever. It is clearly being made wider and wider.
Tom Brake
I do not agree. The hon. Lady will find that the provision is quite tightly defined, and that should satisfy her.
The hon. Lady also referred to the need for safeguards. There will clearly be very significant safeguards for data exchange, and I will give some examples. For a new apprenticeship funding mechanism, as for any new system, the Skills Funding Agency will expect expert assessments of the information and security risks as part of the development on an ongoing basis. An action plan will be developed to address the risks identified, and the senior information risk owner will have to be satisfied that those risks have been sufficiently mitigated before any system goes live. There will be periodic system tests to see whether anyone can break into it. Staff duties will be segregated to protect information. All staff will complete annual training on protecting information, and any security breaches, including near misses, will have to be reported and acted on.
HMRC has a criminal sanction for wrongful disclosure of customer information. As I have stated, in providing its data to other Departments, the continuing protection of HMRC data is a vital safeguard that must remain in place. That is why the HMRC criminal sanction in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 applies to any wrongful disclosure by staff or contractors of a Department that receives HMRC information. In addition, while a legislative gateway may allow for the supply of information from HMRC to another Department, it is generally constructed so that the other Department is not permitted to pass on that information to another organisation, public or private, without recourse to HMRC, and that is the case with new clause 1.
The safeguards that the hon. Lady wants are therefore already in place. The data are secure, and any exchange of data will be done only under very tightly controlled procedures.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister’s words offer some reassurance on the systems to be put in place, but not on accountability. We have seen with universal credit that accountability for identity management and for the success of a project can be very diffuse. Who will own and therefore be accountable for this new IT system?
Tom Brake
I would love to be able to answer that question immediately, but, as the hon. Lady is aware, the consultation on the solution closed on 1 May, so the technical solution has not been devised. I am therefore not in a position to clarify precisely where the responsibility will lie, because the system is not yet specified. At the point of specification, I am sure we will be able to provide her with the clarity she needs.
I have provided examples, which the hon. Lady quoted, of the data that might be shared. As I have just said, the consultation closed on 1 May, so I am not in a position to give her an extensive list of the data that will be shared. I assure her that it will be restricted to the purposes for which it is required.
The hon. Lady asked why this matter is in the Deregulation Bill. One major thing that the Government are trying to deliver in the area of deregulation is to provide employers with a much greater say over the way in which apprenticeships are managed and the standards developed. We also want to ensure that employers have a greater financial stake in apprenticeships, because we believe that that will drive quality in apprenticeships. The Bill is therefore the appropriate vehicle in which to make the arrangements for the data sharing that we have discussed.
It is the Government’s clear objective to avoid, as far as is possible, any unnecessary exchange of data and any additional burden on businesses, especially small businesses, to provide information that they might already have provided to Government for other reasons. We want to minimise the need for businesses to provide additional information.
I hope that I have dealt with all the hon. Lady’s points.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for being generous in this last debate. It concerns me that he implies that a system does not have an owner until it has been specified. It is the owner of the system that should be specifying it in order to avoid the car crashes in IT development that we have seen under the Governments of both major parties. Again, will he come back to me with who owns the specification of this information-sharing gateway or data-sharing system?
Tom Brake
I am not in a position to do that. Assuming that HMRC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are involved, they will want to play a major role in providing accountability for that system. The hon. Lady and I both went to Imperial college London. I went on to work in the IT industry, so I understand perfectly the importance of having somebody who is accountable for a system. I am certain that the Government will ensure that someone or a particular Department is very clearly accountable, and that the lines of responsibility and accountability are very clear.
With that, I commend the Government proposals and urge the Opposition not to press amendment (a) to new clause 1.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 3
Apprenticeships: simplification
Amendment made: 5, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
‘( ) Part 4 of the Schedule contains transitional provision.’.—(Tom Brake.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.
Clause 4
English apprenticeships: funding arrangements
Amendments made: 6, page 2, line 26, leave out from ‘of’ to end of line 28 and insert
‘apprenticeship payments.
( ) “Apprenticeship payments” are payments that may be made by the Secretary of State to any person—
(a) for the purpose of encouraging the provision of opportunities for individuals to complete approved English apprenticeships or to undertake work following the completion of such apprenticeships, or
(b) otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.’.
This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may make arrangements with HMRC for HMRC to administer payments that may be made by the Secretary of State to any person in connection with approved English apprenticeships.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
‘( ) The arrangements that may be made under subsection (1) include arrangements under which the Commissioners are responsible for recovery where an apprenticeship payment is made but the whole or any part of it is (for whatever reason) recoverable by the Secretary of State.’.
This amendment clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements made under clause 4(1) may include responsibility for HMRC to recover any apprenticeship payments which are recoverable by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 33, leave out ‘employers’ and insert
‘persons of a description specified in the regulations’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 6.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 38, leave out from ‘with’ to end of line 39 and insert ‘approved English apprenticeships’.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 6.
Amendment 74, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
‘( ) The regulations may, in particular, also provide that, where the Commissioners are responsible for recovering the whole or any part of an apprenticeship payment from a person of a description specified in the regulations, they may do so by deducting the amount from any payments that they would otherwise be required to make to that person and that are of a kind specified in the regulations.’.
This amendment ensures that, for the purposes of arrangements under clause 4(1), HMRC may make regulations to enable them to recover apprenticeship payments from persons, who will be described in the regulations, by making deductions from payments that HMRC would otherwise have to make.
Amendment 10, page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (5) to (8).
This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.
Amendment 11, page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.—(Tom Brake.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.
Schedule 1
Approved English apprenticeships
Amendments made: 27, page 53, line 9, leave out ‘prepare and’.
This amendment removes the requirement that the Secretary of State must prepare apprenticeship standards. It is related to amendment 28.
Amendment 28, page 53, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) Each standard must be—
(a) prepared by the Secretary of State, or
(b) prepared by another person and approved by the Secretary of State.’.
This amendment allows for any person, including employers, to prepare apprenticeship standards (as well as the Secretary of State). A standard must be approved by the Secretary of State if it is prepared by another person.
Amendment 29, page 53, line 19, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line 24 and insert
‘may—
(a) publish a revised version of a standard, or
(b) withdraw a standard (with or without publishing another in its place).’.
This amendment, which is related to amendment 30, allows for the Secretary of State to publish an amended version of a standard or to withdraw a standard (with or without publishing another one).
Amendment 30, page 53, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) Revisions of a standard may be—
(a) prepared by the Secretary of State, or
(b) prepared by another person and approved by the Secretary of State.’.
This amendment allows for any person, including employers, to prepare revisions of apprenticeship standards (as well as the Secretary of State). A standard must be approved by the Secretary of State if it is prepared by another person.
Amendment 31, page 53, leave out lines 25 to 27.
This amendment removes the express provision for employers or their representatives to make proposals to the Secretary of State about standards. This is considered unnecessary in the light of amendments 28 and 30 which allow for an enhanced role for employers and other persons.
Amendment 32, page 55, line 25, at end insert—
‘1A (1) Section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “financial resources” insert “under this subsection”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may secure the provision of financial resources to any person under this subsection (whether or not the resources could be secured under subsection (1))—
(a) for the purpose of encouraging the provision of opportunities for individuals to complete approved English apprenticeships or to undertake work following the completion of such apprenticeships, or
(b) otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.”
(4) In subsection (3), after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”.
(5) In subsection (4), after “subsection (1)(c)” insert “or (1A)”.
1B (1) Section 101of that Act (financial resources: conditions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) after “may” insert “(among other things)”;
(b) omit paragraph (b).
(3) Omit subsections (4) and (5).
1C In section 103 of that Act (means tests), in subsection (1) (as amended by paragraph 13C of Schedule 13) after “section 100(1)(c), (d) or (e)” insert “or (1A)”.’.
This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may make payments relating to approved English apprenticeships under section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources). It makes consequential changes to sections 100, 101 and 103 of that Act.
Amendment 33, page 56, line 17, leave out ‘employment’ and insert ‘service’.
This amendment, together with amendment 34, is to clarify that “apprenticeship training” in section 83 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 includes training provided in connection with any contract of service or contract of apprenticeship.
Amendment 34, page 56, line 18, after ‘agreement)’ insert ‘or contract of apprenticeship’.
See amendment 33.
Amendment 35, page 57, line 38, at end insert—
‘Part 4
Transitional provision
The provision that may be included in an order under section77(7) in connection with the coming into force of paragraph 1 of this Schedule includes provision—
(a) for work done by a person under an arrangement described in the order to be treated as work done under an approved English apprenticeship within the meaning of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, where the person begins to work under the arrangement before the paragraph comes into force and continues to do so (for any period) afterwards;
(b) for a standard published by the Secretary of State before the paragraph comes into force, in connection with work that by virtue of provision made under paragraph (a) is treated as work done under an approved English apprenticeship, to be treated as if it were an approved apprenticeship standard published under section A2 of the 2009 Act in relation to the approved English apprenticeship.’.—(Tom Brake.)
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may by order make certain transitional provision, in particular, provision for work to be treated as if it were done under an approved English apprenticeship where the work was done under other specified arrangements before paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 comes into force.
Schedule 13
Abolition of office of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding
Amendments made: 55, page 142, line 14, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
‘8 Omit section 85 (provision of apprenticeship training etc for persons within section 83 or 83A).’.
This amendment repeals section 85 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (which imposes a duty on the Chief Executive of Skills Funding to make reasonable efforts to secure employer participation in certain apprenticeship training) instead of transferring the duty to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 56, page 142, line 40, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
‘13 (1) Section 100 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in the opening words, for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;
(b) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive’s remit” substitute “Secretary of State’s remit under this Part”;
(c) omit paragraph (f).
(3) Omit subsection (2).
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) in the opening words, for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;
(b) in paragraph (c), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.
(5) In subsection (4), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.
13A (1) Section 101 (financial resources: conditions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “by the Chief Executive” substitute “by the Secretary of State under section 100”.
(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;
(ii) for “the functions of the office” substitute “functions under this Part”.
(4) In subsection (6)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;
(b) in paragraph (b), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.
13B (1) Section 102 (performance assessments) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;
(b) for “Chief Executive’s remit” substitute “Secretary of State’s remit under this Part”.
13C (1) Section 103 (means tests) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “The Chief Executive” substitute “For the purpose of the exercise of the powers under section 100(1)(c), (d) or (e), the Secretary of State”.
(3) Omit subsection (2).’.—(Tom Brake.)
This amendment transfers the funding powers of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding under sections 100 to 103 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to the Secretary of State.
Bill to be further considered tomorrow.
Petitions
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe in fighting to defend the NHS, believe in fighting to defend the NHS services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough, and oppose cuts inflicted by the Conservative-led government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that proposals to scrap GP services at Skelton Medical Centre should be abandoned; further that proposals to scrap GP services at Park End Medical Centre should also be abandoned; further that the Petitioners believe that South Tees clinical commissioning group’s plans to close East Cleveland Hospital’s and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injuries units is short-sighted given the £50 million deficit of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and further that the Petitioners condemn South Tees clinical commissioning group’s decision to close Skelton’s NHS walk-in centre.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage NHS England and South Tees clinical commissioning group to reverse plans to close Park End Medical Centre, Skelton Medical Centre, its NHS walk-in centre and East Cleveland and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injury units.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001352]
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I wish to present to the House the pub scandal petition on behalf of the Campaign for Real Ale, which organised this petition through 38 Degrees.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Government should stick to its promise to introduce a watchdog to prevent valued pubs from facing closure due to unfair practices in the pub sector; further that the Petitioners believe that a pubs watchdog is urgently needed to govern the behaviour of large pub companies so that publicans are treated fairly by ensuring that rents and wholesale prices are reasonable; and further that a Petition from UK residents on this subject has received over 44,500 signatures. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to stick to its promise and introduce a pubs watchdog to protect valued pubs from the risk of closure.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001353]
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a petition regarding the proposed closure of the NatWest branch on Splott road in Cardiff, which I was pleased to accept at the Carlisle bakery on Splott road in Splott recently.
The Petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners wish to protest against the closure of the NatWest branch on Splott Road, Cardiff, in the constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth and further that a local Petition on this subject has received nearly 300 signatures.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons notes the Petition and urges the Government to hold talks with representatives of NatWest to consider the impacts of the branch closure on the local community.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001354]
Mr Speaker
Order. The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, I shall cause the Division bells to be sounded.
Message to Attend the Lords Commissioners
Mr Speaker
I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:
Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014
Deep Sea Mining Act 2014
Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014
Intellectual Property Act 2014
Pensions Act 2014
Defence Reform Act 2014
Water Act 2014
Immigration Act 2014
Care Act 2014
House of Lords Reform Act 2014
Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 2014
Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech
Mr Speaker
I have further to acquaint the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty’s Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
The Speech was as follows:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
My Ministers’ first priority has been to strengthen the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom through the growth of the private sector and the creation of further opportunities for employment. To this end, legislation has been passed to make it easier for businesses to protect their intellectual property and to reform the financial services sector. Legislation has also been enacted to introduce a new Employment Allowance to support the creation of jobs and to help small businesses.
My Government has made it a priority to promote investment in infrastructure across the United Kingdom. In pursuance of this, legislation has been passed to update energy infrastructure and to improve the water industry. Legislation was also introduced to enable the building of the High Speed Two railway line to provide further opportunities for economic growth in many of Britain’s cities.
My Ministers have worked to promote a fairer society that rewards people who work hard. In pursuit of this goal, legislation was brought forward to support people who have saved for their retirement and to reform the way long-term care is paid for so that the elderly should not have to sell their homes to meet the costs of their care.
Legislation was enacted to ensure sufferers of mesothelioma receive payments where no liable employer or insurer can be traced.
Policies have been pursued which are designed to ensure that every child has the best start in life, regardless of background. Measures have been passed to reform the law on marriage in England and Wales to make provision for same sex couples.
My Government attaches the highest priority to reducing crime and protecting national security. Legislation was passed to reform the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in England and Wales. Alongside these reforms, legislation was enacted to introduce new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, cut crime and reform the police.
Legislation was passed further to reform Britain’s immigration system to attract people who will contribute and deter those who will not.
With regard to the defence of the Realm, legislation was brought forward to improve the way defence equipment is procured and to strengthen the Reserve Forces. Legislation was also passed governing remote gambling and in relation to the European Union.
My Government has taken forward a range of measures designed to foster greater accountability in public life. Legislation was passed to provide for greater transparency in lobbying, third party campaign spending and trade union administration. Measures were also enacted regarding local government, to close the Audit Commission and to give effect to a number of institutional improvements in Northern Ireland.
My Ministers have pursued policies to benefit people in every part of the United Kingdom and have continued to work to foster a strong working relationship with the devolved administrations.
The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to welcome Her Excellency the President of the Republic of Korea and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ireland on their visits to the United Kingdom. We were heartened by the warm welcome we received on our visit to Italy and the Holy See.
On the international stage, my Government has worked to reduce conflict and alleviate human suffering, through negotiations with Iran, by championing the rights of Syrians, and by supporting the Afghan people. My Ministers helped to secure the first international Arms Trade Treaty and are leading a worldwide effort to end the scourge of sexual violence in conflict. My Ministers have striven to promote British trade and investment around the world, creating new opportunities for the British people. Working with European partners, my Ministers have made progress towards a more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable European Union.
Members of the House of Commons
I thank you for the provisions which you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
Prorogation
Mr Speaker
The Commission was also for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
“My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
By virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the fourth day of June to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the fourth day of June.”
End of the Third Session (opened on 8 May 2013) of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Sixty-Third Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
Ministerial Corrections
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Livestock: Diseases
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Ellison
The following table states how many instances of the cystic stage (C Bovis) of the human tapeworm Taenia Saginata have been identified during official post mortem inspection and prevented from entering the food chain by officials working for and on behalf of the Food Standards Agency since April 2012.
Rejection Type | Total number of conditions |
|---|---|
Cattle Cysticercus bovis—Localised | 3,246 |
Cattle Cysticercus bovis—Generalised | 2,926 |
Note: Localised included carcase parts and offal and Generalised included total carcase. |
The correct answer should have been:
Jane Ellison
The following table states how many instances of the cystic stage (C Bovis) of the human tapeworm Taenia Saginata have been identified during official post mortem inspection and prevented from entering the food chain by officials working for and on behalf of the Food Standards Agency since April 2012.
Rejection Type | Total number of conditions |
|---|---|
Cattle Cysticercus bovis—Localised | 539 |
Cattle Cysticercus bovis—Generalised | 47 |
Note: Localised included carcase parts and offal and Generalised included total carcase. |
Huw Irranca-Davies
To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of (a) Cysticercus Tenuicollis (adult tapeworm - Taenia Hydatigena), (b) Cysticercus Ovis (adult tapeworm - Taenia Ovis), (c) Hydatid Cysts (adult tapeworm - Echinococcus Granulosus), (d) Generalised (cysts identified in multiple parts of the animal including the musculature the consumer would define as meat) and (e) Cysticercus Ovis have been identified at official post-mortem inspections and prevented from entering the food chain by officials working for and on behalf of the Food Standards Agency since 1 April 2012.
[Official Report, 1 April 2014, Vol. 578, c. 572W.]
Letter of correction from Jane Ellison:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on 1 April 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Jane Ellison
The following number of instances have been identified at official post mortem inspection and prevented from entering the food chain by officials working for and on behalf of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) since April 2012:
Some conditions are not recorded by the FSA. The list of conditions for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry were created following expert working group workshops for each species over the last five years. Members of the workshops included stakeholders from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Animal Health, EBLEX, BPEX, private veterinarians, industry vets, FSA, Association of Meat Inspectors.
The data for sheep, goats, deer and horses is from April 2012 to December 2013 all other species is April 2012 to March 2014.
Condition | Total number identified |
|---|---|
(a) Cysticercus Tenuicollis (adult tapeworm—Taenia Hydatiqena | 2,144,395 |
(b) Cysticercus Ovis (adult tapeworm—Taenia Ovis) | 190,489 |
(c) Hydatid Cysts (adult tapeworm—Echinococcus Granulosus) | 69,685 |
(d) Generalised (cysts identified in multiple parts of the animal including the musculature the consumer would define as meat)1 | 6,172 |
(e) Generalised Cysticercus Ovis | 2— |
1 Generalised—The figure provided the number of instances of the cystic stage (C Bovis) of the human tapeworm Taenia Saginata. 2 Generalised Cysticercus Ovis—there is no generalised data held for this. The individual number of incidences are reported. |
The correct answer should have been:
Jane Ellison
The following number of instances have been identified at official post mortem inspection and prevented from entering the food chain by officials working for and on behalf of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) since April 2012:
Some conditions are not recorded by the FSA. The list of conditions for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry were created following expert working group workshops for each species over the last five years. Members of the workshops included stakeholders from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Animal Health, EBLEX, BPEX, private veterinarians, industry vets, FSA, Association of Meat Inspectors.
The data for sheep, goats, deer and horses is from April 2012 to December 2013 all other species is April 2012 to March 2014.
Condition | Total number identified |
|---|---|
(a) Cysticercus Tenuicollis (adult tapeworm—Taenia Hydatiqena | 2,144,395 |
(b) Cysticercus Ovis (adult tapeworm—Taenia Ovis) | 190,489 |
(c) Hydatid Cysts (adult tapeworm—Echinococcus Granulosus) | 69,685 |
(d) Generalised (cysts identified in multiple parts of the animal including the musculature the consumer would define as meat)1 | 47 |
(e) Generalised Cysticercus Ovis | 2— |
1 Generalised—The figure provided the number of instances of the cystic stage (C Bovis) of the human tapeworm Taenia Saginata. 2 Generalised Cysticercus Ovis—there is no generalised data held for this. The individual number of incidences are reported. |
Petitions
On-shore Wind Farm Developments in Winterton, North Lincolnshire
Proposed Closure of The Lilacs Care Home, North Lincolnshire
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
A47
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies—I have not come under your gavel before now. It is also nice to see the Minister in his place after his kippers in the Tea Room this morning; I am sure that his little grey cells are all fired up.
I welcome all my colleagues who are here this morning. Between us, our constituencies span just about the whole A47. We have apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who has an outside engagement and so cannot attend, but fully supports us, and from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who may yet appear in a silent role later on. We have pretty well a full team.
Apart from anything else, my reason for calling for the debate is that parts of the A47 run through my present constituency, although boundary changes robbed me of the western part, which is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). The stretch from the east of Norwich almost up to Great Yarmouth is important, but I have learned from harsh experience that we must address the upgrading of the A47 along its whole length. Given our hope of gaining money in the autumn statement—and we are in competition with five other worthy schemes—we should approach the issue from a strategic point of view, although we should of course recognise that we all have constituency-specific issues.
The A47 runs for some 115 miles, from Peterborough through Norfolk to Great Yarmouth. The extra consideration is now the A12 to Lowestoft; my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) is here to represent those interests. Over my 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I have seen many schemes relating to the A47 drop off the list of priorities, either because other schemes have come further up the list or because Governments have run out of money. Usually, there has then been a patchwork approach to mending the A47, addressing narrow local problems. Worthy as that is, it is not the solution for the year 2014-15.
I welcome the Government’s investment in the UK’s national roads network and the decision to complete the dualling of the A11. That early decision by the coalition is one we applauded at the time and was at least helped along by the fact that Norfolk and Suffolk MPs hunted as a pack. We knew we had the chance of getting one big delivery, and the Government have delivered it. We hope that the last section will be opened and will make a considerable difference. If, as occasionally happens, there is ever a major accident on the east-west A47 in Norfolk and on the A11, Norfolk literally grinds to a halt. We need to bear that in mind.
The A47 Alliance has been crucial in putting forward a credible case for dualling the A47. The alliance is grateful for all positive announcements already made regarding the A47, including that it will be one of just six routes to benefit from the Highways Agency feasibility study programme. We are in the last six. In this debate, I will merely set the big picture, and colleagues will come in with specific points; I hope the debate as a whole will help move things forward and push the A47 further up the priorities list.
Typical of the work undertaken by the A47 Alliance is its study “A47 Strategic Route: Gateway to Growth”, which has contributions from all councils along the route and, most significantly, from the New Anglia local enterprise partnership. The study is not just the usual wish list that we frequently get from these kinds of organisations; as far as we can tell, it is a well argued business case and has been recognised as such by the Department for Transport. Indeed, the Minister’s predecessor, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), said that he would suggest to other people making bids for routes that they should study how the A47 case has been produced. This is not simply a matter of sentiment, then—there is a strong business case.
As part of the campaign, we have held a number of debates in Parliament—I have had debates on the A47 in the past, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk. Collectively, we have met my hon. Friend the Roads Minister and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, to present our case. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon came to Norfolk last year, and I drove him along part of the A47 so that he could get a feel for the traffic and the problems we face in my area. He then progressed westwards towards Peterborough to see the situation further along the road. The present Minister has also agreed to visit the area to see the challenges for himself, which I think may be happening next month.
I realise that the A47 is competing with other schemes for part of the Government’s long-term capital funding. Along with colleagues, I will again put forward positive arguments for the A47 being considered for top funding in this year’s autumn statement. That is the timeline and the opportunity that we have over the next few months.
