Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies
Graham P Jones Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Tories just do not get it. After the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal, when our reputation in this country was ruined, sometimes unjustly, we have to try to win it back. I have suggested in books, including one in 1997, that the best way to win the respect of the country is to accept that £67,000 is a full-time wage for which we have to do a full-time job. I have just looked up one Member who spoke earlier and found that he is earning £200,000. He has not said so. The last speaker did not say how much he is earning. We want transparency in this debate.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Would it not be reasonable to suggest that if somebody wants to do a part-time job, or half a job, they should give half their salary back?
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in what, according to the House of Commons Library, will be my 650th contribution to proceedings in this Parliament. That puts me well in the top per cent. of all Members of Parliament, including Ministers, for contributions. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is to be found on page 11. I am a practising barrister, the director of two public companies and three private companies, and a partner in a film partnership.
The resolution tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others does not seek to ban Members of Parliament from pursuing outside interests as such: the motion is simply to ban certain types of outside interest. May I suggest that there is no logic, either practical or in terms of public policy, in what the Opposition suggest? The motion seeks solely to ban Members of Parliament from being paid company directors or consultants. I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why the Opposition think it appropriate to ban a Member of Parliament from being a director of a limited company, but if that is what they want, why would they consider it appropriate for a Member of Parliament to be a partner in a limited liability partnership? Why should I be banned from being a company director, but allowed to continue to be a partner?
Under the terms of the motion, it would be acceptable for a Member of Parliament to have an outside interest as a farmer, providing that interest was expressed by way of being a partner in a farm partnership, but the same Member of Parliament would be unable to pursue effectively the same activity if, instead of being a partner in a farm partnership, he were a director in a limited liability company undertaking exactly the same commercial activity.
Under the terms of this motion, it would be possible for Members of Parliament to have any second interests if they were self-employed interests. It would be possible for Members of Parliament to continue to be authors, journalists, television commentators, and stockbrokers, providing the stockbroking was done by way of a partnership. The provision in the motion simply to seek to ban Members of Parliament from being company directors is, I suggest, somewhat capricious, and owes little, if anything, to logic. I am afraid it simply reflects the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to jump on any passing bandwagon.
There is a wholly credible, intellectual case for saying that Members of Parliament can hold no outside interests whatever, and there is a wholly credible, intellectual case for saying that Members of Parliament can hold outside interests, subject to rules on transparency and accountability, but what holds no intellectual credibility is to seek to have a policy which bans certain types of outside interests for Members of Parliament and allows others. Moreover, with respect, it is no good people, including many editors and journalists, complaining that the House of Commons is, from their perspective, increasingly occupied by career politicians who have done nothing else and then, almost in the next breath, advocating the removal from the House of Commons those of us who do bring other experience to this House. As the House will recall, the last time that the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered this matter, it concluded that it was beneficial to Parliament for Members of Parliament to be able to have outside interests.
As the register shows, I am a practising barrister, arbitrator and mediator, and I am also a director of a number of companies, public and private. Under the provisions of this motion, if I were standing at the next general election, it would be permissible for me to continue to practise at the Bar, and to practise as a mediator and arbitrator. If the Opposition consider it acceptable for me as a Member of Parliament to continue to be able to practise as a barrister, mediator or arbitrator, their argument cannot possibly be against having outside interests as such. Why would they consider it acceptable for me to continue to practise as a barrister, but not for me to be a director of public companies? It cannot be a regulatory issue. As a barrister, I am of course, in addition to the general law of the land, subject to regulation by the Bar Council and by the Bar Standards Board, but as a company director I am also bound by the law of the land and subject to supervision by several regulatory bodies—the stock exchange, the UK Listing Authority, the Takeover Panel, and numerous others. This motion is simply grandstanding.
Graham Jones
The House would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how much he gets from outside jobs, and how much time he spends on them away from Parliament. It would illuminate the debate for the House.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made that very same observation about an almost identical sting prior to the last election, when it was then Labour Cabinet members who were caught up in a rotten affair.
The public observe this House with something approaching bemused bewilderment, concluding that the Westminster Parliament exists as little more than a self-serving institution for its overpaid Members. This Parliament has never been held in such contempt. Never has there been such a profound alienation between those who are governed and those who occupy the corridors of power. There is a massive disconnect between this House and the people of Britain. All that has happened in the past week makes that disconnect even wider. People will observe the comments from Conservative Members with something approaching disbelief. We see that reflected in how the public respond to this House—of course we do. The two major establishment parties can barely get above 60% in the polls. The public are not prepared to accept this anymore.
Graham Jones
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell the House how many Scottish National party MSPs who are standing in the general election intend to stand down as MSPs, or will they be dual-hatted?
Pete Wishart
I know one, and yes he will.
This House is able to secure only 60% of popular support. That suggests to me that the people of these islands are looking for something different. They are sick and tired of the antics of this particular House. That is reflected in how they are responding to the way the Westminster establishment parties do their business. They are sick and tired of the self-justification: the special pleading; the bleating; the idea that somehow this House is enriched because Conservative Members can make some extra money; that this House is enriched because they bring outside experience to it; and that we cannot live on £67,000 a year. Tell that to our constituents! That is treble the national average wage. Our constituents are currently suffering austerity and a diminution of their annual income. They are experiencing real poverty and real difficulty, yet this House tells them that right hon. and hon. Members cannot get by on £67,000 a year.
I believe that being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job. In fact, we have got two jobs: we have our responsibilities in this House, and then we have our obligations to our constituents. Becoming a constituency Member of Parliament has changed dramatically in the 14 years that I have been here. It has become much more technical and much more complicated, with a greater amount of different tasks and skills needing to be acquired to serve members of the public efficiently and effectively. The suggestion that this can be combined with a second job with outside earnings is something I believe our constituents would find very difficult to accept.
