Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Government would do well to listen to the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I think was in that role for nine years, particularly about how we should better protect and better care about precious taxpayers’ money, which seems to be frittered away willy-nilly by politicians across the House—that is not a party political point.

I am conflicted. On the face of it, this seems like such an obvious thing to do. At face value, the Bill seems to be one of those where we think, “How on earth could anyone object to a Minister having to bring forward a cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment for any legislation they introduce?” But I am not sure that it is quite as simple as that. I will try to explain why and give some examples.

We have heard some examples, which are all interesting case studies about the pros and cons of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is proposing, and perhaps some of the reasons why, even if it were introduced, it would end up being completely pointless and meaningless and serve no purpose at all. The first example is about covid, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). She was right to do so, and it is good for my welfare to say that she was absolutely right in everything she said—I would not dream of saying otherwise. It was astonishing that the Government not only did not do a cost-benefit analysis of the most draconian restrictions on our freedoms that anyone can remember, but freely admitted that they had not done so. They looked at any Member of Parliament who asked for a cost-benefit analysis as if they had three heads—as if that was the most ridiculous thing in the world to ask for. Of course they should have done a cost-benefit analysis. Had they done so, with an impact assessment, they certainly would not have concluded that locking down the country for two years would be a good thing to do, not only because of the effect of locking down schools on children’s education, mental health and all the rest of it, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned, but because of the impact on the economy.

All the problems that we have seen in the economy since the pandemic have been because of the lockdown. The consequences of lockdown, and of coming out of it, are the main reasons why we have such high inflation. All of that was easily predictable, but neither the Government nor the Opposition seemed interested in what might come afterwards. Nobody could see beyond the end of their noses. That is basically the issue: nobody was prepared even to have the debate about what long-term impact the lockdown would have on the economy, on people’s finances, on NHS waiting times—the list goes on. Nobody was interested. Anybody who raised those concerns—even worse, some of us voted against the restrictions and lockdowns—was vilified for doing so. Everything that we predicted has come to pass, but Ministers were not interested.

It is even worse in many respects. The so-called experts on whom the Government were relying, who modelled how many people would die if we did not have lockdowns, and came out with all that absolute tripe at the time, have been giving evidence to the covid inquiry. It seems from what has been said that, in all that modelling, they did not even take into account how Government advice would change people’s behaviour without the need to introduce a law to force that change. They had not even looked at that. How on earth can we get to the point where supposedly intelligent experts did not even consider the impact on people’s behaviour of the Government saying, “We will not introduce any laws, but we think you should avoid close contact with elderly people and keep a two-metre distance”? In that sense, of course it would be right for the Government to conduct robust cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments when they come to decisions. We might hope that, if they did so, they would not come up with such ridiculous decisions as locking down the country for two years.

That also lies at the heart of my reservations about the Bill, which I relayed in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch when I asked whether, if a Government introduced a cost-benefit analysis and the cost was seen to outweigh the benefit, they would therefore be obliged not to bring forward that measure. My hon. Friend said that, no, they would still be free to bring forward that measure and it would be up to Members of Parliament to take that analysis into account. Somewhere therein lies the flaw in my hon. Friend’s plan, for a number of reasons that I will touch on.

The first is that, based on my covid analysis, the cost-benefit analysis would presumably have been done by the so-called experts, but they would not even have taken some costs into account anyway. Their cost-benefit analysis would not even have factored in whether or not the Government just advising people to do something would have changed behaviour—they had not thought about that—so how on earth could they be involved in a cost-benefit analysis? It would have been flawed in that sense. How much trust could we put in it? I do not really know. I think that my hon. Friend is, in effect, placing greater confidence in cost-benefit analyses than perhaps they deserve. He seems to be hanging his hat on them.

[Esther McVey]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I had better.

[Esther McVey]

Surely, if a cost-benefit analysis came forward in one way or another and was scrutinised on the Floor of the House, people could probe it and point out the failures within it. Without one, there is no opportunity to do even that. Would it not at least be a step in the right direction to make sure there is an impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis, because at least then we could have debated those for lockdown on the Floor of the House?

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I am not entirely sure that that necessarily follows, and I will give another example as to why.

I should say in passing that I cannot for the life of me understand why any Minister would not want to do a cost-benefit analysis of any proposal they were bringing forward. It seems to me extraordinary that a Minister would want to bring forward a proposal and not say, “Can somebody do a cost-benefit analysis of this, or an impact assessment?” Why on earth they would not want to do that Lord only knows, but that is a slightly different point. My point is this: what benefit does it have for the decision-making process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The Minister makes a fair point. Perhaps it is one of the reasons that I am perhaps not quite as persuaded as I would normally be by one of the Bills from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I want to come back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.

[Esther McVey]

I am not sure whether I could have intervened on the Minister there, but there should have been a cost-benefit analysis of industrial action, so that the public knew exactly how detrimental those strikes were, particularly on the railways, with the drop in productivity of the whole country. I do not agree that there are times when we should not do a cost-benefit analysis.

[Philip Davies]

If I have to choose between the Minister and my wife, I know who I am going to agree with, and the Minister is on a loser here. Unusually for me, there might be a compromise option, which is that a cost-benefit analysis should be done, but it may not necessarily need to be done before the original decision is made. Perhaps that could be a fair compromise and be considered subsequently.

I want to come back to the reason why what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said earlier might not flow, though it logically should. She said that if we have a cost-benefit analysis, MPs can scrutinise things and make sensible decisions on whatever. I guess in an ideal world that would happen, but it seems to me that in the real world that does not happen. The House should not just take my word for it, because it did not happen during the passing of the Climate Change Act 2008.

As I touched on briefly in my intervention, when the Labour Government brought forward the Climate Change Bill, they did a cost-benefit analysis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have urged them to do. These were not meaningless numbers—we were talking serious money, and literally hundreds of billions of pounds were in the credit and debit columns on this cost-benefit analysis. It was not one with a few hundred thousand here or a few million there.

