European Union Referendum Bill

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I respond merely by saying that there are those who once described the Foreign Office as the Common and Foreignwealth Office, but that is another story.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend help me to understand his amendment 10? It appears to bar people who want to engage in the process by donating to the in or out campaign from doing so because of their business interests. For example, a large agricultural company that was receiving basic payment scheme money from the European Union would not be able to donate to an in or out campaign because it was getting that assistance. The same could be said for many industrial companies that may receive grants to extend their factories, or other such support mechanisms.

[Sir William Cash]

It is a question of the manner in which the funds or support are provided. As far as I am concerned, the framework of amendment 10 is to do with campaign funding and donations. The interstices and tentacles of the European Union are so extensive that we will keep bumping into these problems. The scale of the moneys in question is so huge that we have to be sure about this. The determination of the European Union bodies to keep Britain in the European Union is such that they will stop at nothing to use every means that they legally can to ensure that the money goes where they want it for the yes campaign.

I will confer with my colleagues on what we do about amendments 9 and 10.

--- Later in debate ---

We were not particularly in favour of the referendum; we did not see it as necessary. If it is going to happen, however, it has to be fair and be seen to be fair. It will not be enough—certainly for some nations represented here—for the Government to say, “It’s fair—and you know it is because we are telling you it is.” In one or two tiny corners of these islands, trust in Her Majesty’s Government is not exactly at 100%. How the Government conduct themselves during this referendum, particularly in respect of a voluntary or compulsory purdah, could go a long way towards changing the trust in which they are held. That trust could increase or it could be damaged even more than at present.

[Mark Spencer]

Would the hon. Gentleman extend his remarks to other charities, such as animal welfare charities? Those might have a strong view on how our relationship with the EU affects their ability to do their work on animal welfare or ivory imports, for example.

[Peter Grant]

Like many Members on these Benches, I am not comfortable with the very severe restrictions that have been put on what charitable organisations can and cannot do. A phrase I have often used at hustings is, “If I say we should give money to the poor, I’ll be called a saint. If, however, I ask why they were poor in the first place, they would call me a communist.” There is a dividing line between any kind of socially beneficial charitable work and getting political. Asking why we have food banks, for example, very quickly becomes a political matter. The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, but I am saying that specifically in relation to organisations that work on behalf of citizens—some of them will have a vote in the referendum, but shamefully it looks as though some may not—we have to be very careful not unintentionally to prevent them from doing the job for which they were originally constituted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It is quite clear that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is only distressed because he has not been invited. If he speaks to me very nicely, I might arrange for a wee ticket to be sent to him.

This is a very important subject. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the Prime Minister’s having kept his word to the British people that there would be a referendum on Britain’s future in the European Union. That he has brought forward the Bill so early in the Parliament is highly commendable and indicative of his determination. It is indicative of the current spirit of the Conservative party that this moment is completely unlike 1992, in that we are airing our differences of view and our different concerns in this Committee debate in an amicable spirit, as we try to find the best way through.

There is unanimity in this Chamber that if the referendum is to be successful, it must be fair. Not only do we have to arrange provisions to ensure that it is fair, to the best of our ability; it must be seen by the British people to be fair. There would be nothing worse than to carry out this extensive operation and hold the referendum and, in the end, for people on whichever side of the argument not to be satisfied that the conditions that we in this House laid down for the conduct of the referendum had been fulfilled.

It is right and proper for us to be as precise in framing the rules for the referendum as possible. It is in that spirit that I support amendment 53, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is no longer in his place, and amendment 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and to which I am a signatory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone says that the Electoral Commission does not believe that it is necessary to include amendment 10, which would limit the capacity of the European Commission to have any involvement whatsoever in the referendum. The Electoral Commission has made a number of important and valid suggestions, but I need to be persuaded on that point. We all know from our constituencies that when a project has been funded in any way by the European Union, those socking great stars are plastered all over it as though it has been funded by the EU. Of course, all of us in this Committee know that it has not been funded by the EU at all, but by the British taxpayer with money that we have given to the European Commission, some of which it kindly gives back to us.

We need to be very clear that we do not want the European Commission, in any shape or form, sticking its oar into our domestic debate about whether we should continue to be a member of the European Union or seek our fortune elsewhere.

[Mark Spencer]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will clarify his remarks, because I think that amendment 10 could have unintended consequences. Many companies and businesses that have received European funding for a project, such as an extension to a factory to create more employment, would be barred from the process and would not be able to fund one side of the argument or the other. Even if they felt passionately that we should be in or out, they would be excluded by the amendment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I heard my hon. Friend’s intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, and he makes a valid point that we need to address. However, the purpose of amendment 10 is crystal clear: it is to stop the European Commission getting involved or funding third parties to get involved in the campaign. If a company in his constituency that received support under a European Commission scheme five years ago, three years ago, last year or whenever chose to back one side or the other, one would not be able to say that it was doing so because it had received money from the European Commission, but if the European Commission started to fund organisations that were involved in the campaign, that would be unacceptable. We do not want it interfering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is a moot point that was discussed at length during the Scottish referendum campaign and to which I had better not revert.

