Newspaper Supply Chain

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really interesting point. I make it my business to visit many independent shops, particularly newsagents, and I always ask about the number of newspapers they are selling. The figures are staggering, because they are declining at such a rate. I remember, when I was a child, the bundles of our Sunday newspapers being enormous—we were dealing with hundreds and hundreds of newspapers on a weekend alone. That landscape really has changed completely.

Along with all the additional costs, independent retailers are frustrated by the appalling service that they receive from wholesalers. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on their business and the quality of service that they can offer to their customers. When their newspapers are delivered late, people stop going to those shops. I hear many reports from newsagents about late paper deliveries. Other newsagents find that the wholesaler has given them the wrong order or the wrong number of newspapers, or that the supplier has gone to the supermarket down the road, and not to their shop.

Although there is a process by which a newsagent can complain, it does not change a thing. It just adds to the stress and frustration of running a business. Newsagents feel increasingly powerless to get redress for their situation. With the latest promotion by one supermarket chain—it gives away free newspapers to customers spending more than £5—the squeeze is being felt even more. Will the Minister update us on what action the Government are taking to investigate possible abuses in the supply chain and to ensure that independent retailers are not unfairly disadvantaged?

In conclusion, independent newsagents, some of which are dependent for 75% of their business on newspaper sales, deserve to be treated with fairness—the debate is all about fairness in the supply chain. Unless changes are made to boost competition and give them a fair deal, including involvement in negotiations and decision making, more and more newsagents will struggle to compete. We will see more withdraw from the marketplace because they will not be able to survive, and our communities will be much poorer as a result. One newsagent put it clearly:

“the big point that needs to be made is that falling sales, shrinking margins and disproportionately high carriage charges will before long drive many smaller news retailers out of the market, to the detriment of consumers—notably the elderly who may not be tech-savvy and digitally aware of the alternatives to print editions.”

I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to the points I have made, and will help us to see what can be done to support the future of independent newsagents. These are small and micro-businesses, and the Government are doing great things for similarly sized companies. The issue should be reviewed by the Competition and Markets Authority, and the Government should work with newsagents to assess the reforms that are long overdue. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to speak in her second debate this afternoon.

Annuities for Pensioners

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Heather Wheeler]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend called today’s debate because I have received a letter from a constituent, Mr Tejpal Singh of Stenson Fields, who asked me to ensure that the House had a debate on annuities, so a new year resolution has been kept. Mr Singh’s point was that people were given specific advice to save and were given to understand that when they took out an annuity at a specific age, the return would be £10,000 or £7,500 a year, but they are lucky to get £4,000 or even £3,000 now. That is difficult for people who have done the right thing on this important cost-of-living issue, but then the market has collapsed. I wonder whether the advice that my hon. Friend is referring to could help with that.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. There is no doubt that annuity rates have dropped sharply from 10% to 5% over the last few years. Rather like charges on pensions and on investment management generally, it is only when a market becomes more difficult that it becomes more important to shine a light on charges and commission structures, because they become a much higher part of the total cost. If someone’s significant pension pot does not generate a significant income, they want to know where the money is going. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue, which has propelled the annuities issue on to the front pages of newspapers from the business and financial sections.

I must sound a warning to the Opposition. We have heard from them over the last few weeks and months a sudden and dramatic cry that something must be done urgently. That rather prompts the question why they did so little during their long 13 years in office, with almost as many pensions Ministers. Some of the issues have been around for a long time. I am pleased that the FCA took up the issue of annuities relatively soon after its birth, put its consumer panel on the case and has now come up with research showing, I think without further question, that the annuities market is not working satisfactorily.

I want to make three points to clarify the matter. First, the annuities market is no longer working for many people in this country. It needs to be reformed, and if that is to be useful, it should be welcomed by everyone in the industry; otherwise, annuities will have no real role in future financial planning. Secondly, the opaqueness of the market stands in stark contrast with the increasing amount of light in the pensions industry as a whole and is therefore more of an anomaly than it was. Thirdly, the reports now coming in from regulatory bodies provide the Government with a wonderful opportunity to do something that millions of people throughout the country would be grateful for and reform an imperfect market so that it works much more effectively than at present. It falls to our Government to have that opportunity, and I hope we will seize it in the remaining 18 months of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman’s earlier reluctance to give way is uncharacteristic, especially as 45 minutes were left in the debate for Front-Bench spokesmen. He has two or three times confused issues, especially on my exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South about nationalisation. My hon. Friend clarified that and explained that he was looking for participation in the market, not domination of it. Members on both sides of the House have an opportunity today to express their views and reach a consensus; the review by the Financial Conduct Authority and the consultation by the Department for Work and Pensions provide an opportunity for the House to move forward on an issue of concern to all our constituents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? He should surely reach for consensus, not political division.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short.

[Gregg McClymont]

I am not sure what the point of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was, other than to show that he had not understood the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington South. Everyone else understood that he meant proceeding in the way NEST does, rather than nationalisation. For people who understood the point, no clarification was needed.

