Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who reminded us that while this country has, I think it is fair to say, made enormous progress over recent years in removing discrimination, there are still many countries around the world where that is not true. There is much still to be done to ensure that individuals who live in those countries enjoy the same freedoms that we have established for our citizens in the United Kingdom.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on promoting the Bill. It is his second go and he has proved that he has a good track record. The Bill seeks to secure acknowledgment of equality for people of different sexual orientation in the merchant navy.

We have already heard some excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) spoke of his links to the merchant navy through his father. I must declare an interest along those lines, in that my own brother is a member of the merchant navy. I suspect that, as we speak, he is on board his ship on the high seas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a powerful speech, as other Members have said. He gave his personal view of the Bill and said how important such measures are for him and the gay community in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) gave a tour de force of how the legislation has developed over the years.

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury realises how lucky he is that his Bill was first in line for debate today, this far into the parliamentary year of private Members’ Bills. In most other years, a Bill this far down the list would not even have been debated, because other Bills would have been at Report stage. Even though my hon. Friend’s Bill was No. 18 in this year’s ballot for slots for private Members’ Bills, he has had good fortune in the way in which the Bills have fallen and, as luck would have it, his is the first Bill to be debated this morning.

Before I start, I want to mention briefly, in passing, that there is a curious link between both my and my hon. Friend’s constituencies and the merchant navy. It involves the merchant navy class No. 35009 Shaw Savill steam locomotive, which was named after a merchant navy company. Apparently the design drew on British merchant naval heritage. When it was built it was allocated to the Salisbury shed in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but at the end of its life it finished up at Riley and Son Ltd, the locomotive engineers in my constituency of Bury North. Of course, anybody who is expert or who takes an interest in these things—perhaps many have only a passing interest in them—may think that they have heard that name before. I never miss a chance to give a plug to a company from Bury, so this is a great opportunity to mention—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is if it is in scope.

[Mr Nuttall]

The reason that hon. Members may recall having heard the company’s name is that it has recently been in the news for having restored the Flying Scotsman, which is the most famous of all steam locomotives. Were it not for the merchant navy, that steam train would not have existed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Of course I always want to hear about the joys of Bury North and the steam engine, but I want to get you back on track to what we are meant to be discussing. If we can do that, I will have achieved something.

[Mr Nuttall]

I have finished talking about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said it just briefly in passing.

Any private Member’s Bill has to be assessed against several criteria, the first of which is: what is it designed to do, and is there a real purpose for it? Having looked at it, I think that this Bill is essentially about clarity. I would like to be clear about what the Bill is and is not designed to do. It is a short Bill that would omit sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which allow the dismissal of a person from the merchant navy just because they have engaged in homosexual conduct. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has said:

“It is shocking that this exemption from the equality laws remains on the statute books, after so many years of law reform for gay equality. Repeal is long overdue, and most welcome.”

Section 146(4) of the 1994 Act extends to England, Wales and Scotland. Section 147(3) is the equivalent provision in Northern Ireland. The 1994 Act repealed section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which stated—in, I hasten to add, the language that was used at the time—that “buggery” and “gross indecency” by a member of crew on a merchant navy ship constituted an offence. However, the 1994 Act explicitly maintained that homosexual conduct could be used as a ground for dismissal. Section 146(4) states:

“Nothing contained in this section shall prevent a homosexual act (with or without other acts or circumstances) from constituting a ground for dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from his ship.”

It is interesting to look back in Hansard at the objections that were raised against decriminalising the offences set out in section 2 of the 1967 Act. During the debate on the Bill in the other place on 10 May 1966, the Earl of Kilmuir quoted objections from seafarers’ organisations that believed that homosexual conduct could lead to “dissension” among the crew, and even to “violence”.

In the book “Hello Sailor! The Hidden History of Gay Life at Sea” by Jo Stanley and Paul Baker, which was published in 2003, the authors discussed the problem faced by gay crewmen in the merchant navy. They wrote:

“In the 1950s…all gay men were, to an extent, part of an anti-society, but this was even more apparent in the Merchant Navy, where being gay could result in dismissal or transfer.”

As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South said in passing, this was a genuine fear of being dismissed. Homosexual crew men were so frightened of being discovered that they communicated in a slang code—a form of secret code—that they called Polari. Apparently, its name comes from the Italian word “parlare”, which translates as “to talk”. Those are snapshots of a different attitude from a different era. The provisions in the 1994 Act remind us of what things were like in the 1950s, and I suggest that that is evidence for why they have no place on the statute book in the 21st century.

The next factor I look at when considering a private Member’s Bill that comes before the House on a Friday is how big the problem is that the Bill seeks to address: having established that there is a problem, how big is it? For this Bill, the question is: how many merchant navy crewmen would it affect? In the book “Maritime History and Identity: The Sea and Culture in the Modern World” by Duncan Redford, published in 2013, it is observed that one of the practical obstacles for shipping lines wanting to dismiss homosexual crewmen was that demand for stewards exceeded supply, and a total dismissal of gay or bisexual workers

“would have decimated the workforce and made ships inoperable.”

The short answer to the question of how many have been dismissed even in recent times is, I suspect, either not many or perhaps no one.

The maritime news website Lloyd’s List stated in an article about the Bill we are now considering posted on 6 July:

“Both shipping employers and shipping unions said…they were unaware of anyone losing a job on such grounds, at least in recent decades.”

I must confess—I am pleased to say this—that it is not an issue that has been raised with me as a constituency MP. I would be interested to know whether other hon. Members in the Chamber have had constituents raising the problem with them. It is perhaps why repealing sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has not been seen as a particularly urgent matter.

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure that you will be able to catch my eye, Mr Davies, subject to the length of Mr Nuttall’s speech.

[Mr Nuttall]

I have not started my speech yet, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I entirely agree with the brief point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). What I want to do in making the points that I will shortly make is to do all I can to try to increase the number of opportunities available to young people. My genuine fear is that, rather than enhancing those opportunities, the unintended consequence—I entirely appreciate that this is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell—is that what is likely to happen if the Bill reaches the statute book is that those opportunities will be reduced.

I accept that at first sight the purpose of the Bill—the idea that by passing legislation we can somehow ban unpaid internships—might superficially appear to be a good idea, but I am genuinely concerned that on closer scrutiny we will find that that is not the case.

My hon. Friend cited a number of examples as evidence to support his contention that young people are being taken advantage of—I think that is a fair summary of what he said—because the national minimum wage legislation apparently does not apply to young people undertaking internships.

My hon. Friend has been lucky not only because he came third in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, but because this debate has fallen during Living Wage Week, which was marked by a debate in this Chamber only yesterday. This House has therefore had two consecutive debates, sandwiched on either side of yesterday’s Adjournment debate, on the minimum wage. Living Wage Week, which runs until Saturday, is a nationwide celebration of 3,000 employers who have voluntarily committed to ensuring that employees and sub-contracted staff working on their premises earn a real living wage.

I draw the House’s attention to that because, as my speech will show, the whole problem with the Bill revolves around how we define contracts of employment and a minimum wage. I should say at the outset that, personally, I do not like the word “intern”. It is not a word with which I was familiar previously. I did not grow up with it and I do not like the word “internship” either. I think that it is an American import—I can see hon. Members nodding in approval. I will be honest about it: I have nothing against our friends on the other side of the Atlantic, but I grew up with the term “work experience”, which I think more accurately describes the issue under discussion.

