Public Sector Pay

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for setting out the petition and opening the debate with some excellent points. I thank the almost 150,000 people who signed the petition, especially the 326 signatories from Warrington South. It is further evidence of public support for ending the public sector pay freeze, and it is extremely important that we, as a Parliament and as public representatives, react to that.

It was widely reported on 12 September that the Government had lifted the public sector pay cap but, unfortunately, that was not the case. The pay freeze remains in place for the vast majority of public sector workers. The Government’s approach has been to cherry-pick some groups in the public sector for a so-called pay rise, which would still result in their wages being cut in real terms. It is important to note that the Government have so far failed to provide much of the additional funding that is needed even for such an incremental rise. In areas where funding has been discussed, such as in the NHS, there remains a lack of clarity. That is yet another example where the Government have been strong with words but weak on action; and we need action.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

On that point, does my hon. Friend share my concern that when he was asked about funding the lifting of the pay cap for NHS workers, the Health Secretary merely said he would look at reforming terms and conditions to pay for the increase?

[Faisal Rashid]

I totally agree; and nothing happened.

The continuing pay freeze is putting immense pressure on public services. I have seen first-hand, in Warrington South and across the country, how seven years of neglect and under-investment have put unnecessary and unacceptable pressure on many public sector staff. I have also seen just how hard public sector staff have continued to work, in what are often extremely difficult circumstances.

The Joseph Rowntree report that came out this morning highlights the fact that poverty rates have begun to rise in the United Kingdom for the first time in two decades, and wage stagnation is at least partly responsible. That shows that even though we are living in a time of record employment, it is not leading to a reduction in poverty levels. That is certainly evidenced among public sector workers. Reports of nurses being forced to seek financial support and assistance, and of police officers struggling to make ends meet, have become almost commonplace. That is simply unacceptable.

Despite seven years of relative pay cuts, public sector workers have continued to prop up services and support communities with their professionalism, skill and determination. It is high time that we repaid them for that. They deserve to feel valued by society and by the Government. They deserve having the pay freeze lifted now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

Nothing the hon. Gentleman said about what I have said is remotely accurate—I have not said that public sector workers should not be paid a decent salary—so I am afraid I do not accept at all the point he makes. It is right that Secretaries of State have the responsibility to determine the right pay award for their workforces. That is because across the public services, each workforce is different, with different requirements, starting points, starting salaries and allowances, and each faces different recruitment and retention issues. Following the announcement, Departments will be able to fund appropriate pay rewards for their workforces from their existing budgets, just as we have done in the Ministry of Justice.

[Liz McInnes]

I want to make a point about IPSA and independent pay review bodies. NHS workers went on to Agenda for Change terms and conditions. One attraction of that was that it gave NHS staff access to a pay review body, but the Government have been overriding the recommendations of pay review bodies since 2010. The analogy just does not work: the Government have not overridden IPSA’s decisions, but they have overridden the NHS Pay Review Body’s decisions.

[Andrew Jones]

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the interview given by the shadow Chancellor yesterday in which he said that public sector pay reviews were always subject to negotiation. Perhaps he needs to have a conversation internally first.

Before any decision on pay is made, there is indeed a well-established process for the consideration of pay across the public sector. For local government workers, pay awards are considered by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. Firefighters have the corresponding National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services. The vast majority of the remainder are people employed in workforces with an independent pay review body. As part of the process, Departments will shortly submit evidence to the corresponding pay review body for their workforces.

Summer Adjournment

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the new Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for an eloquent and informative maiden speech.

The issue I want to talk about is the Government’s consultation on “Driving offences and penalties relating to causing death or serious injury” by dangerous driving. The consultation began in December 2016 and concluded on 1 February 2017. This year’s snap election has resulted in many casualties, one way or another, and it would seem that this consultation is yet another. In response to a written question I tabled on 21 June 2017, asking when the Ministry of Justice planned to publish its response to the consultation, I received the following reply:

“The government is now considering the consultation responses. Any announcement will be made in due course.”

Dissatisfied with that response, I raised the issue at business questions last week. The Leader of the House appeared to share my concern and promised to write to me, but as yet I have not received a letter—I am sure it will arrive at my office soon.