I want to concentrate on the power, influence and resources of Governments.

[Mark Spencer]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s cynicism about the Government taking a view one way or another, but does he accept that the Government could express their view neutrally and thereby help to inform the electorate? It is vital that the electorate are informed and can make a decision based on informed opinion, and surely the Government could have a role in making sure that the Great British public are fully informed in both directions.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend. There are stages in this process. That is what the Bill and the Minister’s letter are trying to get at. The Government will have their renegotiation and then come back with a package saying it is a triumph, whatever is in the package. It might have three loaves and two fishes, or it might give us complete control of our own destiny—whichever it is, the Government will say it is a triumph. That will be the Government’s answer, and they can tell the electorate what they have managed to do. From then on, however, it will become a matter of straightforward politics whether someone believes the Government and agrees with what they have done. I approve of the adversarial system in this country. We do not develop our arguments and get to the answer we want by getting authoritative documents from the Government. Actually, such documents always contain a bias. It might not be obvious on first reading, but, reading through the detail, one will see the way the Government want people to go, and that will bolster the position they have set for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I think the Government need to be thinking along those lines. I am going to support the Government this evening; I am not going to vote with my friends in the SNP on this occasion, or indeed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which is more of a break with the habits of a lifetime. There is an important “but”, and I think other hon. Members on the Government Benches share my view: because the Government have made a mistake at this stage, they now need to come back with something better than we would have needed had they not made this mistake. Therefore, the Government’s position of purdah must be a stricter one than they might have been able to get away with had they simply amended the existing restrictions rather than taking them all away and having a completely clean base from which they could have done anything.

[Mark Spencer]

Surely my hon. Friend will recognise that in the period before the referendum our relationship with the EU will still be fluid and there may be matters that need the attention of the Government and that could be crucial to an industry or sector of the economy. If he goes down the route of this period of purdah, the Prime Minister might not be able to do a deal or make an announcement on something of fundamental importance to the economy during that period.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was making a slightly different point. I was saying that it is going to need to be tougher than the Government would have got away with had they come through with a limited change at an earlier stage. The Government said they would scrap the whole of section 125, and there is now suspicion that there was an ulterior motive for that. To allay that suspicion, the Government have to be very specific about the exemptions they want. It might be an exemption to vote in the Council of Ministers, and that would not be unreasonable, but would I give them an exemption to announce from the hilltops that they had lots of money from the EU to build a new factory in a key swing area of the country? No, I would not; I would think that would be about fiddling the result, if they wanted a yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to encourage investment in infrastructure in west Yorkshire.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

12. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage investment in infrastructure.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

Mr Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at an ECOFIN council meeting today.

The Government have made huge progress in delivering the infrastructure that the UK needs, establishing the first ever national infrastructure plan, which now shows that more than 2,500 projects have been completed since 2010. West Yorkshire continues to benefit as part of this plan, which includes the M62 smart motorway westward extension—the first new trans-Pennine road capacity since 1971. As part of the city deal, a combined west Yorkshire authority is taking forward a package of investments in transport worth up to £1.6 billion over 15 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which is raised by Members of Parliament and constituents from across the Northern Rail and TransPennine Express franchise areas. I can confirm that in the autumn statement we set out some changes that we would make to those two franchises. The packages for the new franchises will include a substantial package of upgrades, including new services and modern trains in order to phase out the outdated Pacer trains, which have also been raised with us under the Deputy Prime Minister’s Northern Futures programme.

[Mr Spencer]

If north Nottinghamshire’s coalfields are to feel the success of HS2, connectivity will be key. Will the Chief Secretary assure the House that once we have pulled together a bid for the Robin Hood extension to the villages of Ollerton and Edwinstowe, capital will be made available?

[Danny Alexander]

I am well aware of the importance of this connection to my hon. Friend and to other Members of Parliament in the area. As he will be aware, the east midlands has already benefited from investment of approximately £70 million to improve line speeds on the midland main line up to 125 miles per hour. Further electrification is due to be extended to Nottingham by 2019. A decision on the Robin Hood line is a matter for the local authority, but we would certainly look on the idea favourably.

Sixth-Form Colleges (VAT)

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely. Issues of a level playing field are at the heart of this debate and I hope that the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks.

Taken together, in the worst cases, the funding cuts have left some sixth-form colleges reeling from a staggering 30% overall budget cut. We should consider the issue against that backdrop.

Civil servants originally estimated that creating a level playing field for sixth-form colleges in relation to VAT would cost £20 million. They have since revised that upwards on several occasions, arriving most recently at a figure of £150 million, which includes other institutions. I say to the Minister that it seems completely the wrong approach, given that the Government have accepted in principle that treating sixth-form colleges differently is wrong, to refuse to right that wrong for them because they do not want to do so for others.

