European Council

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously the Russians do use that argument, and we hear it frequently. The events to which the hon. Gentleman has referred happened under an earlier Government, but the point that I would make, very much in their defence, is that there was a clear and present danger to the Kosovans who lived in Serbia. There was a real danger there, and we had to act in order to avert it. The steps that have been taken from that point onwards have been taken in a very deliberate and consistent way.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I noted the Prime Minister’s earlier answers in connection with energy. Does he agree that Britain could make a really important contribution by encouraging other nation states to be as liberal and competitive as possible in relation to energy, in order to strengthen his case for saying that Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. If countries liberalise and open up their energy markets, they can secure greater diversity of supply, greater competition, and unbundling between producers and distributors, all of which can help to provide a more resilient set of energy conditions. We are encouraging such action throughout Europe, not least through the completion of the energy single market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I would make three quick points to the hon. Lady. I totally understand her concern and the concern of her constituents. First, I do not want anyone to be under the misapprehension that HS2 will be built at the expense of the west country—it will not. In the next Parliament, we will spend three times more on other road and rail schemes as we will spend on HS2, and some of those schemes will directly benefit people in the west country. Secondly, while we are working as fast as we can to restore the Dawlish link, we need to look at longer-term alternatives, and I have discussed that with Network Rail and First Great Western to see what more can be done. Thirdly, in the meantime, while Dawlish is as it is, we need to go on boosting the air services to the peninsula. That is why I met Flybe in Newquay. It has doubled the number of flights and we have taken £5 off the cost of each of those flights. We also need to make sure that the replacement bus services are as good as they can be. If we do all those things, that will lessen the impact of this tragedy for the west country.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Q7. With flooding in Frampton for residents and for businesses in Woodchester, and more risks to my constituency associated with warnings for the Severn estuary, does the Prime Minister agree that the action taken so far by various agencies and councils has been helpful? Can he reassure my constituents that the Government will continue to invest in flood defences?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is right to mention the difficulties on the River Severn, because the River Severn, the River Tame and the River Wye are all expected to respond to recent rainfall, and levels are likely to go up. In terms of the Thames, I should tell the House that a second peak in Thames levels is expected on Sunday and Monday, which could potentially put 800 properties at risk. We will go on doing whatever we can to help people—getting people to communities before they are flooded. It is worth making the point, to be fair to the previous Government as well as this one, that all the schemes that have been built since the 2007 floods, when 55,000 homes were flooded, are now protecting well over 1 million properties that would have been flooded this time around, were it not for the important work that has been done.

Deregulation Bill

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee of which I am a member. It is a great pleasure to operate under her chairmanship. None the less, I take issue with some of her comments about regulation, because of the issue of enforcement, which applies, for example, to our report on wildlife crime. It is a question not of more regulations but of better-quality regulations, which usually means fewer regulations. That is an area that we can continue to discuss in Committee.

This is a great Bill, so I will not support the reasoned amendment. If the Bill is successful, it will send out a signal that we will not tolerate regulation in excess. The Bill is important in the context of some of the other measures that the coalition has successfully passed. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy is right when he says that it is not the only thing that we have done. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 deals well with regulatory change, because it reduces it in the main, and we can celebrate that. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) will agree with me on that.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that European legislation comes into Whitehall and is embellished and made even more vigorous, adding to the red tape? Though a combination of going back to the European legislation in the first place, and abolishing much of the embellishment, we can free up our businesses to work in a more competitive manner.

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He puts his finger on one of the big problems that we have had for generations—since we joined the European Union—which is gold-plating. We must be bold enough to admit that and rigorous enough to remove it where it is inappropriate. People often misunderstand regulations from the European Union. We should be thinking about the spirit of them and not necessarily the precise detail.

The Bill proposes measures on purely domestic matters, which is not surprising because a huge amount of unnecessary legislation has stacked up over the years, as we can see if we look through the various clauses of the Bill. Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was trying to set out the case that the coalition Government have achieved a lot. I was going to move on to the abolition of quangos and so forth, because they too bear a huge burden of responsibility when it comes to excessive interference and regulation. We must not overlook that fact. I compliment the Government on the actions they have taken thus far to reduce the number and scope of quangos.

My second point relates to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). On one matter she was precisely wrong: of course, Essex is not the only place where small businesses thrive. Gloucestershire is another place—more precisely Stroud valleys and vale. Wherever I go in my constituency, small businesses are concerned about the perceived or actual burden of regulation, so they need that succour that encourages them to think that there is a way through and a way forward. Many of the specific issues that I discuss with small and medium-sized businesses crop up in this Bill. I am not surprised that matters such as employment, health and safety and so forth are covered. I will say a few words about specific clauses shortly.

