House of Lords Reform

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am happy with most of what my hon. Friend said, but I am concerned about the age being fixed. Some peers are very effective beyond the age of 75. I suggest a slightly different arrangement, whereby a percentage—I will not say what that is at the moment—retires or is requested to retire, and people compete for the remaining places. How about that?

[David Morris]

That is a valid and constructive way forward, as an annexe to what I am trying to do. I would like hon. Members reading this debate in the future to understand that this is a simplified view of what could happen. Further debates would have to take place, and legislation would have to be enacted to make it actually work. However, what my hon. Friend has just articulated very well is that we could have a percentage of Lords who assist a transition, and so still retain the intellectual expertise in the other place—that is the whole ethos behind this debate.

I have nothing more to add, but this is an important subject. For literally decades we have been trying to sort out the problem of the number of Members of the House of Lords. Although I voted for the proposals of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam in their initial stages, I did not like them. We should look into the issue in a more measured and stately way—one that suits the House of Lords as it currently stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to have you looking after our debate so carefully and in such an accomplished manner, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing this important debate. The debate on this topic has gone a little quiet in the past couple of years, and it should not have. It is important that we wake it up again. My hon. Friend has made a good start on that, and has perhaps lit some blue touch paper—I will come on to that in a minute.

I should start with a small declaration of interest, as my wife has recently been appointed to the House of Lords as a life peer. We have had the conversation over the breakfast table in which I tell her that I have already voted to abolish her and replace her with an elected representative at least three or four times during this Parliament; she has each time informed me, in return—with slightly too much pleasure—that she is no longer able to vote for me in general elections. I will not detain hon. Members any longer with the politics of the Penrose breakfast table, but thought I should make sure everyone knows that part of my family background, if I can put it that way.

To return to the argument of my hon. Friend, as he said, there have been attempts, big and small, to reform the House of Lords. It is a hardy perennial of debate both in this place and in debating societies up and down the country. It prompts deep and great thoughts among constitutional experts, from historians and academics through to think-tanks and policy wonks of all kinds. It has been so important because it clearly needs to be dealt with—any democrat looking at the House of Lords thinks it looks odd.

To be fair, their lordships understand that and in the past few years a number of different measures have been introduced both from the Lords and jointly by Members of the Commons and the Lords. My hon. Friend mentioned the Bill introduced by Dan Byles and Lord Steel dealing with the retirement of peers; there was also a Bill introduced by Sir George Young and Baroness Hayman on expulsion and suspension from the House of Lords. There have been successful attempts at Lords reform, albeit on a relatively small scale, as well as less successful attempts at grander Lords reform, such as the House of Lords Reform Bill that failed to make progress during the previous Parliament.

It is therefore a little odd that this area of policy seems to have run out of steam in the past couple of years. I thought my hon. Friend’s proposals were interesting and thought-provoking. His proposal for peers who are over 75 to be part of a Lords council would retain much of the Lords’ expertise and ability to provide advice. It would also reduce the number of voting peers while retaining their advice to be drawn on if needed.

I also found it fascinating that, even during my hon. Friend’s brief remarks setting out his interesting proposal, we heard a couple of additional suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Each sparked off the initial idea and contributed variations and additional thoughts—right here, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale has succeeded in beginning a revision and expansion of this rather neglected area of debate.

My hon. Friend has done something important by lighting that blue touch paper, and I would like him to carry on, if he is willing. If we can get other parts of the body politic that are interested in constitutional reform to start considering the issue with a bit more energy and focus—perhaps spurred on by his ideas—we may well get a series of other proposals. They could be tremendously helpful in broadening and enriching the debate.

The Government’s election manifesto states:

“We will ensure that the House of Lords fulfils its valuable role as a chamber of legislative scrutiny”.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend start his remarks by saying that he thought the House of Lords fulfils that role, and that it is an important role that should continue. We want to help the Lords continue to do that, and hold the Government to account.

Also, while it is difficult to envisage a return in the immediate future to the bigger, bolder issue of massive, whole-scale Lords reform, we want to continue to consider ideas about limiting the number of peers, and further ideas around retirement. My hon. Friend’s proposals are therefore bang on the money. They are exactly about where it might be possible, as a practical measure, to take these sorts of things forward, and that is why we should encourage other people to propose alternatives, so that we are not faced with having only one idea from one brave soul who has decided to try to light this issue up again; others should participate as well.

I encourage my hon. Friend not just to talk to think-tanks or constitutional experts outside Parliament; it is crucial that he gets the Lords involved as well. It was noticeable that the two successful attempts recently have been made in close conjunction between Members of the Commons and Members of the Lords, effectively as private Members’ Bills. That element of buy-in from the upper House has been absolutely essential. Who is better placed to make proposals that might get buy-in and consent from their lordships than other Members of the House of Lords?

[Mr Andrew Turner]

May I suggest one problem? Throughout the period we are considering, that process would require a denial—a self-denial—from the Prime Minister, and I am talking about not only this Prime Minister but future Prime Ministers, because the number of peers created during the last 15 years has been staggeringly high. It cannot go on at that rate. I would like to know how we can persuade Prime Ministers of all possible political colours—I realise that only one is likely to be in Government—to prevent them from using their power to create too many peers.