The problems for sixth-form colleges are exacerbated by the fact that, unlike school sixth forms, they cannot cross-subsidise their 16 to 19 work with funding from pre-16 provision, which is more generous. Principals and teachers across the sector are taking agonising decisions about dropping courses, cutting staff or reducing activities. A survey last year found nearly half of colleges had had to drop courses, eight out of 10 had had to cut staff and an astonishing 71% had removed or reduced enrichment activities such as sport, music, drama and dance. That is a loss for all young people, but it is devastating for young people who have never had such opportunities open to them.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, but will she acknowledge that sixth-form colleges are often able to offer courses that school sixth forms cannot, because they have the ability to draw in expertise? Ultimately, we need a level playing field, so that all those offering sixth-form education are playing by the same rules.

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely. The issue of the level playing field has come up time and time again. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about courses and the staff that sixth-form colleges can use. I am concerned that that loss of staff has also meant a loss of expertise. If the sector is hit by anything else, we will struggle to get it back.

Road Traffic Offences (Sentencing)

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

First, let me say that it is not my intention to take up the full two hours that are available to us for this debate, but I do want to raise an issue that is very important, in particular to my Sherwood constituency. One of the issues on which I stood for election was resolving the terrible road safety record in Sherwood, particularly around the A614, a stretch of road with which all in the east midlands will be familiar. There have been a lot of fatal accidents on it, with people killed at some of the terrible junctions. That was affecting the local community.

There was one tragic accident in which six people were killed, which resonated particularly strongly with the local community, and it became one of my ambitions to get elected as a Member of Parliament and resolve some of the problems facing the people living around the A614. I have campaigned long and hard to introduce measures to improve junctions. We have been able to improve the Ollerton roundabout and make traffic flows much smoother. We have also been able to put in new traffic lights at the Rose Cottage junction and improve the flows in and out of Edwinstowe.

We have also introduced average speed cameras, which have reduced traffic speeds along the A614 and—I hesitate to say this—stopped the fatal accidents; there has not been another one since they were introduced. Those cameras are not universally welcomed. Some of my constituents do not like them; they complain they delay their journey, so it takes them longer to get from A to B. I recognise the frustration of some drivers travelling up and down our busy roads, but my priority is making sure people are not killed on the roads.

It is important to draw a distinction between a conviction for speeding, for which someone might get a £60 fine and three points on their licence, and more serious incidents for which the perpetrator might be convicted of dangerous or careless driving. There is a conception among the public that it is easy to secure a conviction for speeding, such as driving at 34 mph in a 30 mph zone, but that there is less enthusiasm among the police and in the Crown Prosecution Service to go after the more challenging conviction of dangerous driving, as the burden of evidence is much greater.

I was contacted by a constituent of mine, Louise Stanbrook, who had been to a concert at the Nottingham arena and was crossing the road to walk home when she was knocked over by a driver and quite seriously injured. She suffered a broken collar bone and was knocked unconscious. She also suffered damage to her teeth and spectacles and to her possessions. It was a very serious incident. The perpetrator had a number of previous driving convictions, and was also due to be sentenced for another crime unconnected to this driving offence. The CPS and the police decided it was not in the public interest to pursue the individual for the driving offences he had committed on this occasion, as he was serving an offence unconnected to driving.

It strikes me that the justice system is there for two reasons, the first of which is to make sure that those who commit crimes are rehabilitated and are able to come back into society, having paid their debt. However, the justice system is also there for the victims to see that justice has been done and that when they have been violated in any way the perpetrators of the crime against them make recompense and have to pay a debt to society. That might involve a fine, a custodial sentence or a driving ban, which is another point I wish to deal with a little later.

Louise would say that it is a perception—it is her perception—that people who commit a minor speeding offence, which is still an offence, are prosecuted on a regular basis, as we can agree is only right and fair, but people who commit a much more serious offence such as dangerous driving or careless driving do not suffer the same enthusiasm from the Crown Prosecution Service; there is a reluctance to pursue convictions for such offences because of the amount of evidence that has to be gathered in order to pursue them. That sends the wrong message to society, and the House needs to overcome that and ensure that we turn that tide, so that not only is justice being done, but it is being seen to be done by our constituents and they can have confidence in it. We have to put our hands up and say that many people get caught speeding, but people need to feel that those who commit serious offences are being pursued by the legal system with the same vigour and enthusiasm.

That is very important and it leads me to my second point, which relates to where the justice system is letting us down. It seems wrong that where someone is convicted of a very serious driving offence and is sent to jail, and part of the sentence is a driving ban, they can serve that ban while they are in prison. Given that they cannot drive then anyway because they are being held at Her Majesty’s convenience, it would seem only appropriate that any driving ban that is part of the sentence should be served when they come out of prison and back into society. I would ask the Minister to pass my comments on to the Justice Secretary; he should examine that issue closely on his return, as it is a fundamental part of this debate.

