Paradise Papers

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would not want the hon. Member for Eltham to get uber-excited; I call Mr Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister has set out the reasons why the eye-wateringly rich would benefit from a tax haven, but how would my average taxpayer in Eltham benefit from a tax haven and why should they tolerate this in overseas British territories?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman characterises those involved in overseas trusts as eye-wateringly rich, but I do not think all of them are; there are many pension funds, and there will be many who rely on those pension funds to live, and many of them might, indeed, live in his constituency. I think this general characterisation of it all being about super-wealthy people and all being about tax dodgers and so forth is rather crude, and, frankly, not worthy of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

That is well under way and we are keeping a close eye on it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of high levels of household debt on the economy.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Households’ financial positions have improved. Household debt has fallen from 160% of household income in quarter 1 2008 to 144% in Q3 2016. UK households have undertaken the second-largest amount of deleveraging in the G7. However, we should be alert to signs of a recent reduction in the level of household savings. The savings ratio is now—in Q3 2016—at 5.6%, which is down from 6.6% in Q3 2015.

[Clive Efford]

Notwithstanding that, household debt is very high, and housing costs are a big proportion of households’ expenditure. Has the Chancellor made an assessment of the impact of an interest rate increase on growth, given that that growth is driven by consumer spending?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. The Bank of England makes regular assessments of the impact of changes in interest rates—that is a central part of the modelling work that it does. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the drivers of the relatively high household debt levels in this country is our housing model, with relatively high percentages of home ownership.

Concentrix

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The term, “It beggars belief” springs to mind. Unfortunately, his case is not an isolated one.

After much chasing, it was eventually confirmed that the lady had no connection to this mystery woman. She was paid all the money she was owed, and the demand to repay the £4,100 was withdrawn.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We all have examples of constituents with similar stories, but the Government are showing a complete lack of urgency. People are left destitute by these decisions, for no good reason. We want to hear the Government say that they are going to put in extra resources to expedite investigations so that these people are paid and compensated, if necessary at the expense of Concentrix.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I could not agree more. The case to which I have referred is not an isolated one. According to the Government’s own figures, the company has considered about 667,000 cases, of which 103,000 have been amended. That means that 15% of investigations have wrongly pursued perfectly legitimate tax credit claimants, and they are simply the ones who have had the strength to come forward and present themselves, including to their MPs, as we have heard.

Summer Adjournment

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a number of important issues on behalf of my constituents. Next Wednesday, I shall join residents of the Horn Park estate in my constituency to lobby the clinical commissioning group to urge it not to take the decision to cease funding of The Source, which is a nurse practitioner-led health centre on the estate. We do not want to lose any form of health service provided locally. The estate has no pharmacy and no GP practice. In fact, the nearest GP practices are almost two miles away.

One of the reasons given for taking this service away is that many of the patients treated by The Source, which is funded by Greenwich CCG, are patients of Lewisham doctors. I campaigned against the closure of the GP practice on this estate 25 years ago, when it first lost its practice. As part of the single regeneration budget 5 funding, in 2007 facilities for the introduction of a nurse practitioner-led service were funded, but now, because public health has been separated off from the previous primary care trust, the service falls between two stools. Local GP practices refer people to this service, and they appreciate the quality of it. No one disputes the fact that it provides good value for money, but because of this split in the funding between public health and primary services funded by the CCG, no one is prepared to continue funding it.

Last year, this service treated 5,332 patients, and 4,489 in the previous year. The annual cost is about £142,000, which is minuscule in the scheme of things. The average cost per visit is about £26.63. This is really good value for money. Everyone recognises that it is really good value for money, and everyone recognises that this is a deprived community which needs direct access to health services, but because of the bureaucracy, people are being penalised. Although all those people are Greenwich residents, some of them were forced to join Lewisham practices because the estate was on the border, and now they are being penalised. Having lost their own general practice years ago, they are now being told, “We are not prepared to fund this service”, because a fifth of the people who use it are Lewisham patients although they are Greenwich residents.

That is completely unacceptable, and I will be there with my constituents lobbying very hard for all the health managers—general practices, the CCG and the local authority—to come together and maintain the service on the estate for my local residents. It provides vaccinations and treats people who need dressings renewed, so that they need not undertake arduous journeys to other places. It has been said that many of those services will be replaced by home visits, but at a cost of £26.63 per visit to the centre, it cannot be cost-effective to travel all the way to the far end of the borough to treat people in their own homes when those people are asking for the service to be maintained because they use it for many purposes. I hope that a health Minister will hear my appeal and intervene, bang some heads together, and ensure that we do not lose that vital service on the estate.

