Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government are committed to improving transport infrastructure across the United Kingdom. Obviously, some matters are devolved. Network Rail has a £48 billion plan for rail infrastructure. I would be happy to hear from him about the specific projects that he is interested in taking up with it.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Reports over the weekend that the Bradford city centre stop is to be dropped from the Northern Powerhouse Rail route are extremely concerning. Given the importance of NPR to any improved transport infrastructure, can the Minister confirm here today that the Government’s preferred route still includes Bradford?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am a passionate believer in improving east-west connectivity across the north. I am pleased to say that I met the leader of Bradford Council just the other week. Bradford has an exciting future as one of the younger cities in the country. I believe that the plans that NPR has put forward include Bradford. We are happy to look at those. Transport for the North is actively engaging with local stakeholders on the various routes for improving connectivity between Manchester and Leeds, and that includes Bradford city centre.

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I think the idea that an industry could be nationalised not at market value is completely wrong; that is fundamentally against the principle of property rights on which our entire economy is built.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

T6. The Government’s Social Mobility Commission recently stated that social mobility in the UK has stagnated over the last four years. One of its key recommendations is that the Government should significantly increase funding for further education in the upcoming spending review. Given that Bradford College plans to cut 131 of its staff, will the Chancellor listen to his Government’s own commission, boost FE funding and give the most disadvantaged students the opportunities they deserve?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am working very closely with the Department for Education, looking at the FE sector and at the new qualifications we are introducing, such as T-levels, and making sure the sector is sustainable in the future. We are also reforming it to deliver the best possible outcome for students.

World Menopause Day

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered world menopause day 2018.

As always, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating the debate and all those from across the House who supported the application, including my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). Today is World Menopause Day, the day that the International Menopause Society, in collaboration with the World Health Organisation, has designated for a focus on the menopause—from hot flushes through to heart health and everything in between. It was only in July 2018 that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is in her place, discussed her experiences with the menopause in this House. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her on her honesty and, I must say, her bravery in raising the matter in this Chamber. It is my hope that we will no longer have to note or make newsworthy such honest representations and statements.

Discussions and understanding of the menopause should be commonplace and should go almost unnoticed but not unactioned, which is the important point. Many women spend a third of their lives postmenopausal, often at the peak of their careers and still with huge plans and ambitions for the future. In fact, as the pension age for women increases to 68, our society is demanding that women have those careers and those ambitions. Women could now spend well over 20 years of their working lives living perimenopausal and postmenopausal. Three and a half million women over 50 are employed in the UK, and 80% of them will experience notable changes due to the menopause. Recent research has found that 50% of working women reported finding work difficult due to the menopause, and 10% give up work altogether as a result.

I embarked on a new career in my 50s as a newly elected MP. I was privileged to enter this House of Commons just over a year ago, and I cannot imagine embarking on a new career struggling with some of the symptoms that my female counterparts experience and suffering them without help and support. Indeed, it is unthinkable that society would ask men at the height of their careers to simply tolerate the symptoms, to carry on and, actually, to do so quietly. Why should women? All too often, the menopause is seen as something women need simply to cope with. They are afraid to discuss the symptoms openly with their friends, family and, sometimes most importantly, work colleagues, because they are afraid of being undermined and perhaps marginalised. Some 70% of women do not discuss their symptoms at work, a third do not visit their GP and 50% report that the menopause affects their mental health and their ability at work.

Michelle Heaton, who went through the menopause in her 30s, is a diligent and vocal campaigner who is doing an excellent job of raising awareness of the menopause today in a white paper report with Glenmark Pharma—a critically important document.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that raising awareness of early menopause among the general public and, crucially, the medical profession is critical for women who need diagnosis and support while they are going through it?

[Martin Whitfield]

Absolutely, and I am grateful for that intervention. I will come to the matter of the medical profession in just a moment.

The report that Michelle is promoting is intended to increase understanding of symptoms and, in particular, the age at which the menopause begins. Too frequently, it is considered a condition of a certain age, which is so far from the truth. Indeed, when the symptoms start to show, we need to educate not just the general population but health providers in particular so they understand what is being presented.

Just yesterday, a colleague from the Scottish Parliament, Monica Lennon MSP, lodged a motion requesting “equal access” to the menopause clinics that exist up there. I compliment her and the unions for their work up there. They raise the issue that employers have been slow to recognise that those experiencing menopausal symptoms may need special consideration. For too long it has been a private matter. As a result, it is rarely discussed. Many managers will have no awareness of the issues involved, which means that many workers feel they have to hide their symptoms and are less likely to ask for the adjustments they need in order to work. I agree with the motion when it says that this must change. The menopause is an occupational health issue that rests on the desks of managers—male as well as female managers, and managers who are frequently younger than the person who presents before them. There needs to be education about this so that it can be dealt with sensitively but positively, as it will affect 50% of our population at some stage.

Gender equality is not just a women’s issue, it is an issue for society as a whole. We should all wish to live in a society that is fair and equitable for all. There is nothing equitable about a large proportion of our workforce being forced to suffer these health issues in silence. Women are often not comfortable disclosing these difficulties to managers, particularly if they are younger and particularly if they are male. Women still sometimes require time off work to deal with the symptoms, and many are not comfortable with disclosing the real reason for their time off, so it goes unnoticed by employers.