When I was at school, there was a work experience scheme called Trident. I do not know whether any colleagues have been on a Trident course. I do not think that I was able to secure a Trident placement—I certainly do not recall having had the opportunity to go on one—but many people I was at school with did have such an opportunity. Under the scheme, someone approaching the end of their compulsory school life was given the chance to go on a three-week placement with a local employer, but it was work experience, not an internship.

I want to consider, much as my hon. Friend did in promoting the Bill, how we arrived at this problem. Last Friday, we considered a Bill that was 18 pages long. This Bill is just two pages long. Unfortunately, it does not contain the answers to the problem it seeks to address. Indeed, it raises more questions than it provides answers.

The whole problem with the Bill revolves around the definition of three key terms: “work”, “internship” and “work experience”. Someone who is deemed to be a worker will have the right to be paid the national minimum wage—that is already the position. The regulation of wages in this country can be traced back to the end of the 19th century and then to the Trades Board Act 1909. After the second world war, wages councils arrived on the scene, with the Wages Council Act 1945. At their peak, 3.5 million people were covered by those councils. After they were abolished in 1993, pressure began to build for a new national scheme of a minimum wage. Despite the view of the Confederation of British Industry, which said in 1995 that

“even a low minimum wage would reduce job opportunities and create major problems for wage structures in a wide range of companies”,

two years later the Labour party included in its manifesto ahead of the 1997 general election a commitment to introduce a national minimum wage. To be fair, immediately upon election, it set about putting that into law, and the national minimum wage that we have today is still governed in primary legislation by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, while the most recent secondary legislation is the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.

Section 54 of the 1998 Act gives the key definitions of employees, workers and contracts of employment. Subsection (2) states categorically that

“‘contract of employment’ means a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing.”

Subsection (3) defines a worker—again I quote so that we have it absolutely accurately—as someone

“who has entered into or works under…a contract of employment; or…any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual”.

Workers are already, under the existing law, entitled to be paid the correct minimum wage if they are part-time, casual labourers, including even someone hired for one day, agency workers, workers and home workers who are paid by the number of items they make, trainees, workers who are on a probation period, disabled workers, agricultural workers, foreign workers, seafarers and offshore workers. Apprentices, who are separately provided for, are entitled to be paid a special apprentice rate, if they are either under 19 or 19 and over but in the first year of their apprenticeship. Apprentices over the age of 19 who have completed their first year are then entitled to be paid the actual minimum wage, depending on their age.

The Government set out the national minimum wage after considering the advice of the Low Pay Commission, an independent advisory, non-departmental body, sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The commission is comprised of a chairman—currently Sir David Norgrove, a former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher—and a further eight low pay commissioners, who are drawn from a range of employee, employer and academic backgrounds and who make recommendations to the Government on appropriate pay.

Failure by any employer to pay at least the national minimum wage to those whom I have listed as employees is an offence and in breach of the national minimum wage legislation. To secure compliance with the legislation, the Government have introduced a naming procedure. In August, they published a list of 197 companies that had failed to pay one or more entitled workers the national minimum wage. Between them, those companies owed a total of £465,291 in arrears, and the most significant example was £99,541.98 owed to 30 workers. The naming and shaming scheme was introduced by the coalition Government in October 2013.

Those companies, which have been publicly identified and will undoubtedly have received negative publicity, may suffer an impact on their future relationships with customers and suppliers. Some 687 employers have been publicly listed as having failed to pay the national minimum wage to workers, and the wage arrears owed to staff have exceeded £3.5 million. That appears to be—

Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to hear too much on that, because the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is coming to the conclusion of his speech. Do not worry: five other Members wish to speak. I want other Members to take part in the debate. I would not want to close the debate down too quickly.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall deal with the intervention fairly briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) raises an important point, and I apologise for not going into as much detail on it as I perhaps should have. I said in an intervention that the Bill nowhere refers to volunteers. It is silent on the issue of volunteers. When I pressed my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell on that, he rather bizarrely started talking about the exclusions—the people to whom the Bill does not apply—but it does not say “a volunteer” anywhere in the list of exclusions. I think that volunteers are included in the Bill by definition, unless they are covered by the catch-all, get-out-of-jail-free card in clause 3(1)(d), to which I referred earlier. It sets out that a person is excluded under the Bill if they meet

“the terms of a definition set out in regulations”.

It may be that, for some reason unknown to me, my hon. Friend thought, “I’ll leave this problem to the Minister to solve”—and there is a real problem in the Bill: what do we do with volunteers? I will not attempt to go down that path and sort out the thicket of problems that arise from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. There is a genuine problem with those who do a mix of things—who sometimes volunteer, and sometimes work in a shop, or a charity’s commercial arm. That point is not clear. It is quite likely that those sorts of issues will finish up in the courts and before the industrial tribunals. It will be a bun fight, and a money-making scheme for lawyers. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) is positively delighted by that.

I entirely accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell is well intentioned in bringing forward the Bill. I have tried to draw out some of the genuine problems that I see with it, and I hope that on considering the arguments advanced against it, he will withdraw it. I will continue to oppose the Bill, and I urge the House to do the same.

Prayers

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before we begin today’s proceedings, may I place on the record that a few minutes ago, at 9.15 am, we observed one minute’s silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the Aberfan disaster 50 years ago?

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.

Child Refugees: Age Checks

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If not, we will move on.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information he has given the House this morning. When the child refugees are being admitted because they have family ties in the UK, are checks made with their families here if there are any doubts about their ages? Are the Government keeping a record of the ages of all the children being admitted, and will that be published?

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am glad that Sir Edward has given his ruling, but I will give mine. He may think his intervention was pertinent to this debate, but I do not think it was. The EU has been mentioned and there has been a discussion around it, but I do not want this debate to be dominated by the EU. As has already been said, migration from the EU is legal, but this debate is about illegal immigration. I welcome Sir Edward’s rulings when he chairs Committees, but today I am in the Chair.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his anecdote.

In an earlier intervention, I referred to exit checks. I think that the point I made is a valid one. Although I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, many illegal immigrants will not have the necessary papers and will therefore not be able to leave through the normal channels, there will be many who do have papers and are therefore able to leave the country. There must be some evidence. It may well be that the Minister is able to say, “There’s no problem. Every single person who has left and on whom we have done an exit check was here legally, and not a single person whom we have come across was not meant to be here.” That may be the finding, but I would be interested to know the figures.

When the Bill was debated the last time, one of the arguments against adopting the measures in the Bill, which I thought was a weak argument, was that it was too expensive to do anything and much easier to allow people to go about their business, and that when the Home Office could get around to it, it would deal with the problem. That re-emphasises the point that people will take a punt. They will come here on the basis that their chances of ever being detected are fairly low, and that if they just keep their heads down, they will not be locked up or deported.

The other argument put forward by the Minister at the Dispatch Box was that the Bill had no merit because it replicated measures that were already in statute, in particular the Immigration Act 1971, so there was no need for those in the Bill. That is all very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned that fewer than two people a week have been prosecuted under the 1971 Act. I think that he gave the figure of 72 in a year. Can the Minister confirm, as a matter of interest, that everyone who was prosecuted was deported? That would be an interesting fact to know.

