Consumer Rights Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

It is fascinating finally to come to the end of consideration of the Bill in this Chamber.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that those who wanted to speak on Third Reading did so before the shadow spokesperson. Am I wrong?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

You are wrong, yes. The Minister opens Third Reading, and the Opposition Front Bencher responds; we then hear from other participants. If we have enough time, and it is relevant to do so, we then hear the wind-ups. Do not worry—I will not forget you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is passionate about the subject she has just addressed. I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), will not be disappointed with my contribution. I want to put on record some important issues.

The Minister has outlined very well the issues that the Bill tries to address, but I and other Members still have concerns. I am particularly concerned about the issue of debt advice. There are many debt organisations in my constituency. Citizens Advice, Debt Advice NI and Christians Against Poverty are just three groups that give advice—they do not lend money—on the problems people face when they borrow money and build up debts that they are unable to pay.

The Consumer Rights Bill should be just that—legislation that protects consumers. Does the Bill do so entirely? Some of us feel that it might have done more, and we would be much more relaxed about it if it had done more.

The regulation of loan companies, which Members have referred to, is a very complex matter. We are all aware of the story about a lady who borrowed a couple of thousand pounds from a loan company, which developed into a six-figure sum over a number of transactions. She found herself in a very difficult position, and she then had her house repossessed. That may be an extreme example, but it illustrates our concerns.

I very much welcome the Government’s commitment on the territorial extent and application of the Bill. I want to comment on part 3, which does not extend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to Scotland and Northern Ireland, for example. The decision in relation to that will clearly lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly. I must say that that is good news for the people of Northern Ireland who attend church, but have to work on Sundays or might potentially have to do so. Any decision will lie with the Assembly, which is good news.

I wholeheartedly concur with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Congleton about the controversial technological changes referred to in new clause 31 in relation to three-parent children. I am concerned that there was no opportunity to debate that on the Floor of the House, because I certainly wanted to speak about it, as did other hon. Members. I suggest that it seems very dangerous to go ahead with such a change, as has been indicated, without any consensus of support or a majority in its favour. I must put on the record that I am very concerned about the numbers of ladies who have such worries. Some 558 people responded by saying that they did not want the change. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill has addressed many of the issues about which we have concerns, such as the right to the repair or replacement of goods. I commend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the good work that he has done on the Bill. He fought very valiantly and got the changes that he had hoped for in relation to electrical goods. I am tremendously pleased to see in the Bill what he and many other hon. Members wanted it to include.

If the Minister cannot respond on this point tonight, perhaps she will come back to me at some time, but I do not yet see powers for people who take out holiday insurance and need consumer protection—for example, those who, having booked a flight, find that they have to cancel it, whether for health or whatever reason—but cannot get a reimbursement. I had hoped that the Bill might give those people more protection, but I am not sure that it yet does so.

I welcome many of the things in the Bill, as well as some of the things in it about which we are not entirely happy. None the less, I congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions to the Bill, and on their ability to bring to the Floor of the House provisions that can make a change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for the contribution his family made to the great war—as did, obviously, many other families, but especially, as he highlighted, people of ethnic minority backgrounds. He has made an important point, and I will certainly look at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Commonwealth contribution to the first world war was significant. In particular, one in 10 people who served came from undivided India. In Northern Ireland we have a very large Indian community. What discussions has the Minister had with the bodies responsible in Northern Ireland to ensure that the community’s significant contribution is commemorated?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know that more than 70,000 soldiers from the Indian army made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Britain in the great war. With respect to Northern Ireland, I have not had any discussions so far in my new role, but I will certainly raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the past, both here and in Westminster Hall, I have spoken frequently about issues such as child poverty, food poverty, benefits for single parents, social exclusion and other social problems. On this occasion, I want to express my support, and that of my party, for the married couple’s transferable tax allowance. We gave a manifesto commitment to support it in our Parliament, and we are pleased to be able to support it today as well.

I respect the opinions of Labour Members, and I do not wish to be divisive. I want always to be respectful to Members whose opinions may differ from mine. However, I have a hard-held opinion about this particular issue. I want to help everyone, but I think it is time that married couples had an opportunity to see some benefit from legislative change. Those who support the recognition of marriage in the tax system have waited a long time for the Government to introduce this policy. I expected it to be introduced a long time ago, in view of the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for what was a headline manifesto commitment, but I am very pleased that, at long last, it is being introduced now.

We have heard some excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House. I particularly commend the way in which the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) set the scene. I recall a debate in the House about two years ago to which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I contributed. That was one of my early introductions to the cut and thrust of politics here. Most of the Members surrounding me opposed what I was saying, but I held fast to my opinion, and I am very pleased to be able to express it again today.

Let me begin by highlighting some of the powerful public policy benefits of marriage. I shall then explain why I consider clause 11 to be an appropriate public policy response, albeit rather modest—I should have liked to see more.

[Alison Seabeck]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is talking a great deal of common sense. Marriage is indeed something to which most people aspire. Let us be honest: it is a great institution. However—I think he was starting to make this point just now—the Bill is neither one thing nor another. It does not really achieve what most Government Members want, and it certainly does not deal with the concerns of Opposition Members. I should welcome his views on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

As ever, the hon. Lady has made a very sensible intervention.

It is not the financial aspect of the clause that will be the convincing factor for those who wish to proceed with it. Personally, I see it as a recognition of those who are in a marital relationship, which is why I support it. Marriage is unquestionably a source of great benefit to adults, to children and to our communities in general: as others have said, there are extensive research findings to demonstrate that. Given the shortage of time, I shall highlight just some of the benefits of marriage to adult health, on the basis of evidence and statistics.

As has already been said today, the health gain from marriage may be equal to the benefit of giving up smoking. Of special interest to me, given the challenges presented by our ageing population, is the fact that marriage significantly limits hospital use. Those living with a spouse are less likely than others to enter an institution after the age of 60, because that person will be able to look after them and help them. For children, growing up with married parents is associated with better physical health in adulthood and increased longevity. There is a direct link between family breakdown—particularly separation from a biological parent—and future offending. I have not made those things up: they are facts, based on information that we have received.

Some Members have argued that marriage in itself is irrelevant, and that all the positive associations with it are driven by other factors, principally income. I must say that I find that argument particularly unconvincing. When one set of couples have thoughtfully embraced the cost of making an exclusive, lifelong commitment before the world, “forsaking all others, so help me God”—a commitment that is sealed in law—and another have just decided to move in together and see how it goes, is it any wonder that the first set of couples are likely to be, on average, more stable? That is not a reflection on those who cohabit, but it is a reflection of the statistics showing the commitment that we all make in a marital relationship.