The menopause should be recognised as, among other things, an occupational health issue. With all due respect, employers have been far, far too slow to take on board the requirement to recognise those who are experiencing symptoms. Today is World Menopause Day and a number of things are being asked for, all of which are based on the simple hashtag that has been adopted today: #makemenopausematter. It is a simple request, and it spans schools and education, the workplace and our health professionals, who have a duty and obligation to understand the symptoms presented to them by women who are finding the menopause frightening and challenging and who often find it difficult to discuss the matter within their own families. Today is an opportunity to look at that and address the educational needs that the whole of society requires.

I stand here introducing this debate as a man, and it has to be said that it is time for men to show their solidarity and to break a taboo about talking about the menopause. I ask every man in this place, every man who is watching on and every man in the UK—let me go further and just ask all men—to be brave enough to have the guts to say, “Can you tell me? Can you explain? Will you please share?” I ask them to do that while listening with sympathy and empathy. Sadly, I am all too convinced that if the menopause affected men, it perhaps would not be the problem it is today and we would not be having this debate—it would have certainly have been first raised in this House before July 2018.

Freeports

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this important and timely debate.

We have heard how our ports play a vital role in facilitating our global trade, and about their importance to coastal communities and regional economies. However, 95% of our goods trade passes through our ports, which is significantly higher than the EU and international averages. Our businesses depend on our ports to get their goods to overseas markets. Our ports handle an estimated 500 million tonnes of freight each year, making our port industry the second largest in the EU, with more than 100,000 people in towns and cities around our coast employed directly, and many thousands more in supporting and related businesses. In 2015, the maritime sector accounted for approximately £4.7 billion in tax revenues—some 0.7% of the total tax take that year, with the port and shipping industries being the largest contributors.

I welcome the renewed focus on the maritime sector in the wake of Brexit. Although it is right that we consider the role that ports play, we must also consider that role in the context of Brexit. The Department for Transport estimates that in 2017, 55% of international tonnage passing through UK major ports was to or from the EU. It is still our largest trading partner, accounting for 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports.

The Government’s chaotic handling of Brexit could cause tariffs to be imposed on exported goods, along with increased paperwork, inspections, audits and so forth. It could cause bottlenecks at ports here and on the continent. Security or customs delays could cause substantial tailbacks leading up to our ports as freight lorries are forced to pool while waiting for ports in France or the Netherlands to clear any backlogs that build up there.

The impact on ports such as Dover, where 99% of through trade is to or from the EU, will be substantial. Other ports, such as those that are members of the UK Major Ports Group, have suggested that they are investing substantially in infrastructure and capacity expansion, to be prepared for any eventuality. Sadly, it seems that the Government have yet to adequately prepare for the same. Towards the end of last year, at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs told Members of Parliament that the new customs declaration system would not be fully up and running in time for Brexit and that the system had not been designed with any increased customs processing in mind.

That is precisely why Labour has repeatedly called for a new customs agreement with the EU, to ensure that our businesses can continue to export tariff-free and without friction at the border. Today’s debate should perhaps have focused on that and the Government’s complete failure to ensure that our ports are supported in the event of any change to our current trade relationship with the EU. Nevertheless, we are here to debate the reintroduction of freeports. I say reintroduction because, as many Members have alluded to and will remember, the UK has already experimented with freeports at the ports of Liverpool, Southampton, Tilbury, Sheerness and Prestwick airport. Those freeports, established while we were a member of the European Union, were freeports in the true sense of the term: a defined area outside our customs territory, where goods could enter without attracting taxes or tariffs.

If the Government are considering whether to re-establish such a model, will the Minister tell us why, under the coalition Government, it was decided in 2012 that the freeports would not continue? Are we really talking about not a freeport per se, but a free trade or free enterprise zone, where goods can be manufactured and services rendered without being subject to the ordinary tax and/or legal regimes of this country?

Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), have suggested that the Government should consider adopting the American model of free trade zones, in which businesses would be given tax incentives to relocate. Although there may be evidence to demonstrate that such a model creates employment and attracts investment, very rarely is any assessment made of the extent to which those jobs and that investment are displaced, resulting in job losses and business closures elsewhere.

There is evidence around the world to suggest that such free trade zones are exploited by investors and businesses that seek to take advantage of general tax holidays and lax employment laws, while failing to produce the economic benefits promised.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the importance of EU trade, with which I completely agree. On displacing business from elsewhere, which is really important, I know from conversations with Ministers that that is at the heart of the Treasury’s concern to ensure that we do not just end up shifting jobs from one part of our country to another. This is about winning business from outside the UK for the UK that otherwise would not be here. I do not believe, for example, that if we had a string of freeports around our country they would take jobs away from other port areas in the UK. It would be about winning new businesses and jobs.

[Judith Cummins]

I will come on to the importance of defining what is a freeport. A 2011 review of special economic zones by the World Bank suggested that many such models had become white elephants, with the cost of revenue lost to the Exchequer outweighing the benefits. At the same time, The Economist reported that they create distortions in economies and that many fail, leaving a long trail of failed zones that either never got going, were poorly run or in which investors gladly took tax breaks without producing substantial employment or export earnings.

Reports have repeatedly surfaced from free enterprise or free trade zones around the world that demonstrate lax enforcement of labour laws. Polish workers have been sacked for an illegal strike against poor working conditions at a business located in a special economic zone. There are similar examples in China, Cambodia and elsewhere. The European Parliament’s director general for external policies found that often in such zones

“the governance of labour rights may differ from the rest of the country and fall below international legal standards”.