I raise this issue because of the tragic death of my constituent Joseph Brown-Lartey in November 2014. Joseph was killed, at the age of just 25, by a 19-year-old uninsured, unlicensed driver in a hire car who ran a red light at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. He hit Joseph’s car. The impact was so great that the car was cut in two and Joseph was killed instantly. Just the previous day, that driver had posted a picture on Snapchat of his speedometer at 142 mph on the M62, with a boast that he had driven from Leeds to Rochdale in just 11 minutes. He was sentenced to just six years’ imprisonment, of which he is likely to serve three. He will very probably soon be released, but Joseph’s family are serving a life sentence with the loss of their beloved son.

I wrote to the Attorney General on behalf of Joseph’s family, asking for this sentence to be reconsidered, but the ruling was that it was in line with current guidelines and was therefore not considered to be “unduly lenient”. It is the belief of Joseph’s parents and myself, and many other affected families, that these guidelines are outdated and that the penalty does not match the severity of the crimes committed by dangerous drivers. The maximum sentence is 14 years, yet it is very rare that even this maximum sentence is imposed. Joseph’s parents, Dawn and Ian, have campaigned tirelessly under their “Justice for Joseph” campaign, championed by local radio station Key 103, to try to ensure that other families do not suffer the same sense of burning injustice that they have. They have handed in a petition, signed by more than 20,000 people, to 10 Downing Street, calling for tougher sentences for dangerous drivers. They have given the wreckage of Joseph’s car to Greater Manchester police, and it is being used to educate drivers, particularly young drivers, about the dangers of driving dangerously. Members may have seen the car outside Parliament in July last year and may, rightly, have been shocked to see it split completely in two. The road safety charity, Brake has given its full support to the campaign and has launched its own parallel campaign, “Roads to Justice”. Gary Rae, from Brake, has said:

“There are too many families who suffer the double trauma of losing a loved one in a sudden and violent way and then witness the judicial system turning its back on them.”

There was relief when the Government finally announced in December last year that a consultation was to be held, with the possibility of life sentences for those causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. However, it is now July 2017, we are about to go into recess and still there is no sign of the outcome of the consultation. In the meantime, many families sadly have been and continue to be affected by this gross injustice.

At the launch of the “Roads to Justice” campaign, I met a constituent of the Prime Minister. Mark Hollands’ daughter Bryony was tragically killed by a drunk driver who came off the road and struck her while she was walking along the pavement. Bryony’s killer was given an eight-year sentence, of which he will serve four. Bryony was a 19-year-old music student. Since her death, her father has campaigned tirelessly for tougher sentences and raised funds for the music therapy charity Nordoff Robbins, in his daughter’s memory. Bryony’s father contacted me today to say that the family should have been attending her graduation ceremony in Sheffield this very afternoon.

In Aldershot in November last year, two young runners, Lucy Pygott and Stacey Burrows, were killed by a drunk driver while out training. Their killer, a soldier, got just six years, of which he will serve three. As Lucy’s mother said:

“The British Army trains soldiers to kill—this man killed with his loaded weapon of a hot-hatch car.”

Sadly, the list goes on and on. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice to ask for information on the progress of the consultation, and I highlighted two more cases. One was in Oldham; two young girls aged 11 and 12 were killed, yet the driver, who fled the scene, received a sentence of just four years, of which he will serve two. One was in St Helens in May this year; a four-year-old was killed and her grandmother seriously injured by the driver of a stolen car that mounted the pavement at speed, with the driver also fleeing the scene. When he was finally arrested and charged, he received a sentence of nine years, of which he will serve four and a half.

While the Government delay, the families who lose loved ones in such horrific and entirely avoidable circumstances should not be made to suffer the added injustice of such lenient treatment of the killers. I am keen for the Government to make clear their intentions as soon as possible, for the sake of the victims and their families, who have suffered enough. I am extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this hugely important matter today.

Public Sector Pay Cap

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Stephens, you are a very excitable denizen of the House. I had been intending to call you, but I think I will leave you to simmer down for a few minutes in the hope that you can recover such poise and composure as are available to you.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

The Labour Government brought in Agenda for Change for NHS staff, which finally put us—I was one of those NHS staff—on a fair rate of pay with an independent pay review body, but since 2010 the coalition Government and the Tory Government have systematically undermined Agenda for Change pay rates by capping and freezing wages. The Government are all too ready to describe NHS workers as fantastic, but giving them a fair pay award is just that—fantasy. Is it not time that the Government put their money where their mouth is?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady is not acknowledging the fact that more than half of those people on Agenda for Change are receiving average incremental pay of 3.3%.