There is another perception that people get enormously frustrated about—my constituents certainly do. Most people work hard, they purchase a car, which can be very expensive, they pay their tax by buying their tax disc and they pay for insurance to drive that car. They also pay for an MOT to make sure it is roadworthy and if they are caught committing a driving offence, they of course pay their fine. However, a section of society does not take out insurance, does not pass a driving test and does not obey the laws. When such people are caught committing a driving misdemeanour, they are often taken to court, prosecuted and then given points on their licence—which they do not possess—and banned from driving, even though they did not possess a driving licence in the first place. Members of the public find it enormously frustrating when they see all the hoops they have to jump through to be a law-abiding citizen and to drive appropriately, yet they perceive that those people who—I hope hon. Members will forgive my Sherwood language—stick two fingers up at the law and ignore it seem to get away with it. That really does need addressing.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one idea worth considering is giving greater flexibility for juries on the upper sentences allowed at the moment? It seems to me that there are certain cases where juries ought to be able to give a higher sentence based on the situation in the case, because, as he rightly says, it is ludicrous how low some sentences are.

[Mr Spencer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I was just coming to that point.

I suppose the challenge is that the law is in chunks—careless driving, death by careless driving, dangerous driving, death by dangerous driving—and there are very tight boundaries. There is no sliding scale of punishment. I believe that lack of flexibility is what drives the CPS sometimes not to go for the more serious chunk, but to satisfy itself with a conviction lower down the scale because it can be sure of obtaining one. That needs addressing, and the only way to do that is to have a review of what laws are in place and whether those tools need adapting. Within the current law the tools are available to make those serious prosecutions, but at the moment the CPS is not minded to go for those serious convictions, whether that is because of the chunking of the convictions or the lack of a sliding scale. That is what needs addressing.

As a point of interest, the Nottingham Post reported that in Nottinghamshire, 58,373 speeding tickets were issued in 2011-12. That shows that our police force is out there, robustly enforcing speeding offences.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that speed cameras have a bit of a bad reputation? They are almost regarded as a cash machine only to be used by the police. Would he, like me, be encouraged by the increased use of speed awareness courses, which are a restorative way of combating speeding rather than simply going straight for the points and fines, and would he hope that that would be extended across the UK?

[Mr Spencer]

I would agree with that. We must remember that the purpose of speed cameras is not to catch people; it is not to get cash out of drivers. It is to prevent them from being killed or seriously injured. I get many letters from constituents asking for the police to go into their village—I hesitate to use the words “speed trap” because it gives the wrong impression, but that is what they often ask for. They want the police to enforce speed limits to ensure that people driving through their villages and towns do not break the speed limit, particularly outside primary schools and other local schools. That gives me confidence that we are on the right side of the argument—that our constituents want enforcement of speed limits and want the law to be obeyed. However, they want a balance between serious and minor offences. The perception is that there is not that balance at the moment.

If I may summarise, my No. 1 request is to remove the anomaly of driving bans coinciding with prison sentences. If a person is convicted of an offence, serves time in jail and receives a driving ban, the start of the driving ban should be postponed until their release from prison, so that there is that extra removal from our roads for those who have been convicted of a driving offence. Secondly, I want to encourage the CPS and the police to use all the tools at their disposal. I am sure the Department would be more than happy to receive representations from the CPS or the police if they have reservations about some of those tools. I would encourage the CPS and the police to be more diligent and look at going for more serious convictions if they feel they can gather the evidence to get those convictions. They should not simply lay the burden of keeping up the number of convictions on the minor offences.

There have been some terrible accidents in which people have been injured, and some fairly high-profile ones which reached the media. Bradley Wiggins, our Olympic and Tour de France-winning cyclist, was a victim of a cycling accident in which he was knocked off not far from your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker. We do not want to be knocking off our potential Olympians, to say the least. That case drives home the fact that people out there, pedestrians and cyclists especially, are at risk of serious injury, and when that tragedy happens, we look to the law to recompense us for that injury and to give us the justice that we deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Evennett]

I welcome any measure that helps to save lives. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a matter for the Department for Transport, not for the Ministry of Justice, but I take on board what he said and congratulate any council that reduces the speed limit, which has a positive result, saving lives and preventing injury.

Fatality, of course, holds a special place in these affairs, which is why particularly robust penalties are available where death is caused by bad driving. Where drivers cause death either by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, judges can sentence them to a maximum of 14 years in jail. Other measures include an unlimited fine and a minimum two-year driving disqualification. Where death is caused and there is sufficient evidence of gross negligence, drivers can be charged with the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Summary road traffic offences include careless driving, speeding, driving with excess alcohol, driving while disqualified and using a mobile phone while driving, as well as other offences relating to the condition of the vehicle, safety measures such as seat belts and offences relating to non-compliance with, for example, driving direction and traffic lights. Those offences are punishable in some cases by short custodial sentences. Some carry mandatory disqualification. All carry the potential for robust fines and points on an individual’s licence.