The Labour Government at the time brought forward the Climate Change Bill with a cost-benefit analysis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have wanted. The original impact assessment showed that the potential costs of introducing the Climate Change Bill were almost twice the maximum benefits, as calculated by the Government who were bringing forward the legislation. One would think that when a Government bring forward a Bill where the potential costs are twice as high as the maximum benefits, Members of Parliament would be fighting over themselves to vote it down. How on earth could anybody support such a ridiculous notion, let alone why a Government would bring forward such a Bill? However, on Second Reading just five MPs voted against it, when a cost-benefit analysis showed it was a non-starter.

What then happened was that Lord Lilley—at that time he was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden—kicked up a fuss. I must add that during the passage of the Bill the potential cost barely came up—none of the Front Benchers from any party raised the cost, even though it was going to be hundreds of billions of pounds. However, Lord Lilley seized on the fact that the costs were twice the benefits and asked how on earth that could be, so the Government went away with a flea in their ear. But—would you believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker?—they came back having recalculated the cost-benefit analysis and having discovered hundreds of billions of pounds of new benefits that they had not identified when the Bill started its passage through this place. It was miraculous that they found hundreds of billions of pounds of benefits that they had not even thought about.

Either we should believe they were utterly incompetent and had not fully thought through the implications of their Bill before they brought it forward, or, if we are more cynical—I probably fall into that camp—we might believe they redid the figures and came back with some dodgy figures to make it look as if the Bill had a greater benefit than cost.

I am not sure the Bill succeeds on any level. The Climate Change Act 2008 showed me two things. First, the Government will come back with any figures they want just to prove there is a bigger benefit than cost, even if that is dubious, to say the least. Secondly, Members of Parliament are not even interested in cost-benefit analysis. If they were, more than five of us would have voted against the Bill on Second Reading. I am not being funny, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if you go into the voting Lobby and ask people what we are voting on, half the time they do not know, let alone know the cost-benefit analysis of what they are voting on, so I am not sure that a cost-benefit analysis would serve the purpose that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch thinks it would. Therefore, I think the Climate Change Act 2008 represents an argument against his Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was absolutely right to mention a third Bill, which was about HS2. Everybody has known for years that HS2 was a catastrophic waste of money that was not even intended to benefit the north. History has been rewritten to say that it was going to be some great thing to benefit the north. The last Labour Government envisaged HS2 in order to try to reduce short-haul flights from Leeds Bradford and Manchester airports to Heathrow. It was never intended to benefit the north—that was not the purpose of HS2. History was rewritten and if we listen to Andy Burnham it was going to be the saviour of the north. What an absolute load of tripe. The cost went up and up. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, it went from £37 billion until it eventually got to £180 billion, and pretty much all the people who were arguing for it when it was £37 billion were still arguing for it when it was £180 billion.

In many regards, the only person to have a sensible approach to HS2, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, has been the Prime Minister. He said, not unreasonably, that he supported HS2 when the cost was £37 billion, but he could not support it when the cost reached £180 billion. That is a sensible decision for somebody to make, having looked at a cost-benefit analysis. The Leader of the Opposition will not be interested in a cost-benefit analysis—he opposed HS2 when it was £37 billion and supported it when it was £180 billion. How on earth are we expected to make sense of that? The decision making is absolutely ludicrous.

Politicians do not tend to make logical or financially sensible decisions; they make political decisions. They are not really interested in the cost-benefit analysis. They are interested in what it might look like in a headline in a paper, or in a campaign in a by-election. In many respects, the reason why HS2 goes against what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve here is that actually the Government had done a cost-benefit analysis of HS2. They just kept it quiet, because it did not deliver what people wanted it to deliver. Andrew Gilligan, who was the transport adviser when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, revealed that, even before the latest increase in cost, the Treasury’s cost-benefit analysis had shown that for every pound spent on HS2, it would deliver only a 90p return. Although that was the Government’s official cost-benefit analysis, they were still pressing ahead with it at the time, until the costs became even more astronomical.

Although my hon. Friend is right that cost-benefit analyses should be at the forefront of decision making by Government and by Members of Parliament when they are scrutinising legislation, I just wonder, really and truly, how often people care that much about it. I can only conclude that they do not really care that much at all.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

2nd reading
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to oppose the Bill, which is highly contentious, especially for my constituents in Tatton. The Minister will be well aware of my long-standing opposition to this white elephant. In fact, it will come as no surprise when I say that I would like nothing more than for this project to be consigned to the history books where it belongs. It was conceived by the Labour lord, Lord Adonis, back in 2004, which is so long ago to a world that has moved on significantly. Since covid and lockdown, people no longer need to travel hundreds of miles for a meeting when they can do it online, saving both money and time.

HS2 has had a bumpy ride. What was the justification? What was its purpose? When it was devised in 2004, it was about an alternative to airport expansion; it was to connect regional airports to Heathrow. When that case fell, it became all about speed—hence High Speed 2. In fact, in Tatton it is now known as “Low Speed, High Cost”. When that reason fell, it was all about capacity; capacity was what we needed. Now it seems to have moved on from that to job creation. As one business case falls, another is seized on. If it is about job creation, I remind the Minister that we have 1.3 million job vacancies in this country at the moment. Where will we get that workforce from? Let us hear no more justifications for this project. What we need instead is reliable, digital infrastructure and 1 gigabit capability—which would benefit everyone, everywhere—along with better local transport links and an east-west line across the north of England. That would do significantly more for the levelling-up agenda than this out-of-date project.

