Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The House wishes to hear the Minister’s mellifluous tones, so if he could face the House, that would be excellent.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

6. What plans his Department has to help develop public services in developing countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman were to conduct himself in that manner in a breakfast club, he would be in danger of permanent exclusion. It would be a very unseemly state of affairs, and I would not wish it on him or, indeed, on his fellow attendees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. I think that we will put that down as a win.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Crisis and the all-party group on ending homelessness recently appealed to Ministers to prioritise for housing survivors of domestic abuse, but is not it the truth that it is difficult to prioritise anyone because of the social housing crisis—a crisis acknowledged just a few minutes ago by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry)? Housing associations and local councils in particular have insufficient stock and limited capacity to build new ones to meet demand, and there are more than 1 million households on council waiting lists. Last year, just 6,500 social rented homes were built. That means that it will take 172 years for everyone on the current waiting lists to get a social rented home. Will the Minister please spell out exactly how she plans to sort out this crisis and offer our people some hope that they can also have a home of their own?

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will indeed make a statement or an announcement to the House on that matter in a timely way. Of course, it is for the House to agree—or not, as the case may be—to a business motion. However, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is perturbed by the prospect of secret—and thereafter to remain secret—votes, I think I can put his mind at rest. There is no such plan. I hope that reassures the right hon. Gentleman. He has a sunny countenance in the circumstances, and we should be grateful for that.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 February at Prime Minister’s questions, I highlighted the decision by the Tees Valley Mayor to spend £90 million of taxpayers’ money on buying the loss-making Durham Tees Valley airport when local people in most parts of the area cannot get a bus home after 6.30 pm. I asked whether the Prime Minister could help them out. She answered by claiming that the bus service had been considerably expanded across the midlands and the north, but according to a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, outlining the statistics, that is most certainly not the case. The Prime Minister may therefore have inadvertently misled the House. Is there anything you can do to encourage a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record and acknowledge that the vast increase in bus services that the Prime Minister suggested simply has not materialised?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of that point of order. Responsibility for the veracity of what is said in the Chamber is that of each individual Member, including members of the Executive branch, up to the highest level. If a Minister reckons to have made a mistake, it is their responsibility to correct the record. I am not aware of any imminent intention on the part of the Prime Minister to correct the record, but knowing the hon. Gentleman’s perspicacity and tendency to focus his beady eye on the activities of Government, I feel sure that he will be looking out for what he thinks is the required correction. Whether he will look out to his advantage or whether he will be disappointed remains to be seen.

NHS Outsourcing and Privatisation

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

For now, NHS trusts remain the sole shareholder in their wholly owned subsidiary companies—yes, just for now—but those subsidiary companies will be easier to sell in future. The trusts have established those subsidiaries with long contracts under the misguided impression that such contracts protect the trust and the employees. What the trusts do not acknowledge is that the current Government, or a future Government, could order them to sell off a subsidiary company, contracts and all, and, if necessary, could change the law to make it happen.

We have already seen how these new subsidiary companies make their margins off the backs of now former NHS staff who face the prospect of less favourable contracts with no access to the NHS pension scheme, yet some trust executives claim they are transferring employees to protect them. That is absolute rubbish. We all know that when staff are transferred by TUPE, the receiving employer can have a reorganisation. It can create new roles and axe old ones, and it can require people to apply again for what looks like their old job with some subtle changes, with the terms and conditions varied, putting an end to the protections they once enjoyed. This creates the two-tier workforce many others have spoken about today. It means that some people are being treated better than others, with more rights, better pay and better working conditions.

I have even heard that some of these executives believe the changes could be in the best interest of the workforce. None of these executives faces the prospect of being reorganised out of their job or out of their final salary pension scheme with a 15% employer contribution. The executives will continue to get that pension, yet the people they have shifted into new organisations will get a 3% employer contribution to their pension.

In a few years’ time, it will be interesting to see just how many of the original staff are still in these organisations and how many of them are on the same terms and conditions enjoyed by NHS staff who are still employed directly.

I am proud that, just a week ago, one of the teams at the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust in my Stockton North constituency was shortlisted for the NHS 70th awards, but a few months ago even this trust succumbed to temptation and set up one of these wholly owned subsidiary companies, despite the accounts for an existing subsidiary company showing it needed a bail-out from the trust to survive.

Wholly owned subsidiary companies are not working. They are a mechanism to rid employees of their NHS pension and of collective bargaining. The companies are damaging to employees, and they are damaging to the service in the longer run. What they are really doing is severely damaging the morale of our staff.

[Mr Speaker]

For a maximum of two minutes, I call Hugh Gaffney.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must now bring proceedings to a close.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There are urgent questions that come first. If there is a point of order, it will come after that, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be in his seat, eagerly expectant.

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has certainly been patient. Sometimes, raising a point of order in the Chamber and reminding those on the Treasury Bench of a promised meeting that has not yet been delivered can be a remarkably effective way of bringing about said meeting. The other device that I recommend to the hon. Lady, who is a new Member of the House, is the tabling of a written question. If she is interested in exploring historic copies of the Official Report, she will know that the former Member for Manchester, Gorton, our late and dear friend Sir Gerald Kaufman, was fond of highlighting unanswered correspondence to which he demanded a reply, unanswered questions to which he demanded a reply, or undelivered meetings that he had been promised and on which he still insisted by tabling written questions to remind Ministers of those matters and inquire when the promised reply or meeting would take place. In my experience, Sir Gerald was remarkably effective at obtaining such responses, as indeed was the former Member for Walsall North, Mr David Winnick. The hon. Lady may usefully learn from their and many other examples.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In January, the Government announced plans to incentivise local communities to agree to explore the possibility of storing radioactive nuclear waste near their homes—an initiative that was widely reported in the media. I was anxious that it could revive proposals to store nuclear waste in the anhydrite mine under thousands of homes in Billingham in my constituency. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January. Sadly, the Prime Minister’s substitute that day, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, despite the publicity and it being Government policy, knew nothing about that initiative by his Government. However, he promised to investigate the matter and write to me. That was five weeks ago. Will you advise me whether it is unreasonable of me to have expected an answer by now?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. It is not unreasonable for an hon. Member to expect a response from Ministers within five weeks. Ministerial correspondence is of course, as colleagues will know, the responsibility of the Minister concerned. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who happens to be my constituency neighbour, is normally most courteous. I am sure that his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, including the representatives of the Patronage Secretary, will swiftly alert the right hon. Gentleman to this outstanding action. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) certainly should have had a reply and he should now get one, sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, he has placed his concern on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T5. When he was Foreign Secretary, William Hague described the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review as“a valuable mechanism for holding countries accountable for their human rights record.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 15WS.] Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UN periodic review meeting on 23 January provides an opportunity to hold Israel to account for its treatment of Palestinian children held in Israeli military custody, and will he use the meeting to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman—he is a most perspicacious Member of the House—but questions are simply too long at topical questions; topical questions are supposed to be briefer. If we can have brief questions and brief answers, far more colleagues will get in.