We are in a similar situation today to that of two years ago when, as luck would have it for the Government, the 2014 Immigration Bill was going through Parliament. Another Immigration Bill is going through Parliament at present, which contains a provision to make it a criminal offence for an illegal immigrant to work in this country. If, apparently, the 1971 Act provides sufficient penalties to deter people from being here at all, it would presumably cover the situation of their working here illegally. Let me put that another way. Can the Minister think of any circumstances where someone who is prosecuted under the new Immigration Bill could not already be prosecuted for being here illegally under the provisions of the 1971 Act?

Most of our constituents would consider this Bill sensible. I accept that it is not easy to calculate the number of illegal immigrants in this country. It appears that no attempt has even been made for more than a decade. But to try and brush the issue under the carpet because it is too difficult is not the way forward. We have to tackle the matter. The Bill is a modest measure, but it is one that would be welcomed across the country, and I am pleased to be able to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I was cut short!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

By himself.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is a decision for the occupant of the Chair. I will decide what is in order and what is not in order. It is in order. I did see the Member come in. I did make a note. I do not have to explain myself and I will not be questioned again on the matter.

[Mr Nuttall]

To deal briefly with the intervention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said a moment or two ago—I do not know whether the right hon. Lady heard his comment—if there were 100 Members here who wanted to close the debate and the occupant of the Chair was in agreement, I would be happy for that to happen. However, my concerns cannot be dealt with in Committee because I am concerned about the principle of the Bill. I oppose it in principle—not just some minor details. I do not think that my concerns could be addressed simply by sitting down and letting the Bill go through to Committee.

I mentioned earlier that I had surveyed the secondary schools in my constituency. One reason why I felt it was important to do that is that, according to the records I keep in my office, about a dozen people have contacted me about the Bill. Most of the dozen—there are one or two exceptions—have simply sent me a standard letter, which is in identical form to all the other contacts I have had. Therefore, with over 67,000 constituents, 99.9-odd per cent. have not contacted me about the matter. I would therefore suggest that it is not an overwhelmingly pressing matter for my constituents, as some would have us believe.

I have concerns about the actual content of the Bill. It is not clear from the Bill how the training would be assessed or to what standard the training would be delivered. The impression has often been given in the debate that it is all about CPR and the use of defibrillators. However, in new section 85B(2)(d), introduced by clause 1(3), there is a long list of subjects that would have to be covered. I do not see how that could all be covered in half an hour in assembly. The reality is that the training will take quite a lot of planning. It will take several hours over a period of time. We have not been told what year the pupils will be in when they receive the training—is it the first, second, third, fourth or fifth year of secondary?

The Bill does say that there will be a consultation. Forgive me, but I would have thought that it was a good idea to have the consultation before we had the Bill. It seems to be a cart before the horse strategy. Rather than provide for a consultation in the Bill, surely it would have been a good idea to have had the consultation. We could then have had the debate on stronger ground.

I have rather slimmed down my comments because I want to hear from the Minister. In conclusion, I believe the idea of having a nation where everyone has the skills necessary to save someone else’s life in an emergency is a very worthy one indeed, but I am not convinced this Bill is the right starting place to achieve that aim. I believe in the current position where schools have the freedom to make their own arrangements and, as I have explained, teachers are doing that so well in my constituency. I thank them for their excellent work, and I think they should be allowed to get on with it unhindered by legislation and yet more bureaucracy. Many teachers are already worried about their workload, and we should ask ourselves whether this is the right time to add to their burdens.

Emergency first aid skills can already be taught and I certainly recommend that every pupil should seek out opportunities to learn those skills. I believe individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions on first aid training. That is the better way to truly create a nation of life savers. For all these reasons, I oppose this Bill.

Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who gave us his take on the Bill, although I feel the matter is a little more complicated than he would have the House believe.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) on coming fourth in the ballot for the right to bring in a private Member’s Bill—as a new Member entering the ballot for the first time, she has done very well indeed—and on choosing such an important topic. I do not know if she does the national lottery, but if she does—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Obviously, congratulating the hon. Lady is a good way of taking up time, but actually I did the draw, so if the hon. Gentleman is going to congratulate anybody, I think it should be me. However, I do not want us to get bogged down in that, because I know he wants to get straight into the Bill, on which I would welcome his comments. I know he would rather talk about the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

Of course, you were there, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, doing the draw, and very well you did it as well. As you know, however, because it is done in reverse, coming first actually means coming 20th.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us leave it there for today.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will move on.

This is the first Bill to come before the House for its Second Reading since the new Standing Orders were introduced last week on what generally is referred to as “English votes for English laws” but what I prefer to call, more accurately, “English vetoes for English laws”. The new Standing Orders make it clear that the new procedures do not apply to private Member’s Bills, but it is worth noting—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. They do not apply to private Members’ Bills, so we do not need to discuss them. Seriously, a lot of Members still wish to speak, and I do not want any filibustering. I know that people are interested in the Bill and want to concentrate on it.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful for the work carers do in my own constituency, particularly at the carers centre I visited recently, which provides a wide range of activities and support for those who undertake the often unsung job of caring for a loved on. I also pay tribute to the work that Carers UK does, as the principal national charity for carers. Of course, it very much supports the Bill, in this its golden jubilee year.

The aim of the hon. Lady’s Park the Charge campaign, which has resulted in the Bill, is to improve the financial position of carers who have to use hospital car parks by exempting them from car parking charges. Without doubt, the Bill is well intentioned, and no one from across the House would disagree with the proposition that helping those who selflessly care for others is a worthy aim. The first difficulty, however, facing anyone determining the size and nature of a group is that of definition, and that applies to carers as much as to any other. Carers UK says there are 6.5 million carers in the UK, with 5.4 million of them living in England. As I tried to mention earlier, the Bill only applies to England so that is the relevant figure.

Carers UK goes on to state that these people are providing unpaid care for their loved ones, saving the economy an enormous £119 billion each year, yet its research found that 48% of carers were struggling to make ends meet, and 45% said that financial worries were affecting their own health. It is no surprise, therefore, that Carers UK and the Bill seek to alleviate one of the financial pressures on carers—hospital car parking charges. However, I have several concerns, ranging from the Bill’s drafting to its financial implications and potential impact on other groups.

It is not clear to me how we can objectively determine who should and should not be expected to pay for car parking, as we would be doing if we started centrally exempting one particular group as being more deserving than another group. It would seem preferable to allow individual NHS trusts to continue making such decisions locally. Otherwise, on the face of it, we seem to have here a fair and reasonable proposal. Indeed, my initial thought was that it sounded like a good thing to do, and I suspect that most people’s instinct would be to support the Bill simply because of the title.

I know that the hon. Lady has campaigned on this issue with the best intentions, but I want to deal precisely with the exemptions she seeks to introduce. The Bill would exempt two groups of carers. The first is defined in clauses 1 to 3. Clause 2 states that beneficiaries of an exemption would either be in receipt of carer’s allowance or have an underlying entitlement to it. Carer’s allowance is a taxable benefit currently set at £62.10 a week to help a carer look after someone with substantial caring needs, and it is paid to the carer, not the recipient of the care. To qualify, the applicant must be over 16, spend at least 35 hours a week caring for someone, have been in England, Scotland or Wales for at least two of the last three years and not be in full-time education or studying for 21 hours a week or more. The person in receipt of care must receive qualifying benefits, such as the daily living component of the personal independence payment, the middle or highest care rate of the disability living allowance, attendance allowance or the armed forces independence payment.