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale is pretending that his proposal is a complete answer. I think that he is putting it forward as an interesting and thought-provoking contribution to a broader debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is quite right to point out that this question about how we reduce the size of the House of Lords will depend not only on people leaving, standing down, retiring or—as this proposal suggests—entering as councillors, but on the number of people coming in and at what age they come in. This proposal does not necessarily address that issue directly—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was quite straightforward about that—and that is why I suggest that we ought to have other people contributing to this debate, because it will require other proposals for us to come up with a full suite of potential answers.

Voter Engagement

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We shared the experience of sitting on the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which lasted for one Parliament only. The Committee had many enlightening evidence sessions on this matter.

It might be as well to record that in our last meeting with the Electoral Commission, it gave special praise to electoral registration officers in two constituencies—mine and the Vale of Clwyd—for their energetic activity after Christmas until the election date. The result in my constituency was interesting, with a swing of 0.0%, so what it lacks in volatility it makes up for in consistency. The sad effect in the Vale of Clwyd was the removal from Parliament of the person who knew more about electoral registration than anyone else—Chris Ruane, who is greatly missed in this Chamber.

Democracy was started in Greece 2,500 years ago and it has come to us on the instalment plan, in stages and imperfectly. It is still possible to buy a place in the House of Lords and still possible to buy influence and privilege from Governments by putting money into the pockets of lobbyists. We have done virtually nothing to reform that system. It is still possible for retiring Ministers, generals and civil servants to prostitute their insider knowledge to the highest bidder when they leave this place, to get a lucrative retirement job and buy their hacienda in Spain. That is going on and we are doing very little to limit it. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is a bit of a joke. It is not the Rottweiler it should be; it is a pussy cat without teeth or claws. We have an imperfect democracy.

The Government’s only argument for redrawing constituencies is arithmetical tyranny: doing it entirely on the basis of population. Let me give one example of how things do not work that way. A main area of our work in my constituency office is immigration. In the local authority area I serve, there are at this moment 439 asylum seekers—that is just one group; there are others as well—all of whom require a great deal of work. There are also language difficulties. It is a huge burden on an MP’s office. Where is the fairness in this, when in the constituencies of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, there are a grand total of three asylum seekers?

We could talk about many other examples of the unfair burden of work in different constituencies. The Government are planning, again, to undermine the number of constituencies and disturb the system. There certainly are arguments for bringing the system up to date, but there is no argument for doing so at a time when the Government are awarding places in the House of Lords to people who are unelected. Sometimes places are given because of cash.

There is certainly a link between contributions to parties—all parties—and places in the House of Lords. There are also links between those, such as Ministers, whom the Government wish to reward for failure, as a consolation. That is normal now. We have a system of political awards set up by the present Prime Minister. The system has existed only since 2011; it is entirely new. Why should anyone want an award? People lust after the same honour that Sir Jimmy Savile and Sir Cyril Smith had. Why anyone would want to be tainted with such a thing is beyond me.

There was something of a triumph in the last election for the Electoral Commission, which gave us evidence on many occasions, as you will recall, Mr Turner. The result of the election showed some remarkable changes. We spent many hours in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee looking at how we could encourage people to register, particularly those groups that were largely under-registered. Organisations such as Bite the Ballot did a great job on that. Sadly, in spite of my repeated requests, we never had Russell Brand along to give us evidence. We wanted to get hold of him and say, “You realise how badly young people are treated by all politicians. They look after rich pensioners such as me very well indeed, because we are the group who vote.”

Young people have had a terrible deal from the coalition Government and previous Governments because they are not viewed as being of any consequence. Russell Brand made that foolish statement to his 9 million followers on Twitter—rather more than you or I have, Mr Turner—telling them not to vote and not to take part in the election, but instead to march around the streets making demands. He tried to get 1 million people on the street outside here a few months ago; he managed about 200, I think. He took those people out of the electoral process. Although he eventually recanted under the wise advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), it was too late for them to register and get on the electoral roll again. I wish we could have had him before the Committee, where we could have persuaded him that his view was counter-productive and not achieving his aim.

The Electoral Commission reported a record-breaking 469,000 people in one day registering online to vote in the 2015 general election. That is an incredible number. There were 2,296,000 online applications to register to vote from when the campaign began last year on 16 March to polling day. Those are enormous figures. Voting habits have changed. The public are ahead of us in many ways in their willingness to use electronic media to register and to vote, and we have to take into account the fact that people have got into the habit of voting for television personalities and so on in that way. We should look at the success of the Electoral Commission and such organisations as Bite the Ballot, which have done a great deal to maintain the number of people voting.

In my campaign, I spoke to many thousands of voters. I found the contempt for politics distressing; it has not improved since the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. One party managed to sell itself as being close to the voters. The man in the pub with a fag and a pint was who they related to, not politicians. That party made inroads in my constituency, but it did not affect my vote in any way, because the sensible Lib Dems deserted their party and voted for me. However, some 6,000 people in my constituency, which has been wise enough to elect me since 1987, voted UKIP.

