Future of Postal Services

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Before I call Tahir Ali to move the motion, there is obviously a cast of thousands here. It is a one-hour debate, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople will speak for five minutes and the Minister for 10 minutes. When Tahir has sat down, I will let you know what your life expectancy will be, but it will be about two minutes, so you should prepare for that. I might give you one minute more, Jeremy, but for most of you it will be two minutes.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of postal services.

It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of the Communication Workers Union and an employee of Royal Mail.

The question of the future of postal services has been thrown into stark relief in recent times. The pandemic meant that many were confined to their homes, reliant on deliveries to meet their basic needs. It became clear to everyone that postal workers were key to the economy and to the regular functioning of our society. For many during lockdown, the relief provided by our postal services was vital in maintaining wellbeing and keeping families and communities safe.

During the pandemic, the volume of parcels delivered grew by a staggering 50%, with a total of 4.2 billion parcels delivered in the year 2020-21. Royal Mail saw its parcel volumes increase by 30%, with a total of 1.7 billion parcels delivered, which means 40% of the total number of parcels delivered in the UK were delivered by Royal Mail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. As we all know, he has a huge interest in the service and has worked for a long period in it, supported by the people who work continuously. I visited a number of post offices and distribution offices during Christmas, when all the cards and everything else are sent.

This current management structure is purely about asset-stripping and making money out of the service in the short term, and getting rid of the whole service. I think it is incumbent on this Government and the Minister who is here today to have a far more serious debate—I am sure that my hon. Friend would lead it—about ensuring that Royal Mail remains a proper public service for all those people, from grandparents to grandchildren, who enjoy all the cards and other mail that they receive every day.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief. If we have many more, there will not be any time for speeches.

[Tahir Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is always keen to visit the local mail centre. Under the boundary changes, that mail centre will fall in his constituency, so we can visit it jointly.

I believe that Royal Mail should be renationalised, and I am not alone. A recent poll showed that 68% of the public back the renationalisation of Royal Mail, and studies have highlighted that renationalisation might save £171 million a year. However, we cannot talk about postal services and the renationalisation of Royal Mail without discussing the post office network. The network is inarguably one of the most important for small businesses and local communities, which rely on their local post offices to collect and receive parcels and letters, as well as to export items all over the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues, the wind-ups will begin at 5.38 pm. That gives us 15 minutes. Twelve people were standing, so you have one and a half minutes each.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Gary. Occasionally, sitting on the Government Benches, I wonder whether I am going to get in on a debate, but today I have. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for bringing forward the debate. I am conscious that there is another debate later in the week on a similar topic, so I will confine my observations to two or three areas.

Let me start by saying that I agree with many of the things that the hon. Member raised about the hard-working posties who deliver mail to homes across the UK. They provide an invaluable service. Anyone who recognises the time spent waiting at Christmas for a card or parcel to arrive knows how important that service is. But it is also important to say that when the market changes, companies operating in those sectors have to change. If they do not, they simply will not be around in the future.

I put that point in the context of the number of letters that are sent by individuals in the UK annually. In 2004-05, Royal Mail delivered around 20 billion letters. Last year, that figure had dropped to 8 billion. The change is dramatic, and is not surprising when we consider how we live our lives today. We simply do not send as many things in the post as we once did.

While I absolutely agree that the universal service obligation should be retained, there is a need for Royal Mail to reconsider how it operates, to ensure that everybody continues to get the services. Crucially, it is the parcel market that is important. That is a vital sector for my constituency and I look forward to speaking further on this issue in coming weeks.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

One and a half minutes flies by. I call Jeremy Corbyn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not calling the hon. Member incompetent.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. No interventions, please.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is up to the Government to intervene now to protect the USO and take Royal Mail back into public ownership, which it should never have left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali). Once a successful, proud British enterprise in the hands of the British public, Royal Mail is being driven into the gig economy while senior managers are milking profits and funnelling £560 million in payouts to shareholders. They did not get up in the middle of the night to travel to all parts of our country, especially during covid, to care for our communities.

So well depicted in Ken Loach’s film “Sorry We Missed You”, the gig economy’s long hours, low wages and punitive, bogus self-employment will soon besmirch Royal Mail as it sells off the King’s head. Royal Mail is wanting to break up the universal service obligations, sack 10,000 posties and be the next P&O as it recruits agency staff and owner drivers at the expense of the current workforce, further ripping up the pathway to change without having to give account.

This Government are standing by as this next chapter of fire and hire plays out. What have they done? They have walked away when they should be pressing in. They have opened the door for investors—a foreign private equity firm—to sweep in and asset strip. So much for giving back control—they are, to a Czech oligarch. I thank the CWU and its members for standing up for our postal service and bringing it to our attention. As with other companies in failure, the Government will put in place an operator of last resort. We are now at that last resort, and we need the Government to step in and nationalise this company.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

After Richard Burgon, Members will have one minute each, so that everyone can get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I will make a plea for post offices. For vulnerable people, those aged over 65, disabled people and those who live in rural areas, the post office clearly provides a wide range of essential services—services for the local community and citizens, including banking, bill payments and cash withdrawal. It helps older people seek their pensions and provides a sense of community for older citizens living in rural areas. Indeed, postmasters and postmistresses can often be the first to note if an elderly patron has not been in for a while, and many a life is saved by the actions taken. Post offices will also play a vital role in citizens receiving their £600 energy support payment in the coming weeks. Some 49% of all customers pick up Government forms such as applications for driving licences or passports at post offices.

I want to make a plea to the Minister on behalf of post offices. There are 11,400 post offices in the UK, visited by 28 million people a week. I support the debate and I hope that the Minister can support us.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Shannon, and I thank colleagues for their co-operation. We now move to the Front-Bench speeches, and it is a delight to call Marion Fellows.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Sir Gary, could you clarify exactly what time I can speak until, if I am to give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), two minutes in which to wind up?

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Two minutes to six.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, on securing today’s debate about the future of postal services, particularly given his experience and expertise. When somebody with that kind of experience and expertise speaks, we should all listen very carefully.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that postal services are an integral part of the modern economy, allowing the smallest of businesses to connect with customers across the world and providing consumers with access to a vast range of products. The importance of the postal service to keeping people connected was never more apparent than during the coronavirus pandemic, and I am hugely grateful to the delivery workers who worked exceptionally hard to deliver letters and parcels in those very difficult circumstances. The post office network also plays a unique and vital role as part of the UK postal system, and I will address the points that were raised regarding that network shortly.