Following the 2005 review of road traffic offences, two new offences were created and, since 2008, have been available to prosecutors: causing death by careless driving, and causing death where a driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalties for those offences are five years and two years respectively. They attract a minimum disqualification period of one year and can be punished by an unlimited fine. In December 2012 the Government introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in order to fill the gap where bad driving causes very serious injury but sentences were previously limited to two years because only the plain offence of dangerous driving could be charged. The new offence has a maximum penalty of five years.

Therefore, it is apparent that the offences and penalties are kept constantly under review to keep the framework appropriate to changing behaviour on our roads. However, our courts sentence independently, having full regard to the features of each individual case and to guidelines.

[Mr Spencer]

My hon. Friend is doing a fine job of outlining for the House the current tools available in the tool box. Ministry of Justice figures show that, tragically, the number of motoring deaths remained static between 2002 and 2012. Meanwhile, the number of convictions for dangerous and aggravated offences has come down and the number of convictions for careless driving has gone up, which suggests that those deciding what to prosecute are choosing the lesser option of careless driving. Would he care to comment on those statistics?

[Mr Evennett]

We are of course aware of those statistics and look at them carefully. We are determined, in the guidelines, to encourage prosecution of the more serious offences, and we are endeavouring to do that. However, I must highlight that it is very difficult for the Ministry of Justice, because it is not our responsibility to do that. On the other hand, we are setting the guidelines and giving the courts the independence and freedom, and we want to ensure that they use the powers they have.

The Sentencing Council sets out guidelines, which the courts must have regard to, advising in greater detail what courts should do in particular types of cases. We give the guidelines and encourage, within the statutory limits Parliament has set, of course. We encourage, but the courts have to make the decisions. The Sentencing Council has issued two relevant sets of guidelines: those on driving offences where death is caused, which were issued in 2008; and the magistrates court sentencing guidelines, including guidelines on summary driving offences, which were updated in 2012. Obviously we constantly look at updating those.

With regard to the relevant treatment of speeding and drink-impaired driving, speeding is punishable by a fine of up to £1,000, or £2,500 when committed on a motorway. The court may disqualify the offender and must impose penalty points. Driving under the influence of alcohol is punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment. The court must disqualify the offender for at least 12 months. Those convicted of serious driving offences face the prospect of lengthy custodial sentences. In 2011, the average custodial sentence length for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving was over four years. Accident statistics from the Department for Transport suggest that speeding and drink or drug-driving are fairly equally unacceptable in terms of harm caused. In 2011, an estimated 9,990 reported casualties—5% of all road casualties—occurred while the driver was over the legal alcohol limit. The provisional number estimated to have been killed in drink-drive accidents was 280. Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a contributory factor in 5% of all accidents, but these accidents involved 14% of fatalities. Drug impairment was reported as a contributory factor in 644 road casualties.

Generally, Great Britain has a very good road safety record, but we cannot afford to be, and will not be, complacent. Deaths and serious injuries on the roads are a terrible tragedy for those affected, as highlighted in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. It must of course be welcome that the general trend is for road fatalities and casualties to fall, but every such case is one too many for the victims and their families.

Compared with the period 2005-09, the number killed in 2011 was 32% lower, the number reported killed or seriously injured was 17% lower, and the number of children killed or seriously injured was 19% lower. However, the Government will not be complacent. We will monitor those numbers and do what we can to push them down and to make sure that convictions of those who offend are implemented.

The Government’s vision for road safety remains one in which Britain is a world leader; where local authorities are empowered to take informed decisions about road safety in their area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) described in his area; where driver and rider training gives learners the skills they need to be safe on our roads, which is vital; and where tough measures are taken against the minority of offenders who deliberately choose to drive dangerously. They are the ones we need to get to, because they are the ones who are causing such distress, danger and injury.

In 2011, colleagues in the Department for Transport published a new strategic framework for road safety that focused on supporting road users who have weak driving skills, or who have displayed a lapse of judgment, to improve their driving through a greater range of educational courses to help deliver safer skills and attitudes, while focusing enforcement resources against those who deliberately decide to undertake antisocial and dangerous driving behaviours that cover all careless and dangerous driving offences. This is the Government’s twin approach to improving road safety. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will be reassured by that. We are determined to make sure that those who drive dangerously are dealt with appropriately.

[Mr Evennett]

I note what my hon. Friend says. I am looking at this in the context of educating people; the insurance situation is beyond my remit. However we manage to deal with it, the whole point is to educate more people to be considerate and better drivers. We should look at every aspect to improve the standard of driving so that we cut down on the incidence of injury and death on the roads.