Of course we want to remove regulation where it should be removed, and we need to refine it where it should be refined; but some regulation is necessary and we must accept that. Anyone who looks at the disastrous decisions of the previous Government leading up to the banking crisis will know that good regulation of financial services is necessary. We should say so, and we should ensure that such regulations are effective and transparent and can evolve through time. Changing circumstances demand that, and that is another theme that runs through the Bill.

Let us take as an example a regulation that I have just discovered, which hampers the Secretary of State’s approval of the use of fuels for domestic burning. At a time when we are looking for more sources of energy and worrying about our supply of it, it is absurd to have such an unnecessary hurdle in the way of new technologies, however small. It seems to me that the first test of regulation should be that it can reflect changing technology and new innovations. The regulations on fuel and fireplaces need to be ripped up and I am glad that is part of the Bill. They illustrate an important point about regulations, which is that they can become far too restrictive.

I also came across another regulation that I had no idea existed. If someone wants to be a driving instructor and happens to be disabled, they have to go through a separate licensing system. There are two big problems with that. First, it is discriminatory, and, secondly, it is simply monstrously unnecessary. Why should that be a regulation? Obviously, it should not and it is absolutely right that the Bill will remove it.

Another classic has to be the regulation that prevents railway companies from extending rail beyond 25 miles. When was that regulation introduced? In the Transport Act 1968. Things have changed and we need to start to recognise that changes such as those we have seen in the rail industry must be dealt with commensurately through the removal of unnecessary regulations.

Another great regulation that is to be removed concerns the role of the Secretary of State for Education and the office of the chief executive of skills funding. It is quite right that that office should be removed because it is effectively an unnecessary quango that removes the transparency and accountability that there should be around the decisions of and issues to do with the Skills Funding Agency. It is right that we give more power to the Secretary of State and not have such a structure standing in the way of effective progress.

In my constituency I always talk about promoting apprenticeships, which MPs of all political complexions want to do. I have been asked how reimbursement takes place and have had meetings with businesses through colleges. One thing they want to know is whether their cash-flow situation will be eased if appropriate, so I certainly welcome the changes to apprenticeship schemes.

I will not go through all the regulations covered by the Bill, but I particularly salute the change to the growth duty. It makes huge sense to encourage all regulators—in fact, all agencies involved in government—to think hard about how their measures relate to economic growth, because that is our central requirement right now. Economic growth is coming along and various sectors, including manufacturing, are doing quite well but they do not want to be hampered by unnecessary interference and regulation. We need instead to have confidence in the people involved in such industries. If one theme runs through the Bill, it is that we should trust people. That is emblematic of various measures passed by the Government since 2010, and the Bill brings all that work together.

In conclusion, let me reinforce the point that the Bill is part of a wider story of our deregulating and improving delivery in government, often by standing back from various sectors. It is also about trusting people and ensuring that we give them a sense of accountability and transparency. We must do all that with a clear mind about what we want to achieve: a free economy that can thrive and develop while taking account of and benefiting from changes in technology, modern ways of doing things and so on. We cannot rely on the Transport Act 1968 and such measures indefinitely.

I welcome the Bill. This exercise is a little like cleaning out the attic every now and again; it should be done frequently, as we get clutter. It seems to me that such an exercise would be a good thing to do virtually every Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

I have not had time to flick through every clause in the Bill, but who was in power in 2004 when the regulations on the management of child trust funds were introduced, and who was in power in 2003—this is a choice example—when we were legislating on the provision of late-night refreshment?

[John Mann]

As the hon. Gentleman said, he has not had time to read the Bill, which is why I itemised, for the record, every clause and schedule that removes Tory legislation. In fact, around 80% of the legislation being removed is Tory legislation. Indeed, when the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), responds, he will doubtless wish to outline which bits he introduced in his various ministerial guises. Given his ministerial longevity, there will undoubtedly be several regulations that he was personally responsible for but now wishes to remove, and we on the Opposition Benches might wish to back him on that.