Deregulation Bill
Graham P Jones Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
Again, I agree that the Government, local authorities, the police and campaigning organisations should do everything they can to ensure that women and other users of private hire vehicles use only licensed vehicles, and that there is a strong clampdown on those who are operating illegally. Again, I do not think that anything the Government are proposing in these clauses will have the effect that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying they will.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a local authority cannot take enforcement action against taxis that are licensed in another area, and that relaxing this policy will only add to that problem?
Tom Brake
As I have said, if, for instance, an operator cannot do a job in an outside area and passes on the responsibility to another licensed operator, that operator will be licensed, and there will be enforcement associated with that licence. Enforcement authorities will be able to check the operator’s records for any given booking to ensure that it has been undertaken lawfully.
To sum up, these are tried and tested measures. We believe there are adequate safeguards in place. We acknowledge, of course, that the Law Commission review is a significant landmark to those who have a keen or vested interest in the evolution of taxi licensing and regulation, but the key point is that that review will not deliver tangible change in the next year, whereas these measures will. They in no way undermine or nullify the Law Commission’s review; they are simply the first steps on a long deregulatory journey, which will continue when the Government find an opportunity to take forward the Bill that will arise from that review. The Government are firmly of the view that clauses 10 to 12 should remain part of the Bill, and that amendment 61 should be resisted.
Graham Jones
The Minister says these measures will be helpful, but Hyndburn borough council currently cannot take enforcement action against taxis from another authority, such as Rossendale, and his proposals will only aggravate the situation. Will he confirm that that is the case?
Tom Brake
At the risk of repeating myself, I do not think that any action the Government are taking will put people at risk.
Let me respond to a couple of earlier interventions. It was suggested, for instance, that we have not consulted. We have indeed consulted: we conducted a targeted consultation earlier this year and also tapped into the extensive consultation conducted by the Law Commission during its comprehensive review. Nor is it true that no one wants the measures we are proposing. For instance, the Private Hire Reform Campaign is highly supportive of all these measures, and after extensive consultation, the Law Commission recommended all three of them in its most recent comprehensive review of taxi legislation.
Julie Hilling
I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I must declare that I am a proud member of Unite the union, which has an interest in the taxi trade, although, sadly, it has not briefed me on this issue.
A few weeks ago, my two Bolton colleagues and I attended a meeting in my constituency which had been called by the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers. In attendance were people from the Law Commission, the Local Government Association, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Association, Unite, the GMB, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester and councillors from a number of Greater Manchester authorities, including Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Stockport and Salford. It was interesting that those attendees from a vast range of different backgrounds all spoke with one voice. They did not understand why the clauses affecting taxis were being rushed through in the Deregulation Bill. They wanted them to be withdrawn, and replaced by holistic legislation that focused on the Law Commission review. At a meeting of such a diverse group of people, it is unusual for everyone to speak with one voice.
We know that there are already problems in the system. In the north-west, for instance, Rossendale has licensed more than 1,000 hackney carriages, most of which are being used not in Rossendale but elsewhere. Where are the checks being carried out, and by whom? We do not have national standards, so a taxi that is licensed in Rossendale but does not reach the standards required by the authorities in Bolton could be driving around Bolton. In that situation, a passenger in Bolton who wanted to complain about that taxi could not do so to officers in Bolton, as they would have no right to inspect the vehicle or check the driver.
In Sheffield, North East Derbyshire district council has licensed a Sheffield-based operator that uses hackney carriages licensed by Gedling borough council, so in effect no council has regulatory control. Sheffield council is particularly powerless when there are complaints from Sheffield residents about taxis overcharging or poor driver behaviour. The interesting question for me is why Rossendale, for example, is licensing so many taxi drivers. Why are firms going to Rossendale or Gedling for licences? Is it because the regimes in those places are much easier to get through, or because it is cheaper to get the vehicles licensed there? What is it about the system in those places? When the system as a whole is fractured, there are all sorts of ways for disreputable drivers and companies, or people who are simply trying to make the quickest buck they can, to get through it.
There is also the question of whether operators should be able to make journeys across local area borders. We need to look holistically at what we do about those cross-border journeys to ensure that there can be enforcement of regulations. No matter where a taxi is licensed, if it is operating in Bolton, why can Bolton enforcement officers not be allowed to enforce regulations on that vehicle? I am not sure that the answer is necessarily to say that it is not possible. We need a framework in which it can happen, whereby local authorities can get remuneration to enable them to carry out checks when licensing has been carried out by a different authority. The situation is complex and is made much worse by this Bill.
The issue came to my attention when the parents of a 13-year-old girl came to one of my constituency surgeries because they were concerned about a specific incident that had happened to her. She had taken a taxi. To start with she was going to Bolton, but part way through the journey she received a call from her friend to say they needed to meet elsewhere. It appears that at some point on the journey the taxi driver turned off all his monitoring equipment, including his GPS. The 13-year-old was taken to quite a remote estate in the constituency. The taxi driver parked up and said that he was just waiting for a friend to bring him his mobile phone charger. Fortunately, the girl started to get agitated. She had told the driver that she was 16, because her mum had said that she should tell people that she was a little bit older, thinking that it would offer her protection. In fact, in these circumstances it appears to have done the opposite. The girl became concerned about the questions the taxi driver was starting to ask her about her social life and so on. Fortunately, she had the nous to get out of the taxi. She played a ruse and said she wanted to pop over to a nearby shop and buy some cigarettes, of all things. The taxi driver agreed, saying they could share them, and she got out of the taxi and ran like hell. Fortunately, she met a bystander who listened to her, took her to the local McDonald’s, called the police and waited with her until they turned up.
It turned out that the taxi driver had a record of past misdemeanours. He was taken through the tribunal system and lost his licence, so is now unable to operate in Bolton. But, like me, the girl’s parents were horrified to learn that although the driver is banned in Bolton, he could become a taxi driver anywhere else, depending on whether another local authority did a police check. Because he was not prosecuted, a police check might not throw up the fact that he was a danger to the travelling public and, it would appear, to young women in particular.