There is all the other stuff about Europe and so on, but part of the reason why people voted for UKIP—they repeated this again and again—was contempt for the political system and this House. We are trying to do something about it, but we put on a pantomime every Wednesday—a national embarrassment of exchanged insults and unanswered questions. In one of the last Prime Minister’s questions before the election, the Prime Minister was asked a question on immigration, and in his answer he mentioned nine other subjects, not one of them immigration.

Last week, the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition four questions, which is almost more than she asked him. I have usefully suggested that it would be helpful to change the name from Prime Minister’s questions to Prime Minister’s answers, just to give him an idea of what is expected of him and to let him know how the system should work.

The system used to work. We did not like the answers that Margaret Thatcher gave, but she always referred to the question asked. If I asked the Welsh Minister a question about tidal barrages and he told me the price of cabbage in Cardiff on that day, the Speaker would rightly call him out of order, but that does not work with the Prime Minister. Prime Minister’s questions are an object of derision for politics and the system. People show contempt for us, and that contempt is to the advantage of such parties as UKIP. Prime Minister’s Question Time reduces our chance of restoring the trust and confidence that the public used to have in the political system.

A great amount of reform is needed, and it is a lot more urgent than changing the constituency boundaries. The Government wish to do that, and it is to their electoral advantage, but I have always been in favour of proportional representation. We stand in contempt of the country because all parties reach their conclusions on PR based on their party interest. The Conservatives and the Labour party benefit from the current system. The Lib Dems have always taken a principled line on PR, and now we find it coming from UKIP and other parties, such as the Greens, that suffer greatly under the current system. It is a travesty to suggest that the system we have represents the public view, because it does not.

We did a splendid report in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee last year. One of its suggestions was to have a democracy day, which is a magnificent idea. In my constituency of Newport West, the Chartists lost at least 20 members when they were killed raiding a hotel to release a prisoner, Henry Vincent. They were protesting on principle about the cruel treatment they were receiving and asking for the vote. Every year on 4 November, there are celebrations and commemorations to mark that day, and it is a great way of getting the meaning of democracy across to schoolchildren. Lord Tredegar held the one vote in the town. He decided everything and the working people had no votes at all. We should have a democracy day to celebrate the joys of democracy.

In this place, we have at least 1,000 depictions of royalty. They are everywhere, and include paintings, statues and a tower. What has royalty done for democracy? It has obstructed almost every advance in democracy. It could be argued that they donated one head, but that was grudgingly.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing voter engagement and the franchise, which as far as I know have nothing to do with royal pictures. Will he stick to the topic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. We have time for two further speakers.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right, and he tempts me down a particular path—to say whether membership of the EU broadly benefits this country. I am sure that we could have a whole debate on that, and I know that he could go on for hours and hours on that particular subject. [Interruption.] We will not do that, Madam Deputy Speaker; I take your guidance. Of course, this Parliament is getting less money because the previous Government gave away at least a percentage, if not half, of our rebate. Over the course of this Parliament, this country will receive about £10 billion less from the EU than we would have done had we stuck to the rebate arrangements agreed by a previous Prime Minister—probably the best part of 30 years ago.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that this very morning, money was granted to the Isle of Wight and plenty of other parts of the country through the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). Yet instead of that being done here and now, the money had to go all the way over to Europe for the EU to sort out some mad scheme.

[Nicky Morgan]

To respond briefly, I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I suspect he will be pleased that the money has come to the Isle of Wight. I take his broader point about the benefits of membership and the amounts of money spent, which could be the subject for a different debate at a different time. In respect of the EU budget, it is also worth remembering that the Prime Minister went to Europe last year to negotiate a smaller future budget contribution over the course of the next seven years, which had never been achieved before. His determination to work with like-minded member states to achieve that is what enabled it to happen. I would have thought that all Members, and particularly Conservative Members, would hugely welcome that.

The need comprehensively to address Europe’s growth challenge, tackling overall low productivity and the lack of economic dynamism and flexibility, is more pressing than ever before, and it is in our interest to make urgent progress. That is why the UK will continue to push this agenda at the highest levels and encourage the new Commission to take structural reform seriously.

To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring that, in line with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, this House approves the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. Following what I hope will be the House’s approval of that assessment, the Government will submit the convergence programme to the European Commission, which will make its recommendations to all EU member states in early June. These recommendations will then be considered by the ECOFIN Council on 20 June and agreed by Heads of State or Government at the European Council on 26 and 27 June.

To reiterate, the convergence programme contains no new information, but only information that has been presented previously to Parliament—information from the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and from the Budget, which sets out the Government’s strategy to return the UK to sustainable growth. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the House to support the Government motion and I look forward to hearing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will, of course, be careful, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the point that I am making relates directly to what is in the Red Book, to the nature of the motion that we are being asked to support, and to whether we are being presented with a true and accurate reflection of what is happening in the United Kingdom economy. My view, and that of other Opposition Members, is that the Red Book implies that the “commitment to fairness” is being met. I do not believe that a situation in the United Kingdom economy in which more and more people are being forced to use food banks while the Government see fit to give a tax cut to the wealthiest in our country indicates a genuine commitment to fairness, and it is for that reason that I have rejected the thrust of the motion—which asks us to approve the Red Book as such an accurate reflection—and supported the amendment.