That is the first group to which we can start to put a number. According to Department for Work and Pensions figures, as of February, 721,000 people were receiving carer’s allowance, so these people would be the first group that would clearly qualify under the criteria. However, the Bill would go further, by also including within the first group all those who have what is referred to as an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance. The term “underlying entitlement” refers to the fact that a claimant cannot usually receive two income-replacement benefits together—for example, carer’s allowance and the state pension. This is called the overlapping benefit rule. If a person is not entitled to be paid carer’s allowance because of this rule, they are said to have an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance instead. This might mean they could get the carer’s premium in jobseeker’s allowance and income support, the extra amount for carers in pension credit or the carer’s allowance element of universal credit. The importance of including those people is that the Bill would otherwise exclude carers in receipt of other benefits, such as the state pension, bereavement allowance, contribution-based employment and support allowance, contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit, industrial death benefit, maternity allowance, severe disablement allowance, universal credit, war widow’s or widower’s pension or widow’s pension.

Not surprisingly, the inclusion of these people significantly increases the number of those eligible under the Bill. DWP figures, as of February, estimate this group to number 409,000. Taken together, therefore, clauses 1 to 3 could exempt approximately 1.13 million people. These people are either receiving carer’s allowance or have an underlying entitlement to it. As the hon. Lady will be aware, in the north-west, where both our constituencies are located, there are 163,000 such people. To give some idea of the massive increase in the number of carers in recent years, I should add that the figure of 1.13 million is up from 451,000 in February 2000.

If, however, the definition of entitlement is applied in strict accordance with clause 2, the Bill would exclude, a university student caring for a disabled parent, for example. I suspect that the second group of potential beneficiaries was defined for people in such a position. The Bill therefore draws a distinction between a “qualifying carer”—someone caught by clause 2—and an “eligible carer”, as defined in clauses 4 to 6. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) touched on this, and I pointed out in an intervention that the figure of 1.13 million—the figure quoted by Opposition Members as being the total number involved—seemed to ignore completely those included under clauses 4 to 6.

Clause 5(1)(a) defines the eligible carer as someone who

“has been assessed for free hospital parking”

by virtue of an amendment to the Care Act 2014, which this Bill would insert. The Bill proposes to amend section 10 of the 2014 Act, which deals with carer’s assessments. A carer’s assessment is made by a trained person either from the council or another organisation that the council works with. The Bill will make it a mandatory requirement for the assessor to assess

“whether the carer should be eligible for free hospital…parking”.

This is in addition to assessing, as outlined in the rest of section 10—

“(a) whether the carer is able, and is likely to continue to be able, to provide care for the adult needing care,

(b) whether the carer is willing, and is likely to continue to be willing, to do so,

(c) the impact of the carer’s needs for support on the matters specified in section 1(2),

(d) the outcomes that the carer wishes to achieve in day-to-day life, and

(e) whether, and if so to what extent, the provision of support could contribute to the achievement of those outcomes.”

It is not clear at all on what basis the assessor is expected to make this decision. If only eligibility or underlying eligibility to carer’s allowance is going to be checked, this provision is superfluous, as such people would be covered in the first group. If some other criteria are to be applied, there is nothing in the Bill or in any guidance notes—no such notes have been issued—to suggest what that might be.

Returning to my example of the student who is caring for a parent but cannot get carer’s allowance because of their studies, clause 5(1)(b) perhaps comes to the rescue. It says an “eligible carer” is a person who

“provides or intends to provide substantial care on a regular basis, other than by virtue of a contract or as voluntary work and has been certified as such by an appropriate clinician.”

I believe that the meaning is ambiguous. What does “intend to provide” mean? How far into the future is it expected that the care will be delivered—within the next week, the next month, the next year, or what? The Bill does not say. Or is a fixed timescale not required; is consideration of caring enough? What constitutes “substantial care” in this provision? Is it the 35 hours a week required to be eligible for the carer’s allowance, or is it fewer than 35 hours a week? We need to know, because the Bill is asking an assessor to be the ultimate arbiter of whether someone is entitled to free hospital parking charges.

Suddenly, the number of people who might benefit from free hospital parking becomes a lot less certain. The first group gave us 1.13 million people. How many more of the 5.4 million carers estimated by Carers UK to be living in England would be included in the second group? We simply do not know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we have heard this question before. Mr Davies was asked whether staff would be taken from the front line. We are going over ground that has already been covered. This is about a Bill, about car parking, and about the benefit of carers. What I do not want to do is become involved in speculation. We are not here to speculate about the future.

[Mr Nuttall]

I was about to say exactly the same thing, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) was in the Chamber when someone made what I agree was a very similar point. I will merely say that, undoubtedly—I think that Members in all parts of the House will agree with this—the scheme will have to be administered somehow. It is not going to run itself. Someone, somewhere, will be required to run it, either someone new who has been brought in or someone who is currently doing another job in the hospital.

I do not know whether, as part of her preparation for the Bill, the hon. Member for Burnley ascertained how many national health service trusts in England might have to alter their price structures—that is, increase their parking charges to avoid falling foul of the income- generation principle—if the number of exempted carers were to be as significant as it appears. I do not know whether she proposes to scrap the principle of not running a scheme at a loss, as required by the 2006 guidance from the Department of Health. The NHS Confederation, which is the membership body for some 500 organisations that plan, commission and provide NHS services, says:

“NHS principles and Government policy are clear that healthcare is funded through taxation, not through patient charges. Surpluses from parking charges should only be a by-product of covering costs and managing space fairly.”

Most trusts make it clear that the income they receive from car parking charges goes towards covering the maintenance of the car park: for instance, the security, facilities and staff. To be specific, we are talking about the ongoing costs of anything from lighting to CCTV, footpath and cycle path maintenance, car park surfacing, and the employment of enforcement and security staff. If there is any money left over—and some trusts have no surplus from their car parking—it must, in accordance with the guidance, be used to improve local health services.

The Government have already been active in ensuring that information about parking is made very clear to members of the public, and I think it perfectly fair and reasonable to require trusts to ensure that that information is clearly visible on websites and in patient information in, for instance, letters. Patients are entitled to the reassurance of knowing that the purpose of the car park charge is not to provide the NHS with an additional, excessive income stream, but to provide for the car park in the first place. Charges, therefore, are used primarily to cover the running costs of the car park, and if there is a surplus, it cannot be used for other pet projects.

I referred earlier to the 2009 NHS car parking impact assessment. The then Labour Government commissioned the detailed, 61-page assessment of the costs of introducing free car parking. It concluded:

“On the available evidence there is scope for this policy to have both a positive and negative impact, both for older people and the disabled.”

Despite that rather mixed finding, Labour’s 2010 manifesto pledged to scrap hospital car parking charges. Five years later, however, at the time of this year’s May general election, Labour appeared to reverse its view, and to decide that the policy was unworkable. I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister later whether that is still the position of the official Opposition. In fact, the Bill runs contrary to the principle that individual trusts feel that it is right to set parking charges according to their own financial situations. Only yesterday it was reported that the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust was consulting on the introduction of parking charges at its community hospitals.

