Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill

Debate between Alexander Stafford and Paul Bristow

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Bristow]

The Bill seeks to increase the transparency and democratic oversight of senior pay and reward across relevant authorities in local government. Local authorities are independent employers; however, the Government consider that the highest salaries in local Government should be subject to greater democratic scrutiny. The Bill requires relevant authorities to gain approval by resolution before advertising a role, or appointing a person to a role, with an annual salary that exceeds £100,000. This will apply only to new appointments.

Hon. Members will be aware that in places such as Peterborough and, I am sure, Ipswich, Bassetlaw, Leigh, Rother Valley, Milton Keynes and north Wales—[Interruption.] Oh, and Dorset! In such places, someone who earns more than £100,000 is probably one of the highest-paid people living in that area. There is already statutory guidance that states that local authorities should be doing what the Bill requires, but the Bill seeks to make what is currently only guidance into a legal requirement.

Before I come to the clauses, which are of course what we are here to discuss, I want to thank everyone who has helped to bring the Bill forward so far. I thank all the relevant people, offices and officials at the Department for the work they have done, and I thank everyone who is here today to support and scrutinise the Bill. I also thank my researcher, Rhys Evans, who probably knows far more about the Bill than I do and has been instrumental in helping me to bring it forward. That comes from the very bottom of my heart: thank you all very much indeed for all your support.

Clause 1 updates the legislation relating to local government pay policy statements, by inserting a new clause into the Localism Act 2011 to create a new requirement in the process for the approval of certain remuneration paid to local government employees. It outlines how relevant authorities will be required to gain approval by resolution before advertising employment or appointing a person to a role with an annual salary of £100,000 or more, for new appointments only. The Bill will be relevant to places like Bradford; I note the attendance of the hon. Member for Bradford West.

The Bill will also apply to individuals employed by the relevant authorities on a part-time or temporary basis if the pro rata salary would meet the £100,000 full-time threshold. Clause 1 further sets out the conditions under which the Bill’s provision will take effect.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about his important Bill. May I seek some clarity? Is the Bill just about job adverts, or will there be an annual update of how many new people are employed on more than £100,000 and who they are? True transparency is not just about gaining employment; it should be about the continuation, so that everyone knows where they stand. That will also help with diversity and inclusion and other such aspects, by raising people’s salaries.

[Paul Bristow]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As I said, the Bill requires the relevant authorities to gain approval by resolution before not just advertising but appointing a person for a role with an annual salary that exceeds £100,000. It will apply to those who are appointed, rather than just to the advertisement element. The Bill will create greater transparency so that people are able to see much more clearly the gap between those in a local authority who are paid the most and those who are paid the least. I think that will help all decision making when it comes to pay and guidance. It will also help trade unions with some of the things they need to do to ensure that their members get a fair deal when it comes to remuneration.

Clause 2 confirms the Bill’s territorial extent as England and Wales, with application in England only, and contains measures in respect of the Bill’s commencement and on transitional and savings provisions. The clause will come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, and it sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill.

The amendment I have tabled will provide that resolutions held for the purposes of the Bill will not qualify as information exempt from public discourse. It will ensure that the Bill’s key objective, which is to increase transparency on senior pay in local government, is met. It will ensure that any votes on salaries are held in view of the public; that transparency is incredibly important. It will prevent relevant authorities from utilising the existing exemption rules to circumnavigate the transparency requirements for salary offers. Transparency is the principle of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve, because with greater transparency and greater accountability comes better decision making.

Ultimately, the Bill seeks to ensure that proper scrutiny and accountability is in place for salary offers for senior officials that are above £100,000 for relevant authorities, in respect of new appointments only, and that openness and transparency are adhered to across the board.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

I am sure the Committee will be familiar with the dictum of Cecil Rhodes. He is often misquoted, but the direct quotation is:

“Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.”

As a Welshman, Mrs Harris, may I say that to serve under your chairmanship is to have won first prize in the lottery of life? If that does not get me some brownie points, I do not know what will. It is a pleasure to serve under my friend and colleague, Mrs Harris.

I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for his leadership on this issue and for the work that he and his parliamentary staff have put in to furthering this important Bill. I am delighted to say that the Government support the Bill, as they support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, so I hope we can avoid a Division on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow]

I rise again to thank everybody who has contributed to get us to where we are today. I thank the officials in the Department and Committee members from across the House for what they have done. I once again thank my researcher, Rhys Evans, for all his work and, of course, I thank you, Ms Harris, for chairing this debate so skilfully.