The A47 is a national trunk road of strategic importance to Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and should also be of importance to the east midlands and the whole UK. Colleagues will agree that lack of capacity has had a real drag on current business opportunities, with delays and missed opportunities, especially for new investment in the area.
Without a commitment to investment in the A47, other Government priorities for our part of East Anglia will not be met. The Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft enterprise zone will depend largely on the proper development of the A47. The planned growth of greater Norwich and projected housing growth will mean that what is already a difficult situation in the road structure around Norwich will become even worse, and the situation is similar for King’s Lynn, Wisbech and Peterborough. Poor, unreliable east-west transport links will deter investment. At a time when we are also trying to cope with unemployment by attracting new businesses, we have a very strong case indeed to make for the strategic importance of the A47.
Although perhaps not part of a strategic picture, we also have to take into account the problems that local communities along the route face in gaining access to and crossing the A47. I will give one example. East of Norwich, at Lingwood in my constituency, there is a nasty crossing. In the summer, the problems are exacerbated by tourists and in the sugar beet season, dozens of lorries attempt to come across—indeed, the lady in the white house on the corner used to store a full stretcher kit so that it could be put to immediate use before ambulances arrived. I am sure colleagues have other examples.
Such situations increase the chance of accidents. Since Christmas, sadly, there have been a number of serious accidents in Norfolk—I am sure the same is true in other areas—that literally blocked the A47. I have never claimed that the only problem is the lack of dualling. As the police will say, drivers frequently make errors or take chances, but that is partly due to the fact that the A47 is a stop-start road that is single then dualled, so people take risks at the last moment.
Investment will help stimulate economic growth, meet the transport access needs of new homes and possibly reduce accidents. A strategic link between the east midlands, Yarmouth and Lowestoft will also provide greater access to Europe. We in East Anglia look out towards Europe, and Europe has influenced our development. We have very close links indeed. I fear that if we are unable to develop the A47 in the next few years, some European countries that want economic links with our region will look elsewhere.
I assure the Minister that we intend to continue to lobby his Department and, most importantly, the Treasury as we develop our fact-based case. We will continue to feed any new information into the A47 feasibility study. I know that my colleagues will want to take up specific issues to support my case for the strategic importance of the A47.
I conclude by asking the Minister to outline the timetable for the key milestones put forward for the study. I remind him that they are as follows. Completion of stage 1 of the study—evidence gathering and problem prioritisation—was due at the end of March 2014 and I trust that that was met. Completion of stage 2—identifying the range of infrastructure proposals that could address the problems along the corridor—is due at the end of July 2014. Is that on track? Completion of stage 3—work to assess affordability, value for money and deliverability of prioritised infrastructure proposals—is due in autumn 2014. Will the study conclude in time for the autumn statement? Does the Minister have any idea of when we will know the six schemes that are up for the money and when we might have some indication of whether he has reached a conclusion, recognising the fact that the Chancellor will make the announcement in the autumn statement?
The Minister and his predecessor have listened carefully to what we have said and have taken our case seriously. I hope that the Minister will see, from the range of support from colleagues throughout the eastern counties, that we believe the strategic importance of the A47 merits putting us at the top and that we should receive the money in the autumn statement.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this debate. I fully and wholeheartedly endorse his comments. I want to spend a few minutes outlining why Government support for the A47 would not only complement but enhance the coalition’s range of strategies for supporting growth, particularly in and around Norwich, and, crucially, why a whole-route approach should be taken.
Norwich is a key driver of economic growth and has the highest economic output in the region, but further growth has been held back by poor transport infrastructure across the eastern region. The A47, with the A11 and the great eastern mainline, has been subject to underinvestment for decades. The coalition’s investment in the A11 is extremely welcome, but unfortunately we in Norfolk are playing catch-up.
The section of the A47 immediately around Norwich is already fully dualled, and following today’s debate I hope we will all commit to exploring further the case for dualling the whole of the road. To release further growth in Norwich, we need improvements to a number of junctions, including the Thickthorn and Longwater junctions. I assure the Minister and the Treasury that improvements to the A47 will make an important contribution to unleashing the full economic growth potential of other coalition Government initiatives in and around Norwich.
Full dualling of the A11 will be complete by the end of this year. It will bring great benefits to businesses and the local economy, and improve reliability of journey times for all motorists. Securing funding for the dualling of the A11 was a key infrastructure objective agreed by the Norfolk nine MPs at the beginning of the coalition in 2010. We are grateful to the Government for granting our wishes after 30 years of campaigning in the county.
The A11 meets the A47 at the Thickthorn roundabout, which is also the gateway to Norwich from the A11. This is one of the county’s busiest junctions. It needs an overhaul to improve capacity and that will become increasingly apparent to drivers following the completion of the A11 dualling. Significant housing growth is planned for the area around Thickthorn, including at Hethersett and Cringleford, and a little further south-west at Wymondham, adding further pressure to this key junction, which is a rather unattractive welcome to Norwich.
Plans have been published for a possible solution that would provide the option for traffic on the A11 to bypass the Thickthorn roundabout through a new tunnel under the A11 and a new bridge over the A47. Norfolk county council has commissioned further work on this proposal, and I hope that the Highways Agency will prove supportive in establishing a long-term solution. Due to the housing growth planned in the area, that is needed sooner rather than later.
Norwich research park, which is located just south of Norwich, is accessed through two of the A47’s junctions —Thickthorn and the B1108 Earlham road. Some 11,000 people are employed at the park and it provides world-class research in health, life and environmental sciences through the expertise at the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, the university of East Anglia and four independent research institutions. There is a need for improved road links and junction capacity to serve proposed growth at the park. The coalition’s 2011 Budget announced £26 million for the park to fund infrastructure and premises to pave the way for developing the campus. The 11,000 staff currently working there could be joined by a further 5,000 over the next 10 years, partly as a result of the coalition’s investment. Improving the A47, including the Thickthorn junction, will help to accelerate growth.
The Norwich research park is also a key element of the Greater Norwich city deal. I was pleased to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to Norwich at the end of last year, when he signed the deal. I congratulate the local authorities and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership on securing it. The city deal may lead to 19,000 new jobs in key economic sectors, and its approval strengthens the case for improving the A47. Norwich has a great deal to gain from A47 improvements, and eventual full dualling of the A47 will promote new economic opportunities along the whole route, both to the midlands and across to continental Europe.
However, the case for change is not purely economic. Despite being a route of major importance to the region, away from the dualled sections, particularly of the A47, the road can be treacherous. Single carriageway stretches, including the Acle straight to the east of Norwich, are still the scene of far too many casualties. That must change.
As a young boy, I grew up not much more than a stone’s throw from the roadside of the A47 at North Tuddenham. I remember the difference in 1992 with the opening of the Dereham-North Tuddenham A47 improvements and with the Norwich southern bypass. It is hard to imagine how the A47 functioned without those improvements, yet more than 20 years later other key sections are left woefully inadequate.
We need to move away from a piecemeal approach to the A47 every few years, and instead work towards a whole-route plan by establishing the case for full dualling from Peterborough to Lowestoft. Many of us understand that the funding will not be made available in one go, but a whole-route strategy will at least avoid one-off patching work without a sense of how it fits into the big picture.
I hope the Minister has noted that, as with the A11, the A47 is a route that has the full support of all nine Norfolk MPs, plus a few honourable additions from over the border. The Norfolk nine, working with the A47 Alliance, are confident that significant economic and social benefits will be delivered through investment in the route. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I intend to call the shadow Minister no later than 10.40. Six hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, which gives just over eight minutes each. I do not intend to set a time limit, but I hope that they will be mindful of that to give everyone a fair crack of the whip.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this important debate. Its timing is opportune, as the A47 corridor feasibility study being carried out by the Department for Transport is now at the stage of identifying the range of infrastructure proposals that are required to address the problems that occur along the corridor.
Although the A47 currently runs from Peterborough to Great Yarmouth, the study also includes the part of the A12 that runs from Great Yarmouth to the south side of Lake Lothing in Lowestoft in my constituency. I very much welcome that, as it presents the opportunity to provide a high-quality road to Lowestoft and the Waveney area, which can play a vital role in attracting business and jobs. In due course, I hope that the A47 will run right into the heart of Lowestoft, so as to put the town well and truly on the national road map.
At present, the poor quality and unreliability of the A47 means that it is not the gateway to growth that it should be. Its reliability is adversely affected by collisions and disruptions, often on the single carriageway sections. There are a number of pinch points that cause congestion, deterring business and costing it dear. Those include the Bascule bridge in Lowestoft, the Gapton Hall roundabout in Great Yarmouth and the Hardwick roundabout in King’s Lynn.
One of the most significant challenges that the nation faces today is rebalancing the economy. Investment in infrastructure such as roads has a key role to play in that task. Around the world, an increasing amount of trade and wealth is concentrated in a small number of major cities. In the United Kingdom, we have London, and although it is very good news that we do, that, in itself, presents a challenge—the need to ensure that economic activity is not concentrated in one small part of the country for the benefit of the few. A properly functioning strategic road network has an important role to play to ensure that the regions of the UK perform to their full economic potential. The A47 can do that for the economies of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.
As a region, East Anglia is the second largest contributor to the Treasury after London and the south-east. However, this is no time for resting on our laurels, as with the right investment, the region can contribute even more in such key industries as food, tourism and energy. East Anglia is set to play the leading role in supplying the country’s energy needs, not only keeping the lights on, but providing new and exciting jobs. The working life of Sizewell B has been extended, and there are new-build proposals at Sizewell C. The southern North sea gas basin is still in full production with 150 working platforms, and the world’s largest offshore wind farms will be built off the East Anglian coast. To make the most of those opportunities, we need not only good infrastructure, but a strategic approach towards its provision.
I turn to what is being done by national and local government. Last year, the Government published “Investing in Britain’s future”, and they have now followed that up with “Action for Roads”, which sets out a national investment strategy. As part of that strategy, six feasibility studies of major roads, including the A47, are now being carried out. Once those studies have been completed, the Government will publish their road investment strategy later this year.
That strategic approach is very much to be welcomed, as it is important that investment is pinpointed and targeted, and not scattergun. To be effective, individual improvements to the road network must take place in a strategic framework and not in a vacuum. That national work provides the framework in which Suffolk county council, Waveney district council and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership are working up their road improvement plans in the Lowestoft transport and infrastructure prospectus and the options appraisal for a new crossing of Lake Lothing, which is currently being carried out. Those much needed local projects are vital component parts of a regional and national strategy that will ensure that investment in our roads yields the best possible return, in terms of added value to the economy and the creation of new jobs.
Now that the upgrading of the A11 from Norwich to the M11 is almost complete, it is appropriate to turn attention to improving the A47; the road that links Waveney, Norfolk and northern Cambridgeshire to the midlands and the north. The upgrading of the A47 can bring similar economic benefits to the northern part of East Anglia to those that the A14 has brought to the south. It can provide a boost to ports on its route—Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn—in much the same way as the haven ports of Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich have benefited over the past 35 years from the upgrading of the A14.
The A47 can be a strategic route, linking Europe through East Anglia to the midlands and the north. It is already part of the trans-European network and if it is upgraded, it will provide better connections both to Europe and around the world, not only through those three ports, but through Norwich international airport. It will help attract business from outside the UK, providing vital inward investment.
An improved road is vital if those ports are to flourish. It should be remembered that the poor quality of the A47 was one reason why Norfolkline and Maersk relocated from Great Yarmouth to Felixstowe two decades ago. As I mentioned, industries that will benefit from an upgraded A47 are energy, food and tourism, and it could also lead to an expansion of the distribution and logistics industry in the same way as the A14 has generated such activity along its corridor from Felixstowe to Kettering.
Why invest in the A47? There are three good reasons: the compelling business case; the absence of significant environmental obstacles; and a united front of business and political leaders in the three counties supporting the campaign, backed by the Eastern Daily Press newspaper.
That upgrading should include improving important links. There is the link between the ports of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, which is vital as so much of the business in the two towns is interconnected. There is the link to Norwich and its airport; the latter can perform the same role for our region as the airport at Aberdeen plays for north-east Scotland. There is the link to the recently upgraded A11, providing improved access to London and the south-east. There is also the link to the north and the midlands via the A1, providing better connections for East Anglia’s energy businesses to companies in their supply chains in those regions.
Good roads are vital if Lowestoft is to realise its full economic potential. The town needs not only good connections to the rest of the country, but a road network around the town that operates properly. The current congestion is an obstacle to growth.
If Lowestoft is to attract significant inward investment, it is vital that it is on the strategic national road network. Good roads to the town will complement the important initiatives that have been put in place in the past two to three years. Those include the enterprise zone, centre for offshore renewable engineering status for the ports of Lowestoft and Yarmouth, and most recently, the inclusion of parts of the two towns on the assisted areas map for 2014 to 2020. Without good road links, Lowestoft and Yarmouth risk being marooned at the end of the line, and those initiatives will not realise their full potential.
The poor transport infrastructure to the port of Lowestoft and Lake Lothing are holding back considerable potential for creating new jobs. Research recently carried out by Mott MacDonald concludes that a new crossing of Lake Lothing and the upgrading of Denmark road will result in sites being developed more quickly, the creation of a significant number of additional jobs and the generation of £103 million of gross value added per annum. Those assessments take no account of the significant spin-off benefits that will accrue to supply chain businesses.
It is vital that a clear commitment is provided at the outset to dual the A47 across its entire length from Lowestoft to Peterborough. Full dualling will improve the road’s safety and reliability, reduce travel times and bring significant economic benefits to the area. A patchwork of improvements tackling specific bottlenecks, though welcome, may well bring its own problems, creating new congestion and safety blackspots. Those may well be where sections of dualling come to a seemingly abrupt end. Although I accept that the work will need to be done in phases, the announcement this autumn of a commitment to fully dual the A47 will bring a major boost to investment and regeneration.
I started my working life in Norwich in 1983. At that time, there was one small section of dual carriageway in Norfolk, at Cringleford on the A11 on the outskirts of the city. Just over 30 years later, the full dualling of the A11 from Norwich to the A14 is finally almost complete. I urge the Minister and the Government to do all they can to ensure that the A47 is dualled in a far shorter period.
The Government’s approach to rebalancing the economy and revitalising the regions is the right one. I am referring to the creation of LEPs, initiatives such as enterprise zones and investment in infrastructure: broadband, rail and roads. The Government are right to pursue a strategic approach towards upgrading the national road network. The case for the A47 is compelling. Now is the time to be bold and to set out an ambitious vision that will produce a huge dividend in terms of inward investment, increased prosperity and jobs for East Anglia.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this vital debate. I will be brief; I will try to stick to the eight minutes.
The A47, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is of key strategic importance. It is the second most important road that links Norfolk to the rest of the region and the rest of the country. Now that, as colleagues have pointed out, the A11 is almost complete, it is essential that we turn our attention to the A47. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland pointed out, it is very patchy in terms of dualling. I think that less than one quarter is dualled. That makes it an inherently dangerous road. I shall touch on the overall situation on the A47 first and then consider a number of specific cases in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) was right to flag up safety first of all, because we are talking about people’s lives. When we have sporadic sections of dual carriageway, all the safety experts agree that when people come off those dual carriageway sections, traffic is moving that much faster and there will be more accidents; drivers will take more risks. The situation can be exacerbated by slow-moving agricultural vehicles or bad weather. I will come on to a number of unfortunate incidents in my own constituency recently, but there cannot be a single junction along the entire length of the A47 from Lowestoft through to Leicester that has not seen an appalling crash or a fatality in the past 25 or 30 years.
Then we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland pointed out, blighted communities. We have villages that are cut in half by the A47. When my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South was a schoolboy, there was less traffic on the roads in the villages that he knew very well, and in the villages that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) referred to, there was less traffic, but we now have a very busy trunk road and villages on which there has been a serious impact. I will come on to that in a moment.
One of the very important themes of the debate is the underlying benefit of this road to the local economy. If it is improved, that will have a huge impact on the economy not just of Norfolk, but of the wider region. Norfolk is growing. In fact, unemployment in all our constituencies has come down very sharply. The average now is under 3%. In my constituency, 500 new jobs have been created in the past year. Those jobs have gone to real people who now have a brighter future.
Let us consider some of the key sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about the energy sector. I would add to that other sectors. Obviously, tourism has been mentioned. There is also advanced engineering, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) will talk about the IT, biotech and life sciences revolution that is benefiting Norwich. There can be a cascade impact from that revolution on other, smaller towns such as King’s Lynn, Wisbech and Dereham if we get the infrastructure that can support existing businesses and attract new businesses into the area.
I have looked at various forecasts of the additional economic benefit to Norfolk from a dualled A47. The figure goes up to more than £1 billion a year if we have an entirely dualled A47, because that will enhance existing businesses, bring in new investment, create new jobs and bring all the other benefits that come from infrastructure that can underpin what is already a fast-growing economy.
I want to talk about two specific villages in my constituency, but before doing so, I point out to the Minister that people’s hopes have been raised in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about the time when there was only one small stretch of dual carriageway in Norfolk. I think that he mentioned 1984, but in 1978 the South Lynn bypass was built and it was dual carriageway. That raised people’s hopes that we would see a significant amount of dualling along the A47. Then in 1989 we had “Roads for Prosperity”, the Paul Channon White Paper, which promised that the entire length of the A47 would be dualled over the next 10 years but in any event by the turn of the century—by the year 2000. We know that that has not happened. We have had some small improvements; we have had some significant investments—don’t get me wrong. In the intervening time, we have had the Thorney bypass. We have had the section of dualling on the A47 between King’s Lynn and Wisbech, which is highly welcome and has benefited my constituency enormously. However, there has not been a whole-route strategy or any real determination by successive Governments to get a grip of the A47 and give it the priority that it needs.
As I said, I want to talk about two villages in my constituency. On 26 March, there was a tragic triple fatality in the village of East Winch, which is east of King’s Lynn. Obviously, a police investigation is ongoing and an inquest will take place, but what happened was that a car was in a head-on collision with a lorry in the middle of the section of road going through East Winch. I do not want to speculate on what caused the accident on a day when conditions were quite good, but I know that the speed limit as people go through the village is 50 mph. It should be reduced to 40 mph. I have written to the Minister about that. A reduction in the speed limit to 40 mph would make very little difference to the flow of traffic going through the village, but it could make it that much safer for local residents, because there are a number of junctions on that stretch of road. The villagers in East Winch, day in, day out, are witnessing near misses, and we had that tragedy on 26 March. I know that we are looking at the strategy of the route, but I urge the Minister to look very urgently at that section of the road.
Unfortunately, that crash was followed a few days later by a very serious collision in Middleton, which is slightly to the west of East Winch. Mercifully, no one was killed, but it was a very serious accident on a stretch of road going through Middleton. The village is absolutely cut in half. There is the school and the village hall on one side of the road and most of the houses on the other. I am very grateful to the Department for Transport for installing a pelican crossing near Station road a couple of years ago. That has been of huge benefit to the village, but we do need to have the 40 mph limit reduced to 30 mph.
However, what we need above all else, as colleagues have said, is an overall, whole-route strategy. We want the Minister today to give us some more information about exactly where his feasibility study is going. I am certainly concerned about what we heard the other day, which was that the study is not currently planning to assess all sections of the road, so, for example, the section between Dereham and Swaffham has been omitted. We want from the Minister a firm commitment that he agrees with us that the entire length of the A47 must be dualled. We do not expect that to happen tomorrow, but we need a commitment from the Government that they will dual this road and, furthermore, that they will announce very soon a number of specific dualling schemes along the route and, in the meantime, a number of smaller schemes to enhance safety and to make the lives of our constituents that much more bearable.
I think that the case is overwhelming. The Minister will see that there is huge support, not just among MPs but among all the local authorities and other organisations. We have an incredibly strong case, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to follow my hon. Friends. It is a pleasure to be here today with colleagues from across the whole route—from Suffolk on the coast right across to Peterborough. The A47 is a key economic route of strategic national priority, spanning three counties—an economy artery into the heart of the eastern region. I hope that the strength of that case comes across this morning.
I want to acknowledge that this is the culmination of a very long campaign. I am something of a young whippersnapper joining it. It has been going on for many years. Senior colleagues have been on the case for a very long time. On behalf of colleagues, I want to express our thanks to the Minister and to his predecessor. We have had strong support in the past three years. Successive Roads Ministers have come to visit the area. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have come and expressed support, and we want to support the work that the Department is doing on the strategic, whole-route basis of looking at roads and their strategic economic priority. It is something of a scandal that this route was never even highlighted by the old regional development agency as a key economic route. I hope that that case is clearly heard.
I want to highlight three key arguments. The region is an economic powerhouse in driving the rebalanced economy, but the A47 is a blocked artery to the region. I want to make a special case for the Cambridge-Norwich corridor and the A47-A11 junction, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) has talked about and which is a potential congestion hotspot that will hold back our region. I also want to touch on the safety aspects, not least in the Dereham to Swaffham section in my constituency.
The Government have rightly placed a lot of emphasis on rebalancing our economy to get us out of the appalling debt legacy that we have faced. As colleagues have mentioned, East Anglia is second only to the City of London as a net contributor to the Treasury. The truth is that we have been woefully ignored over successive decades when it comes to investment in infrastructure. We have been treated as a rural backwater for commuters, pensioners and farmers rather than as an economic powerhouse. In fact, however, if we look at offshore energy, biomedical, clean tech, engineering, food and agriculture, and tourism, we see that the region has so much more to give, but it is being held back.
The Government’s planned investment in rail, road and broadband has the potential to unlock something really significant: a rural renaissance and a new model of growth. No longer will millions of people be condemned to stand like cattle in over-filled trains, or to sit behind the steering wheels of cars on congested roads; they will be able to be productive closer to home in converted farm buildings, in villages to which life has returned and in thriving towns. Not only will the economy grow but people will enjoy a better quality of life. That is why I have talked about the region as a new California. With such investment and with the Minister’s support for the key route of the A47, I believe that we can do more than simply deliver growth; we can deliver sustainable growth for the good of future generations. The housing demand in the region is testament to that quality of life. In my constituency, Wymondham and Attleborough are both getting thousands of new homes, as is Norwich. There are tens of thousands of new homes coming into the area, which will increase pressure on the A47.
I want to touch on the unique case of our science and innovation economy. The Government have rightly put a new emphasis on the new economy and on laying the foundations for long-term economic growth. Norwich and Norfolk are seen as rural economies, but we have the Formula 1 cluster, which includes the Lotus research and development headquarters in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and the Hethel engineering centre, the home of Caterham Cars. As we have heard, 2,500 research scientists are based at the Norwich research park, which is Europe’s biggest integrated life science cluster. It is only 40 miles down the road from Cambridge, and the Cambridge-Norwich innovation corridor is becoming increasingly nationally recognised. Last year with Lord Sainsbury, the chancellor of Cambridge university and a major investor in science innovation in Norwich and Cambridge, I launched the Norwich-Cambridge research partnership. The Government last year launched an agritech strategy for 21st century agricultural technology, and investment is flowing into the NRP and down the Norwich-Cambridge corridor as a result.