Another issue that I want to raise is the quality of service that is being provided by Southeastern. It is utterly appalling. We have had some truly hot weather this week, for the first time this summer, and what has it resulted in? A minor change in the weather for a short time has resulted in major disruption to the service. It seems that no matter what sort of weather we have—whether it is heavy rain, severe cold, a bit of snow, or some hot weather—Southeastern cannot run the trains. We in south-east London do not have direct access to the London underground, and we rely heavily on those rail services to travel to and from central London.

According to a recent survey conducted by Passenger Focus, passenger satisfaction is going down sharply. In autumn 2012, 83% of passengers were satisfied with the service, and punctuality stood at 91.4%; in spring this year, the satisfaction rate was down to 70%, and punctuality stood at 87%. That is just not good enough. According to a Passenger Focus survey of Southeastern passengers, only 53% were satisfied with its services. It was one of the worst performers.

One problem that confronts my constituents is overcrowding. Our platforms have been lengthened to accommodate 12-car trains, but we have yet to see those trains. We know that rolling stock will become available when the Thameslink upgrade has been completed, and that existing rolling stock will be available to Southeastern if the Government give their approval. Let me appeal to the Government again. We have lengthened the platforms, and we have told people that they will have longer trains. We have no underground, we rely heavily on those train services, and we must have that additional rolling stock to improve the quality of the service.

I have only a few moments left, but I want to raise one more issue. I have written to the Minister about a planning application for the site at the Gaelic Athletic Association. The planning inspector has recommended approval, but I urge the Minister not to set such a precedent. There is a viable plan for that sports ground, and we should not be building on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

Scottish football fans will have the choice of the three home nations that have qualified in the championships to support, and I am sorry that on this occasion Scotland did not make it through. However, the question of which matches are shown by which broadcaster is essentially one for the sporting authorities. The limited list applies only to a very restricted number of sporting events, but beyond that it is for each sporting body to decide how best to strike the balance between maximising revenue for their sport and reaching as large an audience as possible.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House will want to wish the teams of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland all the best in the European championships. Football shows us that we have more in common with our European neighbours than divides us, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. That was demonstrated by the singing of the Marseillaise at Wembley in defiant response to the attacks in Paris. In that spirit, will he join me in urging fans to enjoy the tournament peacefully, whether they are travelling to France or watching in the company of their friends at home or in public places, and to assist the police and security services in trying to ensure that we have a safe and secure tournament?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for putting the case as he has done and giving me the opportunity to endorse everything that he says. We look forward to the matches in the championships to come and we wish all the home nations success. I have a second interest in that I drew England in the departmental sweepstake and will be supporting England in their match against Russia, which, sadly, was drawn by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), so she will have torn loyalties. We hope nevertheless that that match and every other match pass peaceably and to the maximum enjoyment of those participating and watching.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Eleven people have put their name down to speak in this debate. The subject is popular—or, depending on your perspective, unpopular. Many people want to speak. I will have to call the Front-Bench speakers at about 10.30 am, so that means approximately four minutes each for everyone else. Since Jim started the debate, people who have put their name down to speak have been bobbing up and down. That is unfair of them, because they can make their points in their four minutes. Perhaps Members will restrict themselves. Those who have not been able to write in to put their name down to speak can intervene to make their points. I ask speakers to be fair to one another, and to restrict their contributions to four minutes or under.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

If it helps, Sir Alan, the Front-Bench speakers will be happy to take 10 minutes to allow Back Benchers more time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)]

I would like to endorse that, Sir Alan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, and I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing it; it is important and has certainly attracted a lot of support on both sides of the House.

I get a feeling of déjà vu when I come to these debates, particularly when I read the briefings from the Association of British Bookmakers—I think I could have written the opening sentence of the one I have here before I even received it. It says:

“There is no objective evidence from either past British Gambling Prevalence surveys or Government Health surveys that problem gambling levels in the UK are rising.”

We ask the question, “Is there a problem with FOBT machines?”, and we get an answer to a completely different question. This has got to stop. That sort of propaganda does the industry no service whatsoever, and it is not fooling anyone.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

No, I will not, because of the time. I have argued consistently that if we are going to move ahead with any restrictions on FOBTs, we need to do so on the basis of evidence. People are calling for a £2 stake, but there is no evidence that that will be any safer than the existing stake.