[Alexander Stafford]

As we are giving thanks, I also thank my hon. Friend for leading this Bill. He is an assiduous Member of Parliament for Peterborough; in fact, he is the Member of Parliament for my mother and father-in-law. He is a great MP and the people of Peterborough are lucky to have him.

[Paul Bristow]

I am not sure I could be thanked any more, but there is always an opportunity for one more round of thanks if anyone wishes to do that.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

Debate between Alexander Stafford and Paul Bristow

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

When it comes to challenging rising costs and what measures the Government can put in place to address them, I always turn to what I consider to be some of the wisest people in this country—the people of Peterborough.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Like my mother-in-law.

[Paul Bristow]

Like my hon. Friend’s mother-in-law. I went to a “politics and a pint” pub surgery in the Oxcart pub in Bretton in my constituency to talk to my residents. I wrote to a large number of people living around the area and told them that I would be there between 6 and 8 o’clock and that I wanted to listen to what they felt about the spring statement, and any other issues that they wanted to talk to their MP about. The single most popular measure in the spring statement that came up was the rise in the national insurance threshold.

Peterborough is a city of hard-working people and hard-working families and they want to see work rewarded. That is what this measure does. It will mean that if they work those extra hours and have the dignity of a job, they will keep more of their own money, pay less tax to the Government and be able to spend it on what they perceive to be best for them and their family. That is the Conservative way, and that is why I welcome these measures. I think they will go a significant way towards relieving pressure on families in my constituency. One lady I spoke to told me exactly what this extra money might mean for her. For her and her family, it would mean help with school uniform costs and help with the weekly food shopping bill, and of course it would also mean help with rising energy prices.

That was not the only thing raised with me last night, and it would seem partisan if I did not mention that constituents raised elements of concern. One constituent told me that, although the spring statement will go some way towards addressing energy prices, people need the heating on during the winter, and they asked whether there will be more measures later down the line. I also spoke to pensioners, who raised a concern about what this might mean for people on a fixed income.

The landlord of the pub pulled me aside to explain that, typically, he was paying about £1,200 a month for energy but, due to the rising costs, some of the deals on offer are almost £4,000 a month, which is an eye-watering amount for a local community pub like the Oxcart. However, he told me how pleased he is with the continued cut in business rates.

Far be it from me, as a new MP elected in 2019, to say this to longer-serving colleagues, but a “politics and a pint” pub surgery is an excellent thing to do because it supports local businesses. If we do not use pubs, unfortunately we will lose them. A “politics and a pint” surgery is a fantastic way to meet our constituents.

Returning to my central point, the rise in the national insurance threshold will reward work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) outlined, people who earn less than £12,500 a year will not pay any tax at all, which means more money in their back pocket to support themselves and their family.

A large number of people in my constituency are on universal credit while in work. One of the most popular things this Government have done in recent times is to alter the universal credit taper rate from 63p in the pound to 55p in the pound. That is an extra £1,000 in the back pocket of hard-working families in my constituency, which makes an incredible difference.

I praise the raising of the national insurance threshold because it simplifies the tax system. It was an anomaly that people did not pay income tax until they earned £12,500 but they were still paying national insurance. This measure creates a simpler and clearer tax system, which is in everyone’s best interest. We do not want tax to be confusing, lacking sense or difficult to understand. People pay their tax, so it should be as easy as possible for them to understand, which is what this measure does.

Finally, I want to talk about what the rise in the national insurance threshold will mean for particular people in my constituency. As I said earlier, work is plentiful in my constituency. We have lots of vacancies in Peterborough—in fact, there are more vacancies than people on universal credit—and this rise sends a message that the Government are putting their arm around everyone in this country, and particularly hard-working families. If people want to go out and find a job, work hard and make a contribution, they should be rewarded. There are plenty of those people in Peterborough and across the country.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Alexander Stafford and Paul Bristow

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely refute that point. In fact, I think the Bill will actually create a better working environment, as I said, by bringing the four components together. Since ’97, the Union has been pulling apart, and the Bill will actually bring the parties together, to talk better. That is why the SNP does not want the Bill, because the Bill actually says that we are one family. Yes, we have differences, and yes, we have different opinions, but we are a family and we need to work together. The Competition and Markets Authority is the Christmas table, bringing us all together from across the land to share the stuffed goose.

[Paul Bristow]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is essentially an economic argument, not a political argument, despite how much Members opposite—the nationalists—are trying to make it into a political argument?