However, the Minister for Government Policy, a highly educated and learned gentleman, did not, when receiving his challenge on self-employment and safety, know what he was talking about. I cited, in relation to clause 1, what would happen with a self-employed mountain guide. He immediately jumped in to assist his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was struggling, because he knew that I was right and that the clause represents an undoing of the self-employed mountain guide’s employment position. There is a critical flaw in the logic of the Bill. Mountain guides require insurance, and to get it they need to demonstrate that there is a health and safety profile, and that is relevant for those who employ self-employed mountain guides who take people out on ropes. By the way, I personally managed to negotiate, on behalf of the all-party group on mountaineering, exemption from the working at heights directive anomalies that affected that profession, demonstrating that the way the industry works meant it was not safe to put that application into place. I am not, therefore, on the side of unnecessary regulation, but the protection of the employment position of those self-employed people is fundamental.

A better-known example, the single biggest civil litigation case brought by a group of workers against a Government, demonstrates the issue more brutally. That common-law action brought by workers in the mining industry, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Vibration White Finger, cost the Government a huge amount of money, because the people involved were employed primarily by the Government, so it was a taxpayer liability, although there were some private companies. The civil action was successful because the litigators had demonstrated that appropriate practices and procedures were not in place. If there had been proper regulation of the mining industry at the time, the cost to the health of the men forced to bring the case would have been hugely reduced, as would the financial cost to the taxpayer and other employers, which went into many billions.

That is the point of good regulation. A good health and safety procedure—for example on use of breathing equipment in a colliery or the handling of vibrating tools—would have been a mitigating factor in those processes, and a huge mitigating factor in terms of compensation. That is precisely why self-employed mountain guides require a structure within which they can get insurance and quantify it, to take them out of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. What we are doing is leading to a lawyers’ paradise in which the agency that might employ people, and the individual, will be able to battle between one another over who is liable, if it can be demonstrated in court that particular procedures were not followed. A requirement of responsibility under health and safety law gives protection to that self-employed person as well as to the agency employing them.

Let me tell the House why I know that. When I ran a small business—as I did for many years—we had to deal with working at heights and a range of legislation, and I shall illustrate my point with some examples. A case was brought against us by an employee who had broken his foot. However, because of manual handling at work legislation and the fact that we had applied it, the case got nowhere. That was precisely because the legislation had created a structure with a sensible and rational procedure, which we could demonstrate and insist that the employee followed. When he did not follow that procedure, we could demonstrate that as the employer—with liability—we were not in fact liable for the accident.

It is a myth that good regulation damages small business. I lived with regulation day in, day out, and if we ask small businesses, we find that they nearly always object to two things: paperwork—that is always a nightmare—and cost. When small businesses complain—and when I did—it is about cost. If regulation costs a lot and someone is trying to make ends meet, it is difficult. However, regulations on manual handling at work, and health and safety legislation, do not involve cost other than training the work force. It is a miniscule cost. It is an absurdity when someone is handling heavy goods, as we were, not to have such regulation. Let me give a second example.

Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, not least because it rams home the importance of Britain’s involvement in the international community. On trade, does he agree that the welcome news about the Airbus order, worth £5.4 billion, is excellent for the south-west and for Stroud, which supplies parts of the aircraft?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very good news that both Etihad Airways and Emirates airline have effectively ordered 50 aircraft each. Of course, the wings are made in Wales, the landing gear in Bristol and, indeed, many of the engines will be made by Rolls-Royce in Derby. It is really good news. This is the high-end, high-skilled jobs that we need, and it has very much been backed by the Government, because we have put a lot of money into the Aerospace Technology Institute and the Aerospace Growth Partnership that we are building with the industry.

