Scottish Devolution and Article 50

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Gray.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) on securing this debate, on focusing our attention on a really important issue and on setting the tone for the debate in a way that has been reflected in a number of serious, thoughtful and challenging contributions for the Minister to consider.

The hon. Lady was right to ask questions about the Government’s plan for Brexit; I have to say that it is not just Scotland that is being kept in the dark. She is probably right when she says the Government do not really know. It is not necessarily that they are hiding their secret plan; it is so secret that they themselves are not aware of it. Indeed, there were reports this morning in the papers that a battle is going on inside No. 10 about how much the Government will tell the EU about their plans for Brexit when they start the negotiations, and that battle has yet to be resolved.

In the winding-up speech by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the point was made that we really do not want to be here; none of us do, but clearly we are. Over the past few weeks, we have been talking very much about process and it is important that a debate such as this one takes place, because it begins to shift our attention back to substance. There are some very real issues on which we need to hold the Government to account in—let us not forget—what are the most important negotiations this country has faced since the second world war.

All our attention needs to be on that task, without distraction, because the Government’s approach so far really cannot fill us with much confidence. I do not know whether other Members have caught up with this story, but apparently this morning the Brexit Secretary told the Exiting the European Union Committee that the Government have not carried out an assessment of the economic impact of leaving the EU without a deal. I am not sure, therefore, on what basis the Foreign Secretary said that would be a good thing for Britain, when even the International Trade Secretary, who is a bit cavalier about these things, has warned about the risk of crashing out without a deal.

Those sorts of conflicting statements, as well as the lack of certainty and the lack of the type of information that hon. Members have been seeking, is causing huge uncertainty, which the Government must be aware of. We hear all the time from people who are wondering whether to build their lives here, what their future is for their businesses, and so on.

A lot of these issues could have received a positive response in many of the amendments that were tabled to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, but the Government’s obsession with having a clean and unamended Bill has added to the lack of clarity, not just on the issues we have faced this week on the final vote and on EU nationals but on the attempt by the Labour Front Bench to require the Government to consult regularly the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to put the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing, and to consult it at least every two months.

I hope that the Minister will make up for that uncertainty by responding to requests from hon. Members and explain exactly how the Government will not talk but listen to, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the people—not only people in Scotland but around the country. Can he say how he and the Government will ensure that there is a strong voice for the nations and regions of our country in these negotiations? That matters, because although people voted to come out of the EU, they did not vote to be shut out of decisions, and there are a range of related issues that many Members have commented on and about which we need clarity.

Above all, it would be useful for the Minister to confirm whether there will be a presumption that any powers in the devolved areas that are repatriated to the UK following Brexit will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and other devolved Assemblies. What is the starting point for the Government’s thinking? Other Members have mentioned funding, which is important not only for agriculture but for structural funds and university funds. What sort of clarity can the Government give about their intentions? Will they seriously consider Scottish Labour’s suggestion about bringing all the peoples of the UK together in a constitutional convention, so that at this profound moment of change for our country we can bring in a new settlement on all these issues for the benefit of all the regions and nations of the UK?

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Percy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have never raised a point of order in five and a half years as a Member of this House, which I hope reflects the seriousness of the issue that I put to you.

This follows on from the question that I put to the Prime Minister yesterday, which was on the appropriateness of this Committee considering the regulations. You will be aware that the matter was raised by the shadow Leader of the House in an exchange with the Leader of the House on 10 December, and in reply the Leader of the House, who speaks for the Government on the business of the House, said:

“On student finance regulations, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that if he wants a debate on a regulation in this House all he has to do is pray against it. I am not aware of any recent precedent where a prayer made by the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Cabinet colleagues has not led to a debate in this House.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1154.]

A prayer was subsequently laid. It was signed not simply by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet but by 80 colleagues from seven parties and one independent, so there is no precedent for this matter to be debated in Committee. Would it therefore not be in order for you to suspend this sitting and return to the Leader of the House with the proposal that we debate the matter in the Chamber so that all MPs have an opportunity to contribute?

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his first point of order and for giving me the opportunity to respond to my first. He has put his case strongly, and it is on the record. He will be aware, however, that as Chair of this Delegated Legislation Committee, I have no authority to suspend the sitting in the way he wishes or to require the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. All I can say is that he has made his case and has put it on the record very clearly. I encourage him to pursue that further through the appropriate channels.

Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, I point out that this statutory instrument has been the subject of a report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was published this morning. I have arranged for the relevant extracts of the report to be made available in the room this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Mr Percy. I will respond to your injunction to be brief. I will not repeat the points that others have made, although I do support them.

Let me start on a consensual point. I have some sympathy with the Minister. In a moment, he will be defending a policy he cannot really agree with. He has the university sector at heart. He is doing some good work on opening up the debate on undergraduate teaching quality. I am sure he cannot be happy with the proposals he is having to defend. I guess they were forced on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills by the Treasury—probably as a punishment for miscalculating the resource accounting and budgeting charge, or at least in an attempt to recoup the money. Unfortunately, it is not simply the Department that is being penalised—it is the half a million students who will lose maintenance grants.