As a constituent wrote to me only the other week when I asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions—he wrote to me and the Prime Minister—HS2 is nothing other than “political virtue signalling” and it has totally lost its cause and purpose. If something costed at £150 billion has such a great business case, can we have sight of that business case? The cost is breath taking. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the Minister said that she and fellow Ministers were keeping a close eye on cost, so let me remind them that the cost, which started off as £37.5 billion, is now up to £150 billion and continues to rise. I am not sure how closely their eyes are on that cost.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting my intervention on the Minister. Does she agree that given that the Minister said in her opening remarks that there was not a blank cheque for HS2, it would be helpful if the Minister who winds up told us what the cost of HS2 would have to reach before the Government scrap it altogether?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. With the pressures on steel and raw materials and rising inflation, the cost is set to soar further. I reiterate his question: is there a price at which HS2 is no longer seen as value for money by the Government, or are they prepared to build it irrespective of cost? If that is the case, for Conservatives who believe in value for money, it is an unjustifiable extravagance and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

A recent petition saw 155,000 people calling for HS2 to be scrapped, and more than 2,000 of the signatories were from across Tatton—the highest number from any constituency opposing phase 2b of the line. I must pay tribute to the excellent work of people and groups in Tatton, including Ashley parish council, Lach Dennis and Lostock Green parish council, Mid Cheshire Against HS2 and geologist Ros Todhunter. They have worked tirelessly to unearth the shortcomings of HS2 with regard to the fundamental concept of the line and its business case.

Ros Todhunter is an expert in her field and made clear the impact that the line will have on the area, given its complex geography. She has provided Ministers and HS2 with high-level technical reports that explain some of the real difficulties that such a line would pose for the area and for the project; the land is unstable with sinkholes and salt mines, yet the Government continue to push ahead.

The line will cause huge devastation across Cheshire, as documented by Mid Cheshire Against HS2, which has described it as a running scar from Crewe to Manchester. It has calculated that, across Cheshire, HS2 will irreparably damage five internationally protected wildlife sites, 639 local wildlife sites, 108 ancient woodlands and 33 legally protected scientific sites. Although the Minister talks about new trees being planted, I am sure that we can all see the difference between saplings and ancient woodland.

We need to dispel the myth that the Department is touting some kind of carbon zero travel of the future. Its figures show that only 1% of travellers will switch from planes to rail, and only 4% will switch from cars to rail, yet the construction of the line alone will add 1.5 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere and HS2 will still produce a net increase in carbon emissions 120 years on. I was also curious about how much energy will be needed to power HS2. A former National Grid electrical engineer told me that the power needed per year would be a third of what Hinkley Point produces. As we have all become aware of energy, its cost and where we will get it from, Ministers should pause and think about that.

I must also mention the suffering that many constituents have faced—some have been dealing with this for 12 years. Their properties have been and remain under threat. Many will be hugely affected but do not qualify for any compensation. They have nowhere to move to and they cannot sell their homes. Other constituents have been in conversation with HS2 to try to negotiate terms for their property or for mitigating issues, but I am afraid that they have got nowhere. They describe it as like talking to a brick wall. HS2 Ltd has been a particularly difficult organisation for people to engage with, as the Prime Minister acknowledged in February 2020 when he suggested that it would not be the delivery body for phase 2b. Here we are today, however: it is still representing, so my constituents are still dealing with it and suffering.

For many of us, this trainline has run out of track. The best thing for the project would be to put it out of its misery and scrap it altogether, but if the Government are determined to press on regardless, there are certain things that absolutely need to be done for my constituency and my constituents. As has been mentioned, my constituents need to know the exact location of Manchester airport station, its construction, whether it will be adequately sized and how accessible it will be—will we be able to get there on the mid-Cheshire lines or via the Altrincham Metrolink? Can we make sure that we do not lose the Wilmslow to Euston line that serves people well at the moment? The mid-Cheshire rail line also needs to be put into a cutting.

There is also a question about whether the infrastructure maintenance bases are in the right place and whether suitable consideration has been given to them. Ashley parish council makes it clear that there is no justification for locating a large, incongruous, permanent industrial facility in the heart of a rural community, especially when its function could be more appropriately carried out from Aldersley Rough, which would maintain the entire western leg of HS2 in perpetuity without any need for satellite infrastructure maintenance bases at Ashley or Crewe.

Thought has not been given to how parts of Tatton will be isolated, and I bet that is true for other rural areas too. One example is the planned closure and diversion of Ashley Road—a busy and important road that connects Ashley to Knutsford and the wider rural area. It is regularly used by emergency service vehicles, with people travelling to Manchester airport and Wythenshawe Hospital, but that will be significantly affected with everyone driving through Mobberley.

There is also the construction of a viaduct crossing of the A556 at the Lostock Gralam triangle, which will cut a swathe through Winnington wood and destroy 30% of ancient woodland. We have no information from HS2 on the proposed embankment, but a width at ground level of over 100 metres suggests that it will go up to 30 metres high, which equates to almost the height of Stockport viaduct or more than six double-decker buses.

Ministers should give a thought to the residents of Ascol Drive—I will highlight only one road—who will be subjected to 10 years of noise, dust and light pollution from the main construction compound sited on the field to the south of their road. That will affect them for some time to come, as well as affecting yet another site of special scientific interest.

The land-grab is significant too, and residents cannot understand how the information keeps changing so significantly. The land-grab between the Morrisons roundabout and the Lostock triangle is 150% greater on January 2022 maps than in the October 2018 working draft.

Those are just some of the issues. If I were to relay all of them, we would be here for some time. If that is true of Tatton, it must be true across the country for other places. I want to stand up for those people who are going to be significantly affected at an astronomical cost. It is time that we brought this project to an end. We cannot just keep throwing money at it or giving it another purpose, justification or reason for being. It is time for a Conservative Government to say, “Enough is enough—HS2 must be scrapped.”

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We have made sure that that will be people’s benefit going forward. As I said, it is the sum that they need when they adjust from two to four weeks and it is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, non-returnable. That is to ensure that people can balance the money when moving from a two-week to a four-week payment. It is extra money.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I know better than most how hard the Secretary of State worked to get support from the Chancellor in the Budget. I commend her for doing that. Will she assure my constituents that the welfare bill will not once again spiral out of control, as it did under the previous Labour Government, taking money away from hard-working taxpayers?