The Red Book paints a rosy picture of the goals that have been met and the targets that have been delivered, but, although I looked very carefully, I could not find any reference to the Government’s failure to meet the terms that they had set themselves for their so-called long-term economic plan. The Minister said earlier that the Government were “on track”, which is fair enough, but the track to which she referred is not the track that the right hon. Member for Tatton said that we would be on when he became Chancellor. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Government said that the deficit would be eliminated by 2015, but we now know that that is not the track they are on. The deficit will not be eliminated by 2015; indeed, the current forecast is that it will not be eliminated until 2017-18, when we shall be well into the next Parliament. That is not the test that the Government set themselves for their economic plan, which has failed on its own terms.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems was Europe, and the fact that its the budget burst into flames in 2011 or 2012?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What we are being asked to do today is approve a document on the basis that it is an accurate reflection of what is happening in the UK economy. I am afraid that the document does not accept the fact that the Government are not on track to meet the challenge that they set themselves, and promised the electorate that they would deliver on at the last election. They suggested that, if the Chancellor’s programme of fiscal consolidation was pursued—which it was—the budget deficit would be eliminated by the end of this Parliament, and the fact that that is not going to happen goes to the heart of the motion.

However, the Government are not just off track in relation to the central promise that they made to the electorate at the beginning of this Parliament about the elimination of the deficit. The national debt is rising, and the Government are set not to meet their target of ensuring that it falls as a share of GDP by 2015-16, although anyone reading the Red Book in isolation would be forgiven for thinking that everything was going exactly according to their original plan.

Holiday Pricing

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I think I agree with my hon. Friend, but does she agree with me that the problem is that there are at least three variables? There are those—including teachers—who, by virtue of their employment, would never have the opportunities that others are seeking. There are those—she gave some good examples—whose own employment makes it difficult for them to find space. And of no less importance is the requirement for schools to provide the entire curriculum to all the children, and co-ordinating that would be a problem. The idea of more discretion is good, but it needs to be underpinned by some basic principles about how all the different groups can be catered for.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Before you continue, can I ask that you face my direction in future?

[Mr Howarth]

Sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Damian Green. I am sorry: I meant Damian Hinds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mudie]

That is an important point.

One of the things that has come from this e-petition is a request from the travel and tourism industries to get together with the Government and local authorities to see if they can work something out to alleviate the problem. The option of regional staggering has been mentioned on more than a couple of occasions. That is one thing that the industry has suggested it wishes to talk about. It has asked for talks, and I look to BIS for an acceptance of that invitation and to get the industry around the table as soon as possible to start talks. I say that not because a quick solution would be forthcoming, but because it will take such a time to get a solution that the sooner they start, the better.

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

Let me return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). In this place, roles are reversed at a bewildering speed. If I was standing here giving the education policy of a future Labour Government, I would be told, “You don’t trust the professionals. Leave it to the doctors and teachers”. When the solution—this is coming from a Labour MP—is about trusting head teachers, suddenly that is not enough.

I have discussed this matter—more than anything else this past week—with my wife, who is a head teacher, and all I get is common sense. None of us would be prepared to stand here and say this, particularly as two weeks ago, my wife had Ofsted in at 24 hours’ notice, but head teachers have great discretion, great judgment— on the whole—and great empathy. They have great relations with parents and know them. They can look at the attendance records and do all the things that have been suggested as a matter of common sense and as part of being a good head running a good school. I would be content to leave it at that.

I would like hon. Members to say if they had a problem with kids’ attendance when families could take an in-term holiday. Where were the letters about that? Where were the public complaints? They were not there—it was not a problem. What did the Secretary of State for Education do? I do not want to make the issue political; I have been gently asking him, for once in his life, just to act with a bit of humility and take the measure off the table, and I do not want to make it easy for him not to do it by being political. That is all he needs to do, because the situation was okay.

Due to the fuss that has gone on and the hurt that has happened, why should the Government not just take the measure off the table? The Secretary of State has caused it, so he has in his hands a remedy. If he wants change, he should get together with all the parties. Even the travel trade is saying that it has to lay people off because the measure is affecting its business.

What have the Government done? They have put through the measure without any real consultation. The first bad thing the Secretary of State did was to push through the measure to operate from last September, but people had already made their arrangements for holidays. They had taken the advice of the travel trade and got in quick, seeking the cheapest bookings. Suddenly, it was illegal to do so. There was no consultation. The measure was peremptorily introduced, smuggled through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

The second bad thing is that the Secretary of State will fine the parents £60 if they do it, and it could be £120 if they are late in paying.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Mudie]

I see you nodding, Mr Turner. It could get worse than that, because both parents could be fined, so the total fine could be £240.

For some of the parents of children in my wife’s school £60 or £120 is more than they have to keep their family fed, clothed and housed. If you think that that is bad, Mr Turner, the Secretary of State has made the action a criminal offence. Not only will parents get fined for taking the chance to bond with their kids on a beach somewhere, they can get a criminal record because of it. It is not just a case of what happens with picking chewing gum up off the floor, and neighbourhood wardens giving people a £60 fine: there is a criminal record. There is no easy solution. We need the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to get talks going, but the measure should also be withdrawn.