However, in terms of the issues confronting us—as many hon. Members have said today—this is about location more than anything else. It is about the proximity of these machines to people who may be vulnerable to developing a gambling habit and to falling foul of their propensity to gamble too much by going into a betting shop and losing more money than they can afford to. There is no denying that a high proportion of these machines are in proximity to socially deprived communities, and a disproportionate amount of the money gambled in them comes from people on low incomes.

We hear the figures about the numbers of betting shops and all the rest of it, but it is clear that the trend in betting shops is for more money to come from B2 machines than from over-the-counter betting on horse-racing, dog-racing or football, as more of that sort of betting moves online. The growth in the gross gambling yield from machines has more than covered the decline in over-the-counter betting, with a combined gambling yield in 2014-15 of £3.74 billion, which is higher than in any previous year recorded by the Gambling Commission. The yield from the machines has been higher than that of over-the-counter betting every year since 2011-12 and now represents 54.2% of the combined gross gambling yield. The number of premises has been in decline since March 2014: there were 299 fewer premises on 30 September 2015 than on 31 March 2014. However, the number of B2 machines has increased year on year since records began in 2008-09 and has now reached 34,500.

We have a growing problem in our communities, given the proximity of FOBTs to locations where, I think, they do not belong. Anyone who has been to discuss these machines with me knows I loathe them. I do not think they belong in our high streets, but they are an unintended consequence of the Gambling Act 2005, and they are now there. Many businesses are predicated on the machines being there and if they were to be removed, people would lose their jobs and livelihoods, which is why we must move forward on the basis of evidence.

We are told that there is no problem, or that the problem lies elsewhere, or perhaps that the problem is not getting any worse, so we should not do anything about it—or a combination of all those arguments. However, the number of people in treatment, according to GamCare, is up by 39%, and the number of people who present problems as a result of playing FOBT roulette machines represent 26% of those who are in contact with GamCare. The number of calls from people addicted to FOBTs has gone up by 50% over the last five years.

I accept that there is a growing problem online. For the first time ever, the current figures show that the number of people presenting problems to GamCare from gambling online has increased over the number of people who are presenting problems from machine-related abuse. However, that can be explained by the increase in the number of people who are contacting GamCare and does not show a reduction in the problems from FOBTs. It shows an overall increase of people who are presenting with problems, and we have to address that issue going forward.

The Gambling Commission wrote to the Secretary of State in March 2015 about the conclusions of research carried out by the Responsible Gambling Trust and NatCen Social Research. It was based on people who gamble from accounts, because they can be tracked and their gambling behaviour can be followed. There were some interesting factors: 37% of the number of people who have loyalty cards or gambling accounts said that at some time, they had a problem with machine gambling—so a very high proportion are presenting with a problem.

The Gambling Commission says that the betting industry needs to increase the number of people who have accounts, so that detailed research can be carried out on what is going on with these machines. In the letter, it states:

“Consequently, we recommend encouraging operators to promote account-based play with the aim of increasing uptake significantly. If they succeed, playing anonymously might itself become a useful indicator of risk. If operators fail to make sufficient progress with promoting account-based play, then the case for making it mandatory would need very serious consideration.”

Will the Minister therefore consider, in his next discussions with the betting industry, whether that should be made mandatory? If we are not making any progress, we are just not finding out what the problem is. We have the technology. We can do it and we need to make more progress in this area.

I say to the betting industry, “Make this move before it is forced on you, or you will lose the machines completely.” I think that the time is coming when action on these machines will be forced on the gambling industry. If there is not a problem, let us have the data and the account-based play, so that we can demonstrate that there is no harm.

The time has come to apply the precautionary principle. The betting industry says there is no evidence to prove that the machines are harmful, but there is no evidence to prove that they are not, so we should apply the precautionary principle that if it cannot be proved that they are not harmful, let us remove them until there is proof that they are not. It is time to act. The data are available to the Minister so let us move towards account-based playing of the machines and ensure that we satisfy ourselves that it is safe to have them on our high streets. Otherwise, they should be removed.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister a few questions. The Government are carrying out a review of the £50 stake, which is why the triennial review has been delayed. When will the former be concluded and when will the triennial review of stakes and prizes start? What steps is he taking to investigate money laundering—several hon. Members highlighted that this morning—and whether there is a money laundering problem?