On another consensual point, I would like to talk about one of the Minister’s predecessors, whom I also have high regard for: David Willetts. When David was shadow Education Minister back in 2009, he was keen to challenge the then Labour Government on the importance of maintenance grants. On 3 November, he said:

“The Minister tells the House about broadening access to university, but does he not recognise that it is students from the poorest backgrounds who are most desperate when they cannot get their maintenance grant or loan?”—[Official Report, 3 November 2009; Vol. 498, c. 737.]

That is absolutely right—that was a Conservative Opposition spokesman.

Subsequently, I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North was protesting outside the House while we debated the coalition Government’s proposals inside the House. Again, David Willetts was keen to argue for maintenance grants—as the justification for the changes that were being made. Maintenance grants were the progressive flagship of the policy that the Government were putting forward. He said:

“Our proposals are progressive, because they help to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university, because of the higher education maintenance grant”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 940.]

Again, he was right.

When David Willetts reflected, in June 2011, on the impact of the changes that had been made and tried to defend them against those of us who were critical of them, he said:

“We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students...to make sure that institutions fulfil their outreach and retention obligations to people from disadvantaged groups.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 770.]

Yet again, in September 2012, he announced:

“we are also increasing maintenance support for students at university this year”.

He went on to say:

“The maintenance grant and support for bursaries are going up. That is why”—

I repeat, “That is why”—

“we still have record rates of application to university, and we should celebrate and remember that fact.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 216.]

Time and again, this is the consistent policy trajectory from the Conservative party. They said that maintenance grants were essential and important, but suddenly, in the July Budget, the Chancellor threw them out of the window.

I come back to the impact assessment because it is important. It took legal action—judicial review by the National Union of Students—to force the Government to carry out the equality impact assessment that we have seen. I understand—I am happy to give way if the Minister wants to intervene—that although the original impact assessment before the decision was made has been shared with the NUS, it has not been published. The Department has refused to publish it. There was an impact assessment before the version that is itself a devastating critique of the Government’s proposals. I presume, because it has not been released, that the first assessment was even more devastating. We as parliamentarians have not had the opportunity to consider it, although we are debating the issue today. That adds to the scandal layer upon layer. The matter is not in the manifesto, was not debated at the general election and was not allowed to be debated on the Floor of the House. We being asked to consent to a very dodgy process.

In view of the pressure of time—I want to hear from the Minister and to have the opportunity to challenge him—I will say no more about that and will support my colleagues in saying that we should, as I hope will Conservative Members, recognising the trajectory of the Government’s policy over the last seven years, vote against these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I need to make some progress, I am afraid. I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene shortly.

The changes set out in this statutory instrument come at a time of increased resources going to universities. Total income has risen from £24 billion in 2012-13 to £26 billion in 2013-14, and is forecast to rise to £31 billion by 2017-18. Our system supports the financial sustainability of the sector while ensuring that higher education is open to all. As the OECD’s director of education put it, England is

“one of the very few countries that has figured out a sustainable approach to higher education financing”.

He recently added that England has

“made a wise choice — it works for individuals, it works for government.”

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister makes constant reference to what has happened in the past. We are concerned about the impact of these proposals, given that his own impact assessment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South mentioned—identified that there would be a negative impact on a number of critical demographic segments. Is the Minister concerned about that? As he has not answered the question I raised previously, I will also ask him about the original equality impact assessment, which is not the one that has been published. It has been shared with the NUS. Will he make that available to Members of Parliament?

[Joseph Johnson]

We published the full equality impact assessment on 5 December, which, in reference to the earlier comments made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South, gave the Committee plenty of time to analyse it and go through it closely before today’s meeting. The Government have been fully transparent with respect to the equality impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

None the less, I repeat what I said, which is that we were accused of not publishing the equality impact assessment until a few days ago. We published it on 5 December online, and it has been available for all interested Members of Parliament to scrutinise.

[Paul Blomfield]

The original assessment?

[Joseph Johnson]

These equality impact assessments were released to the NUS. The equality duty is an ongoing duty on Government, impact assessments are refined as new evidence emerges, and we published the most up-to-date version of it on 5 December. The Committee has had well over a month to assess that impact assessment. The changes to student support contained in the regulations work in the same spirit as the last Parliament’s reforms. The Government were elected on their fiscal record, with a commitment to eliminate the deficit. This change makes a significant contribution to achieving that goal. Converting maintenance grants to loans will generate grant savings of around £2.5 billion a year, which will have an immediate impact on the record-breaking deficit that this Government inherited. We do not recognise the estimates of the economic saving cited.

HMRC Office Closures

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

I agree. There are problems with the workforce, to which several hon. Members have referred. The chief executive of HMRC wrote to me on 12 November, saying:

“We expect that 90% of our current workforce will be able to either work in a regional centre or see out their career in an HMRC office.”

That says to me that the chief executive of HMRC reckons 10% will either not transfer or will be made redundant. That is worrying.