Moreover, as others have noted, the Millennium Cohort Study has blown out of the water the idea that it all boils down to money. According to the study, the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. Finance is clearly not the motivator. However, recognition of the marital relationship by the Government through the transferrable tax allowance strikes me as a constructive way forward.

On 25 July this year, the hon. Members for Darlington (Jenny Chapman)—who has now left the Chamber—and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) will enter the happy union of marriage here in the House of Commons. Let me take this opportunity to wish them well, as others have already. It is good to know that marriage is alive and well in the House.

My concern is not with trying to persuade people to marry, but the evidence suggests that people who want to marry are not doing so because it is not an accessible option. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in his marriage week speech in 2011,

“When asked about their aspirations, young people are very clear: three quarters of those under 35 who are currently in cohabiting relationships want to get married, and some 90% of young people aspire to marriage”.

Those are very clear statistics. The Secretary of State continued:

“So perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is this: if people from the youngest age aspire to make such a commitment in their lives, what stops them doing so?

Government cannot and should not try to lecture people or push them on this matter, but it is quite legitimate to ensure people have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations.”

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I think that we have a unanimous view about the importance of marriage. Does he feel that the Government are communicating the details of the policy clearly enough for the young people about whom he is talking to understand whether it affects them or not? Many of them—for example, couples earning the minimum wage—will not be affected by it.

[Jim Shannon]

I cannot comment on the technical figures—no doubt the Minister will say something about them when he sums up the debate—but I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The Government clearly have much to do. Indeed, we all have much to do in putting forward our views, but let us hope that those who have an opportunity to enter into a marital relationship will be able to benefit financially as well.

Although 90% of young people aspire to marry, marriage rates are at an all-time low, while cohabitation rates are rising. The reason why that matters can be expressed in many ways, but I shall do so by employing language that the Treasury understands. The cost of family breakdown has risen to some £44 billion per annum, and crucially, according to the Centre for Social Justice, of every £7 spent on family breakdown amongst young families, £1 is spent on divorce, £4 is spent on unmarried dual-registered parents who separate, and £2 is spent on sole registered parents.

In this context it is absolutely imperative that the state does not place any unnecessary obstacles in the way of those who wish to marry, yet that is exactly what we do on many occasions. Since 2000 we have had a tax system that is very much in the minority internationally, as the hon. Member for Peterborough said. Just over a fifth of people in the OECD area live in countries that do not recognise marriage or have some kind of couple allowance. The vast majority of those people live in just two countries: the UK and Mexico. Research by Pearson and Binder published by the public policy charity CARE demonstrates that in this context the tax burden on a one-earner married couple with two children on average wage has been consistently much higher in this country than across the OECD on average. In 2012, the latest year for which there are comparable data, the tax burden on a UK one-earner married couple on average wage was 45% greater than the OECD average, up from 42% in 2011. Moreover this burden was a staggering 80.4% of that placed on a single person on the same wage while the comparable OECD figure was just 55%. Figures sometimes blind us to the issues, but these figures illustrate the issue of fairness and balance and show what the Government are trying to achieve through the legislative change before us.

In this context is it any wonder that rather than opting for marriage, couples are opting for other arrangements? Clause 11 will begin to put this right, but this is only a very limited, partially transferable allowance that, far from creating a level playing field, let alone a little nudge to opt for marriage, will instead only erode the incentive not to marry. Clause 11 is thus a hugely important first step; it is a foundation upon which we must build.

On 10 April 2010, when announcing the detail of the Conservative transferable allowance policy, which was then worth 11.6% of the personal allowance, the Prime Minister was clearly bothered that the package was not more generous. He indicated his wish to see more and, speaking on “Sky News”, he blamed the current fiscal constraints and said:

“Of course I want to go further and I am sure that over a Parliament we would be able to go further but this is a good first step.”

I believe this is a good first step. I am on record in my constituency as asking for this. I have done articles for my provincial press, supporting this option of the married transferable allowance. I believe today we have a chance to move towards that, and I hope this House will decide very positively and clearly on this.

It is clear that all we are going to get in this Parliament is a 10% transferable allowance. Many people will be watching to see the Prime Minister make good his commitment to go further in the next Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can confirm in his response in what ways the Government are committed to doing more in the next parliamentary term to introduce a fully transferable allowance. That must be the No. 1 income tax priority for the next Parliament.

[Mr Burrowes]

I very much welcome clause 11 and not the amendment in the name of the Opposition.

Before coming here I had an interview with children who are taking part in the BBC “Newsround” consideration of Prime Minister’s questions. I did not have an opportunity to ask them about the transferable allowance, but as they grow into adulthood I suspect they will look back on the proceedings here and think it rather odd that we are trying to put down dividing lines and divide along party lines on the basic issue of marriage being recognised in the tax system. They will think it rather odd that people are trying to pit one family relationship against another, when this is a very simple and moderate measure that is recognised across the world.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

Very much connected to that point is the recent ASDA-mumsnet survey which reveals that seven out of 10 stay-at-home mums consistently say going back to work simply would not make financial sense because the hefty child care costs would leave them worse off, and 52% rely on household salaries for child care and 35% rely on their family for child care. In this context it is still disappointing, if not surprising, that the Institute for Public Policy Research recently published a report showing that the UK’s maternal employment rates are far lower than those of our OECD competitor countries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that for many people with children if they did not have their grandparents or their aunties, the cost of child care would be too great for them to return to work? Does she feel that while the Government have made some concessions on child care, they have not given enough of an incentive for those people not to need to depend on their grandparents and aunts in order to be able to continue to work?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is a heroic army of grandparents out there providing that much-needed support within families to ensure that those really struggling with the cost of living crisis can still be in work, but unfortunately some people do not have that luxury. There are an awful lot of people who cannot rely on that support and who find the current cost of child care too prohibitive to go to work or find that, despite working all hours, they cannot put food on the table.

Transparency and Public Trust in Business

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Six years after the peak of the global financial crisis there should surely no longer be disagreement among any of us that businesses are bound by the same ethical and social responsibilities that bind us all. As the financial crash showed, business transparency is absolutely essential to society. The lack of it in the financial sector in recent years continues to have huge repercussions for people in my town of Wigan, in the UK, and across the world.

We saw in the recent horsemeat scandal that lack of transparency can have major implications for consumers in the UK, but it can have even greater implications for the lives of people across the world, as in the horrific loss of life in Bangladesh with the collapse of the Rana Plaza complex. As business has become increasingly complex, it is very hard for consumers to know, first, whether they can trust the product they are buying, and secondly, whether the business they are supporting is operating ethically. Little wonder, then, that there is increasing public appetite for action. I was surprised to hear recently that the Edelman Trust Barometer found that the public want greater regulation of business by a margin of 4:1.

