Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

This is now the sixth or seventh time that I have been asked whether we should have a second referendum. I shall just reiterate what I have said on each previous occasion. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we had a vote in 2016 and it had the largest turnout of any electoral event in this country’s history—[Interruption.] He rolls his eyes, but I think that fact is significant. It would be a betrayal of the will of the British people to now go out and say, “We didn’t actually like the answer you gave the first time, so how about a different answer this time?”

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister’s deal—he said the Prime Minister’s deal, not Chequers—would lead to a smaller economy than at present. Will the Government therefore commit to publishing the economic analysis behind what the Chancellor said this morning? Does the Minister not think it odd and wrong for the Government to ask us to vote for a deal that will make the economy smaller and people worse off?

[Mel Stride]

This deal protects the economy over and above the other options and possible outcomes, which is what this House wanted us to assess. We have done that, and this deal is clearly the best option on the table economically. It also delivers on the other elements, including the non-economic ones, that are important to people up and down the country, including intra-EU migration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The report is a welcome step forward, and I note the provision that is made for further steps if the proposed measures do not have an effect. I will be meeting Andrew Bailey tomorrow morning to discuss it further.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Over 1,600 people work at the Jaguar Land Rover engine plant in Wolverhampton, and the car industry has serious concerns about the Government’s plans to leave the customs union. Will the Chancellor guarantee that, when he goes to Chequers later this week, he will only sign up to a customs arrangement that preserves just-in-time manufacturing and integrated European supply chains?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I assure the hon. Lady that on Friday, as I have done consistently for the past two years, I will argue for a future relationship with the European Union that protects our important supply chains, protects British jobs and protects British business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are right at the forefront of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, and of the common reporting standards that are being rolled out at the moment. We have taken further measures in the Budget to consult on the taxation of digitally based companies, particularly in respect of withholding tax on royalties going to zero-tax or low-tax jurisdictions. That consultation will report back in February, and we will take an appropriate decision thereafter.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is embarrassing for the Government that Carillion’s chairman is an adviser to the Prime Minister on corporate responsibility. Given the level of salaries and bonuses awarded to senior management at Carillion, as well as improving the response to corporate tax evasion what will the Government do to ensure better corporate governance in UK companies?

[Mel Stride]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that she needs to check her facts, because the current head of Carillion is not an adviser to the Prime Minister. There was an appointment earlier that was terminated some months ago. As to her general points about corporate governance, this country has among the most robust corporate governance in the world, which is something this Government will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. It is about creating an economic environment in which businesses can grow and thrive. The British economy is strong and will continue to be strong as we prepare for our departure from the EU.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

What would be the impact on SMEs, particularly those in the supply chain of big manufacturing firms such as Jaguar Land Rover or Airbus, if we were to leave the EU without full access to the single market or a free trade deal with the rest of the EU and if we were forced to fall back on World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs?

[Simon Kirby]

The Government have been clear that we will not comment on every turn of the negotiations. Indeed, the negotiations have yet to start. However, we are absolutely committed to getting the best possible deal we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The amount of any money saved will depend on the overall fiscal situation and the broader economic environment. Decisions on spending will be made in the round in autumn statements and Budgets, but while we remain members of the European Union, we must of course comply with the requirements to pay into it.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

May I press the Chief Secretary on this point? On the day of the referendum, I met an NHS worker who had voted to leave the European Union precisely because she thought that more money would be available for the NHS, thanks to the “£350 million a week” that was emblazoned on the Vote Leave bus. When we leave the European Union, will we get that money?

[Mr Gauke]

It is certainly not for me to justify or explain the pledges that were made by the leave campaign, but I will say that public spending decisions must be made in the context of the economic and fiscal situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the Redcar works first closed under the Labour Government that he supported. It is also the case that during that Government, which he supported from the Government Benches, the number of steel jobs lost in this country was 30,000. We are doing everything we can to preserve the steel jobs that remain. We are working with the steel industry. We have acceded to almost all its requests, and we are looking at the last remaining one, which is changes to business rates—again, something that never happened under a Labour Government. We will report on that at the Budget. We are working to make this the competitive place to do business, and if we adopted the policies of the Opposition, where dividends are not paid to investors and flying pickets are reintroduced, do they really think that a single overseas investor, such as Tata Steel, would be expanding their business in the United Kingdom?