What is there to worry about in this? Ofsted inspectors can go into schools—the professionals, no matter how good they are, are frightened stiff of Ofsted—and see all the records. They can go through every one and look at whether the parents of a child with an exemplary attendance record will be fined because, to go away together, they must take the time during term. Ofsted has attendance and performance figures. All the necessary machinery is available to enable a responsible head to take the decisions in the full knowledge of what happens in the school and, most importantly, to be answerable to Ofsted for which youngsters have been given permission. I hope that BIS will get talks going, and that the Secretary of State for Education will withdraw the statutory instrument.

HMRC Closures

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for being present to respond to my debate.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recently changed its services: it is trying to become “leaner and more efficient”. Two weeks ago, we learned that HMRC has hatched a plan to close all 281 inquiry centres throughout the country. Last year, those offices gave advice to more than 2.5 million people, but HMRC is closing them because the number of visits has halved since 2006 and, it claims, closing them will save £13 million a year. Other Members would no doubt have their own tales to tell, were they here to speak, but I invite the Minister to consider the claims about usage and cost savings as they apply to the Isle of Wight, because he will find them completely spurious.

Let us look first at the number of people visiting the office. The old HMRC office was open from 9 o’clock to 5 o’clock, five days a week; now it is open only from 10 o’clock to 3.30 pm, three days a week. HMRC shares a building on the island, Broadlands house, with Jobcentre Plus, so people with tax problems can often see HMRC staff through the glass but are unable to speak to them, which is ludicrous. Furthermore, staff are discouraged from dealing with clients personally, face to face; instead, they must floor walk them to a free phone in the next office and get them to speak to someone in the contact centre on the mainland. People are not supposed simply to walk in and get advice: if a taxpayer turns up and insists on talking to a real live person, staff are supposed to make an appointment for another time, a rule which applies even if the office is open and staff are available. I am pleased that the staff on the Isle of Wight do their best to be helpful and tend to ignore that particular edict from on high. None the less, it is little wonder that figures show fewer personal calls being made to inquiry centres, because HMRC has done everything it can to make visiting in person difficult and inconvenient. I have estimates for the island for the past two years. In 2011-12, there were 4,925 visits to HMRC’s Newport office and the two outreach offices; in 2012-13, that figure dropped, but by fewer than 300, so that the total was 4,630. That is more than 4% of the island’s adult population visiting HMRC, which is hardly insignificant.

We should also consider the major changes to the tax and benefits system being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Planned changes to child benefit are likely to lead to 1 million extra people filling in self-assessment forms. In addition, real-time information, as it is called, starts in two weeks. HMRC itself describes the changes as

“the biggest shakeup of the Pay As You Earn…system in nearly 70 years”.

It cannot be safely assumed that the number of people needing face-to-face help on the island or elsewhere will fall.

Let us look at the claimed savings on the Isle of Wight. The original HMRC office in Upper St James street was closed and 36 staff moved into the newly built Apex centre, although taxpayers needed to walk for 10 minutes from the bus stop or had to drive to reach it. The move was always planned to be temporary, and in May 2011 the HMRC office moved again, to Broadlands house. It was anticipated that some staff would relocate to other HMRC offices within what was described as reasonable daily travel distances, but that turned out to be a journey of an hour and a half each way. The majority of staff lost their jobs, and only nine people now work in the HMRC office on the island. Broadlands house is also home to the main Jobcentre Plus office, as I said, and to the valuation office. HMRC’s nine remaining staff moved into empty offices in the building, which seems an eminently sensible solution. The Government already pay for the upkeep of the entire building, so the costs are minimal, and it is hard to see what savings could be made on rent, rates or utility charges from closing the office. The only other opportunity for substantial savings, therefore, would be on staff.

In addition to being open to the public three days a week, the staff carry out what are called personal taxes operations, which is computerised work generated centrally. The work can be obtained by HMRC officers anywhere in the country and includes activities such as changes to tax codes, addresses and so on. The staff on the Isle of Wight are justifiably proud to be achieving 100% of their target. They should be proud: they are an efficient and experienced team—in fact, the nine staff have a combined total of 186 years’ experience, which may well be a record, but certainly represents a large investment by HMRC in training and development over the years. HMRC claims that it intends to deploy the staff affected by the proposed changes elsewhere, and such experienced officers must be a valuable asset, but there are no opportunities within reasonable daily travelling distance from the Isle of Wight. HMRC would therefore be willing to pay the costs for staff to relocate, not only paying the costs of removals, legal fees, stamp duty and so on for a new house, but perhaps even extending to cover the difference in house prices if staff move to a more expensive part of the country. HMRC could therefore incur significant costs for Isle of Wight staff to move elsewhere to undertake exactly the same work that they are doing now. The alleged £13 million savings appear to take into account neither that nor the costs of redundancy packages for staff who cannot be redeployed to another job or do not wish to move.