To deal first and foremost with the future of the universal postal service, which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and others, the Government’s postal policy objective continues to be a financially sustainable and efficient universal service that meets the needs of users within an open and competitive postal market. That is why the six-day week, “one price goes anywhere” and the universal service remain at the heart of the regulatory regime, and why Ofcom has a primary duty to secure that provision.

To be completely clear, the Government currently have no plans to change the statutory minimum requirements of a universal postal service, which are set out in the Postal Services Act 2011. However, we accept that the universal postal service is facing challenges, particularly given the decline in letter volumes, which have halved since privatisation in 2013. That answers the question raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), about why people are paying more for less. Part of the difficulty is that the volumes have fallen so much, which affects revenue.

Energy Price Support: Northern Ireland

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) on securing this debate. It is a great subject for us back home. The welfare of our local businesses is extremely important. He will know that our family-run and smaller businesses are the backbone of our constituencies—his, mine and those of other Members here—making them unique.

A local Japanese restaurant in my constituency that has only been open for about six months has seen an increase in its electricity bills of £900 to £3,000 per month. Should this remain an issue, it is clear that jobs will be lost and the business forced to close. Does the hon. Member agree that more consideration must be given to the long term—not just the next four months, but beyond—because businesses are clearly on the brink of closing?

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Just a reminder that interventions should be brief, Jim.

[Jim Shannon]

I thought that was brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

That was not brief.

[Stephen Farry]

By Jim’s standards, it was. I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with him about the looming cliff edge that will come next year. It is also relevant to stress the issue of spending power in the economy, particularly in the run-up to Christmas for the hospitality sector.

Delivery of energy support should have been implemented by the Northern Ireland Executive. Normally, Northern Ireland would receive Barnett consequentials, based around equivalent spending in Great Britain, and would therefore have the scope to design or modify schemes to address local circumstances. Delivery of the £400 payments would have been implemented by now in those circumstances.

Furthermore, the size of the Barnett consequentials may well be significantly greater than the value of support that comes from direct provision from the UK Government to households and businesses. The Government have recognised that it would have been much easier for delivery to have been through a devolved Executive. However, in a political vacuum, it has fallen to the Government to intervene. I acknowledge the need for that, given the circumstances.

The energy price guarantee is now in place for Northern Ireland. That said, there are concerns about the scale and duration of the support, particularly what happens from next April onwards. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already touched on that point. For today, the most pressing issue is clarity on the timescale for the delivery of the £400 energy support payments, and how that will be phased, plus the implementation of the home heating oil support.

Despite those pressures, unlike in England, Wales and Scotland, households in Northern Ireland have not yet received a penny of the £400 energy support. There had been indications that we would receive that support in November, one month after the rest of the UK, yet it is now looking increasingly unlikely to be delivered this side of Christmas. We are also hearing that the payment might now be staggered, which means that households will have to wait even longer into next year.

Funding Higher Education

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for higher education.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, in a debate that I suspect has been slightly snow-affected. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), who is standing in for the Minister, will say more about that in a moment. Also, I would like to thank Mr Barnaby Austin, who is a fine young man who is with me for three months. He has helped me to prepare my remarks today, so my thanks to him.

Like many Members, among my constituency duties I particularly enjoy interacting with sixth-formers in schools in my constituency, and I always feel encouraged coming away from those encounters. Not that everyone necessarily supports everything that the Government say or do, but I always feel encouraged that the coming generation is as bright, motivated and impressive as any has ever been. Looking forward, I feel that the country is in very safe hands.

Inevitably, as I am sure we have all experienced, the issue of student finance, student loans and tuition fees come up in those sessions. I have always been very happy over the last 10 years or so to support the system that we have, explaining that it is a generous system that does the job, that no one has to pay fees in advance and that it does not preclude anyone from going on to higher education. I am very happy to support the funding model that we have and always make the point that education is the best investment that any young person will ever make. A show of hands normally demonstrates pretty clearly that no one is ever deterred—or very few are—from accessing higher education as a result.

However, in the last few months I have been less sure about the fairness of the current arrangements and have been looking into some of the statistics on student finance. Therefore, I applied for this debate, to put on record a few concerns that I have and some thoughts about the future. I was both delighted and surprised that, after I had applied for this debate but before it was granted, the Prime Minister herself—perhaps picking up on my thoughts, leading wherever I go—has now announced her own review of student finance, which I greatly welcome. In particular, I support the important focus in the official terms of reference of the review, which seeks to ensure

“a funding system that provides value for money and works for students and taxpayers”.

I hope that this 90-minute debate provides us with an opportunity to explore together in a hopefully thoughtful way—it is a subject that deserves a thoughtful approach—how the system might be improved. I look forward to hearing the comments from colleagues from all parts of the House—I am sure that many have greater expertise in this area than I do—in trying to find a way forward to a system that is both fair and sustainable.

The current system of student tuition fees and loans as a means of funding higher education has achieved many positives over the years, not least an increase in the number of students from lower-income backgrounds entering higher education, which has to be a good thing.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really thoughtful contribution, and I share his hope that we can have an interesting and useful debate. On the question of providing more opportunities for people from disadvantaged homes, the top-line numbers are clear. Does he recognise that there is a problem in the way that the system is limiting choice—there is substantial evidence that those from lower-income homes are seeking to minimise their financial liability by going local—and that, to give students real choice, issues relating to fees have to be wrapped up with those relating to maintenance?

[Mr Streeter]

I do agree with that, which is one of the reasons I am speaking today. I will talk about that in a moment, because the full-on higher education experience of going away to university and growing up during those three or four years, or however long it is, is an important part of the process. As I will set out in a moment, when a young person chooses to stay local and live with their parents or parent still, to me that is not the full-on experience, which is regrettable. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I am beginning to see the top-line figures becoming quite a barrier to a number of people. I certainly would not want to be 24 with a debt of £40,000 hanging around my neck as I entered the workplace.

That is why we are here this morning: we have to try to find a new way forward together, and I very much welcome the Government’s review. I will briefly summarise the operation of the current system—although I know that you are an expert on it, Mr Hosie—then I will point out some of the areas in which it falls short and finally present my thoughts about the way forward.