If the Government are considering such a model, will they tell us how they intend to ensure that workers’ rights are protected and enforced? Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with trade unions?

Serious concerns have been raised about how a combination of tax incentives and relaxed monitoring and supervision, even by competent regulators, has resulted in a reduction in finance and trade controls and enforcement, creating opportunities for money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force raised precisely those concerns in the inaugural review of free trade zones in 2015. It noted that

“the same characteristics that make FTZs attractive to legitimate business also attract abuse by illicit actors”.

The Financial Action Task Force also noted that FTZs have been used in the transport and production of weapons of mass destruction.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for outlining all the potential issues, but does that mean we should not have freeports because those things may happen?

[Judith Cummins]

I said at the beginning of my speech that this is a timely debate, because these things need to be said. However, until we get the deal we cannot rule anything in or out, because the devil is always in the detail.

The United Kingdom must not be allowed to become a bargain basement tax haven off the coast of Europe. That includes not allowing any schemes that would allow the abuse of workers’ rights, financial checks, export licencing regimes or money laundering checks. Although we recognise the various calls for a freeport review from industry groups, from the Key Cities group to the British Ports Association and the British Hospitality Association, we must note that it is only one aspect of their much larger call for coastal communities to have a strategy to ensure that investment and growth are facilitated across the UK. That includes investing in transport and infrastructure and improving port connectivity.

Today’s debate must not be used to mask failures by this Government: a failure to bring forward any coherent proposal for our future trading relationship with the EU; a failure to give our exporters any clarity about what their future trade environment looks like; a failure to adequately prepare for Brexit at our ports; a failure to properly invest in transport infrastructure; and a failure to develop any coherent plan to support economic growth and investment in our coastal communities.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that other hon. Members and I have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) spoke eloquently of her local community; she shared her ambition for a freeport to unleash the economic potential in her area. All Members spoke about the importance of defining what we mean when we speak about freeports and the importance of rebalancing our economy. Crucially, I urge the Minister to commit today to consult properly with all Members of Parliament who represent potentially affected areas, because they deserve to be heard.

Trade Bill (Third sitting)

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Faisal Rashid]

Thank you. That is very useful.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Q This is a question for Ms Dickson. The Scotch Whisky Association has set out a framework for consultation set in statute through a UK trade policy advisory network. Could you explain what that proposal is?

Sarah Dickson: It would be very similar to what the US does. It has cleared advisers. When you are into a negotiation, I know one thing that this House has talked about before is how you talk about a negotiation while it is ongoing and how you consult on those provisions without revealing what is a moving target. What the US does is to have cleared advisors in statute; they are people it is able to talk to to work out how to make a success of a provision within a negotiation. We can see that there might be a role for legislation in this area, where you want to be able to talk to people on a formal basis about what is essentially a Government-to-Government discussion.

[Judith Cummins]

Q What principles should the system of consultation and engagement with stakeholders follow, in your opinion? Does the current Bill embody those principles?

Sarah Dickson: We believe that the more open and transparent trade policy is, the better. That means wide consultation. So we are not just talking about business in this—you need a wide range of stakeholders involved. We think you will need to define what that looks like, because there are going to be time limits and speed limits in doing the negotiations when you are trying to get something achieved. The wider and more comprehensive you can make that, the easier it will then be to pass and implement afterwards. We think it is very important that those principles are part of UK trade policy going forward.

[Judith Cummins]

Q Can I quickly return to geographical indications and ask Ms Macdonald a question? Given the ambiguity of the Government’s position to ensure that GIs are awarded to UK producers in trade agreements—they did not list a single one in the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—what are your concerns about the representation of your interests in trade agreements?

Elspeth Macdonald: Our interests in terms of geographical indications are that consumers know what they are buying and that, whatever system is in place—the Government’s stated intention is that things will be the same after exit—people can have confidence that products are not being misdescribed in terms of their geographic origin. There is confidence in the current system because it is a robust and well-regulated system that is set out in statute. Our particular interests are ensuring that, when businesses trade and when people buy products that are advertised and described in a particular way, those claims, whether they are about origin or anything else, are accurate.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I want to marry up two things that Mr Stephenson and Ms Dickson said. I was struck by your phrase, Mr Stephenson, that there will be no “lift and shift”. In that context, looking at the way the existing agreements have to be transposed into corresponding agreements, I wonder whether you might comment on the Government’s ability to do that, given their red lines with the Norwegian agreement and the Turkish agreement. One of those currently involves the European economic area and free movement of people, and the other involves the customs union.

I want to marry that up with what you said, Ms Dickson, about the roll-over of terms. When you were asked about South Korea, you did not actually narrate the history of your association’s difficulty with South Korea, which of course was very resistant to the geographical indicator when you presented it on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association. Do you think there is a possibility that South Korea might use this opportunity to reverse the progress that was made? There is one question for each of you.

Sarah Dickson: I would love to be in the head of the South Korean Government and to know quite where they will take this process. The conversation between the EU, the UK and the South Korean Government will have to be for them. Is it impossible that third countries might try to use this opportunity to reopen agreements? It is not impossible, but I hope that is not the case. When the UK has left the EU and is having its own bilateral trade policy conversations with third countries, we will undoubtedly get into these conversations about what they might want to change.

Trade Bill (Second sitting)

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Faisal Rashid]

Q So is it fair to say that the Government have the ability to control debate and thus limit—or even totally deny—parliamentary scrutiny of the deals or the secondary legislation?