We have plans for an international food hub on the A47 just outside Norwich, which will link our agricultural college, the city college and our agricultural community to science on the research park and to our food and tourism industries. Yesterday, I met the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which has major investments going into an enterprise hub and a new food and medicine institute. One of the most exciting things happening in the life sciences is the merger of food and medicine to create a new generation of functional foods known as nutraceuticals. Norwich and the Norwich research park leads Cambridge in that field; in fact, it is a global centre of excellence. If we can plug it into the regional economy and to Cambridge, and if we can plug that innovation corridor into our wider economy, in the next 20 or 30 years we will be able to do for that sector what Cambridge has done for medicine. That is a national—nay, international—priority, and the A47 is holding it back. If we are not careful, the junction of the A11 and the A47 will become not a gateway to that nirvana of growth but a congestion blackspot that holds it back.
I know that time is short, and I want to conclude by talking about safety. As colleagues have mentioned, for many of our constituents, for whom tomorrow’s economy might seem a long way off, the real issue is those who are condemned to sit in traffic jams and witness near misses every day caused by intermittent dualling. In my rural constituency, there are people on horseback, on bicycles, in three-wheeled cars and on motorbikes. People cross the road to go from village to village. To get to a post office, a pub or a business meeting, they have to cross a national route. Intermittent dualling results in people driving fast to overtake in sections where they can do so, and then slowing down. The A47 is a very dangerous route. Last year, when we had our first Adjournment debate on the matter, there were nine fatal accidents in only a few months. There is a long history of high rates of accidents and fatalities on the road.
I particularly want to highlight the Dereham to Swaffham section, which, for reasons that I cannot understand, does not seem to have been properly recognised in the feasibility study. Will the Minister look specifically at that matter? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) stands with me on that, even though she could not be here this morning. We are concerned about the omission of that section from the feasibility study.
We seek a national strategic commitment from the Government to full dualling of the A47, as one of the top six routes nationally. We are realistic, and we know that the bulldozers will not start tomorrow and the whole thing will not be done in one go. Such a commitment would, however, unlock the planning and investment blight that is holding back our area. There is serious doubt in the minds of potential investors that the work will be done, and if we can remove that doubt we will deliver growth.
We do not ask what the Government can do for us; we ask the Minister to give us the tools to enable us to demonstrate what we can do for our country. We do not want a handout. We want to get away from handouts. We want a way in and a way out to unlock the sustainable growth that will allow our region to do so much more for our country. I hope that the power of that message comes across not only from Norfolk but from the whole of our region. The A47 is a key economic national route and we urge the Government to recognise it as such.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), on securing the debate, and I congratulate hon. Members who have contributed so wittily to it. I want to add a couple of points about Norwich to reassure the Minister that we are making not only a three-counties argument or a rural argument, but an urban argument. The improvements we seek are crucial to every point in those counties.
I begin with a reminder that the A47 is intended to connect to the proposed Norwich northern distributor road, a key project that stands to provide a serious economic opportunity for my constituency in two ways. First, it will open up further economic opportunities; indeed, several businesses to the east of my constituency are already opening new sites in a business park that is set to be near the start of the NDR. The other major piece of infrastructure that will be served by a better route linking to a fully dualled A47 is Norwich International airport, and I will come on to that in a moment. We are competing both nationally and internationally in some important areas, and the airport is crucial to those.
Secondly, the proposed NDR will be vital to my constituents for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has touched on. Today’s problem—this morning’s problem, from about 7.30 am until 9.30 am—is people trying to get out of their driveways in areas of my constituency where there is simply not enough road capacity, and where they cannot drive at more than 10 miles an hour once they have done so. That is a problem in places such as Barkers lane in Sprowston and plenty of others. What we do not have in Norwich at the moment is a northern ring road. The NDR would function as such and, crucially, would link to the A47 to relieve congestion. In addition to the economic opportunities that it would present, it would bring jobs and result in a better quality of life for my constituents.
I want to place a fully dualled A47, and the projects to which it would connect, in the context of the improvements in infrastructure that our whole region needs. Colleagues have amply covered the importance of the fully dualled A11, and today we are, of course, dwelling on the need to dual the A47 fully. I want to describe two further improvements that we need, although I am not setting out a menu of choices from which the Minister can pick; I emphasise that we want all these things. The two points that go alongside road projects are improvements to rail and improvements to broadband. Together, those infrastructure improvements will mean that Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire are open for business.
Let me return to the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk. The issue is primarily one of meeting a capacity need. East Anglia has one of the highest rail passenger growth rates—that alone would almost be reason enough for me to be leading the Norwich in 90 project, which I am and of which the Minister is aware. That is but one component of the full-scale upgrade required to bring our railway up to scratch. The same point stands regarding our road network capacity. East Anglia is one of the few parts of the country that is a net contributor to the Treasury. Passengers and drivers therefore deserve better than infrastructure that is creaking to an early grave.
If road, rail and broadband are improved, that could be said to put Norfolk in the fast lane. We could argue that we want Norfolk to be in the fast lane; indeed, we do make that argument. But before that, we need to be pulled out of the slow lane. We have to make both arguments at once. We need the Minister to recognise a two-step argument—we need to be rescued from disrepair and disinvestment, and then we need to rev up to compete nationally and internationally.
Let me turn to the ways in which we must compete and the exciting opportunities we have to do so and to have jobs come to Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. I could make the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) would make: we need to compete with Belgium by having the ports and surrounding infrastructure required to supply the full chain that sits behind our offshore and energy industries. That supply chain often comes to Norwich. Some of the digital and creative industries we have in Norwich can compete in Hollywood. I can name one business that supplies companies in Hollywood with high-quality creative work, but its employees occasionally have to decamp to their own houses to use better and faster broadband than is available in their offices. That is another example of why we need an infrastructure package to come together.
To return to the example of Norwich international airport, we are competing with Australia and the middle east to provide high-quality, excellent aviation training. We can argue in so many ways that we can be the silicon valley of Britain, not only in life sciences and the digital and creative industries but in aviation training, which is a specific strength of Norwich international airport in my constituency. Inside Britain, we can compete every day for both private and public investment. The rail and road opportunities we are discussing today, packaged together with broadband, are what will make Norwich, Norfolk and the adjoining counties open for business and bring more jobs to our constituencies.
At a time when it appears loud and clear that Labour would like to take Britain back to the 1970s, I will finish by urging the Minister to listen to the people of Norwich and Norfolk, who in fact prefer the 21st century.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow many esteemed colleagues, including those from Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who are most welcome. I hope that the Minister has heard enough to convince him that Norfolk is not a sleepy backwater, but a major centre of world-class innovation in a variety of different disciplines relating to agriculture, science and engineering.
Some years ago I was in the United States on a State Department exchange. I was shadowing a Congressman in Iowa and tried to explain where I was from. It rapidly became clear that they knew exactly where I was from—“Oh, you’re from where the Norwich research park and the John Innes centre are.” I do not know how well known those places are domestically compared with internationally —they should be better known domestically—but it is important for people to understand that we have the greatest concentration of plant and food scientists in Europe, and that it is world-renowned.
The John Innes centre is not alone: we have the Institute of Food Research, which is a world leader in harnessing food for health and preventing food-related diseases; the Genome Analysis Centre, a world-class centre for the study of genomics; and the Sainsbury Laboratory, which is independently ranked as first in the world, along with the John Innes centre and the impact of its research on plant and animal sciences.
There is so much more. In addition to plant science and biotechnology, we have pharmaceuticals and health care, and food, nutrition and health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned. We have not just things such as agritech and crop breeding, but medical technologies and diagnostics, clean tech, low-carbon energy and information and computing technologies. We could do even more.
I was delighted when some years ago the Chancellor announced a £26 million investment in the Centrum building, and I had the pleasure of performing the topping-out ceremony last November—I poured a bottle of locally-brewed beer over the completed superstructure. We are looking forward to the completion and opening of that building in July.
There is still more, and more that would benefit from a proper road infrastructure. I also have the Hethel engineering centre in my constituency. A few weeks ago, I attended the opening of the second extension to the building, having attended the opening of the first a few years ago. It is a business centre dedicated to supporting the growth of high-performance engineering and manufacturing businesses in the region—something that the Government very much need.
I hesitate to mention any of the names of the tenants at Hethel, because it feels invidious—there are so many high-quality businesses—but I will give some examples: Syrinix is a signal processing, software and electronics integration company; Ansible Motion designs and manufactures motion platforms for high-end motorsport and road car driving simulators; Proeon Systems provides engineering design consultancy and software development for complex gas turbine control applications; NexxtDrive creates hybrid-capable transmission systems; and PhaD engages in research and development for innovation across a whole range of engineering and applied sciences, providing engineering, mathematical and technical expertise. There are many others.
The potential for what could happen at the Hethel engineering centre is considerably greater than what we currently have, because although it has made tremendous progress, the real prize is the 75 acres of land that sits behind it. Group Lotus is a major local car manufacturer and global engineering consultancy. I am pleased to say that it has recently been making big improvements after some difficult times. Only half of its business is car manufacture; the other half is global consultancy to a range of motor manufacturers around the world. The land between the Hethel engineering centre and Group Lotus has the potential to become a science and engineering park, based on the principles we have seen at the Norwich research park, that could rival Harwell in Oxford.
I have a photograph that I will show to the Minister afterwards, because I do not think that Hansard will be able to pick it up. If he looks at this aerial photograph of Harwell, he will see what is possible. Harwell has a whole range of different disciplines, focusing on medical devices, space-detector systems, computing, green enterprise and so on. We want more of that. By the way, the A34 near Harwell is already being improved because of what is going on there.
We will not get the investment required to turn around the 75 acres, and ensure that we get the high-end, high-value-added jobs that we need, unless we can persuade investors to come. We will not succeed in that unless we can show them that the Government are committed to the area’s infrastructure. I strongly sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk said about East Anglia having been in some ways left behind in the race for infrastructure, despite the fact that we contribute so much to the Exchequer and that our population contributes so much to other parts of the country through paying rail fares into the rail premiums.
We have been left behind. I know that the Government understand that and have started to do something about it. We are very grateful for the dualling of the A11—it is long overdue—but that is only the start; the job is not finished. The A47 is supposed to be part of a trans-European network. It is supposed to be one of the strategic routes for not just the east of England or the UK, but the whole of Europe. It is extraordinary that the old regional development agency did not even focus on it.
Nevertheless, we could do so much more. We have been held back by poor infrastructure, and it is time for that to change. The Minister will have noticed how colleagues from across Norfolk have collaborated to ensure that the message is hammered home. We have missed out for too long, and as Members of Parliament in Norfolk, we are determined to ensure that that changes.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) has often been likened to Cinderella during his 17 distinguished years in the House, but I hope that in the autumn statement he will finally get to go to the ball, because he has campaigned on this issue throughout those 17 years. He is absolutely right to say that the matter has been dealt with on a piecemeal, patch-and-mend basis. As a result, issues have been stored up—nowhere more so than in Fenland, which I have the privilege to represent.
I am sure it will surprise the House to learn that in the whole of Fenland fewer than two miles are dualled, yet Fenland is one of the country’s leading areas for the haulage business, which is linked to the food production of the fens. Haulage is a significant player within the Fenland economy, and yet the transport infrastructure does not reflect that.
Adjacent to Fenland, Peterborough is one of our fastest growing cities. If one looks at the core strategy for Fenland, one sees that significant housing is planned for the area. At a time when some other parts of the country are resistant to delivering on the Government’s housing intentions, this is an area that can unlock the housing required, if the Government meet us halfway in delivering the necessary transport infrastructure.
On the holistic view across Government, another area where potential benefits can be leveraged from the A47—benefits often not captured in the Treasury rules currently measuring the scheme—is around the College of West Anglia, which has seen significant investment: a £5 million new teaching facility and a £7.5 million engineering faculty have recently been built. If we are to attract businesses to the area, we should take into account that they do not look only on a linear east-west or west-east route; they look on a north-south axis as well. Frustration is felt in areas such as north Cambridgeshire, although the Government have made real progress with the Cambridge city deal and new transport improvements. For example, Cambridge airport has this week launched two new services to Dublin and Amsterdam.
Such services are attractive to businesses considering north Cambridgeshire as an area, but they will be restricted if other parts of the transport network do not connect. That aspect is not always captured in the feasibility and benefits assessments under Treasury rules. For international businesses in the global race that are considering the Cambridgeshire fens as an attractive place to do business, the east-west transport nexus combines with the north-south improvements to deliver a much greater bang for the buck. As the Minister will know, the A47 scheme also connects with Wisbech rail, which I am sure he has had an opportunity to look at in recent weeks in relation to the discussions with the local enterprise partnership in terms of leveraging that.
My second point concerns the lack of alternatives to the A47. Last year, the four-mile stretch between Wisbech and Guyhirn was subject to routine road maintenance, and the highways authority diversion was 52 miles. That was the Highways Agency’s official diversion. There was a considerable cost to business and motorists and also a safety issue; it took the heavy haulage traffic off the route, which is a route of European significance, and on to minor roads where motorists are not familiar with such traffic.
So the road has strategic significance to the region. The economic benefits that we can leverage are not only from the route itself; they combine with the city deal in Cambridge and the innovation in the south of the county, and with the significant growth potential of areas such as Peterborough. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) fully supports my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland. He would be here, but he has an important constituency engagement.
I will not delay the House with the specific issues within Fenland where action is particularly required. Those points have been made to the Minister through the A47 Alliance. He will be familiar with the Broad End junction, the demand forecasts of around 34%, the significant congestion from Wisbech to Guyhirn, and some of the localised challenges.
I want to close with an issue that has not been raised and is unusual for a road scheme. I am talking about the significant benefits that an upgrade to the A47 would offer bus users. The X1 runs along the route of the A47; it is unusual because it runs for more than four hours along the whole route. I have spoken to the bus company, and one of the things that has to be factored in is the significant delays in the timetable, because of the unpredictability of the transport on that route. If someone is setting a timetable, they need to build in capacity for delays on the route.
The scheme does not benefit only the life sciences businesses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) alluded. It does not connect only with airports such as Norwich, which the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) mentioned and which I highlighted in relation to Cambridge international airport. It also has a benefit to bus users in an area where public transport is particularly poor.
Mr Bacon
I am very interested to hear my hon. Friend make that point, because David Lawrence, the principal of Easton and Otley college—an agricultural training college in the west of my constituency—has told me that he has to arrange transport for his students, and pay for it from his college budget, to get people from as far west as the Norfolk-Cambridgeshire border. People not familiar with the area may not understand the distances that people have routinely to travel to engage in activity of any kind.
Stephen Barclay
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has highlighted one final point that I want to make. He and I have sat through many Public Accounts Committee hearings in which transport schemes have been put forward that overestimated the benefits and underestimated the costs. We have a paradox here. We have a region that will deliver greater benefits than have traditionally been forecast, and the potential of the scheme has been undervalued throughout the 17 years that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broadland has been in this place. In today’s debate we have heard about the significant economic opportunities that the scheme offers and about the wider benefits: it links to airports and there are benefits for bus users and for road safety—an issue that has touched far too many families across our region and on which action is timely.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing the debate. I understand that when he launched this phase of the A47 campaign—hon. Members have referred to a phase of the campaign; it was not started recently—he did so by driving a Union Jack Mini Cooper along the road from King’s Lynn to Great Yarmouth. It is a lovely car. It was an Oxford-built Mini, and, from a strictly parochial point of view, I remind him that it was the original Longbridge-built Mini that Autocar readers voted the best ever British car the other week. Both are great British cars. If he had been driving the old Mini, it would have said something about how long the campaign for the A47 had been going on.
Many hon. Members have spoken and they have made a powerful case. They have explained why upgrading the A47 is a regional priority not only to improve connectivity with the midlands and the north, but to boost economic growth and improve safety on the road, —an important issue. The case has also been highlighted, as hon. Members have said, by the Eastern Daily Press. I will not add to those points.
The case has been made powerfully by the A47 Alliance —an additional 9,600 jobs; an estimated £400 million gross value added a year; and enabling the area’s knowledge and research industries to grow, which hon. Members have also stressed today. This is a cross-party issue. The Labour-led Norfolk county council has also championed infrastructure improvements. Indeed, my office was talking just the other day to Labour’s Jessica Asato in Norwich.
I should like to focus on how this scheme could fit with the Government’s overall approach to infrastructure. Ministers will be trumpeting the proposed tripling of investment in the strategic road network, which is expected to be £3 billion by 2020-21, and perhaps the Minister will do so today. He has to recognise, of course, that when the Government entered office they pulled nearly £4 billion from the planned investment in our strategic roads and the Highways Agency budget for capital investment was cut from £1.6 billion in 2010-11 to just £877 million in 2013-14. Those are not my figures, but those of the National Audit Office.
Those cuts meant that a number of shovel-ready schemes were pulled, including major upgrades to the A1, A14, A19, A21 and, yes, a section of the A47 as well —not the whole scheme, admittedly, but the £26 million Blofield to Burlingham scheme, one of seven scrapped by this Government in the 2010 spending round, despite its having a cost-benefit ratio of 7:1.
Ministers now seem to have woken up to the importance of investing in infrastructure for the long term. I welcome that, but unfortunately it follows years of indecision and delay. As it stands, the Government’s national infrastructure plan is a long wish list of schemes. We may have heard about major progress being delivered in the autumn statement, but the truth is that a lot of those schemes were actually okayed by the previous Labour Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why just a third of the 646 projects in the most recent version of the plan will have been started by 2015—just 10% of the promised investment.
Hon. Members have talked not just about the A47 scheme’s being about unlocking the strategic road network, but about its importance in the local road network. Again, I ask the Minister to think about the fact that Norfolk county council’s integrated transport grant, which covers schemes for buses and cycling as well, has been cut by 80% since 2010-11.
Delivery of the A47 scheme is important, but I am not convinced that we are getting it. Other hon. Members made that point.
I should like to ask the Minister about the feasibility studies to tackle six of the worst road spots in the country. In April 2014, the six scope documents for these feasibility studies were finally published. Let us be clear and understand that, although these documents set out the aims and objectives for the feasibility studies and proposals regarding problems that need to be solved, they do not include plans of action. The scope documents prepare for studies that will then, presumably, be subject to further review and public consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) put it so eloquently last week in respect of the A1, which is in a similar position,
“What accounts for the delay between the tentative announcement of yet another study and the setting up of the study? What is left to be studied of this much-studied question?”—[Official Report, 8 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 267.]
Perhaps the Minister will explain why it has taken 10 months to draw up these initial scope documents. Will he answer the point made by the hon. Member for Broadland about whether we can be confident about what will happen by the autumn?
The total cost for undertaking the feasibility studies is projected to be £2.5 million. Can the Minister tell us what is actually being studied as being feasible or not? Are costed and timetabled plans being assessed or is something else being assessed? If it is something else, what is it?
This matter is important, because the Government also recently announced that they wish to set up a wholly owned Government company to replace the Highways Agency. That has attracted a lot of attention. The Transport Committee published a report recently saying that it was unconvinced by a number of the Government’s arguments on that. I am interested in what the Government say in response to the Committee’s criticisms and should like to ask the Minister how that relates to the issue we are discussing.
How is the Minister’s feasibility study on the A47 meant to fit in with the proposed new arm’s-length highways agency? If the feasibility studies following the scope studies, which are then going to be studied themselves, do come out in the autumn, does the Minister then expect a decision to be made on the basis of the feasibility studies before or after the proposed creation of the new wholly owned Government company, whatever it will be called? Its working title is the new GoCo.
Will a decision on the issue then bind that new arm’s-length highways agency or does the Minister expect the matter to go to that agency to be considered, perhaps even—who knows?—for it to do its own feasibility study on this project? I should like the Minister to be just a little bit clearer on how the feasibility study fits in with the timetable and decision-making terms and with the creation of his new arm’s-length highways agency.
The whole story shows the importance of long-term thinking on infrastructure. All Governments have failed to do that in different ways over the years and that must be tackled. That is precisely why Labour has asked Sir John Armitt, chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to consider what is needed and why it is producing plans for a national infrastructure commission to get over this and get the long-term thinking that we so desperately need into the system. Will the Minister back that proposal for a national infrastructure commission?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on securing this important debate on the strategic importance of the A47. I know the subject is of great importance to him and a number of other hon. Friends, and I am aware that he has long campaigned for improvements to the route.
The A47 is an important trunk road that connects Norfolk with the midlands, and improving it has been considered by successive Governments. I recognise the strategic importance of the corridor and therefore of finding solutions to its problems. I plan to visit that stretch of road next month, although I am no stranger to it, having returned from my visit to the Norwich North by-election not so long ago, where my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) had such a glorious victory. Indeed, I know the area well, having spent a season driving a combine harvester during my student days.
In terms of this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment, we have already announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network, targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor in his statement of 26 June last year, in which he announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review. The Treasury’s Command Paper “Investing in Britain’s Future” set out that the Government would invest more than £28 billion in enhancements to and maintenance of both national and local roads. That includes £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for the maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of that network.
I will now comment on points that have been made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland talked about a competition. I should like to make it clear that this is not a competition in which there can only be one winner. I hazard to suggest that there will be a degree of success in all six areas that we have identified. His campaign—he talks about hunting as a pack with his colleagues from that part of the world—has certainly highlighted the importance to the whole region of improving the A47. I pay tribute to the A47 Alliance for its work in that regard.
My hon. Friend asked about the timetable for announcements and mentioned the autumn statement. I suggest that he makes sure he gets a place for the autumn statement, to hear what the Chancellor says. As my hon. Friend said, we will complete stage 2 by the end of July, and we will be ready to make announcements by the time of the autumn statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) brought a coalition aspect to the debate, and he mentioned the importance of the A11 junction at the Thickthorn roundabout, the B1108 traffic signals and how the potential of the Norwich research park may be unlocked. He, like all Members, stressed the importance of looking at the whole route. It is good to see that hon. Members are not only campaigning for their bit of the route but understand the holistic approach that is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about the A12 south from Great Yarmouth. He talked about how roads can rebalance the economy and how that could unlock the potential of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) talked about safety issues. He drew my attention to the tragic accident in East Winch and how, in many places, the road cuts villages in half, which can make it difficult for people to access village halls or schools on the other side of the road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) described himself as a young whippersnapper, and I suggest that we all feel like young whippersnappers in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk talked about the importance of science and innovation to the economy of East Anglia and how investment could fan the white heat of technology, to use Harold Wilson’s words. He also mentioned the importance of food, biotech and engineering to the area. We are considering the Dereham to Swaffham section, which I make clear is not omitted from the study.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North talked about the NDR and the importance of Norwich airport. As the Minister with responsibility for aviation, I understand the importance of our regional international airports. I know her constituency well for that reason. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) mentioned that Norfolk is now a serious high-tech county in many sectors, and he name-checked several successful businesses in his area.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) mentioned the importance of the road haulage industry. One of the problems on the single carriageway sections of the A47 is that there is a 20 mph difference between the 40 mph national speed limit for trucks and the 60 mph national speed limit for cars, which in some cases can lead to reckless overtaking manoeuvres by car drivers due to the frustration of following slow trucks.
Stephen Barclay
I endorse the Minister’s point, which is that the difference in speed limits often causes accidents and road safety issues, as well as having a significant economic cost. For transparency, I draw the attention of Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as there was a donation to my association in 2010. Due to both road safety and economic impact concerns, there is considerable desire in my constituency, and I am sure in others, to consider increasing the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles to ease the discrepancy.