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

5. What assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of leaving the EU on UK GDP.

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

The Government are fighting hard to fix aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in the United Kingdom, so that we get a better deal for our country and secure our future. We are confident that the right agreement can be reached.

[Emma Reynolds]

Jaguar Land Rover recently announced that it will double investment in the brand-new engine plant on the outskirts of my constituency, creating hundreds and hundreds of additional jobs on top of the 1,400 already announced. Does the Minister agree that unfettered access to the single market drives this sort of investment and that if we were to walk away or sacrifice that access, those jobs and that investment could well be put at risk?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to open the third day’s debate on the Budget on behalf of the official Opposition. I will focus my remarks on two of the most important long-term challenges that we face as a country: devolution and housing. First, however, I want to make a number of points about the Budget as a whole.

Last week, the Chancellor presented his Budget as a Budget for working people. Regrettably, the grim reality is that millions of hard-working families will be worse off as a result of this Budget. The Chancellor gave with one hand, but took away so much more with the other. Of course, we welcome action to tackle low pay. The minimum wage was, after all, a Labour policy and one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. We first introduced it in the face of fierce Tory opposition. More recently, we campaigned to increase it. Let us be clear about what the Chancellor has actually done. He has not introduced a national living wage; he has attempted to rebrand the national minimum wage. Admittedly he has increased it, but at the same time he has decimated tax credits, leaving 3.3 million families worse off and 500,000 families without any tax credits at all.

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the Chancellor’s claim that the increase in the minimum wage will compensate working people for the changes to tax credits is “arithmetically impossible”. For example, a working couple in full-time employment earning the minimum wage who have two children will earn £1,500 more, but will lose £2,200 as a result of the cuts to tax credits. Far from making work pay, the IFS says that the Government’s changes would

“reduce the incentive for the first earner in a family to enter work”.

In effect, what the Chancellor has done is introduce a work penalty.

As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said last week, the Government are

“pulling the rug from beneath people’s feet while higher wages are not yet available.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 473.]

Young children in the families affected are likely to grow up to become poor adults, which is not only wrong and unfair, but will cost society more in the longer term. Yet again, this Government are hitting women the hardest, with women losing twice as much as men. Yet again, too, this Government are putting more of the burden of clearing the deficit on to the shoulders of young people. The Government seem absolutely determined to deepen and entrench the inequality in our country and the inequality between generations.

[Mr Prisk]

The hon. Lady’s acting leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has made very clear what she thinks about tax credits. Will the hon. Lady be voting in favour or against our reforms tomorrow evening?

[Emma Reynolds]

Let me be absolutely clear. The Budget presented last week is regressive. It hits some of the poorest people in our country the hardest—people on lower incomes who are working hard and doing the right thing. We will vote against the Budget tomorrow, and that is why—because it is regressive and fails all the tests around productivity and all the big decisions on infrastructure that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been ducking for some years.

There were, however, some things in the Budget that we welcome. It seems that the Labour manifesto found its way into the Chancellor’s Red Box. I know the Chancellor likes to wear “high vis”, but I did not know he was into cross-dressing. From increasing the national minimum wage to abolishing permanent non-dom status and reducing tax relief for landlords, the Chancellor seems to be a late convert to Labour party policy. The overall test of the Budget, however, is whether it benefits working people and meets the long-term challenges facing our country. It is clear that working families up and down the country will be worse off, but let me now turn to the long-term challenges we face.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that even with the changes to working tax credits, they will still be higher as a proportion of gross domestic product at the end of this process than during any period of the Labour Government prior to 2004, and that at that stage there was no commitment to a national living wage?

[Emma Reynolds]

I say to those on the Government Benches that they are simply out of touch with the lives of working people up and down this country. Of course we want an economy in which people are highly paid and highly skilled, but the course towards such an economy has to be charted before the support is cut off.