I asked the Department for Transport a written question about the proportion of local authorities in England and Wales that require a disclosure and barring service check on applicants before issuing a taxi or private hire vehicle licence, and I received this response:
“The Department for Transport does not hold this information. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a ‘fit and proper person’. As part of this process they can undertake”—
note the word “can”—
“criminal record checks on applicants but we do not keep details of the assessment policies and procedures adopted by local authorities.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 522W.]
That “can” seems totally inadequate.
I have asked questions about whether all local authorities carry out police checks, but as no one holds the information, we do not know the answer. That is another reason why we need holistic legislation that ensures that licensing authorities carry out proper checks on drivers. We need a system in which a person who is banned by one local authority is banned, full stop. The changes proposed in the Bill will make the situation worse, not better.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does she accept that that principle applies not only to the licensee but to the condition of the vehicle? We have varying licensing conditions for vehicles themselves. Some authorities might argue that other authorities license vehicles that they would deem to be substandard because they have a higher threshold. Does she accept that the age and condition of the vehicle is also of paramount importance to local people?
Julie Hilling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a vehicle can be licensed in one authority and the driver in another, and both can operate somewhere else, we have a ridiculous situation in which nobody can enforce standards because the vehicle will never be driven in the authority where either licence was granted. He is absolutely right that we have no equality of standards across the piece. It is a ludicrous situation, and it is ludicrous that the Government intend to deregulate further. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I wrote to the Secretary of State about my 13-year-old constituent. In response, I was told that legislation obliges a local authority to satisfy itself that any person to whom it grants a taxi or public service vehicle licence is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence, but “fit and proper” is not defined in legislation and it therefore falls to the local authority to decide. Why do the Government think that further deregulation will keep my constituents safe?
When I first read the clause that allows family members to drive an off-duty taxi or private hire vehicle, I could see no problems with it and thought it seemed a sensible idea. I asked the operators and others involved about that when we met. I was not wholly convinced by the answer and so asked whether the taxi markings could be removed. I was told that that would be extremely difficult for taxis operating in my local authority—I guess this would be the case for all taxis operating outside London—because they are clearly marked as taxis. Another issue that was raised was what would happen in areas where taxis are allowed to use bus lanes. What would happen if an off-duty taxi used a bus lane? How would we enforce proper usage? I was then convinced by their arguments.
As we talked through those matters, I realised that in all our areas we already have a massive problem with unlicensed taxis touting for business, particularly late at night. I am no longer often in city centres late at night, but I have been in the past. It has to be said that one can become quite desperate when looking for a taxi. In particular, young people who have perhaps been drinking more than they should will not be rigorous about checking the identity of the driver or the car; they are simply delighted to be getting a lift home. We should not introduce any measures that weaken regulation and make it more likely that people will get into a vehicle that is not being driven by the licensed driver.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument, and one that I think the general public will have a lot of sympathy with. Does she agree that there are also implications for police enforcement? In my area, taxi drivers are sometimes drug couriers, and the police find them. If we are going to deregulate who can drive the vehicle, the question of who is the mule—is it the driver or the person taking the car?—is a serious problem for police enforcement. Who is driving that vehicle? Who is the person who last had it?
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. People might be expecting a vehicle that is perhaps five years old at most, and that has been crash-tested for safety, from an operator they are familiar with and a local authority that has a very robust licensing system; but the vehicle that turns up may be from another authority, or could even have been licensed in the far ends of the United Kingdom. It could have no age restrictions on it, and be poorly MOT-tested, or its tests may not have been as frequent as they would have been under the local authority. The vehicle may not be as robust or as sound—it is only as good as it was on the date on which it got its MOT—as a vehicle that their local authority would permit. People could end up with a vehicle that is unsatisfactory, compared with what they would expect in their local authority area, because of the cross-border taxi proposal.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a very sensible point. Apart from choice and preference, and whether a cab or a private hire vehicle is adapted for the disabled, there are also issues about levels of maintenance, and different standards in different local authority areas.
On the Opposition side of the House, and on my part, there is agreement about the need for reform of the industry. However, there is consensus across the trade that this piecemeal approach is not what is needed. What is different since the Westminster Hall debate a couple of months ago is that the Law Commission has now reported. In his opening statement, the Minister said that the Law Commission agrees with clauses 10 to 12; well, that is not quite the whole truth, is it? What the Law Commission has advocated—and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are not following through on this—is a comprehensive review to get rid of the inconsistency in standards across the country that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and others identified, and to deal with the concerns about inadequate enforcement. The idea that we can cherry-pick three proposals for deregulation and that there will be no consequences flies in the face of what the Law Commission is about, and seems rather contrary.
As my hon. Friends have indicated, the Law Commission’s July 2013 interim statement said that if reforms were to be implemented, they must be underpinned by tougher powers for licensing officers. I do not see why the proposed reforms are so urgent that the Government should bypass meaningful consultation; in doing so, they are undermining the work of the Law Commission that they initiated.
We must have a holistic approach; changes to regulation should be considered in the context of the legislation as a whole, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Failure to do so not only disregards the trade and other stakeholders, but may put passenger safety at risk. The reforms look set to endanger the travelling public and ignore stakeholders. I do not believe that they are fit for purpose, and they should be removed from the Bill.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is right. I think that we are now recognising the mistakes of the past and, perhaps, seeing the supertanker beginning to turn. I want it to turn much faster, and move towards the more civilised society that we had before the deregulatory society that we have seen for the last 20 or 30 years.
I think that I have made my point. I think that the Bill is dogmatic, and that bits of deregulation have been put in to give it some kind of meaning. I think that the Government are profoundly mistaken. The speeches made by Opposition Members have demolished the Government’s arguments, and I look forward to seeing the Government defeated in the Lobbies.