Dr Fowler: Inasmuch as the Trade Bill provides for use of the negative procedure, yes, that would be fair. I am sure there would not necessarily be any wish to do that on the part of any Government, but as the procedures currently stand, Back Benchers cannot be sure that they can get time on the Floor of the House if they want it.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Q We have heard a lot today about the importance of societal acceptance in the scrutiny process, and Jude Kirton-Darling certainly explained the scrutiny process for trade agreements currently in place in the EU and the European Parliament. Dr Fowler, could you explain the current parliamentary framework for the signature, ratification and implementation of trade agreements in the UK?

Dr Fowler: At the moment that procedure happens through the European scrutiny system because of the EU’s competence to conduct trade policy. The main instrument is the so-called scrutiny reserve, under which the Government deposits relevant documents with the European Scrutiny Committees in both Houses and they scrutinise them. The relevant Minister is not supposed to sign up to things in the EU Council if the relevant documents are still held under scrutiny. That works every time a new set of documents is tabled along the process.

The system can be quite effective but there is a difficulty about timing, and getting time on the Floor of the House. There is a difficulty if something has to move quickly at EU level, and then the Government quite often uses what is called the scrutiny override where it just says, “We had to go ahead with this.” Then there is also the difficulty about trying to schedule appropriate debates in Committee or on the Floor of the House.

Jude Kirton-Darling: My only addition would be that currently, one of our frustrations as MEPs is about what happens when some things that we have scrutinised heavily at European level, pass to the national level. We see the level of scrutiny in the German Parliament, in the Belgian Parliament, in Scandinavian Parliaments, where there are very detailed scrutiny processes—often going on at the same time as we are scrutinising at European level, so we get feedback from those Parliaments during the process—and we do not feel, in many cases, that same process from Westminster. So, regardless of what happens in terms of Brexit, it is one of the ways in which Westminster could do more to scrutinise trade in any case, and that would be a benefit for everybody.

Dr Hestermeyer: Just as a reminder, the scrutiny override was used for CETA. To compare that, under German law, for example, Parliament gets involved very early on. There was a change in the constitution and then an additional statute was passed, so Parliament gets involved very early on and can make binding statements for the Government, which will then be taken into account by the Government also in the Council. That way, there is a large impact of parliamentary statements in governmental positions, because in the end, the Government will have to defend measures in the Council.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Q Ms Kirton-Darling, you referred to the scrutiny process in, say, Scandinavian Parliaments and the feedback to Brussels and so on. That may be very detailed but, of course, when it gets back to Brussels, Sweden or wherever is just one of 28. Their input in the great scheme of things, eventually, is rather watered down. Wouldn’t you accept the fact that, once Brexit is achieved, the UK, with the scrutiny via the Select Committee and the possible annulment through Parliament and so on, is more powerful than the voice we have at the moment?

Jude Kirton-Darling: Unfortunately, no.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Stace, thank you very much indeed for doing two Committees in one afternoon. That is very noble work. Thank you for your evidence to us. I think someone is going to escort you off to the other Committee.

[Judith Cummins]

Q Unfortunately, my original question was to Mr Stace, but I will ask it to Mr Stevenson. Clause 6 of the Bill suggests that the TRA’s remit will extend to more than just trade remedies and to the analysis of trade disputes. Does that raise any concerns?

Cliff Stevenson: In principle, I think it is not necessarily a bad idea—that if you have an organisation full of trade expertise, you might use it for other purposes as well. I mentioned Canada earlier. The Canadian international trade tribunal, the independent entity that makes determinations on injury, can also be given other tasks and produce expert reports. So I do not think it is a bad idea in principle that the TRA may do other things. The concern would be about resourcing.

Trade remedy investigations are highly resource-intensive. They are incredibly detailed. Gareth mentioned earlier about the dumping calculation being easy. In a sense, what he was saying is that it is straightforward, the steps are very clear—but it is a massive calculation with thousands of data entries on a spreadsheet or in a model. To the extent that there would be a concern, it would be to ensure that there was sufficient capacity ring-fenced for the different functions. Principally, it seems to me that the Trade Remedies Authority’s purpose is the administration of the trade remedy regime. That would be the only issue I would raise.

[Matt Western]

Q We heard from Mr Stace a moment ago about an effective trade remedies system. In that one example, an effective system does not necessarily lead to higher consumer prices or significantly higher prices. Do you have other examples you can give, Mr Reynolds?

Tom Reynolds: One example I can give you is from MTRA partner sectors, the chemicals fertiliser sector, around the long-term implications for the consumer if adequate trade remedies are not installed. In Ireland, for instance, the domestic manufacturing industry for fertilisers sadly went by the wayside, because the anti-dumping measures were not introduced in time to provide a defence for their industry. As it became a less attractive market because of less competition, the prices started to rise for all the previously dumped exports, so the lack of competitive environment in Ireland ended up costing farmers more for their fertilisers.

Cliff Stevenson: Obviously, it depends on the product, because when you are talking about products used in another industry, such as in the case of steel, even a fairly substantial anti-dumping duty, if you work it through to the final price to the retailer of the downstream product, is going to have a much smaller effect. Obviously, in the case of a consumer product, where the product goes directly to the consumer, the impact of the duty would be exactly at the level of the duty, so that is certainly true.