There is concern about late-night betting and the fact that stakes on these machines tend to increase late at night. Should we review the opening hours and the rules that allow live racing from Hong Kong to be played and betting shops to stay open even later so that more people can play these machines? Should we mandate account-based play on these machines? Will the Minister support giving local authorities, once and for all, the powers they are demanding so they can control the proliferation of betting shops in our communities?

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I just said. In 2010, no one could find out who really owned a company in the United Kingdom. From June, we will be publishing a public register of beneficial ownership. What is more, HMRC could not find out who owned a company based in an overseas territory. As a consequence of the agreements we have reached this week, HMRC will be able to do exactly that. That is evidence of the progress that has been made under this Government, and that was not the case under the previous Government.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, we have had lots of honeyed words from the Government about how they are going to deal with this matter. However, is that not belied by the fact that they appointed someone as the executive chair of HMRC who thinks that taxation is “legalised extortion”? Does that not demonstrate the attitude that exists in this Administration?

[Mr Gauke]

It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman seeks to smear a public servant who has served Governments of—[Interruption.] Let me make this point. This is someone who has served Governments of both colours and with whom I have worked extensively over six years. He has been and is determined to do everything he can to ensure that our tax laws are properly enforced and deal with avoidance and evasion. I suggest to anyone who throws around one line from an article written in 1999 that they look at the entire thing, because his argument is about properly addressing tax avoidance by ensuring that we get the law right. It is unfortunate when accusations are thrown around about dedicated, impartial public servants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right that the tax gap in the context of large companies and tax avoidance as a whole have fallen strongly. There is of course always more that we can do, so let me take this opportunity to set out some of those steps.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I stand by the point that he has sought, not for the first time, to attack an impartial, dedicated public servant, who cannot answer back, by selectively quoting an article written in 1999. I have set out to the House the context in which that article was written. It is clear that this is someone who believes that the law should be properly enforced and who has a record over many years of doing precisely that.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he accused me of smearing this individual when I was actually quoting him word for word. He went on to say that tax is legitimised

“only to the extent of the law.”

If the bar is set too low, fewer people will pay tax and more will be able to avoid it. My point—I stick by it—is that this Government’s attitude towards tax avoidance is lax and their words are more honeyed than their actions.

[Mr Gauke]

This is a Government that closes loopholes year in, year out, whose actions led to the OECD work on base erosion and profit shifting, that have given more powers to HMRC, that have seen a significant fall in the tax gap, particularly in the context of avoidance, and that have a proud record on dealing with tax avoidance, tax evasion and with all abuses in the tax system.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

This is a challenge to the judgment of the Chancellor.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

During the Chancellor’s opening speech, we heard him say that the Government have legislated to make £12 billion-worth of savings within the welfare budget. That means that this £4.4 billion attack on PIP was in addition, and it was based neither on social justice nor on compassion. Does that not show that this Government are mean-minded and prepared to attack people who have disabilities? It is not necessary to make these cuts in welfare and they should guarantee that they are not going to return with this cut.

[John McDonnell]

The proposals that came forward did not just shock those on our side of the House; they shocked many Members from across the whole of the House with their brutality.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

No one can pretend that this has been an easy Budget for the Government, but none of them is. Every single one of them is overshadowed by the events of the previous decade, by the deepest recession since the war and by a financial and fiscal crisis in which a large part of our national wealth disappeared in a puff of debt. GDP, productivity and revenue were all decimated. That is what happens when one spends a decade using a credit bubble to inflate the size of government. One day, the income suddenly disappears, but the commitments remain. In 2010, those responsible in the Labour party left government and did so without looking back. In the six years that followed, they have retreated ever further from any sense of responsibility.

It fell to us on the Conservative Benches to put things right: to rebuild an economy on firm foundations, to wrestle down the deficit and to mend the many institutions left in disarray. Financial regulation, educational standards and the housing market—all were broken, and all are being painstakingly restored to working order by this Government. However, every decision we made has been a hard one, because when the gap between the need and the Government’s resources is so wide there are no easy answers. We have not always got them right first time—the least worst option is not always apparent—but this is a Government willing to listen and to respond, while also keeping on track to squeeze out debt, encourage growth, generate jobs and build new homes. On all these fronts, we are moving the country in the right direction, while the Opposition rush headlong to the left. They can go their way, but we will keep on moving forward.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This Government said that they would eradicate the deficit in four years. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when that policy changed? How long does a long-term economic policy last for?