Let us deal with the crucial issue of devolution. We urgently need to rebalance our economy to drive growth and prosperity in all parts of the country. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. London dominates our economy, and its growth surpasses that in all of our major cities, which is not the case in either Germany or France where other cities beyond Berlin and Paris are true engines of economic growth. I agree with what the Chancellor said last week—that we will not achieve a better settlement by pulling London down. We should be proud of the dynamism and success of our capital city—and long may it continue. We must, however, reverse the long tradition of British politicians of all parties and of civil servants who have hoarded power in Whitehall and failed to trust local government.

There is a huge political and economic imperative to devolve power as close as possible to local communities. As ever, the Chancellor’s Budget speech on devolution was heavy on rhetoric, but rather light on substance. This Government boast about bringing about a “northern powerhouse”, but their rhetoric rings hollow, given that no part of the country has faced bigger cuts to local authority budgets over the last five years than those in the north of England. Indeed, the shelving of the electrification of the Manchester to Leeds trans-Pennine railway means that the Government’s plans are closer to a power cut than a powerhouse. We need a settlement for every part of the north, but as one of my hon. Friends pointed out to the Secretary of State earlier, there was barely a mention of the north-east in the hour-long Budget statement or in the 123 pages of the Red Book.

Ahead of the Budget, we know that there were briefings about which deals would be announced, and we know that the Secretary of State did what some might call a frenetic round of local government speed-dating during the Local Government Association conference two weeks ago. We welcome, for instance, the extra powers that the Government are planning to devolve to Greater Manchester. We also welcome the progress that three combined authorities—Sheffield city region, Liverpool city region and Leeds, West Yorkshire and partner authorities—are making towards a devolution deal, and the progress that Cornwall is making. As a Wolverhampton MP, I particularly congratulate the leaders of the local authorities that are working so hard to create the West Midlands combined authority. We are proud of the fact that Labour leaders in local government are making the weather on devolution.

While we welcome that progress, we also believe that the Government should not impose a one-size-fits-all approach to devolution, and should stop putting obstacles in the way. In his first major speech after the election, the Chancellor said that he would not impose the mayoral model on anyone, but in the very same breath he said that he would not settle for anything less. Why are the Government running scared of letting local people decide, and when will they clarify exactly what different areas and combined authorities can expect to achieve from devolution if they do not opt for a mayor?

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Lady has a good memory. Does she recall regional spatial strategies? What were they but an imposed one-size-fits-all policy from above? Has she forgotten that so quickly?

[Emma Reynolds]

It seems from the details of the Government’s productivity plan, which were published on Friday, that the hon. Gentleman’s party is introducing a nationalised spatial strategy.

Our amendment to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is being debated in the other place today, would ensure that areas that did not want a mayor would not get a second-class deal. A Labour amendment that was passed in the other place earlier this afternoon proposes the introduction of a “devolution by default” test for every new Bill that the Government introduce to Parliament. If the Government did not push down as much power as possible to local level, they would have to give and justify their reasons. I hope that they will agree to retain that new provision, because it will be a test of their commitment to devolution.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Like my hon. Friend, I strongly support the devolution of powers to Greater Manchester, but does she agree that not just devolution to the strategic city-wide level but devolution to the local level is crucial, given that many authorities in Greater Manchester are now struggling to deliver basic services?

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. When we were in office we devolved power to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but I know from our colleagues in Scotland that they are very disappointed that there has not been much devolution from the Scottish Parliament downwards. As my hon. Friend says, if we are devolving to combined authorities, we need to ensure that there is real devolution to communities as well.

The Budget also reinforced the Government’s piecemeal approach to devolution. We are calling on them to deliver a more ambitious and comprehensive devolution agenda to every part of the country—to all our cities, towns and counties. Doing a small number of one-off deals is not a one nation approach.

This Secretary of State is certainly better liked than his predecessor—[Interruption.] I accept that it is not a particularly high bar. It remains to be seen, however, whether he will live up to the reputation that he is trying to forge for himself. We hope that he will fight the corner of local government, but we will judge him on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in the autumn, on the settlement that he achieves for local government, particularly in areas of high need, and, crucially, on the impact that any settlement will have on the vital public services on which people rely. Local government areas where more children are in care, where there are more vulnerable elderly people and where the needs of the local population are more complex and difficult are the areas where the Government have made the deepest cuts in the last five years. Let me say this to the Secretary of State: he cannot champion local government if he is impoverishing it at the same time. Devolution must not be a smokescreen to bring local government to its knees.