Easter Adjournment

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I should just like to thank him for blowing my cover; I was trying to keep my birthday quiet. He was the first person in the House to wish me a happy birthday today, however, and I am grateful to him for that—[Interruption.] Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I should like to echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about PC Keith Palmer and to extend my sympathies to his family and to the families and friends of all those who died during the terrible events of last week. Two things have come out of those events. The first is that we are going to have a review of our response, which is the right thing to do. I will certainly be feeding in my views on what we could have done better. Some things were done very well, and I am grateful to all the staff of the House for protecting us, but we as MPs should have taken more responsibility for our reactions and for looking after the numerous visitors and children in the building. I did not know what on earth was going on, and the people I was with did not know either. I think that we could look after our visitors better.

For me, there is a second issue that has come out of last week’s event. The Prime Minister has encouraged us as MPs to learn more about first aid, but I am struck by the fact that it was this Government who talked out a Bill to introduce compulsory first aid training in schools. Try as I might, I cannot see the logic of the Government encouraging people to learn first aid while putting a block on making it a compulsory part of our children’s education. What better way could there be to teach children first aid skills that they can carry with them for the rest of their lives, so that they can feel confident about dealing with emergencies? With that in mind, I have written to the Prime Minister to ask her to revisit the question of teaching first aid in schools. I await her reply.

I want to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the Government’s drugs strategy. Drug-related deaths in England and Wales have hit record levels, with cocaine deaths reaching an all-time high in 2015 and deaths involving heroin or morphine doubling over three years to reach record levels.

The Prime Minister is facing a barrage of criticism over the policies she pursued while Home Secretary, with Niamh Eastwood, the executive director of drugs charity Release, saying:

“The Home Office’s pursuit of a ‘tough on drugs’ strategy and refusal to acknowledge the evidence for best practice in drug treatment is quite literally killing people.”

Martin Powell, of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, echoes that view and says:

“The Home Office—under the now Prime Minister’s watch—is responsible for the highest number of drug deaths ever recorded. That the Prime Minister keeps claiming her drug policy is working should send a chill down the spine of every parent and reasonable person in the country. She knows, from countless studies, what keeps communities safe, and it isn’t driving people away from help and into the hands of criminals. It is responsible reforms that take the drug market away from dealers, and puts it into the hands of doctors and pharmacists.”

Drug-related deaths are increasing, and new drugs and associated problems are causing problems in prisons and emergency departments. In February 2016, the Government confirmed:

“We will shortly be publishing a new Drug Strategy.”

At the Christmas Adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) reminded the House that, barring an unexpected delivery from Santa Claus, it was still not to be seen. She asked again in the new year and was told that it would be “soon.” So “soon” in Government terms, means months, and “shortly” means more than a year. Will Ministers please announce an actual date for the drug strategy, or would we be better off asking the Easter bunny?

Local Authorities have seen their funding for drug and alcohol treatment slashed by 42% since 2010. Many clients seeking treatment for addiction lead chaotic lives and many struggle with a whole host of difficulties that go far beyond their addiction. They might be embroiled in the criminal justice system and need advice, they might have housing problems or be struggling with trauma, or they might have been in care and survived institutional abuse. Positions for psychologists in drug and alcohol addiction teams who could provide treatment for complex trauma related to sexual abuse have also been cut.

Members of the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group, of which I am a member, are today debating in the other place the cost of alcohol misuse to the National Health Service. There are more than 1 million alcohol-related hospital admissions each year, and alcohol is a contributory factor in more than 200 different health conditions. Our cross-party group will be discussing alcohol misuse and treatment after Easter, on 26 April. As one regular contributor to group meetings, John Jolly, has said:

“As Chief Executive of a drugs and alcohol charity I see the harm that alcohol does on a daily basis. I saw the impact as a police officer. I saw the impact as a probation officer. I saw the impact on children and families as a social worker. For this reason I would urge the Government to take urgent action to develop a national alcohol strategy”.

The shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), whose father was sadly an alcoholic, has also called for greater recognition of the damage done by excessive drinking. Drug and alcohol abuse and addiction are not going to go away. Let us hope that both a drugs strategy and an alcohol strategy will be forthcoming as a matter of urgency.

Beer Duty

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I wholeheartedly agree that the beer duty affects the whole industry. That is why I believe it needs to be addressed.

One interesting statistic I read was that communities that have a well loved pub are happier. Pubs have that very positive effect on local communities. I was dismayed when a local Liberal Democrat councillor in St Austell recently suggested tightening up the local licensing regulations and limiting the number of pubs to curb incidents of antisocial behaviour. That misses the point entirely, because well run pubs promote responsible drinking, and in my experience they have a positive impact by reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, rather than being the cause of the problem.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned St Austell —I am very partial to a pint of Clouded Yellow myself. A family brewery, John Willie Lees, is a major employer in my constituency. I fully support the comments that the hon. Gentleman is making about social drinking. I am sure that he will agree that we should be promoting pubs, keeping them open and stopping people buying cheap alcohol and drinking alone at home.

[Steve Double]

I wholeheartedly agree. Not only are pubs great places for community cohesion, but they promote responsible drinking in a safe environment, which we should wholeheartedly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Gentleman brings me to the next section of my speech, which is about business rates. I am not surprised that colleagues across the House have raised that issue. We recognise that business rates can represent a high fixed cost for some businesses. I will not rehearse all the facts about the 2017 revaluation. I think we all acknowledge that there was a long gap between revaluations, but I emphasise that for those who face an increase in business rates as a result, there is a £3.6 billion transitional relief scheme. It will support them by capping and phasing in rises in bills. The Chancellor has already said that he is working with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to provide additional support for the hardest hit businesses.

As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and others have said, pubs are valued for business rates around the idea of a fair maintainable turnover. An approved guide on the valuation of public houses for business rates has been agreed between the Valuation Office Agency and all five bodies representing pubs, including the British Beer and Pub Association and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers. That formula has been agreed, and that is a welcome step that provides more certainty for pub operators over their business rates bill.

It is also worth noting that in the Budget 2016, the Government announced a £6.7 billion business rates reduction package to benefit all ratepayers. I draw the House’s attention to the switch of the annual indexation of business rates from the retail prices index to the main measure of inflation, the consumer prices index, from April 2020. That will represent a cut every year from 2020. In 2020-21, that benefit will be worth £370 million, and it will grow significantly thereafter.

I will turn to a number of the issues raised by Members. A number of people have made the case—I am familiar with it and recently had the chance to hear it in person from industry representatives—that duty cuts boost Exchequer revenues. It is fair to say that even if we allow for other additional tax revenues, the industry analysis we have seen shows that duty cuts still have a net cost to the Exchequer. For example, because the public finances assume an increase by RPI each year, the duty changes from Budget 2013 onwards are estimated to have reduced total alcohol duty receipts by £800 million for 2016-17. That implies that to make up for that, Government would have to raise taxes in other areas of the economy, cut spending elsewhere or increase the deficit. I put it on record that cuts and freezes have a real impact on how the public finances account for things.

A number of Members have raised the issue of lower duty rates on low-strength beer. I recognise some of the challenges around the point at which that line is drawn and around brewing to that level. High-strength beer is taxed more than the equivalent low-strength product, but the 2.8% threshold is set by European Union law and is being reviewed by the Commission at the moment. In the industry meeting, we explored the impact and discussed where the threshold should be.

Members have rightly discussed the challenge around the on-trade and the off-trade and discussed how pubs can encourage responsible drinking. Current rules do not permit the Government to apply a different tax treatment to the same product. We cannot tax alcohol sold in shops at a different rate to alcohol sold in pubs, but we recognise the role that pubs play in promoting responsible drinking. In 2014, we took action on very cheap alcohol by banning sales below duty plus VAT in England and Wales.

[Liz McInnes]

I appreciate the point that the Minister is making about different rates of tax, but is it not true that minimum pricing for alcohol would apply only to alcohol sold in supermarkets and retail outlets, and not to alcoholic drinks sold in pubs? Is that not correct?