Reference has been made this afternoon to response times. In the first two quarters of 2015, 12 million calls went unanswered—half of all calls to HMRC. Only 39% of calls were answered within five minutes. In the third quarter of this year, after an infusion of staff, the rate of answered calls went up to 76%. That is a great improvement—except that the target is 80%, and in 2014-15 the answer rate was 72.5%. I have to say to the Government, and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has a family business, that this is the worst of statism. If HMRC were a business, it would have gone bust with that appalling customer service, but because none of us has any choice but to pay taxes, it remains in business. It should not do so. It certainly needs transforming, but cutting the number of staff does not seem to me, or my party, the way to do it.

On anti-money laundering, London is thankfully a major world financial centre, but we have a huge problem with the regime set up to deal with money laundering and to counteract it. The average HMRC fine in 2014-15 for money laundering was £1,134, according to Transparency International, which I thank. That seems a remarkably low figure, although it is not helped by the fact that 14 different regulators are involved in accountancy. If that is not sorted out, HMRC staff cannot do their job properly in relation to anti-money laundering, let alone tax evasion.

As has been said, since June 2014, HMRC has not had any face-to-face walk-in centres. There are a few teams of mobile advisers—a man in a white van dashing around Northern Ireland or northern Scotland, up to Caithness or wherever—for those who desperately need a face-to-face interview, but that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and not one that encourages the taxpayer to feel confident that they are getting the service they should from HMRC. It is extremely worrying that the number of offices is being reduced from 170 to 13.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will recognise that this is a massive programme involving 56,000 staff, the closure of 140 offices and relocation to 20 sites that have yet to be acquired, all within five years. In the 2015 civil service staff survey, almost 80% of HMRC staff thought their management were unable to manage change effectively. Does he agree that there are huge risks in the programme, and that it is potentially a disaster waiting to happen?

[Rob Marris]

There are huge risks, partly to do with insufficient funding, insufficient staffing and an insufficient number of offices. I regret to say that in my constituency, Crown house—the second and final HMRC office in my constituency—will close. The only silver lining for people in my region is that the specialist office in Telford, Shropshire, down the road, will continue to be HMRC’s IT headquarters.

As a result of these relocations and closures, it is likely that HMRC will haemorrhage staff. It employs a lot of specialist staff. Unlike in many other Departments, an awful lot of staff in the Treasury are very mobile, as there is a ready outlet to the private sector, which often pays more.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). Like him, I represent an area whose heritage is in mining, steel and iron, and that has similarly warm-hearted and welcoming people. I thank him for his tribute to his predecessor, Pamela Nash, and for opening his speech with a quote from John Smith, whose premature death was a sad loss to all of us in politics. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful maiden speech that demonstrated values and passion, which indicates that he will bring a great deal to the House.

I want to congratulate the Chancellor—[Interruption.] There is some dissent among my hon. Friends, but he did well to put the issue of low pay in the headlines. He is right that we need to tackle the scandal of low pay, and he was right when he stole the words of the TUC in saying that Britain needs a pay rise. The question is whether his measures meet that challenge. Any increase in wages for struggling families has to be a good thing. That was why Labour introduced the national minimum wage.

[Robert Flello]

Did my hon. Friend spot that when the Chancellor said that the nation needs a pay rise, that did not apply to public sector workers with their 1% rises for four years?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and other colleagues have made that point forcefully in this debate.

As we have been reminded today, Labour’s introduction of the national minimum wage was opposed by the Conservatives. I am delighted that they now apparently embrace it. It ended the scandal of poverty pay, providing a safety net below which wages should not fall. But for too many people, the national minimum wage has become the norm, not a safety net, as have zero-hours contracts and part-time hours for those who want full-time work. Alongside those setting up real businesses, there has been a growth in bogus self-employment, particularly in sectors such as construction. Uncertainty has replaced job security, and it has all been aimed at reducing labour costs.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman mentions zero-hours contracts. Would he care to tell the House the percentage of the workforce who are employed on zero-hours contracts?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman that too many people are employed on zero-hours contracts, and I could cite countless examples of people in my constituency whose lives have been destroyed by them and who have raised the issue with me.

It was interesting last week to hear Ministers, almost in the same breath, expressing their concern about low pay and then condemning tube staff for their industrial action.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not at this stage, simply because other Members want to speak and I am conscious of time.

Over a generation, we have seen a shift of between 5% and 7% of GDP from wages to profits, and from profits to shareholders’ dividends. That has widened inequality and reversed a century of progress towards a more equal society, and it started with deliberate decisions in the 1980s to weaken the bargaining power of working people and the trade unions that represent them. A sensible policy response to low pay would be to strengthen the negotiating hand of working people, but instead the Government made it clear in the Queen’s Speech that they want to weaken their position further with more attacks on the trade union movement.

[James Cleverly]

Would the hon. Gentleman concede that when tube drivers, for example, go on strike, the people who are hurt the most are not those who can fire up their laptops and work from home but those who, if they cannot get to work, do not get paid for work, such as contract cleaners and those who work in the care sector? Is it not the case that when people go on strike it is the low-paid who get hit the hardest?