Housing is the other long-term challenge with which I want to deal. In our first debate in this House since the election I said to the Secretary of State, when debating the Queen’s Speech, that tackling the housing crisis was a key test for him and his Government. He agreed; he said it was an “issue of huge importance” and that this Government would

“build more homes in every part of the country”—[Official Report, 10 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1231.]

He even invoked the spirit of Harold Macmillan, but last week the Chancellor delivered a Budget that contained no proposal to tackle the housing crisis. Worse still—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. Worse still, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the Budget would lead to 14,000 fewer affordable homes being built, which is contrary to what the Secretary of State said today. His desire to emulate Harold Macmillan appears to have been rather short-lived. If he thought that private house builders would compensate for his Government’s policies, he was mistaken, because the OBR says that it does

“not expect private sector house-builders to offset this effect to any material degree.”

Then there was the Government’s so-called pay-to-stay measure. I was interested to read that the Prime Minister had reservations about these proposals because he was not sure of the wisdom of describing people earning £30,000 as high earners. Indeed, these proposals would mean that a couple working full-time on the living wage would be classified as high earners, with a combined income of just over £30,000 a year. We have not seen the details of these proposals yet, but that couple could have to pay, on average, an additional £3,600 a year according to the Government’s own figures. Those who secure a promotion or more hours could thus be hit by this measure.

[Mr Betts]

The details of this new measure are going to be interesting. Either we are going to have a cliff-edge where people suddenly start paying a lot more rent because they have earned a little more money, or we are going to have to bring in a taper system, which is another form of taxation. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will have a system whereby local authorities are in effect going to have to know the incomes of every single tenant so they can check when people go over this threshold? A massive bureaucracy will have to be created simply to implement this very small measure.

[Emma Reynolds]

Indeed, and the Government introduced a similar measure in the last Parliament, but the threshold was £60,000 a year. In their consultation on those changes, the Government said that putting the threshold below £60,000 a year would result in “perverse incentives” and a “disincentive to work”. Why have they suddenly changed their mind, and why was there no mention in the Red Book of the Government’s plan to extend the right to buy? Once again, it fell to the OBR to mention what the Government were not prepared to refer to. It warned that the policy risked adding £60 billion to public debt.

We welcome some measures—for example, the raising of the rent-a-room relief and the tackling of some of the over-generous tax reliefs for private landlords which help to squeeze out first-time buyers—but they are not going to end the housing crisis. Last week the Chancellor and the Business Secretary were busy announcing planning reforms, which unless I have missed something are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. While the Chancellor was plundering the Labour manifesto, the Business Secretary appears to have been pillaging Labour’s housing review. We welcome the following, given that these were our policies anyway: tougher measures to ensure that local areas have a local plan; strengthening the Government’s duty to co-operate; reform of compulsory purchase powers; and a new dispute mechanism for section 106 agreements. But these were only some elements of our Lyons housing review, which is a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis—something that this Government are sorely lacking. Sadly, one thing the Government are not taking forward is Labour’s commitment to zero-carbon homes. Pulling the plug on this policy will damage the house building industry, cost jobs and investment and mean higher energy bills for consumers, and I am wondering how on earth they can justify it.

The Government’s wider proposals announced on Friday also raise a number of questions. We welcome plans to build homes on brownfield sites, but if the Government were serious about building on brownfield why did they withdraw five years ago some of the investment and neighbourhood renewal fund which helped towards the costs of remediating polluted land—a fund that we put in place in our time in government? If brownfield sites are to get automatic planning permission, how will the Government ensure that local communities continue to have a say, that there is sufficient infrastructure for the plans to be delivered, that the quality of new homes is guaranteed, and that section 106 agreements are applied to ensure that developers fulfil affordable homes obligations? Given that a move to a zoning system represents a significant change to the planning system, will the national planning policy framework have to be amended? Will it perhaps be more accurately renamed the “national planning system”? It seems curious that the Conservative party spent so much time and energy attacking Labour’s spatial strategies in the name of localism, yet now appears to be nationalising planning. I cannot keep up with the Secretary of State: is he trying to be Macmillan or Lenin? I know the Secretary of State has been on a political journey from the Social Democratic party to the Conservative party, but this journey is rather unbelievable.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is it still Labour party policy to re-establish the regional development agency, which inflicted the regional spatial strategies on my constituents and many others?