It is important always to consider what the purpose of trade remedies is. They are about remedying a distortion, an anti-competitive situation or a subsidy. In that way, any time you increase a duty the users, the importers, or the consumers of that product are going to face the negative impact of the increase in duty. What is really important to remember about trade remedies is that they are not about protecting domestic industry, I do not believe. They are about restoring effective competition. That is a key point. Even if a consumer product does increase in price, in the long term the consumer is better off if effective competition is maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Q Mr Bowles, I will ask just a bit more about Standard Chartered and the developing markets in the states and countries where you work. As previously mentioned, your Razia Khan predicts some difficulty in lining up quick deals in Kenya and other places in Africa. What is your view about other countries where your company has long-standing experience, like Vietnam and South Korea? How quickly can those countries respond to these sorts of deals?

Edward Bowles: Thank you for the question. Standard Chartered has been UK-headquartered for the last 155 years, but 85% of our revenues are from Asia, Africa and the middle east. In respect of most of those countries, there are no FTAs, either with the UK or, indeed, with almost any other markets. I was quite involved in my 10 years at Standard Chartered with the negotiations between the EU and Korea, the EU and Singapore and the EU and Vietnam and, most latterly, with those on TTIP, and on India in between times—that has been a slightly less successful product in negotiating terms. The fact is that we have FTAs with some of those markets and some of them are incredibly advanced. Korea and Singapore are incredibly advanced markets. You are dealing with very sophisticated regulators, politicians and others. They completely understand what the UK would be seeking to achieve in any renegotiation post the roll-over of the current FTAs.

There is certainly scope, I think, in some of those FTAs for tweaking, shall we say, and data offshoring would be one of the issues that I am sure the UK would want to look at. The negotiations take a long time. Korea was seven years. Singapore is not yet in force but we have just had a European Court of Justice ruling in relation to one aspect of it that will enable it to come into force soon, but it has been eight years overall. We can cut and paste them, but then the question is, “What are the incentives on each side—which will probably be asymmetric in terms of interests—for tweaking, and what will be the appetite and the timeframe over which you could do it?” My guess is that you would want to do it expeditiously, but the degree of consultation and engagement with other interested industries, politicians, civic sectors and so on, would inevitably build in a longer time.

For other markets that are rather less developed perhaps than Singapore and Korea, it would take longer, because if there is no existing FTA you are looking at a degree of transparency around their regulatory framework and around the concessions they inevitably will be asked to make, and the question is: “What is the quid pro quo for them?” India is a classic example. You have visas, and immigration is one of their core demands. It has always been one of the core issues that has bedevilled the EU-India FTA negotiations and that will be no less the case, I am sure, with the UK than it is with India.

[Judith Cummins]

Q Mr Bain, to accompany the release of your report “The Bilateral Trade Deals that Matter to Consumers”, you note the importance of the Government replicating the trade agreements that the EU currently has with third countries to ensure that consumers do not see a rise in prices as a consequence of imposed tariffs and so on. Your report notes that 6% of retailer imports are covered by all EU bilateral agreements. Could you identify the particular countries that your members are concerned about?

William Bain: Indeed. There is a good quantity of imported fish, from Norway and Iceland, that UK consumers buy. In particular, there is South Africa in terms of products like wine and some citrus, Chile and Peru in terms of soft fruits, and Morocco in terms of fruit, vegetables and some clothing. And there is principally Turkey in terms of clothing. There are many members of the BRC that source clothing in Turkey, which can be given to consumers for sale in this country on good terms. One of the fundamental issues is that, at the moment, that is under a customs union: is there going to be a functioning customs union between the UK and Turkey on 30 March 2019? I think that speaks to some of the process issues that come up in part 1 of the Bill. We know that there will be an interaction between the CRAG process of bringing a concluded treaty before this House, then interacting with the processes that have to be gone through in part 1 of the Bill.

Unless we have things like letters of intent ready to be signed at 11.1 pm on 29 March 2019, and unless we have the EU involved—what seems on the face of it to be bilateral is, in many cases, a trilateral negotiation—we will have a gap. That gap will cause uncertainty for business. Ultimately, it could cause gaps on the shelves and a lack of choice and availability. It is a serious issue for investment and for consumers.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q To follow up, I want to ask you all a question as business people. If someone introduced a break clause in a contract with you or one of your businesses, would you not take the opportunity to renegotiate the deal? Given all that you have said about the importance of clarity, stability, understanding and certainty about the future, which we entirely agree with you on—that is why we need a Bill to do this—do you not think that, if we were seeing changes introduced by these countries because of this opportunity, and some of the changes were substantial, and changed that clarity and certainty, then actually there should be a process of parliamentary scrutiny looking at them?

At the moment, we may not be in control of that process. We know that we would like it to be very simple, but it may not be. Given that, should the scrutiny not be in place for Parliament either to assist procedure or, using some other mechanism, to say, “Yes, this is important, and we need to make sure that we, as Parliament, deal with it in the appropriate democratic way”?

Edward Bowles: I would say be careful what you wish for, and I do not say that completely comedically. It would very much depend upon the scale of the market that you are interacting with, and the significance of it. The experience that I had of TTIP was one where the lack of initial transparency, of engagement with civic sector societies, and of disclosure of the mandate for the first 15 months of the negotiations very much allowed the debate to be run by outside interests that felt disenfranchised. Effectively, that stymied the political will to take the negotiation further forward even before the new President was elected.