Mr Goodwill
The Government are considering that measure. The Scottish Government are considering a trial on the A9 north of Perth, where there are particular problems, with a view to increasing the speed limit for trucks to improve safety on the road.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) would have liked to contribute to the debate, but his ministerial duties precluded him from doing so. I am sure he would have mentioned the importance of the Acle straight and Great Yarmouth to the energy industry.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) talked about the stop-start investment in roads. I am proud that we are tripling investment in roads, and we must not forget that when the Blair Government came into power they announced a moratorium on new road building, even though they had the money to build roads. Later in that disastrous period of government, they had to cut road building because they ran out of money. When we took over, we had to make some tough decisions because of the dire financial position that we inherited. Fortunately, things are looking a lot better, which is why we are able to invest in infrastructure generally, not only in roads but in the conventional rail network and our new high-speed rail network.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the GoCo through which we will deliver many of the infrastructure projects. That is part of our long-term plan to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer. I am sure we will have opportunities to discuss that across the Dispatch Box.
Richard Burden
On the timetable, assuming that this idea is approved in the autumn statement, will the GoCo have a further look at the proposal, or will it have been approved at that stage? What is the timetable?
Mr Goodwill
The whole point of the GoCo is to get on with these jobs, not to delay them. I can allay the hon. Gentleman’s fears in that regard. Network Rail works in that way, and it does not tend to delay rail projects; it tends to deliver them efficiently.
I met a number of hon. Friends in February to discuss the updated proposals put together by the A47 Alliance in its “Gateway to Growth” prospectus. The updated prospectus is an excellent example of how a range of local and regional interests can work closely together to set out the case for future Government investment. The prospectus sets out a targeted programme of improvements to both the strategic and local road networks. It details some 19 specific schemes, with indicative costs and timings.
I will now set out how my Department will consider options for future investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland highlighted the issues on the A47 and the potential for those problems to be exacerbated by planned developments and growth in the region. He will know that the Government recognise those issues and the importance of transport infrastructure to supporting the economy. He will also know that we are committed to identifying and funding early solutions to the long-standing problems on the A47 corridor, initially by undertaking a feasibility study. The A47 corridor feasibility study was announced by the Secretary of State for Transport on 20 August 2013 following the spending review, and it is one of six studies on the strategic road network. On 14 January 2014 I also announced that the section of the A12 between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft would be included within the study’s geographic scope.
It may be useful if I say a little more about the approach we are taking, as the feasibility study is the mechanism by which we will identify early solutions to the problems on the A47 corridor. The study’s aim is to identify opportunities and understand the case for future investment solutions on the A47 corridor that are deliverable, affordable and offer value for money. Although much of the work has been done previously, agreement has not been reached on the solutions. It is therefore important for us to carry out the study to ensure that we understand the priorities for the corridor and that proposals for investment demonstrate a strong and robust economic case for investment, demonstrate value for money and are deliverable. As part of the study, we have committed to engage with stakeholders to develop and agree the detailed scope of the work. My officials discussed the proposed scope of the work with stakeholders at a meeting in Norwich in late January, and they considered the views expressed before finalising and publishing the scope on 23 April. A number of my hon. Friends have also provided views on the study work’s scope and the range of possible solutions and priorities.
The study work will be conducted in stages, with the initial stage aiming to identify the current and future challenges along the corridor, taking account of local growth plans and priorities. We have built on existing evidence bases and previous study work, including the evidence collected as part of the Highways Agency’s route strategy process and evidence presented in the A47 Alliance’s “Gateway to Growth” prospectus. We are now concluding that stage of the work. We will continue to engage with stakeholders throughout the life of the study.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland on securing this debate. I have made it clear that the Government are committed to, and have set out plans for, large-scale improvements to our national strategic road network in the relative short term. The Government have also committed to developing a longer-term programme of investments through the route strategy process.
Through the A47 corridor feasibility study, we will work closely with local stakeholders to ensure that we consider current and future transport problems and the range of possible solutions that could address those problems. As I said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by local stakeholders—which the presence of so many Members underlines—and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to demonstrate a strong business case and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.
Stroud Valleys and Vale (Planning)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I particularly welcome you as Chair, Mr Davies. It is the first time I have served under your chairmanship. I did not realise that you were on the Panel of Chairs, so I congratulate you on that. I am also pleased to note that my hon. Friend the Minister is here. He has already been to my constituency and we had a successful public meeting, which had the particular characteristic of attracting almost national attention. At that meeting, we raised several issues and I thought it would be helpful, in such a debate, to ensure that all those issues and all the answers to various relevant questions were put on record.
The Stroud valleys and vale is a particularly beautiful part of England. I guess that most Members of Parliament could say that about their constituency, but I can say it without fear of contradiction. The five valleys and the vale amount to a spectacular area of incredible beauty. It is a place where a lot of people want to live. Furthermore, it is a place that many developers want to develop. It is therefore all the more important that we have a local plan. The pressure on development, both because it is a nice place to live and because of its particular characteristics, is intense. For that reason, I am particularly disappointed that the Labour-led Stroud district council has so far failed to produce a plan that is in force. The last plan effectively terminated in 2011, and we desperately need a plan now. I know that there is a plan with the Department for Communities and Local Government that is going through the appropriate checks—I hope that it will be given the green light—but in the meantime, we have a huge problem with developers literally circling parts of Stroud and the valleys, identifying possible sites for development. The pressure is huge, for the reasons I have outlined.
The other problem is that with 51 parish and town councils, we have a huge number of different communities, and they feel that they are effectively under siege. Those that are being encircled by developers do not know where to turn next for support, advice or encouragement. I want to speak for all those communities in this debate. I am very much on their side in protecting the characteristics, their livelihoods and the ways in which those villages and communities have developed.
It is with that in mind that I want to talk about certain planning applications. I will mention six to illustrate the point, but I could talk about a lot more. There are various applications on Baxter’s fields, below Summer street in Stroud. The wide range of communities in that location are very much aware of the impact that that development would have on them. There is an application on Rodborough fields, which is famous for historical reasons. Although the application might be appealed, previous to a decision by Stroud district council, it is still a concern. Mankley field is perhaps the most prominent application. The Minister might recall it, because it was the focus of the debate at the public meeting. The development would effectively join two villages together, which would cause some difficulties for both communities—not because they do not like each other, but because they want each other to thrive as separate identifiable communities.
There are applications on Woodside lane in King’s Stanley, which is another issue related to Mankley field, and on land off Shakespeare road in Dursley, which is a particularly beautiful place, because of the topography. It is part of my constituency, and there are views that people like to have. As they say, a view cannot be bought, but we can protect the characteristics of towns and villages. That is a case in point with that application in Dursley. The Horsley development elongates a beautiful village, but threatens its natural beauty and offends a large number of existing residents. All those planning applications and others raise a number of issues. Where Stroud district council, led by the Labour party, has gone wrong is in putting too much focus on dispersal, and those applications illustrate that point. They are dispersed all over the place, which is a significant difficulty for our residents.
There is also a problem with housing numbers, which I will go into in some detail. The Localism Act 2011 and the various other documents that have been circulating have always emphasised that projections for housing numbers and land supply have got to be evidence-based. It is no use just plucking figures out of some national statistics arena. The developer needs to demonstrate to the local community that it has thought about the evidence. Stroud has a large number of manufacturing and engineering firms—they account for 24% of existing employment—and my view is that that kind of economic fact needs to be factored into any projections on housing numbers.
Travelling to work is also important, because planning is not only about building houses, but ensuring that people can get out and about. That is why I have focused not only on housing, but on infrastructure. It is why I think it might be worth while to move the Stonehouse railway station slightly north, so that it can access two railway lines, one of which would enable people from Stonehouse and neighbouring villages to get to Bristol without going via Gloucester or Swindon. I throw that into the mix because it is important that the overall local plan and how we think about plans take into account employment, infrastructure links, travelling to work and everything else that would necessarily be connected with planning. I am not satisfied that the Labour-led Stroud district council has done all those things. We want the local plan to be in place, because any plan is better than no plan, and that will be the mantra until a plan arrives.
I have four specific questions for the Minister. First, how much reliance can we place on the prematurity issue in connection with local plans that are in the process of being agreed and implemented? That is the key issue for many residents of my constituency. They know that a plan is being considered, but while it is being considered, it is not in force. We have all these developers wanting to develop in areas where that plan would not want to see development taking place. We need to know in clear reassuring terms what the prematurity issues are and how we ensure that we can give comfort to residents in the valleys and vale. We raised that issue at the public meeting and we got an answer, but I would like that to be on record today through this debate.
Secondly, what latent powers do previous plans have? Stroud district council had a plan until 2011. That is relevant, because any hope for residents in that respect would be good, and it is another strand that is well worth exploring.
An interesting issue, which to my surprise was raised at the public meeting, is that of housing numbers and how they relate to existing planning permissions that may not have been fulfilled. One would logically assume that any existing planning permission that has not yet been implemented would be considered in the total housing numbers as suggested by the council. We need evidence that Stroud district council has been told that that is indeed the case—a confirmation that guidance is clear about this matter—because there was certainly a lack of clarity at the public meeting, with at least one councillor expressing doubt about the matter and a number of residents also expressing doubt about it at that meeting and subsequently. The total number of houses to be built ought to include planning permissions that have already been given, and we need clarification on that.
My last point is one that I have been talking about for three years: neighbourhood plans, because they are a powerful instrument for local communities to use. As I have already said, we have 51 town and parish councils in my area, so potentially we could have 51 neighbourhood plans. We will not get 51; we have about a dozen in formulation, at one stage or another, and that is absolutely excellent news. However, we would have more if more people simply understood what a neighbourhood plan is. It is a statutory document; it effectively gives planning capacity to town and parish councils; and, of course, it is something that any planning inspector would have to consult if there was an appeal about an issue in a locality.
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed the value of having a neighbourhood plan to the communities that want to have some control over their emerging environment, their planning system and their areas as a whole. That should be control exercised in the right way, which is democratically, in terms of all the issues that I have mentioned, and in the sense of meeting obligations to neighbouring councils, and so forth. Nevertheless, local communities should have control, so neighbourhood plans should be saluted and we need to understand their value.
I also want to make it clearer to my constituents that going through the process of getting a neighbourhood plan is much easier than first meets the eye and that it will, of course, be supported by the Department as appropriate, in terms of providing not only guidance, but possibly funding. I say that because I know that the Department has already created a fund to provide finance to support neighbourhood plans. However, I would like some increased clarity about that issue.
Those are my four key questions, but I have one more. One of the issues about new developments is that, of course, they need infrastructure. Infrastructure comes in the form of roads and, of course, in the form of a load of other issues to do with water. However, one element of infrastructure that is really important, and increasingly so, is broadband. It would be good to have a discussion about how, in future, we might ensure that new developments are properly provided with this absolutely critical infrastructure, which is not easy to see, because most of it is underground, but is necessary for people to use. We already have one or two areas in my constituency where broadband is proving to be a testing issue, because the infrastructure is not necessarily in place. BT is working extraordinarily hard, but some developers have not always paved the way for broadband’s ultimate success and I need to put that on the record.
In summary, the Stroud valleys and vale comprises five valleys and one vale. All of it is absolutely beautiful, with thriving communities who want to look after themselves. They are alert to the need for new housing, but want to ensure that they have more control over that housing, through both a local plan developed by Stroud district council and—hopefully—neighbourhood plans. That package would be ideal for Stroud. I just want to ensure that we can get from the point where we are now—with no local plan—to the point where we have a local plan, and I also want to ensure that damage can be limited during that time.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
Another day and another debate on planning. Such debates are a constant pleasure for me—if not for you, Mr Davies—and I am only sorry that this day will not conclude with a further debate on planning in your own constituency.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on securing the debate, and I take this opportunity to thank him for having invited me to come to his constituency recently. I can confirm what he said about his area. Stroud, which I had never previously visited, is a stunningly beautiful place, with some of the most beautiful landscapes in England, and he has a huge privilege to represent a very special corner of our countryside.
I recognise that there are difficult issues in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as in so many, regarding the process of putting in place a local plan. He is, of course, right that the public meeting that he organised and invited me to attend was quite lively and saw a vigorous debate. Unfortunately, the national media were inclined to focus on what was perhaps one of the less edifying parts of that debate, because what was so interesting about it for me was the intensity with which people wanted to understand how the planning system worked, what considerations could be taken into account and what they could do—with the support of their MP—to take full advantage of the opportunities for neighbourhood planning and the like. I found it to be an immensely constructive meeting and I hope that his constituents also did, in the main.
I know that my hon. Friend will understand that because the local plan for his area is now in examination I cannot talk about any particular aspect of it, but I hope that I can give general answers to his questions and that those general answers will be of relevance to the local plan for his area and indeed to his questions about neighbourhood planning.
First, my hon. Friend asked about the issue of prematurity, and he is right to recall that someone also asked about it at the public meeting. The question really is this: when can a plan that has not yet been found sound and formally adopted have substantial weight in a decision? I am glad to say that we have recently published the new planning guidance on a website, which is easy for everybody to access and is hopefully written in relatively plain English—by planners’ standards, at least. That guidance makes it clear that a local plan gathers weight through the process. There is not a black and white picture, whereby the plan has absolutely no value in decisions until it has reached its conclusion and been adopted. The plan can gain weight.
The key moment is when a local plan that does not have any substantial unresolved objections to it is submitted to the planning inspector for examination. At that point, the plan’s weight can start to be substantial in decisions on particularly large applications. I know that my hon. Friend will be quick to work out whether that provision might apply to his local plan, and if so how. Nevertheless, that is what the guidance says: it is at the point of submission to the planning inspector for examination that a plan can start having significant weight, if there are no substantial unresolved objections to it.
It is probably worth mentioning that prematurity also applies to neighbourhood plans. I was very pleased to hear from my hon. Friend that there are a number of communities in his constituency that are undertaking neighbourhood planning. The provision on neighbourhood plans is similar to that on local plans. When a neighbourhood plan has been submitted to a local authority for it to conduct what is called the local authority publicity period, which is a period of formal consultation that it undertakes before an examination, that is the point at which a neighbourhood plan— even in draft—can start to have significant weight in decisions.
My hon. Friend’s second question was about previous plans. Although I cannot comment on the particulars of Stroud’s previous plans, until they are replaced by another plan, previous plans and their policies are generally a material consideration in any decision. It is common sense, however, that the older those plans become the more likely it is that the policies and provisions within them become out of date and therefore are likely to have less impact and weight in decisions. Plans do, in a sense, have a half-life, and it is important eventually to update them, review them or replace them with an entirely new plan if local policies and plans are to have a leading role in decisions on applications in local areas.
My hon. Friend’s third question related to an important point about the status in the local plan, in particular the five-year land supply, of sites that already have planning permission, but which have not yet been implemented and where buildings have not yet been constructed. In order that the policy position is crystal clear, I will read what the national planning policy framework states:
“Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
I hope that that makes it clear that unless there is good reason to believe that a site is no longer viable, or there is no longer demand for the type of unit that it would provide, or its plan for construction stretches beyond the five-year period, a site that already has planning permission but where nothing has happened counts towards the five-year land supply. I hope that that position is clear and that everyone in my hon. Friend’s constituency understands that the requirement is to provide new sites to make up the total and not to find sites to replace those that already have planning permission and are still viable and likely to be delivered within five years.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about neighbourhood planning, and it is welcome that so many communities in his area are considering it. I am pleased to say that, around the country, it is a brush fire that is beginning to gather some steam—I am not sure whether brush fires do gather steam, but I think my point is understood. More than 1,000 communities in England are working on neighbourhood plans. There have been 14 referendums on neighbourhood plans, all of which have received a yes vote, usually with substantial majorities in favour. They have probably been the single most successful extension of democratic participation in governing processes of the past few years, and they have succeeded because people feel strongly about the future of the places in which they live. If people are offered the chance to have an influence on that, even if they are not necessarily able to stop everything that they might want to stop, they will nevertheless seize the chance to ensure that development is the best that it possibly can be, is in the right places, is of the right character and improves the community for everyone, rather than just for those involved in development.
It is welcome that communities are getting involved. Although they may face some immediate, short-term battles over particular proposals, I encourage them to look beyond those battles—even if they sometimes lose, whether because a plan is not in place or for other reasons—and to focus on not only the next five years, but the next 15 years, which is the normal life of a neighbourhood plan. They will be able to shape those 15 years directly if they work on putting a neighbourhood plan in place, getting it through a referendum and getting it adopted. For the first time ever in the planning system, a neighbourhood document has equal statutory force alongside a local plan.
I am happy to confirm that the Department for Communities and Local Government provides quite substantial support, both financial and through expert officials, not only for a community undertaking a neighbourhood plan, which will have a support contract led by Locality and grants of up to £7,000, but also for local authorities, because they have to work closely with neighbourhood plan areas and organise examinations and referendums. To be clear, there is no reason why a local authority should not actively promote, engage and welcome as many communities that want to produce neighbourhood plans as possible. There is also no reason why any parish council or neighbourhood forum should not embrace the scheme and avail itself of the support offered by the Government. Over the next 10 years, we are keen that literally thousands of communities undertake neighbourhood plans and really take control of the planning process.
I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend’s main questions and that the story of planning and plan-making in Stroud and its beautiful valleys and vale will involve people feeling that they are controlling the future of their community. All communities need to accept some growth and need more housing. As my hon. Friend said, all communities need to expand, develop and embrace the future. However, decisions on such matters should be made by local people. From listening to my hon. Friend, it is clear that no one is more expert in the economic and social geography of Stroud, its valleys and its vale. I hope that the local authority will listen to him when making its plans and that the people of Stroud feel that they could not have a better champion of their future interests.
Council Tax Support
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
At the outset, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an important subject that affects the lives of millions of people throughout our country, namely the consequence of the Government’s decision to localise council tax support in England. Council tax benefit—and before that, rate rebates—had been an integral part of our national system for helping low-income households to meet their living expenditure. Indeed, unlike housing benefit, it was available to people irrespective of their tenure—so home owners, tenants in social housing and tenants in privately rented homes were all eligible—and for that reason council tax benefit was the most widely claimed of all income-related benefits, reaching almost 6 million households.
The decision to localise council tax benefit, which was announced as part of the 2010 spending review early in the life of the current Government, was in some respects surprising, as it ran counter to the Government’s commitment to bring together a range of separate benefits into a universal credit. Arguably, if one is trying to simplify and streamline benefits, it makes no sense to separate out council tax support, which had previously been fully integrated with housing benefit, as the consequence will inevitably be to create variations in entitlement between people living in different areas, which may have perverse outcomes and will certainly add administrative complexity.
Now, I am not one of those who take a strong ideological view that this benefit must be either national or local. There is a case to debate, but unfortunately we had no opportunity to do so. With the Government proposing on the one hand to introduce universal credit and on the other to localise council tax benefit, one might have expected an opportunity for consultation and reflection, to allow people to look at the merits of localisation and diversity as against unification and simplification, which was the stated objective of universal credit.
No such opportunity was allowed, however. Instead, the Government ploughed ahead with their plan to localise council tax support, and it became increasingly clear that the overriding motive for that was to save upwards of £400 million in central Government expenditure by imposing a 10% cut as part of the process. Local authorities were given the unappetising choice either of protecting the benefit entitlement of their local residents but having to meet 10% of the cost themselves or of passing on the cut to benefit recipients.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. Does he agree that the Government’s decision to protect pensioners has had perverse—and I hope unintended—consequences, particularly for working-age disabled people? As a consequence of that decision, a heavier and more disproportionate burden has fallen on those disabled people, who have to make up the shortfall.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend is prescient—I was about to come on to that very point. I hope he will bear with me, so that I do not repeat myself by first answering his question then coming back to the text in my speech where I refer to the issue.
To add to the challenge, the Government added two further obligations. The first was to protect all recipients over pension age—the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) referred. The second was to avoid creating work disincentives. The first might well be justified, even though, as my hon. Friend indicated, it will create anomalies, with people in virtually identical circumstances but divided by perhaps a couple of years in age receiving different benefit entitlements because of those few years. People over retirement age generally live on fixed incomes and cannot easily adjust to unexpected reductions in benefit entitlement, so a degree of protection for pensioner households is understandable. However, protecting around 40% of recipients will inevitably mean heavier cuts for those who are not protected. It is the remainder of households—a majority, including those in work—that have borne the brunt of the change.
Imposing what was estimated to be an average cut of 16% in entitlement for working-age recipients is bad enough, but of course it runs completely counter to the stated objective of avoiding work disincentives. Furthermore, the centrally imposed requirement to safeguard those over pension age does not sit comfortably with the Government’s other stated objective. I will quote from the Government’s objectives for the scheme, which give a stated aim as being to
“reinforce local control over council tax. Enabling decisions to be taken locally about the provision of support with council tax is consistent with a drive for greater local financial accountability and decision-making”.
One of the more bizarre characteristics of the current Government is that they keep on talking the language of localism while dictating, often in minute detail, exactly how local authorities should behave.
Thirteen months on from the introduction of localised council tax support, how have local authorities responded and what has been the impact on the households that depend on financial support to meet all or part of their council tax liabilities? There have been several studies, including detailed analyses by the New Policy Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Those studies show that a minority of councils have sought to maintain the same level of support as under the former council tax benefit scheme, but the large majority of councils—more than four out of five—have reduced benefit entitlement for working-age applicants. Almost three quarters have introduced a minimum payment, which varies considerably from area to area: currently, 69 out of 326 authorities expect recipients to pay 8.5% or less, but at the other extreme, 47 councils expect contributions of 20% or more. The majority of councils are somewhere between those extremes, expecting a minimum contribution of around 15%—my own local authority of Greenwich is in that category.
In addition to a minimum contribution requirement, several other changes to the former council tax benefit scheme have been made by individual councils. They include: removal of the second adult rebate; a band cap restricting entitlement in higher value properties; reductions in the limit on savings that can be held before entitlement is withdrawn—many have reduced that savings limit from £16,000 to just £6,000; increased non-dependant deductions; and changes to the income taper, which determines the rate of benefit withdrawal as income levels rise.
In the first year of the new arrangements the Government provided transitional support, conditional on local authorities limiting any minimum payment requirement to 8.5% of the total liability. With the ending of that transitional support, almost half the councils that had kept to the minimum payment requirement then increased the amount; there have been other changes to the details of schemes in specific areas as well.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
For the record, I draw the House’s attention to my indirect interest in my right hon. Friend’s interests. Does he agree that the net outcome of all these changes, with their piecemeal effects, is that the south-west has been hit hardest? The average cut in support across the south-west is now £177 and last year, it was even worse, at £185. Cornwall, which was an objective 1 area, is historically very poor, yet people there are being badly hit by the changes.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend has identified one of the interesting characteristics of the consequences of this change to localisation—the significant and often surprising variations between individual areas. One of the curious characteristics of the change is that, based on figures I have seen, the largest adverse impact appears to be on council tax benefit recipients in the south-west, who are now facing a greater average obligation to pay than those in any other region in England.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for pointing out that anomaly. Is it not the case that when local authorities or regions have substantial and disproportionately high numbers of older people and pensioners, the effect will inevitably be felt more adversely in those areas? I guess that is as likely to be an explanation in the south-west as it is in my local authority of Trafford.