What are hospital car parking charges actually paying for? That is a perfectly legitimate question for people to ask. It is reasonable to say that visitors and patients do not generally have a great deal of choice when it comes to parking at a hospital. There is usually just one car park operator, and patients, staff and visitors are therefore a captive audience. In some town centres, one might be fortunate enough to have the choice of a cheaper place in which to park, but for hospitals there is no market incentive to keep costs under control.

In December 2010, the British Parking Association, which is the largest professional association in Europe representing parking and traffic management organisations, released a charter of best practice for parking in hospital car parks. Understandably, given the large number of disabled users, it set high standards. The Charter for Hospital Parking stated that hospital parking operators should provide

“good lighting, high standards of maintenance for structures and surfaces, payment systems and equipment that are easy to use and understand, signs that are clear and easy to understand”

and

“clearly marked parking bays.”

Patients and visitors will understandably want a safe and secure environment in which to park when they go to their local hospital, or, potentially, a hospital that is out of their immediate area if they are receiving specialist treatment. As Carers UK points out, attending hospital can be a stressful experience for patients and visitors. The last thing they want is to have their car broken into, or to spend 20 minutes driving round in circles because entrances and exits are not marked properly, or to be stuck facing a ticket machine that does not work with the threat of an unfair penalty charge looming. Patients, and their carers, visitors and staff, will quite reasonably expect a properly maintained car park with proper lighting and adequate security, along the lines of what is set out in the charter, whether the purpose is to guide a daytime visitor with proper and effective signage or to protect the doctor or nurse who gets into the car at 3 am in the dark after a long shift.

The charter also states:

“Parking charges can help to pay for maintenance and management services, and prevent these from becoming a drain on healthcare budgets. Therefore, we encourage NHS Trusts and car park operators who manage hospital car parks to sign up to this charter and to abide by its letter and spirit.”

So far, 24 hospital trusts have signed up to the charter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is very worthy, and it is great to acquire this extra knowledge, but it is not really anything to do with carers. The hon. Gentleman has got on to nurses and lighting, and I understand all that, but, worthy as it is, it is not in the spirit of what we are meant to be discussing.

[Mr Nuttall]

Parking places are finite, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Bill encouraged more carers to visit hospitals, which is what I think would happen, it would make it easier for them to gain access to car parks, and one consequence of that might be a knock-on effect on the income that would—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but it has already been well thumbed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was covered very thoroughly by Mr Davies, and I do not want him to repeat everything that Mr Davies covered. I think that, in his hour and a half, Mr Davies did not leave a lot of scope, but this is one point that he made sure we were well aware of.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Only in your opinion.

[Mr Nuttall]

The problem with selecting a group to exempt from parking charges is the necessity of considering other groups, and deciding which groups it is fair to charge and which groups should be exempt. Is it fair to exempt a particular visitor, albeit a carer, but to charge a clinical support worker who parks at the hospital every day? It could be someone with children or other dependants, working and acting as a carer but not in receipt of carer’s allowance.

Fairfield general hospital in my constituency comes under the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. According to figures from the northern commissioning region for the latest available year, I understand it is one of the trusts that charges on average 11p per hour for staff to park. I have to say that the trust sets out very clearly what its charges are for hospital car parking, and it provides a range of concessions. I take note of your stricture, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not read them out, but it is fair to say that it has obviously looked at this question and considered the various groups that should be entitled to a concession. For example, it has picked out blue badge holders, patients and visitors who need to attend on a frequent or regular basis and those who need to visit because they have suffered the bereavement of a loved one.

Such a scheme would be put in danger, and the trust would have to revisit it, which would undoubtedly have an effect on the viability of that scheme. Is it fair to charge a spouse or partner of a cancer patient who is still working and does not get carer’s allowance if they are too busy to get certified as eligible for hospital parking charge exemption, as required under clause 5 of this Bill? The Bill would require them to be approved in advance, and there will be many other deserving cases not covered by the Bill. The Bill does not seek to exempt people because of their low incomes, which is one a weakness. Some of the carers may well be in straitened circumstances, but there may be others who would be able to pay the charge, whereas some members of other groups would not be in that position.

The conclusion may well be that the fairest answer is not to exempt any groups but to make car parking free for everyone, as has happened in Scotland and Wales. Aligning us with those countries would be a popular idea with many people, but we must not forget that it would mean taking hundreds of millions of pounds out of the healthcare budget. The 2009 impact assessment suggested that the cost then would be between £140 million and £180 million. In six years’ time, it is reasonable to assume that cost would have increased enough to pay for 13,000 band 1 clinical support workers or 9,000 band 5 nurses. We have to ask what we think it is right to spend the healthcare budget on: patient care or free or reduced car parking.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right. The fact is that in September 2014 the then Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), noted in a debate that 40% of hospitals now do not charge for hospital car parking. They are likely to be in rural areas where there is less demand for parking—where it is easier to provide parking and there is less pressure on it. I suspect the reality is that a hospital with a car park in a central location in a busy town or a major city centre has no choice but to have a car parking charge. That is the reality of life. If it were be free, there would just be chaos; essentially, it would mean that those who really needed to get close to the hospital would not be able to do so. There has to be some system in place to protect the spaces that are close to the hospital for those who need them. Whatever system we have, there is no simple answer to that.

What we do know is that the present system of having local decision making is working. Fairfield hospital allows 30 minutes of free parking for everyone; then it costs just £1 for up to one hour. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Burnley, by contrast, people would pay £1.90 for up to three hours’ parking. There is a huge disparity across the country. We heard earlier—in an intervention from the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), I think—about the costs in central London, which are understandably very much higher than in the provinces.

While the Bill does explain the generality of what is required, it does not explain how the system would work in practice. In the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley, she mentioned that the system would work by way of having a badge in the car window. I am happy to be corrected if I misheard. That is the first time I had heard that. It would perhaps have helped all of us if that had been in an explanatory note saying this was how the scheme would work. She also mentioned that in some hospitals people have to pay on entry—I think the hon. Lady is nodding. That is all very well, but I am not quite sure how simply having a voucher in the car window would help in that scenario. It must be more complex than that, and some sort of token would be needed in order to get through the barrier.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The question is not how people get into a car park; it is whether there is free concessionary parking for carers. We are dealing with that, not the detail of how we get there. Obviously if the Bill were to go into Committee, these would be the areas that Members would want to cover there. I want to concentrate on where we are now and how we keep to where we want to be within the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will move on from that detail. I accept it is a detail, but it is an important detail.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I agree, but we have heard about all the different scenarios previously and in detail. That is what worries me. We can get bogged down in repeating details, and I know the hon. Gentleman does not want to do that.

[Mr Nuttall]

I want to move on to the devolution of healthcare. It was only very briefly touched on earlier, but it is of particular significance to my constituency, because, as Members will be aware, it is proposed to devolve healthcare to Greater Manchester. From April next year, it will be the first English region to get full control of its health spending. The situation in this regard is not at all clear. The Bill states that it will apply to the whole of England, but if healthcare is devolved, will Greater Manchester be exempt on the same basis that Scotland and Wales are exempt? Healthcare spending has been devolved to those countries and they are then excluded from this Bill.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Gardiner, you must come back and wait for the next Member to speak. You know the courtesies of the House. Members must not do that. It is all about respect, and we must have tolerance as well, on all sides.