[Paul Blomfield]

It is absolutely true that when people go on strike, everybody gets hit, including those on strike. Trade unionists go on strike only with enormous reluctance, because of the impact on services and their wages. The uncomfortable truth for Conservative Members is that improvements in living conditions, health and safety and other workplace situations have been won through the struggle by trade unions.

The campaign for a living wage was a great response to the challenge of low pay. Members on both sides of the House have rightly praised the work of the Living Wage Foundation, but that work has been made more difficult by the Chancellor’s attempt to steal its clothes. We need to be clear. The increase that he proposes to take the wage floor up to £9 for many workers is welcome, but let us not pretend that it is a living wage. Let us call it the over-25s rate or the national minimum wage supplement, or we could just call it the national minimum wage, but he should not damage the brand of the living wage by associating his proposal with it.

We should continue to work to encourage employers to adopt the living wage and to incentivise them to do so. We need to recognise, as the Living Wage Foundation has pointed out, that the rate will need to rise to take account of the cut in tax credits. Here is the rub: although the new rate of the national minimum wage might benefit up to 5 million workers, more than half of them will be worse off—an estimated 3 million families, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—by an average of £1,000 a year because of the changes in tax credits. It could not be any other way: an estimated wage uplift of £4 billion is being offset by welfare cuts of £12 billion.

The Chancellor will argue that raising the tax threshold will benefit low-paid workers by taking them out of tax, but he knows that that is not true. He knows that lifting the tax threshold is a regressive tax measure, because it benefits everybody equally except the lowest paid. Six million workers who are already paid too little to pay tax in the first place will not benefit at all from raising the threshold, whereas Members of Parliament will get a tax break. Frankly, in comparison with low-paid workers, we do not deserve one.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Don’t take it then.

[Paul Blomfield]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain how people can choose not to take a tax break.

The hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) rightly spoke forcefully about small businesses. I do a lot of work with small businesses in my constituency. They are a driver of growth. When there is any increase in pay, they face a challenge, as does the voluntary sector. They need support, but the Government and the Budget have got it wrong. Support should not have been provided through a greater cut to corporation tax; it should have been provided to small businesses by further cuts to business rates.

The Prime Minister is right that company profits should not be subsidised by the public purse. If he is serious, why not tax listed companies that fail to pay the real living wage to recoup the cost? If he is serious about tackling poverty pay, what about strengthening labour market enforcement? We know, for example, that thousands of workers do not even get the national minimum wage in the care sector because employers refuse to pay for travelling time. We debated that in the last Parliament. Ministers admitted that the practice was widespread and said it was illegal, but nothing is happening to chase down those rogue employers and bring them to book.

[Robert Flello]

On that point, will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not because of time—I am sorry.

On the question of the care sector, will the Government find the resources to support local councils—they have been hit harder than any other part of the public sector—in meeting the cost of increasing the national minimum wage and paying workers what they are legally due?

The Government are right to respond to the need to give people a pay rise and have opened a debate, but they will need to do much more to make the difference that working families need, because this Budget fails to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Voter Engagement

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing such an important debate so early in this Parliament. She has covered, very ably and in great detail, the wide range of issues involved in voter registration and the prospective boundary review, and she struck an important note by saying that we should be able to discuss these issues on a non-partisan basis. That is certainly what I hope to do as I focus on student registration. I raise the issue as I represent more students than any other Member of this House—some 36,000, according to the last census —and because I chaired the all-party group on students in the last Parliament. I point out to anybody who is interested that we are relaunching the group on 13 July, so they can put that date in their diary.

Many students live in two homes, but the place where they study is effectively their primary residence. They spend more time there, and many of us who represent areas with large numbers of students make enormous efforts to integrate them into the local community and make them feel that the area is their primary home. That is as important in electoral registration as in anything else.

Members and the Minister, whom I welcome to his post, will know that prior to the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 many universities, though not all, block-registered students living in university accommodation, effectively acting in their role as head of household. I remain disappointed that the Government rejected amendments to that Act that would have allowed that block registration of students to continue, because it was an established and secure method of ensuring that students got on to the register, and that their identity was validated.

I wonder whether, in retrospect, the Government regret their decision to reject those amendments, given that in the run-up to the last election they spent an awful lot of money through the Cabinet Office pushing student registration, which I welcome. However, they were playing catch-up because they were behind the game. I welcome the fact that £380,000 was allocated to the National Union of Students, which shared it out among student unions across the country, to promote voter registration. That was a good spend; the money was used effectively, and it had a real impact on the number of students registered. We will need to look at that sort of spend in the run-up to key elections in the coming year. There will be many of them. Indeed, that applies to referendums, too; clearly, one referendum is not far away. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to continue that funding in the run-up to the elections and referendums in the immediate period ahead? I ask because that money was used effectively; it could be used again effectively, and it is certainly needed.