Graham Jones
I want to speak about the Government measures on the deregulation of taxi licensing. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made a valuable point when he said the light-touch approach is not necessarily the best one. In this case, certainly, while we have the localisation of taxi licensing, we can see a plethora of problems in taxi licensing that will not be resolved and, indeed, will be made considerably worse by the measures. They could do a lot of damage to taxi licensing and the respect taxi drivers have in the taxi licensing industry if quality and standards for the fare-paying passenger start to erode. I will therefore vote against these amendments tonight if a Division is called, and I want to explain why I cannot support them.
On the issue of non-drivers being able to drive cars, I mentioned earlier one concern that I have in Lancashire. We work with Lancashire police and we get taxi drivers who are involved in criminal activity—fortunately not many, but a significant number none the less. The police work with the local authority to deal with criminality through taxi licensing. Occasionally taxis are used for couriering drugs around. The police have a difficult job trying to determine who was responsible for the drugs in a particular vehicle, and that will be made more difficult when there are other drivers of a vehicle in which the police find drugs or other illegal items. Having various individuals driving a particular vehicle may throw considerable doubt on such matters. My constituents would expect me to raise the point as to the need to be clear about who is driving a vehicle, who is in a taxi, and who is licensed to drive that taxi, and where.
All these things are crucial, because, certainly in my area, if we are to have a taxi industry that the public respect, we need a taxi policy the public have confidence in, and I do not think the public will have confidence in a taxi policy that opens the door to criminality. For my constituents, there is no worse form of criminality than the transportation of drugs in taxis. I must emphasise that this does not happen frequently, but when it does happen—and it does happen—it is worrying. Not knowing who is driving a vehicle is therefore of some concern.
As I have said, having non-drivers, so to speak, driving taxis is certainly of concern to my local constabulary, and I am sure there are many other reasons why people will feel uneasy about that, too, not least the issues mentioned to do with the abuse of taxis—having the plates on the sides of taxis and non-drivers driving in bus lanes and so forth—or having rogue drivers in those taxis thinking they can take a chance and pick up a fare even though they are not a licensed taxi driver. There is a host of issues around individuals who are not licensed to drive taxis but who may drive the vehicle as a taxi where the plate is on the side and they think they can get away with it.
I have grave concerns about the three and five-year licences, primarily because it will remove local authority control. Situations may also arise where people on three and five-year licences may have been involved in issues that would have led to a suspension in one area where the licence applies but it has not done so and they carry on operating with the licence in other areas, and they do not have to appear before the committee for a fresh licence. It is worrying that it may be accepted and a given that they carry on with that licence. We are trying to raise the standards of taxi operators, taxi licences and taxi vehicles, and this erodes that. The fact that taxi drivers will not be compelled to come back before the local authority licensing committee regularly will open the system up to those who would take advantage of the longevity of their licence to carry on plying their trade, albeit legally in the authority that they licence from, but perhaps not up to the standard of the local authority in which they are operating.
Tom Brake
Clearly it concerns me, the Government and the whole House. The issue is that the hon. Gentleman seems to be linking those very serious cases and what the Government are proposing without actually producing any evidence to suggest that there is a link between the two.
Tom Brake
I am going to make a bit more progress. The hon. Member for Blackpool South called on the Government to have a more comprehensive look at this issue, but the Bill provides an opportunity to introduce the three measures which, as he will have heard me say, the Law Commission supports. We are introducing those three measures. He will know, as will other Opposition Members, that Bills, unlike buses, do not come along in threes; Bills come forward relatively infrequently and if there is an opportunity to take small steps in relation to taxis, we should take them.
Tom Brake
I will address that shortly. The hon. Gentleman attempted a joke at the Government’s expense about whether the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport had spoken about these matters. The consultation was issued jointly in December by both Departments, and the announcements that Members will have seen in the press at the weekend were supported by both Secretaries of State and both Departments. Clearly, Departments are working hand in hand on this issue, as they should be.
The hon. Gentleman has stated that we did not listen to the Law Commission, but it supports the three measures. He, like a number of Members, asked about enforcement, which will be dealt with in the usual way. For example, where journey bookings are subcontracted across licensing boundaries the operator that takes the initial booking will retain liability and licensing authorities can investigate any issues in the usual way, so local authorities retain their licensing duties.
Graham Jones
The Minister rightly says that the licence will be administered by the local authority, but the vehicle that turns up at the door may well not be licensed by the local authority, and neither may the driver. The operator might be, but the driver and the vehicle may well not be licensed by the local authority where the original booking is made.
Tom Brake
I will come to that matter shortly in response to another intervention, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with my answer.
Moving on to the issue of marine safety, the hon. Member for Blackpool South suggested that I had used a bad example when I referred to something that had happened 100 years ago, although I think that he, or someone from his party, went on to do the same. The issue is that, under his suggested amendment, if a wreck were discovered 100 years from now, regardless of whether it represented substantial new information or had any impact on an investigation, there would be an automatic reopening of an inquiry. That is something for which we want to provide flexibility.
Graham Jones
The Minister says that there has been no safety issue in London. What assessment has he made outside London of police stop checks of taxi vehicles in local authorities that have less regulation than others? We are all aware that in some local authorities a high proportion of taxis stopped by the police are in breach of roadworthiness rules, and those vehicles must be repaired. What assessment has he made of vehicles’ roadworthiness?
Tom Brake
I personally have not made such an assessment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament, has regularly requested that sufficient enforcement action is taken and that suitable checks are made. I am sure that his local authority will want to pursue that actively and that the police and crime commissioner in his area will want to emphasise it as well. We expect those checks to be carried out now, irrespective of anything proposed in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) dwelt on subcontracting, as did other Members, and talked about what would happen if people used the local reliable firm that they knew and liked, but the job was passed on to another operator. At the moment, if someone wants to use their local reliable firm and it cannot fulfil that job, they are simply told to find another operator, so the risks that he tried to highlight in the job being passed on to another operator are already there when the reliable firm says, “Sorry, we can’t do that job for you. Go and look in the phone book to find another operator.” What we propose would allow that local reliable firm, which one would expect to want to set up a business relationship with another reliable, not local firm, to work with it in partnership to fulfil those jobs appropriately. Irrespective of these arrangements, all firms must be licensed. That is the basis on which their reliability is confirmed.