[Emma Reynolds]

We support the local plans. It seemed that the Minister for Housing and Planning was not that bothered about them—I remember an interview he did with Inside Housing in which he said it was not that important whether local areas had local plans—but the Government seem to have done an about-turn on that as I received a nice letter from him today, spelling out how important the local plan process is.

We think it is important for local people to have a say over what goes on in their areas. We have big questions about the Government’s proposals, which we have only just seen and on which we would like more detail. How will the Government still ensure that local people have that say? How will they ensure that local infrastructure is delivered? And how will they ensure that affordable homes are also delivered on some of these sites? Those are serious questions, we would welcome answers to them and we would like to see more details of the proposals that the Government put forward on Friday.

We are facing the biggest housing crisis in a generation. In England, we are building only half the homes we need. I know we have heard from the Mayor of London—perhaps I should call him the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—but in London we are building only one third of the homes we need. We have had the lowest level of home ownership for 30 years under a Government who claim to be a party of home ownership. The Government urgently need to get a grip of this problem. The result of their Budget will be £60 billion of public sector debt added because of their changes and 14,000 fewer affordable homes, according to the OBR. That is hardly a record worthy of Macmillan.

In conclusion, this should have been a Budget to support working people.

[Emily Thornberry]

What does my hon. Friend think of the fact that the housing benefit bill has gone up by 60% and that we are talking about working people here, 98% of whom are tenants in the private rented sector? We continue to have an unsustainable housing benefit bill because of the rise in private sector rents.

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In this area, we spend a lot of government money—95%—on housing benefit, and only 5% on bricks and mortar and building affordable homes. That clearly is not a sustainable or wise use of public funds. The way to bring the housing benefit bill down is by tackling the underlying drivers of low pay and high housing costs, but this Government are tackling neither.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I was back in my constituency this week, where I had long talks with people from my local council. They told me that in just the past year 778 new council houses have been built. That is the highest number of council houses built since the mid-1990s and it is far more than were built under Labour—and 29% of them are affordable.

[Emma Reynolds]

It is wonderful that the hon. Lady has been visiting her constituency—I was in mine, too. Since the reforms of the housing revenue account were brought forward—the last Labour Government proposed them but, to be fair, they were carried on by this Government in the last Parliament—Labour councils have been outbuilding Tory councils quite considerably.

[Boris Johnson]

The reality is, as I am sure the hon. Lady would acknowledge, that the Conservative Government are now solving a crisis that was caused by Labour. Does she accept that when the Labour Government left office in 2010 there were a net 200,000 fewer affordable homes in this country than when they began?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I will not take lectures from somebody who believes that 80% of market rent is affordable for people in London, or from somebody who calls in planning applications, such as the one for Mount Pleasant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), to drive down, not up, the number of affordable homes. That is not what I call a good record on affordable homes.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Having visited my constituency, my hon. Friend knows that one thing the local authorities are doing is investing in our social housing and ensuring that it is of a decent standard. Does she share the consternation of the chief executive of my local arm’s length management organisation, Nottingham City Homes, who notes that the reduction in social rents will lead to a reduction in investment and a failure to invest in the housing standards that tenants would like?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As we have so many Members who wish to speak, we need short interventions.

[Emma Reynolds]

We will look at those proposals in detail. As for what my hon. Friend has just said, we need to ensure that social housing providers are in a position to build more homes. We want housing associations and councils to build more homes, as there is, I think we can all agree, an acute shortage of affordable housing in this country. We also need to ensure that housing associations have the funding mechanisms in place to continue to invest in their stock. One of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government was the decent homes programme. Those homes were refurbished some 10 to 15 years ago, and there is a continual process of investing in the existing stock.