[Ms McVey]

The Conservative party is always about balancing fairness for everybody: fairness to the taxpayers paying the bill as well fairness to those getting benefits and those going into work. I thank my hon. Friend because when I met his Trussell Trust team in Shipley, one of their first requests was that the maximum rate at which deductions can be made should reduce from 40% to 30%. I am glad that I can deliver that today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I will be honest: I do not believe that that is our policy; we would not do that. However, I have seen fraud investigations when people have said that they are not working or are unable to work, but unfortunately what they have posted on their Facebook page has very much proven that not to be the case.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows that I was not happy with the level of outreach support in Shipley when the jobcentre closed at the beginning of January—we speak of very little else, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that some extra support has now been given, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that a Jobcentre Plus outreach worker is available at a public venue on a regular basis to help claimants in the Shipley constituency?

[Ms McVey]

When my hon. Friend said that “we” speak of little else, I was not sure whether he was talking about me and he, or he and the rest of the people in Shipley. But he is quite right. I am ensuring that one of the key things this Department does is more outreach work. As UC rolls out, it needs to reflect the needs of local people, and outreach is a sure-fire way to do that.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

Yes, of course I will listen to what is best with sanctions, because the key aim is not to give anybody sanctions, but to help people into work—that is what we need to do. Since benefits began, there has always been some form of sanctions regime that says, “If you’re not living up to our expectations, this is what will happen,” but that is minimal on jobseeker’s allowance, and even less on employment and support allowance—less than 1%. We want to make sure that we get people into work, and if the hon. Gentleman has suggestions, I will meet him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We have heard a lot of huffing and puffing from Opposition Members, but they are not offering many solutions. Given that the National Audit Office has said that the Government should continue with universal credit, and that one of its criticisms was that that had not been rolled out quickly enough, does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition’s solution of pausing universal credit in any way reflects the National Audit Office’s report? Will she continue making improvements to universal credit? I know that my constituents are grateful that she is looking at the issue regarding payment dates and assessment periods. I urge her to continue to look at the improvements that my constituents have suggested to her, rather than pausing universal credit, which would go completely against what the NAO has said.

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend. I went with him to his local Trussell Trust to see what other changes we should be looking at, and one of them involved the payment system for people in work. Remember, this is the first time we have ever had a benefit system supporting people in work. Beforehand, it was always for people who were out of work. I pledged to look at that, and the team is doing so. As I said, we are supporting people.

What my hon. Friend says about the Opposition is quite right. The NAO did not say that we should stop universal credit; it said that we should carry on and, if anything, proceed more quickly. But remember, this is the Opposition who said that our changes in 2010 would result in 1 million more people being unemployed. How wrong they were, and how wrong they are again!

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I will send the hon. Gentleman’s message to the Department for Education, but in this Department we do as much as we can, whether through traineeships or sector-based work academies, to support young people. It is about choice: do they want a job, an apprenticeship or further education?

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Helping more carers to get into work and stay in work would certainly boost social mobility in the UK. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to Shipley to visit Carers’ Resource. What progress has been made on developing a kitemark for employers to help more carers get into work and stay in work?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point: how do we best support carers, who do a vital job to support other people? When I visited his constituency and Carers’ Resource and met some of its carers, they told me they wanted a kitemark—they wanted to know which was a good business, who they could work for, who was deploying best practice. The Department of Health and Social Care is working on this with Carers UK, but we are also starting a new group between Departments, and I encourage Carers’ Resource to take part.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

The best thing the hon. Lady could do is give us the name of that employer so that we can see what he has done and what he is doing, because this Government will not stand by any bad employer. We want to help workers and make employers do the right thing.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We often hear from Opposition Members that all the new jobs created are zero-hours contract jobs. Given their track record on accurate information, will the Secretary of State set out what proportion of workers are on zero-hours contracts and how many new jobs are actually full-time jobs?

[Ms McVey]

Zero-hours contracts or flexible contracts—whichever way people want to see them—are at 2.8%. This year, over 90% of jobs are permanent. From 2010, there have been 75% permanent and full-time jobs. Most of those this year are professional.

Motability

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I commend the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his customary tenacity in pursuing this issue? Is it not the case that not only has the taxpayer been overpaying over the years, but disabled people have been overpaying from their benefits for this scheme? Surely those disabled people could be getting exactly the same benefits from it for a lower amount per week. The money saved could then be given back to them to help pay for their other living costs. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the scheme to progress, but at a lower cost to disabled people so that they can retain more of their benefits? Motability seems to be losing sight of what it was set up to do in the first place.

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. This issue unites Members on both sides of the House. The first step is for the NAO to look into the matter, but my hon. Friend’s suggestions seem fair and right, and they are the kinds of points we should pursue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

It is interesting how differently people measure getting into work, poverty and life chances. Children born into workless households are actually five times more likely to be in poverty than those in working households. Under this Government, we have seen 3.1 million more people in work, and the number of workless households has gone down by over 600,000. We are helping people out of poverty: we are helping them get a job.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Earlier the Secretary of State mentioned dodgy statistics from the Opposition. I have heard people say that lots of the new jobs created are on zero-hours contracts and for part-time work. Can she say what the actual figures are for the number of jobs created that are full-time, permanent jobs?

[Ms McVey]

It was not me talking about dodgy statistics, it was the chair of the UK stats authority who said that, but I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The overwhelming majority of jobs are full-time and permanent jobs, and the vast majority of those in part-time jobs have chosen to be in part-time jobs.