Mr Raynsford
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying precisely the factor likely to be behind the slightly surprising figure from the south-west. In the north-west one might expect it because there is probably more substantial poverty than in the south-west so there might be a bigger problem with the greater proportion of council tax that individual households must meet, but the number of households with people over pension age who are protected has a significant impact and I suspect that that is the main reason why the south-west features in this way. That highlights the arbitrary and curious consequences of the rules that the Government have put in place.
In the first year of the new arrangements, there was protection with the 8.5% limit provided by the Government’s transitional support, but when that support ended, many authorities increased the amount they expect individuals to pay without support and as a result the overall level of council tax support in 2014-15 will be lower than in the previous year and substantially lower than under the former council tax benefit scheme. Research by the New Policy Institute for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that 2,340,000 low-income families will be paying an average of £149 a year more in council tax this year than under the old council tax benefit scheme. For a Government who continually boast about their efforts to keep council tax demands down, and threaten action against councils that seek to increase council tax, this figure should be a source of deep shame. More than 2.25 million households are being required to pay an average of almost £3 a week extra in council tax purely because of the Government’s actions, and £3 a week is a significant amount to those living on the edge of poverty.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report points out, there is ongoing uncertainty for households who may face further cuts in future years as the system that the Government have put in place not only gives local authorities the option to change the scheme, but provides an incentive to cut council tax support further in future years. If they cannot increase council tax because the Government have blocked that option, a further cut in council tax support is the only available option to increase their council tax revenue. Such perverse incentives to cut help to the poor is a shameful outcome, for which the Government are wholly responsible.
Not surprisingly, the impact of the cuts on entitlement to low-income families has led to increased debt, arrears and bailiff action to recover debt. The New Policy Institute research suggests that the growth in arrears has been most marked in areas where a minimum payment obligation has been introduced. As yet, the detailed evidence available from different parts of the country is patchy, but Citizens Advice believes that council tax debt now accounts for around 10% of all its debt inquiry work and the debt charity, StepChange, reports 45,000 people seeking its help with council tax arrears in 2013—a staggering 78% increase on the previous year.
As we know only too well, the cuts to council tax support are only one of a series of benefit cuts by the Government, and problems become even more acute when there is a cumulative impact of two or more benefit cuts hitting individual households.
Grahame M. Morris
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does he share my concern about the increase in the amount of bailiff action? I have seen figures indicating that almost 100,000 cases have been pursued by bailiffs as a consequence of the Government’s pressure on council tax increases. Does he agree that, in particular, people who are disabled and housebound are vulnerable and should be protected and that the Minister should take steps to protect those groups from intimidation by excessive action?
Mr Raynsford
As my hon. Friend rightly highlights, there is concern about substantial increases in bailiff action to recover debt. We do not know the full extent because, frankly, the available figures are patchy, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting increased demands, and that in some cases and in some areas that is affecting many people, including precisely the ones my hon. Friend highlighted—the vulnerable and disabled—who are being threatened with bailiff action.
I referred to the fact that council tax can be cumulative with people suffering cuts in other benefits. Two new reports that are due to be published later this week, from Ipsos MORI and Cambridge university, were commissioned by the National Housing Federation and cast further light on this. One involved a series of interviews with housing association managers, and the other involved interviews with tenants affected by benefit cuts.
The housing associations reported that although they viewed the housing benefit cuts as having the largest impact on their tenants, the changes to council tax benefit were also significant. Housing associations are concerned about the cumulative impact on some of their tenants with changes to council tax benefit, housing benefit cuts and rising utility costs placing an ever-increasing burden on their tenants.
Two case studies in the Ipsos MORI report illustrate that. The first states:
“In addition to being affected by the size criteria, Bob has also been required to start paying a proportion of his Council Tax, whereas this was previously covered in its entirety by his Council Tax Benefit. Prior to the reforms, Bob and his wife had been putting aside about £5 per week, in case they needed to pay for something unexpectedly, but they have stopped doing this now, as well as reducing their food shopping expenditure, in order to make ends meet. Bob notes that energy costs have increased, so he and his wife are being extra careful with the heating, which he explains as follows: ‘Once, say, about half past six comes, we just come upstairs then, put the radio on or the computer on upstairs where it’s warmer, so we’re not using electricity downstairs...so we’re sort of... managing, but it’s difficult’.”
The second case states:
“A further impact of the welfare reforms on Gareth has been that his household is now required to pay £8 per month on council tax. Although Gareth said he was expecting this, when we interviewed him prior to the introduction of the reforms, he says that this places an additional strain on his finances. He explains this in the following way: ‘we pay £8 a month Council Tax...but when you’re on limited funds and you’re stretched anyway and then, you know, you’ve got to cut back to do other stuff, it’s hard to find’.”
Such cases are repeated time and again throughout the country, and I suspect that every hon. Member in the Chamber will have had many cases of constituents with experiences like the two quoted in the report for the National Housing Federation.
Against that background, it is hardly surprising that there have been several parliamentary inquiries into the operation of the new council tax support arrangements. The Public Accounts Committee conducted an inquiry into the localisation of council tax support and its report was published in March 2014. The Committee was highly critical of the degree to which authorities’ schemes had met the objectives of the Department for Communities and Local Government and of the Department’s knowledge of the impact of local schemes on vulnerable groups. The Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said:
“When the Government transferred responsibility for Council Tax support to 326 local authorities in April 2013 it intended that the reform supported the work incentives it seeks from its wider welfare reform. But we found in 19 local authority areas, up to 225,000 people could lose more of their earnings—as a result of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions combined with the withdrawal of Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit—than under the previous national scheme. This just goes to show, for some, work simply doesn’t pay under the new scheme. For them, work incentives have actually weakened rather than strengthened —the opposite of what the Government intended. Some of those 225,000 people stand to lose 97p for every extra £1 earned—a fundamentally perverse result.”
The PAC report also highlighted the extent to which the schemes introduced since April 2013 have failed to protect many vulnerable people. It flagged up the fact that in 133 local authority areas where all claimants under pension age are required to make minimum payments, no protection is provided to other vulnerable groups. The PAC concluded by calling for an independent review.
Of course, the independent review is already a statutory requirement; it was included in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 as the result of a House of Lords amendment. The Act requires the Government to conduct a review of all local council tax support schemes within three years of the Act taking effect. The Act was effective from October 2012, so the review must be completed by October next year—just 16 months away.
I put it to the Minister that the Government’s silence on the issue is a real cause of concern. Any serious review of the 326 separate local council tax support schemes and their impact on millions of households will take a significant period of time to conduct. If a report is to be presented by October next year, the arrangements need to be put in place without delay. When will the Government be setting out their proposals for conducting the review, and incidentally, when will they be responding to the trenchant criticisms in the PAC report?
The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has also conducted an inquiry, raising similar concerns to those highlighted by the PAC. It recommended that the Government commission research into the impact that local variations in council tax support arrangements are having on levels of poverty in different parts of the country. As yet, the Government have not responded.
Of course, the differential impact is only an issue in England, as in both Scotland and Wales, the devolved Governments have decided to provide financial support to their local authorities to enable them to maintain existing levels of support. In Wales, that has been accompanied by arrangements that allow a degree of discretion to Welsh local authorities on how they structure their council tax support schemes, but without any pressure to impose benefit cuts, as in England.
The Local Government Association, representing English councils, is advocating a similar approach. In its briefing paper for today’s debate, it states:
“Consideration should be given to returning to a 100% funded system for council tax support on the grounds of equity. This does not imply a return to the old council tax benefit arrangements; it simply means that councils should be funded to run the scheme without being forced to impose reductions”.
Both the LGA and London Councils also highlight the extent to which the arrangements put in place by Government for meeting parts of local authority costs incurred in providing council tax support are opaque. London Councils states that
“the Government’s decision to roll funding for local council tax support into wider funding for local government has made it almost impossible for individual local authorities to determine how much they are receiving for this policy. As such, a local authority will, each year, have to balance the spending pressure on its local council tax support scheme with the need to allocate resources to its wider services, particularly as local government funding continues on its current downwards trajectory”.
The LGA recommends:
“Central Government should adopt a more transparent way of funding the changes. Funding for the support should be identified through a non ring-fenced grant within the Settlement Funding Assessment”.
The LGA also adds its voice to all the others calling for further research, saying:
“The Government should publish its analysis of the cumulative impact of all funding reforms at an individual council level”.
To conclude, we have a scheme for supporting millions of low-income households, helping them meet their council tax obligations, which was introduced without proper analysis and evaluation. It has brought financial hardship, debt and worry to huge numbers of families, and it has created perverse disincentives to work and arbitrary variations in treatment between people in similar circumstances. It has manifestly failed to meet its objectives, and it has been condemned as harsh and unfair across the political spectrum.
At the very least, the Government should, as a matter of urgency, set in motion the review that they are, by law, required to commission, and in the short term, they should look carefully at ways in which the scheme’s harsh impact can be mitigated. I would like to believe that at the conclusion of this debate, the Minister will give us a commitment to do just that.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I am just counting how many Members are standing and thinking about the time limit. About six Members are standing, so in those circumstances, I shall not put a fixed time limit on speeches, but if everybody keeps to around five minutes—or not much above that—everybody will get in.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby—I was under the impression that I would have quite a bit longer to speak. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing the debate. He has demonstrated his long experience in the world of local government and as a Government Minister, and he even offered solutions to the Government to deal with the problem that they have created for the people of our country.
As other Members have attested, the scheme of localisation for council tax support is hitting the most vulnerable in our society. Some 2.2 million people are seeing their council tax increase as a direct result of the changes. Diabolically, that includes almost 400,000 disabled people, while 117,000 people in receipt of severe or enhanced disability premiums will also pick up larger bills.
The Government could do something positive to help, and my right hon. Friend has pointed out some of those things. The legislation introducing the changes already includes the Labour amendment that requires an independent review within three years. However, such has been the severity of the changes’ impact that I would like to see that review brought forward now, so that the full consequences can be assessed and the policy re-examined and changed.
We have already heard how, following the debacle of the poll tax, a national council tax benefit scheme was introduced in 1992, with the aim of helping councils keep council taxes down for the poorest citizens. I will not go into that in any great detail, but suffice it to say that that allowed some 800,000 working people nationally to receive lower council tax bills because their income was low, while others on passported benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance and income support, paid no council tax.
As part of the coalition’s dogmatic devotion to overhauling the welfare system, hefty changes to the council tax benefit were made. Most notably—others have talked about this—the responsibility for administering the scheme was devolved to local authorities. Was that not just a great idea? Dump the responsibility on the local authorities and when people get angry and upset, it will be the councils who get it in the neck, and the Tory-led Government can join in blaming them for not having adequate enough systems to protect the vulnerable. That is exactly what is happening. I have cases in my surgery where people believe that the council is doing them in. I put them right.
That said, our local authorities have a detailed understanding of local circumstances and a knowledge of what is happening on the ground. They are therefore well positioned to assess the needs of local people, and they are often able to do so more accurately than central Government.
However, the Local Government Finance Act 2012 has done more than simply localise the programme of council tax support. Instead, the Act abolished council tax benefit as we knew it and required the local authorities to design and implement their own localised reduction schemes from scratch. Again, that is not necessarily problematic—not, that is, until we consider that at the same time as introducing these changes, the budget from central Government to help pay for such crucial support was cut by 10%.
Further adding to the complexity, the Government simultaneously insisted on certain conditions being met, removing the free hand that might have allowed local authorities to design workable solutions. The prime example, of course, is the stipulation that pensioners must be protected from the Government’s cuts; that point was made by my colleague in the north-east, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). That is hardly objectionable either. Older people reliant on pensions are on a fixed income and would stand to be hard hit by any statutory increases, but what it means in practice is that the funding available is intertwined with an area’s demographic make-up. In short, the more pensioners within any given boundary, the steeper the reductions will be elsewhere and for everyone else.
Ultimately, those reductions are shouldered by other vulnerable people. To put it into context, the average reduction across all local authorities has been about 19%, according to the Local Government Association, as a result of higher numbers of pensioners in a given area, but it can be as high as 27%. That has meant that, as of April last year, 6,600 working-age people on low incomes across the Stockton borough who previously did not pay council tax have had to start contributing for the first time. Because of the reductions in support, a further 6,100 are paying more than last year.
Clearly, that runs completely counter to the original aim of the council tax benefit scheme, which—in case anyone needed reminding—was to protect precisely those vulnerable people who are now feeling the sharp end of the coalition’s cutbacks. Instead, we have a situation whereby councils doing their very best to protect vulnerable groups, such as the disabled and carers, are having to perform intricate balancing acts to ensure that working families are not disproportionately burdened by severe cuts to the support that they receive. They all have to do that while ensuring that their own financial situation remains robust enough to continue to provide services and support. Let us not forget that this increased liability came at precisely the same time as 2,800 families across the Stockton borough were being subjected to the bedroom tax, placing further strain on household incomes and exacerbating the cost of living crisis in their households.
While the Government profess to support the most vulnerable, and the Deputy Prime Minister boasts of his party’s success in lifting thousands out of taxation, the coalition’s actions in pulling support from underneath the most vulnerable contradicts those claims in plain sight. With only nine months between the statement of intent and localisation, local authorities were left with considerable logistical headaches, having to meet the Government’s criteria while continuing to offer as much support as possible to vulnerable persons and safe- guarding financial arrangements. That is not to mention communicating the changes to residents.
In my local authority area, Stockton borough council stands to lose about £3 million a year as a result of the funding changes. That highlights not only the severity of the reductions for local people, but the inadequacy of the Government’s transitional funding pot, which was hastily cobbled together when political pressure began to mount. In this context, the £100 million pot is a very small drop in a very large ocean, amounting to less than 25% of projected savings. That is particularly true when funds are time-limited to 12 months and any award comes with restrictive conditions that might mean the scheme costs even more to implement, as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will know.
One year in, there has been a tangible impact on council tax collection in Stockton. By the end of 2012-13, Stockton borough council had collected 98.2% of the council tax it billed for the year, which is the same level of success it has enjoyed in many recent years—a very good performance. Collection for 2013-14 was down to 96.9%, and only 76% was collected from those paying for the first time. Although Stockton’s overall collection rate is marginally better than the LGA’s projected national average, approximately £1.2 million remained unpaid by first-time payers at the year end—a figure that has not been compensated for by central Government and which will inevitably result in service reductions elsewhere.
Such higher levels of non-payment have resulted in sharp increases in enforcement action across the country. Some 600,000 court summonses were issued last year for non-payment—a pattern reflected in Stockton-on-Tees, where the number of summonses issued last year more than doubled on the previous year. With 4,700 issued to claimants paying for the first time, the default rate is more than 70%.
Stockton borough council has thought outside the box in introducing new initiatives to increase payment rates—for example, text messaging and home visits—while supporting those struggling to pay, but difficult decisions will be needed in future about further action against residents who are themselves making delicate decisions about priorities and how to balance finances. It is worth stating explicitly that, although these measures have generated some success, all the extra recovery action has increased the overall cost of collecting council tax.
The non-payment situation is liable to worsen as we enter the second year, because new bills remain unpaid from last year, and claimants with sums unpaid from the very beginning continue to pay off their arrears. I hope Members will agree that the independent review should be brought forward, as my right hon. Friend suggested, so that we can pull together the evidence of the scheme’s impacts now and do something fair for some of the most vulnerable and financially poor in our country.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing this important debate. He gave a powerful speech, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, he brings a particular expertise to these debates.
Like me, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will have sat in their surgeries and heard from constituents who are suffering as a result of the changes we are discussing. Since 2010, families in Nottingham have been hit by Government policies in general and Department for Communities and Local Government decisions in particular. In Nottingham, we saw the cancellation of the £200 million regeneration project for The Meadows, which would have rejuvenated one of the most deprived wards in the country. The Housing Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), pledged to visit the area, but he never made good on that promise. From the Government’s perspective, he may have moved on to bigger and better things—we certainly know just how much value they place on housing, given that they relegated the post to a junior Minister. My constituents in The Meadows have been left to live with the consequences of the right hon. Gentleman’s damaging decisions.
The lives of many people have also been blighted by the bedroom tax, which affects 5,000 households in Nottingham and has left thousands of my constituents with a debt they have no realistic prospect of paying off. No doubt the Minister will say that the policy sends a strong political message, but the message it sends to people in areas of my constituency such as Clifton is clear: “This Tory-led Government is prepared to single out you and your family and to drive you out of your own home, just to make a political point.” People in Nottingham, and the country as a whole, deserve better.
Nottingham city council has also been left to make impossible decisions, partly as a result of how council tax support has been devolved. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, the funding available has been salami-sliced, with a 10% cut, and that is only the headline figure. Those above pension credit age are exempt—a welcome protection for older residents—but that means that the impact on everyone else is even harsher. As Nottingham city council warned when the policy was announced, there will be a significant impact on working-age claimants who are not pensioners. Like the bedroom tax, this cruel policy hits disabled people and their carers, families with children, and people on low wages.
In 2012, more than 26,000 people in Nottingham were in receipt of council tax support—almost 10% of the city’s population. The point is that almost everyone in Nottingham will be affected directly, or will know someone who is affected directly, by these changes. The policy affects people in work and those who are out of it; those who own their own homes or those who are tenants; and those in council homes and those in the private sector.
Let me give the Minister a sense of the impact this policy will have. In 2012, 19,000 people in Nottingham received full council tax support. A substantial number of them were pensioners, of course, but many were working-age adults. Under the terms of the revised schemes, only a maximum of 80% support will be available, even for those on very low incomes. There is no doubt what the consequences will be. When the revised scheme went out to consultation, 75% of respondents stated that
“as a result of the changes they would have to reduce household spending on essential items such as food and heating.”
A third even said they will have to resort to borrowing money to make up the shortfall. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has warned, this new poll tax
“has caused misery for hundreds of thousands of people across the country, driving them into the courts and into debt”.
As the shadow local government team has established through freedom of information requests, up to 70,000 people have been issued with eviction notices across the country as a result of these changes.
The Minister might be tempted—if he is listening to the debate—to reply that it is for individual councils to design adequate schemes, but we must recognise that councillors and officers in Nottingham have been left to make impossible choices, as have their counterparts in neighbouring cities such as Leicester and Derby, who have implemented similar schemes. Given the constraints that have been imposed on it, Nottingham city council has delivered the best scheme it could. It has also decided to ensure that there is no sharp reduction in support for those entering work, who might lose their eligibility as a result, and I am sure hon. Members will welcome that move.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, the localisation of council tax support runs entirely counter to the arguments made in support of the Welfare Reform Act. The Government claimed they wanted to bring all social security benefits together in universal credit to reduce complexity and end any disincentives to work, but by localising council tax support they have ensured there is additional complexity, with every local authority across the country operating its own support scheme.
The financial consequences for my constituents are significant. Single people living in band A properties stand to lose more than £3 a week. Where there are two or more people in a household, they are set to lose more than £4 a week. Of course, they will lose more if the property is in band B. Many of these people are carers or single parents with young children. Nottingham city council’s equality impact assessment found that single parents—primarily women—were disproportionately affected. However, disabled people, war widows, veterans and young people facing persistently high levels of unemployment are also left with very limited options. Many will now be forced to go without essentials or go into debt. No wonder there is such a dramatic rise in the use of food banks in my city, and across the country, given that people simply do not have enough money to survive, let alone live a decent life.
I am proud that communities in Nottingham are trying through food banks to support their fellow citizens when they are hit by the Government’s deeply unfair policies, and that the Labour city council is working hard to protect the most vulnerable by investing extra funding in advice services to support its citizens. I visited one of those vital services, the Meadows advice group, last Friday to thank staff and volunteers for the work that they do to ensure that people at least get the help to which they are entitled. They reported a significant increase in requests for help in the past 12 months and said that the total debt that had been dealt with in the past year was up by more than £78,000. They repeatedly expressed concern about the combined impact of the Government’s welfare reform policies.
The individual effects are serious, but the consequences for Nottingham city council’s budget are considerable too—especially now that all the transitional funding has been withdrawn. Complying with the Government’s criteria and delivering a scheme that is as good as possible will mean a £1 million shortfall in this financial year. That is happening at a time when the council is straining to maintain its full range of services, because of the front-loaded cuts imposed on it. Under the present Government things will only get worse, as they seek to make further reductions to funding for the households and areas in the greatest need. There are even greater risks to council finances if those who are asked to pay simply cannot; it is estimated that for every 1% reduction in collection rates, an extra £22,000 is added to the cost of the scheme.
When the Prime Minister said that we were all in this together, it was a cruel joke at the expense of some of my most vulnerable constituents. Meanwhile, millionaires laugh all the way to the bank, where they find that they are much better off, thanks to the Government’s decision to cut the top rate of tax. The Deputy Prime Minister likes to boast that people have benefited from a rise in the personal allowance, but we all know that that does not help the very poorest, who continue to pay the price of the fact that the Government are indifferent to inequality.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and take part in the debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I have only a few points to add to what my colleagues have said, all of which I support.
I am concerned that the effect of the policy, combined with many other policies on social welfare support, is perverse and extremely harmful to those who experience its effects. I endorse the calls that have been made for the Government to take the earliest opportunity to review it. My colleagues have mentioned the risk that households will encounter work disincentives. In the next few weeks, a universal credit area will begin for some Trafford residents. The work disincentives that the council tax policy may create could, for those claimants, wipe out all the promised advantages of universal credit.
It is ridiculous to bring in one policy with the intention of incentivising employment, and another that may do the exact opposite. Equally, it is perverse to bring in a policy partly on the grounds of efficiency and cost-effectiveness before any clarity has been reached about how local authorities will organise their staffing complements, particularly as in many local authorities, including mine, housing benefit and council tax benefit—the predecessor of council tax support—were administered by a single team.
We are now going through what could be quite a long transition, until every Trafford claimant is on universal credit. Ministers tell us that that could take until 2017, but frankly, I think it could take longer when I see how it is coming along. That creates huge uncertainty for the local authority in planning the staff complement to manage council tax support, which it will continue to administer, and to prepare for the fact that it may not be managing the housing benefit element of what will become universal credit in relation to a diminishing number of residents over time.
It is incredibly difficult for the authority to plan its staffing resource in such uncertainty, and many good staff are beginning to vote with their feet and leave. Not only have local authorities been presented with all the difficulties of managing the budget described by my right hon. and hon. Friends; they also have a difficult administrative and human resources challenge to manage, because of the policy being brought in against the backdrop of other changes.
I agree with my colleagues that the system is right to protect pensioners, because of their limited options for improving their incomes. However, the policy is one more example of the current out-of-proportion tipping of the whole welfare system away from working-age people. It is becoming a residual system for older people only. Our welfare state was meant to be a welfare state for life—from cradle to grave—to protect us all in bad times if and when we needed it, and paid into by citizens to prepare for those bad times.
It is disgraceful for the Government repeatedly to pervert the philosophy that underpinned the welfare state, which they claim to be proud of, as we are. That is not to say that we do not want to offer pensioners the best possible protection. However, it is quite wrong that families with children, disabled people and their carers, and working people on low wages no longer enjoy the protection of the welfare state. Those, too, are precisely the people it was intended to protect.