In conclusion, this Budget should have been about supporting working people and those who want to get on, rather than about punishing hard work. It should have been about tackling the long-term challenges facing our country—the productivity challenge, the balance of payments deficit, the housing crisis, the devolution agenda and so much more. Instead, this is a Budget that will hit hard-working people on low incomes, families with children, women and young people. It is a Budget that the OBR says will result in fewer homes, not more. It is a Budget that was more about politics than economics. It is more about the short-term needs of one man whose real mission is to move next door and take over the keys to No.10, rather than the long-term needs of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

Not at all. As there are probably something in the order of 230-plus different views, we could not cover them all in time. It is also rather remarkable that the Opposition have adopted an entirely different stance to elected mayors from that which I remember when I was the leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly and facing the first ever elected mayor in this country—the first Mayor of London. I am glad to say that things have improved since then. As some may remember, the office of Mayor of London came into being as a result of legislation introduced by the Labour party. It comes back to the same trope. Why does the Labour party now regard any elected mayor as anathema? Because it was an idea of Tony Blair’s, and must therefore be cast into utter darkness.

I find it truly bizarre that a normally thoughtful party that wants to talk about devolution objects to the opportunity to take up city deal models with an elected mayor. The idea has not been forced upon Labour; it is Labour’s choice whether to have it or not. It was Labour that imposed more central control over local government, not just in planning, not just in terms of whether there could be a committee structure or not, not just in terms of whether a very strict and rigid standards regime was imposed, not just in terms of the comprehensive area assessment, not just in terms of planning policy, and not just in terms of financial policy and the cap. After all that, Labour had the gall to complain about an offer—take it or leave it—put forward by my right hon. Friend.

[Emma Reynolds]

I always enjoy debating with the hon. Gentleman. To clarify, we are not anti-mayor. We believe that local areas and local communities should have a say over whether they have a mayor or not. We are in favour of true localism, not imposing structures on people.

[Robert Neill]

That is useful and I regard it as a step forward. I hope the hon. Lady is able to remain in place after the leadership election. Let me explain why. With all respect to her, being on the campaign team of a Blairite in the Labour leadership election probably makes the prospects of the ostrich pretty good in terms of species survival, so I wish her well for the future.

The Labour party has ducked the real issue, which is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have offered genuine devolution of power to local authorities. The issue is not so much about the badge on the top of the tin, although there is a good reason for a single focal point in city areas. It is hugely important to remember that we have offered that to Cornwall too, and we are starting to see the good work of city deals rolled out to the shire counties. That should be applauded. The ability to join up adult social care, one of the principal cost pressures on top tier authorities, with the health service should be applauded by everybody in the House, not greeted with the rather curmudgeonly response that has come from Opposition Members.

Consumer Rights Bill

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

I would like to speak to new clauses 13 and 22, and make a small reference to new clauses 18 to 21.

New clause 13 was explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as being a matter of consumer choice. I have a huge degree of sympathy with that, but I will explain why I cannot support him today. We should all know exactly what we are eating. We should have a good deal of information about how animals have lived and died. I have major concerns that Europe does not have the same high standards of animal welfare that we have in this country, yet we import meat from those animals that have been raised with living standards we do not find acceptable and have outlawed, such as farrowing pens for pigs.

Briefing from the Eurogroup for Animals, published in 2011, gives some interesting information about European standards of animal husbandry and, indeed, animal slaughter—much of the meat involved enters our own food chain—and makes it clear that many of us should be very concerned about those issues. That organisation opposes the slaughter of all animals without their being stunned beforehand. The briefing states:

“In 2010, the European Commission requested from Member States official data regarding numbers of animals ritually slaughtered within their territory.”

Unfortunately, there was a real lack of data. According to the briefing,

“most of the countries do not have reliable figures available as no traceability exists to differentiate between animals”

when it comes to how they have been slaughtered. Of course, I am concerned about how they have lived as well. There is also a significant over-slaughtering of animals for halal and kosher meat within the food chain to allow for the amount of demand that might arise in countries that import such meat, which means that there is no way of showing what happens to animals that have been killed in that way and where they end up in the food chain.

This is indeed a labelling issue, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that, according to some of the information that has been gleaned through the examination of people who do not wish animals to be killed without being stunned, it is almost impossible to trace the meat involved, and that without Europe-wide traceability, his proposal will be totally unenforceable. I appreciate that many consumers would like to know how the animals were treated, where and in what conditions they were raised, the extent of the confinement in which they were placed, and how they were slaughtered. While I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments—I, too, believe that consumers should know exactly what they are purchasing—I therefore cannot support his new clause.