Point of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The deadline for members of the British Steel pension scheme to decide whether to join their new employers’ scheme, to have their pension paid through the Pensions Protection Fund or to make personal arrangements is all but upon them. The House will share my concerns over rogue advisers who are cold calling scheme members and attempting to part them from their hard-earned pension pots with a series of elaborate get-rich-quick schemes. One that I have heard of costs 5% of the pension pot immediately and is littered with high costs, with a further 5% fee if the person cancels their arrangement. The Financial Conduct Authority has been in steel areas trying to alert scheme members to the dangers, but more needs to be done. Mr Speaker, are you aware of any plans by Ministers to make a statement and outline to the House what the Government are doing to ensure that British Steel pension scheme members are properly protected?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I am bound to say that I have not received any indication that a Minister intends to make a statement on this matter in the Chamber. That said, I appreciate that it is a matter of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. My understanding of that fact is enhanced by the examples that the hon. Gentleman has just furnished to the House. Moreover, it may well be a matter of considerable concern to other Members, too. The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in putting his concern on the record and I trust that it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman is a person of considerable ingenuity and no little experience in the House, and I rather sense that he will lose no opportunity to air his concerns again in the coming days.

Prisons Policy/HMP Long Lartin

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is of course no procedural barrier to repeat questions, which many people regard as an example of dogged and insistent campaigning.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

That was a really interesting answer, because the heroin dealer Ian Paul Manuel beat up prison officer Adam Jackson at Kirklevington prison in Stockton, and the courts gave him a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £20 compensation to the officer. Does the Minister agree that such a slap on the wrist is totally inadequate, that it offers no deterrent at all to the thugs who turn on prison officers and that it is time the courts were given clear advice that they, too, have a responsibility to protect prison officers?

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Member trustees—

“(1) By a date to be set by the Secretary of State in regulations, approved Master Trust Schemes must ensure that at least a third of the trustees of the scheme are Member Trustees.

(2) Member Trustees must be individuals who are—

(a) members of the Master Trust scheme; and

(b) not members of senior management of a company that is enrolled in the Master Trust scheme.

(3) Member Trustees must be appointed by a process in which—

(a) any member of the scheme who meets the condition in subsection (2) is to apply to be a Member Trustee,

(b) all the active members of the scheme, or an organisation which adequately represents the active members, are eligible to participate in the selection of the Member Trustees, and

(c) all the deferred members of the scheme, or an organisation which adequately represents the deferred members, are eligible to participate in the selection of the Member Trustees.

(4) Member Trustees should be given sufficient time off by their employer to fulfil their duties.

(5) For the purpose of this clause “senior management”, in relation to an organisation, means the persons who play significant roles in—

(a) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or

(b) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.”

This new clause requires Master Trusts to make provision for some form of member representation within Master Trusts.

New clause 3—Member representation and engagement—

“One year on from the registration of Master Trusts by the Pensions Regulator, the Government will fully review member trustee representation, member engagement and annual member meetings.”

This new clause requires the Government to set up a review into member representation and engagement within Master Trusts.

New clause 4—Requirement to hold an Annual Member Meeting—

“(1) The trustees of an authorised Master Trust scheme must hold an annual meeting open to all members of the scheme.

(2) The Master Trust must take all reasonable steps to make the meeting accessible to all members, this includes making arrangements for—

(a) scheme members to observe the meeting remotely, and

(b) scheme members to submit questions to trust members remotely.”

This new clause requires Master Trusts to hold an Annual Member Meeting, and sets out ways to ensure members are properly given the opportunity to be involved.

New clause 5—Excluded groups—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, establish a review of participation in Master Trust schemes.

(2) The review must consider what steps can be taken to increase the participation in Master Trust schemes by the following groups—

(a) carers,

(b) self-employed,

(c) workers with multiple employees, and

(d) workers with annual earnings below £10,000.

(3) One of the options considered by the review to improve participation must be changes to the terms of auto-enrolment.”

This new clause enshrines the requirement on the Government to do something specific for currently excluded groups.

New clause 6—Exit fees—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations restrict or set limits to exit fees paid by members of a Master Trust scheme.

(2) For the purposes of section (1) “members” includes past and current, active and deferred members.”

This new clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to restrict exit fees paid by Master Trust schemes’ members.

New clause 7—Asset protection for unincorporated businesses—

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to amend section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to protect unincorporated businesses who are at risk of losing their personal assets including their homes.”

New clause 8—Review of actuarial mechanisms for valuing pension scheme liabilities—

“Within six calendar months from the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the actuarial mechanisms used to value pension scheme liabilities under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.”

New clause 9—Non-associated multi-employer schemes: orphan debt—

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, exclude from the calculation in section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 the orphan debt in any non-associated multi-employer scheme.”

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 5, line 41, after “scheme” insert “or scheme funder”.

The financial sustainability of the scheme funder must be taken into account when assessing a Master Trust scheme’s financial sustainability.

Amendment 6, in clause 11, page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) either the only activities carried out by the body corporate or partnership are activities that relate directly to the Master Trust scheme, or if the body corporate or partnership carries out activities other than those defined as “restricted activities.””

This amendment allows for exceptions to the requirement that a scheme funder must only carry out activities directly relating to the Master Trust scheme for which it is a scheme funder.

Amendment 1, page 8, line 13, at end insert—

“( ) A minimum requirement of annual reporting of administration, fund management costs and transaction costs for each asset class, drawdown product and for active and passive asset management strategies.”