If the Minister has finished her answer, I will call David Nuttall.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The Minister experienced the singular disadvantage of being my Whip in the last Parliament. I am pleased to welcome her to her new position.

I regard this share sale as a tremendous opportunity for the Government to widen share ownership, just as the Government of the late Lady Thatcher did in the 1980s. May I urge the Minister to make as many shares as possible available to small investors, to make the application process as simple as possible, and to set the minimum level as low as reasonably possible?

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Interestingly, I was happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but she did not give way when I wanted to intervene, but we will leave that aside. If the large organisations that run these sporting bodies put half a mind to it, there would be many ways in which they could ensure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. All Members are doing is holding up the debate.

[Mr Nuttall]

If those organisations want to ensure that the tickets are being used by the clubs, that is for them to deal with. We have seen what happened with the Rugby Football Union. The tickets are sent to the clubs, supposedly for use by the grass roots, and they are then sold on by the clubs. The tickets get leaked out into the open market. We cannot interfere with the free market; that is a fact of life. No matter how we dress it up or what legislation we introduce, tickets will find a way to be sold at the market price—what somebody is prepared to pay for it.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister gives way, it may help if I say that we are not going to have a love-in about Bury, either North or South, or the north-west.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will take the Minister’s good wishes back to Bury, but to return to the Bill, does he agree that it has potential advantages for businesses based there? Opportunities will open up for them as a result of it, maybe not directly but through the supply chain.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember—he will know this from first-hand knowledge—how wide the industrial base is in Bury. For example, I recall being very impressed with how many were involved in the aerospace industry.

United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My view—I suspect it might well be that of my hon. Friend, too—is that if the Government wish to increase the tax yield on behalf of the nation and to make it easier for individuals and companies to abide by their obligations, the way forward is to pass simpler tax legislation that we can all understand. I am sure that my hon. Friend has greater expertise in these matters than I do, but I have always found tax legislation particularly difficult to follow. I do not know the latest figures for Tolley’s tax guides, but when I was in practice in the legal profession they were substantial volumes and I suspect that they can only have grown in the past few years. Each one, on one tax alone, is a substantial doorstop.

It is no surprise that loopholes are discovered by accountants and tax advisers because the law is so complex and convoluted. There are so many different taxes, some of which overlap, that there is scope for tax loopholes to arise by accident. Governments do not set out to create tax loopholes other than those that are set out in legislation by design, they are precisely what they are called—tax loopholes.

As has been mentioned, it is often the Government’s desire to create what might be called loopholes, such as ISAs. I have been waiting to get to this point, as it gives me my second opportunity this morning to refer to ISA. This time, I do not mean the International Seabed Authority but the individual savings account. Before I looked into deep-sea mining, that was the only form of ISA I had heard of. ISAs are a form of tax avoidance set up to replace personal equity plans and were established as a means of encouraging people to save. They were set up to encourage private individuals to save in a tax-efficient manner in that they would not have to pay income tax on the income their account had earned. That could be called a tax loophole, but it is a legal tax loophole set up by the Government.

Let me return to the Bill. We must draw a distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Let us be clear: tax evasion is already illegal, but almost weekly in this House I hear the two terms being confused. People say that someone has been a tax avoider, suggesting that they have acted illegally. Well, if they have, they are not a tax avoider; they are a tax evader, and they should be brought to book and prosecuted. I have no sympathy with them whatsoever. If someone has deliberately under-declared their income, I entirely agree that they should be brought to book by the Revenue and Customs, that they should be prosecuted and, in certain cases, sent to prison. Let us not beat about the bush. I am sure I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Minister on that. I do not want to go easy on people who have deliberately avoided their obligations to society by breaching our tax legislation in such a way as to avoid paying their dues and demands under the law. That increases the burden on everyone else.

Of course, we already have measures in place to provide the mechanism for the Revenue to ferret out these people. It can open up inquiries into their tax affairs, and it frequently does. A whole industry exists around dealing with inquiries into people’s tax affairs. My accountant sent me details of an insurance policy that I could take out for that very occasion. I could pay a premium, and then if my tax affairs were investigated by the Revenue, the policy would cover my accountancy costs while the inquiry was dealt with.

However, returning to the Bill, our Government have already taken a great deal of action on tax avoidance and tax evasion. Since 2010, the Government have collected over £23 billion in extra tax by challenging the tax arrangements of large businesses. I am informed that, by tackling transfer pricing alone, the Government have collected £2 billion since 2010. It may well be that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is introducing the Bill because he thinks that those figures are not high enough. If the measures in the Bill are such a good idea, why, in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was none of these measures introduced? If it is such a good idea now, why was it not such a good idea then? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister ever went to the Treasury team at the time with this Bill and said, “Look, here is the answer to our problems.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The debate is not about then; it is about now, and it is about the Bill before us. I do not want a debate on whether it should have been done in 1985 or 1998; it is about now. I know that you are very good at wanting to get into the detail of the Bill; you must get back to it.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would just make the point that perhaps the reason why such legislation was not introduced by the last Labour Government is that it is not a very good idea. I will attempt to demonstrate, if I may, by looking, as you rightly suggest, at the detail of the Bill, why it is not a very good idea.

Detailed the Bill indeed is, running to 13 clauses. It deals essentially with three elements: the disclosure of the tax affairs of large companies, the tax affairs of individuals, and the tax affairs of trusts. Those are the three primary areas that the Bill seeks to attack. The first of those relates to large companies, which, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, we have already established covers not just public limited companies but those purely in the private sector.

The Bill provides that the Companies Act 2006, passed under the last Labour Government, should be amended by adding new section 409A, which would require a company to provide in respect of each one of its related undertakings its registered name; the jurisdiction of its incorporation; its company number; the jurisdictions in which it trades; the trading name it uses in each jurisdiction if that is different from its registered name; the precise nature of its trade, sufficiently described in such a manner as to enable those activities to be accurately identified; the percentage of the related undertaking controlled by the company; a statement of the turnover, net profit before tax, current taxation liability owing, number of employees and their total employment cost and the net assets of the related entity for the period for which the company is reporting, whether such data be audited or otherwise; and finally, the web address where the most recent financial statements can be found. If that does not increase the burden on companies, I do not know what does.

The real danger with all this added bureaucracy and red tape is that it makes this country a less desirable place to do business. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, there may well be merit in respect of a public company putting this information in the public domain, but I do not see that to be case in respect of private limited companies, which are not excluded. Certainly I do not see the benefit in respect of individuals.

Clause 3 places on HMRC an obligation, no later than 1 March each year, arithmetically to combine for each taxpayer who has submitted a tax return by 31 January in respect of all their taxable income of all sorts, with a few exceptions, and to publish those in descending order of magnitude—in other words, the 250 wealthiest individuals. This clause gives the revenue just one month to complete the task. The tax returns need not be in until 31 January, and within one month it has to have carried out this rather complicated calculation, which I will not go into the details of. Subsection (2) requires HMRC to publish, no later than 15 March each year, the 250 tax returns for the previous tax year ended on 5 April that ranked highest on the listing produced in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1). Subsection (3) requires that they should not be anonymised, and this is the crucial point about this clause—they would all be public information. In other words, the private tax affairs of any individual will no longer be private.