Personal Independence Payment

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I will do the best I can to adhere to the right hon. Gentleman’s requests.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I very much support the Secretary of State’s decision, and I am sure that she is delighted that the Opposition parties called for an urgent question so that they could tell her how much they support her decision on the court case. Or at least I think that is what they were saying. I also very much welcome the fact that we are now spending far more money on people with disabilities than the last Labour Government did, which probably explains the anger with which the shadow Secretary of State gave her performance. Will my right hon. Friend look at measures to try to get the decision making on PIP right first time? In too many cases, the right decision is not made the first time, and I hope that she will look at that urgently, and early in her time in office.

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for his comments. He always likes to see things in his own inimitable way, and he is quite right. Both sides of the House are meant to be supporting this decision, but listening to the tone and the noises coming from the Opposition Benches, it is difficult to believe that. He makes a fair point about getting the decisions right first time and helping the decision makers to get it right. There was an independent review—the Gray review—and we will be taking its advice on board.

HS2 Update

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Tatton or Shipley? Esther McVey.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

5. How many jobs were created in (a) Shipley constituency and (b) Yorkshire in 2014.

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

In the year to September 2014, employment rose by 6,500 in Shipley and nearly 30,000 in Yorkshire.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those great statistics. Late last year, I organised a jobs fair in Shipley that had employers there with more than 300 current vacancies. She will be aware that many Conservative MPs in Yorkshire have also held jobs fairs in their constituencies. Will she ensure that jobcentres always support jobs fairs, to ensure that as many jobseekers as possible come to them?

[Esther McVey]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I congratulate him on holding a jobs fair. He is right to draw attention to the fact that Conservative MPs in Yorkshire have been putting the Labour MPs to shame for not holding as many job fairs. Because of those events and our welfare changes, and because of the success of our long-term economic plan, more jobs were created in Yorkshire last year than in the whole of France—something I am sure my hon. Friend is particularly pleased to hear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

There are a couple of points I need to answer, because what was said was inaccurate. The figure for the overturns is 10%, not the high number the hon. Gentleman alluded to. At the same time, people on sanctions are still on benefits and have an underlying qualification to them. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Perhaps he does not like the fact that the number of people in work has gone up significantly under this Government and the number needing to claim benefits has gone down significantly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Sanctions as a principle are a very fine part of the benefits system. May I urge the Minister to maintain a system of sanctions and not to listen to the Labour party? It is clear that it is the Conservative party that has become the party of labourers and that Labour is the party of layabouts.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I have said, sanctions have always been a part of the benefits system, because it is about compliance. I would welcome an announcement today from Opposition Front Benchers on whether they would remove sanctions. That would be very interesting.

Inherited Social Housing Tenancies

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I know that the Secretary of State is in discussions with the Deputy First Minister, and obviously we will do the right thing and speak with her.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that we are talking about inherited social housing tenancies, may I urge the Minister to stick to her guns to ensure that the welfare state is about being a safety net for people in need and that it is rebalanced to make sure that it is just as fair for taxpayers as it is for people claiming benefits? May I also give some free advice to the Opposition? Given their lamentable response to the Budget last week, they need to do better than to keep flogging this particular dead horse.

[Esther McVey]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are ensuring that welfare works and we have a benefits system that works for the 21st century. We know that we are reaping rewards from that: the number of people living in workless households has fallen; the number of people in employment is at a record level; and youth unemployment has fallen for six consecutive months. What the Government are doing is correct, and in the future the Opposition will no doubt follow.

Remploy

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Wrexham site is being sold with a view to making 10 to 20 jobs available for some of the ex-Remploy staff. That is the reality, which is far from the picture he is painting.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that I have always been and remain opposed to the closure of the Remploy factories, but given the amnesia among those on the Opposition Benches, may I remind her that when the last Labour Government closed the Remploy factory in Bradford, they gave next to no support to the workers there and did not even monitor whether they found a job? Does she agree that that was totally unacceptable and that what is most important is that we do everything to find these people, who want and deserve to work, a job? The Government have a duty to help them as much as they can.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend raises many key points, which are correct. Stages 1 and 2 were so difficult because there was no blueprint in 2008, and those people were not supported, tracked or monitored. It was shameful of Labour not to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Paul Stewart was paralysed from the waist down and told that he would never walk again after a snowboarding accident. Through sheer willpower and determination he has defied the odds and next month he will undertake his IronSpine Challenge of a 2.4 mile swim, a 112 mile cycle, a 26.2 mile walk and a cliff-face climb to raise money for spinal research. Does the Minister agree that Paul is a tremendous inspiration to others who suffer such life-changing disabilities?

[Esther McVey]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. When I first heard about Paul’s story, I had to read it twice because I could not believe what he intended to do. He was paralysed from the waist down; now he is paralysed from the knees down and has learned to walk with aids and adaptations. The Prime Minister has supported him and I will be there at the start of this excellent challenge.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

We are working with local government to ensure that we are delivering on this. It is about what is best for disabled people and focused support for the billions of pounds that we are spending.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. May I tell her to stick to her guns on this subject and ignore the siren voices from those on the Labour Benches who seem to believe in a test, but one that nobody can fail, and want to advocate unlimited levels of welfare? Given that we have limited resources, most of my constituents will support the principle that the money should be directed at the people who need it instead of at the people who do not, so may I urge her to continue along that path?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend. This is a principled reform. It is about adding integrity and rigour to the system. It is about fairness and transparency, and helping those who need this support the most.

Remploy

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will correct the hon. Gentleman; we are doing everything we can to protect jobs for disabled people. I spoke with Leighton Andrews last week on what we have agreed to put in place; obviously the commercial process has to be gone through correctly, as other people might put a better offer on the table. What we have to do is get the best offer for those disabled people, whom we so want to help. Should Leighton Andrews have the best offer, that will be the path we take.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that I did not favour closing any Remploy factories, but does she agree that it sticks in the throat to hear the feigned outrage of the Opposition, who closed 29 factories without a care in the world? Nobody could do more than she is doing to try to help these disabled people to find jobs. May I urge her to continue on that path, because at a time when so many people do not want to work we should do everything we can to help these people, who do want to work?