This amendment would introduce annual reporting and inclusion of transaction costs requirements for Master Trusts.

Amendment 7, in clause 10, page 7, line 23, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations define “restricted activities” and these regulations must set out activities that a scheme funder cannot engage in to minimise risk of losses or liabilities which might deplete or divert its financial resources.”

This amendment makes provision for the Secretary of State to define “restricted activities” by regulation, including a list of specific activities restricted in order to minimise risk of loss by Master Trust scheme funders.

Amendment 2, in clause 22, page 16, line 28, after “employers” insert “and scheme members”.

This amendment ensures that scheme members are told of triggering events as well as employers.

Amendment 4, in clause 31, page 23, line 16, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment removes the part that allows Master Trusts to halt making payments to pensioners in the event of a pause order.

Amendment 3, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“(f) directive that employers will retain both their own and employee contributions pending resolution of the pause order.”

This amendment requires employers to hold onto employee and employer contributions during a pause order.

Amendment 8, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“(f) a direction that further contributions or payments to be paid towards the scheme by or on behalf of any employers or members (or any specified employers or members) are collected and held in a separate fund until the conclusion of the pause order;”

This amendment provides the Pensions Regulator with an alternative to stopping payments to the schemes under subsection 5(b) of a pause order.

Amendment 9, page 23, line 39, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations set conditions on the terms of a separate fund used for purposes under section 5(f).”

This amendment is consequential to amendment 8.

[Alex Cunningham]

Generally speaking, this is a good Bill, and it goes a long way to properly regulating master trusts and looking after the interests of the pension scheme members. Sadly, it does not address the WASPI issue, which we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, as it has been ruled out of scope of the Bill. However, I am pleased to report that Stockton Borough Council backed the WASPI women. Tory councillors abstained on the vote, so clearly they are not very happy with the Government either.

There are a number of aspects of the Bill that could still be improved and that could better protect and inform scheme members. Sadly, after the Commons Committee stage, it was clear that we had failed to convince the Government of that, but having reviewed the Minister’s arguments we still believe that a number of issues need to be covered on Report this afternoon.

New clause 1 returns to the issue of a funder of last resort for master trusts. Contrary to the written statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, which we received on Monday, the removal of this clause is significant, and I was surprised that he felt that it was not. This new clause looks to ensure that, in the event of a master trust failing, there is a funder of last resort— somebody in place who guarantees that scheme members are not left out of pocket through no fault of their own. This would, in effect, act as a final underpinning of the promises that have been made to scheme members, giving them recourse to a legally established funding organisation committed to making good on scheme member dues. When this was debated in Committee, the Minister refused to back this most sensible of additions to the regulations of the Bill, arguing that it would place an unnecessary additional burden, that the new regulatory regime was sufficient to make the risk of collapse absolutely minimal, that existing master trusts would pick up any scheme members affected by their master trust failing, and that the Government were consulting the industry on the creation of a panel of white knights, who would commit to stepping in to ensure that all scheme members are protected.

I am glad that we have the Minister on record saying that there is no chance of a master trust going bust under the regulatory regime that this Bill creates. It is clearly a gamble that he is willing to take. Opposition Members are not prepared to gamble with people’s pension savings. In order to best protect scheme members, we need the strongest possible regulatory environment in place. Unlike the Minister, we are not content to leave things to chance.

We have support from the industry itself for these proposals. For example, the chair of the Standard Life master trust has called on the Government to be the funder of last resort, because

“their policy foul-ups have allowed the proliferation of unsustainable Master Trusts.”

It is interesting that the Minister plans for a panel of white knights. Does that suggest that he does accept that there is a chance that a master trust might slip through his regulatory regime and leave scheme members unprotected? If he does, why not go the whole way and put the proper guarantees in the Bill? There is simply no guarantee that another trust will choose to pick up one that is failing. Why would it? What obligation does it have and why would it be in its interests to do so? Yes, there have been a few pragmatic actions in this area, but nothing is guaranteed.

We all know that the pensions industry and the financial services industry have seen plenty of failures. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what happens if a large master trust fails and the data are in a mess and take months to cleanse before getting members transferred to a new scheme. We cannot simply hope that another trust will just pick that up. Instead, we must intervene now to ensure a proper back-up plan. The Government must prepare for the worst-case scenario, and nothing I have seen so far convinces me that Ministers are doing so.

We need a funder of last resort because we must be able to predict what could happen, even if there is only the slightest chance of it happening, and ensure that we have a plan of protection in place. I ask again: why will the Minister not provide people all over this country with a 100% assurance that the Bill without this provision is enough to protect members. If he is to ignore our sensible new clause, he must guarantee that no master trust will be in a situation in which it has failed and has insufficient resources to meet costs. In the absence of greater clarity, it is essential that this new clause is in the Bill.

I now turn to new clause 2 and the issue of member-nominated trustees for master trusts. I remind the House that all the investment risk lies with the member and not the sponsor or the provider of the scheme, and they should therefore have representation at decision-making levels of the scheme. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced the requirement for company pension schemes to have member-nominated trustees. If the scheme’s sole trustee is a company, including the employer rather than individuals, scheme members will have the right to nominate directors of that company—member-nominated directors. The Pensions Act 2004 enshrined the right to have at least one third scheme member trustees of a trust-based scheme. The Pensions Regulator is clear that master trusts are covered by this legislation, which is why some already have member-nominated trustees. What the regulator offers in explanation is that there are exemptions that can be taken by master trust, giving the reasoning that having a pool of members greater than a single employer-based scheme poses problems of choice. We find that an inadequate reason for exemption. The greater the number of members, surely the bigger the pool of choice.

We do not agree that independent trustees can adequately represent the fiduciary interests of members if they have no stake in the investment process. What is more, they are paid and chosen by the master trust. This exemption seems like a convenient way of denying the right to representation by those who do have a material interest in the performance of the master trust. We have returned today with an amendment that seeks to give scheme members the law to which they should be automatically entitled. In these circumstances, my references to MNTs apply equally to MNDs.