The Cabinet Office has worked very effectively on this issue, but I ask the Minister to consider the development of better approaches. When the 2013 Act was passed, it struck me, as someone who represents many students, that there would be an opportunity under individual electoral registration to reach beyond the number of students who registered under the old system of block registration if we could successfully integrate student enrolment and electoral registration.

Many universities have been quite willing—even enthusiastic—to promote the idea of registration, but I thought that we could take a step further than that. I talked to both the universities in my constituency—Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam University—about the ways in which that might be achieved. We agreed between us that, for the 2014 entry of students, Sheffield University would pilot an integrated system, and that we would have as a benchmark alongside it Sheffield Hallam University, which would simply point students to the Government’s portal. We did all that with a view to introducing the Sheffield University system, if it proved worth while. The project was very successful indeed, thanks to the commitment of the staff at the universities and our local electoral registration officer, John Tomlinson, to whom I pay tribute. We developed a system that went live, as planned, last September. I also thank the Cabinet Office for its support and limited funding for that process.

The system requires students, when registering and enrolling with the university, actively to decide whether they want to register to vote. It was hugely successful, with 64% of eligible students indicating their wish to register to vote in Sheffield. The system then took people to another step, requiring them to give their national insurance number. At that point, two thirds of those enthusiastic, willing voters dropped out of the system because they did not have immediate access to their NI number and did not want to delay their university registration. The situation was looking a little bit bleak, with only 24% of students registered, despite more than double that number wanting to do so.

Again, I pay tribute to the Cabinet Office, which stepped in with new guidance issued in December, which allowed electoral registration officers to use their discretion to verify an application using any data source that satisfactorily established the identity of the applicant, including student enrolment data. That is sensible, because those data are a good verifier of identity. That meant that all those students who did not have their NI number and were not on the register—some 7,000—were added during December and January. It would be far simpler if, rather than having to seek national insurance numbers at all, we had a simple system, such as that put in place by the Cabinet Office, enabling EROs to register students on the basis of their indication that they wished to register, with their identities verified by their student status. Could not we dispense with the requirement for universities to collect NI numbers? That would make it simpler for everybody, and we would still have the verifiable data.

Whatever the Minister’s answer is, it is important that we press ahead with trying to get integrated systems. I have been working, as the Cabinet Office has, with Universities UK and the National Union of Students to encourage universities to make that decision. The Minister will know that many universities are grouped together by the fact that the same system provider writes their student enrolment programmes. The largest provider covers 82 universities, Sheffield Hallam being one of them. This happens across the country. There is an opportunity to get those system providers—I think there are three in all—to rewrite their software with a simple fix, before the September 2015 entry, so that there is an integrated system of electoral registration in the student enrolment procedures. I think active consideration has been given to this, but will the Minister positively consider the Cabinet Office funding these changes, including the rewrite of the software for many universities? Apart from anything else, if that happened the Government would save a lot of money, because we would not need the kind of retrospective funding that was needed when we were playing catch-up in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

Another positive initiative from the Cabinet Office was the establishment of projects trying to co-ordinate voter registration work for the Student Forum, which brought together the NUS, Universities UK, GuildHE, the Association of Colleges, the Academic Registrars Council and electoral registration officers, nationally and regionally. That organisation did some productive work. I hope that the Minister will commit to continuing those projects and forums.

I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a wider lesson to be learned from the experience of student registration, which shows that, with commitment, creativity and resources, IER can be introduced successfully. We can transfer the lessons of Sheffield’s system, which is aimed at students, beyond higher education to schools, colleges, housing providers, residential homes and other organisations that collect the data that the Government need to verify identity. We need to make it as simple as possible to get people straight on to the electoral roll. Much more needs to be done before we have a register that is fit for purpose, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Without that, we cannot proceed to a credible boundary review or the elections that are to take place, or to the crucial decision we will be making about our membership of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I was about to come to examples of where that has been achieved already with some success. In the case of IER, about 87% of those who were already enrolled were seamlessly moved across, without their having to do anything. They were automatically verified, and their registration was moved across straightforwardly and simply.

There is a great deal that can be done, which brings me on seamlessly to the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about other opportunities to prompt people. He used the example of students, but there are many other examples. The shadow Minister mentioned private letting agents, which provide an obvious gateway or portal. There is a prompting moment when people move house. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about universities, and the example of Northern Ireland was mentioned, where work has also been done in schools and colleges.

[Paul Blomfield]

My point was that it is not simply about the opportunity to prompt—that is what we had at Sheffield Hallam, where it produced a 15% student uptake—but the opportunity to integrate systems in which data are already being collected to verify voters. There should be a seamless process of automatic registration. That is what we did in the other university, where we got 64% registration. That applies more widely than to institutions of higher education.

[John Penrose]

I agree with most, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman says. There are huge opportunities to make it easier to verify people’s identity, to prompt them and to confirm them as legitimate voters. There are many opportunities, at points at which people intersect with other parts of Government data, when we can do that very effectively indeed.