But it is not just the public who want action; companies and business leaders are also behind the call for higher business standards. The Minister will be aware of the B Team, an alliance of thinkers and business leaders, including Richard Branson and Paul Polman, the chief executive of Unilever, who are calling for a plan B that, in their words, puts

“people and planet alongside profit”.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, they called for companies to implement the highest standards in their core operations and across their supply chains, including greater transparency as a matter of course and as good business practice.

There is good reason for this. Business needs to command the support of the public, of investors and of shareholders in order to survive and to grow. However, public trust is low. Last year, an Ipsos MORI poll found that only 34% of the people questioned trusted business leaders to tell the truth. We need to see this in context; I would hate to think what they had to say about politicians. Research by Goldman Sachs and KPMG has shown that companies that have implemented responsible business practices such as transparency throughout their operations often lead on stock market performance and attract a wider and more loyal investor base from investors who are increasingly looking at these issues and want to invest in companies that have a long-term, not a short-term, outlook.

There are many examples of business leading the way in this field. As chairperson of the all-party parliamentary group on corporate responsibility, I have been pleased to meet and work with many such business leaders over the past four years. However, the Government need to play their part too, because, as many of these business leaders have told me, operating transparently is not always easy. They do so in the glare of public attention, they sometimes get it wrong, and it is incredibly complicated. Companies are often involved in extremely complex supply chains. That was brought home to me and to the wider public after the Rana Plaza disaster, where some of the multinational companies involved did not even realise at first that they had been contracting from suppliers who were based in the complex. It was only after campaigners and the media got involved that they realised they had been doing so.

Some companies are making efforts to operate to the highest ethical standards in terms of human rights and the environment—and to be open about it—but their problem is that they are in competition with businesses that do not do that. Many such businesses are based in the UK and listed on the London stock exchange, but they face no penalties whatsoever for breaching the standards the Government say they want them to meet. Like so many others, I believe it is time that the playing field was tilted in favour of those that are operating to high ethical standards, not against them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I asked the hon. Lady beforehand for permission to intervene on her. Does she agree that greater transparency of who owns and controls companies is necessary and that, in addition to addressing the issues she has mentioned, any new measures must address tax evasion, money laundering and the financing of terror?

[Lisa Nandy]

That is absolutely right. This goes to the heart of public trust in business, which is about transparency and a commitment to tackling such issues.

The business and human rights action plan was published jointly last September by the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The UK was one of the first countries to breathe life into the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights. I am proud of that and congratulate Ministers for taking a lead on it. “Good Business” sets out the standards it expects companies to uphold, but so far it does nothing to demand those standards of them. We have had a decade of voluntary corporate social responsibility. Given the experience of the past year and previously—when John Ruggie set out the guiding principles, which were unanimously endorsed by the UN—it is time for the Government to take a more proactive approach.

First, I have been deeply concerned by reports from non-governmental organisations and others that companies have been given conflicting messages by different parts of Government. Although the Foreign Office has consistently warned about the dangers for UK-based companies in knowingly or unknowingly breaching human rights overseas, it appears from anecdotal evidence that BIS has been acting in direct conflict with the commitments made in the action plan.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one concrete example where there is evidence of that happening. The Kiobel case was brought by a group of Nigerian activists who claimed that Shell had helped the Nigerian military to systematically torture and kill environmentalists in the 1990s. The cases against Shell were filed under the US alien tort statute, which applies extraterritorially, so it enables non-US plaintiffs to bring claims against foreign companies in the US courts for acts that occur in a third country. Shell challenged that use of the alien tort statute and the UK Government intervened to support the company’s position. The court then ruled in Shell’s favour, which limits the ability of communities in developing countries to challenge corporate malpractice in the US courts in future. The Government’s intervention ran contrary to the commitment made by the Prime Minister to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which were unanimously endorsed by Governments in 2011.

Will the Minister give an assurance that her Department is completely committed to upholding the principles in the action plan, without qualification, and that it will commit to the same openness in its dealings with business as the Government say they want to see from business itself? In particular, will she ensure that businesses receiving export credit support or development partnership funding have to show that they are meeting the standards of the UN guiding principles?

Secondly, the entire action plan is predicated on the principle of transparency—none of it can be monitored or enforced without it. Nowhere is that more true than in one of the central pillars of John Ruggie’s principles, namely the access to remedy. Without transparency, people whose lives and communities have been destroyed have no effective way of getting justice. As we saw with the South African miners who took a case against Cape plc, companies will often seek to cover the impact of their actions, creating enormous difficulties for communities and their lawyers in gaining the evidence they need to put before the courts.

I must tell the Minister that without transparency requirements, there is no way to prevent such injustices. I recently met representatives of the Afro-Colombian Community Council of Opoca in Colombia. After an 11-year struggle to acquire a collective land title, it was finally granted the right to 73,000 hectares of collective land titles in September 2011, which affected about 17,500 people. They had an 11-year struggle only to discover that a mining concession, covering approximately 55,000 hectares of their ancestral territory, had been granted to AngloGold Ashanti, which is a company registered on the British stock exchange. A proactive duty on companies to disclose information would prevent such harm, while a greater commitment to transparency and—crucially—penalties for those who do not comply is the only way to enable people to access justice.

Finally, I want to tell the Minister:

“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

That principle in Magna Carta has formed the basis of law, liberty and rights in this country for centuries. In this area at least, we are falling well short. Will the Minister commit to improving transparency and access to justice for communities harmed by the actions of British businesses abroad? At present, I and many other hon. Members in the Chamber are approached by so many people who have such a different story to tell. This is an issue of morality, good business and consumer confidence, but above all of national reputation. We should promote not the worst but the best of British business to the world. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to be called to make a small contribution to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to be respectful to all parties and individuals in my speech, and I want to speak about the reasoned amendment. It refers to the cost of living crisis, and no one who represents a constituency in this Chamber can ignore the cost of living. Yes, things are better. I acknowledge that and it is good that they are better. It is good that unemployment is down and that there are opportunities, but the money is just not in the pockets of the people I see on the high streets of the towns that I represent. The cost of living is still an issue that we need to address and I want to be respectful in that regard.

The amendment also refers to tackling rising energy bills. I know that the Government have given a commitment to doing that through the Budget and the debate over the past couple of days has tried to address that, too.

Today at Lambeth house, the all-party group on hunger and food poverty launched an inquiry to address poverty in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to take into consideration other parts of Europe where food banks are part of life. I see food banks as a positive, not a negative, as they bring communities together and energise people’s focus on those who are less well off, and people are very kind. Those are the benefits, but the all-party group will focus on poverty as well.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned young people and work. If there were ever an issue to which hon. Members should draw attention, it is the young people we represent in our constituencies. We want to see them getting courses at their local colleges and employment opportunities at the end of them. In his response, will the Minister gives some indication of the specific provision in this Budget to help young people to get job opportunities?