The Association of Member Nominated Trustees is adamant that master trusts must be obliged to have member representation on their boards. However, it is no surprise that a master trust is lobbying against that. Such companies are mostly profit-making entities. However, it is in their own best interests that they have scheme member representation to win the confidence of the scheme members. The role of the MNT and the trustee boards is sometimes underplayed or undervalued. The Association of Member Nominated Trustees said:

“Members are particularly comforted by having an MNT presence for their scheme. It helps them to feel reassured their retirement interests are truly being met and understood most importantly, but also that they aren’t being ripped off in excessive costs and charges.”

They are the only ones who have no personal interest or gain; their only interests are those of the member. ShareAction also agrees that savers should be able to subject decisions made on their behalf to a healthy degree of scrutiny and challenge.

Ensuring effective governance for pension schemes remains a challenge. Although trust-based schemes benefit from a clear governing body in the form of the trustees, there is a clear absence of member-nominated trustees in the majority of master trusts. However, although some companies choose to operate a trust-based defined contribution scheme, most new auto-enrolled members will not find themselves saving into one. Instead, the vast majority of people will find themselves saving into a master trust or a group personal pension arrangement. In those schemes, member representation on governance boards is far more rare. At this point, I wish to refer back to the concerns that the Pensions Regulator made about master trust governance. In January 2013, said:

“We have identified a number of characteristics that, if present, may prevent these schemes from delivering good outcomes. These are: conflicts of interest as a result of the relationship between the provider and trustees; decision-making powers vested with the provider rather than trustees; a lack of independent oversight in some master trusts – unlike traditional occupational DC schemes, member and employer representatives are unlikely to be involved in important decision-making processes”.

Yes, the Bill may go some way to addressing these concerns, but it does not go far enough. We can build greater trust in the system; increase diversity and bring a range of different perspectives and experiences; and highlight areas that are of interest to members. Once again, we find no real impediment to this amendment. The law requiring master trusts to have scheme member trustees applies and exemption does exist, but that need not be required and should, in our view, be overridden.

Continuing with the theme of engaging with members, I will now address new clause 3. It requires that, one year on from the incorporation and registration of master trusts by the Pensions Regulator, the Government will fully review member-trustee representation, member engagement and annual general meetings for members.

The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that there is a review of the new master trust governance and member engagement processes. Pensions Regulator guidance stressed the importance of understanding and engaging with members to define objectives for the scheme and setting an appropriate strategy—for example, the TPR code of practice 13 on governance and administration of occupational trust-based schemes providing money purchase benefits.

TPR has stacks of advice on these issues for master trusts to follow, but we want a commitment from the Government that they will ensure that master trusts are operating in the interests of members and that the potential of a conflict of interest—in other words, the profit motive—does not get in the way. We need to make sure that there is an opportunity for experienced eyes to take a good look at the system a year after its creation. If there are risks, they must be accounted for. One way to do that is to form a Government inspection of the system.

I turn to new clause 4, which requires master trusts to hold an annual member meeting and sets out ways to ensure that members are properly given the opportunity to be involved. It is now common practice for pension funds to hold a meeting with members on an annual basis. Good member communications, provided at the right time and in an accessible format, are vital if members are to engage and make decisions that lead to good outcomes in retirement. In the Committee debate, the Minister suggested:

“Documents relating to the governance of a scheme, such as the trustees’ annual report, the chair’s statement and the statement of investment principles, have to be provided on request.”––[Official Report,Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee; 9 February 2017 c. 118.]

Having to request information about what one is paying for is the wrong way round. Let us not forget that many master trusts are profit making, so members should be given information as a matter of routine and not by request.

An annual meeting for members ensures that trustees and administrators can be made human and accountable rather than being at some distant, bureaucratic and faceless place. Trustee boards should regularly review member communications and, when deciding on the format of communications, take account of innovations and technology that may be available to them and appropriate to their members. That would allow the more engaged members to hear a presentation from trustees and senior executives about how the scheme has managed their retirement assets over the previous year and what plans the scheme has to deliver strategy and manage risk into the future on behalf of members.

Pensions Regulator guidance accompanying its new DC code highlights AMMs as one way in which multi-employer schemes can stay close to members. Through the new clause, master trusts would be brought into line with normal practice in the corporate sector and among the growing number of pension schemes.

I want to return at new clause 5 to the issue of groups currently excluded from master trust saving—specifically carers, the self-employed, those working multiple jobs and people on low incomes. As it stands, the Bill does not expand the successful auto-enrolment policy: that could have made a real difference to a number of groups who, the evidence suggests, are not saving adequately for their retirement. The Minister and I debated this issue in Committee, so I shall return to the issue only briefly.

As I recognised then, the Government have announced a review relating to the operation of auto-enrolment into master trust savings. Currently, however, the scope of that review is too broad, with few specifics set out to keep the Government to their word. The evidence speaks for itself: too many people are not putting enough away to guarantee the secure and dignified retirement that the Labour party has always worked to provide and continues to strive towards today.

Some 37% of female workers, 33% of workers with a disability and 28% of black and minority ethnic workers are not eligible for master trust savings through auto-enrolment, according to the latest DWP statistics. In Committee, the Minister suggested that gender equality was not an issue under auto-enrolment savings; I suspect that he may have been referring to the participation rate among eligible employees, which is fairly equal between genders. The statistics that I have cited, however, relate to those not eligible, and I believe women are over-represented. Perhaps the Minister can look again at the issue and write if he has evidence to the contrary.

On the specific groups, I would like to press the Minister on the issue of carers, who, as we know, make such a vital contribution to our society, public services and economy. In Committee, the Minister suggested that he would like carers to be included under the Government’s review of auto-enrolment, but accepted that they are not currently specified. May I push him to commit explicitly to including carers under the terms of the review now? I am sure that it would be of great comfort to our carers if they knew that their situation was being looked at specifically by the Government.

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I say two things to the hon. Lady. First, as she well knows, she has found her own salvation through the ingenious use of the point of order procedure. Secondly—this is not uncommon in this place—I do not think she will seek to contradict me, and neither will anyone else, when I say that in raising her point of order she was vastly more interested in what she had to say to me and to the House than in anything I might have to say to her.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. More than a year ago, Lord Maude of Horsham, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, signed a contract on behalf of the Crown Estate with Air Products to take the electricity from two innovative energy-from-waste plants being built in my constituency. This was to save taxpayers some £84 million a year. Sadly, the company announced last week that it had failed to get the new technology working and planned to walk away from Teesside, at the cost of hundreds of jobs and leaving the plants incomplete. Are you aware of any plans by Ministers to make a statement to the House about the ramifications of this failure, about what will happen with the Government’s contract and about what Ministers are doing to help seek a new developer who could take over the plants and secure the jobs?