The hon. Gentleman said that if students were asked to provide their national insurance number and did not happen to have it to hand, they would be discouraged, but there are alternatives, which were exploited in Sheffield. There are other trusted data sources, such as university enrolment data, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Providing the university has the right information—he said that there was an opportunity for software improvement—it could be used to provide the automatic confirmation of people’s eligibility to vote.

Where I gently but fundamentally part company with the hon. Gentleman—although I stay in contact with the shadow Minister—is on the notion of IER being part of a conscious choice for people to enrol. Moving away from the old system of household enrolment is a major step forward. I am sure that I am preaching to the choir when I say that the old system of household enrolment was a little patriarchal, if I can put it that way. Expecting people who want to vote to register is not a great thing to ask.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I find that I am unexpectedly more sensitive to patriarchy than the hon. Lady. That is a phrase I never thought I would utter.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not think we are really at odds. What we are saying is that the system we developed at Sheffield requires people to make a decision, but it does not direct them to what that decision is; that is the critical thing. It is about more active engagement.

[John Penrose]

We are as one on the idea that there is a great deal more that can be done. With any luck, the Electoral Commission’s report will equip us with more facts that show us which avenues it will be most profitable for us to pursue first. It will allow us to prioritise them and make progress.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury was extremely organised and asked a series of questions. I do not have time to get through them all, but I will endeavour to. Before I move on, I want to mention the comments of the hon. Members for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). I am probably misquoting the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but she said—this was a vital comment—that there should be no division between representatives of the people and the people themselves. I am sure that everybody here would echo and agree with that statement.

On the issue of whether the bands around boundaries should be 5%, 8% or 10%, the point is that constituency size must be based on registration to ensure we have genuinely equal representation in this place. The wider the bands, the less fairness there is, in terms of the power of an individual’s vote. If there was a 10% band, there could be a 20% difference between the number of people it takes to elect me and the number of people it takes to elect the shadow Minister. That would be getting too wide for comfort.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The important point here is the output, not the input. I should point out that the number of staff employed in enforcement and compliance has gone up over the course of this Parliament.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

17. A young man in my constituency had his jobseeker’s allowance taken away because he missed an early morning appointment, despite having notified the jobcentre of the illness that prevented him from attending. He is just one of many vulnerable people affected by the sanctioning regime imposed by this Government. According to the House of Commons Library, the amount lost in tax evasion and tax avoidance exceeds the entire spend on JSA by £2 billion. Does the contrast between the persecution of the most vulnerable and the Government’s failure on tax avoidance not say everything about their priorities?

[Mr Gauke]

Over the course of this Parliament, the number of prosecutions for tax evasion has gone up fivefold. The reality is that the Government are taking more measures to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion. We have done that consistently at every Budget. Ever since the 2010 spending review, there has been a greater focus on HMRC being able to bring in the yield. The numbers, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) pointed out, speak for themselves.

amendment of the law

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or other Members of the House caught the recent BBC programme “Mind the Gap”. It was not about the perils of travelling on the underground but the growing problem of our country’s two economies—the way in which London and the south-east are sucking economic activity away from the rest of country. Judging by their policies over the past four years, this Government clearly do not mind the gap; indeed, they have widened it. It is not just a north-south problem; it is London versus the rest. The Chancellor’s Budget fuels the gap.

Let us spend a moment looking at two-economies Britain under this Government. Public funding has been diverted from areas where it is needed most by their local government finance settlement, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Regional development agencies were scrapped as soon as this Government got through the door.

[James Morris]

Can the hon. Gentleman remind us of what happened to regional inequalities when the RDAs were in existence under the previous Government?

[Paul Blomfield]

I would cite the extremely successful advanced manufacturing research centre, which is a pioneering collaboration between the university of Sheffield, Boeing and Rolls-Royce. It has been highlighted by the Government as a model of industrial innovation. However, it simply would not be there if it had not been for RDA investment.

London also thrives with arts and culture funding, with subsidies worth £68.99 per head, while the rest of England gets just £4.58 per head.

The Budget does not just ignore those issues; it is making them worse. Research by Sheffield political economy research institute has exposed the Chancellor’s flagship increase in the income tax personal allowance as not benefiting the lowest paid and not addressing regional inequality. In many ways, it has made that inequality worse.

This situation is not inevitable. We simply need the political will and the policies to reverse the trend. Let us build on our regional assets, such as our universities, which are uniquely positioned around the country to drive growth through innovation. Let us ensure that there is effective investment in research and development across the higher education sector.

We need an active industrial strategy that does not simply pick winners but supports growth in key sectors across the country, such as the nuclear sector. Of course, one of the early actions of the Government was to undermine that sector in my city by scrapping the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.

We need a fairer distribution of public funding that puts need at the heart of funding allocation and that recognises the role of public investment in stimulating local economies. The Government should use the levers of public sector employment to address the regional imbalance. They should move Departments, not just minor agencies, out of London. Why can the Department for Education not move lock, stock and barrel to Sheffield? Let us move the Department of Health to Leeds. Let us take the Department for Work and Pensions to Hull.