It was absolutely clear that there are lessons to be learned from a negotiation of that scale, ambition and impact for the UK’s economy, to make sure that you have the right level of engagement, transparency, scrutiny and so on in an ongoing manner. For a much smaller market, I dare say that, given the time involved, it may not necessarily warrant a full-scale similar application of scrutiny because, frankly, the relative impact for the UK economy, and therefore for consumers, healthcare and so on, would be much less. Judge each of them on their merits.

Anastassia Beliakova: To follow up on what Mr Bowles said, the TTIP example certainly shows us how critical it is to have appropriate stakeholder engagement mechanisms. At the moment, the Bill is meant to deal just with continuity of existing agreements that have already had the relevant scrutiny from the European Parliament and have passed through the European Scrutiny Committee here. However, if there are very substantial changes or if we are talking about completely new agreements, provisions certainly need to be made for appropriate scrutiny in Parliament, and for stakeholder engagement for business, civil society and non-governmental organisations. It might make sense for that to have some form of statutory underpinning so that there is input that is not contingent on the political environment, which may change. As has been said, negotiations take a long time, sometimes even up to a decade, and during those negotiations you still need to be able to test both the public views and the impacts. I would urge for these kinds of mechanisms to be put in place where new agreements are implemented.

Business of the House

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is tempting me back to my former pastures, but I must assiduously try to avoid returning to them whenever possible. I would simply urge him to apply for an Adjournment debate on that subject. Getting the balance right when rail services break down at short notice is always a difficult thing to perfect, but as he will know, the Office of Rail and Road has specific consumer powers relating to disruption, and I am sure he could take that matter up with the ORR to see what redress could be achieved.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Many of the NHS trusts in Yorkshire are currently considering proposals to transfer NHS staff over to wholly owned companies, amounting to a race to the bottom in employment practices. May we please have a debate on that in Government time?

[Paul Maynard]

I recognise that many hon. Members are interested in the move towards accountable care organisations, but I urge people to keep sight of the fact that we are seeking to bring care providers together in local areas to make things more effective. We want to ensure better continuity of provision, so that fewer people need to attend hospital, ensuring that all our NHS resources are best deployed in the interests of our local communities.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). This Finance Bill has short-changed my constituents, the city of Bradford and the people of the north in ways too numerous to list in the short time I have available today. But there was one instance where the north was not just short-changed but plain snubbed: it was starved of the vital investment needed to unleash the potential of its people and its businesses. In this Finance Bill, Ministers did nothing to redress the imbalance in favour of London in spending on transport, whereby it gets seven times more per head than the north. That is illogical, given the Government’s much publicised commitment to rebalancing this country’s two-speed economy.

Modern and efficient transport infrastructure is a catalyst for growth, and improved regional transport connectivity is the key to unlocking prosperity in my home city of Bradford. It is essential to the fostering of wider prosperity throughout west Yorkshire and the whole of the north of England. It is fundamental to addressing the regional differentials in the economy. With clause 33 and schedule 9, the Financial Secretary has found the money to cut the bank levy, but he cannot find the funds for trans-Pennine electrification to fulfil the Conservative manifesto promise made ahead of the 2015 general election.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the hon. Lady welcome the huge investment in northern powerhouse rail and the latest proposals for the route to go through the centre of Bradford?

[Judith Cummins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; unsurprisingly, I am going to mention that later in my speech.

Just yesterday, I read with great interest that the ambitious plan for full trans-Pennine electrification is to be scaled back, with the scrapping of the line connecting Manchester to Sheffield and Leeds via the HS2 network. The north is being starved of the investment it needs to prosper. The north wants, needs and deserves full and fair funding, and transport infrastructure fit for the 21st century.

In stark contrast, in his Budget the Chancellor committed the Government to multi-billion pound public investment in transport improvements across the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge arc. I have no quibble with investment in transport infrastructure in London and the south-east—connectivity in that region is important, too—but it should not and must not be at the expense of rebalancing the country’s economy. It should not and must not be to the disadvantage of the business community in Bradford, west Yorkshire and throughout the north. Regional business in the north deserves the Government’s attention and support just as much as the London-based business community. Indeed, the Government talk about fixing the country’s productivity problem, and the key to that is addressing regional differences. The Government have missed an opportunity to tackle that in the Bill.

Clause 19 will increase the rate of the research and development expenditure credit from 11% to 12%. I am sure that business innovators in the north will welcome that, but the one constant that I hear from business is the need for better transport infrastructure. As well as R and D, physical connectivity is crucial for industry. As a region, the north’s economic output by gross value added was £304 billion in 2014, which would make it the 10th largest economy in the EU if it were a country. As a region, though, it trails substantially behind the south-east in economic output per capita. That has to change if our nation as a whole is to prosper and our productivity is to increase.

Bradford and the north of England are in desperate need of transformational investment in their creaking railway infrastructure. Spending in the area has multiple benefits, with just two examples being the easing of congestion and the reduction of air pollution. On that last point, the Minister had an opportunity to address air pollution from vehicles by investing to make public transport better. Instead, clause 44 makes changes to vehicle excise duty and clause 9 makes changes to benefits in kind for diesel cars. Both measures seek to address vehicle emissions. Few in the House, if any, would disagree that reducing air pollution is both necessary and desirable, but I fancy that more carrot and less stick would have been welcomed by my constituents.