I also want to highlight the issue of unemployment and those over 50. Those who lose their jobs at the age of 50-plus find it very hard to get back into employment. Although they might have opportunities for courses, re-employment and retraining, the critical factor will be job opportunities. Perhaps the Minister could also consider that.

The Government have clearly made a commitment on child care costs. That will enable people to work. The Chancellor has stated his commitment—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did so again on TV last night —to create 1 million more jobs. That is good news, if the commitment can be delivered in reality.

Housing supply is an issue in my constituency. One of the biggest issues is the need for affordable rental accommodation. Although housing is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, it is still a critical issue and I look forward to seeing some changes in that regard.

I commend the Government for their pension changes. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned corporation tax. Although there is a commitment on air passenger duty, it is not enough and does not address the considerable difficulties we have in Northern Ireland because of the land border that people can drive across. Air passenger duty in the Republic is 0% and tourism VAT is at 9% whereas it is 20% in Northern Ireland. Those are critical factors that affect the Northern Ireland economy. We also have the highest fuel costs in the United Kingdom, and we would have been happier to have seen a specific scheme for Northern Ireland on that. Those are key issues.

I want to put on the record my disagreement with the Opposition’s view on the marriage tax allowance. I am glad that there is a married tax allowance for the third of married couples who are at present disadvantaged and who will, through clause 11, be better off. It is a Government commitment and it is good news. It is also a Democratic Unionist party commitment. We are pleased to see the married tax allowance coming through for married couples because it is an issue that we have supported. It is a pledge in our manifesto. We support married couples and we have sought provision for them through the Treasury. It is good news to see that delivered through clause 11.

May I put on record my strong support for the provision in the Budget of transferrable allowances for married couples? This has been a long time coming and is very welcome. It is a shame that at exactly the same time the Chancellor should announce a provision that discriminates against one-earner couples. A Government committed to fixing broken Britain should value those families where the decision is made to sacrifice a second salary so that one parent can remain at home to invest in the children. Sadly, the Chancellor’s child care announcement offers them no support at all and leaves them feeling like second-class citizens. There is provision for those on higher incomes and there is provision for those on lower incomes, but those who are often referred to as the squeezed middle do not receive the child care provision that they should have. It is also vital for the provision to be widened, especially with the news that the child care provisions are to remain available to the very rich, so transferrable measures also pertain for higher rate taxpayers.

Since 2000, we have been very unusual in having a tax system that does not recognise family responsibility in any way. All manner of injustices have followed from this fiscal individualism, such as the fact that the tax burden on one-earner married couples on an average wage with two children is 45% greater than the OECD average—up from 42% last year. To really see the problem we have with individualism, we have to consider this burden as a proportion of that placed on a single person on the same wage. In the UK, such a family pays more than 80% of what a single person on the same wage pays while the OECD average is just 55%. Such individualism will not fix broken Britain.

That Chancellor has today taken an important step in re-inserting recognition of family responsibility into the tax system. We welcome that and we are pleased that it has happened. This is a seminal development, and one on which we must now build for the future.

Safety of Electrical Appliances

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will consider that, on the first day of United Kingdom home safety week, it is appropriate that I raise the concerns of my constituent Martin Squires, who on 6 January 2012 did what hundreds of thousands of families in this country will undoubtedly be doing this very evening—he went to bed having first programmed the dishwasher sited in his kitchen. The dishwasher caught fire, and Martin believes that it is only by chance that he and his young family were not burned to death as a result.

That is bad enough, but in his attempt to come to terms with what happened to him and his family and to get to the bottom of its causes, Mr Squires has since become much more concerned with the safety of all those of us using white goods. I think it is true to say that he feels extremely let down both by the manufacturers and by the recall system for faulty and dangerous goods. In his own words,

“I purchased a product in good faith with hard earned money from a reputable company, which with hindsight was a potential death trap that they planted in my family home. As each month goes by I feel angrier with Hotpoint and the UK recall system. Hotpoint knew they had a problem with this product before my fire and whilst they started to contact customers in October 2012 they did not make the problem public until April 2013.”

He has found the system for recalling faulty products to be piecemeal, inflexible and designed, in essence, more to secure the profits of the producers than to protect the public. In fact, we know that the system is entirely in the hands of the manufacturers who produce the faulty and potentially lethal goods in the first place.

The Electrical Safety Council, which, as one might imagine, has done an enormous amount of work in this area, suggests that Mr Squires’ experience is far from unique, with such appliances causing over 17,000 domestic fires and 40 to 45 deaths in this country each year. Yet over 1 million appliances that are known to be faulty may remain in use in UK homes as we speak, every one of which has the potential to start life-threatening fires, as in my constituent’s case, or to emit gas, poisoning people as they sleep, as happened to Richard Smith and Kevin Branton, two young men who, as reported to this House in a recent debate and as shown in the Official Report of 11 March 2014, died in their sleep when a Beko cooker gave off carbon monoxide. This is a serious situation which it might be felt the Government of the day would want to play a part in mitigating. Perhaps I may come back to what I think the Government could and should do to improve matters.

First, I would like to look at the recall system that is supposed to operate when a safety risk to customers is discovered. It appears, at best, to be extremely flawed. The onus is on the manufacturer who produced the faulty product to initiate and organise the process, which, on average, leaves 80% of these defective and dangerous goods unreturned or unrepaired. Underfunded local trading standards services are responsible for enforcement and even have powers to order recall, but they rarely use them. Such other sanctions as there are appear to be derisory. Why is that the case when 1 million recalled goods are still in use in customers’ homes, and when 17,000 fires and up to 45 deaths a year result from that fact?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the Chamber for our consideration. I have sought his permission to intervene. In Northern Ireland, a new scheme has been brought in by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to retrain electricians periodically to make them aware of new regulations and the safety of electrical appliances so that they can use their expertise to advise their customers. If that scheme has not been introduced on the UK mainland, does the hon. Gentleman think that it should be?

[Mike Wood]

The situation is so bad that any scheme that could make a positive contribution and improve it would be welcome. I am grateful for that information, because I did not know about that scheme.

Things appear to be much better in product areas as varied as motor vehicles and food. I cannot speak for the Minister, but I understand that the Government say that the difference is due largely to the lack of traceability in electrical goods, as opposed to motor vehicles. Apparently, neither the manufacturer nor the retailer has sufficient information about the vast mass of people who purchase white goods. How, then, can we have a customer safety system that depends on exactly that knowledge? If traceability is the key to stopping fires and deaths, a quite different system must be introduced.