Government Members have raised concerns about the impact of what they describe as “generous public sector pay” on private sector employers in the regions. However, we cannot accept the argument that there must be a race to the bottom on pay and conditions for there to be regional growth outside London. All regions benefit from decent, well-paid jobs. They fuel our local economies and put money in people’s pockets that will be spent in local businesses. Moving Departments out of London would be good not only for the regions, but for London. For evidence of that, we need only ask those who are struggling to rent or buy in the overheated housing market in the capital.

Moving Departments of State to the regions would not just provide economic benefits, but would ensure that policies were no longer shaped by people who live and work in London, and who see everything through the prism of the metropolis. One of my constituents, Amy Hall, who is a biophysicist, wrote to me last week and said:

“We need to be less London-centric as this seems to be blinding some of the key policy makers to the situation elsewhere.”

Amy was right. There are things that we can do to make that happen.

Moving Departments out of London is not a new idea. It was pioneered by the Labour Government in the ’70s. I remember the Manpower Services Commission coming to Sheffield as a result of a Government decision in 1976. More progress was made under the last Labour Government in moving civil service jobs out of London. According to the information I have been given by the House of Commons Library, that progress has halted under this Government.

We need to take action to achieve a one nation economy, not a one city economy.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Bore da, Mr Owen. For those who do not speak the language of heaven, that means good morning.

I am grateful for the opportunity to probe the Government on their steps to support money transfer accounts and the remittance sector. According to a recent blog from the Africa Research Institute, the Secretary of State for International Development has described this issue as

“one of the most important things I have dealt with in my political career”,

so is at least as important as HS2, and therefore the Government should devote at least as much effort to, and invest at least as much political capital in, trying to sort it out. At a recent meeting at Ealing town hall, she assured UK Somalis that the

“best experts on the planet are working on a solution”

and that the Prime Minister has recognised that a rapid solution is needed to a problem that he has described as “massively important”. I hope that the Minister will update us on the Government’s steps so far, clarify their position, answer frankly any questions from hon. Members and tell us about the action that will be taken to provide a rapid solution to what the Prime Minister has described as a “massively important” problem.

The problem came to a head in May 2013 when Barclays announced that it intended to close the accounts of most of its clients in the money transfer and remittance business. The decision was delayed, probably due in part to a debate in Westminster Hall in July 2013, which was ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). She is in the Chamber today, and she has led a brilliant campaign on the matter, supported by other hon. Members in the room.

Although the decision on the closure of accounts was delayed, unfortunately that was of little use to the constituent I mentioned in the 2013 debate, Mr Anwar Ali, whose business, Trust Exchange UK Ltd, was ruined by Barclays’s decision. As I said during that debate, that business was a model of the sort of small businesses that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see in their constituencies. It not only offered a service to constituents who needed to transfer money to relatives overseas, but engaged in such things as charitable work and aid projects, especially in Bangladesh.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows, Sheffield is fortunate in having one of the largest Somali communities outside London. That community has made strong representations to me about the issue. The specific point is that an inability to transfer money causes not just domestic and individual family distress. A survey of diaspora communities in Sheffield that I carried out showed the important contribution that remittance giving makes in supplementing aid, so the issue also involves international development. Does he agree that that makes it much more important that the Government take action?

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge everything he said, including the Somali community in Sheffield. His intervention also allows me to remind the Chamber that Cardiff—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is also in the room—has one of the oldest Somali communities in Britain, going back to the 19th century. The community plays a hugely important and positive role in the life of our great city. What my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said was right, and I shall say more about aid later.

Debt Advice (FCA Levy)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone—no pressure at all then. It is a delight to be here with you in the Chair, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing the debate. He has been a committed champion of the cause and one of several colleagues on both sides of the House who have sought the effective regulation of payday lending.

The reason for today’s debate is simple: the need for free and independent debt advice is growing, which is due in no small part to the unscrupulous practices of payday loan companies. We now have a unique opportunity to tackle the problem without cost to the public purse. Payday lenders, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, will soon have to pay the FCA levy to fund free debt advice. When they do, we need to ensure that they pay an amount commensurate to the problems that they cause and, crucially, that the total pot of money collected increases to fund the additional advice that is needed. There certainly should not be any levelling down of payments simply because more financial service companies will be paying the levy.

As has been pointed out, the Money Advice Service is consulting on its draft business plan as we speak. Extraordinarily, it is suggesting keeping the budget for debt advice unchanged. That cannot be right and, to my mind, it brings into question the organisation’s judgment. MAS’s own research, which was conducted last year by YouGov, indicates that

“there is a growing need for impartial money and debt advice in the UK”.

It estimates that 8.8 million people are over-indebted, from struggling students to working families, and that only 1.5 million of those people are getting advice. That is an extraordinary figure, but it is only the tip of the iceberg, because a further 900,000 have said they were planning to seek such advice and another 1 million said that they were actively considering it. The FCA’s very welcome proposal that payday lenders should signpost borrowers to free debt advice at the point of roll-over means that the demand for debt advice will only grow. Indeed, many of us think that the signposting should be on the initial health warning, too.