As we know, currently universities in England can charge up to £9,250 a year for undergraduate tuition, with substantial variations in some parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—that is what devolution is all about. Students can apply to Student Finance Ltd for a non-means tested loan of up to £9,250 a year to cover the tuition fees, while also taking out loans to cover the cost of living while at university.

To reflect on that point for a moment, we sometimes look back to the old days of maintenance grants. I came to King’s College in London in the 1970s, between 1974 and 1977—I cannot believe it—and had a minimum grant, based on my parents’ financial circumstances. I do not want to do a Neil Kinnock, but I was the first Streeter in a thousand generations to go to university, and my parents did not really understand that they could top the grant up, so I spent my three years in London with not very much money. It was still a wonderful experience, but it was not all gold in the old days, depending on people’s circumstances. I hope my parents never get to read the Hansard report of this debate, because they are wonderful people.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

You might get a cheque in the post.

[Mr Streeter]

It would be a little bit late, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the thought.

Repayment of loans is a shared responsibility between the Student Loans Company and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Student Loans Company receives all its funding from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Therefore, the system is based on the student owing however much money he or she needed to borrow to get through university and gradually paying it back during their working lifetime. Perhaps not surprisingly, 93% of all students in England take up student loans.

The total amount of debt that an average student who completes a three-year undergraduate course will owe has now risen to around £50,000, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That sum will include just under £6,000 in interest accrued during the period of study, at a rate of up to 6.1%. A student who has taken out a loan will begin repaying 9% of their income when they are earning higher than the repayment threshold, and any unpaid debts are written off after 30 years. Broadly, that is the system.

The Government announced in October 2017 that the repayment threshold on student debts would be raised from £21,000 to £25,000, commencing from April 2018. At the same time, the fee cap was frozen at £9,250.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for making a very good speech. He has just outlined the way that the system is currently working, but does he agree that what is happening now is not what people anticipated when the coalition Government introduced it? They anticipated that there would be differential fees—different amounts paid at different universities—but because the system has not worked, a whole generation has been left with enormous debts. The system is absolutely broken, and the levels of interest are unacceptable. We really have to change it quite dramatically. Does he agree?

[Mr Streeter]

I do agree. I am looking for change and I think the Government are looking for change, which I guess is why the review is taking place. When the level of fees was increased, we were led to believe that different universities would charge different fees. Some of us who have been around for quite a long time recognised that that might not happen, and indeed all universities went for the maximum more or less straight away. However, the reason why we are here today and why the Government are reviewing this matter is that the system is not working as planned, and we now need to see some real change. That is very much what I am calling for.

Under our current system, students in the United Kingdom are landed with the greatest amounts of student debt in the developed world—greater even than the notoriously large student debts in the United States of America, which reach an average of $36,000 on graduation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently reported that 77% of UK graduates will never pay off their full debt, even if they are still repaying in their fifties, and that is projected to rise to 83% once the new figures have been introduced. This is an important point: we have a system that is almost set up to fail. Built into the system is an understanding that most of the people who participate will not repay. I do not want that system in place for the long term. When graduates immediately move abroad, that results in more unpaid debts. When a graduate’s employer is not UK-based, they are not subject to the automatic repayment system as they would be in the United Kingdom. In 2014, it was estimated that, by 2042, £90 billion of student support funded by the Treasury will remain unpaid.

It is certainly right for students to contribute to the cost of obtaining a degree. The stats still demonstrate that, over a lifetime, a graduate is likely to earn significantly more than a non-graduate. According to Universities UK:

“Official figures are clear that, on average, university graduates continue to earn substantially more than non-graduates and are more likely to be in employment.”

In debates with sixth-formers and others, I guess many of us have argued, “Why should a proverbial taxi driver who does not have a degree pay extra tax to help others improve their income?” There are pushbacks and answers to that, but it is still a compelling and important point. We must remember that the figures involved are significant, with each new crop of student loans being £13 billion a year. That is a substantial sum that we are having to find to support students going to university.

The principle of students contributing to their own higher education is surely right, but it must be sustainable. I am beginning to see that it is not sustainable for someone to have a debt of up to £50,000 around their neck when they enter the workplace.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that some students, particularly those from a disadvantaged background, will experience much higher debt than that because their families are unable to support them financially? Students from disadvantaged backgrounds entering the workplace will have a much higher burden of debt.

[Mr Streeter]

I agree that people who are not able to draw down on the bank of mum and dad have a much tougher time. The figures I am quoting presuppose that someone has taken out loans for tuition fees and support. I think they are the maximum figures. I think the point that the hon. Lady and I would agree on is that there are students who do not rack up that kind of debt because they get support. Once again, there is an issue of fairness for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

That debt is certainly a hindrance to getting on the housing ladder, to which 85% of young people aspire. It is something that the Government are desperate to encourage. If we are to meet the aspirations of generation rent, we might have to remove some of the burden from their backs. The prospect of having such a large debt hanging over their heads inevitably leads to some mental health worries among higher education students and graduates. In 2015, a study published in the Journal of Public Health, entitled “The impact of tuition fees amount on mental health over time in British students”, found that in the UK,

“poor mental health in students has been linked to financial problems, considering dropping out for financial reasons, financial concern, being in debt and concern about debt.”

It is worth noting that countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland and, more recently, Germany have moved away from the tuition fee model.

There are big questions about whether universities provide proper value for money for their degrees and offer favourable returns for graduates. The National Audit Office reported that two thirds of students consider that universities do not provide decent value for money. More students—especially those from poorer backgrounds, to come back to the point we were debating a few moments ago—are choosing to stay at home and attend their local university due to fears over unsustainable debt. That is a regrettable trend, because the whole university experience is partly about moving away from home for the first time, growing up and learning independence.

[Paul Blomfield]

I clearly agree with the hon. Gentleman on his point about the wider university experience, but does he recognise that staying at home narrows academic choice, depending on where someone lives? If people are choosing local, that might give those in London an immense range of opportunities, but in many parts of the country it narrows the choice significantly.

[Mr Streeter]

That is a good point. I represent the city of Plymouth. We have an excellent university, but it is particularly strong in certain fields. If someone is minded to stay local because of cost and debt and they want to become—I had better choose my subject carefully, because I do not want to diss any of its faculties, which are all excellent—a top-notch lawyer, they might not want to choose Plymouth. They might prefer Exeter. I think I have got myself into trouble here. I thank the hon. Gentleman for leading me down that path. Plymouth is an excellent university for all subjects, but he makes a compelling point.

