Advice Services (Nottingham)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Margot James

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on securing this debate, his first in Westminster Hall, and first of many, I have no doubt. I congratulate him on his interesting and compelling speech. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to set out how the Government support the Citizens Advice service and the importance of having access to free, confidential and impartial advice. I have seen for myself in my own constituency the difference that such support can make to people and families, often the most vulnerable, often, as the hon. Gentleman ably pointed out, in crisis and under immense pressure.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Citizens Advice Nottingham and District, Nottingham Law Centre and Nottingham City Council’s welfare rights service as examples of success, and I share his appreciation of the work of those agencies and similar advice services across the country.

The services are indeed well used. In 2015-16, more than 8,000 people received advice and support from Citizens Advice Nottingham and District, most of whom said they could not have resolved their issue without receiving that help. It is important to appreciate that these advice services not only help people to resolve financial difficulties but have a profound impact upon people’s lives, sometimes improving their health and reducing stress as a result of the help they offer.

Also in 2015-16, more than 2,900 clients were provided with free legal advice by Nottingham Law Centre on issues ranging from debt to welfare, and from benefits to housing. The centre succeeded in getting nearly £67,000 worth of debt written off for its clients, and I know that in one of the other instances that the hon. Gentleman cited—I think it was the Disability Nottingham case—the centre had a tremendous success rate in supporting vulnerable people through tribunals.

The welfare rights service delivered by Nottingham City Council also helps to provide free, confidential and impartial advocacy and advice to citizens from across the city, including making home visits to those people who are unable to attend an appointment.

I must say one thing in respect of the legal aid position that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in particular the very sad case that he mentioned involving Claire. The Government are committed to ensuring that legal aid continues to be available, particularly in the most important cases, such as those involving domestic violence or if children are at risk of being taken into care.

Given the sensitive issues that those services cover, it is important that they are provided independently of Government, so that their clients can trust that their problems will be treated impartially and in confidence. Also, as many of those clients’ cases relate to interactions with Government agencies or services, such as benefits, it is important to note that the local citizens advice bureaux operate independently and are funded from a variety of sources. In the main, however, they receive their core funding from the local authority in which they are located.

[Mr Leslie]

On that point, the Minister is right to talk about the need for agencies to be at arm’s length from the Government and from Ministers, but I do not think that that necessarily negates the idea of their having some kind of statutory force, to give them that sense of being a function that is supported by society as a whole. If we cannot have that, we must recognise that this is a real “invest to save” situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) pointed out, for every £1 invested in advice services the Government can save a considerable amount later down the line. It is because these services exist in a sort of non-specific, non-legal context that we sometimes rely too much on charity to underpin advice, rather than making it a right that people have.

NHS (Government Spending)

Debate between Chris Leslie and Margot James

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

If my hon. Friends will allow me, I want to make a little progress, but I will certainly give way again in a moment.

As a member of the shadow Treasury team, I want meticulously to explain the alternative course by which we will deal with the requirement for 20,000 additional nurses and 8,000 additional GPs, and the time to care fund of £2.5 billion. First, we would raise £1.2 billion from the levy on ultra-high-value properties—those worth more than £2 million—the so-called mansion tax.

Secondly, we would raise least £1.15 billion by closing three tax loopholes. The first is that hedge funds are avoiding stamp duty by getting tax-exempt investment banks to buy shares for them. At least £500 million is lost through that tax loophole, and we must close it. The second is that many large corporations, including some of the water utilities, are shifting profits out of the UK by borrowing large sums at high interest rates via their owners’ subsidiary companies through offshore stock exchanges. That is known as the quoted eurobond exemption. The third is that many employment agencies sign up workers to umbrella companies almost at random, and exploit tax reliefs on travel and subsistence without passing them on to the work force. Between £300 million and £600 million is lost to the Exchequer in that way. Those three tax loopholes must be closed.

Thirdly, we need to take £150 million a year from a new levy on tobacco company profits. That levy has worked in the United States, and we believe it is now appropriate in this country.

The sum of £2.5 billion is a significant investment that our NHS needs. It will also provide the time to care for the patients who deserve much more than the 15-minute chunks they have been getting recently.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Leaving aside the fact that the previous Government were not much good at closing tax loopholes, I am sorry to hear that the Labour party has lost faith with one of the fundamental principles of the NHS, which is that it should be based on need and funded through general taxation. That is the most stable basis for funding our NHS, and the Labour party is taking a great risk with NHS finances by proposing otherwise.

[Chris Leslie]

That is rather interesting. The hon. Lady would criticise us if we said that we would do this through general taxation, but when we show where the money will come from—pound for pound—she criticises that as well. I want to hear the Conservatives say where they will get the extra money from for the NHS. I will come to that in a moment, but I will first give way to my hon. Friend.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Margot James

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Having clearly touched a nerve, it will be interesting to hear from other Members as well.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

There is a key point for the victims of this scandal in my constituency of Stourbridge. Most of those whom I have met understand that the commitments that were given always had the proviso of the state of the public finances. That is a very relevant point.

I wish so much that we could have offered people more, but given the difference between Chadwick’s recommendations, which were the baseline, and the £1.5 billion, as well as the state of the public finances, many people who have suffered in this scandal will feel that they have been treated reasonably, although I accept the hon. Gentleman’s assessment that the EMAG pressure group is still battling for more. That is its role as a pressure group.

[Chris Leslie]

A reasonable point from the hon. Lady. All I am saying is that the pledge that some Members signed did not say explicitly, “As resources allow.” [Interruption.] No, it does not say that in the pledge. The pledge simply says that they will have a fair and transparent payments scheme. I doubt very much that the vast majority of those other policyholders who will not be getting the 100%—clearly it will be welcomed by those with-profits annuitants, who are receiving 100% of their relative losses—but may be receiving, I am told, between 15 and 20% of their relative losses will feel that hon. Members who raised their hopes are actually fulfilling them.