Let me now say something about the tenancy issues that have been raised. I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley a great deal, because he talks a lot of good sense, and his heart is often in the right place. However, I believe that if we put all the onus on landlords when it comes to any fees associated with the checking of tenants—they often have to be checked now because of the rules on residency, which govern whether they have the right to rent in this country—those fees will go into the chain, and other ways will be found to put up rents. I cannot believe that the Labour party wants that to happen.

A small letting agency in St Albans, which contacted me about the Labour party’s proposal, is deeply unhappy about it. Given that the agency provides a service enabling people to go into its office, choose from the properties that are advertised, be shown round and so on, why should a fee not be incurred for the benefit that the potential tenant enjoys? The landlord may enjoy a different benefit in the form of the checking of the tenants; the benefits are not always exactly the same.

I suggest that the Government should be extremely cautious before accepting any blandishments from the Labour party, which constantly tries to impose all the cost on businesses. We, as consumers, also want a degree of protection.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I am afraid that this is a very short debate.

Part of those fees go towards ensuring that there is a market for people who want a good choice of tenanted properties that they can go and look at.

Let me now add my few words to the extensive debate about tickets. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made a very good point about touts who would potentially sell tickets back. That is a flaw, but I have a huge amount of sympathy with those who have bought a ticket that cannot be used for some reason. I do not see how it can be wrong to sell that ticket on, as I might sell on anything else that I might have purchased. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made the valid point that if a major company selling tickets en bloc wants to try to stop the practice, it should be working with the Government for that purpose.

I do not wish us to outlaw the selling on of tickets that people may have purchased quite rightfully and of which they then wish to dispose. I feel that that would creep into other areas and start applying to people who buy the latest thing from Kate Moss At Topshop, the latest pair of trainers or the latest toy, and then choose to sell it on. I think that that is a slippery slope, and I do not wish to go down it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his assessment. He failed to say that the 13% collapse in manufacturing happened during the last three years of the previous Government. In the first three years of this Government, it has recovered. He mentioned the regional growth fund—paying tribute, I assume, to another successful intervention, which has helped firms such as JLR and will help others, including in the east midlands.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

16. What recent progress has been made on implementation of the national infrastructure plan.

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

The Government will invest £300 billion over the next Parliament on infrastructure projects, including a pipeline worth more than £100 billion, and covering investment in transport, schools, science, housing and flood defences.

[Emma Reynolds]

Since the Government took office, tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the construction sector. I am deeply concerned that more than 80% of the Treasury’s infrastructure projects have not yet even started. Can the Minister explain to the House why there has been such a delay and what he will do to kick-start the process?

[Sajid Javid]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady did not mention the Armitt review, which was set up by the shadow Chancellor. Perhaps it is because Mr Armitt concluded that there was an economic crisis when this Government took office and she does not want to draw attention to it. However, she will be reassured to know that the Government take infrastructure investment very seriously. It is a top priority, which is why public investment under this Government is higher in each year of this Parliament than under the previous Government’s plans, as well as being higher as a percentage of national income.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

10. If he will use the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum for the purpose of building affordable homes over the next two years.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

11. If he will use the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum for the purpose of building affordable homes over the next two years.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

12. If he will use the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum for the purpose of building affordable homes over the next two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I recognise the concerns that the hon. Lady and other MPs have about the provision of housing in their own constituencies, and that is precisely why, on 6 September, we announced, among other things, the availability of up to £10 billion of Government guarantees for housing associations—precisely to enable them to build more affordable housing.

[Emma Reynolds]

In the last quarter, there was a 2.5% contraction in the construction sector, and since the Government came to power 119,000 construction jobs have been lost. Why, therefore, do the Government not take their own advice, cut through the dither, sell off 4G, and use the money to construct 100,000 affordable homes and create 150,000 jobs?

[Danny Alexander]

The Department is getting on with the sale of 4G as quickly as possible, but the hon. Lady should be a bit wary about the policy she is promoting. For a start, it is based on assuming that we continue with the Government’s affordable rent policy, which her colleagues oppose, but without it the costs would be a great deal greater. Also, I think she is proposing to reverse the £600 million investment in science policy, which we have already committed to from this fund.