Moving on, what might we do? We are right to ensure that students contribute. We want universities to be properly funded, but how can we make the system fairer and more sustainable? I have welcomed the excellently timed Government review, and I very much look forward to the outcome.

Universities could do more to reduce their costs. They are slightly strange organisations. In one sense, they are neither private sector nor public sector. They are a hybrid and in many ways they are perhaps unaccountable. The salaries of vice-chancellors is just one issue—acting on them would not have a huge impact, but would be emblematic. At the University of Bath the vice-chancellor’s salary is £471,000, at the London Business School it is £448,000, and at the University of Southampton it is £424,000. How can the leader of a university earn three times more than the Prime Minister of this country? I do not understand that, and it has to be tackled. It is a bit like people wagging their fingers at us and saying, “MPs all earn so much money.” Having proper oversight of vice-chancellor salaries would not save much money, but it would send a signal, bearing in mind that students contribute 50% of the cost of those salaries. The salaries are utterly outrageous and something needs to be done. Perhaps the Minister will touch on that when he winds up.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Streeter]

Yes, I enjoy giving way.

[Paul Blomfield]

Given the numbers here today, there is an opportunity to have a good interactive discussion. I will try not to lead the hon. Gentleman into difficult territory with this intervention. He is absolutely right about vice-chancellors’ pay. The sector has got it wrong, and in some cases spectacularly. Does he accept that the problem is that people have said to universities, “Behave like the big businesses you are”, and are then complaining when they do? Does he think we should have the same approach to unacceptably high pay in all parts of the private and public sectors?

[Mr Streeter]

If an individual sets up their own business and still owns it then it is up to them what they pay themselves, but other than that I tend to agree about large salaries at the top justified by being in a marketplace and having to compete with other organisations. The charitable sector is another one where we have seen massive chief executive officer salaries. I imagine that if many people knocking on doors raising money for charities really knew what was going on, they would not be so happy. There is a job to be done in all these sectors, perhaps sparked by the Government, to have more reasonable levels of pay at the very top. The gap to those at the top must be very dispiriting for those humbly working day in, day out for not very much money. I recognise that we need to do more about that. The Government have talked about it, and I support them.

I have three specific proposals before I sit down. There are two quick ones, and one where I will go into greater depth.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need the Government to look at sustainability in the sector? The briefing for this debate said that the forecast surplus for the university sector is only 1.3% this year, so it is not a bloated sector. It does not mean there is a differential outcome for various institutions. In fact, university budgets are under threat from Brexit, from the cuts in research funding, from the fall in part-time students, and from a possible fall in international students, not to mention demographic trends in our country. We have to be careful to ensure a sustainable funding system.

[Mr Streeter]

I agree. When the panel reports its findings, I hope the Government take action to help us put in place a system that is both fair and sustainable. We have a world-class university system in this country that we must not in any way seek to undermine. It is hugely important that, as young people increasingly compete with people from other countries, we keep our highest university standards.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is important to recognise that there is a dispute going on in higher education at the moment and that staff have been out on cold picket lines. Whatever one’s view of that dispute, it is partly about how resources are allocated and ensuring we have a sustainable system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need an urgent resolution to the dispute? If we are to support academics in future, they must have a pension scheme in which they can have confidence.

[Mr Streeter]

I must confess I do not know the details of the current dispute. I am not a huge supporter of strikes, but I agree that it would be better to have the dispute resolved as quickly as possible. All people are entitled and should aspire to a proper and decent pension settlement.

Moving on to my three points, you will be pleased to hear that the first two are very brief, Mr Hosie. I have some ideas for the Government to grapple with, although I am sure they have thought about these things in advance. One possibility to soften the blow for students could be to make the monthly repayments tax deductible, which would basically reduce the true impact of the repayments and seems both reasonable and fair. Secondly, the current interest rate of 6.1% seems almost punitive when we have interest rates so much lower. I do not think that that was ever the intention when we started off on this journey. We should consider reducing the interest rates to the amount that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pays us when it has our money for any length of time. The interest calculation for overpaid tax is a lot less than 6%. If it is fair for that purpose, it would be fair for students. Again, it would encourage people to embrace the student loan system if the rate of interest was significantly lower.

Thirdly, and in a little more detail, for the first time in my life I wonder whether it is time to consider a graduate contribution system in place of the current tuition fees and student loans: in other words, what some people would call a graduate tax. We have all been involved in debates over the years in which we have said that that is an absolutely disastrous idea but, for the reasons that I am about to give, I think it should be reconsidered.

A graduate contribution tax is essentially a system sub in which the student becomes obligated to an income-related additional tax on graduating in return for Government subsidisation of higher education, resulting in low or no tuition fees to the student. The Government would in effect pay all or most of the fees directly to the university, and the student would pay a contribution over and above ordinary levels of tax for a limited period of time once they start work. That removes the burden of individual borrower accounts or balances owed. The exact percentage of earnings that graduates would be required to pay back would be up for discussion, but one option is to have a banded system in which the percentage paid back is determined by income and increases across income bands. What is the point? Two things. First, a system based on the ability to pay rather than the amount of money the student has borrowed to get through university is more reasonable and fair than the current system.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and register the fact that I have arrived at the debate. The point about a system based on the ability to pay is important. In a sense, the current system is a hybrid between a loan and a graduate contribution system. People pay 9% of their income, so those who earn a lot more pay a lot more of the loan back, and people who earn a lot less pay less back. There is already a significant taxpayer subsidy up to about 45%. I want to put on the record that the current system is a hybrid between the graduate contribution system that he is outlining and a loan system.

[Mr Streeter]

The Minister is absolutely right to make that point.

The second reason why I think a fresh look might be helpful is that, under a graduate contribution scheme, students would not leave university with the worries associated with personally owing so many thousands of pounds. There would be no massive debt figure around their neck. I know the Minister was snowed in this morning, so I am not sure whether he heard me say that I am coming to the view that young people having a personal debt of £40,000 or £50,000 around their neck as they enter the workplace is becoming a massive problem that we need to think about. I hope the review will look at that.