My colleagues have pointed out an unevenness around the country in the kind of support that people receive from their local authority, and I am concerned about that too. We have a postcode lottery. No one is against the sensible localising of decisions, but postcode lotteries that leave families in some parts of the country at greater risk of poverty cannot be the kind of welfare support that we want.
In some local authorities, some income-related benefits or cash benefits are treated as income when eligibility for council tax support is calculated. Child benefit, child maintenance payments and disability living allowance are being taken into account in calculating someone’s means. However, they are not intended as income replacement benefits; they have the specific purpose of helping families with the cost of raising children and helping disabled people meet the additional cost of living with an impairment. It cannot be right that local authorities must take those benefits into consideration when they assess someone’s ability to meet council tax obligations, or their eligibility for council tax support. That is yet another demonstration of the total lack of regard to—or, perhaps, understanding of—how the welfare state has been constructed, and what the different social security benefits are for.
I endorse the calls made this afternoon for a proper, wholesale, urgent review of the policy, in the context of the coalition Government’s welfare changes. That cannot be just a one-off review, because universal credit and other changes are being rolled out over such a protracted period. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about what will happen after the first review and how he expects to keep the policy under careful consideration.
I share all the anxieties expressed this afternoon. The policy is not working for some of the poorest families in our constituencies. Ministers owe such families a duty of care and protection and it is not acceptable for them to wash their hands and pass the problem down to local authorities that have little choice in how they can administer the system.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing this important debate.
I will speak briefly, but before I say anything about the issue in hand I want to mention the employment figures, in case the Minister refers to them. Yes, employment is up in the north-east but, against that, unemployment is still at 10.3% and the number of people who are unemployed has risen. There may be more jobs for some people, but others are losing theirs.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that those employment figures include people on Government schemes and zero-hours contracts, and people who have been kicked off benefits or sanctioned? It is hard to know what the accurate figures are.
Mrs Glindon
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is precisely the point about how iniquitous the benefits situation now is for people.
Let me place in context the situation in my constituency. The Association of North East Councils has found that the north-east has suffered the biggest cuts and experienced much higher reductions in spending power than the national average. The spending power per household in North Tyneside is, at £2,048, the worst in Tyne and Wear. On top of that, North Tyneside council has had to make efficiency savings of £20 million for this year’s budget, which equates to 11% of the net revenue budget. At the same time, the council will see a £12 million reduction in the revenue support grant. That is a reduction of just under 20% for the year. We can see how hard-pressed councils are—a point that my right hon. and hon. Friends have already made.
The history of how the housing support amount has been calculated in North Tyneside is quite curious, because when it first came into effect under this Government, we had a Tory mayor in North Tyneside, and the Tory Administration wanted to impose a charge of 12.5% on people who had not formerly paid any council tax. My former colleagues on the council managed to get that down to 7%. It is still quite a sizeable amount of money for people who do not have the disposable income to pay it.
As I have shown, the council is in dire straits, but it has to do everything that it can to protect the vulnerable. That point has been made over and over again. When the Government impose these kinds of policies, they are not thinking about the most vulnerable in our communities. Some of them are from the working communities. In my constituency, 24% of people earn less than the living wage and 10% earn less than the minimum wage. Let us imagine the effect that any increase in the payments they have to make out of their salary has on them, and not just economically. There is also the mental strain of measures such as the bedroom tax.
Then there is the cost of living. If people are on a restricted budget, even 5p or 10p extra on an item when they go to do their shopping will affect them. We are talking not just about economics, but about people’s peace of mind. They are worrying about how to make ends meet. That takes an extra toll on their health. In the end, it is all a false economy on the part of the Government, because it just means that people will be going to the doctor for antidepressants and so on, perhaps taking days off work and falling into deeper and deeper poverty.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says:
“The replacement of CTB with CTS marks a historic move to 326 different local schemes in England. It will be a curious system when a jobseeker with a state-provided income of £71.70 per week pays some council tax in some parts of the country, but is considered too poor to pay in others.”
That just shows how ridiculous the situation is. It is not an equal tax on people. In our country, we strive for equality. We talk of ourselves as a country that has principles, a country people can enjoy living in and feel proud of. How can we be proud of taxation of this sort when it is so iniquitous?
I would like to make a plea to the Minister. Labour has asked for the review to be brought forward. The Lords did the sensible thing and agreed to an amendment on the matter, so will the Minister please bring forward the review as soon as possible, so that he can see the devastating effect that this change in council tax benefit has had on people across the country?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing this most important debate.
Localising council tax support and giving local authorities more control sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, it might have been if the Government had given local authorities the same amount of money as they were paying, but instead they reduced funding by 10%. Then they said that pensioners must be protected. I would not be against that, but it means that councils have to impose an average cut of 16% for working-age people. As ever, the Government are devolving responsibility but hiding the fact that they are implementing the cuts themselves. And it is not the ne’er-do-wells of society who are affected; it is disabled people, those in low-paid work, single mums, carers, veterans and those who are desperately seeking work but are among the 2.5 million people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed.
Council tax has become another part of the cost of living crisis facing my constituents in Bolton West. In Wigan, 13,000 people have been referred to the bailiffs, and that figure does not include the 1,000 businesses that have been served letters by the bailiffs for not paying their business rates. Those are people who cannot afford to pay their council tax, and of course they are usually hit by multiple debt. They may well have been hit by the bedroom tax and seen their housing benefit reduced because they have someone over the age of 18 in the house. They will have been hit by a rise in their food bills and fuel bills, and if they are in work their wages will have been running behind inflation for the last four years at least. They may well have got into debt with payday lenders when they borrowed money to try to keep themselves afloat. They frequently have a whole range of complex issues. Of course, a bailiff’s letter means that the debt has immediately gone up by £75. If the bailiff has to call, the debt rises by another £235. If, heaven forbid, the bailiffs come and seize goods, they will face an additional £110 fee.
It is no wonder that many residents of Wigan and Bolton West have got to the point at which they can see no way out of the situation. Of course, many of those residents were not paying council tax before. They will not be able to set up direct debts and will not have believed it when they got their council tax bill. The council therefore now has a much higher bill for collection. Collection rates have gone down across Wigan to 96%. It is still doing pretty well at collecting the money, but that means that there is less money for the essential public services on which my constituents depend.
This policy has been yet another for which the Government have attempted to devolve blame. Along with other policies, such as the bedroom tax, it causes misery to those who can least afford to pay, and at the same time the Government give tax cuts to millionaires. My constituents deserve better than that. The Minister should review the scheme and take one of the areas of pain away from people who are really struggling to survive in this day and age.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Crausby, and to Members in the Chamber, for missing the start of the debate. I did not intend to speak, but I have been driven to it by what I have had to listen to. I have heard some good speeches from Opposition Members, but some absolute drivel as well, about council tax and council spending. In particular, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), whom I look forward to meeting when she comes to my constituency next Saturday—we will be on the same train going through Brigg—seemed to forget completely the financial situation that the country found itself in, which has led to local government having to face some significant savings.
I served for 10 years as a councillor in Hull. At that time, although there was increased funding coming in, we repeatedly had to cut services. It is funny that at the time we did not have an array of Labour MPs or, indeed, Labour councillors in the area running up and down and saying how awful it was that all those extra burdens were being placed on people. Similarly, not a single Labour Member of Parliament was running around saying how awful it was for poor old hard-pressed council tax payers that their council tax had doubled in my area. We did not have a single Labour Member of Parliament worrying about hard-working families who were struggling when our police precept went up by 500% in just a few years. We did not have anyone from the Labour party saying how awful it was for hard-pressed council tax payers, many of whom were on the breadline, when the fire authority precept was added to our council tax bills and increased. We had none of that at all.
I try to work in as cross-party a manner as possible in this place, and I am not a fan of everything that has been done. I voted against the bedroom tax, so I am not a fan of all the changes, but this attempt to present the financial challenge that local government faces as a wicked Tory attempt to attack poor people is truly shameless.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Percy
No.
We did not have a single Labour MP talking about food banks before 2010, despite the fact that there had been a tenfold increase. It is the cheapest, filthiest form of politics.
I am amused to hear Labour representatives talking about hard-pressed council tax payers, because in my local authority they are trying to put the council tax up. They want to increase the council tax of the hard-pressed families they claim to be so concerned about, and they want to reduce those people’s access to social care. We have prevented them from doing that. If a council is run properly, as my local authority is, it is possible to retain all children’s centres, provide ongoing council tax support and build new libraries in communities that have never had them. Those things are possible if the tough decision is taken to reduce senior management posts. When we took control of our council from Labour in 2011, there were, I think, six people who earned more than £100,000. There are now two. Our leader took a 15% pay cut, following increases when Labour ran the council. We have even been able to reduce the cuts to youth services.
The point I am making is that local government is undoubtedly in a difficult situation, but it sticks in my craw when Opposition Members do not take any responsibility for the financial mess that they created, or for the pressure that they put on family budgets through council tax when they were in government. If they wanted a grown-up and sensible debate, Opposition Members would say, “Regardless of who is in power after the next election, there will still be ongoing cuts to local government.” They cannot simply oppose every single decision and say, “It would be different if we were in power.”
Andrew Percy
We have listened to a lot of Opposition Members speaking, and that is all to the good, but nobody has spoken from the Government side. I would not have done so, as I turned up late, if it had not been for some of the nonsense that Opposition Members were coming out with.
Andrew Percy
I think the hon. Gentleman’s comment sums up the debate. Opposition Members are not interested in having a sensible debate on the matter. All they are interested in is a dirty, filthy little political campaign that is all about trying to label anybody who disagrees with them as somehow not caring. It is ridiculous, and the public are seeing through it. [Interruption.]
Andrew Percy
Opposition Members should be apologising for the financial mess, apologising for doubling people’s council tax and apologising for what they did to local government during the 10 years in which I worked in the sector, which was to burden us with a great deal. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) was the Minister when my then Labour-run local authority was put into special measures. As a result of the measures that his—
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Percy, I know that you were not here for the opening remarks, but you should still confine your remarks to the localisation of council tax support.
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. The point I am making, Mr Crausby, is that after my local authority went into special measures, we had to increase to six the number of people who were being paid more than £100,000, which placed a burden of hundreds of thousands of pounds on our finances. Councils have inherited an over-inflated senior management, which makes it very difficult for them to deal with challenges such as the localisation of council tax support. It is okay to talk about the financial burden and challenge that local authorities face, but the Opposition must take some responsibility for the great cost that they imposed, especially that of senior management.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing the debate and on opening with a comprehensive analysis and critique of the Government’s localisation of council tax benefit? I want to address many of the issues that he raised. Just over a year after the localisation of council tax support, it is timely to debate the impact that the policy has had on millions of households across the country.
We have heard important contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). Other colleagues have made powerful interventions. It is good to see so many Opposition Members here to express their concerns, raise issues and ask genuine questions of the Minister about the impact of the policy. In contrast, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) opened his speech by talking about drivel, and continued on that theme without referring to the topic of the debate at all. Perhaps if he had attended at the start and listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, he would have talked about that important subject, which we know has a huge impact on some of the poorest in our communities.
The “poll tax mark 2”, as the policy has been called by Lord Jenkin, the creator of the original poll tax, is causing misery across the country and driving hundreds of thousands of people into courts and into debt. That is why I fully support the call made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for an immediate independent review of the impact of the socio-economic consequences of the localisation of council tax support, and I hope that the Minister will agree to that. The Public Accounts Committee has called for an independent review. The cross-party, Conservative-led Local Government Association has said that councils have been left
“facing an unpalatable choice of either charging council tax to the working age poor, who in many cases had not paid council tax before, or finding savings or extra income from elsewhere”.
That is in the context, as my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South and for Stretford and Urmston have said, of other policies such as the bedroom tax that are particularly affecting the disabled and some of the poorest in our communities. It is also in the context, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside has said, of local authorities having had their budgets slashed by 40% over this Parliament, with councils in areas of the highest need facing disproportionate cuts. Authorities with the highest levels of deprivation are being hit hardest, while the Prime Minister’s local authority, along with those of five Cabinet members, is receiving an increase in its spending power this year. That is directly relevant to councils’ ability to absorb the cuts to council tax benefit, because areas with the highest levels of deprivation that are facing the biggest cuts also contain a larger proportion of residents who require council tax support. Analysis from the special interest group of municipal authorities in the LGA shows that
“Council Tax Support was a much higher percentage of budgets for authorities such as Liverpool and Knowsley at 32% and Manchester and Hull at 29% than the more prosperous ones such as Windsor & Maidenhead and Rutland where the proportion was much lower, around 7.5%.”
Authorities that face additional cuts in their budgets have a difficult choice to make about whether to pass that on to claimants. As we know, four in five authorities have not been able to absorb the reduction in council tax benefit funding. The New Policy Institute found that of the 326 localised schemes, 82% reduced the level of support to working age recipients, with almost three quarters of councils introducing a minimum payment. Analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes it clear that Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils are more likely than Labour councils to introduce a minimum payment. That is a testament to Labour councils, given the cuts that they have faced and the higher proportion of council tax benefit recipients among their residents.
The LGA says that the scheme is “regressive”, because those on low incomes are dedicating higher percentages of their earnings to paying their council tax. Several hon. Members have talked about the fact that the amounts of money in question may seem small, but to some of our constituents, as we know, they make a huge difference to their ability each week to meet their household bills and their cost of living. Just like the bedroom tax, the policy is hitting those who are least able to pay.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has said, when the Government introduced the scheme, they had four main objectives in mind: to transfer the system to local control, to make savings, to protect vulnerable people and to support work incentives for claimants created by the Government’s wider welfare reforms. I believe that on all four of those objectives, the Government are failing. When it comes to the first objective, the localism for which I campaigned for many years outside this place, and which councils up and down the country wanted, was not merely about the devolution of the axe as exemplified by the localisation of council tax benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West has said, why not transfer the whole budget to councils and give them the discretion to seek to make savings if to do so is right for their local area? Ministers are happy to meddle in everything from the level of reserves to when the bins are collected, while passing on cuts to councils that put those councils in a near impossible position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North pointed out, the Government calculate that residents will identify the local authority as having made those choices when it has, in fact, been put in a really difficult position.
Andy Sawford
I will not give way because the hon. Gentleman was not present at the start of the debate and there is much to discuss relating to the informed contributions that have been made.
The Government’s second objective was to make savings. As the Local Government Information Unit, always a sound source of commentary, points out:
“Local authorities have incurred new costs through the changes to Council Tax Benefit”—
Andy Sawford
The hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole did not have the courtesy to give way to my hon. Friends, so I am afraid that the tone has been set.
I was quoting the Local Government Information Unit:
“Local authorities have incurred new costs through the changes to Council Tax Benefit, including the cost of designing and modelling schemes, communicating changes, consulting with local residents, paying IT suppliers, and setting up a system for appeals”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, it is an administrative nightmare. Some local authorities have actually had to employ additional staff to cope with the increased burden of council tax collection, including the cost of issuing 600,000 summonses across England and sending in bailiffs.
As well as new outgoings, the Local Government Association has said there has been a year-on-year drop in overall collection rates. It is, of course, quite rightly expected that council tax collections will increase and costs will decline over time as local authorities find it easier to collect money and the new system beds in, but the scheme’s difficulties in these early years have made it much more of a problem for local authorities and meant that the costs have ultimately been passed on to the most vulnerable residents.
On the Government’s aim to protect vulnerable people, it is a relief to poorer pensioners in my constituency and throughout the country that they will not be hit by the policy. Nevertheless, that protection has placed the burden of any reduction in council tax more on the shoulders of low income working-age people and families, as several of my hon. Friends have illustrated. In its March 2014 report, the Public Accounts Committee said:
“Contrary to the Department’s intentions, many local authority schemes have not protected vulnerable groups other than pensioners and war widows”.
The Government have not yet responded to that report, but when they do, they will claim that they are protecting vulnerable groups by freezing council tax. Of course, that is a con. Many Tory councils, including the Prime Minister’s own local county council, are putting council tax up. In my area, the county council has increased council tax, while the Labour-controlled borough council has frozen it, building on the record of Labour councils such as Hackney that have been freezing council tax for many years.
In many areas, including those where the council tax has been frozen, people on low incomes have seen their bills rise by more than £100 a year because of Tory cuts to council tax support. In fact, if someone lives in an area controlled by a Tory council, not only is their council tax £334 a year higher on average, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that their council
“is 14 percentage points more likely than Labour councils…to introduce minimum payments for council tax for low income households”.
That is confirmed in the report published last month by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which shows that low-income families have been affected by changes to council tax support.
A number of my hon. Friends referred to that important report, and I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether he has read it. If so, what does he make of its findings that 2.34 million low-income families will pay on average £149 more in council tax per year than they would have done under council tax benefit, and that 580,000 families have seen their council tax increase by 55% on average? How can the Government credibly seek to claim that there is a council tax freeze when 580,000 families around the country have seen their council tax increase by more than 50%?
Can the Minister account for the huge rise in the number of people approaching Citizens Advice with concerns about council tax debt? The chief executive of Citizens Advice told us in a briefing on this debate:
“In the past year Citizens Advice dealt with more than 150,000 problems of council tax debt”.
We know that many people have had the bailiffs at the door; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West highlighted how bailiffs can now charge £75 to charge a letter and £235 to pay a first visit, costing a debtor £310. Of course, such costs only mount. Many such people are already in financial hardship and are prey to loan sharks as they struggle to cope financially. They are also often the victims of other measures, such as the bedroom tax. The Ministry of Justice estimates that bailiff profits will double on the back of the Government’s new hike in bailiff charges. The debt charity StepChange says that profits will be made by compounding
“the hardship of some of the UK’s most vulnerable people”.
As we have heard, the Government’s proposal is not achieving their fourth objective: to make work pay. The Public Accounts Committee found that in 19 local authority areas, individuals are losing more through the combined impact of income tax and national insurance contributions and the withdrawal of council tax and housing benefits than under the previous scheme; some are losing 97p for every extra £1 earned. The Committee called it “a perverse result”.
If the Minister will not listen to the PAC or to organisations such as the Resolution Foundation, which has said that the scheme is not making work pay, perhaps he will listen to the Conservative commentator Fraser Nelson, who said that there is
“Precious little sign of…anger”
that the very poorest in our country face 98% tax rates. The Opposition are angry about that, and I hope that the Minister understands that he should feel angry about it too, because there is huge injustice in our communities.
I sense that you are encouraging me to draw my remarks to a close, Mr Crausby, so I will. There must be an independent review, to which I hope the Minister will agree. We have tabled amendments to that effect in the Lords because that is the right thing to do—it is the right time to assess the impact of the changes on the poorest people in the country. I very much hope that the Minister has listened to the powerful case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other hon. Friends from across the country about how the policy is affecting the poorest in our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in such an important debate, Mr Crausby. It is always good to debate a topic such as this with someone as knowledgeable about local government as the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I congratulate him on securing the debate.
Some comments have been made, not least by the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), about where we are with council tax levels more generally. That is a bit off topic—I know that the hon. Gentleman made a similar comment earlier—but it is worth recapping why the policy was introduced. We must remember that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, council tax doubled under the previous Government, hitting families right across the country.
To address the comments just made by the hon. Member for Corby, it is worth being clear that a Conservative-run authority is cheaper on average than a Labour or Liberal Democrat council, for a band D property. Conservative councils charge on average about £89 less than Labour councils and more than £100 less than Lib Dem councils on band D, so they are still the best value for people across the country, as I am sure he well knows in reality. We have also seen Conservative authorities in London and other parts of the country, such as Rugby, actually cutting council tax by managing their finances very well.
Council tax benefits spending doubled under the previous Government, costing taxpayers more than £4 billion a year, equivalent to almost £180 a year per household. Welfare reform was vital to bring such spending under control and tackle the horrendous budget deficit we inherited. Localising support for council tax is part of a wider policy of decentralisation, giving councils increased financial autonomy and a greater stake in the economic success of their local area. As council tax is a local tax, we believe that it makes sense for councils to have power and responsibility for making decisions about the levels of reduction to be granted to low-income, working-age claimants—their residents—and for providing the required support. Local schemes should reflect local needs, and local authorities are best placed to make the decisions, not someone sitting in Whitehall.
The Government have offered local authorities a great deal of help and support as the programme has rolled out. We must remember that £3.7 billion was provided for council tax support in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and we will be providing the same in 2015-16. There was new burden funding of £30 million in 2012-13 and a further £33.5 million in 2013-14. Tomorrow, 15 May, we will be paying out £34.8 million towards new burdens for 2014-15. That funding relates to costs incurred for the consultation and design of schemes, appeals, IT costs and communications. As some Members mentioned, the Government made an additional £100 million transition grant available for 2013-14, which helped councils develop well-designed council tax support schemes and maintain incentives to work. Claims totalling roughly £53.5 million were made by 196 billing authorities, and 69% of all authorities received funding. We also provided local authorities with guidance on work incentives and their responsibilities for vulnerable people.
The hon. Member for Corby misunderstands the difference between decentralisation and the abrogation of responsibility. The previous Government amazingly managed to centralise and abrogate responsibility at the same time. This Government decentralise; we move power to local authorities. Even Labour voices in Manchester have noted that this Government have done more in three years to decentralise than any previous Government, let alone the 13 years of Labour centralisation. That does not mean, however, that we take a vow of silence. It is right that we outline to councils best practice and what we and the country expect is right for residents.
Local authorities have a wide range of choices about both how they manage their funding and how they design their schemes. For example, apart from asking some claimants to meet some or all costs, they also have new flexibilities on empty homes, on making efficiency savings, on reducing fraud and error and on using reserves. Let us remember that local authorities have built up a record level of £19 billion in reserves, and figures from the National Fraud Authority show that they lose £2.1 billion annually from fraud and error, let alone what better collection rates can bring in.
So all councils have had options about whether they pass on all or any of the changes and about what groups they protect. It is for councils to ensure that the effect on particular groups is proportionate and fair, and to consult on local schemes. In year 1, for example, all 326 councils adopted schemes that continued to apply the same level of premiums as council tax benefit for vulnerable claimants; 52 councils protected the same vulnerable groups as council tax benefit; 89 offered some protection for particular vulnerable groups; and 84 introduced a hardship fund.
Most councils retained the work incentives that applied under council tax benefit: 307 maintained the taper at 20% or reduced it; 324 maintained the four-week period of extended payments, or increased it; and 324 councils maintained the level of earnings disregards, or increased it. Year 2 schemes, which came into force in April this year, continue to take a wide range of approaches that are locally appropriate and locally consulted on.
I recognise there are challenges in working with people who may be paying council tax for the first time, and I am encouraged to see that councils are taking a variety of approaches to help people adjust to the change. They are working out better payment arrangements that suit those people. They are looking at waiving costs as an incentive to encourage payment or a reward for clearing debt; proactively engaging with people who have not previously had to pay council tax; and looking at additional and earlier reminders to help people understand the situation and what they are dealing with.
Final year 1 data on collection rates will not be available for a few weeks yet. However, £20.3 billion of council tax was collected in England over the first nine months of 2013-14. That is £771 million—3.9%—more than in the same period in the previous year, despite the comments made earlier. The policy is now embedded, and councils have experience in designing and operating local schemes. However, the work we are doing on the policy has not ended, and should not end, yet.