Graham Jones
The Minister says that an individual who is unable to order a private hire vehicle from their favourite firm is in the same position if the company locates a private hire vehicle from another local authority. On many levels, that is wrong. When that individual flicks through the “Yellow Pages”, as the Minister describes it, they can choose to look for a company in their area. This proposal will allow the company to take charge, and that taxi could come from another area with different standards. The choice is therefore removed from the fare-paying customer. Does the Minister accept that the customer is in control when they look through the “Yellow Pages”, but not when the job is passed from one operator to another who locates a taxi from outside the area?
Tom Brake
Yes, when people use “Yellow Pages”, they may well be in control of their choice of private hire firm, but I thought the point that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members were making was that there was a risk in a job being passed on by a local reliable firm to another operator. I would suggest that the risk of simply going to the phone book is much greater than using a local reliable firm whose reputation relies on delivering a good service, whether it does so directly or by subcontracting to another firm in an area where it cannot operate. With our system, security is enhanced, rather than damaged in the way he suggests.
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Other Members will have been just as dismayed about that. I am not sure whether what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the right solution. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the hon. Gentleman with his views.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Yesterday the Government issued a ministerial statement on fixed odds betting terminals, which resulted in a sharp rise in bookmakers’ share value. When will Members get an opportunity to debate the proposals in full? I hope it will be before the Whitsun recess.
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I cannot promise a debate, but he might want to seek an Adjournment debate or find another opportunity with colleagues. I hope that more of these important technologies are being put in new homes as they are built. It is also, rightly, a matter for the regulator to ensure that we achieve energy efficiency as part of securing greater progress in carbon reduction and energy security.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
May we have a statement on the east Lancashire train line? It has no trains on it, which is a bit of a joke. I was promised a statement by the rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), in January, but it has not occurred. Wages in Manchester are considerably higher than those in my constituency and the rail line will give employment opportunities to my constituents and put them in a far better position to gain employment in this tough area in difficult times.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that there has been a Westminster Hall debate on such issues.
Mr Lansley
Perhaps it was not on that issue specifically, in which case I apologise. I will, of course, raise the issue with my colleagues at the Department for Transport, who I know will be anxious to provide the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, the House with information.
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I may have an opportunity to stop over in my hon. Friend’s constituency. When I was last there, I had a very good time.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House explain why the Secretary of State for Education has not made a statement on the raising of the participation age? According to statistics from the House of Commons Library, a significant number of young people have been abandoned and are not in education, employment or training, although the law says that they should be.
Mr Lansley
I think that our proposals for young people are very positive. We have made it clear that they should not be in the position that the hon. Gentleman has described, but I will of course speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education so that he can respond to the hon. Gentleman and look into the issue.
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend knows that planning regulations set out the procedure for establishing whether an environmental impact assessment is required. Not every wind turbine development will require one, and the need for an EIA depends on a proposal’s size and location, and whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. I hope that when my hon. Friend looks at the planning regulations—as I know he will have done—he will be able to challenge if necessary whatever decision his local authority may have made. If I may, I will raise the issue with my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government, and he may wish to have a further conversation with them about whatever interpretation the local authority has taken.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
May we have an urgent Government statement on the great train robbery? In east Lancashire we have a brand new line with no trains on it, and last week we found out that the trans-Pennine trains are being moved to the Prime Minister’s constituency in the south. It seems to me there is a huge north-south shift, and that the north is being short-changed.
Mr Lansley
I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport if they will respond directly to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, and he may wish to raise it at Transport questions. As far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected—such matters are governed not so much by Government policy but as a consequence of the way train operating companies and Network Rail behave.
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, not least about our former colleague. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the European Union (Referendum) Bill, but also recognise that it has responsibility to consider it timeously—[Interruption.] Timeously; it is a perfectly normal word, I think—in good time. The Lords should consider the Bill so that it can be passed in this Session of Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Timely!”] Hon. Members must not make me laugh; it makes me cough. Not least, the will of this House must be respected. My recollection is that the Bill passed Third Reading in this House by 304 votes to nil, which I think was a powerful expression of its view.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions in an answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that he was very concerned about fixed odds betting terminals. He also stated that a report would be coming forward in the spring, which I understand is March and April, according to sources. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that when that report comes forward, it will be in spring and that the House will debate it?
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend once again illustrates a general point with the welcome progress that is being made in his constituency. As I said earlier, the resources and support that the Government are giving to UK Trade & Investment are making a difference. The way in which the Foreign Secretary has reoriented the priorities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our diplomatic posts around the world is making a difference. The support that the Government are giving to bilateral chambers of commerce is making a difference too. The connections that that will provide to chambers of commerce and local enterprise partnerships in local areas will enable smaller businesses to network and to access export promotion and support more effectively than in the past.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Why does the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions not want to come to this place to defend himself against the serious allegations that have been made in The Times this morning?
Mr Lansley
I have reported the facts to the House. They do not give rise to the need for a statement because the allegations are not true.
Business of the House
Graham P Jones Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is, of course, an asset of considerable value in this House and he played a significant part, through the Localism Act 2011, in securing the much-valued measures. I agree with him. Parishes in my own constituency have seen the value of the assets of community value provisions, which should not be circumvented. I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government hears what my hon. Friend has said, and he might be able to take action.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the urgent issue of the right to buy and the Government’s broken promise that there would be one-for-one, like-for-like replacements? According to the Department for Communities and Local Government website, for every nine houses sold only one is replaced. This amounts to a broken promise to those people who desperately need affordable housing but who are not getting it.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman should first acknowledge that under Labour the number of new social houses being built dropped to its lowest ever level. There is a time lag: the right to buy is of significant value to tenants at the point when they become homeowners, but it also derives a benefit to the housing revenue account, which will enable additional properties to be built in due course.