I believe that the vast majority of graduates would be happy to pay a fair income-contingent contribution in return for the direct payment of fees by the Government, thus breaking the perceived link between the cost of tuition and repayments from students. Such a change would hopefully serve to alleviate some of the mental health worries faced by students and graduates who, on finishing university, receive the infamous letter outlining how many tens of thousands of pounds they now owe: “Congratulations on graduating. Now we want the money back.” Paying a regular, reasonable graduate contribution through tax gives far less reason to worry than the contents of those letters sent to graduates. A graduate contribution system would also provide the Treasury and higher education institutions with a long-term guaranteed stream of money as graduates pay regular instalments of additional tax in line with their incomes over a certain number of working years.

The Minister might like to reflect on this next point. It would be possible also to tailor the contribution system to change the rate of tax on degrees that the Government are keen to encourage, perhaps in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, and nursing, as an inducement for students to pursue those degree courses and consequent careers. I can see that the Minister is not leaping to his feet to agree with me. He will no doubt deal with that point when he winds up the debate later.

Obviously, training and recruiting sufficient nurses to meet the growing needs of our NHS is becoming a huge priority for our country. The Royal College of Nursing, which I had a meeting with recently in my constituency, informs me that applications to nursing courses have fallen by 33% since tuition fees for undergraduate nursing were introduced. The Government wisely said that they would review the impact on nurse training and recruitment once the new system had been in place for a year or two. We are now approaching that moment in time. I hope the review currently being undertaken by the Government will reflect on that and make recommendations. We cannot have a system that starves our NHS of sufficient nurses for the future, because that would be short-sighted.

[Carol Monaghan]

Coupled with that we have the issue of the sharp decline in EU nurses applying for positions here in the UK.

[Mr Streeter]

Yes, I agree, and one of the many consequences of the decision made by the people of our country in June 2016—

[Carol Monaghan]

Not my country.

[Mr Streeter]

Well, the decision was made by the majority of people in the United Kingdom. One of the consequences is that fewer doctors and nurses are coming here to work in our NHS. That is a very regrettable problem, but there we are. We are democrats and will therefore comply with the wishes of the people.

I hope my thoughts are useful to the Government—I can see the Minister nodding his head—as we try to find our way to a system that is fair and reasonable to students and taxpayers alike, and that ensures that the United Kingdom encourages the brightest and the best to reach their potential through higher education. I look forward to the rest of the debate and the Minister’s response.

Leaving the EU: Consumer Protection

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Vicky Ford]

On the point about inadequate broadband—and, indeed, the mis-selling of broadband—perhaps I may bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention the fact that during negotiations on the telecoms directive the Brits pushed for stronger regulation, to make it against the law for anyone to mis-sell broadband and promise higher speeds than they could get. The Europeans refused to introduce that measure. Brexit gives us an opportunity to take new measures on behalf of consumers, especially on issues such as broadband.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Mike Amesbury]

Of course, my point was about speed; I sincerely hope that we will go beyond the current Government’s snail’s pace ambition and not only match but, in time, exceed the ambition of the EU. On that point the hon. Lady and I probably agree.

I was talking about my constituents getting only 1% of what they were entitled to, but at the other end of the spectrum my constituency is also at the digital forefront. For example, Sci-Tech Daresbury is the home of the Hartree Centre, an initiative leading on the application of high-performance computing and big data. It also houses many leading digital and tech companies. Its ambition is to expand the data storage/archive capability at Hartree. Those organisations have made it clear to me that the UK cannot significantly differ from the EU in terms of future data protection laws while maintaining any kind of working relationship. It is welcome that the Government appear committed to incorporating the general data protection regulation into UK law. The lesson must be how that important aspect of EU law can be expanded into other protections. However, the risks to the UK’s position as the digital hub of Europe, from leaving the EU, remain profound. I will work closely with Daresbury and the many tech organisations based there to make sure that any adverse effects of Brexit on the services developed and provided there will be minimised.

My party is supportive of a Brexit that puts jobs first and protects the rights of workers and consumers. It is therefore vital that the Government take the issue seriously, every step of the way. It is comforting that the hon. Lady obtained the debate, as that shows that some members of the governing party realise how crucial the issue is. I commend her on doing so, and hope that her colleagues in government will respond appropriately. The safety and quality of the services and products consumed by my constituents in Weaver Vale depend on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on securing this important debate and particularly her eloquence and passion in introducing it. I also thank hon. Members present for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which have vividly highlighted the importance of consumers to the UK economy, but also raised serious questions about what Brexit means for consumers and consumer protections.

Each month, consumers in the UK spend £100 billion in the economy, supporting local businesses, our manufacturing services and employees. Many of the consumer rights that we enjoy are embedded in EU legislation and institutional arrangements. I am disappointed by the Government’s approach to consumer concerns and by their refusal to set out the foundations of consumer protections post-Brexit.

The Government failed to mention consumer protection in their Brexit White Paper in February. They did not dedicate one of their 12 negotiating principles to consumers and consumer rights, and that barely had a mention in the Prime Minister’s 5,357-word speech in Florence. In addition, the Government continue to threaten that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, which could mean the UK crashing out of the EU and being forced to accept World Trade Organisation rules, which dictate tariffs on food of up to 62%—that is for beef—and on other goods such as cars. It will come as no shock that one third of consumers think that they will not be represented in the Brexit negotiations.

The Minister will say that the UK has played an important role in consumer protections, and I agree. The UK has often been a beacon for consumer protections in the EU and also globally, with countries across the world looking to us for our consumer protection laws, and we should be proud of that. However, consumers have been left with little assurance about whether, beyond Brexit, they will continue to enjoy the same rights and protections, or what the Government’s Brexit agenda will mean in this regard. Constituents across the country are asking, “Will it result in the UK being forced to accept chlorinated chicken from the US? What will be the overall impact on food and safety standards? What enforcement structures will be in place to support consumer protections?” There is much more they are asking about, as they do not have any clarity on those critical issues.

To begin with, there is deep concern about the current drafting of the Government’s key legislation, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. That Bill—in particular, clause 7—goes beyond the ability of Ministers to make technical changes and enters the murky waters of giving Ministers carte blanche powers to “prevent, remedy or mitigate” any “deficiency” in EU law, with no clear criteria about what that means. In effect, they can make whatever changes they see fit behind closed doors without proper parliamentary scrutiny. If left unchanged, that could have a devastating impact on consumer protections, with Ministers effectively able to bring about wide-ranging change on consumer issues such as food, product safety standards, approval systems and oversight of financial services. The uncertainty about the direction of consumer protections after Brexit leaves consumers in limbo about their rights and protections. This is not a question of simply copying and pasting the legislation from the EU into UK law; it is far more complicated with regard to how we apply the law.