[Esther McVey]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend and we are working tirelessly every day. We are getting updates every day on how we are getting the ex-Remploy staff into work. As I mentioned earlier, when I first came to the House 35 people had a job. Within three months, by beefing up the personal support work, we have more than quadrupled the number who get into work. We are doing a positive job and we will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

The figures have not been published yet, but as soon as they are published, I will give the hon. Lady the information.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

There are many excellent disability organisations in the Bradford district, notably the Bradford and Airedale mental health advocacy group. Can such groups join the disability action alliance to help with the Government’s strategy, or will they be excluded from it?

[Esther McVey]

We are trying to reach out to as many user-led groups as possible. Those who want to become part of the alliance should visit [e-mail]. Everyone is welcome: we want the strategy to be embedded in all our local communities.

Women (Global Economy)

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Turner, to serve under your stewardship today. Today’s debate is on women in the global economy. It is true to say that women now drive the world economy. Globally, they control £20 trillion of annual consumer spending, and that could climb as high as £28 trillion by 2015. Their £13 trillion in total yearly earnings could reach £18 trillion in the same period. In aggregate, women represent a growth market more than twice as big as China and India combined. Given those sums, it would be foolish to underestimate that economic force.

Carol Bagnold, HSBC’s regional commercial director for London, said:

“The female economy is hugely important for the UK and globally in terms of the international stage. Wealth is shifting, and the scale of contribution from women in both the business and consumer world is growing.

The States have recognised this with a plot of research done. In the UK the statistics show the same opportunity and we need to grasp this. 60% of personal wealth will sit with females by 2025, 37% of start-ups are now female owned, within the corporate world there”

is a

“growing number of females controlling the finances.”

Women are now the largest emerging economy. British women in their early 20s already earn 3.6% more than men of the same age. Women in full-time work are seeing their wages grow at more than twice the rate of men’s, and if that growth continues the average pay of women in the UK will overtake men’s by 2020.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s flow so early in her speech. Does she agree that those figures show that there is no need for politically correct positive discrimination, quotas or targets, because women are more than capable of competing on equal terms with men, and that we should focus on jobs and opportunities being given on merit alone?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with half of what my hon. Friend says. We are taking significant steps forward, and I will refer to various women and business executives who make similar comments, but they include the caveat that different sorts of support are essential for women to enable them to achieve the positions they want, and to continue their jobs and professional advancement through a complex cycle, because women are the carers and nurturers in society.

In the UK, 700,000 businesses are female-owned and estimated turnover in 2011 was £130 billion according to the International Centre for Entrepreneurship. For the first time, there are more young female millionaires than young male millionaires, so women are becoming wealthier younger. It seems that women are now truly an unstoppable economic force. However, in tandem with those positive statistics is the fact that although women may be earning more when younger, things change dramatically in their 30s when they have families. Between the ages of 40 and 49, there is a significant difference—about £3—in the hourly rate of women and men of the same working age.

We are often told that if women set up businesses at the same rate as men, there would be 150,000 new starts a year. As well as that, if we increased women’s participation in the workplace, we could add another £15 billion to £22 billion to the UK economy. We are also told that it will take another 70 years to achieve gender balance in the boardroom, such is the state of affairs there. Both sets of statistics are true, but neither does justice to the full role that women play globally.

Academics talk of women’s achievements reaching a plateau after a high point pre-2000 when a diverse raft of ground-breaking women took to the national and international stage. In this House in 1979, Margaret Thatcher became the first and only female Prime Minister. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was appointed the first woman law lord in 1988. Stella Rimington was appointed the first female head of MI5 in 1992, and Debbie Moore was the first woman to establish a public limited company in 1984.

The rapid rise of women to leadership roles faltered as we approached the 21st century. Martin, Warren-Smith, Scott and Roper commented on the alarming lack of progress, and Vanhala stated that there has not been a significant increase since the early 1990s. That prompted Broadbent and Kirkham to write that:

“after a promising start why aren’t women moving on, even in ‘feminised’ professions such as accountancy”.

In their book, “Through the Labyrinth”, Eagly and Carli wrote about the distinct lack of women in powerful roles. However, others, including Broadridge, Broadbent and Kirkham are now asking whether we have reached a pivotal point in the advancement of women in leadership, and suggesting that to deliver the next level of progress a new understanding of female leadership might be required.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is too modest to mention it, but I commend her work with her book “If Chloe Can”, and the magazine that she set up and has delivered to thousands of schoolgirls throughout the country in scores of schools. She turned it into a play, and what she has achieved is remarkable. Does she agree that role models are crucial, and that women and other people can achieve their ambitions, whatever their background, if they have other people’s paths and examples to follow?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I do indeed believe that, and I am not the only one. A huge body of work has been done on that. Ofsted did a report last year, and this year Girlguiding UK did a report on the importance of role models. I came to the same conclusion after 10 years of research on the Genda Agenda, and in the Ideopolis report and the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission. I originally sought to look specifically at Merseyside where evidence unfortunately showed that the statistics for girls claiming benefit were double the national average, but for those setting up in business they were half the national average. That was not because of the academic qualifications they did or did not have, not because they did not have drive and determination, and not because they did not have the wherewithal; it was purely because of a lack of role models. If girls do not know what opportunities are out there, they cannot follow a path and achieve.

If I wanted to make a chocolate cake, I would not try to fathom out how much butter, flour and chocolate I would need. I would go to a recipe book, or follow the recipe of someone who had got it right. If I then wanted to tweak and perfect it with extra chocolate flakes and buttons, I would. In the same way, I teach young girls and older girls that there is a path that they can follow, and show them the raw ingredients that they need to achieve.