[Jane Ellison]

I suspect that is a debate for another time. It is certainly a debate in which I took part in my previous role. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will stick to the topic of the debate, lest we get drawn into minimum unit pricing, as it is a complex issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) spoke about the long history of the brewing industry in her constituency. She is another strong advocate for the brewing industry, and she rightly mentioned beer exports, which were worth £531 million in 2015, up 10% on the previous year. I reassure her that no duty is payable on exported alcohol, so the link between duty cuts and exports is not a direct one, although I take her point about general confidence within the industry.

The issue of high-strength alcohol has been challenged. I think the House is unanimous in wanting to tackle excessive alcohol consumption and the related health harms associated with the strongest products. The question is how we do that, but the point has been well made and the Government are of course reflecting on that.

I hope I have covered most of the points raised. I have not been able to respond to the whole thrust of the debate, although more will be said tomorrow in the Budget. The debate has been a valuable opportunity to discuss the issues, and it has been interesting to see so much common ground.

Equality: Autumn Statement

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate and for all the work she has done to highlight this important matter.

Since 2010, women have been hit three times harder by tax and benefit changes than men. Eighty-six per cent of tax and benefit savings have been taken from women. That is a further increase of 5% since last year’s autumn statement. Female-headed households will be affected the most. They will see the largest drop in living standards between 2010 and 2020, and that is happening under a Conservative-led Government.

In her maiden speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister said:

“If you are a woman, you will earn less than a man.”

That is absolutely true. The gender pay gap needs to be tackled now. The Labour Government closed it by a third, but according to the United Nations, on the current rate of progress, it will take Britain another 70 years to bridge the divide between men’s and women’s pay.

I have highlighted the fact that women are being paid less, but they are also paying the price of austerity. According to the Women’s Budget Group, women in work will be £1,000 a year worse off on average as a result of the autumn statement. Their male counterparts will lose £555 a year. As has been highlighted, low-earning women will be the worst affected of any group. Women who are employed and earn below-average incomes will find themselves £1,678 a year poorer.

The effects of the autumn statement are also detrimental for women who rely on the welfare system for support. The cuts, including the reduction in the benefit cap and the cuts to tax credits, child support and carer’s allowance, heavily affect single parents. Nine out of 10 single parents are women. For women in work the Government trumpet the raise in the personal tax allowance as

“lifting people out of tax”

yet ignore the 43% of people who do not earn enough even to pay income tax, 66% of whom are women and whom this measure benefits not one jot.

Since coming into government in 2010 the Conservatives have stated repeatedly that they have a long-term economic plan. With a new Chancellor and Prime Minister, in the autumn statement they seemed to change course and now promise to target the just about managing—the JAMs. Sadly, all I can see is them getting themselves into a long-term economic jam. I have to ask, who are these people who are just about managing? Do the just about managing need inheritance tax to be scrapped on homes worth up to £1 million? Is it helpful to give £21 billion in tax cuts to the richest half of households—are they just about managing now? Or is it just about managing to be able to afford to blow £1,000 on designer accessories? Many of my constituents can no longer just about manage. They are in fact not coping at all, having borne the unfair burden of this Government’s austerity policies.

If this Government want a Britain that works for everyone, they should not be allowing women to be paid less while paying the price for their unequal policies. In a spirit of positivity, I ask the Government to begin addressing the mass inequality they have dealt to UK women, and recommend that they start with a gender audit of their own policies and gender analysis of future Budgets so we can at least begin to eradicate the imbalance that burdens women here in the UK.

HMRC: Building our Future Plan

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Interruption.] Well, we will call it an intervention. He is right to be concerned about some of the practices we are hearing about from trade union members and staff members based in HMRC. People are being called into one-to-one meetings where they are denied trade union representation. If an employee is having a meeting with a manager to discuss their job prospects, I would expect the trade unions to have access to that meeting, but they do not. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that. I will come later to the issue of travel times.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is my understanding from my experience as a trade union rep that it is compulsory to consult the trade unions when redundancies are announced, and that members of staff are entitled to have representation.

[Chris Stephens]

That is also my experience from when I was a trade union rep. We need to clarify that point, and I hope the Minister will do that.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

As a member of the newly formed APG on fixed odds betting terminals, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) secured this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for forming the APG, and I congratulate her on being elected as its chair.