Once we leave the EU, the Government maintain, we will be leaving all the EU bodies, so from the point of our departure, the consumer protection legislation of the EU and that of the UK are likely to drift apart, as interpretations of such legislation will differ. As a result, there is little clarity about questions of jurisdiction, conflict of laws and enforceability after Brexit, with the Government making no effort to clarify those issues.

For example, it is crucial that we maintain cross-border consumer protection so that consumers have the confidence and security that the products they are purchasing are safe. Consumers no longer operate within geographical boundaries, so a key tenet of the Brexit negotiations should be to maintain current protections but also to maintain co-operation agreements to maintain the existing rights when people are dealing with companies based in other EU member states.

As the head of consumer policy at Citizens Advice said in evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union,

“It is one thing to say that the rule of law applies, but if there is no right to compensation when travelling abroad, or purchasing from an EU trader, if the cross-border agreements are not there to back it up it is not worth as much as it would suggest.”

We have still not heard anything from the Government about what cross-border co-operation post-Brexit will look like. Will the Minister lay out the Government’s position? Furthermore, the current UK consumer protection regime is under severe strain after seven years of Tory budget cuts to local councils. For example, the current domestic products safety regime is not fit for purpose and needs urgent reform, yet at every opportunity the Government have dismissed calls for such changes. The Government’s working group report into product safety, published on 20 July, was disappointing and refused to acknowledge that real change was needed in the product safety regime. It offered no serious proposal to ensure that proper enforcement mechanisms were in place to remove faulty goods from the market. That raises serious questions about the robustness of current enforcement regimes and their ability to withstand the pressures from the weight of EU consumer rights laws, which would be transferred into UK law. We have had no clarity from the Government about what agencies they intend to establish, how much funding that will require, or what their roles and powers will be when breaches of consumer law are found.

Warm words will not cut it. We cannot trust this Government’s vague assurances that consumer protections will be safeguarded when they will not even properly engage with consumer groups. When I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union how many times he had invited and met consumer groups to discuss negotiations on the UK leaving the EU and their implications for the consumer in the UK, his response was that Ministers and officials have met with consumer organisations such as Which?, MoneySavingExpert and Citizens Advice, and that they have plans to host a roundtable with consumer groups. All of those organisations have expressed frustration to me about the difference between engagement with businesses and with the consumer side, with the latter receiving very little attention from senior Government figures. Lip service has been paid to consumers, but there have not been any tangible outcomes in action from the Government, as no consumer and Secretary of State level roundtable or working group has been established. Finally, 16 months after the EU referendum we have yet to see a detailed plan about when this consumer roundtable, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his reply to my parliamentary question, will be held. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister to respond. If she could leave two to three minutes for the initiator of the debate to wind up, that would be great.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this debate, and especially the Minister for answering it. The UK has a strong history of consumer protection, and I am delighted that she has committed to its continuation with no reduction in consumer protection. I am also delighted to hear that we will continue to share intelligence with our neighbours to ensure that consumers are protected, and that we are committed to very high standards.

In this debate, food and animal welfare standards in particular were raised numerous times. Those are, of course, competencies of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The first time this Parliament when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took questions from the House, I was honoured to be drawn to ask the first question. My question was whether we would maintain high standards for food and animal welfare post-Brexit; he said yes. It is a key part of consumer protection that we do not mislead our consumers. We should not mislead our voters. This Government are committed to maintaining high standards for consumer protection, animal welfare and food. I thank the Minister again for saying that those would remain priorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on consumers and consumer protection.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We now move on to our next debate, as I see that the protagonists are here. Would Members leaving please do so quietly? This is a half-hour debate, which seems to be extremely popular; fortunately, I am not chairing it. If colleagues will take their positions, we will move swiftly on.

Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

All the protagonists are here for our next debate, so we can start a minute and a half early.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pensions in the nuclear decommissioning industry.

I have been seeking to secure a debate on pensions in the nuclear decommissioning industry for some months, as I am deeply disturbed by the way workers have been treated and betrayed by the UK Government. I speak on behalf of those in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran who work on the Hunterston A site, but this matter is of material interest to all workers across the United Kingdom who share the sense of betrayal and treachery at the fact that their pensions have been treated as if they were of no account.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

The betrayal that those workers feel should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed events since the nuclear estate was privatised by the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. Guarantees were made requiring the new private sector employers to continue to provide pension benefits for those employed at the time of privatisation

“at least as good as those they were receiving in the public sector”.

Those guarantees and legal protections have now been abandoned.

That situation was made starkly clear by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and other employers consulting on reforms to two final salary schemes, seeking the views of members on changes such as moving to a career average, revalued earnings arrangement and a cap on pensionable pay. The UK Government decided that because the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is classified as public sector, those schemes should be reformed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Clearly, however, those pensions are not public sector ones, as I shall go on to make clear.

The erosion of decommissioning workers’ pensions is unacceptable. Radical reform of those pensions has already taken place in the mid-2000s, when they were closed to new entrants, who now have inferior defined-contribution pensions. Public sector reform takes no account of the fact that decommissioning sites are now in the private sector, nor that, unlike for other public sector workers, redundancy is an inherent part of decommissioning workers’ employment.

South-west Growth Charter

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the South West Charter for Growth.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger—[Interruption.] That is a ringing endorsement. I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to bring to Westminster the campaign for the south-west to be seen as a centre for growth. The business community in the south-west is serious about introducing a framework for growth and economic prosperity in our important and much-loved region, which is what we are here to debate today.

We do not come to the Government with a begging bowl; we come to say that this is what the south-west business community plans to do for our region. The charter is not the brainchild of local authorities, politicians or quangos; it is the voice of business expressing its positive commitment to our region and saying to Whitehall, “This is what we will do. Now, Government, please do the part that only Governments can really do, namely infrastructure. Give us the tools to do the job.”