Tackling congestion and air pollution through a modal shift, moving more journeys from private cars to public transport, is an option, but not one currently available to my constituents. The creaking rail infrastructure that my constituents have to contend with currently makes the motor car not just a more attractive option but in many cases the only option. The Minister could have shown real determination to change that, with a commitment to investment in modern and efficient public transport systems. As I have said, the much delayed, now much diluted, partial trans-Pennine electrification would be a key first step in addressing the north’s transport woes, but it would be just that: a first step. What is really needed is a game-changer, but on that the Bill is silent.

My home city of Bradford is a leading voice in northern powerhouse rail. In recent months, in a bid to maximise the value of the project to Bradford’s economy, Bradford Council launched Next Stop Bradford in partnership with the city’s business community. Next Stop Bradford is a cross-party campaign calling for an NPR stop in Bradford. Initial research suggests that a Bradford station would bring an annual boost of £53 million pounds to the local economy, and at least £1.3 billion pounds for the region as a whole. If the media reports from over the weekend are accurate and Bradford is now included on the NPR route, that is welcome news for the Bradford economy and for my constituents.

Bradford is a growing city, with one of the youngest populations in the country. It has huge potential. As I have said in the House before, Bradford is Britain’s fifth largest local authority, with a population of 530,000 residents, and it is the biggest city in the country without a through stop connecting it directly to the intercity rail network. An NPR stop in Bradford would be a huge step change in our regional connectivity. Faster services and higher capacity would draw the region closer together, and it would connect people to jobs and businesses to new opportunities across the region and the country. The currently disconnected economies of the great cities of the north would be united. The economic opportunities would be enormous, as would the boost to this country’s productivity. This is a priority for my constituents, but a priority that is not in the Finance Bill.

During the recent Budget we learned that, as a country, we face an era of economic stagnation unseen in modern times. Wages in my home city are flat, real incomes are falling and the cost of living is rising, all of which is not helped by a 3.4% hike in rail fares from January. Crucially, productivity improvements have stalled. That point is massively important in the context of my remarks today, because arguably the single most potent driver for improving productivity is sustained investment in transport infrastructure. I ask that the Minister and this Government commit to NPR with a Bradford stop, and the resulting transformation that that will deliver.

This Finance Bill concentrates on many of the wrong priorities as far as my constituents are concerned and, importantly, does not seek to redress the economic imbalance between the north and the south.

Budget Resolutions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in today’s Budget debate.

This week, the communities of Bradford, my home city, were left bruised and battered by this country’s eighth austerity Budget in just seven years. They saw more cuts to vital local services, no help for our chronically underfunded blue light emergency services, and little or no investment in transport in the north. One critical area that this Government have chosen to all but ignore once again is our vital education sector.

Long gone are the days of an ambitious Sure Start programme under a Labour Government. We recognised that early years intervention boosts life chances, but cuts have now left prevention and early years services in tatters. Councils today, struggling to stay afloat, are being forced by this Conservative Government to cut vital services for our children and young people—vital prevention services that create healthier, stronger, more prosperous communities.

In my constituency, families are struggling to make ends meet, and they face worse education outcomes for their children through this Government’s lack of support and investment in vital services. It surely cannot be right that a child, simply because of their place of birth, is destined to have poorer educational outcomes. A postcode should not dictate life’s opportunities.

In Bradford, my local council is facing the desperate task of deciding how to cut £13 million from its prevention and early help services by 2020. Total spend in my home city will plummet by more than one third. The consequences of such cuts in funding will be appalling. The council is consulting on reducing the opening hours of three children’s centres that serve Bradford South to the equivalent of just one day a week.

The Government’s record in our schools is no better. Despite the Education Secretary’s general election-inspired U-turn on funding, school budgets still face a £1.5 billion real-terms funding shortfall, according to the IFS. In Bradford, 178 out of 186 schools continue to face budget cuts. I struggle to identify even one out of Bradford South’s 35 schools that gains from the Governments so-called fairer funding formula; that is clearly not fair. City-wide, more than £23.5 million will be lost from school budgets by 2020. This equates to £276 a year for each and every child, or the equivalent of 488 vital teachers losing their jobs.

I had the privilege last Friday of presenting two members of staff at Hollingwood Primary School with the prestigious Marjorie Boxall quality mark award from the Nurture Group Network. I was really impressed with the work done in the school’s nurture group, which provides children with the skills and resilience that they need to make the most of their learning at school. However, as budgets continue to be squeezed, it will be increasingly difficult for headteachers to afford learning opportunities that fall outside the core business of their school. Many of these types of projects add great value to school life and make a real difference to the life chances of vulnerable children, but this Government seem to favour short-term cashable savings over making a long-term investment in our children’s future.

Without a sea change in funding, a whole generation of children and young people in Bradford South will be denied the most basic right—the right to pursue their ambitions, to strive to fulfil their potential and to get on in life through educational betterment. This Budget threatens all this, as our education system is run down by grinding austerity. I urge the Chancellor to change direction for the sake of a whole generation of children and young people in my home city of Bradford.

Sanitary Products

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on women’s health.

I am grateful to have secured the final debate before the recess to raise the issue of period poverty. I have touched on this matter before in this House in the context of homelessness. I wish to expand on that, and also to talk about the shocking recent reports of period poverty among school-age girls in west Yorkshire. The phenomenon of period poverty has gone under the radar for some time and is only now starting to be discussed after the successes of the campaign against the tampon tax. It is a unique challenge faced by women in poverty, who all too often face a choice between buying sanitary products or food. In the worst-case scenario, homeless women have been faced with a choice between stealing sanitary products and doing without.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that women using sanitary products beyond their recommended duration are at risk of toxic shock syndrome, and that homeless women, in particular, self-ration these products at great risk to their health?