Whitsun Recess
Graham P Jones Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for asking me to speak in this debate. Obviously, it is of huge significance to my constituents that I can raise some points that are of concern but that do not seem to fall within the scope of particular issues when the House is discussing them.
The first issue I want to discuss is the situation at BAE Systems, which deeply concerns me. BAE Systems is a major employer not only in Samlesbury, Warton, Brough and other areas, but throughout Lancashire and the north-west because of its supply chain. The aerospace industry is huge and there would be a colossal impact if it were slowly to move away from the north-west. I have deep concerns that BAE Systems has a large investment in Texas, and the British Government do not seem as committed as I would like them to be to the projects that BAE Systems is currently engaged in.
I welcome the recent announcement of 175 jobs. It did not escape my attention that those jobs arrived in this country with our current employment laws, not those proposed in the Beecroft report. The Government are keen to trumpet jobs in the car industry and other industries such as aerospace, so the absence of the hiring and firing proposed by Beecroft does not seem to have had an adverse impact on those 175 jobs. However, the reality is that the jobs are set against a background of thousands of job losses. I understand that BAE Systems is trying to mitigate that and reduce the number of job losses to several hundreds. How successful it will be remains to be seen, particularly given the doubts about the joint strike fighter and the orders with Lockheed Martin in America. It could well be that thousands of jobs are lost and those 175 jobs for the Hawk, although welcome, simply will not reverse the cataclysmic decline in employment and skills in the county.
I want to raise some questions about the Hawk deal. Will there be a successor to the Hawk? It only has a certain lifespan, so where is the investment in, and the forward thinking on, the next trainer plane? What are we doing about Britain’s interests? Replacing the Hawk requires a long lead-in time, and, if we do not start considering our aerospace future, we might run out of products that we can sell to the world, with exports such as the Hawk to Saudi Arabia becoming a distant memory in 10 or 15 years’ time. That really worries me.
A lot of BAE Systems’ hopes in the north-west seem to be pinned on unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—and, in particular, on the Taranis, so I should like the Deputy Leader of the House to state the Government’s commitment to ensure not only that they are manufactured in Britain and bought and endorsed by the British Government, but that we have an active industrial policy to push UAVs. They are clearly the future and a chance for BAE Systems to maintain production in the north-west, but, if the Taranis and UAV programmes should decline, fall or move elsewhere, they would begin the collapse of military aerospace in the region. I have deep concerns about the issue, so I should welcome his comments on that.
All that is set against the chaos of Lancashire’s enterprise zone. Last July, the Business Secretary declined to offer the region an enterprise zone; then Sky News ran a breaking story that 3,000 jobs were to be lost in Warton and Samlesbury, and within 24 hours the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a U-turn on the enterprise zone decision, stating that it would go ahead—based on 24-hour rolling news.
It was a chaotic situation that should not have been allowed to arise, particularly when it involved such a large employer that adds so much to the GDP of the area and of the country in terms of defence, and adds to skills and to the supply chain for other manufacturers and areas in the region. I have really deep concerns about that, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can put them to bed.
On the implications of that situation, I note that youth unemployment in my constituency has risen to 232% of its 2010 figure, and I have real concerns, because, if we lose aerospace, what impact will that have? The availability of work in the area appears to be declining, and I wonder where the future lies for my constituents, while we are in a double-dip recession and while economic policies are not working nationwide and, in particular, in the north. There is a north-south divide, and we are seeing the impact of that, but it is not just the young people in my constituency who are suffering, but the long-term unemployed, who are becoming the even longer-term unemployed.
The third issue that I draw to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House is the number of people who are applying for the few vacancies that exist. Increasingly, people are forced to go for part-time work, rather than full-time, and they are struggling to make ends meet. Those concerns of mine and of my constituents reflect the economic downturn that of the past couple of years under, I am afraid, his Government, and they are impacting severely on my constituents, who are deeply worried. It should come as no surprise to him that, in my local authority area and in neighbouring areas, people at polling stations only two weeks ago rejected the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and voted Labour. He must be deeply concerned about that, because he cannot say that the voters are wrong; he must listen to them and to their concerns. Having raised the issue of youth and long-term unemployment, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House takes it as seriously as I do and does not just say, “It will all be all right in a couple of years’ time.” These are chronic issues, the backbone of which is the industrial base in the region.
Another concern is the country’s nuclear programme, which does not particularly affect my sub-region, the east of the county, but does affect the west and the supply chain. There are huge doubts about the programme, and, given that the west is home to some large nuclear industry employers, that could have a grave impact on one of this country’s great manufacturing areas. The Deputy Leader of the House must be concerned about those issues, and I hope he will address them.
The bottom line is the increasing number of people turning up at food banks in Lancashire, particularly in the east of the county. In the corridor from Chorley to Hyndburn, people are turning up, desperate, unable to feed themselves and reliant on handouts from supermarkets and other generous donors, and that is a real concern.
Today, growth figures were revised down, from a contraction of 0.2% to 0.3%, and, if the Deputy Leader of the House looks at that geographically, he will find the south-east flatlining while the north-west and my area are taking a disproportionate hit, with the north-west contracting not by 0.3% but possibly by double or treble that, thereby giving rise to the figures I cited earlier on youth unemployment.
The chaos and confusion around BAE Systems is worrying, and it concerns many of the electorate in our area. When they see headlines involving the Navy buying ships from Korea, they find it deeply disconcerting. We have naval production in Barrow, in the north-west and throughout the country, and when people see such things they question what precisely the Government are doing in their economic strategy.