In 2014-15, the Department will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to consider the allocation of the local council tax support administration subsidy, and to understand the ongoing costs of administering, reviewing and revising council tax support schemes. The Department is working closely with the DWP and local authorities in advance of the roll-out of universal credit to develop data sharing arrangements and to ensure that the savings that can be made through data sharing will be realised.
An independent review of schemes will be carried out within three years, as required by the Local Government Finance Act 2012. As set out in the Act, the review will examine effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and transparency; the impact on the localism agenda; and whether local schemes should be brought within universal credit. The Department is currently working with the council tax partnership forum and local authorities to identify appropriate and proportionate data for the review. The timetable, coverage, process for data collection, and detailed terms of reference will be agreed and published in due course.
Councils have challenges—nobody denies that—but there is much they can do in using their reserves and in cracking down on fraud and error in collection rates. Some authorities have seen increases. The increases that the hon. Member for Corby referred to should be celebrated, because those councils are doing good work. Their increases are a result of their benefiting from the new homes bonus, an incentive that we put in place. Business rates are an opportunity, in a way they never had before, for local authorities to see their money increase as they develop business and get more people into work locally.
Our reforms to localise council tax support are delivering national and local benefits. The programme is delivering a 10% saving on the forecast council tax benefit expenditure from 2013-14. We must be clear about that, and we should remember that it is an important contribution to the Government’s vital programme of deficit reduction. In 2013-14 the saving equates to £414 million, which is not a sum to be sniffed at. Despite the previous Government’s profligacy with money, we believe those sums are important in reducing the deficit.
At a local level, councils now have a stronger incentive to support and develop local firms and to see more jobs in their local areas, as reflected in today’s employment figures. I am delighted that even in my own constituency of Great Yarmouth, which Labour left behind, we have had a 27% fall in unemployment. Councils can cut fraud and promote local enterprise to get people into work, as the Government’s programme is clearly doing.
I thank the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for securing this debate, and I hope hon. Members appreciate that we have got the power in our local authorities to really make a difference.
Small Business Start-ups (Scotland)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank the Minister for taking time out of his busy schedule to come to this debate. I am delighted to have secured it, because we are all aware of the importance of small businesses to our economy. Small businesses are the lifeblood not only of regional economies, like Scotland’s, but of the overall UK economy.
Scotland has at last seen much-needed growth in the small business sector and that should be welcomed, encouraged and further developed, because small businesses account for over half of private sector employment in Scotland—just over 1 million people. Today we are looking at just short of 350,000 small businesses in Scotland. A great many of our unemployed who find work do so by joining or setting up their own small business. Scotland has seen an increase in small business start-ups over the last year. As I said, almost 350,000 small businesses were operating in Scotland in 2013-14, all with fewer than 50 employees. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland represents some 19,000 of those.
However, it is not all good news on start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises. According to Scotland’s insolvency service, the number of Scottish-registered companies becoming insolvent or entering receivership increased in 2013-14. The total of recorded insolvencies last quarter was higher than the previous quarter, although when compared with the equivalent quarter of the previous year, it was slightly lower. The Scottish Government’s website acknowledges that, stating that the number of Scottish-registered companies becoming insolvent or entering receivership in 2013-14 increased. This could be because the recession has lasted so much longer than anyone expected, with the increased figures for insolvencies reflecting, perhaps, that not all Scots business owners are trying to operate more effectively in relation to the current market conditions. Alternatively it could be, as I will go on to highlight, that the quality of a start-up and support for it should be as important, if not more so, than quantity.
Although I welcome this growth in Scotland’s small business start-ups, in Scotland there are clearly many reasons for increased start-ups. Even the reduction in the number of unemployed people in Scotland has been slower than in the rest of the UK, perhaps reflecting people’s inability to find employment with bigger or established employers. It may not be so much that Scotland is finding its entrepreneurial confidence, as the fact that for many in Scotland the only route out of unemployment has been to start up their own business. Figures released recently by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor show that Scotland now has more entrepreneurs than at any other point in its illustrious history.
Whichever reason people accept for the increased number of small business start-ups in Scotland—I would not encourage increasing unemployment as a way of increasing business start-ups—SMEs now account for more than half of private sector employment in Scotland. As I said, that underlines the important role of small businesses in our economy and communities. A recent survey of Scottish SMEs found that the vast majority had an annual turnover of less than £100,000.
Across Scotland there are hot spots and cold spots for start-ups. It is not surprising that Edinburgh and Glasgow are popular locations for start-ups, along with Aberdeen. That is obviously because those are large cities with lots of other businesses, making it easier for people to trade and form associations with giants on their doorstep.
What could be the reason for the cold spots—places where there are fewer start-ups? In many areas, including my constituency of Inverclyde, it could be because of a narrow economic base in the past. In such areas, there is over-reliance on a small number of large employers as a consequence, sometimes concentrated in a particular sector. That makes these communities vulnerable to outside economic pressures, meaning that the effect of an industry-wide decision, such as the electronics industry deciding to cut costs by moving manufacturing east, is more acutely felt.
In Inverclyde, over the years, we have seen a drive to replace heavy industry with electronics manufacturers and then replace them with financial services companies. Those will, in turn, if the pattern follows, be replaced by whatever is deemed to be the next big thing. Each of these is a major global industry subject to external factors that we cannot control, but it is into their basket that we happily place an entire community’s future.
A better way would be to broaden the economic base by having a greater number of businesses operating in a broader range of sectors and crucially, for the long-term health of the economy, encouraging and nurturing more home-grown businesses with a real stake in and ties to the area. We should not just try to attract some foreign inward investment that can skip off elsewhere the first time it does not get its own way.
How could we go about broadening that economic base? What support is there at present for start-ups and SMEs in Scotland? Boosting start-up numbers has been the major priority for Business Gateway and UK Government initiatives such as the New Enterprise Allowance are to be welcomed. There are also good programmes, such as Entrepreneurial Spark, Bridge 2 Business and, of course, the extra services provided by local authorities to supplement the core Business Gateway offer.
In terms of usage, the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland’s most recent member survey found that 20% of members had used Government-funded business support, such as Business Gateway, in the last year and 11% had used other, local government-funded support. However, many had also used Entrepreneurial Spark.
Entrepreneurial Spark is a new and fast-growing incubator for start-ups, launched in January 2012 and backed by a trio of Scottish entrepreneurs. It is based in three sites: Glasgow, Edinburgh and Ayrshire. It describes itself as a business accelerator for early-stage and growing ventures. It works in a collaborative office environment suitable for building teams. Businesses receive free IT and wi-fi and also have access to business advice and support, with a pool of more than 50 specialised mentors. If there is one thing that I have learned when speaking to new businesses, it is that they value that mentoring. They also receive networking opportunities, workshops, pitch practice and more, offering greater confidence and, hopefully, opportunities to their new business.
However, still and all too often, SMEs and those thinking of starting up feel that the system is stacked against them. Businesses are struggling with rising costs and a lack of finance. The UK is the only member of the G20 without a dynamic industrial strategy. In the USA, the head of the United States Small Business Administration reports to the President. Yet in the UK no one reports to the permanent secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or is solely responsible for small businesses.
Looking at finance, 26%—a sizeable number of businesses with growth ambition—stated that it was “likely” or “very likely” that they would seek external finance to grow their business. Banks are still not lending money at a rate to support the demand to grow. That is in stark contrast to what is taking place on the continent, in Germany, where more than 1,000 banks provide about two-thirds of lending to small and medium-sized business. SMEs here are held back because they cannot obtain finance on reasonable terms. Recently, the Treasury Committee heard of a dossier of complaints from 1,000 small firms against RBS’s controversial restructuring division.
Even if they get the financial backing, there are still other problems affecting small businesses’ growth or even survival. For example, late payment was considered to be a big problem for Scottish SMEs. Big organisations can manage late payments more easily than SMEs—quite simply, late payments put SMEs out of business. More than 1,600 companies have signed up to the voluntary prompt payment code, although many are making much of their sign-up and then not actually meeting the requirements of the code. The code has been described by the FSB in Scotland as “pretty toothless”, with those who fail to uphold it subject to no rebuke; they are not even named and shamed.
Rising business rates are also putting a heavy burden on small businesses. More than one in 10 small businesses say they spend the same or more on business rates as on rent. Rising energy prices are hitting them hard, too; those can be the second biggest cost that businesses face. Even technology seems to be failing small businesses in Scotland. The ability to communicate speedily via the internet through faster broadband connection is patchy or even non-existent in some areas. Slow, old copper wire connections still exist in abundance, and many areas of Scotland are still unable to connect to a superfast fibre-optic line, which could have a major negative impact on the future growth, competitiveness and even survival of Scotland’s small businesses. What are the Government doing with the Scottish Government to get better broadband connections across Scotland?
Clearly, many things can be improved to give small businesses an opportunity to flourish in Scotland. One of the first things that both Governments could discuss is improving attitudes to entrepreneurship among Scots to help people, especially young people, realise that a career in business is a realistic option and a good thing to do. Reports suggest that encouragement to improve attitudes towards entrepreneurship is happening in some areas, but there needs to be a better focus on the cold spots for start-ups.
In my constituency of Inverclyde, our education team has been engaging with secondary school fifth-year pupils to encourage awareness of entrepreneurship and business careers. In our “The Recruit” programme, which is established along the lines of “The Apprentice” television programme—the only difference being that our local businesses say, “You’re hired”—students begin a year-long intense introduction to business.
Once people have taken the plunge and started their business, we need to help them sustain those businesses and assist more in helping them grow. We know that the key stages in any business’s life—or, rather, the major hurdles to growth—are becoming an employer and employing the first member of staff, and moving out of the home office or garage and into the first premises. Targeted help, such as using some of the retail space lying empty in towns as incubator space for businesses, would be a good idea.
Assisting in the promotion of SMEs through events such as small business Saturday encourages people to buy local and small. The idea of small business Saturday started as a US shopping event held on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, one of the biggest shopping periods of the year. The event helped to put $5.5 billion into the pockets of independent shops and local service providers in the US. The small business Saturday idea was replicated in the UK in December 2013, just before Christmas. The initiative had cross-party support from more than 200 MPs, including the Prime Minister, and the day was backed by a third of all UK local authorities. We need more regular events that support and promote small businesses.
My Labour-controlled council in Inverclyde currently offers a marketing grant to SMEs, which is open to companies with registered offices in Inverclyde that have been trading for at least six months. The scheme provides free marketing advice and up to £1,000 of funding to cover 50% of marketing costs. I am glad to say that, to date, 48 companies in my area have benefited from the grant. Advertising helps local businesses across the country to reach new customers, increase sales and grow. It would help if start-ups received support for advertising and marketing. What steps will the Minister take to help start-ups and smaller companies to advertise?
Labour believes that business is the solution to achieving continued economic success. We must back businesses and support our wealth creators as part of the race to the top. To achieve that, Labour has promised a freeze on energy bills until 2017, which we believe will benefit small businesses across Scotland, and continued help by reforming the energy market. Both those promises are important, as energy costs are one of the largest overheads for businesses. Let us also support small businesses by cutting business rates in 2015 and freezing them in 2016, rather than going ahead with the Government’s corporation tax cut for the largest firms. That will help every SME and start-up across Scotland.
What more can be done? We need to improve access to finance for SMEs. Small businesses constantly rank access to finance as the biggest barrier to growth. Labour has committed to creating a British investment bank, along with a network of regional retail banks with a responsibility to boost lending in their areas. We also believe that “make work pay” contracts will share with small businesses the tax benefits to the Government of a living wage. We will address the exploitation of workers through zero-hours contracts, bogus self-employment, agency working loopholes, blacklisting and other practices that help bad employers gain an unfair advantage.
The Government need to encourage more SMEs to bid for Government contracts and become part of their supply chain. Development of both ease of tendering and relationships with SMEs through procurement would, hopefully, assist more SMEs to bid for and win Government contracts. I believe all those measures will help good SMEs to compete and grow, and they will also aid and encourage further small business start-ups across Scotland.
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) thanked me for being here, but that is my duty, not least because, as the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, I am responsible for small business. I take particular umbrage at his criticism that nobody in the Government is responsible for small business. Indeed, rather than small business being supported through an independent agency separate from Government, it is at the heart of the Government’s agenda here in the UK, hence the plethora of measures over the past couple of years to make life easier for small business.
I start by reflecting, acknowledging and supporting the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned on the growth of small businesses. There are more entrepreneurs in Scotland than ever before, and they are building on Scotland’s historical strength in exporting entrepreneurs the world over. It is good to hear that that, which has been going on for centuries, continues.
As someone from a family with a small business background, I am passionate about strengthening the small business environment across the whole UK. Of course, some of these issues are devolved, but the UK Government have been taking steps to strengthen the position in Scotland. I will set out some of those steps, and I will also respond to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The hon. Gentleman called for a British investment bank, and I am delighted to say that in the past 12 months we have opened the British business bank. Of the £782 million of loans to and investments in smaller businesses, £35.4 million was in Scotland—a £20 million increase in support compared with the previous year. The British business bank brings together the management of all Government lending and investment programmes into a single, commercially minded institution that includes some of our most popular schemes.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new enterprise allowance, which is important in helping unemployed people to start businesses. The start-up loans and the enterprise finance guarantee schemes have been benefiting start-ups and small businesses across the country, including in Scotland. We launched the start-up loans programme in Scotland in March, and it has already helped nearly 300 entrepreneurs to set up their own businesses, with a total investment of just under £1 million. In the Inverclyde constituency, nine individuals have benefited, with more sure to follow.
Likewise, since May 2010, 850 Scottish businesses have been supported by the bigger enterprise finance guarantee scheme to the tune of £109 million, with just under £1 million of that sum going into the Inverclyde constituency. The enterprise finance guarantee is for slightly bigger businesses, whereas start-up loans are targeted at people at the very start of building their business. Some 7,500 people have signed up to the new enterprise allowance in Scotland.
Those are targeted schemes. We have also improved the tax system for small business that applies across the whole UK. That includes the launch of the seed enterprise investment scheme, which incentivises people to invest in smaller and growing businesses. We have also expanded the enterprise investment scheme for slightly bigger businesses. Those schemes are hugely popular, and we announced in the Budget that the seed enterprise investment scheme will be made permanent—we introduced the scheme for a few years as a trial—in part because of its popularity and its impact on ensuring that Britain is the best place to start and grow a business. That is our goal.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the breadth of sectors—an important point—and growing home-grown businesses and businesses that come from the communities that serve as their customer base. The best thing that the Government can do in that is support the ideas that people have, rather than trying to give direction, by supporting all small businesses to start and grow—not only by reducing regulation, taxes and barriers to growth, but by putting in place the infrastructure, skills and support necessary to help them.
Mr McKenzie
Will the Minister not also say something about the mentoring factor, which I have already highlighted? A lot of small businesses need that in the initial stages of set-up and afterwards, to take them past the many pitfalls and hurdles that they will encounter.
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The start-up loans scheme has mentoring built into every loan. The reports we get back show that the mentoring is as important as the money in helping businesses to expand. There are mentoring schemes on a local level—he mentioned his local authority—at the level of the Scottish Government and at a national level.
Ensuring that there is simplicity in the communication of the available schemes is important, and we are bringing those schemes together to try to ensure that the various offers that the Government have to support businesses to grow are clear. Smaller businesses in particular do not have time to navigate through the large bureaucracy inevitably involved in government. It is our job to ensure that the offer is consumer-focused and focused on and responsive to the needs of individual small businesses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the industrial strategy, and it is a great credit to this country that we now have an industrial strategy that covers many different sectors and brings together the players across the country, including the Government and various Government agencies, as well as businesses large and small in different industries.
For too long, Britain was an outlier in not having a proactive approach to industrial strategy, with the view that the Government should not have a say. That was in the heady days of new Labour and seemed to be the religion of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its various forerunners. That has changed over the past few years, and there is now strong cross-party support for industrial strategies that actively support the growth of businesses and sectors and that try to improve the links between Government and business—they are inevitable in almost any sector—to support growth and jobs.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned prompt payment, a vital part of the effectiveness of the business environment. We have recently consulted on strengthening prompt payment to improve transparency and on putting the prompt payment code on a statutory footing. We have also asked whether we should go further and say that there should be a statutory limit on the length of payment terms. We will publish the results of that consultation shortly.
We put all options on the table and we had a large number of responses. The goal is to improve not only the length of payment terms, but the certainty around them. There are two slightly different issues with prompt payment: one is how long payment terms are and the other is how frequently payments are made on the agreed terms. In both cases, failure by a client can have a negative impact on a small business.
Mr McKenzie
Does the Minister agree that some of the larger, more household high street names have been pushing out their payment terms? Although they have signed up to prompt payments, they have now pushed their terms well beyond that and are taking advantage of being associated with it.
Matthew Hancock
That is exactly what was looked at in the consultation, and we will publish the response to it shortly. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned small business Saturday. We saw the success of small business Saturday in the USA. The President of the United States is a passionate advocate of it, and we listened to him and introduced small business Saturday last year. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it will take place on the first Saturday in December. I very much hope and fully expect that there will be cross-party support, as there was last year, to strengthen the institution and take it on to a higher level with even broader awareness. The awareness of small business Saturday in its first year was pretty amazing. It was high last year, and I hope that it can be higher still.
Mr McKenzie
Perhaps the Minister would consider holding two or three small business Saturdays a year.
Matthew Hancock
It could be said that too much of a good thing might be a problem. One for the time being is probably the right approach. The date was chosen because it is the busiest shopping day of the year. The run-up to Christmas is an important time, especially for retailers.
There is one important issue that the hon. Gentleman did not directly mention, although I am sure we are on the same page on it. The Union is an extremely important element in the support of small business across Scotland, not only in supporting exports—UK Trade & Investment supports exports right across the world—but because ensuring that we can trade within the United Kingdom without international borders is a huge strength to the Scottish economy just as it is a huge strength to the economy of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Other parts of the UK buy 70% of Scottish exports, which is more than Scotland exports to the rest of the world and four times as much as Scotland exports to the European Union. Borders matter. They reduce trade and labour migration and disrupt economic and cultural links. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is as supportive as I am of the larger UK economy, which provides Scotland with jobs, stability and security. The Union is absolutely vital and we will be passionately arguing for it in September.
Mr McKenzie
I share the Minister’s commitment to keeping the United Kingdom together and to having that larger trading area for businesses, be they small, large or even bigger enterprises. Does he believe that one of the benefits might be the linking up of supply chains from larger organisations in the rest of the UK with smaller businesses in Scotland? That would be put in jeopardy if the Union was not preserved.
Matthew Hancock
There are huge advantages to the Union in supply chains. I put it in a positive light: this great trading union has been very successful over a long period, and we want that success to be built on, rather than put at risk. When we think about small businesses in Scotland and how we can support them, an important element of that is supporting free trade within the United Kingdom.
The economy is growing and unemployment has come down throughout the country in the past year. There was good news today with the Bank of England’s forecasts for the UK, which were increased again. That shows that there is growing confidence in small business in Scotland and across the country. We know that the people of Scotland are passionate and tenacious in their support for and execution of business, whether large or small. We are equally passionate about helping them achieve their ambitions.
Whether businesses are large or small, they are all driving in the direction of trying to increase prosperity and jobs. It is not right to try to split off large and small businesses and propose tax increases for one part. It is far better to support the growth of all businesses and the incomes, jobs and economic security they bring to the people who run them and the people who are employed because of them.
I hope that this debate has been an effective airing of the support that the Government have for businesses in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Finally, I have no doubt that although we have done a lot to improve the environment for business in Scotland, there is much more to do.
Ambulance Resources and Response Times
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby? I hope that you will pass on my most grateful thanks to Mr Speaker for assisting me in securing this important debate so quickly after I made my request to him.
I also want to thank the front-line ambulance staff and paramedics whose professionalism and expertise, combined with care and compassion, can often mean the difference between life and death. Time and time again, we hear of the dedication beyond the call of duty of front-line staff in the NHS, and it is entirely right that we hold them in high regard and give them the recognition, remuneration and resources to do their job.
This debate was prompted by the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of one of my constituents, Mr William Gouldburn. Mr Gouldburn was 73 and had served his community as a special needs teacher. He had heart problems, and in the previous couple of days he had come out of hospital after surgery to his shoulder. After leaving hospital, he had felt unwell, to the extent that a doctor was called to his home at 9 am. Less than 90 minutes later, Mr Gouldburn collapsed in his bedroom and an ambulance was called by 10.32 am. The call was not considered to be urgent by the contact centre that took it, and a response time of 60 minutes was given. However, even that response time was not met. It was after 12 noon that a St John Ambulance arrived.
My understanding is that Mr Gouldburn’s family, who were naturally frantic about his condition, placed a total of seven calls about his case to the emergency services during this period. At this point he was lying on the floor of his bathroom, and he was to do so for more than 90 minutes. A regular ambulance was eventually dispatched, but Mr Gouldburn was pronounced dead shortly afterwards. I hope that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to Mr Gouldburn’s family.
At the inquest into Mr Gouldburn’s death last month, a manager for the North East Ambulance Service said that the service had been experiencing a high level of calls and that ambulances were delayed in admitting patients to North Durham hospital due to a lack of available beds. The manager was asked by the coroner:
“Is what I’m hearing you don’t have resources to meet demand?”
The ambulance service manager stated:
“Yes, that’s correct. It is a national problem”.
Mr Gouldburn’s case raises some significant questions about ambulance services, which is why I wanted to secure this debate.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this important and timely debate. There are serious concerns about the performance of the ambulance service in the north-east region. What is his opinion of the assessment by its chief executive, Simon Featherstone, that the service’s unsatisfactory performance is not as a result of the cuts, given that the trust is having to make £23 million of cuts during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Mr Wright
I must praise my hon. Friend, because he does fantastic work on health issues through his passionate commitment to the NHS and in his work on the Select Committee on Health. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to the finances and resources for ambulance services in a moment.
Mr Gouldburn’s case was tragic, and from what the coroner said, it was avoidable. However, a further tragedy is that his case is not unique or isolated. I have been told about similar cases, as my hon. Friends have been.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate so quickly. I have raised the issue of the NEAS a number of times. I have met the Minister about it; I even recognise some of the civil servants who are here today, having met them before. However, I was talking then about cases in the dales, where we accept that there will be an issue about logistics. Recently, cases have been raised with me every week. The latest one involved an elderly lady who fell outside and broke her hip. When her son rang to find out where the ambulance was, he was told that she was 42nd in the queue. She was lying outside with a broken hip for three hours, and that happened in Consett, where there is an ambulance service in the town. The whole situation is spiralling out of control, and I would welcome my hon. Friend’s views on it.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I concur, of course, with what he has said in praise of front-line ambulance staff, and I also express my condolences to the family of his constituent.
The South Central Ambulance Service, which has a good record against targets in urban areas but a less good record in rural areas, has faced rising demand as well. One of the specific factors that it has pointed to is the increasing number of referrals it receives from the 111 service. Is that also a factor in my hon. Friend’s area?
Mr Wright
It could have been a factor in Mr Gouldburn’s case, because originally his family contacted the ambulance service via 999 but subsequently they went to 111. I do not think that there is sufficient join-up between the ambulance services and the contact centres about what is appropriate to 999 and what is appropriate to 111. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is being very kind and gracious in giving way, although I had asked his permission to intervene beforehand.