[Mr Spencer]

Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Home Office to see whether people who are convicted of a driving offence while on holiday could conduct their road awareness training back in their own county to save them driving back to the location of the offence?

[Mr Evennett]

I will, of course, pass on that suggestion. We work closely with the Home Office and the Department for Transport; one of the many great things about this Government is that the Departments are working closely together. Our Department is working closely with colleagues in other Departments to make sure that the quality of life is improved for all our citizens, and this is one such example.

Since the publication of the strategic framework, the Government have continued to focus on empowering local decision makers, improving driver training and taking a more targeted approach to enforcement. Recent developments include the introduction of legislation on drug-driving to improve enforcement; the launch of a new speed limit circular to improve the flexibility of local authorities in setting the speed limits; and work with the insurance industry to develop policy opportunities to reduce risk in young drivers. That will, of course, include looking at insurance premiums and whether they can come down if people are good drivers and seeking to improve their driving skills. We are concerned to make sure that young drivers in particular have the skills and knowledge to be safe and good drivers. We are also creating a £15 million fund to improve safety for cyclists outside London by tackling dangerous junctions, alongside a £15 million fund for the same purpose in London.

Provisional figures show that Great Britain and the UK remain the leading performers in Europe on road safety. However, as I have said, every road accident that results in injury or fatality is a tragedy for the people concerned and the communities they live in. Our strategy will build on our solid foundations in order to improve our road safety performance even further and to ensure that sentences are appropriate to the offence, which is the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has highlighted. The sentence has to be appropriate for the road offence committed, and the Department is focused on doing our best to achieve just that.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving us this opportunity to debate sentencing for people convicted of road traffic offences, which is a very important subject for all our constituencies. I hope that I have set out the action being taken by the Government and I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments and concerns to the Secretary of State and the relevant Minister. The Department will continue to monitor how to improve things for the benefit of every road user, whether they be a pedestrian, a cyclist or a driver, so that we can cut down on tragic fatalities and injuries and make sure that those who drive dangerously are punished accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Fuel Duty

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way in a moment.

I suspect that I can predict what those on the Government Benches are going to say. They will tell us that we should celebrate the fact that the economy is finally out of a double-dip recession and things are back on track. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) is, however, going to tell me how many e-mails and letters he has had, asking him to back the 3p cut.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that words are cheap and deeds are what count? That is a simple philosophy. Her Government put up the tax and our Government have frozen it. It seems simple to me.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I agree that words are cheap and deeds are more important. That is why every constituent is going to be looking tonight to see which Lobby hon. Members are walking through and whether they back the delay or not.

Jobs and Growth

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

For a start, as of today Spain is in recession, so I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point has a huge amount of force. This claim, which I guess is made only by Opposition Members whom I am looking at now, that the Labour party somehow bequeathed the new Government some enormous golden economic legacy and that we were incredibly fortunate to inherit this massive budget deficit and totally unbalanced economy with no real plan to deal with that debt or deficit—not that we have heard a plan today, either—is absolute nonsense.

We have also had the good news this week, which was of course not mentioned by the shadow Chancellor, that for the second month in a row unemployment has fallen and employment is up. We have 400,000 more people employed than two years ago, and 190,000 fewer people on welfare rolls. Yes, it is an exceptionally difficult economic time and the legacy of debt and disinvestment is a heavy one, but the tough decisions we are making are moving Britain in the right direction.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I too welcome the improvements in the manufacturing sector of the automotive industry. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in the food and drinks sector, which is also in manufacturing, there have been enormous increases in the number of jobs and of exports?

[Mr Osborne]

I certainly do. Part of the work we published last autumn specifically supported what we can do in that sector. We are not ashamed to identify sectors where Britain has a competitive advantage and to see what we can do to enhance it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I want to make two points in this debate. The first is about youth unemployment. I will present some figures showing the rising cost of the Government’s economic failure. The second is that the neglect in respect of youth unemployment is mirrored by a misguided response to the storms in the eurozone.

I do not think that we need to debate whether youth unemployment is a big problem; it is a massive problem. As the Chancellor and others have said in previous debates, long-term youth unemployment is the greatest danger to not only our economic future, but our social future. Today, according to the Government’s own figures, 260,000 young people have been unemployed for more than a year, which means long-term unemployment. Another 200,000 have been unemployed for more than six months. The interesting, depressing and worrying thing is that the situation is getting worse. As recently as 2008, 6,000 18 to 24-year-olds had been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for a year. By April last year that figure had tripled. Over the past year—just 12 months—it has tripled again, to 55,000. In my constituency, this time last year there were 15 18 to 24-year-olds who had been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for over a year, but now the number is 250, which is a 1,500% increase. The total figure for youth unemployment is 1.3 million or 1.4 million, which comes from the labour force survey, but these are JSA claimants, because that is a claimant count figure.