I am pleased with my local council, Rochdale, which neighbours the constituency of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I was interested to hear what he had to say about problem gambling in Bury, because it is certainly not supported by his local newspaper, The Bury Times, which has highlighted the problems caused by FOBTs in Bury. Last September, however, my local authority, Rochdale Council, formally supported the campaign to have the maximum FOBT stake reduced from £100 to £2.

In the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, which encompasses my constituency and the Rochdale constituency, 140 FOBTs are estimated to be spread across 35 betting shops. The amount spent on the machines locally is staggering. According to data compiled by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, residents of the borough gambled up to £152 million on FOBTs in 2013, which equates to £721 by every man, woman and child in the population—excluding residents aged under 18, who legally are not supposed to be gambling, that is nearly £950 per adult resident. By comparison with the 2012 figures, the research also seems to indicate that the local problem is getting worse. Between 2012 and 2013, the amount spent per resident increased by 112%, representing a massive drain on a borough facing significant challenges.

The gambling industry has introduced a range of voluntary measures to protect gamblers, such as gamblers being able to self-exclude themselves from betting premises, or the introduction of personal limits on the amount of money to be gambled during a single session. Given the vulnerable nature of those who tend to use FOBTs on a frequent basis, however, an approach that is more robust than self-regulation would be preferable.

On local licensing obligations, the Gambling Act 2005 requires local licensing authorities to “aim to permit” gambling, subject to licences complying with three licensing objectives: keeping crime out of gambling; ensuring that gambling is fair and open; and protecting children and vulnerable people. As a consequence, betting shops are required to obtain a licence from their local authority. FOBTs were previously restricted to the highly regulated casino environment but, as we have heard, they are now permitted in betting shops. For that reason, the licensing section of local councils has a role to play in ensuring that local betting shops comply with the relevant legislation.

I am pleased that Rochdale Council voted formally to support the campaign, and I believe that to be the action of a responsible council. I hope that others will follow suit.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I do not know where to start in trying to rebut some of the absurd assumptions in that question, but I think that the short answer to all of them is “No.”

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

These proposals come on the back of the Government’s attack on Labour’s funding via the Trade Union Bill. It is clearly part of a partisan move to hit the Opposition and give the Government an unfair advantage, while leaving their own funding base of big donors untouched. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now in favour of rigging the rules to suit themselves?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Lady will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree strongly with almost every word of her question. I am happy to confirm that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will give evidence on the Trade Union Bill to the House of Lords Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee later today, when we will perhaps have an opportunity to debate the proposals in even greater depth.

Connaught Income Fund

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

That is a point that I subscribe to and agree with, and it should be considered in due course.

The questions that I have for the Minister are pretty clear. First, in view of the FCA’s recent decision to cancel its proposed review of banking standards and culture, can we have a guarantee that the investigation will be completed by the FCA? Many people affected by this issue have contacted me, expressing their concern that, in view of the delays and the lack of information from the FCA, the review will be completed.

Secondly, the FCA unilaterally withdrew from the mediation process, without any consultation with stakeholders or investors. Can the Minister assure us that the FCA will, upon completion of its investigations, publicly justify its decision to curtail the process of mediation and the subsequent delay in compensation and redress?

Thirdly, it has also been implied that the reason for curtailing the mediation process was a result of a realisation within the FCA that the financial compensation on offer from the mediation process would not be sufficient. Is that the case? As we have had no clarity or confirmation that that is the case, will the Minister give us some assurances on the matter? If it is not the case, will the FCA be able to explain why it therefore curtailed the mediation?

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I wish to add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have expressed concerns on behalf of their constituents. I also wish to express the request of my constituent Mel Carney, who says:

“I have already waited over three years to learn what has happened to my money.”

He is asking for transparency from the FCA and for the investigation to be concluded in a timely manner.

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Lady has asked my fourth and fifth questions.

My fourth question is this: 10 months after the mediation was cancelled, are we in a position to get an update from the FCA, and, if we are, how soon can that update be offered?

Finally, we need an end date. We need to know when this investigation will be completed. I ask the Minister to implore the FCA to provide that information.