I can draw only one conclusion from that: there is a real risk that, were the Bill enacted, it would cause the wealthiest individuals in our society—I hasten to add that I very much doubt the Bill would ever bother me—to go elsewhere. We as a nation would lose their wealth and the income it produces. To return to the point with which I started, I fail to see how that would benefit what both the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and I want to see, which is improved public services. We would not be able to improve our public services if the wealthiest individuals in our country and all the tax they pay disappeared as a result of onerous and intrusive obligations that the Bill imposes on them. They would simply use their wealth to look around the world, find a more suitable home and tax regime and leave our shores.

I want to address in particular the obligations that the Bill places on our banks, because they give rise to a great deal of complication. Clause 5 requires financial institutions to

“notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House that they have opened or closed an account in the United Kingdom for a company within thirty days of that account being opened or closed stating—

(a) the name and registered number of the company;

(b) the address at which they correspond with that company;

(c) the names and full addresses, dates of birth and nationalities of those persons who they have accepted as having authority to take action with regard to the account;

(d) the names and addresses, dates of birth and nationalities of those persons who they have identified as the beneficial owners of the company in question as required by Regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007;

(e) the number of the account that they have opened; and

(f) the numbers of any other accounts that they maintain for the company.”

I may be reading this wrongly, but there does not appear to be any question whatsoever about the size of the company. It does not say that the company has to be of a certain size; it simply says that if a company opens a bank account, it has a duty to report it. That covers literally thousands and thousands of bank accounts. It would increase enormously the burden on our financial institutions and banks at a time when we want them to concentrate on the much more important task of getting the British economy moving again and on lending to businesses. I do not want our bankers to have to fill in forms and write down the names and addresses of companies and the addresses to which they write. That would stop them doing their primary task, which is to play their part in getting the British economy moving and growing. As we know, it is starting to grow, but there is much more to do.

Let us be clear: no one is suggesting that the Bill does not have the best of intentions behind it. However, the Government have already increased significantly the compliance yield, which is the amount that the Government expect to get from tax—

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What a choice! I call Mr Nuttall.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As always, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who went through the amendments with his usual courtesy and in a good-natured and thoughtful way. I am extremely grateful for some of the explanations he gave. I am not entirely convinced by every one of them, as I will explain, but I am extremely grateful that he put forward the promoters’ case so eloquently on their behalf.

It has already been a long old road for this Bill, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. Only yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I noticed that it was up for debate this evening, I said, “I seem to recall that I might have spoken on Second Reading.” He said, “I think you did.” I said, “I can’t recall when that was.” He replied, “Oh, it was about March time,” so I went away and looked it up. I found that Second Reading did indeed take place about March time, but March last year—on 6 March 2012, to be precise.

The Bill has changed fairly substantially since it was first introduced in the other place. It has gradually shrunk in size, as clause after clause has been shed, for one reason or another. Members might well be wondering what has happened in the intervening period—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Well, let me help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the amendments, and we do not need to hear the history of the Bill prior to the amendments because, in fairness, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has already set out the subject very well. I know that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is desperate to speak only to the amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am indeed. In one sentence, let me say that this is relevant because there was an opposed Committee meeting on 6 November last year that resulted in the Bill shrinking since the last time we discussed it, so we now have a different Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Don’t worry, I do not need to see the Bill shrinking before my eyes. All I want to hear being discussed are the amendments, and I know that that is all the hon. Gentleman is going to do. No more sentences; we are going to stick to the amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

I was just finishing the sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall start with amendments 1 and 2. I am surprised that only two of the amendments have been accepted by the promoters. As has already become evident, there are some good arguments for many of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Amendments 1 and 2 deal with the starting dates. They are worth considering because it would make sense, if we are introducing new laws that will apply all across London, to have them start at the same time. I listened carefully to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the need for complete flexibility. He also suggested that it would be somewhat draconian to introduce new rules to be applied across London all at the same time. The other side to that argument is that, if the boroughs introduced the new rules on different dates—or even in different years—there could be confusion, to say the least, as to which boroughs had adopted a particular new rule and which had not.

Let us look at the details of clause 3(2) and (3). They imply that different start dates could be set even within the same borough. Subsection (2) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”

I emphasise the words “to different areas”. The only way in which subsection (3) differs is in its final three words, which are “to an area”. It states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”

I appreciate the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that the signs could be put in place for temporary reasons, or to implement temporary traffic flow measures. Obviously, no one could possibly argue that that kind of sign should not be put up and then taken down again so as to suit the circumstances. However, I see no reason why that could not apply even if amendments 1 and 2 were accepted and those two subsections were left out of the Bill, which would be a sensible step to take.

Amendment 3 would add the words

“and approved by the Secretary of State for Transport”

to the end of clause 4(13). In an intervention, I said that I took issue to a small degree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. First of all, by limiting the provision to the Secretary of State for Transport, there could be problems in the future if, for example, there were not a Secretary of State for Transport. Personally, I would prefer the description “the Secretary of State”. I heard the Minister say in an intervention that in any event, this matter should be dealt with by the Mayor of London, and there might well be some merit in that.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The Question is, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council—

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Nuttall, I was waiting, but you did not jump up as quickly as you normally do. I do not want to stop you from having at least a minute.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few Members wish to speak, so may I ask for short speeches? That will mean that we can get everybody in and all the views will be on the record.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), although I do not agree with him on many occasions. I do not agree with him today either, except on one thing—the Government will get this measure through today, and that is because they are doing absolutely the right thing. One thing that I heard time and again from my constituents in the last election campaign was that they were sick and tired of the number of people taking a lifestyle choice to live a life on benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has mentioned.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend, for reasons that I know not, opposed last week’s motion to allow electronic hand-held devices in the Chamber, but one great advantage of now being allowed such devices is that I was able immediately to follow his advice, go to www.capc.co.uk and access the website of the Campaign Against Political Correctness. On it, there can be found the “Not in my name” section, where Bolaji Alajija, a 42-year-old student nurse from north London, says:

“I don’t see why there is all the fuss. What’s the harm in having a black doll? It’s exactly the same as a white doll. People shouldn’t be so sensitive.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that, although they are allowed to use iPads, they have to make a speech without continuously reading from them. I am sure Mr Nuttall will take that on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who spoke with such authority on the matter. I am a sponsor of the Bill and am obviously rising to support it.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for bringing us the Bill. Millions of people across the country will be saying, “Hooray” this morning because at last somebody has started to roll back the tide of political correctness. I am pleased to be joined in support for the Bill by my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), and my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

I want to follow up one or two of the points made by earlier speakers. The first is about racist jokes. Over the years, the nature of comedy in this country has changed, but we must not think that because we have changed it means that racist jokes were restricted only to this country. I understand that in Canada jokes were often told about the Newfoundlanders—the Newfies. No one took offence. It was part and parcel of their way of life—their culture—just as we have Irish jokes. It is not demeaning in any way.

Like the Bill’s promoter, I am a Yorkshireman and we also have jokes about Yorkshiremen. Jokes about sections of the community are common. I have often heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tell jokes about Lancashire, and, indeed, I have heard him telling jokes about people from Sheffield and Rotherham. Nobody took offence at that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

They may not have taken offence, but as we both know, there is nothing about jokes on the face of the Bill. I know that an argument is being built, but I think we can move on from the jokes now—much as I am tempted by the mention of Yorkshire.