In my view, we need a third-party organisation with which people can register when they buy white goods. That would overcome the reticence of customers in giving their personal information to manufacturers or retailers, no doubt for fear that the data will be used or abused to bombard them with advertising and for other commercial purposes. Will the Government consider such a development? Will they consider a much more radical model that takes the process of recall out of the hands of the manufacturers altogether, so that it can be undertaken entirely in the interests of the consumer and their safety, rather than in the commercial interests of the producers?

I point the Minister to the American system, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission does just what I have suggested. As far as one can tell, it produces much better results for the consumer and their safety than we manage. I am not known for advocating the wonders of American practice generally, but our system is failing UK consumers and they have a right to expect better. In our system, commercial interest is allowed to determine how, at what pace, by what means and, indeed, if at all a manufacturer meets its responsibilities to recall defective products.

The trading standards service in my area reported to me at least one recent example of a manufacturer refusing to issue a recall notice at all, even though the trading standards service and the local fire service considered that it should. Neither of those agencies, whether individually or collectively, had the ability to force the company to act. The Chief Fire Officers Association says that it is

“very concerned about the number of faulty products in people’s homes.”

There is little wonder in that if the situation nationally is the same as the situation in my area of west Yorkshire, where the number of house fires is decreasing, in large part due to the professionalism, expertise and work of the fire service, but the number of fires caused by electrical goods remains stubbornly high. Chief fire officers have also said that they believe the recall system to be “unsuccessful and inadequate”.

The situation is that tens of thousands of dangerous and defective goods are left in people’s homes, causing 17,000 fires and up to 45 deaths a year. The responsibility for those goods obviously rests with the manufacturers, the importers and the retailers. The system to reduce the threat and protect the public safety is diffuse, unclear and too open to conflicts of interest.

I have some questions for the Minister about what the Government might do in the face of this threat to the public. First, will the Government ensure more traceability for electrical goods and consider a third-party agency to overcome the customer reluctance to provide details at point of sale? Secondly, will they investigate systems such as that in the US, where the onus for recall is essentially out of the hands of manufacturers? Thirdly, will they greatly increase the penalties, which are currently derisory—fines of £5,000 for multinational companies—given that the lives of my constituents and many others have been put at risk? Fourthly, will they start to collate data—it is ludicrous to me that they should need to start to do this—from, for instance, the 200 or so trading standards services and the fire services about the full extent of the dangers posed by these electrical products? Fifthly, will the Government listen more to people such as my constituent Martin Squires? He has had enormous difficulty in getting anybody to listen to the dangers that his family were put in and the lessons that he thinks should be learned. He wants the interests of consumers to be considered, not just those of producers, so that people’s lives are put less at risk.

Finally, to be helpful to the Minister, perhaps I might suggest that she introduce some of those suggestions as amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill which is making progress through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister say something about the role of the electrical contractors who supply the appliances and have to conform to the law?

[Jenny Willott]

In the case of appliances that are manufactured in the UK, the responsibility lies with either the manufacturer or the trader. In the case of appliances that are imported, the importer is liable for ensuring that they are in compliance with British law. All products that are sold in the UK must conform to British safety regulations. Traders are then responsible for ensuring that the goods that they sell to consumers are appropriate and safe, and comply with those regulations. It is clear that consumers will be protected by a number of different pieces of legislation so that they cannot fall into any gaps.

We are working with the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances on an industry initiative to encourage consumers to register their appliances, because the number of people who respond to recalls is extremely low. If more people register their appliances and ensure that the details are up to date, the recalls will be more effective. The leading appliance manufacturers—there is a great deal of money behind many of the big manufacturers—are trying to encourage product registration, and have committed themselves to using the power of their marketing programmes to show consumers why it is worth registering their domestic appliances.

I hope that that will debunk some of the myths identified by the hon. Member for Strangford. Many people think that they will end up on some junk mail list and be sent a load of stuff that they do not want after handing over their contact details, and do not complete the warranty forms because they do not understand why the information needs to be held. It was quite illuminating during the Committee stage of the Consumer Rights Bill to hear a number of Members say “I had no idea that that was why we were asked to fill in those cards.” If we can make people understand why it is important to provide the information, more of them will do so, and recalls will become much more effective. We are working with the manufacturers and also with trading standards and the fire service, and with consumer groups, too, because they have a very important role to play in helping consumers understand why this is important and worth doing.

This is a very important area. Although 21 deaths is quite a low number, every one of them is a tragedy and it is still far too many. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen highlighted, as well as those tragic deaths there are also injuries and significant damage to property. We want to try to reduce that as much as possible.

I believe that the legislative framework is right, and we are working very closely with enforcers, consumer groups, the fire service, manufacturers and retailers to try to ensure we share best practice, tighten up enforcement to make sure that is effective, and in the long run make corrective action, including recalls, more effective, so that we can reduce the number of tragedies and consumers are properly protected under the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

I support that, and I just reiterate the words the Chancellor used: those who have the worst values in our society are being used to fund those who have the best values in our society. That just about sums it up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[David Mowat]

I have given way twice already, so I am sorry but I am not going to do so now.

I wish to say a little about the carbon price floor, because I was delighted that the Chancellor has acted on it. The action makes no difference to our commitments on the overall carbon reduction profile that this country has made, but it makes a great difference to the potential carbon leakage we are facing in our great energy-intensive industries, particularly in the north-west and north-east. Some 900,000 people work in energy-intensive industries in our country, and I sometimes think they are forgotten in our dialogue about energy prices. It is worth understanding that what the Chancellor has done is remove the straitjacket on costs, which would have put a great deal of those jobs at risk. For example, we have already lost primary aluminium smelting in this country—it has moved out of the UK—and we are losing marginal chemicals capacity from this country. I am surprised that a number of Opposition Members are not more exercised about this issue in general, given that they represent parts of the north-east, where there is heavy chemical manufacturing, and there are a lot of energy-intensive industries and a lot of jobs, because we cannot rebalance our economy back towards manufacturing if we have differentially high energy prices in this country. We just will not be able to do that—it will not happen.

This issue is not just about what is happening in the United States on shale gas and shale prices; it is also about what is happening on mainland Europe. It is an inconvenient truth—to use a known phrase—in this whole issue of carbonisation that we produce not only considerably less carbon per head than the EU average, but less carbon per capita. We produce 30% less carbon per head and carbon per capita than Germany, yet Germany is pursuing a policy of building unabated coal power stations at scale. We are being left behind in all that, and what the Chancellor has done on the framework is absolutely spot on and will make a difference to those 900,000 jobs. I predict that we will be revisiting this issue at the next Budget and certainly into the next Parliament, because there is a great deal of unfinished business in this area.