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There appears to be considerable confusion in the Government over which Department is responsible for making an application to the EU solidarity fund for assistance for flood-hit communities across the north of England.

This is what I have found out from vague answers to parliamentary questions. In December 2015, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that it was a Department for Communities and Local Government issue. In January, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that it was a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issue. A week later, the Leader of the House agreed. In early February, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she had not ruled out making an application, but a week later one of her civil servants wrote to me saying again that it was a DCLG matter.

Whoever is responsible, the deadline for an application is just days away. The Government’s confusion and subsequent failure to act will potentially deny our communities hundreds of millions of pounds of much needed help. Will you please encourage the Government to sort this out and get a Minister here to make a statement, so that we can hold them to account?

[Mr Speaker]

Certainly, it would help if there were clarity. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for the Chair to adjudicate between what one Department says and what is said by another, but it is very important that Members know which Department is responsible and from whom they can expect an authoritative answer. My request to those on the Treasury Bench, therefore, is that they ensure that this matter is clarified authoritatively sooner rather than later. Pursuant to that objective, it might help if the hon. Gentleman is in his place for the business question tomorrow in order that he can probe the Leader of the House about it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very pithy—we are grateful.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

13. Refugee children in Europe also face a tough winter. Last week the UNHCR expressed concern that unaccompanied children moving within Europe are at a heightened risk of violence and abuse, especially in overcrowded reception centres, while Save the Children operations in Italy and Greece have identified that these children are suffering a high level of psychological distress. Does the Minister agree that just because these children have arrived in Europe, it does not mean they are safe? Will he have a word in the Prime Minister’s ear to remind him that I wrote to him on 11 September and am still awaiting an answer?

Steel Industry

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is many things, but he has never been accused of being what might be called a silent lamb. I think we are clear about that.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Steel is one of our foundation industries, and it can still be saved. Will the Minister examine the European material from the North East of England Member of the European Parliament, Judith Kirton-Darling, to see just how the state can properly intervene? Will he do that before Teesside and other parts of the UK follow the same path to ruin as Ravenscraig in central Scotland, where the community has still not recovered, 25 years later?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Not mine.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of living in rural Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister has finished. He may not know that he has finished, but he has.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to ensure that more adults gain basic English and maths skills.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T7. At Prime Minister’s questions in November last year, the Prime Minister said that “there are 1,000 more GPs across the country than there were in 2010.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 822.]According to the UK Statistics Authority, however, there were actually 356 fewer. That is just one error. The UKSA recently revealed that, since May 2010, it had had to investigate the Government more than 200 times for the use of dirty statistics. When will this Government stop their fiddling?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got the gist of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Private Rented Sector

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I join the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on his maiden speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed—it certainly made me laugh. I wish him well as he tries to follow in the steps of St Paul. I do not mean Paul Goggins, although for many of us he was a bit of a saint, but St Paul of the Bible, who took on many people in government before his premature demise.

I worry that I am treading on old ground when I say that we are currently in the midst of the biggest housing emergency in a generation, but it is worth repeating that we continue to build less than half the number of homes we need to keep up with demand, if only to hammer home the severity and scale of the problem. All the while, private landlords, many of whom leave much to be desired in the caring and service department, continue to hike rents, often at the expense of the taxpayer, who has to foot the bill for many people forced by the failures of Government to claim housing benefit.

I am therefore pleased to welcome the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report and its conclusions, which cover: simplifying the law; promoting rights and responsibilities; proper enforcement powers for local authorities; better regulation; a crackdown on unfair charges; longer and more secure tenancies; and a renewed effort to boost housing supply in order to increase choice, quality and affordability.

Sadly, I cannot say the same for the Secretary of State’s response. He writes of burdensome red tape hampering private landlords, proportionate regulation that will let them off the hook and measures that will give tenants the know-how to demand longer-term tenancies, stable rents and better quality accommodation, to avoid hidden fees when renting a home and to demand better standards, but all without any real requirement on landlords to agree. He also writes of the

“small number of rogue landlords”

who need to be dealt with, and optional model tenancy agreements that no one needs to adopt. It is not exactly a charter for the sector—certainly not for tenants. I welcome the funds to encourage more people to build new properties for rent and the compulsory redress scheme, although it is not clear how vulnerable tenants will take on the might of landlords.

However, none of that will deliver the house building revolution we need. A great concern is that the housing crisis is not a problem that exists in isolation—quite the opposite. A failure to build is but one link in a chain reaction that is having damaging effects for many people. With housing costs increasing, real wages falling and energy bills rocketing, not to mention the other bills that we must all factor into the cost of living, the chronic shortfall in building is driving that crisis.

Hard-working people across the country are being left unable to afford the homes they need. The average home now costs eight times the average wage. It took just three years for an average family to save for a deposit on a home in 1997, but today it will take the same family 22 years, if they are able to do so. But the number of affordable homes built over the past year dropped by more than a quarter.

As I sit on the bus each evening going to my Battersea flat, I am amazed by the number of apartments being built along Battersea Park road, each a tiny box costing several hundred thousand pounds. On behalf of the people of north-east England, I envy London the thousands of jobs and—in this apprenticeship week—the hundreds of apprenticeships that have been generated on those sites. It is just a shame that the vast majority of Londoners will never be able to buy and live in those apartments and will have to rely on the private rented sector instead. I could advise those people to move north, even to my constituency, where they will be able to secure a family home for a fraction of the cost of some of the box-sized apartments in London. The cost of living and quality of life are better, too. But why would I advise them to move to a region starved of housing investment, despite the efforts of our local authorities, and where unemployment continues to rise in most parts?