Obviously I do not represent the immediate area covered by the ambulance service that the hon. Gentleman is referring to. In Northern Ireland, however, we have a system whereby the ambulance service can respond to someone who has had a heart attack, as was the case with his constituent. It is a rapid response unit, whereby a car goes out in advance of the ambulance and staff take the urgent remedial and medical action that is necessary in the critical first minutes after what has happened, and then the ambulance follows. Does he feel that the Minister could consider using that system in parts of England as well?
Mr Wright
We should have that system already, but it is simply not working in the north-east and in other parts.
Let me cite another case. A constituent of mine from the Headland part of Hartlepool, which is an urban area, contacted me to say:
“My dad has kidney failure and has only 12% of his kidneys working. Just over three weeks ago, my mam rang me concerned about dad. When I arrived at their house, I could see he was very, very ill. I rang immediately for an ambulance. A nurse rang me back for an assessment of dad. No ambulance. I rang again, another assessment, no ambulance. I rang again, another assessment, (the 4th one), this time stressing that I was angry because he was dying and the family would be driving dad to the hospital if they didn’t come, even though this was impossible. After two hours ten minutes, the ambulance finally arrived. In each phone call that I made, I stressed the fact that dad had kidney failure, which results in potassium build up, which results in a heart attack.”
Thankfully, my constituent’s father went to hospital and, almost against the odds, is slowly improving. As my constituent stated to me:
“He is still weak but my dad has always been a hard worker and a tough, strong man. He is at home but missing going to his allotment! There is no doubt the wonderful nurses and doctors saved dad’s life.”
I want the Minister to respond to and take action on a number of points raised by the examples that I and my hon. Friends have given. First and foremost is that stark admission from a manager within the NEAS that the service does not have the resources to meet demand, and that that is a national problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, demand is clearly rising. Since the 2010 general election, emergency calls to ambulance services in England have increased by about 12%, and calls in the north-east have gone up by about 13%. An ageing population will only increase demand further. In the next decade, this country will need more ambulance resources, not less.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has secured an excellent debate. We know from the NEAS itself that it had an expectation of 415,000 call-outs in the financial year 2012-13, yet it was funded for only 376,000 calls. Also, the use of private ambulances has gone up ninefold, with an initial cost of £96,000 in 2009-10 rising to £754,461 in 2012-13.
Mr Wright
I know that my hon. Friend has spoken in the House about this issue before, and I praise him for that. The use of private ambulances is taking resources away from our having a sustainable public service, which all our constituents want. As a result of that, the ambulance services are not able to invest in their work force, and something needs to be done about it. I hope that the Minister will respond directly to my hon. Friend about that issue, because the use of private ambulances is simply unacceptable.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. As this is a 30-minute debate, I will keep my interventions short, although I have a whole list of constituents who have waited an inordinate length of time; there is not the opportunity in a short debate, such as this one, to give all those examples.
In relation to the specific point about private ambulances, is it possible that the Government’s health reforms have led to fragmentation? I ask that because I have met representatives of front-line ambulance staff who have told me that the one-year contracts from the clinical commissioning group are not helping with the North East Ambulance Service NHS Trust’s forward planning of the services and resources that are needed to meet local demand.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes an important point. How can an ambulance service plan for the next five years if it faces annual commissioning rounds? That does not work and does not provide long-term sustainability.
The North East Ambulance Service, which, like other ambulance services, has received a flat cash offer from the Government over the course of this Parliament, has been required to cut £4.83 million from its budget for 2012-13, which is some 5% in real terms, and another £4.35 million for 2013-14. Unison estimates that real cuts of about 20% to 25% have been made to ambulance services so far over this Parliament. Those cuts, coupled with rising demand, are having a detrimental impact on the quality of ambulance service that people receive.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Wright
If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue for a moment, what I am about to say is relevant to her area. Response times, especially for the most life-threatening emergency cases, are getting worse. In March 2012, 75.5% of emergency calls in England were responded to within eight minutes. In March 2014, in the latest figures available, that had gone down to 74.7%, with seven of the 11 ambulance trusts, including the North East Ambulance Service, seeing a deterioration in performance. The East of England Ambulance Service saw the proportion of emergency calls responded to within eight minutes fall from 76.2% to 62.4%. That is simply unacceptable, and the hon. Lady will want to respond to it.
Dr Coffey
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I agree that this is a depressingly familiar situation, but I do praise Anthony Marsh, the new chief executive of the East of England Ambulance Service. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points, but what is the North East Ambulance Service’s board doing? MPs in the east of England campaigned and successfully managed to get rid of the entire board.
Mr Wright
As a north-east collective, we work closely to ensure that our constituents get the best possible services.
Let me move on to average response times. In the north-east, the average response time increased from five minutes and 16 seconds in 2011 to five minutes and 48 seconds last year. The east of England saw a 90-second increase in response times. Only one ambulance trust actually reduced the average emergency response time. Those figures reinforce what the senior management from the North East Ambulance Service confirmed at Mr Gouldburn’s inquest, namely that ambulance services do not have the resources to meet demand, that it is a national problem and that response times are suffering as a result. There has been an admission from a senior manager in the ambulance service that resources are not keeping up with demand. Response times, in particular for more serous cases, are deteriorating and lives are being threatened, if not tragically lost. Will the Minister therefore pledge this afternoon to provide more resources to ambulance services in Hartlepool, the north-east and across England to meet rising demand?
I also want to question the assessment process used to screen calls and prioritise response times. Given Mr Gouldburn’s history of heart problems, his age and the fact that he had recently undergone surgery and had seen the doctor that same day, why on earth was he not prioritised as an emergency case and provided with an eight-minute response time? Why did it take seven calls to escalate the case to an emergency? The Minister must accept that that is simply unacceptable. Is there pressure from the Government to downgrade the priority of emergency calls due to inadequate resources?
This week, I received a letter from the Health Minister Earl Howe stating in response to Mr Gouldburn’s case that
“the 999 call was triaged correctly, although some of the questioning could have been better.”
Why was it not better? Why is the questioning not relevant and efficient in every case? The constituent whose father had kidney problems said to me:
“Phone assessments should be changed. In each assessment they asked me did dad have a rash and could he put his chin on his chest! Words like kidney failure and potassium should be taken note of. Because I’m not a rude person I didn’t react angrily, but wish I had because dad could have died. We realise that there is a shortage of ambulances and this can’t go on. We are a rich country. Shortages of ambulances are something you read about in poor countries. It shouldn’t be happening here.”
Assessment and prioritisation seem to be failing and the right questions are not being asked during initial screening. What will the Minister do to address that?
The third issue is that ambulances were delayed because of a problem in admitting patients to North Durham hospital due to a lack of available beds. That seems to show both a lack of joined-up thinking on hospital admissions and the fact that ambulance and NHS resources are hanging by a thread. Is it really acceptable, as seems to have happened in Mr Gouldburn’s case, that because of a delay at a single hospital in County Durham due to insufficient beds, the whole ambulance service for the north-east, or certainly the south of the region, grinds to a halt? The Minister surely cannot find that acceptable. Are resources being spread so thinly that services are not being provided to my constituents?
Hospital services in my area have gone through dramatic changes in the past few years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) knows all too well. Hartlepool’s A and E closed in August 2011, much to the town’s concern, on the grounds of clinical safety and the specialisation and centralisation of appropriate medical skills. There is a mismatch between the Momentum programme of centralising services and the Government’s failure either to commit to funding a new hospital or to provide resources to reinstate services at the existing Hartlepool hospital. If there are fewer A and Es across the country and ambulances have to travel greater distances to a smaller number of centres, will that not increase the handover and turnaround times of patients between the ambulance service and hospital staff? Ambulance crews—my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) has been strong on this—are queuing up outside fewer hospitals, making handover and turnaround times worse. Does that not reduce the amount of time for which ambulance staff can be in a position to respond to emergency calls?
Tom Blenkinsop
Such cases will only increase in my constituency, where it is proposed to close two minor injury units and the walk-in centre in Skelton. That all comes on the back of a recent development at the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which could have a £50 million deficit. My main problem is that we have been refused meetings with Health Ministers to discuss such matters.
Mr Wright
It is wrong for any Minister to refuse a meeting request from a Member of Parliament, in particular on something as important as ambulance response and handover times.
Will the Minister respond to my point about the trade-off between the specialisation and centralisation of services, which is how the NHS is going, and the impact on the distances travelled by ambulances and their subsequent response and return-to-road times? Those are links in the chain that will ensure a seamless and high-quality NHS service, but they do not seem to be as locked together as they should. What is the Minister doing to address that? Will she commit to monitoring handover times to ensure a better and more responsive service for all patients?
At times of emergency and crisis for themselves or their loved ones, the public expect a responsive and professional ambulance service, but as we have heard from those working at a senior level within the North East Ambulance Service, resources are not matching demand, response times are worsening and lives are being threatened. Will the Minister act to ensure that in Hartlepool, the north-east and across the country we have ambulance provision that meets demands, is professional and is the best in the world?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on securing the debate. Given the wide range of topics that he and his colleagues raised, I am not sure whether I will be able to cover them all in the time available, so if I do not, I will attempt to respond to any substantive points after the debate. I will also certainly alert my noble Friend Earl Howe to the points made.
As the hon. Gentleman said, ambulance services are vital to the health care system and provide rapid assistance to people in urgent need of help. Many lives are saved by the hard work of ambulance service personnel. He is right to place his congratulations on the record and I want to place on the record my appreciation of the work done by staff in ambulance trusts. I gently suggest that I do not recognise some of the words and phrases used in the debate to characterise the service provided, but I am sure that they were used to stress a point.
Jane Ellison
No, because I have only just begun and the hon. Gentleman took many interventions.
Emergency services are the first port of call for many of us when serious illness or accident strikes. The total number of emergency calls to ambulance services in England in 2013-14 was 8.4 million, which is a 0.9% drop over the previous year. Unfortunately, a small proportion are unnecessary or frivolous, but the overwhelming majority are from people who feel in need of urgent help.
The growing number of people living with chronic conditions and the ageing population to which the hon. Gentleman referred are placing increasing pressure on urgent care services, something that we all acknowledge. It is important for my Department to work with Public Health England, local commissioners and health care providers to educate and engage the public on measures to prevent chronic health problems from developing. There are a number of people who end up in A and E because they have not taken medication properly or who suffer acute problems as a result of a chronic condition. Hon. Members will be aware of some of the longer-term problems in their region, which result from difficult public health challenges. Tackling those is my own particular portfolio, and is one way in which we can make the emergency services more sustainable in the longer term.
I hope hon. Members recognise that. At times, it seemed that they were merely committing themselves to significant additional future spending rather than also turning their minds to the longer-term challenges.
Jane Ellison
I am going to continue and try to make a few substantive points. If I have time, I will give way.
All 999 calls are triaged into two basic categories, red and green, depending on the seriousness of the call. Those placed in the red category are calls where the patient is in a life-threatening condition; an example would be someone suffering a cardiac arrest. Such calls require assistance on the scene as quickly as possible and the Government have set targets for all ambulance services in England of a response within eight minutes in 75% of cases. The latest figures, for March 2014, show that in north-east England—the area of the hon. Member for Hartlepool—the median average response time for red category calls was 6.4 minutes. Nationally, those figures show that 76.2% of red 1 calls, which are the most critical, received a response within eight minutes. In the north-east the target was also met, with 75.2% of patients receiving a response within eight minutes. That is not to say that there are not significant problems in some cases, but it is important to place on the record the service’s effective work in meeting that target.
Less critical 999 calls placed are in the green category. Those calls are not subject to national targets. Some ambulance services set their own targets for response times, and NEAS uses a one hour standard. It is important that such calls receive a timely and appropriate response, but red calls must be prioritised, as a person’s life may be in immediate danger.
There has been recent media coverage of long waits for ambulances, and hon. Members have alluded to constituents’ experience of such waits during this short debate. Every patient should expect to receive first-class care from the ambulance service, but the nature of emergency response work means there will always be incidents where unfortunate timing leads to a situation in which someone who is assessed as being in a non-life-threatening situation calls 999 at the same time as several other people who are in life-threatening situations. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that that would be the case under any Administration.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I cannot let that pass, because the situation is different now. I have had the honour of representing Easington for four years and it is evident from the cases that are coming to me and to colleagues from the region that the situation is worsening. One case was that of a young man who broke his hip playing football and waited for two and a half hours in the rain. He was in the centre of the constituency, in an area that is readily accessible. Another was of an old lady who waited two and a half hours for an ambulance. She died the following day. Something is sadly wrong with the North East Ambulance Service and the situation is deteriorating. We have all had cases that are really quite shocking, and something needs to be done.
Jane Ellison
I am not familiar with the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I will draw them to the attention of my ministerial colleagues and of the trust. I spoke to the head of the trust yesterday, and will make sure that the debate is brought to the trust’s attention. However, I gently say to hon. Members that they surely cannot be suggesting that at no previous time, under any previous Government, have there been any cases in which a service did not get this right. It is important to—
Jane Ellison
I do not recognise that description, and I do not think the service would recognise it.
Very rarely, as we have heard, waits may be unacceptably long, but it is important to remember that the vast majority of people receive a timely response when they dial 999. I am aware of the case of William Gouldburn, who was the constituent of the hon. Member for Hartlepool and who sadly died in April last year as the result of an existing heart condition. He waited two hours for an ambulance after his collapse at home. His case is distressing, and his MP is right to champion it and make us aware of it. The trust acknowledges that it failed by not getting an ambulance to Mr Gouldburn within the one-hour target it had set itself. It has been accepted that that was not good enough.
Difficult as his story is to hear, it is important to note that Mr Gouldburn’s 999 call was categorised as a green call—that is, a non-life-threatening situation—and at the inquest the coroner accepted that the call had been correctly triaged and categorised. That is not to say that there were not things that clearly should have been done differently, but it is right to put on the record what the coroner said. There is no denying that Mr Gouldburn waited an unacceptably long time for an ambulance, but the decision on his call’s priority was made when other calls were at the same time being prioritised as red.
It is a matter for local commissioners to agree with ambulance trusts the appropriate protocols for dealing with green calls, based on available clinical guidelines and local circumstances. I know that in the case of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) those local circumstances have been recognised with the introduction of a specific response vehicle in her constituency. There has been increasing demand on ambulance services—the North East Ambulance Service says that it saw a 5% increase in the volume of emergency incidents in the year up to March 2014—but thanks to the hard work of service staff, fast response times have been delivered in the vast majority of cases.
NEAS advises that over 40% of the calls it receives are categorised as red, so its consistent ability to exceed the national target for response times should be commended. NEAS has also told me that in 2013-14, 74.8% of calls categorised as green 2, or serious but not life-threatening, received a response within 30 minutes.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I will adjourn the sitting at 5.15 pm. I call the Minister.
Jane Ellison
Thank you, Mr Crausby. Welcome back to the hon. Member for Hartlepool—I think some colleagues may not have been able to rejoin us.
As I was saying, NEAS tells me that in 2013-14, 74.8% of calls categorised as green 2, meaning serious but not life-threatening, received a response within 30 minutes, and 71.2% of calls categorised as green 3, meaning non-emergency, received a response within 60 minutes. Although that does not in any way diminish the tragedy of cases such as Mr Gouldburn’s, which are never acceptable, it is important that we recognise the generally excellent service provided by the trust and its staff.
Jane Ellison
I think we can all agree that those are circumstances that we want to minimise.
I want to turn briefly to one or two specific local points, and then to one or two wider points. Most recently, the Government recognised the importance of investment in front-line services with £14 million provided to ambulance services last December. Obviously, it is for local commissioners and trusts to decide how that money is used. I recognise that in the hon. Gentleman’s region, local commissioners see that more investment is needed for ambulance services, and we recognise that the trusts are working with local commissioners on that, making sure that they get that commissioning piece right.
More generally, there is also an issue about staffing in the ambulance service. Since 2010, the NHS has recruited 16% more paramedics, but we know that in some areas of the country, there is insufficient academic capacity, for example, to produce paramedics in the numbers required. Again, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives is working with Health Education England to address that issue in the medium term.
The hon. Gentleman also alluded to ambulance handover delays. We absolutely recognise the role that they can play in making the job of the ambulance service more difficult. I believe there has been an ongoing issue, to which he alluded, for NEAS at County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust hospitals. Local commissioners have advised that there has been recent improvement, helped by winter initiatives supported by the urgent care working group. That has included support from the fire and police service, but I know there is more to be done.
Indeed, my colleague from the east of England, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has not been able to rejoin us, was talking as we went to the vote about work that had been done specifically in her area to look at some particular issues that affect handover delay. As she said in her intervention on the hon. Gentleman, it is well worth local Members exploring some of that detail with their board as well to see whether lessons can be learnt from other parts of the country.
The urgent and emergency care review is being led by Sir Bruce Keogh, the national medical director of NHS England. He was asked to undertake a review of urgent and emergency care, looking at all aspects of the sustainability of the urgent and emergency care system. That does not exclude ambulance services. The review proposes the development of 999 ambulances; they would become more like mobile treatment services, not just urgent transport vehicles. There is a lot of fresh thinking in all sorts of areas of delivering excellence in emergency health care, and it is right that we look at new ways of delivering that health care with regard to ambulances as well, rather than just looking at the old model.
I want briefly to put a point on the record in the 30 seconds left to me. Let us not minimise the importance of people being asked about a rash as a symptom on the phone. It is one of the signs of meningitis and the royal colleges have advised that that should be asked as a question, so it is not an insignificant point.
With regard to private ambulances, that provision was brought in by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), when he was in office—
Written Statements
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 6 May 2014. Ministers discussed the following items:
Current legislative proposals
The presidency provided an update on the ongoing work on financial services.
Parent subsidiary directive
Council discussed a proposal for a directive to amend the parent subsidiary directive. The proposal looks to close a loophole whereby companies operating across Europe could exploit differences between member states in the tax classification of certain financial instruments in order to reduce their overall tax liability. The presidency concluded that further work will need to take place at technical level to clarify the text as necessary and that it will need to return to a future Council, probably in June. The Government support an agreement as soon as possible.
Financial transaction tax
Council held a state of play discussion on the proposal for a Council directive implementing enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax (FTT). A total of 10 of the member states participating in the enhanced co-operation circulated a statement during the Council expressing their political commitment to a FTT. The main points of note are that the participants wish to implement the tax in stages, with the first stage applying to shares and some derivatives; and that they wish to implement this first stage by 1 January 2016.
At Council, which was in public session—and can be seen here http://video.consilium.europa.eu/webcast.aspx? ticket=775-979-14373—the UK stated concerns about the economic impact of the tax and that the enhanced co-operation procedure has to operate with transparency as article 330 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union sets out, with all member states participating in the deliberations. The UK was supported on these points by a number of other member states. Additionally, the UK expressed that the Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent ruling allowed for the UK and any member state to challenge an adopted FTT in court if it is harmful to them or the single market.
Macro-economic imbalances procedure: in-depth reviews
Council adopted Council conclusions on the results of the UK and 16 other member states’ macro-economic imbalances procedure: in-depth reviews. The UK does not have an excessive imbalance and does not need to take further action under the macro-economic imbalances procedure.
Follow-up to the meetings of G20 Finance Ministers and governors (10-11 April) and IMF/World Bank (11-13 April) in Washington DC
The presidency and Commission debriefed Ministers on the main outcomes of the G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors and IMF/World Bank meetings held in Washington DC from 10-13 April. The Government remain supportive of the Australian G20 agenda, particularly on the development of comprehensive growth strategies.
Defence Equipment and Support
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
On 10 December 2013, Official Report, column 146, the Secretary of State for Defence announced his intention to establish the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation as a bespoke trading entity, from April this year.
Since that announcement, having agreed the principle that DE&S should be provided with the necessary freedoms to allow it to operate along more commercial lines, within an agreed operating cost budget, we have worked with HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, to agree the governance and accountability structure within which the new DE&S will operate.
I can confirm that, on 1 April 2014, DE&S was launched in its new form and is now an arm’s length body to the rest of the Ministry of Defence. The DE&S has been provided with the unparalleled freedom to manage its own business, outputs and work force within an operating cost envelope set to drive significant efficiencies.
Ministerial oversight of the new DE&S is being provided through an owner’s council chaired by me. As the first chief executive of the organisation, Bernard Gray, as Chief of Defence Matériel, has become an additional accounting officer, directly responsible to Parliament for the resources and performance of DE&S. The permanent secretary, as principal accounting officer, remains accountable to Parliament for the Department as a whole.
To assist the programme of delivery and transformation, the DE&S will introduce private sector skills through a number of contracts for managed service providers (MSPs). DE&S will remain responsible for its outputs, with the MSPs providing high-quality support and expertise in the key areas of project delivery, human resources and management information, finance and information technology. The contract notice for the first MSP, project delivery, was issued on 14 April and invitations to negotiate were issued to eight companies on 12 May. The contract notice for the second MSP, human resources, was also issued on 12 May. We expect to have the contracts in place later this year.
The launch of the new DE&S provides an unprecedented opportunity to transform the process of defence acquisition and support for our armed forces, while improving value for money. The changes we are introducing will result in a higher performing delivery organisation, which is better able to deliver vital equipment and support to the front line, on time and at the agreed price. In doing so, we remain consistent with the report on defence acquisition from 2009 and the Levene recommendations from 2011. We are also thinking further ahead, to ensure that by the middle of the next Parliament, DE&S is a genuinely customer-facing, match-fit organisation, providing a robust public sector comparator should a future Government decide to re-examine the potential for a GoCo model. This is the beginning of the transformation process. We are empowering the DE&S to meet head on the challenges of delivering a most complex and demanding portfolio of work to meet its customers’ needs.
Full details of the DE&S governance structure, function, policies, and strategic objectives are contained in a new framework document and corporate plan. I have placed copies of both documents in the Library of the House.
Legislation (2013-14 Session)
(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Following the conclusion of business in the House on Wednesday 14 May 2014, I expect Parliament to be prorogued until 4 June, concluding the current 2013-14 parliamentary Session. Subject to proceedings today, 28 Bills will have received Royal Assent in the 2013-14 Session:
Government Bills:
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing
Care
Children and Families1
Defence Reform
Energy1
European Union (Approvals)
Finance1
Financial Services (Banking Reform)1
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising)
High Speed Rail (Preparation)
Immigration
Intellectual Property
Local Audit and Accountability
Marriage (Same Sex Couples)1
Mesothelioma
National Insurance Contributions
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Offender Rehabilitation
Pensions
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration
Water Bill
Consolidation and Law Commission Bills:
Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies
Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers
Private Members’ Bills:
Citizenship (Armed Forces)
Deep Sea Mining
House of Lords Reform (No. 2)
International Development (Gender Equality)
Leasehold Reform (Amendment)
The following Government Bills introduced in this Session will carry-over, resuming their passage in the next Session:
Consumer Rights
Criminal Justice and Courts
Deregulation
Finance (No.2)
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands)2
Wales
Further Bills for the next Session of Parliament will be announced on Wednesday 4 June 2014.
Notes:
1Denotes Bills introduced in the previous Session which were carried-over and completed their passage in this Session.
2Denotes a hybrid Bill.