More locally, when we look at procurement, we think of Lancashire constabulary. Why are they not buying British cars? They recently bought cars from Korea, but how can that possibly be right? How is that rebalancing the economy? How on earth can Britain be a manufacturing country when just down the road in Lancashire there are Vauxhalls on offer to the police authority, which has gone and bought Korean cars? For all the talk of rebalancing the economy, it is either hypocritical or just lazy when we are not actively engaging with public services—these are public services—that procure foreign vehicles. It is not just vehicles, but ships and other things too.
The car industry in the north-west and the north in general is another major manufacturing employer, and we have heard the Government fanfare on cars, but, when Ministers say that we now have a balance of trade surplus, I think, “You probably have.” Because if the public services are procuring cars from overseas, not domestically, that is one way to achieve a trade surplus—not by increasing exports, but by diminishing domestic demand. That is what has happened with Lancashire constabulary and with other public services, and in all that there is a whiff of hypocrisy, with the Government taking their eye off the ball.
There is a national crisis in adult social care, but I shall reflect on the situation in Lancashire, which really needs some attention. Older people in Lancashire have been badly let down by the county council and by Lancashire’s Conservatives. I have raised the issue before, but, for example, our local Conservatives have raised the daily charge for day centre care from £5 to £30, and they are going to double it to £60. Some people might believe that this is the market and people should pay the cost, but let me explain the consequences. If 20 people are required to keep a day care open, but only 10 people can afford such extortionate charges so it closes, everybody loses. Then the danger is that there will be no market because it will have collapsed. Day care providers tell me that these increased charges mean that they are thinking about closing their businesses. The day centres will be shut and people will be unable to access such services—even those who can afford them. All the community links and personal links that our ageing population have built up will be lost.
For people who go to these centres, particularly those who are vulnerable and may have dementia, it is very confusing to be asked or forced to go to a different place to meet other people and to have to pay these charges. They are vulnerable people who should not be pushed around like this. Greater consideration should be given to the unintended knock-on consequences of the ridiculous charges that have been brought about by the austerity policy of the coalition parties, whose members do not fully appreciate the consequences. No wonder the voters look at these fees and think, “This is not the austerity that we want. It is undermining civil society and undermining my family. There must be other ways we can deal with this.” The electorate are unhappy, hence the election results.
The problem does not end there. There has been a wholesale attack on elderly people in Lancashire, who have been really let down by the Conservatives. The removal of funding for community transport means that people sometimes cannot get to day care centres. Extra charges are being added. People are not just paying £30 but another £3 or £4 for community transport and, on top of that, £6 or £7 for food. In total, elderly people are having to pay about £41 a day just to turn up.
It is not just the provision of day care centres that people are upset about and where there is a crisis in Lancashire. In addition, the local authority is failing to consider the private provision of day care. Day after day, I speak to people in my surgery who are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of the home help service that they receive and the lack of safeguards. We have seen the crisis that surrounds respite care and permanent residential care, and the scandals that have occurred in those settings. However, something that never gets talked about is the fact that home helps who go to the properties of vulnerable elderly people, who often have dementia and are unable to act as consumers, provide what they and their relatives feel to be an inadequate, and in some cases appalling, service. That scandal needs to be looked at. I am sure that the majority of people feel that the current system is unsatisfactory and that there are no safeguards. People are starting late, clocking off early and providing a poor service because they know that their customer is 95 years old, has dementia, is infirm, and cannot move. That is generally the situation, and it is not right.
The situation is not helped by the removal of some care packages by Lancashire county council. For instance, it removed the allowances for shopping and laundry that were given to the infirm and those with dementia who cannot do their own shopping and washing. We now have elderly people trapped in their own homes who are able to receive some help, but not allowed to receive help with shopping and laundry. It seems that an 89-year-old with dementia will be advised that they must use the internet or phone up to get Asda to do a home delivery, or ask their neighbour or relatives to come round and do their laundry for them.
This is all adding to the deep concern about adult social care for our elderly and vulnerable people in Lancashire. If the people of Lancashire feel they are being let down by the Conservatives, I am sure that they will go to the polls with that in mind, and at the next election we will see the same as what happened in the previous election. The Deputy Leader of the House needs to be deeply concerned about the fact that this situation affects many people who may change their vote because of it. I am very worried about staffing and reduced access in adult social care, and I would be grateful if he commented on that.
There are deep concerns across the country about Sure Start—not about its being cut but its being undermined by stealth. In Lancashire, we have experienced reduced hours, reduced staff, and a cut in outreach services. In some instances, there is anecdotal evidence of a bucket being passed around so that people can put in donations to keep Sure Start going. It is not satisfactory for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there is no reduction in the number of buildings where Sure Start services are being delivered when in fact those services are being reduced and undermined and parents are being put off going there because they are asked for handouts when they do so.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while money might be being saved for the moment through this approach, it is storing up problems for the future, so that in the long term the cost will be much greater than it would in paying for a proper service now?
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the service is undermined from within, it will eventually collapse, and that is what is happening with Sure Start, certainly in Lancashire, and, I believe, in his area of north Wales.
Ministers must stand at the Dispatch Box and be honest about this, because it is affecting the people we represent, including some of the most vulnerable. They should tell the truth about the Sure Start services that are being provided, not just give the headline figures on the number of centres that are being kept open, although I believe that that number is diminishing as well.
In 2009, the Prime Minister himself came to Lancashire and said, “This is the beginning of the Conservative fight-back in the north”, but now all these services are being undermined. To my knowledge, the Prime Minister has not been back to Lancashire, and I presume that following the local elections he has probably written us off. The damage that has been done since 2009 is irreparable. People are extremely unhappy about how some of their services are being treated and feel that there should be a better way that is not just about a message of austerity.
Another aspect of the situation in Lancashire is the local enterprise partnership, which I am deeply concerned about, and the programme for rural broadband. Not only are Lancashire residents being let down by the county council in terms of adult social care, Sure Start and other initiatives, but the Conservatives in Lancashire are obsessed with rural broadband, on which they are spending £32 million. When I asked for the figures on the number of beneficiaries per borough in Lancashire, they refused to provide them, but I acquired them for my constituency, where it appears that only some 4,000 people out of 80,000 will benefit from the upgrade to the rural broadband service. That £32 million will mean faster internet shopping for millionaires; it will not generate business in rural communities. Many people in rural communities in Lancashire, such as the Ribble valley, already run businesses. That is why they live in the Ribble valley, and they do not operate from home.