Before I leave the field of energy, may I say in passing that the infrastructure plan is very welcome? Two big parts of the national infrastructure plan are Hinkley Point C and Wylfa—together they make up about a quarter of it. They are both vital to our country and our economy. Both are currently under EU state aid investigation, which is holding up the projects. I have heard Ministers saying that they are confident that they will have that agreed, and I very much hope that is the case, because it would be a great paradox if those low-carbon projects, which are essential to our energy security and to our decarbonisation efforts, are held up within the EU at the same time as our EU partners are building unabated coal power stations at scale in countries such as Holland, Germany and Belgium.

I want to move on now to tax avoidance and tax evasion. The Red Book shows incremental revenue of £2 billion over the next two years from the anti-abuse legislation that we introduced. I very much welcome the Chancellor reducing the level of corporate avoidance of stamp duty from £2 million to £500,000. The closure of that tax loophole has brought in hundreds of millions of pounds. It is an example, as I said at the start of my remarks, of why income equality is so much better now than it was under the previous Government.

I also welcome the up-front taxation of tax schemes, which means that if people get involved in controversial schemes, they will not be saving tax and cash flow as they wait to go to tribunal. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also able to act more quickly than it has hitherto been able to do.

There were four tests today, and the Chancellor has passed them and any reasonable expectation of this Budget. I am happy to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Following convention I shall refer to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and say I agree with some of what he said, but I disagree with the vast proportion of his speech because it deals with the general principles of the Chancellor’s Budget.

From the Chancellor’s speech one would think that everything was rosy with the economy, but that is not the case. Many people, including those in Northern Ireland, are experiencing a very different reality—a reality that the current Government are almost completely out of touch with. Families are faced with rising food bills, sky-rocketing energy costs and stagnant wages. This is pushing more and more people into personal debt and we could be faced with a personal credit crisis as people over-extend credit cards and use payday loan companies to cover rising bills. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, warned just yesterday that excessive borrowing was again posing a grave danger to the economy.

The employment figures announced today do not tell the full story, with a vast proportion of these new jobs coming from self-employment, temporary positions and zero-hours contracts. Many of these jobs are unstable and reflect not a true recovery, but a permanent low-wage economy. The figures are not geographically consistent. According to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland, the local employment rate of 72% is the lowest of any region, and unemployment remains stubbornly high at 7.5%, compared with the UK average of 7.2%.

This is to say nothing of the tragedy of joblessness faced by our young people. Youth unemployment stands at nearly a million in the UK and more than 20,000 in Northern Ireland. About one in four of our young people cannot find a job, which will have a devastating impact on our economy and on their own lives in the coming years. Many have emigrated and many more face emigration. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that this will cost the Northern Ireland economy £l billion by 2016. The Chancellor said nothing new today that makes me think he grasps the scale of the problem or is seeking the necessary remedies.

[Jim Shannon]

The Government have made concessions on the transferable tax allowance and on child care provision, but they have omitted to make any allowance for single-earner families where one of the parents goes to work and they forgo a second salary so that they can invest in the life of their children. There is provision for those at the higher level of taxation and provision for those at the lower level of taxation in respect of child care, but for those in between there is none. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a shortfall in the Government’s child care provision for that section of the community?

[Ms Ritchie]

Yes, I agree. The Government need to make provision for that section of the population.

With respect to welfare, the supposed recovery is not a balanced one, as this Government continue to attack the most vulnerable and worst-off while giving handouts to those at the top. This political sleight of hand, blaming the poorest in society for the economic woes caused by the banking collapse, which has been repeated by the Chancellor in Budget after Budget, is deeply cynical and should not go unchallenged. The Government’s divisive rhetoric and continued draconian approach to welfare reform is of great concern. The current roll-out of universal credit is unravelling at an alarming rate, yet we are expected to accept even more of this misery for the worst-off in society. We have valid concerns about these measures in Northern Ireland, yet the British Government and the Department for Work and Pensions continue to try to force this issue through with threats and grandstanding.

Today, we hear of further attacks on the most vulnerable, with the introduction of a cap on welfare spending. I have great fears that this proposed cap will be used in an entirely pernicious manner, with little consideration given to need. As always with the Budget, the devil will be in the detail, and I will be fully pursuing this in subsequent weeks. In particular, concerns have been raised as to exactly what benefits will and will not be included in such a cap. I have since been informed that benefits such as disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and bereavement benefits—the very benefits that affect some of the most vulnerable in our society—will be impacted upon.

Although some elements of the Budget are to be welcomed, I have a concern in respect of one sector. The tourism sector is absolutely vital for our economy in Northern Ireland. The measure announced in relation to air passenger duty is extremely limited and will do nothing to lower the excessive rate of duty on flights within the UK and to Europe—such flights form the vast majority of those to and from Northern Ireland. We are still faced with the highest rates of APD and VAT on tourism products in the EU. Almost every EU state has some form of reduction in VAT for the tourism industry, and just last month I held a debate asking for the Treasury to consider introducing a similar scheme in the UK, which would provide an instant boost for the tourism industry and our tourism sector in Northern Ireland. It was notable during that debate that MPs from across the House supported my proposal, including many of the Chancellor’s own Back Benchers. The lack of movement on either of those issues was a glaring omission from today’s Budget.

We see Ireland as an island tourist market, but businesses in the north face a 20% rate of VAT, whereas the Irish Government have taken the sensible step of keeping their rate at 9% for tourism products. Regrettably, the only border for tourists moving between the south and the north is an economic one, brought about by the decisions of the UK Treasury. I ask the Chancellor again to take a hard look at a cut in the rate of VAT for tourism products, which would become budget-neutral after the first year, according to Professor Blake, who used the Treasury’s own economic model.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

I am sorry, but I cannot give way again, as I am conscious that other Members wish to speak.

We are also seeking clarification on the aggregates credit levy scheme. I have had much correspondence with the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers on that issue, and I understand that we may be nearing a positive conclusion with the European Commission. So it would be helpful if we could get clarification on that issue, and on the whole area of the Barnett consequentials for flood defences, because I represent a coastal constituency whose coast has been undermined by the impact of climate change.

This was a political Budget from a political Chancellor, and it comes at the cost of the real economy. It will give little comfort to people who will continue to face low wages and high costs.

Newspaper Supply Chain

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate. I commend the Minister because this is her second debate in a row.

The issue of the newspaper supply chain and independent newsagents is covered by two Government Departments, so it is important that independent newsagents know which Minister and Department they can go to. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is responding this afternoon. I would be grateful if, in her response, she told us whether there are plans for one Minister to take the lead on this issue and oversee the policies that affect independent retailers.

Independent newspapers have been an integral part of many communities for decades. I am the daughter of former shopkeepers, and I spent more than 35 years living above a shop. My parents would go downstairs at the crack of dawn to open the shop, mark up newspapers and deal with the many challenges of the newspaper supply chain, so I have first-hand experience of the benefits to local communities of independent newsagents and the challenges of the newspaper supply chain.