First, how do we define the south-west for the purpose of this debate? The Government usually describe the south-west as the seven counties from Land’s End to Gloucester, including Bristol and Stonehenge—a wide and disparate area. Not so today: the south-west for the purpose of this debate, the summit and the charter is primarily Cornwall, of course including the Isles of Scilly—I would not want to leave them out—Devon and most of Somerset, excluding the unitary authorities to the north. In other words, we are discussing the territory of the two local enterprise partnership regions of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly and the Heart of the South West.

The charter we are presenting the Government today builds on a growth summit held at the University of Exeter on Friday 21 October 2016. The summit was the initiative of one of the largest private-sector employers in our region, Pennon Group—the owner of South West Water, Bournemouth Water and Viridor—in partnership with the Western Morning News, a great champion of our region. The summit brought together the main economic interests of the south-west, alongside many of the region’s Members of Parliament. I am delighted that so many of my colleagues from Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, and from both sides of the House, are here today. The Opposition Members for our region are a tad depleted these days, but what Labour lacks in quantity the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) more than makes up for in quality. I am delighted to see him here today.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

You won’t say that after my speech.

[Mr Streeter]

I probably won’t. I have never agreed with a single word the right hon. Gentleman has said.

The south-west growth charter calls for a new partnership between the south-west and central Government to achieve the goals agreed at the summit, which was attended by more than 200 people, more than 40 businesses, the CBI, the region’s two local enterprise partnerships, academic institutions and 14 local authorities from across the region. The summit was addressed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who made an excellent speech that I know the Minister will replicate today. The Minister is a champion for progress, growth and prosperity. Indeed, he oozes them from every pore.

Despite our many successes and the beauty of our region, the south-west has not known the investment and prosperity of other parts of the United Kingdom in recent times—it falls below even the European Union average. What is more, the region has not always made itself heard with a clear, unified voice at Westminster, but we are open for business. We are looking for growth, and we want to build on the success of the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine. Today, we are setting out a positive vision for the south-west region.

The summit and the wider “Back the South West” campaign have shown a clear, unified business voice outlining a vision for the economic future of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. The campaign has captured imaginations across our region and is a positive initiative from business, with strong support from local media. I always find that quoting local newspapers is a good way of getting in the local newspapers, and the front page of the Western Morning News on 3 October 2016 said:

“Clean beaches, sparkling seas and fresh air. The South West has it all. But while the natural beauty of the region is incomparable, its economy too often lags behind…given the tools, the South West can really fly”.

That is what this debate is all about.

A key part of the “Back the South West” campaign has been about creating a south-west narrative and speaking passionately at national level about why the south-west region is a wonderful place to live, work and do business. We are all immensely proud of our region, but we face challenges, particularly in light of the forthcoming Brexit. The local enterprise partnerships in our region are already showing how well they can work together to address those challenges and take opportunities.

Infrastructure investment needs and connectivity improvements were the overriding themes of the summit. To paraphrase a politician from years ago, we want to talk about three key things today: infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. I remember going to India a few years ago with some Indian businesspeople, and they talked about the creativity of their people and all the resources and energy in that fabulous country. After the monsoons, they showed me roads that had been swept away and told me, “This is what holds us back in India. It is the infrastructure that we simply can’t manage to put in place.” I could say exactly the same thing about our region. All the creativity, the energy and the skills are there, but we need the infrastructure to get the job done.

We are all aware of the historical challenges in the south-west in relation to traditional infrastructure. For most of us, the key issue is the vital rail links to London and the rest of the country.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. We can do much more on the second rail link between Waterloo and Exeter to increase the number of trains and to add more loops so that we can get many more trains through to Exeter and further down into the west country. I would like a junction connecting the rail link to the trams at Seaton.

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his region, and I know he speaks to the Government. I am sure he knows that, by sheer coincidence, the Peninsula Rail Task Force’s 20-year plan will be launched at 11 o’clock this morning. The plan will spell out the improvement we seek to our rail infrastructure, and it will include the measures he mentions to equip our region for the 21st century.

Road and air transport are critical too, but it is not only about traditional infrastructure; it is also about wider connectivity. Big strides have been taken as part of the Government’s push to increase digital connectivity, but more needs to be done. As Bill Martin, the editor of the Western Morning News, has said, the south-west is known as

“the region where every telephone conversation ends with the word ‘hello’.”

Digital connectivity is more important than ever in this 21st-century world, so making a success of the digitally enabled economy is critical, particularly for our region where peripherality is our challenge and connectivity is the solution. Now that people can do anything from anywhere and now that we have excellent universities in our region, connecting ourselves will continue to make us the most attractive and wonderful place to live, work and raise a family.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend enormously for securing this important debate. Encompassing everything, does he agree that the south-west has been very much neglected and left out? The Government ignore us at their peril, because we could be a powerhouse not just for ourselves but for the country.

[Mr Streeter]

There is no question in my mind but that we have not seen the investment that we might have wanted from Governments of all colours over many years, particularly over the past 30 years. Now that we have come together to speak with a single powerful voice, I believe we will see that change. The Government are listening to us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On connectivity, the south-west can benefit from connectivity with the rest of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland can also gain from connectivity with the south-west. There are potential advantages for both, including in the agri-food industries, fishing and tourism. Those are three things that we could do together. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is how we should do it?

[Mr Streeter]

We are delighted to work with anyone, and we are always delighted to welcome tourists from Northern Ireland who come to enjoy our wonderful south-west.

The Government need to recognise that European funding has contributed greatly to digital infrastructure in the past, and that a home-grown solution must be provided for the future. We need 5G. Tourism has been a key part of the local economy for many years, but it has also meant a lot of low-paid jobs. We in the south-west have core strengths. We are home to world-class universities including Exeter, Plymouth and Falmouth, and to highly skilled workers. Our response has been for businesses, local leaders and academic institutions to create successful business clusters and networks, such as marine around Plymouth, environment around Exeter, and aerospace and defence around Newquay. The clusters have played a key part in the hundreds of thousands of growing businesses across the aerospace, marine, technology and creative industries, helping the region attract and retain talent. However, we need to do more, and we need the infrastructure to support that growth.

We in the south-west have proved that we are successful. Pennon Group, which has taken the lead on the excellent charter, is born of the south-west and headquartered there, and operates across the whole region, in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and now Dorset. It is one of the UK’s largest listed companies. There are many other success stories, and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will mention them in a moment.