The rural broadband policy in Lancashire will not provide additional businesses or create jobs. It will certainly not mean that businesses will be opened down country lanes that take two hours to drive down and are a long way from the urban centres. This is just about faster internet shopping for wealthy people. [Interruption.] I will say it whether people like it or not. In most cases, the urban areas in Lancashire are already connected to fast broadband. There is simply no need for this investment, which could go towards improving urban infrastructure such as rail and road links rather than towards providing rural broadband for some farm 25 miles—
Iain Stewart
I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman’s points with interest. Given his comments, one would think that there was no investment in rail infrastructure in the north of England, but the Government have just given the go-ahead to the northern hub, which will revolutionise public transport in that part of the country.
Graham Jones
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but, as he knows, the northern hub covers Manchester and Liverpool, whereas I am talking about east Lancashire. He will be aware that his colleague, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), is pleading for an upgrade of the east Lancashire line between Rawtenstall and Bury. Members on his own side of the House are pleading for infrastructure projects.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
For the record, the northern hub has not been given the go-ahead. The Chancellor gave the impression in the Budget that we would get the electrification of the Hope Valley line from Sheffield to Manchester, but that turns out not to be the case.
Graham Jones
That point was relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). Not only do Labour Members disagree with his comments, so are organisations such as the Skipton-East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership, which wants to extend the line from Colne into Yorkshire. Infrastructure investment is needed because communities and constituencies such as Pendle are isolated. Such projects require substantial amounts of money.
Iain Stewart
I remind the hon. Gentleman that next month, or in July, we will have the next round of investment in the rail system, with the next five-year period of high-level output specification projects. The projects to which he has referred may well get the go-ahead.
Graham Jones
I will be watching to see whether the east Lancashire line, which I support, along with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, receives funding. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South will join me and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen in the chorus calling for investment in the east Lancashire line. I am deeply grateful for his support if he is saying that that should go ahead alongside the rural broadband investment. However, if it turns out that we are investing in rural broadband at the expense of infrastructure projects, I will come back to him and suggest politely that he was wrong in his intervention.
I am deeply concerned about the health reforms and their impact on my constituency. We seem to have had a metropolitan or London-centred conversation about choice that does not reflect the situation in east Lancashire. East Lancashire has a monopoly provider in the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. It is futile to argue that general practitioners have choice when there is only one hospital trust, with its two major hospitals in Burnley and Blackburn, that people in the area want to use. There is no choice.
I met the chair of the clinical commissioning group for east Lancashire to discuss several issues, which I will draw to the House’s attention. Some £70 million of funding from the primary care trust is being transferred to Lancashire county council for the health and wellbeing board. As I have said, Lancashire is being let down by Lancashire county council. I have deep concerns about where that money will be spent. One of my initial concerns is that Lancashire county council, which is based in Preston, is far removed from the constituents whom the 14 or 15 MPs in Lancashire represent. I have deep concerns that the public will not fully understand, be engaged with or be able to respond to the funding that is being spent by the health and wellbeing board at county hall. There will be little accountability.
We have no choice in NHS services, and yet GPs are shaping the services. The health and wellbeing board will be spending an awful lot of money, but it is not clear how it will be held accountable for where that money is spent. My concern, again, is that the deprived corridor from Chorley to Hyndburn and on to Pendle will be left behind. We will see what we traditionally see from Lancashire county council: white middle-class and upper-class areas will get the money and deprived, working-class areas will have money removed from them. That is true of rural broadband. A similar thing is happening nationally.
Lancashire’s residents are being let down by Lancashire county council. How does the Deputy Leader of the House feel about how local people feel and about how they are responding through the ballot box? How does he feel about the concerns that I and others have expressed about the disproportionate spending, with services being directed to white, middle-class people in wealthier areas, which makes working-class people feel that they have been left behind? That concern is also expressed nationally. Age, rather than deprivation, is to be used as one of the indices for the allocation of health funding.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I want to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making about age. My constituency has the lowest age structure of any in the country, and yet it has some of the highest health needs. Under the system that he is describing, we would suffer.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before the hon. Gentleman gets back on his feet, I point out that he has been talking for almost 30 minutes. I am sure that he must be coming to the end. What he has said has been very fruitful for the House, but he needs to come to an end due to the lack of time and the need to get other people in.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not advice.
Graham Jones
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for those firm words.
The talk about shifting health funding concerns me because the GP surgeries in my constituency are all at the bottom of the performance league tables produced by the PCT, whereas those in the affluent areas score far better. All the deprived areas in Lancashire come at the bottom of those tables. I am therefore deeply concerned about the transfer of health funding.
I want to mention briefly my concern about Great Harwood health centre, because it has been transferred to PropCo. It was built under the LIFT initiative. On several occasions we have thought that it will happen and then that it will not happen. We are now at a stage where we think it will happen and £10 million has been set aside by the PCT. However, all that money is to subsumed into a Whitehall quango called PropCo, which will decide how it will be spent. I would appreciate a commitment from the Deputy Leader of the House on whether PropCo will carry through the decisions that have been agreed with local people and the PCT.
Finally, I will talk about individual voter registration. I did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate yesterday. I concur with the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) that there are issues with postal voting that need to be looked at. It seems that it is being used to drive up turnout. I do not believe that anything wholly illegal has happened, but I do believe that it has been used to drive up turnout and win elections. Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge that the Conservative party in Hyndburn is currently under investigation for proxy voting fraud? That is unacceptable. The legislation that his Government are bringing forward should look at that element, and not just at individual voter registration. With that encouragement, I will close my comments.