Today is Budget day, so we should remember that our economy benefits from having prosperous, dynamic, independent newsagents; it is an important sector. Whether it is a friendly face at the counter who knows exactly what each customer comes in to buy, or a paper boy earning money for the first time and getting work experience—I have plenty of experience of delivering newspapers—independent newsagents offer high-quality, personalised services. As much as we welcome choice in where we shop, we all recognise that large supermarkets and online platforms do not do that.

Conservative Ministers deserve credit for taking action to support the sector. In particular, they have cut the small profits rate of corporation tax, increased the cap on business rates—that is an important step—cut fuel duty by more than Labour planned, reduced the burden on employers of national insurance contributions, and cut red tape, which has made a significant difference. The announcements in today’s Budget, apart from the usual increase in tobacco duty, with which we would not argue, also give independent newsagents a helping hand.

However, it is clear that over a number of years independent newsagents have faced difficult challenges that have forced many out of business. New tobacco controls have harmed responsible independent retailers. They have also driven many customers into the arms of illicit traders and smugglers, but that is a subject for another debate. The expansion of supermarkets brought more challenges. Changes to the newspaper and magazine market, including the expansion of existing newspapers’ online media platforms, new entrants to the market and the growth of free newspapers, have led to a decline in newspaper sales. The terms and conditions imposed on independent retailers by wholesalers are a part of the challenge they face.

I want to concentrate on the relationship between newspaper and magazine wholesalers and independent newspapers. The underlying trends and changes in how consumers digest newspapers and the news is highly relevant, because it has led to change in the marketplace.

Since the turn of the millennium, independent newsagents have suffered a fall in sales caused by the emergence of free newspapers—we all pick them up—that target the commuter market. The Metro and the Evening Standard, which are available in railway and underground stations, are two prominent examples. However, newsagents have also felt the impact of technological changes; more and more content is available online. All the main newspapers now invest heavily in their online platforms, which are updated minute by minute, particularly on Budget day. The growth in the use of smartphones and tablets has enabled news groups to provide news in a much more user-friendly way. Consumers are able to seek out and read news stories on other platforms, such as blogs. As a result, hard copy sales are falling. In the past two years alone—between March 2012 and February 2014—sales declined by 16% from 18.3 million to 15.4 million.

Despite the challenges that those changes pose to the traditional ways of selling newspapers, there are still some positive features for independent newsagents. Many people still go to their newsagent on the way to work and value the service they receive, and national news groups still see a role for print editions, which is important for independent newsagents. Few of us would find fault in news groups’ entrepreneurial and commercial decisions to use new technologies—we have all got to embrace new technology—or the cost-effective ways in which consumers digest news.

However, an issue that needs to be addressed, which places independent newsagents at a disadvantage and hampers their ability to compete and respond, is the wholesalers’ control of the newspaper supply chain and their vice-like grip on independent newsagents. The Minister is aware of the campaign that the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Association of Convenience Stores and many others in the sector ran to raise awareness about the lack of competition in the wholesale market. The are only two main wholesalers that operate in Great Britain: Smiths News and Menzies Distribution. They operate in what can be described only as a near monopoly, or near duopoly. National publishers of newspapers and magazines sign exclusive distribution rights deals with those wholesalers. Prices are set and there is no scope for independent newsagents to get involved in the negotiations, so their voices are not heard. A third wholesaler, Dawson Holdings, ended its magazine and newspaper distribution activities in 2009 after losing out on contracts with publishers.

Smaller independent wholesalers that traditionally operate at a local or regional level have been squeezed out as publishers have concentrated their contracts with Smiths and Menzies. As a result, if a newsagent wishes to trade in newspapers, they are effectively at the mercy of the wholesaler when it comes to terms and conditions, the quality of service—which many newsagents would question—and charges.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Like her, I have been contacted by constituents and small newsagents who are penalised by Menzies and other wholesalers, and have had their contract conditions changed without negotiation or consultation. Will the Minister respond to that issue? If an independent newsagent has a contract, how can they be charged extra money without consultation? There is no thought for the independent newsagent, who makes little money as it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The shops that we are talking about are the lifeblood of many communities. I have seen, over 35 years, a massive change; there is no doubt that we have seen many big changes. Increases in carriage charges are relevant not only to Great Britain but to Northern Ireland. Newsagents there have faced huge increases in the past 12 months alone. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about where there is scope to review the changes to carriage charges.

[Jim Shannon]

On that subject, the costs in Northern Ireland are exorbitant—I believe they are greater than here on the UK mainland. Independent newsagents have informed me and other elected representatives that it is getting to the point where they will have to decide whether to carry newspapers at all, because the margins are so tight. At the end of the day, it does not add up. Let us be honest: small shops are selling perhaps 100 newspapers, or 200 at the very most—there is no profit in that.

[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.

Football Clubs (Insolvency)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving late, but I had to serve on a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a great pleasure to support both this debate and the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).

I am an unabashedly huge football fan, and I have two brief points that are slightly too long for an intervention. My first point is on the Insolvency Act 1986. I represent North Swindon, and we have Swindon Town football club, which has entered administration twice and avoided it on many other occasions. We have had a number of owners, some good and some less good. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) mentioned St John Ambulance, and his point applies to Swindon, too. We had a number of good local businesses—genuine suppliers—that were left high and dry each time the club’s ownership changed. Various wealthy people managed to get away completely unscathed while those who were working hard to support our vital community football club were left with their fingers burned, which made it a lot harder for the town to continue trusting the new owners.