Another positive comment I always make to young girls from all backgrounds—this is key—is that when I did an academic qualitative and quantitative study of the top 100 women in the world from all backgrounds, the determining factors were not who someone was related to, or what academic qualifications they had. Personality and character traits determined their future. Being persistent, determined, consistent, a good team player, optimistic, and able to find a way of doing things even when hurdles were put in the way were the key determining factors for whether people achieved. That was a long answer, but it encapsulates 10 years’ work.

[Philip Davies]

I thought that at this point I would urge the Minister—if my hon. Friend wants to comment, she can—to do the following. It seems to me, having been one of the many colleagues who went to see the performance of “If Chloe Can” when it was turned into a play and who also saw the production in Speaker’s House, that if the Government and the Minister really want to do something useful, giving some support and funding to allow that to go around the country as my hon. Friend envisages would be far more worth while than just talking about these things.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I would never have been so bold as to make such a plea, but as he has, on my behalf, I shall endorse it thoroughly.

I argue not only that women have reached a pivotal point, but that we need to understand and ensure that we in the broader sense—all of society—support the complex female life cycle. I am talking about the life cycle of a woman as mother, carer and nurturer. We also need to understand how those biological and atavistic needs drive, motivate and influence women’s choices. Women’s natural predisposition to be carers and nurturers regularly dictates the style and type of job that they do, the type of business that they establish and the choice of hours worked in order to fit around the needs of their family. Perhaps targets for the extra number of businesses that women should set up, how much extra they could add to the economy or how great a percentage could be on a board are artificial and too simplistic a range of targets and do not take into account innate human desires.

As we look to the global stage and look at businesses, we are noticing that there has been a change from a hierarchical structure in business and organisations to a flatter one. Executive leaders are seeing and feeling that, but is everyone else convinced? Targets are not enough. They do not work sustainably and are not as effective as they need to be. We can look to other countries. In China, the Philippines and Thailand, things are very balanced. In Japan, that is not the case. There, women take only 6% of the top jobs. We have to look at the cultural effects. The McKinsey study in Europe showed a much improved gender balance. In China, 70% of women are in work, but India is far behind, with 35%. Again, that shows the cultural significance and difference.

Eve Baldwin, the global human resources director for Unilever, says that she has noticed that 50% of entry-level positions are taken by women, but 80% of promotions go to men. Why are we still not landing job promotions? It seems that organisations still prefer a male style. Perhaps there is still a lack of acceptance of different styles. Perhaps organisations do not appreciate the different dimensions and character types that women can bring to the business world. That needs to be fixed internally.

Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will make some progress, because many other Members wish to speak and I want to draw my remarks to a close.

My final point is on the automatic release of offenders halfway through their sentence, which is one of the shameful things the previous Government sneaked through in the last Parliament. Prisoners are now not just eligible for release halfway through their sentence; they are automatically released. I think that that is a terrible situation. When I visited Denmark, whose criminal justice system is always seen as very liberal, I found that they do not have that system. They have the system we used to have, whereby prisoners became eligible for release halfway through their sentence. In fact, 30% of their prisoners were refused parole altogether and served the full sentence handed down by the courts, and they think that that is one of the major reasons why they had such low reoffending rates. I urge the Secretary of State not to have a system where we automatically release prisoners willy-nilly halfway through their sentence and irrespective of their behaviour in prison or their risk of reoffending. We should make proper judgments about people’s fitness for release before we agree to release them. I think that we can learn from Denmark in that regard.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Having worked with and represented many victims of crime and their families, I know that what they find most upsetting and offensive is when a sentence that they feel is just or suitable for the perpetrator of a crime is halved, which they say is an extra insult. In the case of a family I represent, the halving of a sentence is a double blow on top of the murder of their child.

Social Mobility

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has done far more than she has said, and has produced a book, “If Chloe Can”, a careers book to help inspire people. It was turned into a theatre production, which is now touring the country, and I and several of our hon. Friends went to the premiere. I saw at first hand how many children from poorer backgrounds were inspired by the role models on stage that day, whom my hon. Friend brought along. Does she therefore agree that a key to introducing social mobility is to get great role models to inspire people and show them that people from their background can achieve success in life?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That was one of the key things that came up when I went round schools on Merseyside, asking children what they needed to know, and what answers they wanted. Some asked, “How did you ever know what you wanted to become?” or “How do you know what jobs and opportunities are out there?” More importantly, they said they wanted to see people like them, from their backgrounds, who had achieved. I put together a magazine and distributed it free to more than 5,000 girls in Merseyside, and the people in it were role models such as Jo Salter, the first lady from the UK to become a fighter pilot; Louise Greenhalgh, the first to become a bomb disposal officer; Debbie Moore, the first woman to set up a plc; Lucinda Ellery, a single mum of three kids who has an international company; Jayne Torvill, the ice skater; and Emily Cummins, the inventor. All those people managed to overcome personal adversity to achieve, irrespective of where they came from. That was what made me look into character types and personality traits, which seemed so much more influential on where someone ended up than background or grades. Ambition, focus, being a team player, being positive and being able to complete a task, were key, and we need to tell children about those things, which give them hope. They do not need to know that they came from a certain background. They need to know that they need inner strength to achieve.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to get sidetracked—as I am sure you do not, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the whole thrust of my argument is that the legislation already in place is perfectly sufficient to allow that to happen. My hon. Friend says that the polluter should pay. That is all very well, but local authorities come to the Government, and to council tax payers, saying that they need all this money to do this and that, and to ensure that the streets are kept clean, and all that kind of business, but on the other hand they are surreptitiously trying to say that they will take all the money from the Government and from the council tax payer for fulfilling this obligation, but then, quietly on the side, they will then try to pass the responsibility on to someone else. If those local authorities want the funding for keeping the streets clean, they also have to take on the obligation to keep them clean. They cannot have one without the other.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I am listening to the debate with great interest. The Liverpool BID—the city centre business improvement district—includes around 650 businesses that have come together because they want to make the environment cleaner, above and beyond what is happening on the streets. They have taken it upon themselves to cover even bigger areas and are funding it. However, there have been possible links between increases in the amount of work they want to do and a potential reduction in business rates, because they think that that is work the council is not doing. They would also like to do competitive tendering with the council, thereby also reducing their business rates. If my hon. Friend is concerned about loss of money, this could be a sure way to lose money through the business sector.