[Mr Nuttall]

Earlier in the debate the question was asked: can we take equality too far? Does it mean changing the nature of our society? Can we take free speech too far? In the same way, when I was young—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure doors matter to people who are over 2 metres—usually it is 6 feet 6 inches—but I cannot see the connection between the Bill and where we are being led, so I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to bring us back now to the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I make is where do we draw the line? I will leave—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. To help the hon. Gentleman, I have drawn the line at doors.

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will leave that point there.

The new positive action provisions make it clear that employers must not adopt policies or practices designed routinely to favour candidates with a certain protected characteristic of whatever nature, even where there is evidence of under-representation or disadvantage. All suitably qualified candidates must be considered on their individual merits for the post in question. Current positive action provisions in employment relate only to training or encouragement—for example, mentoring schemes for ethnic minority staff where they are under-represented in senior roles, or open days to encourage women applicants in male-dominated sectors. This merely serves to upset and discriminate against all those who are not allowed to take part in such training. Why should they not receive the same training just because of their racial background, sex or particular individual characteristics?

The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 was originally presented on 17 October 2001. The key objective of the Act was to enable a political party, should it wish to do so, to adopt measures that regulate the selection of candidates for certain elections in order to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women as candidates in that party. In south Yorkshire in the 1980s I was regularly involved in the selection of parliamentary candidates. Of, say, 50 applications that we would typically receive for a seat, there would be on average 45 from men, three from women and two from ethnic minority candidates. It follows, therefore, that with 90% of the applications being from white males, very often a male was selected, but we were selecting purely on merit.

There were many examples, and there continue to be many examples in the Conservative party, of women who have succeeded on their merits. I know from Mrs Nuttall that she feels extremely patronised whenever there is any talk of special treatment being given to women.

Broadcasting (Public Service Content) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I know that I look old, but I must admit that I do not remember that. Indeed, I was not aware of it. It is interesting to learn why they are called soap operas. I always wondered why it was. That is well worth knowing.

There is a huge amount of content on the BBC that most people outside the House would not consider to be part of the public service remit. It is worth examining the definition of public service broadcasting in more detail, and it is worth looking at how other countries deal with the issue, because the problems that we are discussing are not unique to this country.

An independent media is part and parcel of any free democracy. People always think about newspapers in this respect, of course, and talk about “the free press”, but it is not just about the free press nowadays; rather, it is about free broadcasters. It is often considered to be one of the defining qualities of a banana republic or a dictatorship that the Government have seized control of the state broadcaster. I well understand the points made earlier that we, as politicians, do not want to go down that route; of course we do not. The way to stop that happening, however, is to allow a diversity of broadcasters, each of whom if necessary would—as the Bill allows—be able to receive small sums in funding. I am talking here not about billions of pounds, but about perhaps £20 million or £30 million.

Let us consider how many separate public service broadcasters we could therefore have in this country. That is a tremendous vision; it is a vision for the 21st and the 22nd centuries. There could be dozens of broadcasters, and they would, perhaps, be broadcasting in a different way from in the past: not over the television, but via the internet—and, increasingly, the mobile internet. People will therefore be watching these different providers as they go about their daily lives.

That points to an issue that I might address after I have finished my opening remarks. In the past, if someone watched a show on television on a Saturday night, they could be pretty sure on the Monday morning when they went into school or work that almost everybody else had also watched it. However, we have now already reached a situation where there are so many TV channels that the odds are that no one else has watched that show, because what takes one person’s fancy to watch of an evening will most probably be different from what takes someone else’s fancy to watch.

Some people, including me, have not even subscribed to Sky television. Therefore, if someone talks to me about a Sky programme that they have watched, I will not have been able to see it because I do not have a Sky box. That is my choice, however; I have chosen not to subscribe.

However, I might choose to subscribe under certain circumstances. The programmes the BBC no longer broadcasts that I miss most are the cricket test matches. A process was gone through, and they were bought up by a different broadcaster. I accept that, but one of the problems with the power and might of the BBC is that it can very often bid up the prices far more than a small broadcaster could afford. Nevertheless, live television coverage of the test matches has been lost from terrestrial TV. Although there is still the highlights package, which is available in the evening, ball-by-ball coverage has now gone to Sky, and I have no problem with that. However, if the cricket was available as a package on its own, so we could pay just for the Sky cricket content rather than the whole sports package, I might be interested in subscribing.

We have seen that development in horse racing. There are now channels specifically for horse racing. This is relevant because our debate is about the future of broadcasting. At present, horse racing is also on the BBC, however. The BBC uses some of the taxpayers’ licence fee to pay for the cost of broadcasting horse racing, and it is directly competing with other broadcasters such as the At The Races channel. That channel might like to broadcast the Cheltenham gold cup, the grand national and other major races.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are now getting into too much programme detail. We have touched on cricket, horse racing and “EastEnders”, and I recognise they may all be important, but we now need to turn to the content of the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

Hon. Members have raised the question of public service, and it may well be that sport does not fall into that category, although as a matter of fact these things are being dealt with at the moment.

I wish briefly to examine the arrangements in some other countries, which have struggled to tackle this problem of how to deal with paying for an independent broadcaster. In Pakistan, the public broadcaster is a state-owned corporation—the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation—which was funded publicly through money obtained from television, radio and video cassette recorder licensing. Its Radio Pakistan has stations covering all the major cities and 80% of the country, serving 95.5 million listeners, which is more than we have in the UK. It also has its own world service, broadcasting in seven languages daily.

Sadly, events in Japan have meant that the Japanese station that many of us have been able to see recently, as it has shown the coverage following the earthquake and tsunami, is its main public broadcaster, NHK—the Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Many English speakers often refer to it informally as “Radio Tokyo”. It was set up in 1926 and was modelled on the BBC. It is funded by a receiving fee paid by every Japanese household, it has no commercial advertising and it maintains a position of strict political impartiality.

Malaysia has a public service broadcaster that is entirely state-owned. It was previously funded publicly through money obtained from television licensing, but it is now state subsidised, as Malaysia has abolished TV licences. Malaysia operates 16 state and seven district radio stations, as well as two national terrestrial television channels. Croatia, interestingly, has a mixed approach. The last figures I could find were from 2002 and they showed that 70% of the funding for HRT—I will not attempt to pronounce the name of Croatia’s national broadcaster—comes from broadcast user fees for each house, with the remainder being made up by advertising.

The best and most well-known other example of public service broadcasting can be found in the United States, whose arrangements are entirely different. Its public service broadcasting is decentralised and is not Government operated, yet nobody in this House could possibly say that the media—the broadcast and electronic media—in the US is anything other than free, impartial and independent.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Nuttall

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions should be short and stick to the point of the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

There is a danger that the Bill will do exactly that, because the more well-off members of our society will be able to afford to pay the premium, while the vast majority—ordinary, working-class members of our society—will simply be prohibited from purchasing higher-priced organic goods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One point is enough, and I am sure Gibraltar will not be affected.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to ensure that these policies are consistent at an international level. One would think that the first place to start would be our overseas territories, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would support that view and ensure that that is where we started, although whether the overseas territories would be that keen on having these burdens imposed on them is another matter.