[Alexander Stafford]

I completely agree—this is an economic thing. In fact, I am about to talk about clause 38, which brings me on to answer my hon. Friend’s point. Clause 38 says that the CMA is able to choose between a number of penalties to punish non-compliance, which is good, but is unable to levy a penalty against national or devolved Governments. It can therefore never be a stranglehold on Governments and can never be used as a tool between Governments; it is not going to bash the English Government or the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. The CMA is actually a business body. This is not a political Bill but a Bill for business, because business will bring us together. Fundamentally, the Acts of Union of 1707 came together over business. Lest we forget, after Scotland’s failed colonial project in Panama, when Scotland went bankrupt, we had to come together to promote business. That is why the Acts of Union happened. This helps to create business.

Ultimately, the Bill ensures that high standards are protected across the whole UK. Our legislation will maintain consistently high standards across every part of it, promoting co-operation between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. There will be no diminution of our food hygiene or animal welfare standards. I know that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not buy into this nationalistic, manufactured hysteria. Scottish National party Members claim to represent all the people of Scotland. No, they do not. They represent their own views, and those of many people —I grant them that; many people want independence—but not the whole of Scotland. What represents the whole of Scotland support for business.

Health and Social Care Workers: Recognition and Reward

Debate between Alexander Stafford and Paul Bristow

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

We have been fighting a war in Rother Valley over the past few months. Our enemy has been the coronavirus and we have all made great sacrifices. No one has sacrificed more than our incredible health and social care workers, who have put everything on the line to defeat this terrible virus. I speak from personal experience: my mother-in-law, Joyce, works in the NHS, and our family has shared the anxiety and worry that health professionals’ families are experiencing up and down the country.

[Paul Bristow]

May I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend’s mother-in-law, Joyce, who I believe works at Peterborough City Hospital?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for his kind words. I thank all the people who work in the NHS. Without their dedication and experience, we would not be in the position we are in today. The British people owe those heroes an eternal debt of gratitude. Thanks to them, and to the Government’s strong and decisive actions, Britain is recovering day by day.

I pay tribute to the health and social care workers of Rother Valley. Once again, they have risen to the challenge and proven themselves to be the backbone of our community. Likewise GPs, such as those at the Stag medical centre and the Swallownest health centre, have been working hard to continue to treat people throughout the pandemic. I was moved by a recent letter from one of my constituents, Graham Makin, notifying me of the phenomenal work carried out by the care workers at Waterside Grange care home in Dinnington, who are looking after his wife during this crisis. Graham writes:

“the outstanding dedication and incredible expertise that all the staff give to the residents. It is very close to a ‘family’ environment. To them this is not a job—certainly not for the money they earn—it is truly a vocation and a passion.”

Graham is of course right. He goes on to urge a better deal for those in the care sector. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has made social care a priority and pledged to consider social care as being of equal importance to the NHS. I know that everyone in this House and across our nation wants us to get social care done.

However, we must not forget that behind our health and social care workers there are many others in the community who have helped the NHS. Robert Holland, an engineer from Dinnington, offered to use his engineering expertise to convert tyre inflation equipment to hospital ventilators. Cawthorne’s Travel has been laying on free buses to take NHS workers to Rotherham General Hospital. Local groups, such as the Thurcroft coronavirus action group, led valiantly by Cath MacCartan and Diane Oxley, have been doing such great work for our community. Those selfless actions are just the tip of the iceberg in Rother Valley.

I ask the House how best we can recognise and reward health and social care workers, but also those who have done so much to help the NHS. People in Rother Valley have already taken this matter in their own hands. For example, coaches, parents and players of Laughton FC’s under-11s have already been fundraising for hampers for NHS workers. Mark Kelsall from Maltby has been creating wonderful oil paintings of local NHS staff. Shaun and Halle Salmon created an amazing Lego superhero mural that is now in the reception of Rotherham Hospital. Those are just a few ways that the people of Rother Valley have given back. For my part, I am proud to have instituted the Rother Valley hero awards for this very purpose.

I contend that nationally we must do the same by rewarding campaign medals to our British heroes who have fought the virus. My constituent Andrew Gardner of Thurcroft suggested to me that we should hold a memorial event for health and social care workers, which would take place in Whitehall much like the events on Remembrance Sunday. I believe that that proposal merits serious consideration and should be taken forward. Ultimately, it is of the utmost importance that the House pursues all avenues, including looking at pay and rewards, in recognising and rewarding the heroism of our health and social care workers, and the selflessness of those who have helped the NHS both in Rother Valley and across the United Kingdom. Without them, we would not have been able to pull through this crisis.