EU Council

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We did not discuss public procurement on this occasion but it is worth looking at. One of the things that the Government are looking at domestically is whether we can get rid of a lot of these pre-qualification questionnaires to make it far easier for businesses to compete for Government contracts.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on deregulation and trade, but does he agree that more competition, more connectivity and more investment in technology, such as one can find in my constituency, would exert downward pressure on energy prices, not the state intervention proposed by the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no doubt that a more competitive energy market both in the UK and in the EU would put downward pressure on prices. It is the same in every industry. If one sees a tendency towards monopolies and oligopolies, one tends to see higher prices, less competition and less choice for consumers. That is why we see eight new companies coming into the energy market. Is it not good that the Leader of the Opposition has followed my advice and switched to one of the small upstart businesses for his energy supply? The only problem he has is that the new business that is accepting his custom does not support his policy and thinks that it will be a disaster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am not entirely sure what those plans are, and I would be interested to hear about them from the hon. Lady. In fact, they unravelled less than 24 hours after the announcement. Under the previous Government we had 10 years of incoherence in energy policy, and as a consequence this Government have to take the necessary steps to keep the lights on.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the value of exports to the economy in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The Government recognise the importance of exports to the economy. I was pleased to welcome the chief executive of UK Trade & Investment, Nick Baird, to Cardiff last month to underline the support that UKTI can offer to businesses in Wales.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is further proof that the Government are taking action to increase exports, but what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that Britain and Wales continue to benefit from opportunities in Europe by trading through and to Europe?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. Wales is largely a country of small and medium-sized enterprises, and if more SMEs were to export at the European rate, that would wipe out the trade deficit altogether. I strongly encourage Welsh companies to engage closely with UKTI, as it has global reach and is able to maximise opportunities throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, I am always happy to look at individual cases, but the fact is that we badly need to have welfare reform in this country; the system was completely out of control. Housing benefit was out of control, and disability living allowance had gone up by a third in the past 10 years. We need reforms, and it is no good the shadow Chancellor gesticulating, because he now is in favour, apparently, of welfare reform; the only problem is that he opposed all £86 billion of the reforms that we have made.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Engineering work financed by this Government is under way to re-double the line between Stroud and Swindon, which is fantastic news. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a good example of sensible investment in infrastructure, leading to economic growth for Gloucestershire?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Investing particularly in some of the branch lines which have been single-track lines, such as the ones that serve my constituency, and turning them into double-track lines really makes the service far better and far more reliable; we can also get more people out of their cars and on to trains, and use the service like that.

Afghanistan and EU Council

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That specific piece of money, which is part of an overall large Department for International Development budget, is simply about getting women to register to vote. At the moment, the new electoral registration laws are being passed through the Afghan Parliament, and it is very important that women register to vote in the forthcoming presidential election in April next year.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I certainly welcome the news that the European Investment Bank is going to increase its investment in small and medium-sized businesses by 40%. I would like to see the same in some other banks. Is there any genuine appetite to include energy in a more competitive framework, perhaps a single market?

[The Prime Minister]

First, Britain supports the EIB. Our policy has always been one of saying, “Look, on fiscal policy we do have to take tough and radical actions, but on monetary policy we should be looking at all the ways we can help to get money from banks and other institutions into businesses.” That is what the funding for lending scheme is all about and what this EIB expansion should be about. On energy, we continue to push for the completion of the energy single market, where progress has been made, but it is an ongoing battle.

G8

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I would not be so depressed about it. One of the good things about the G8 is that the accountability report is simple and straightforward. It has always been about aid volumes and aid promises. I hope that future accountability reports will be able to address some of these issues in the declaration, too. If we do that and hold leaders’ feet to the fire, there is no reason why we should not make real progress on this agenda.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In giving a strong welcome to the EU-US trade negotiations launched at the G8, does the Prime Minister agree that the process itself could be a catalyst towards creating a more open and more modern Europe, and that that is entirely consistent with his ambitions for Europe and demonstrates that Britain’s influence in Europe will be positive?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. The process, going through chapter by chapter trying to open up areas to greater trade and competition, will be good for Europe as a whole. There are always those countries that fear this process. We tend to be in the vanguard of thinking that it is a good thing, so I hope this engagement will have the effect that he says it will.

SMEs (Public Sector Procurement)

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing this very important debate. He spoke with great passion and I agree with many of the points that he made.

I ran a very small business for many years and know how hard it is to procure contracts with public sector organisations. When dealing with private sector businesses, I used to find that the public sector had three questions. “Can you supply the goods? What is the price? Is the quality of the product good enough?” Indeed if any of us were buying something for ourselves, whether a three-piece suite or a new carpet, those would be the three questions we would ask. However, I understand that when considering public sector procurement, life is not quite as simplistic as that; there are other significant issues to be addressed. Moreover, as a public body dealing with public money, there are certain other considerations that should be taken into account. Ostensibly, though, they should be looking for the same thing: a good reliable service or product that is properly produced at a competitive price and has a robust after-sales back-up service.

Let us stand up for the public sector. Small businesses derive one advantage from dealing with a public sector organisation—as I can vouch from experience—and that is security of payment. I have lost count of the number of times over the 25 years that I was in business when private customers delayed payment, were slow in payment or, even worse, went into liquidation or receivership owing my business money. Sometimes they owed me very small amounts. Thankfully, it was only on a few occasions that I was owed large amounts. At this point I could veer off into the issue of phoenix companies, but I am sure that you, Mr Hollobone, would soon call me to heel.