I would offer a solution. The Government could work to restore the north-east by encouraging some of the multi-million pound investment in housing and industry we see in the south-east to move north. Do that and build on the region’s successes, which include being a huge exporter of manufactured goods, including petrochemicals, steel, cars and a whole range of other goods. If houses could be delivered across the north-east at just a fraction of the rate in the south, we could have our own boom time.

What is most alarming about the shift away from home ownership is the simultaneous shortage of affordable and social housing. That extends far beyond the scarcity of one-bedroom properties that is blighting the socially rented sector as a result of this Government’s malicious bedroom tax, and reaches past the confines of London where rents are increasing by as much as 10% a year. Across England, 5 million people are on local authority waiting lists for social housing. As a result, the private rented sector plays and will continue to play an important role in meeting our housing needs. However, all too often private renting is unaffordable, unstable and subject to poor conditions and bad management.

The recent English housing survey for 2012-13 has shown that, for the first time, the private rented sector has grown larger than the social housing sector, with 4 million households compared with 3.7 million. The trend towards growth in the private rented sector is self-reinforcing, driven by the combination of factors that confront aspiring buyers looking to get on the housing ladder. People want to buy, but cannot do so as little affordable housing is available. They cannot even save a deposit while renting because of the shortage of low-cost social housing. To make matters worse, that all comes at a time when real wages have fallen at a rate of 2.2% a year since 2010—the longest such period in half a century.

One of my primary concerns is that so many homes in the private rented sector continue to fail to meet the decent homes standard. Although the number of houses in all sectors failing to meet the required standard has fallen in recent years, one in five households—almost 5 million properties across the country—are still substandard. In the private rented sector, however, a third of all properties fail to live up to the expected benchmark, the highest proportion of non-decent homes in any sector.

Some in the private rented sector would have us believe that they have been cleaning up their act, as the proportion of private rented sector homes classed as non-decent has fallen from 47% in 2006 to 33% in 2012. That is all very well, but that statistic conceals the fact that the absolute number of non-decent dwellings did not decrease over the period. Private landlords could take a lesson from the social rented sector, just 15% of whose properties miss the decent homes standard—although that, of course, is 15% too many.

Proportionally, roughly three times as many homes in the private rented sector failed to meet the decent homes standard as a consequence of disrepair or poor thermal comfort—two key indicators of housing quality—compared with the social rented sector. Private landlords could learn much from my own Stockton-on-Tees borough council’s work on insulating hard-to-heat private properties; Tristar Homes is doing the same in the social sector.

There is a broad consensus that the reputation of responsible landlords in the private sector is being undermined by a minority of criminal landlords who deliberately prey on the vulnerable, but there are problems that we cannot overlook and sweep under the carpet. There are the “couldn’t care less” landlords, the absent landlords and the anonymous landlords who are happy to take the rent but do nothing for their tenants. Some let properties to anyone prepared to pay, and in some areas create misery for neighbours and the wider community.

Just a week ago, a distressed woman was in tears in my surgery after years of trouble from one set of aggressive and noisy tenants after another, placed next door to her by a landlord who takes no responsibility whatever. The situation is all too common. We know that when standards reach unacceptable levels, regulatory and enforcement tools are available to local authorities. However, using those tools is often a last resort, partly because of regulatory red tape, meaning that poor standards can persist for too long.

Yet of the 4 million households in the private rented sector, 25% received housing benefit in 2012-13 to help with the rent, up from 19% in 2008-09, as wage values drop, low paid part-time jobs replace well paid full-time ones and people are forced to fall back on the state. That means that the Government are, in effect, increasing subsidies for low quality homes. That would rightly be considered a scandal at any time—even more so when the money could be used to boost house building in the social rented sector and benefit some of the millions of people in need of high quality affordable homes.

Over the past three decades, in excess of 1 million council properties have been sold through the right-to-buy policy and its variants. About a third of the ex-council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords charging rents more often than not staggeringly higher than rents in the social sector. In the social rented sector, the average household rent in 2012-13 was £89 a week, while the equivalent figure for the private rented sector stood at £163, a difference of £74 a week. In some local authority areas in the north-east, as many as 72% of those in the private rented sector are entitled to rent support through housing benefit. With 80,000 households renting private accommodation entitled to housing benefit across the north-east region, private companies are benefiting massively from the welfare system. For example, Stockton Flats has taken more than £1.7 million from councils throughout the north-east, the north-west and north Yorkshire, including £775,000 from Stockton-on-Tees and £260,000 from Redcar and Cleveland. Similarly, Castledene Property Management has benefited hugely from Durham and Newcastle councils.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I am cautiously optimistic that the hon. Gentleman is approaching his concluding comments, a point that I make in the light of the fact that other hon. Members—four to be precise—wish to speak. I know that the hon. Gentleman is considerate of his colleagues and is approaching his conclusion—not his end, but his conclusion.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I have a few paragraphs to go.

The companies that act as private landlords are reaping the rewards of the housing crisis that is afflicting so many people in Britain, and driving growth in the buy-to-let market while stifling the building of the affordable and social homes that so many hard-working people want and need.

I will cut short my comments, Mr Speaker. I will simply say that the report from the Communities and Local Government Committee offered the Government robust recommendations, and I am saddened that the Secretary of State is not giving them much credit.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid. The hon. Gentleman may have had a few paragraphs left, but they were short, which is encouraging.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least is Mr Alex Cunningham.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

How many staff at Defence Equipment and Support have been made redundant and received pay-offs only to be re-employed on a consultancy basis a very short time later? How will that affect the new pay structures that the Secretary of State is planning to adopt there?

Point of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would very much welcome your guidance. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 9 October last year—14 weeks ago today—about an issue raised by my constituent, Kerry Bouskill, on child protection and the Childhood Lost campaign. She was concerned about young people reporting abuse often not being believed and how that can be a deterrent. The question on behalf of my constituent was simple enough: will the Home Secretary outline the steps taken by the Government to strengthen child protection? On 18 November my office contacted the Home Secretary’s office, but nobody called back. On 19 November I was told that I would have an answer within a week. On 2 December I was advised that changes were needed to the letter before sign-off. On 11 December I was advised that the letter was awaiting a signature. On 20 December the matter had been passed to the office of the Minister for Crime Prevention and I was told that I would receive a letter over the Christmas recess. On 8 and 9 January my office contacted his office, but again we received no call back. On 10 January I was again advised that the letter was awaiting a signature, but I have still received nothing. I would appreciate your advice.