As part of the plans, HMRC is going to invest in a shiny new telephone system costing £34 million—to save £13 million a year. Looking at HMRC’s record, I would not put my trust in that working out too well. HMRC spends money, but that does not necessarily bring success. Despite HMRC spending £900 million on customer service, the Public Accounts Committee found it had “an abysmal record”. Last year, HMRC allowed 20 million telephone calls to go unanswered—a quarter of all the people who tried to call it. Even its new targets for call answering are described by our colleagues on the PAC as “woefully inadequate and unambitious”. For callers who do get through, there can be other problems.

I want to raise an issue brought to my attention by Jonathan Isaby, of that excellent organisation the Taxpayers Alliance. He received an e-mail from a customer adviser working in an HMRC call service. Apparently, advisers do not have targets based on how long a telephone call takes; instead, the focus is on what they call “wrap-up time”, which is the time after a call in which necessary administration is carried out, such as tax coding, sending e-mails, making referrals and updating customer records. Customer advisers are targeted to keep their wrap-up time to an absolute minimum. They do that by putting people on hold and keeping them on the phone unnecessarily, which increases the cost to the taxpayer and generates income from the telephone call for HMRC. That cannot be right and I urge the Minister to look carefully into that allegation. I know that Mr Isaby will do all he can to assist in getting to the bottom of it.

For those who still need face-to-face advice after the closures, the plan is to replace the current system with a mobile team. They will talk to taxpayers using community centres or local libraries, or, if called for, by making a home visit; but home visits by experts are expensive and inefficient. We do not usually call a lawyer or an accountant to visit us at home.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. He makes an important point about efficiency savings and HMRC’s proposals. Rurality is a huge issue in itself. Mobile units going round to support small business people and farmers in my community across mid-west Wales would be a huge cost. One wonders how much that has been factored into the equation.

[Mr Turner]

I am not able to say how much it has been factored in, but I can say that doing this over two weeks once a year, which is what I do in the summer when I visit people locally, takes a lot of time. I can only judge that the same business will be included.

It is clear that HMRC does not intend home visits to be the norm. That is a most important point. I feel certain that only a very few people who currently use the face-to-face system will be offered a home visit. It is hard to see the financial sense of somebody coming across from the mainland to visit a small business man or an elderly pensioner on the island, but island staff have been told categorically that the mobile team covering the island will be based on the mainland and that they cannot be part of that team.

What is the poor taxpayer to do if he cannot work out the answer to his question online, cannot get through on the telephone and cannot persuade the chap from the mainland to visit him at home? He could go along to meet an adviser in a community centre or library, which is exactly what happens now on the Isle of Wight. Local staff have introduced an outreach service in Ryde and Freshwater on the days that the Newport office is closed. So what this decision means is that islanders will not be able to visit a tax office to talk to local advisers, but HMRC staff from the mainland will travel over at huge expense to provide a service that is already being provided by qualified, experienced people, and those people will have been paid to move away or made redundant. I understand the mobile teams may even hold sessions in tax offices. They could use the empty office in Broadlands house, which would no longer be open to the pesky public. You could not make it up, Mr Benton. It is the Isle of Wight version of “Yes Minister”. I can picture Sir Humphrey’s self-satisfied smile now—he will be in his element.

The Minister must be aware that a face-to-face session can achieve things that cannot be achieved over the phone. An experienced adviser can quickly spot that a figure has been put in the wrong box, and a taxpayer who does not understand what information should go where can show the relevant paperwork to somebody who understands it. That simply does not happen online or over the phone, and vulnerable groups may find it particularly difficult to engage by those means. Most people deal with HMRC not because they want to, but because they have to. Those 2.5 million people did not go to their tax office because they wanted a jolly day out. If they felt that they could have dealt with the issue online or by telephone, presumably the vast majority would have done so.

HMRC is running a pilot in the north to see how the new telephone advice service will work. It follows a previous trial undertaken last year when taxpayers were telephoned to try to sort out queries. I understand that of 1,354 calls made, only 259—less than 20%—resulted in the query being sorted out over the phone; the other 80% of cases still needed a face-to-face appointment. Yet HMRC still intends to close all 281 inquiry centres next year, come what may, and issue telephone advice from Bradford and Peterlee. I wonder why considerations of job shortages never seem to apply to places such as the Isle of Wight.

All of us in this House and the other place understand the need to make savings, but our tax system is fiendishly complicated. I know that the Government are trying to sort that out, but in the meantime we must make sure that those who need advice can get it. We must make sure that the claimed savings are not based on flawed research or shoddy decision making. Only yesterday, the Home Affairs Select Committee highlighted the “catastrophic leadership failure” of Lin Homer, the current chief executive of HMRC, when she ran the UK Border Agency. Previously, as chief executive of Birmingham city council, she was criticised by an election judge for having

“thrown the rule book out of the window”

during the 2004 postal vote fraud. Such a record hardly fills us with confidence. As for the Isle of Wight, it is obvious that closing the only accessible tax office will not benefit my constituents, or achieve the cost savings that HMRC is claiming for the closure.