One of the Secretary of State’s key messages at the summit was about devolution. I will touch on that, and I think that one or two other Members might want to mention it as well. He made it clear that if the south-west wants an ambitious devolution deal, it must accept a directly elected Mayor. His argument was that in other countries in the G7, large regions, particularly around big cities, have a lot more power than we in Britain have traditionally given to regions. Too many decisions in Britain are still made in Westminster when they should be made at local level, but local power is often too fragmented. To make sensible decisions on transport, skills and infrastructure, he argued, we need much more joined-up thinking and a proper combined authority, with one elected person shouldering the accountability.

That has given our region food for thought, and discussions are ongoing, but it seems clear that if we want the devolution deal that the region needs and deserves, we must find a way to deliver a western super-Mayor, a strategic leader—[Laughter.] Do you see what I did there? I have been working on that all night. Perhaps it is time we came together to do so. It is what the business community wants. However, there will be different views, and the conversation is ongoing.

The charter that we will deliver to Downing Street later today is not about going cap in hand to the Government; it is about saying that we in the south-west can do an awful lot for ourselves, but we need infrastructure support. The charter supports the Government’s industrial strategy and sets out how the Government can work with the south-west to increase investment and opportunities for people of all ages.

In the charter, the business community outlines its commitments to the region: to collaborate for growth; to invest in a self-sustaining south-west; to invest in innovation, industry and infrastructure; to invest in productive people and retain talent within our region; to invest in our environment and share the benefits of growth. What do we want the Government to do? We want a new Government partnership with the south-west, a firm focus on south-west growth in the Government’s industrial strategy and a funding road map so that the south-west can move from funding reliance to more innovative funding solutions.

We want investment in digital connectivity: ultrafast south-west, a new partnership with the private sector to deliver ultrafast south-west 5G mobile, fibre and wireless broadband to 90% of the population by 2030. We want investment in energy connectivity—switching on to opportunity—to address transmission and distribution restrictions on regional growth, to be completed by 2025, and a renewed focus by Ofgem, National Grid and Western Power Distribution. Crucially, we want investment in transport connectivity to get business moving. We want Government to back the Peninsula Rail Task Force’s long-term plan for rail improvements, which will be outlined in the report published later today, and to re-affirm commitments to road improvement projects in the pipeline, including the A303, the A30, the A38 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) would undoubtedly agree, the A358.

As Chris Loughlin, chief executive of Pennon, said at the south-west growth summit:

“We should be able to get our voice heard. We are, after all, a political battleground. Elections are won and lost on how the south-west votes.”

On that, we all agree.

The south-west charter will be delivered to Downing Street later today. The timing could not be better: it is the day before the autumn statement. The south-west has made a profound contribution to this country throughout our history, and we have some very successful businesses in the region. It is a charter for growth; more than that, it is a charter for aspiration and hope for all in the south-west, but particularly the younger generation. Tomorrow, we will look to the Chancellor to re-commit to the south-west. Leaving the EU creates uncertainty, but also opportunity. The south-west is ready to deliver in the new partnership with the Government, provided that we receive the right commitments. That is the challenge for the Minister in this debate. Hinkley Point C, the third runway at Heathrow and High Speed 2 will all have a positive impact on the south-west, but we need more, and we need more infrastructure commitments specifically for the south-west.

It is not just about the autumn statement tomorrow; we are not going away. We will look to future budgets and the UK’s industrial strategy to position the south-west where it should be: not on the fringes, but at the centre of growth. Our two local enterprise partnerships are working hard together already, with valuable input from the business community, led by Pennon, to ensure that our proposals are developed. We need to add Government to that partnership.

To quote the Western Morning News for the third time—

[Neil Parish]

You should get quoted now.

[Mr Streeter]

It is a sure-fire thing. The Western Morning News said in its editorial last week:

“The government listens to those who speak loudly and logically and can make a good case. Too often, parts of the West Country have seemed to be pulling in different directions. Faced with petty rivalries, it has been easy for Ministers to dismiss the needs of our region and divert funds and support elsewhere.”

Not today. Here, the south-west is speaking with a united voice, led by the region’s business community and with far wider support from MPs and many in local government. There is clear momentum behind the campaign. I am delighted to throw my weight behind it, as are my colleagues from across Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, from both sides of this House. Together, we will raise south-west growth up the Government’s agenda and secure our region’s place in the new industrial strategy.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order Looking around the room at the number of Members who wish to speak, I reckon that given 10 minutes for each of the Front-Bench speakers and a couple of minutes for Mr Streeter to wind up the debate, we probably have about four minutes a head. I do not normally do this, but I will on this occasion, because this debate has clearly and rightly attracted a lot of interest from south-west Members of Parliament: I will give the list and batting order. Mr Bradshaw will speak for the Opposition next. After that, we have Oliver Colvile, Johnny Mercer, James Heappey, Kevin Foster, Sir Hugo Swire, Peter Heaton-Jones, Anne-Marie Morris and Rebecca Pow. I will not impose a time limit; I will impose a self-denying ordinance, on the understanding that those at the end may drop off the list if other colleagues are too greedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Streeter]

The Minister, who knows I am a huge admirer of his, referred to the serried ranks of Conservative Members of Parliament from the south-west, and indeed he is right. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is also right that commitments were given in the run-up to the previous election, particularly about infrastructure. If the Minister thinks that if we fail to deliver on those commitments there will still be serried ranks of Conservative MPs from the south-west after 2020, I am afraid he is sadly mistaken. In 2020, we will be judged on the infrastructure and connectivity we deliver for our region. We have heard some very warm and supportive words from the Government, and it is great that we will have an industrial strategy, but we want action. There is a time for making promises and commitments, and there is a time for delivery. The time for delivery is now.

This positive charter was put together by the business leadership in our region. It is very positive about what they will do in our region, but it asks the Government to make specific commitments about delivery over the next five years. It talks about digital, energy and transport connectivity. My wife, who is coming up to London today, looked at the Great Western Railway website and said, “I cannot catch a train from Plymouth to London.” Colleagues were stranded yesterday afternoon and evening when trying to get from their constituencies to vote in an important debate in the House of Commons. People cannot get from Plymouth to London today by rail. It is not good enough. The time for promises is over. The time for delivery is now.

We want a new partnership between the private sector and the Government for the south-west. It is not rocket science. We know how to do infrastructure and connectivity. We want the Government to give us the resources and the commitment. We have the passion; give us the commitment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the South West Charter for Growth.