[Mr Speaker]

In all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, no one in the House or outside it could accuse him of excluding from his point of order any matter that he considered in any way to be material to the thrust of his complaint. As a consequence, I feel sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will now be fully familiar with the chronology of events that so dissatisfies him. Suffice it to say that he has certainly waited an inordinately long time for a response to his inquiries. His point of order will have been heard very clearly by those on the Treasury Bench; the Leader of the House is sitting there. I hope that hearing it will cause the Government to react in a timely way so that the hon. Gentleman’s questions are answered. I should also say to him that the Procedure Committee monitors the performance of Departments in answering parliamentary questions, and he may wish to draw the facts of this case to the attention of the Clerk of that Committee and possibly its illustrious Chairman, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a bit unsatisfactory if one Minister is heckling another. You yourself, Mr Hancock, are undergoing an apprenticeship to become a statesman, but I think there are some years to run.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

20. Hundreds of workers across north-east England joined the millions across the country in fearing for their future when npower decided last week to export hundreds of jobs to India and force Thornaby-based workers to travel to a new location nearly an hour away. Does the Minister now understand why half the working population fear for their jobs and feel insecure? What is she going to do about it?

Alcohol Strategy Consultation

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The wider point that the Minister makes about constant shouting is of course true. I have urged colleagues to calm down, and I hope that they will. We are getting towards the break, and a degree of tolerance would be appropriate. I do not think that the Minister has been notably provocative; he has just been giving his answers.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

According to Balance, a fantastic organisation campaigning on alcohol issues, north-east England has the highest rate of under-18s in specialised alcohol treatment as well as the highest rate of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England. Why does not the Minister agree with every single local authority in the north-east and, it seems, every single health organisation in the country that a minimum unit price for alcohol is overdue and that the Government must not give in to the alcohol lobby in the way they have to the tobacco lobby?

Business of the House

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to colleagues to put single, short, supplementary questions without preamble, and to the Leader of the House for comparable pithy replies, by which route we might be able to include everybody.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

An innovative scheme to reduce fuel poverty in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees is being placed in jeopardy because of excessive but legal charges by BT to refix poles to the side of private houses once work is completed. That matter falls between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I asked colleagues to put a simple question. Please do so.

[Alex Cunningham]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to back my call for an investigation into excessive charges made by BT for repairs following work for a fuel poverty scheme in Stockton-on-Tees?

Cleveland Fire Authority

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

That took me a little by surprise, Mr. Speaker.

I am expecting my hon. Friend to agree with me that the Cleveland fire chief responsible for the area that probably has the highest fire risk in Europe is ploughing a lone furrow with his proposals, given that other fire chiefs throughout the country are dismissing the mutual model, and firefighters themselves are convinced that competition law would soon open the way for private companies to take them over and put profits before people—for the second time of asking.

[Mr Speaker]

We probably got it the first time, and certainly the second.

Point of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome your advice and guidance on a matter relating to the answering of questions by the Education Secretary. You will probably know that he has one of the poorest records in the House for doing so. I believe that he has been officially chastised for his poor failures, but sadly that appears to have had little effect. I tabled a number of named day questions to the Secretary of State on 21 March with a named day of the 26th. I received four answers on the due day, but I note that the three Ministers concerned—the Under-Secretary of State responsible for further education, skills and lifelong learning, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock); the Minister for children and families, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson); and the Minister for Schools—have demonstrated their ability to work as a team and collaborate on answers, as they all gave me exactly the same answer to four very different questions. They all said, “I will reply as soon as possible.” It is now four weeks since I tabled the questions and more than three since I received the holding replies. I received one answer today. I am sure that you will agree that it is unacceptable for Ministers to ignore questions and I would be obliged if you helped me in extracting some proper ones soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, in response to which I have a number of observations. First, the hon. Gentleman will know the importance that I, as Chair of our proceedings, attach to the delivery by Ministers of timely and substantive replies to parliamentary questions. The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are present on the Treasury Bench and I hope that one or other of them will be good enough to make contact with the Minister, in the best tradition of Leaders of the House, to exhort rather faster progress in delivering replies generally and in replying to the hon. Gentleman in particular.

Secondly, I alert the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Procedure Committee is monitoring the performance of Government Departments on this front, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to share with the Committee the evidence he has just reported to the House.

Lastly, I simply mention to the hon. Gentleman that I know that the Procedure Committee has been watching particularly closely of late the performance of the Department for Education in these matters. I hope that that is helpful.

National Health Service

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Front-Bench winding-up speeches will begin at 7.10 pm, so the two remaining colleagues can divide the time if they wish, but not if they do not. I call Mr Barry Gardiner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to be unkind, but every month the Secretary of State’s answers are too long. Perhaps he can make this the first month in which he is rather more economical.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

2. What the cost to the public purse was of NHS staff redundancies in 2011-12.

Executive Pay

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Secretary of State that he has absolutely no responsibility for restructuring the Labour party.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Here is another opportunity for the Secretary of State to clarify his views on RBS bonuses. The share price has collapsed by 35% in the past year, so will he use any powers he has to block any bonus for the chief executive, or has he really surrendered those powers to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who simply do not agree with him that the bonus must be stopped?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A lot of noise has been taking place in the Chamber. That is very unfair on the Secretary of State, who is trying to give his answers in terms that can be heard and appreciated.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

6. What representations he has received on fuel poverty in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind the House of my keenness to get down the Order Paper and accommodate as many Back-Bench Members as possible?

[Alex Cunningham]

According to the House of Commons Library, between 1996 and 2004 the number of households in fuel poverty fell from 6.5 million to less than 2 million, but now, in the face of massive increases in energy prices, it has nearly doubled again to more than 4 million. Does the Secretary of State agree that energy companies must cut prices now and reflect the reality when wholesale prices go down, and does he also agree that those companies should play a greater part in tackling fuel poverty?