I suspect that we are not unique. If the issues facing the Isle of Wight are not exceptional, I hope that the Minister, who is an eminently sensible gentleman, will intervene. He needs to make sure that HMRC looks again at this decision. On the other hand, HMRC could argue that the circumstances I have outlined this afternoon are unique: the island’s physical separation from the mainland makes us different. If so, HMRC must look again at the decision to close the office on the Isle of Wight and come up with a unique plan. An appropriate decision must be made, and it must be made soon, before HMRC pays to get rid of further staff or pays for them to move to the mainland, and, even more significant, before islanders lose access to the expert advice they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing the debate, which has provided an opportunity to discuss why HMRC is introducing a new service to support customers who need extra help, and to clarify what that means for customers and staff. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her remarks and her balanced comments about the proposal. I hope to address the questions raised by both Members in my remarks.

Several concerns have been raised in the debate about the new service, and particularly HMRC’s plans to close its network of inquiry centres. I would like to address the three main concerns that have been raised today: the impact on HMRC staff; whether a face-to-face service will continue; and what the changes really mean for people who currently use inquiry centres.

First, in relation to the impact of these proposals on HMRC staff, as Members will be aware, HMRC has recently written to all Members of Parliament about the proposal. That included a confirmation of something that I want to stress again today: that the proposals are no reflection on the dedication and commitment of the 1,300 HMRC staff working in the inquiry centres, including the nine staff based in Newport on the Isle of Wight. HMRC will be looking to redeploy staff affected by the proposals, including those in the north-east pilot area—I hesitate to call it that, since, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North pointed out, it extends beyond the north-east region—to other roles within HMRC or in other Departments.

For the majority of affected staff—about 1,000 of them in fact—we expect redeployment to be relatively straightforward. Many inquiry centres are based in buildings alongside other HMRC staff, or near other HMRC offices, where inquiry centre staff can be moved into new roles, either in HMRC or in other Departments. There will also be a need for staff in the new mobile face-to-face advisory service that will be introduced, and that could include staff based on the Isle of Wight.

My hon. Friend asked about the situation on the Isle of Wight. I think that he has been informed that a post in the mobile advisory service will not be available for those who are based there, but let me reassure him that that has not been decided. The pilot will test the new service and the skills and needs necessary for the mobile service. HMRC will work closely with all stakeholders to ensure that customers get the service they need. No decisions have been taken on where the people serving the Isle of Wight will be based. I shall take on board my hon. Friend’s comments and his representation that some of those providing the mobile service on the Isle of Wight should be permanently based there. I can provide no guarantees, but equally I can provide some reassurance that no decisions have been made on that front.

Where there is no HMRC office nearby, staff might be offered roles that will involve slightly longer travel times. If there is no redeployment possibility in HMRC, remaining staff will be helped to find another role in the civil service. HMRC has tried-and-tested methods in place to manage the impact on staff and will endeavour to avoid compulsory redundancies where possible.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

I am glad to hear what the Minister says and am grateful for his non-promise—I understand why he gave it in that way. How many other jobs are there in the civil service on the Isle of Wight?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not in a position to answer that specific question. I am sure that my hon. Friend is closely informed of the job opportunities available on the Isle of Wight. I made a general point that HMRC will show considerable willingness to deal with staff in the best way possible. If one looks at the scale of the reduction in the number of people working for HMRC over a long period—since its formation in 2005—compulsory redundancy has been necessary on a very limited number of occasions. HMRC has a good record of ensuring that its staff are well looked after.

Concerns were raised that the closure of the inquiry centres marks the end of HMRC’s dedicated face-to-face advisory service. I can reassure hon. Members that that is simply not the case. A face-to-face service is about people, not bricks and mortar. What is important is that HMRC provides an accessible and flexible, face-to-face service that meets the needs of customers and can be tailored to the specific needs of particular locations, including the Isle of Wight. That is what HMRC proposes to do, only it will do it where it is most convenient for customers, whether that is in their local community, place of work or even, if they so wish, in their own homes. A modern face-to-face service is not about maintaining a patchwork network of buildings set up in the 1950s, when the needs and expectations of customers have changed. Inquiry centres are not universal; large parts of the UK are not even served by them.

The use of the centres has fallen sharply in recent years: visitor numbers have halved, from more than 5 million in 2005-06 to 2.5 million in 2011-12, and some inquiry centres are now open just one day a week, because local demand is so low. I shall address the Isle of Wight specifically. My hon. Friend quoted some numbers on the usage on the Isle of Wight. HMRC’s management information system shows that the Isle of Wight inquiry centre had 7,032 visitors in 2005-06, but since then the number has fallen: in the 2011 calendar year, it was 4,763; in the 2011-12 financial year, it was 3,622; in the 2012 calendar year, it was 3,298; and the projected number of visitors for the 2012-13 financial year is 2,886. There is a clear trend. The number is going down.

Beer Duty Escalator

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

I cannot argue with my hon. Friend. Microbreweries are an extremely important part of the make-up of brewing in this country. The increase in microbreweries over the past few years shows how much demand there is for the traditional British pint.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend refer also to the number of public houses that have closed over the past five or six years?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely pertinent comment. I will come to that.