[Greg Clark]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the Budget statement. If he was, he will have seen that the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that we are on track to eliminate the deficit by the end of the Parliament and to have a surplus. He should spend a bit of time talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who might provide the answer to why it has taken some time to reduce the deficit.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I am sorry, but I am going to make some progress so that other hon. Members have a chance to contribute to this important debate.

I am no great expert on businesses—I am taking the evidence that I have seen—but I do listen to the representatives of business organisations. When the Federation of Small Businesses, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Rural Shops Alliance, the Federation of Wholesale Distributors and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents—many of us will have been to their regular receptions here, and expressed solidarity with them and concern about the challenges they face—are all united in saying that this change is bad news for our economy, I take that very seriously, as should other Members.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

I must make some progress.

My concern is that the proposal has not been properly thought through or evidenced. We are in danger of being seen to be responding to the voice of bigger business, rather than the small businesses on our high streets. Indeed, when the nearly unanimous opposition of small businesses is seen in tandem with the fact that nearly a quarter of the large businesses that responded to the Government’s consultation also oppose the proposal, we need to reflect very carefully on the lack of scrutiny in tacking these measures on to the Bill.

Like many other Members, I want to speak up for my high street. When I go back to my constituency, I do not think that the businesses on my high street would say, “Well done. Thank you very much for deregulating and giving more hours to the large shops.” I think that they would say, “Why aren’t you spending more time lowering our business rates, getting better car parking and reducing red tape?” I support the Government in their focus on that, so why are we getting distracted by the claim that the measure will in any way support our high streets?

Several points have been made about shop workers. We cannot ignore the fact that separated parents can face problems, such as if one parent has access rights at the weekend. One shop worker in that situation told me, “As I am separated, I have my children every other weekend. I work every Saturday and one in four Sundays. I often struggle to arrange childcare and fear that this has an effect on my relationship with my children.” We must listen to those voices.

In relation to the opt-outs, I welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to provide additional protections, but we have heard legal advice saying that that might not allay people’s concerns. In fact, despite the additional protections, there is already an issue regarding whether those who are unwilling to work on Sundays will be considered when they apply for a job. Indeed, as we have heard, people are already under an implied pressure to work longer hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate—he used to work closely with me—that I was once the Minister responsible for the high streets. My colleague who is currently the Minister responsible for the high streets and I work with the Future High Streets Forum, and I talk to small businesses all the time.

[Clive Efford]

As someone who has run his own independent retail business, may I tell the Minister that many independent traders have few extra resources? They will be forced to open to compete with the very large stores. What about the lifestyle of those people who would end up working seven days a week in order to try to keep their businesses running?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s comments. After all, his local authority is one that is saying that it wants this power, which he is trying to stop it taking. Labour-run Greenwich wants this power. Those small shops have the ability to open now, and they are in competition with 24-hour, seven-day-a-week internet shopping, including on Sundays. The hon. Gentleman might not realise it, but Amazon is open on a Sunday and it delivers on a Sunday. We want to give the high streets a chance to compete with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak on this matter and to be one of the 70 signatories to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I want to be clear that my party supports the amendment and we will be in the Aye Lobby with the other signatories to ensure that we win the vote tonight. I am quite convinced that we will.

Before becoming a Member in this place, I served as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, as such, have some knowledge of how devolution works. I have been fascinated to see how the Government have energetically sought to make the case for changing Sunday trading rules using the language of devolution.

[Clive Efford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

It has been clear throughout the course of our debate that the Government have not made their case. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State spent two thirds of his speech talking about proposals for Sunday trading that were not even in the Bill, and today the Minister has presented us with proposals to change Sunday trading arrangements without giving us any information, so we are meant to take the Government’s promise on the never-never. This is bad law. Wherever Members stand on this issue, we should not be sending bad law through this House. We should reject the Government’s enticements to support them on something we have not actually seen, support amendment 1, and prevent this change to Sunday trading from happening.

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a previous intervention, the Minister said that my local authority, Greenwich, had asked for this power to be passed to it. That was not correct. My local authority said that if the change is made, it should come to the local authority, not the Mayor of London or the Greater London Authority. How do we get the Government to put the record straight?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation, as he will be keenly aware. His attempted correction is now on the record.