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

You are making a very powerful speech for us this evening, and I completely agree with you about the importance of savings and of encouraging a savings culture. However, I am rather disappointed by the glib response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who asked how Labour Members would pay for those benefits. Every time that question is raised, Labour Members say that we should tax the rich. What calculation has the hon. Gentleman made of the effect of increasing taxes to 70%, 80% or 90%? Is that where you would like to go? And what estimation—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady, first, that I am not going anywhere—the debate goes through the Chair—and, secondly, that interventions from now on must be short, because there is a lot of pressure on time and several hon. Members want to contribute.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have never had a problem with taxing the rich a little bit more. If that means a penny on income tax, I would be fine with it, although I do not know what encouragement I would get from my Front Benchers.

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South— [Interruption.] I am sorry—we will get that one next time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate. People in my constituency and the five others that were to have been served by this new hospital need to know why this project was cancelled when three other schemes elsewhere in the country were approved. The Minister is being coy in his written answers to questions, but we really need answers. The need remains. Issues of health inequality need to be addressed. I want to place it on record that south Easington, which would be served by this new hospital, is one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom, as identified by the indices of multiple deprivation. Health inequalities still play a significant role in determining life expectancy and quality of life. Health inequalities remain a big issue: they are inequalities not just in terms of outcomes but in access to health care resources—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say very gently to new Members, whose passion for this subject I respect, that although the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) is showing great forbearance there is a difference between a speech and a short intervention?

[Alex Cunningham]

Mr Speaker, I agree with the long intervention and the facts laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris).

In Stockton-on-Tees, just over a quarter of residents live in some of the most deprived areas of England. Early deaths from heart disease and stroke and from cancer are higher than the England average. Inequalities are starkly demonstrated by the fact that a man living in one of the least deprived areas of Stockton can expect to live just over 10 years longer than a man living in one of the most deprived areas.

Since 1997, however, early death rates from heart disease and stroke have fallen markedly and early death rates from cancer have also fallen, albeit more slowly. We have also seen a narrowing in the gap between our area and the rest of the country. Things are improving for my constituents, and my concern is that the coalition’s decision will see a halt to and possibly even a reversal in these positive outcomes. The NHS is too important to be turned into a party political football, however. Those listening to this debate back in the north-east this evening do not want to hear us point scoring. I have heard you say yourself, Mr Speaker, that that is the sort of behaviour that turns people off politics and politicians.

I wholeheartedly welcome the commitment shown by the Prime Minister and his party to the NHS, and I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to a statement that he made during the election campaign. He said:

“The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times.”

I could not agree more with the Prime Minister’s statement, but I fear that his words are not being followed by his actions. As we all know, it is all too easy to make promises in politics. The real test is whether we stand by our word once the votes have been counted.

During the election campaign, the Conservative party claimed that it was now the party of the NHS. I doubt very much that people who went to the ballot box on 6 May and put a cross next to the name of their Conservative candidate thought that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) would be authorising the cancellation of a long-awaited new hospital just weeks later. We all acknowledge that cuts have to be made to reduce the deficit, but this is a much needed front-line service, and I will not stand by and let this project disappear without a fight.

Of course, 6 May gave us not a Conservative Government but a Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition, so I urge Members to refer to the document “The Coalition: our programme for government”, which states:

“We are committed to the continuous improvement of the quality of services to patients.”

Again, I warmly welcome that statement, but I fear that when push comes to shove, it will mean very little to my constituents and those in neighbouring areas. This coalition seems intent on cutting spending without fully realising the human cost of the cuts. This decision is a backward step for the communities that would have been served by the new hospital, and it does not tally with the Prime Minister’s claim that the Conservatives are now the party of the NHS or with the coalition’s document.

Since the announcement on 17 June, I and other Labour Members have met the chair and chief executive of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust. They are understandably extremely disappointed that, after the many years of hard work creating and fine-tuning the plans for the future of health services in our region, those plans have been sent back to the drawing board. It is not only the foundation trust that is unhappy with the decision: on Saturday 26 June, other Members and I attended a rally in Hartlepool to highlight local opposition to the decision, which grows by the day.

I have also received encouraging support for early-day motion 273, which asks for a review of the coalition’s decision. To date, it has received 42 signatures—regrettably, only from Members on this side of the House. I hope that it will not only be Labour Members arguing this evening that their constituents should not lose out after waiting so long for an agreement on the future of health care in our area.

One of the key questions that I hope the Minister will answer this evening is why this particular project has been scrapped. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his statement to the House that his decision to cut £2 billion of public spending, including on our new hospital, was guided by a principle of fairness. At the moment, we feel as though we have been subject to an arbitrary decision. I have yet to hear any persuasive argument as to why people in the north-east have had their new hospital withdrawn while schemes such as the Royal Liverpool hospital, the Pennine acute hospital and the Epsom and St Helier hospital are going ahead. What advice did the Minister receive from his Department that led to the conclusion that the North Tees and Hartlepool project did not represent value for money, compared with the other projects?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House on 17 June that our new hospital was

“assessed against a number of other major build projects that were at the same stage of development; those schemes are more urgent.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 1051.]

I would appreciate a little more clarity from the Minister about what was meant by that statement, and I request that he publish the criteria used and the detailed comparisons carried out against the project. The North Tees and Hartlepool project was, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the top priority for the NHS. We would like to know why it has slipped down and out of the queue.

In answer to my question on 29 June about the strategy developed by the foundation trust, the Secretary of State for Health did not rule out other ways of making our new hospital happen. I noted that he said it needed to fit his new criteria and that the trust should not ask the Department of Health to meet the whole capital cost of whatever it proposes. Does that mean that some funding could be made available and the balance raised by the trust using its existing powers?

I urge the coalition to work with Members on the Opposition Benches as well as with the foundation trust to look at new and innovative ways of funding the project and ensuring that local people are not left behind. Will the Minister confirm that more time invested in developing a new solution to fund the new hospital will not be a waste of time, and that he and his coalition partners have not set themselves against any new hospital in our part of the country?

If we do not find a solution and build a new hospital, what will happen? The chief executive of the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust has publicly acknowledged that there is a chance that Hartlepool hospital could close, whether or not a new hospital goes ahead. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)is extremely anxious about that. We could end up with one hospital. I want it to be a new one.

There is much more at stake than just health care and a new hospital. The location for the hospital was Wynyard park, a 700 acre high-end mixed-use development accommodating residential and business properties.