Road Fuel Duties

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Justine Greening]

You always know that you are making progress in an argument, Mr Dobbin, when people have to turn back to things that happened decades—[Interruption.] Opposition Members can make this into a political issue. I would like to make it into an issue that involves people outside this place. Frankly, if those in the Labour party had spent less time arguing among themselves, as we now know they were doing, and a little more time moving away from political stunts to manage the economy responsibly, perhaps the public finances in this country would not have been in the mess that they were in when they were handed over to us at the last election. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says, “You are in government.” Yes, there’s a good reason for that—because the British people had just about had enough of the Labour party being in control of the purse strings. I think we all hope that it will be an awfully long time before it is given control of the purse strings again. [Interruption.] I now want to make some progress on fuel duty and I particularly want to —[Interruption.]

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I ask hon. Members to behave themselves?

[Justine Greening]

Thank you, Mr Dobbin. I want to make some progress on fuel duty, because that is the key concern in our minds today. The issue of hauliers was raised. The package that we introduced has meant that hauliers have been able to benefit on average by about £1,700 a year.

Funding Formula

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He refers in part to the Calman commission and the fact that the block grant in Scotland will be reduced to 65% and that Scotland is to raise 35% of its income through tax-raising powers given under the Bill. What I am talking about will still apply, however, as 65% of Scotland’s public spending will be allocated. Everything mentioned in this debate is relevant, although we can argue about the time scale. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I have outlined a possible way to proceed.

I touch again on the different needs that the House of Lords Committee found. They are four: we should move to an assessment method that takes account of the age and structure of the population, as a significant number of older people require extra spending; we need to consider low incomes; we should take account of ill health and disability; and we should consider economic weakness. All of us would probably have some sympathy with those four indicators. There would be value in setting up an independent commission, as it would allow people to make representations, and extra factors could be taken into account to deal with the particular situation in Wales or Scotland. Indeed, it has been done successfully in Scotland.

The House of Lords debated the Barnett formula report on 11 March 2010. Lord Moser, a former head Government statistician who was appointed by a previous Labour Government, said:

“We emphasised repeatedly that, especially in the hands of an independent body, backed by thorough and on-going research, this was an eminently practical task. It is just not true to say that it is difficult or too time-consuming or too complex—that is not so.”

He was talking about the task of setting up a new needs-based commission.

Baroness Hollis, a distinguished Labour peer, spoke of the differences in funding for personal care:

“What could be more unfair…than an elderly, frail person in East Anglia receiving perhaps only two-thirds, in public expenditure terms, of what an equally elderly, frail person in Scotland receives, even though the person in East Anglia is poorer, because we are hanging on to an unfair population basis of estimating subsidy?”

Lord Newby, a Liberal Democrat from Scotland, said:

“In terms of gaining public acceptance for a conclusion which will inevitably mean funds being taken away from Scotland, it is interesting to note that within the Lib Dems we had quite a spirited discussion with our colleagues in Scotland when we first proposed this, as you can imagine. In the end, the argument that fairness is the only long-term sustainable basis for allocating expenditure won the day, as I am sure it will in future as this case is made more widely.”

I note that Lord Davies of Oldham, then a Labour Treasury Minister, wound up the debate by saying of the report’s authors:

“They have created a framework within which the disadvantages of the Barnett formula are such that a reforming Government would need to look at them.”

That brings me back to my opening remarks. I am proud to be part of a reforming Government, and I hope that we will not be dilatory in this matter.

Baroness Noakes, then our shadow Treasury Minister, said in response to the debate:

“In principle, this is something which my party supports. We also support the transparency advocated by my noble friend Lord Trimble.”

She also spoke of

“an inevitable conclusion that change is necessary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. 371-404.]

I thank all Members who wish to contribute to the debate, and I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in response.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

A number of hon. Members wish to speak. I remind the House that the wind-ups will start at 10.40 am, so I ask Members to keep their contributions brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

“Happier”—okay, well perhaps we would be “happier”. I, too, would be “happier” if we went to a needs-based formula; I will concede that much.

In conclusion, I simply add that at last we agree across this House that a fairer funding formula ought to be pursued and that Barnett has seen its day. I therefore commend the Government for considering how we might do something important about it in the future.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

There are still three hon. Members who want to contribute, so I remind hon. Members of the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s point is that it would require the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and we would have to look at the matter on a UK-wide basis. He is perfectly right to highlight my background regarding the single currency. The crucial issue was that one of the arguments against a single currency was that it was difficult to see how transfers from Germany to Greece, for example, to subsidise that currency could be justified. We now see that situation, and it has been highlighted in a book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). My view is that we can still justify transfers within the United Kingdom to the different regions of England and to the nations, on the basis that we have a shared heritage and a shared belief that we are part of the United Kingdom. I was of the view that that shared heritage would not be there at European Union level, and we might see that issue tested to destruction this year. I do not want to see the situation that we have in the United Kingdom, with transfers within the Union, destroyed by a clear unfairness in the system. Wales will probably benefit from a needs-based system, but we certainly need to look at the issue during this Parliament because I think that otherwise there will be a growing disenchantment with the system on the part of the English taxpayer, and that would be bad for the needs of people in Wales.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members might be interested to know that Lord Barnett was a predecessor of mine. I did not realise that my constituency had such an impact on Government funding.