In my constituency, the sector accounts for 1,441 jobs, employing 431 young people. It also contributes £33.7 million in gross value added to the local economy. Nationally, the sector adds £19 billion to the UK economy, and it currently contributes £10 billion in taxation to the Treasury. Since the previous Chancellor introduced the beer duty escalator in 2008—my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor continued it in May 2010—beer duty has risen by a staggering 42%. If the planned increase is effected in April following the coming Budget, beer duty will have increased by an eye-watering 50% in five years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and the help it brings, particularly with regard to apprenticeships. In fact, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), there has been a more than 100% rise in apprenticeships because of this Government.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

14. How much revenue will accrue to the Exchequer from the beer duty escalator in each of the next three years.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

The Government have inherited plans to increase alcohol duties by 2% above inflation until 2014-15. The extra 2% is forecast to increase beer duty receipts by £35 million next year and £70 million the following year.

[Mr Turner]

What proportion of that money is collected through pubs? Is it a relatively small amount? Will my hon. Friend consider removing this tax from pubs, many of which are central to community life in our towns and villages?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and he has contributed to many debates on it in this House. Making the change would mean lost revenue, and we would have to find another way to cover that loss. He may find it useful if I point out some Government measures that have helped pubs, such as the changes in the annual investment allowance, the cut in the small profits rate of corporation tax and the extension of small rate relief holiday.

Transferable Tax Allowances

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that Members wishing to speak will have about seven minutes each.

Petrol and Diesel

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is completely right. My argument has always been that it is not whether people can afford to have a car—we have a great car economy—but whether they can afford not to.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. We worry about the cost of petrol and diesel, particularly on the island, where prices are higher than everywhere but the most extreme places such as the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the northern islands. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the additional cost of transporting fuel to such places?

[Robert Halfon]

The Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the fact that so many people are here today making similar points will not be lost on the ears of a Minister who we know listens.

The Economy

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) suggests that RBS should be made into a national investment bank and that it would then be our saviour. I wonder whether he watched a programme on BBC2 yesterday, which relayed the entire history of how it cost the nation £20 billion. I am not sure it is an entirely good model, therefore.

First, I want to say a few words about what is happening in Europe this week. An express train is coming in our direction in the shape of the putative agreement between the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France. The shadow Chancellor said we should learn the lessons of history. Well, I have been reading about the congress of Vienna, and it is extraordinary how history repeats itself. Our whole national policy in those days—and for 300 years—was to prevent an agglomeration of power on the continent. Indeed, Napoleon created the continental system precisely to exclude us from the continent. That is why we fought so many wars over the centuries.

We are now faced with a worrying situation. If the eurozone creates fiscal and monetary union, we will, of course, voluntarily exclude ourselves from that. However, although we may exclude ourselves from the euro, because of qualified majority voting the eurozone countries will have not just influence but enormous power over our financial institutions. We should be extremely worried about that. Over the next few days the Prime Minister must ensure that we have real protection from what will be going on.

There has been much comment about the EU financial transaction tax. We may be able to refuse to implement it, or be given an opt-out. I certainly hope that that is the case, because the City of London is the global derivatives trading centre. Astonishingly, it accounts for 45% of all global trades in interest-rate derivatives, and this tax could cost us £26 billion. Vague reassurances are not enough.

The ex-head of the Financial Services Authority has recently said that between 80% and 90% of our prudential rule book originates from Europe. In 2010-11, the FSA has listed 29 financial regulations that come from Europe. All this is coming in our direction because the eurozone countries can muster 230 votes, and we will have no way of stopping it. We should be prepared to say no or to demand a treaty reassurance, and if necessary put any proposal to the British people in a referendum.

Turning away from Europe, I want now to talk about our woeful economic situation. It is in the interests of both parties to claim that the deficit reduction programme is tough and is hurting. It is in the interests of the Government because it shows that they are being prudent and implementing austerity measures, and it is in the interests of the Labour party because it is arguing that we are deepening the recession. In fact, however, we are not doing nearly enough to address the problems we face. Some 38% of all our output goes to Government. That is a higher proportion than in the USA, Canada or Australia. Contrary to what we have heard, many EU countries have a lower tax burden than ours.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has alluded to the situation in Greece. Does he agree that much is borrowed but not accounted for?

[Mr Leigh]

That is absolutely right. We do not know what is going on in a lot of areas. Many EU countries, including Greece and Spain, tax their economies less than might be thought.

I apologise to Opposition Members for having to say this, but much of the blame lies with the previous Government. They increased Government spending by more than 55% in real terms and, contrary to all the political argument here today, we are cutting that by just 3%. The Government must decide whether they want to be liked or to deliver long-term prosperity and growth. As we have also heard today, we are still borrowing £141 billion every year. The cost of servicing that debt is £43 billion every year, more than we spend on defence. This is a staggering burden. I want to hear more of an intellectual case for smaller government. Big government leads to big waste. Sir Philip Green calculated in his study that £700 million could be saved on the Government telephone bill alone.

People are hit with a double whammy by all this Government spending. Like a black hole, it sucks in enterprise, and it inflates prices and taxes people of all their spare income so they have less to spend on their families and themselves. As a result, the economy deflates.

Governments say in such circumstances that more must be done and propose a fiscal stimulus, usually through public works, but those works are often driven by politics not the marketplace. A better way to deliver stimulus is to cut taxes.