As for the costs, in February this year I chaired the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations commission on youth unemployment. We costed the levels of youth unemployment on the basis of the figures for the first quarter of 2011, which showed a net present value cost of some £28 billion. I asked the university of Bristol to rerun the figures for the last quarter of 2011, which it has done, and the calculation now stands at £30 billion. In the space of 2011, the net present value cost has gone up by £2 billion. That seems to me to be 2 billion reasons for a greater degree of urgency and effectiveness in Government policy.

The Minister responsible for employment says that we should be pleased with stability, but stability in this policy field means that the problem is festering and getting worse. The deputy leader of the Lib Dems, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), said we should celebrate the “huge success” of Government policy. The wage subsidy that was introduced in April is at best unproven. The majority of jobs under the apprenticeship drive are the result of jobs for the over-25s being rebadged, not new apprenticeships for the under-25s. The expertise in the voluntary sector is being squeezed out by the Work programme. Some 20% of voluntary sector providers have stopped providing under the Work programme. There is a gaping hole in Government policy on transport costs for people to get to interviews, never mind getting to work.

I make no apology for repeating this very basic fact: the Work programme, which is the Government’s flagship programme, helps one in 10 of the youth unemployed. Its success rate is 20%, according to the Government’s own figures. That means that one in 50 of the young unemployed are getting a job as a result of Government interventions. I say to the Chancellor—I am grateful that he has stayed for the debate—that there are three steps that he could take now. First, he could require all public contracts over £1 million to offer apprenticeships to young people. In his autumn statement last year he announced infrastructure expenditure, which is a good thing, but where are the apprenticeships to go with it? Secondly, he could bring forward from 2014 money to raise the size of the wage subsidy or the number of young people helped. In 1995, when his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), tried a wage subsidy, it helped only 6,000 young people. He will have to boost the effort to get take-up. Thirdly, he should bite the bullet and recognise that every study anywhere in the world has shown that for the long-term unemployed only a part-time job guarantee can ensure that one year’s unemployment does not become three, four or five years’ unemployment.

[Mr Spencer]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case, and I know that he has worked very hard on this matter in the past, but surely he recognises that the best way to solve this is to increase the number of apprenticeships, which the Government are doing, and that his Government encouraged young people to try to aspire to university and many of them, when they did not meet that aspiration, found that deflating.

[David Miliband]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a perfectly intelligent point. It seems to me to be a good thing to raise university participation levels up to international standards, which is between 45% and 50%, but it is crucial for those who do not go to university that we have high-quality options for them. High-quality apprenticeships are an important part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I am delighted to be called to speak in this debate. The number of Members who want to speak is an indication of how important it is that the economy runs smoothly and allows the Government to do the exciting and generous things that they want to do in their programme. The economy is fundamental to that process. The same is true in our communities. In Sherwood, the fundamental issue is jobs and how we can create them.

The last Labour Administration created many jobs in the public sector, expanding it to such an enormous degree that we reached the point at the last general election—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says that they created jobs in the NHS. That is true—they were people walking around with clipboards who restricted our doctors and nurses. The last Government created jobs within quangos that restricted the private sector. Those jobs became unsustainable, to the extent that when the previous Administration left office, £1 in every £4 that was spent was being borrowed.

This is the fundamental argument. We need growth in our economy, but it must be sustainable for the long term. The Government have grasped that the only way to create sustainable jobs is to have an even-keel economy. That involves having low interest rates. Anybody running a small business in one of our constituencies who has an overdraft or a long-term loan with a variable interest rate understands how important low interest rates are. Once interest rates start to climb, the pressure on one’s cash flow and the pressure to reduce one’s wage bill become unsustainable.

So what have the Government done to create jobs? Our record is pretty good. One of the first things that the Government did was to reduce corporation tax to attract investment from overseas. That is just starting to show fruit, with companies relocating to the UK. We are using the planning system to try to make it easier for companies to establish themselves, and trying to ensure that the system works to create new businesses. For small businesses, we have looked at reducing business rates, which have a crippling effect. Anyone who runs a small shop and pays enormous local business rates will understand how important rate relief is in allowing their business to flourish. Reducing the burden of employment law on such businesses is also very important. Small businesses fear taking on new staff. If we can remove some of that fear, those businesses will be more likely to take on more staff.

What is happening in Sherwood? The good news is that unemployment is slowly coming down, which I welcome. There is still a long way to go, but the good news is we finally have a Government who understand business and how to run the economy. We are on the right course. We need to hold our ground and ensure we keep interest rates at their current level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is an experienced Member and sits on the Treasury Committee, there is a very important principle of taxpayer confidentiality, so I am not shown the individual tax returns of businesses or indeed individuals. We have recently published data on the average tax rate that people on the highest incomes were paying under the last Labour Government, and we can see that it was very much lower than Treasury Ministers were telling us.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

T9. Can the Chancellor tell me how many of my constituents will benefit from the lifting of the personal tax threshold?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

Information is not available at constituency level, but I can confirm that for the east midlands government region 1.7 million people will benefit in 2013-14 from the largest ever increase in the personal allowance, which was announced in the Budget. Some 152,000 people will have been taken out of tax altogether in the east midlands by the policies of this Government.