We are talking about SMEs, which can employ 100 employees, but I also want to bat for the micro-businesses with five or six employees. When a public sector body sends an inquiry to a small business, that SME knows that its money will be safe, which is important. My late father used to say, “It is not sold until it is paid for, son.” An order from a local authority was almost as good as getting cash in the bank. When the public body comes knocking, it should be a cause for hope and perhaps even celebration for a small business; they have an inquiry from a responsible public authority that they know they will be paid for and from which they can hopefully make a reasonable profit. However, in reality, for the people I have spoken to, that is not the case. I know of businesses that have actually ignored public sector inquiries on the basis that they are not worth the effort the business has to put in to get the work. I understand the amount of rigour that has to be undergone for some huge infrastructure contract, but let us be honest, a company the size of Laing O’Rourke has the capacity and resources to deal with all that stuff. I am talking about the SMEs that do not have such resources.

From my experience, when a small company gets an inquiry from a public sector body, it comes bound up in a lot of bureaucratic red tape. The small business owner, which is what I was, looks at it and considers what they have to do even to put a price in. When they work that out and look at the value of the contract, they find that by the time they have fulfilled all the bureaucratic criteria, the profit is so small that it is not worth doing. Some people might say, “So what? There are plenty of other companies that will do it.” That is not the point. The big companies might do it, and the hon. Gentleman made some good points in that regard, but is it necessarily achieving the best result for the taxpayer? I do not believe that it is. Although I do not want to alienate the large companies in my constituency, I have to say that many small and micro-businesses run lean and tight ships.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to the debate, although I arrived late, for which I apologise. One point of great relevance is about missed opportunities. A large number of small businesses have quite useful inventions and new technologies that do not always see the light of day. They apply to the national health service or to some other large public sector organisation and the simple process of getting them on to the table for negotiation is impossible. Let us think too of the lost opportunities in new inventions and new engineering ideas.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will come to something along those lines in a moment.

As I was saying, many small and micro-businesses run tight ships—they are hyper-efficient. Consequently, they can offer products and services at much reduced prices, and every bit equal in quality. However, all the bureaucratic muddle and red tape is not only depriving small businesses of the opportunity to supply but means that public sector bodies are paying more money for the services they procure. The process is costing public sector bodies more twice over. First, someone in the public body must administer all the paperwork, with all the forms having to be read, checked and all the rest of it, so that creates a higher cost for procurement. Secondly, because the public sector bodies are ruling out—shall we say?—more competitive companies by their system, they are also paying more for the products they procure. In many respects, the public sector is paying more for goods; I hate to use the phrase, “paying through the nose”, but it is paying a premium because of its own processes.

About 18 months ago, I held a small business event in my constituency to help my local small enterprises deal with local authorities and other big public bodies, to try to break down some of the bureaucratic barriers that the public sector bodies put in their way; to be honest, sometimes they do so unwittingly. In total, 85 local companies came along to that event, and they all came with a very similar tale. They all mentioned the dreaded pre-qualification questionnaire, or PQQ, which seems to be the bane of every small business person’s life. As the hon. Member for Ogmore said, public sector bodies seem to have a system whereby they say, “This is the procurement package we use, whether the contract is worth billions, millions, thousands or tens of pounds.” It just seems to be the same process and it seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

In discussing the PQQs, I will change the names, because I want to protect both the innocent and the guilty. I have one PQQ here, which is 64 pages long. It was given to me by a local small supplier. I will not say what the company does, because that would give a clue, but we will work on the theory that it supplies wallpaper, because that fits. Obviously, I do not want to disclose the company owner’s details, because it is not fair on him. He tendered for a fairly modest contract with a public sector organisation, which will also remain nameless. He sent me a PQQ that is 20 pages long and asks for information such as cash-flow forecasts. It also asks for a bank letter outlining the company’s current cash and credit position. I am sure that the bank would supply that information, but from my experience of dealing with banks I would say that it will probably charge him.

Looking at the level of detail of the contract, I see that there is an extra cost. It does not matter about all the paperwork and all the rest of it; the company owner has got a bill from his bank. The public sector body wants details of his company’s equal opportunities policy, its health and safety policy and it even asks him to

“describe your organisation’s current workforce development and training programme”.

The company is a micro-business that employs three or four people, supplying goods—as I say, we will go with wallpaper—and it has to supply all that information. I read the form with incredulity; I have even torn the page off, so that the cameras in Westminster Hall cannot pick up who sent it to the company owner. I could go on at great length, and given that we have the time I could actually read the whole of a 64-page PQQ I have, because I could get it all in before the debate finishes. In fact, I was thinking that there are people who collect different things, and we should have a name for people who collect PQQs, because I could be one of them.