My second point is on transparency. We have heard about the situations in Portsmouth and Coventry, and the same applies to many football clubs across the country. As supporters, we simply do not know who is responsible for the football club and who is ultimately making the decision to spend more money than the club can viably sustain. I have previously called for every football club to have an elected fans representative on the board. Ultimately, we need business people who are good enough to raise sufficient money, but stupid enough to go and waste it chasing domestic success when running the club, and an elected fans representative would at least always ensure transparency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) described people trying to work out who the administrator was, but the fans representative would provide a link inside the football club. The football clubs would benefit, because at the end of the day, we long-suffering supporters are the customers. We buy the season tickets, the replica shirts, the Christmas presents, the programmes and the pies at half time. Having that rep on the board would offer a link to those customers. The rep could suggest where things are going right and where there are further opportunities to grow, as well as perhaps being the front that liaises with the local community, building trust in and support for the club.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also apologise for not arriving on time for the debate. I was also on a Delegated Legislation Committee and I took a little bit of time to get down here. I am pleased to have the chance to support this debate. I support Leicester City, and have done since I was a wee boy. We are looking forward to going back to the premier league, but we have had difficulties in the past. The loyalty of supporters and their contribution to their club, whether socially, physically, monetarily or in time—they might attend all the matches—are important. I totally support the hon. Gentleman’s point that the clubs should have within their administration some method whereby supporters clubs, or individuals on behalf of supporters clubs, can have an input into what happens.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I agree with. I see that representative being elected through the supporters trust network. We have had a number of Supporters Direct events in Parliament, and we have all seen at first hand the fantastic work that it does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I believe the individual ended up at Carlisle, and the club had a chequered time under his stewardship. Time and again, we are seeing people coming in for various different reasons without the interests of those football clubs at heart. I understand the world of business, but these clubs are valuable community assets. The Government need to apply pressure to the Football League and the Premier League, because it is in their interest to get their houses in order.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is being gracious and kind in giving way again. We are referring to the English Football League. Will there be an opportunity for the Minister to look at what is happening in Scotland and the other leagues? I think of Rangers FC, which is an institution. I have supported the team since I was a young boy. The club has dipped in and out of administration and still has difficulties in the board room. The club is important: at its past three matches, 115,000 fans have come to support it. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we have to look beyond the English league to the leagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely agree. The issue affects football clubs across the country. In Scotland, there is the worrying experience with Hearts. As with Portsmouth, people are trying to do deals, but even the club cannot identify the owner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), and the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). There was also a good late substitution when the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) came on to the pitch. Most of all I thank the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for securing the debate. The manner in which he advanced his excellent, eloquent argument was first class, and he set the tone for the rest of the debate. He closed his remarks by explaining that the issue is one that arguably affects all our communities. It certainly affects millions of football fans.

I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) was here, because she is a fan of Liverpool football club, and Bill Shankly, one of this country’s greatest ever managers, famously said:

“Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”

In many ways that is true, as we have heard today. Football makes a remarkable contribution to society. In my own patch, about a fifth of Hartlepool’s population travelled to Cardiff’s Millennium stadium to see Hartlepool United against Sheffield Wednesday in the league one play-off final in 2005, where we were cruelly robbed by an appalling refereeing decision. [Interruption.] It was a fabulous stadium.

Football provides a place with a sense of identity and belonging, and a recurring theme of the debate has been that clubs are much more than merely businesses. They are vital social institutions that bring and bind communities such as the people of Hartlepool together. There is a strong case for saying that in matters of business, governance, ownership, transparency about those matters and insolvency, the wider effects on society and communities should be considered.

It always strikes me as odd that, given football’s central importance to our society and communities, its finances are often precarious. Every year, Deloitte, a firm for which I used to work—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—produces a review of football finance. The latest review showed that in the 2011-12 season, the total revenues of the 92 clubs in the top four divisions of English football exceeded £3 billion for the first time. However, the Premier League accounted for almost four fifths of that total. Lower down the leagues, it is a different story. In the 2011-12 season, the average revenue of a league one club was £5 million, with an average net loss of £2.4 million; and in league two revenue was £3.3 million, with an average net loss of £0.3 million.

My local club, Hartlepool United, has had its fair share of flirtations with insolvency, although not in recent years, thankfully. We are infamous for a record number of re-elections to the Football League, and in the 1980s there was a time when we owed £52,000 to the Inland Revenue and a six-figure sum to other creditors. We were days away, in 1983, from being wound up, and the bailiffs took the goal posts, goal nets and grass cutter to pay the debt—not that we noticed much, because that year we finished third bottom, with a goal difference of minus 30. The only people below us, funnily enough, were Hereford United. It is funny how things go. We were actually wound up in the High Court in 1992-93 but the town’s club was saved by a great man—Harold Hornsey—and that helped to put Hartlepool United on a much better, sound financial footing.

[Jim Shannon]

Even though a club may be small, it makes a contribution to its town or city, and to society, and gives people pride even when it is not playing as well as it might or as well as people would like. Those are important factors for communities, and we should not take away from that. Perhaps a club will never become a Manchester United, Liverpool or Rangers, but it can always be an Ards football club, or a Hartlepool United. Those things are important to society.

[Mr Wright]

I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my lifetime, Hartlepool United will become a Manchester United or a Liverpool, and I will live to see us lift the champions league trophy, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect. He is right, however, about the vital contribution that clubs make to local businesses. Hartlepool borough council recently undertook an assessment of Hartlepool United’s economic impact on local businesses and, astonishingly, the club provides something like £5 million to Hartlepool’s economy.

The figures I have quoted show how inherently uncertain is the business model on which much of football is based. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that 46% of clubs have been through a formal insolvency procedure since 1992. No other sector of the economy has had that level of insolvency, which highlights—this was one of the hon. Gentleman’s most articulate points—the possibility of reckless spending. Entry into the premier league—the most exciting and followed league on Earth—could mean as much as £50 million to a club. It is the glittering prize to which all supporters and owners aspire, but it leads to reckless gambles in the transfer market, which could undermine the financial viability and long-term security of a club. Some argue that the football creditors rule prevents clubs from spending money on players whom it cannot afford, but we have heard today that that is far from the case. The football creditors rule means that there is no inherent brake on transfer spending or on—as the hon. Gentleman said—the shared risk of a club not being paid for the transfer of a player, because football creditors are paid in full at the expense of other unsecured creditors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I have to confess that I do not know the answer. If it is okay with him, I will write to him after the debate to clarify that point.

When a football club is sold, which takes it out of insolvency, the purchaser generally funds the payment of the football creditors, or other funds that do not belong to the club are used. A different pot of money is therefore paying for the football creditors. That is one of the reasons why the football creditors rule does not breach existing insolvency law. Were the funds to come from the same pot, it would breach the law, because it would be treating different unsecured creditors differently. Nevertheless, today and on a number of occasions in the past, it has been suggested that the football creditors rule should be abolished through legislation. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe has made that point today.

The number of Football League club insolvencies has declined significantly in recent seasons. In the 2003-04 season alone, six clubs became insolvent. Five years ago, there were around three or four failures per season. Happily, however, there have been no football insolvencies at all so far this season and only two in the season before that, and in one of those there were no football creditors, so the situation seems to be improving slightly. Insolvency is not the cause of a football business’s problems; it is a symptom arising from an underlying lack of financial stability.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and other hon. Members mentioned financial fair play; the football authorities have made significant moves in recent years to put clubs on a stronger financial footing. They have introduced an early warning system for tax debts, salary caps and an agreement on financial fair play rules, which will ensure that clubs do not spend more than they earn. Those measures are possibly already having a beneficial impact in increasing financial stability, which will lead to a decrease in the number of insolvencies.

[Jim Shannon]

I intervened earlier to ask hon. Members what talks the Minister has had with other Administrations, because the Scottish Football Association is separate, and sport is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. I am not trying to be nasty, but I want details on any discussions that the Minister has had with the devolved Administrations on these problems, which are very apparent in other regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.