IMF

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do think it is an act of political opportunism. As I have said, there was complete astonishment at the IMF when I said that the Opposition would probably oppose what I was doing. The people there all know the shadow Chancellor, because he negotiated on behalf of the Treasury as Britain’s representative at the IMF, so they find his decision very difficult to understand.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Although I support the funding of the IMF, will the Chancellor confirm that it simply emphasises the importance of maintaining UK financial credibility for UK interest rates and jobs in small businesses?

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is absolutely right, and while I was sitting in the IMF meeting on Friday and on Saturday morning, my mind wandered to thinking about what would have happened if I had turned up and said that we were abandoning our fiscal consolidation plan. I came to the conclusion that we would have been the subject of the meeting’s discussion rather than the problems in the eurozone.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which I hope to discuss in relation to how the clawback will operate. Will the Minister commit to provide that breakdown by parliamentary constituency and make it available, as a matter of urgency, in the House of Commons Library?

It has appeared at various times during the debate that the announcement of the changes was designed more to appeal to the Tory party conference than as a plan to be actually implemented. Suggestions have been made that the Chancellor perhaps did not even believe that he would have to implement it. I do not know whether that is true, but this appears to be yet another part of what the Leader of the Opposition described as an “omnishambles”. In Scotland, we would say that the Government’s plan is a bit of a boorach, which translates as a mess or a muddle.

This boorach is, once again, entirely of the Government’s own making. On the clawback, those with incomes above £50,000 will have their child benefit withdrawn at 1% for each £100 of income from January 2013. There is to be no child benefit entitlement for families where any earner has an income of more than £60,000. Some of the changes being proposed might be small steps forward, but they do not change the fundamental unfairness. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about his constituent Mrs Morris, a couple with children where one earner is on £60,000 and another is on £10,000 will lose all their benefit, whereas a dual-earner couple on £50,000 each will potentially keep it all.

As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, the implementation of this approach will be complex. New computer systems and new staffing will be required. The Government have estimated costs of between £8 million and £13 million for the computer systems’ development and running costs alone, plus £100 million for staff resources. Interestingly, they have estimated that £5 million will be spent on customer information. I do not know exactly what customer information they intend to provide, but I hope that it will be explained in plain English. Over the years I have grown to mistrust Bills that have one-line clauses and multi-page schedules.

Schedule 1 is certainly not set out in customer-friendly wording. An MP sitting in an advice surgery trying to look through it to check out whether or not their constituents have an entitlement would have to go through seven pages. After several lines defining person “P”, person “Q” and whether or not “Q” is the partner of “P” throughout the week, they would find new section 681C, which provides an equation to work out whether someone would be entitled or not. That is not very customer friendly. There is a serious point as to whether the clawback mechanism is fair and workable.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady explain to the taxpayers of Sherwood in Nottinghamshire who are working more than 50 hours a week and probably earning only £20,000 as a family, why they should pay tax to support someone earning in excess of £60,000?

[Cathy Jamieson]

That is an important point and I will address it straight away. We have to decide whether or not we believe that child benefit is a benefit that should be paid for the good of children. What we are seeing in this measure is an unfair system, which is not providing for children; it is introducing a new form of taxation, as has rightly been pointed out, and people will be facing huge problems.

I was going to deal with my next point later, but I shall say now that individuals with an income in excess of £50,000 are going to be required to inform Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as to whether they or their partner are in receipt of child benefit. It is not clear what would happen where someone either does not know or claims not to know whether their partner is receiving child benefit. In the absence of a legal obligation on partners to share information on benefit receipt, it is unclear what the tax authorities are going to do. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

Autumn Statement

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

First, I am happy and keen to work with the devolved Administration in Belfast on how the scheme will apply in Northern Ireland, given the specific issues that Northern Ireland faces with the involvement of the southern Irish banks. It is certainly a UK-wide scheme and we are particularly aware of the acute problems that the financial crisis south of the border have caused in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Today, we have seen a clear difference between a Chancellor who wants to manage and invest in our economy and an Opposition who spent and taxed their way through boom into bust. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, for the sake of every home owner and small and medium-sized business with a mortgage, overdraft or long-term loan, that he will follow a fiscal policy that delivers low interest rates for the long-term future?

[Mr Osborne]

I absolutely will. We have had a startling admission by the shadow Chancellor that he wants interest rates to be higher in Britain at the moment. That would be a terrible thing for our economy, but I will give him this: his policies would certainly lead to higher interest rates in Britain.