[Paula Sherriff]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be coming to the issue of toxic shock syndrome and other associated health conditions, but she makes that crucial point very well.

The horror of these choices cannot be overstated, and they are choices that women in one of the most advanced industrial nations on earth should not face. Period poverty represents nothing less than the affected women being robbed of their human dignity. As an illustration of this, the Salvation Army has relayed to me the experiences at its Darlington Citadel food bank, where women have turned up literally begging for sanitary products. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote its commanding officer in full, because I believe that the House really needs to hear this:

“Since we have started supplying”

sanitary products,

“with tears in their eyes many women have told us what they do when they can’t afford them. They use rolled up socks, they rip up clothing, they even use newspaper, they stuff these into their underwear as makeshift sanitary wear—or they simply have to free bleed. These women however, struggle to pay for electricity and so doing laundry to a sufficient level to kill any bacteria is a problem and they are putting themselves and their daughters at risk of infection resulting in possible medical treatment with antibiotics or even hospitalization. Some women have informed us that they have needed dilation and curettage treatment and courses of antibiotics for infections, costing the NHS money and resources.”

Unfortunately, this testimony does not stand alone. An investigation by Amanda Ternblad of Goldsmiths University into period poverty in London has found that some women resort to using toilet roll, which can pose a risk of thrush infection, or using sanitary products for longer than they should be used—that follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins)—which can lead to fatal toxic shock syndrome and the risk of further long-standing health problems. Of course, that costs the NHS in the long run, but that should be as nothing compared with the desperation, indignity, humiliation and degradation visited on those women, who are already among the most vulnerable in our society. That should beggar belief in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

The problem is most pronounced for women who are homeless, who typically have no stable source of income with which to buy sanitary products. In the debate on homelessness on 14 December 2016, I mentioned that homeless shelters get an allowance from the Government to provide items such as condoms and razors, but they have no such allowance to buy sanitary products, leaving them reliant on charity donations instead.

When I last raised that point in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), said that the Government provide funding for outreach services for homeless people, meaning that such facilities would ultimately be funded anyway. Unfortunately, the point is that there appears to be a shortfall in toiletries such as sanitary protection for women. In many places in the UK, condoms are given away for free, and there is a clear and well-understood public argument for that. Why, then, is that not commonplace for sanitary products, which every woman requires, and the absence of which can have grave health consequences? Although valuable work has been done in the past couple of years by organisations such as St Mungo’s to ensure that homelessness services are gender-appropriate, the Government’s allowance for such products does not appear to have kept pace and speaks to something of a male-dominated view of homelessness.

In reality, women who are homeless face numerous unique challenges, from their personal safety, to vulnerability and falling into prostitution. Those challenges, while grave, have in various ways been targeted before by the good works of homelessness charities. Period poverty, however, is one of the unique challenges for women that has been under-represented, which makes it all the more important that it is now taken seriously.

The reliance on charity is a problem in itself. Donations of sanitary products to food banks and homeless shelters are often not enough to keep up with demand, while supply is variable across the country, meaning that the donations are not always made in the areas with most demand. The Homeless Period campaign is an attempt to gain more attention for the problem and to secure more donations of sanitary items to homeless shelters and food banks so that their stocks are more readily available. I again wish to pay tribute to the incredible work of Laura Coryton, who campaigned so effectively with me on the issue of the tampon tax, for her work in bringing the issue to wider public attention.

As part of my support for the campaign, I have secured a trial of a donation point for toiletries at a Boots store in Dewsbury to go to the Fusion Housing charity, which supports food banks in the Kirklees area. It is a small step, but I hope that many more like it can be achieved in the near future and that they will make a difference.

If, as we sadly now find, the Government are content to let charity supplant welfare in providing for the needy in our society, I will call on other companies to follow the example of Boots. Every area will have similar problems, and similar charities will try to cope with them. Many companies that deal with toiletries could set up similar schemes as part of their wider corporate responsibility to their communities. I was encouraged by an example on a recent trip to Brussels, where a hotel chain was donating surplus toiletries to its local facility for the homeless. With a bit of ingenuity, companies can make a significant difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable—as could this Government.

It is not, however, just homeless women who are vulnerable to period poverty. I was absolutely appalled—actually, I was heartbroken—by the recent BBC Radio Leeds report that a west Yorkshire charity called Freedom4Girls, which usually sends sanitary products to girls in Kenya, had been contacted by a school in Leeds to provide sanitary products to girls there. Concerns were raised after girls were found to be playing truant because they could not afford sanitary protection. I ask everyone to take a moment to consider what is happening in one of the richest nations in the world.

As with the homeless women in the examples I mentioned earlier, the same makeshift and risky remedies had been tried. We heard about 15-year-old girls sellotaping toilet roll to their knickers because they could not afford tampons or sanitary towels. Girls would rather not attend school than go through the indignity of doing so in a vulnerable state. There are related reports of teachers having to pay for sanitary products for their pupils. That, too, beggars belief. Schools are the perfect place for the Government to enact early intervention on matters relating to women’s health, as has been borne out by the valuable human papilloma virus vaccination programme. I urge the Government to investigate how the problem of period poverty can be tackled in schools, for example by including menstrual health in sex and relationships education and by looking at the possibility of using eligibility for free school meals for the provision of sanitary products to vulnerable young girls.