Problem Gambling

Debate between Esther McVey and Philip Davies

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I encourage him to read Patrick Basham’s book, “Gambling: A Healthy Bet”, which talks about how developing an understanding of risk at an earlier age is good for people in terms of not just gambling, but their skills for the rest of their lives. I certainly think that there is much merit in what Patrick Basham writes in his book.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is currently no GamCare treatment provider available on Merseyside? The closest is in Manchester. Does he know whether that will be addressed?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, on the ball with what is happening in her area. She has quickly established a reputation for herself as a champion of her constituents and her area. She is absolutely right that Merseyside currently lacks a GamCare treatment facility. It is not GamCare’s fault; its provider had funding from other agencies taken away, so it has closed down. I know that GamCare shares my hon. Friend’s concern that there should be a provider on Merseyside, and I hope that it will be able to find a replacement provider soon for the benefit of her constituents.

GamCare has established a national helpline with an international reputation and an infrastructure delivering counselling to 70% of the country. The helpline, including a net-line live chat service and forum, provides a service for gamblers and others affected by gambling. The helpline receives about 1,000 calls a week. It offers help and support to people in crisis, some of them suicidal. GamCare’s professionally trained advisers explore the best way to support the caller by signposting them to debt advice, family therapy, self-exclusion or further counselling.

In 2010-11, GamCare provided sustained confidential counselling for some 2,500 people, which is 20% more than the previous year. GamCare also worked closely with the National Problem Gambling clinic in London to provide the best treatment for customers. And it works; some two thirds of the problem gamblers it treats are no longer problem gamblers at the end of their treatment. At the beginning of counselling, 88% of GamCare’s clients are assessed as problem gamblers; by the end of treatment, that figure is 28%.

GamCare has calculated the cost-benefit analysis of its treatment. It has estimated that each problem gambler costs the state about £8,000 a year. With 450,000 problem gamblers in the UK, that could mean an annual bill of about £3.5 billion. By contrast, GamCare has estimated that, on average, it costs just £650 to treat each individual. With two-thirds of clients successfully ceasing to be problem gamblers at the end of their treatment, that produces a return on investment that is greater than 8:1—compared with the treatment for drug users, where the return is estimated at just 2.5:1. That surely highlights that the money is well spent and that expanding the service should be a priority.

GamCare has recently launched a new e-learning package, with the aim of helping more companies to improve their standards of player protection. Considering that there are 127,500 people under the age of 24 with a gambling problem in the UK, GamCare is ready to introduce education into schools and for parents and to open the communication lines with GPs. That is all ready to go if the funding is in place. However, at a time when more money than ever is available—a funding target of £6 million this year and £7 million next year—the industry is seeing more and more of it swept up into burgeoning bureaucracy.

In particular, the Responsible Gambling Fund established under the previous Government is crippling front-line services, which is where the money is needed most. In 2009-10, the RGF spent almost £500,000 on staff costs and overheads, including £51,000 on consultancy. Even more interestingly, it is estimated that those costs will have risen by 10% for the year 2010-11. In an age of austerity, such an attempt at empire building is extremely worrying, and it is vital that we guard against the growth of a monster that constantly calls for more and more money, bigger and bigger budgets and more and more employees to deal with a problem that is being tackled effectively by organisations such as GamCare.

On top of that, the RGF is funding eight PhD studentships at an average of £20,000 a year to widen participation in gambling-related research as a means of informing public policy. That is a prime example of the unfocused nature of its research. In addition, the RGF has done very little on education for adolescents, while GamCare has already researched and outlined a fully costed actionable programme to implement. Can the Minister enlighten us about what research commissioned by the RGF has led to a major policy implementation that has made a real difference to reducing problem gambling? If he can do that, he is doing better than I can.

The people on the front line desperately need that money to fund treatment and to launch education and prevention programmes. By contrast, GamCare’s funding for 2010-11 has been frozen, which makes it difficult even to maintain existing services, let alone develop new ones. Furthermore, the RGF has decided that GamCare’s helpline should become a national problem gambling telephone helpline, thus throwing away the industry’s investment over many years in an established and successful service and brand.

GamCare is currently basing its programmes on interim funding on a month-by-month basis, when what it really needs is a strategic three-year funding programme. In fact, with the correct funding, GamCare could provide the treatment, education and prevention services—either itself or with the appropriate partners—for an annual cost of around £3.5 million a year. The Government should concentrate on ensuring that the money is well spent, rather than just ensuring that more and more money is being pumped into a situation where it is being badly spent. The structure that was put in place nearly three years ago is just not working. There has been time for it to prove itself and, sadly, it has failed. Most of the people involved in the industry would recognise that.

The answer to this conundrum is threefold: strip away the unnecessary levels of bureaucracy; let those experts on the front line, who know how to help people in trouble, get on with delivering and expanding their existing services; and put proper programmes quickly in place to educate those most in need.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport appeared before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member, and expressed his concern about problem gambling and the importance that the Government attach to dealing with the matter. It is therefore the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is a coherent strategy for education, prevention and treatment. The industry needs an effective body that makes good strategic decisions about risks and takes proportionate measures in terms of allocating funding to deal with problem gambling. The majority of the research should go to treatment providers and there is no justifiable reason why GamCare should not remain as the principal treatment provider and operator of the national helpline.

The industry, working directly with the charities, can step up to the plate and sort out the issue of problem gambling, but it would find it easier if it knew that it had the Minister’s support in stripping away bureaucracy, getting the money quickly to the front line and trusting the experts. I hope that the Minister will give me his assurance today that that is what the Government will do.