According to the Office of Fair Trading, one in every three people who take out a payday loan seek debt advice, which is a sure sign of the link between the payday loan product and the problems it creates. The number of people contacting the StepChange debt charity for help with payday loan problems increased sevenfold between 2008-09 and 2011-12, as has been pointed out, while Citizens Advice has seen a tenfold increase. In the past two and a half months, my local advice bureau said that it had one new case resulting from payday loans every day. One new case might not seem a problem, but in a stretched local advice it is, given that these are complex problems—they involve not quick interventions, but detailed engagement in which people need considerable support. As I said, those who are actively seeking help at the moment are just the tip of the iceberg.

As well as increasing overall funding for free debt advice, it is important that the FCA looks again at how it calculates the levy paid by each firm. For example, StepChange has argued that rather than looking at a firm’s income and write-off rate—companies would, perversely, be encouraged to pursue vulnerable borrowers more aggressively if having fewer write-offs was rewarded—a better formula for calculating the levy would take account of default rates, the number of complaints made about lenders to the Financial Ombudsman Service and intelligence on repayment difficulties from debt advice agencies. The aim of the levy, after all, is to fund support for people when things go wrong. If the business model of the payday lending industry means that things go wrong relatively often, the lenders, rather than profiting from that, need to pay to help to pick up the pieces.

None of the arguments that will be made this morning negate the need for better regulation, and many of us who are in the room made that case yesterday in the Chamber. If such regulation works, we might look forward to a time when there is less need for debt advice. That would be something that we could welcome, and we could review the levy at that stage, but at the moment there is more need for debt advice, so we should not miss the opportunity for it to be funded by those responsible for the problems. I hope that the Minister will reassure us, while recognising that this is a decision for MAS and the FCA, that he and the Government will support such a funding increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am a little bit concerned by how the Minister is counterpoising money advice and debt advice. I think that all hon. Members in the Chamber would agree that money advice is important, although there are questions about how MAS delivers it, but that does not overshadow the need for effective debt advice. Given all the contributions that have been made and all the evidence there is, does he agree that the demand for debt advice is growing?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree that demand seems to be growing, and evidence on that is emerging. It might help the hon. Gentleman if I move on to how MAS determines its budgets for money advice and debt advice, and how it has to take demand into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

As my hon. Friend will find out, I am coming on to how MAS determines its budget. As we all would hope and expect, the budget is based on demand. More generally, MAS has a statutory responsibility to consult on its budget for the forthcoming year. Right now, MAS is consulting on its budget for 2014-15. This debate, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report and the information from stakeholders, which we have heard about today, are important in providing MAS with the information it needs to develop its budget for the future. That makes a big contribution to how MAS decides the correct allocation of resources for forthcoming years.

MAS’s budget is based on what it needs to achieve its statutory objectives. Although it is right that payday lenders contribute to that funding, it is also right that the funding is based on demand and that it delivers value for money. In the year ahead, MAS’s budget for debt advice will be based on its assessment of demand for such advice. MAS must consult on its plans for providing debt advice each year, which must then be approved by the FCA.

The National Audit Office recently commended MAS for delivering value for money in its debt advice provision. As we have heard, MAS is also carrying out ongoing research to ensure that the debt advice it funds has the best impact on consumers and that it reaches those who need it most. MAS recently conducted an in-depth study of where in the UK debt advice is needed most. The study shows that 21% of over-indebted people do not even recognise that they are in debt and that 44% of people who are in debt are not aware of the solutions available to them. It is important that MAS reaches such people and engages with them successfully to give them the help that they need. MAS will use the report to inform how it funds debt advice, thereby ensuring that it targets those who need it most. It is important to note that more money does not necessarily mean better provision.

[Paul Blomfield]

I accept that more money does not necessarily mean better provision, but the Minister has acknowledged that there is increased demand and that that increased demand is only the tip of the iceberg. He will also know that many of those delivering services on the ground have been hard pressed because of the reduction in other resources, especially those available through local authority funding. In many parts of the country, citizens advice bureaux are trying very hard to reorganise provision. In my own city of Sheffield, there is a comprehensive reorganisation to deliver value for money and ensure that the challenge can be met. Nevertheless, given the escalating demand for debt advice, which he has acknowledged, would he not also acknowledge that there is now an opportunity, which should be addressed, for that increased demand to be matched with additional resources?

[Sajid Javid]

Where there is emerging evidence of increased demand, I would expect MAS to respond. I am looking for the actual numbers, but off the top of my head, in 2012-13, the most recent financial year, MAS planned for 150,000 face-to-face debt advice sessions, but provided 158,000 sessions. The trend increased in the first six months of this financial year.

Pub Companies

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Lady is stating in her own way what I have already said several times and what I think is the consensus. There is an imbalance in the relationship, which is not equal. The market does not deliver a fair outcome, which is why we are considering how we can change it.

We did not want to reopen the fundamental issue about the pub tie, but to decide how to address the unfairness of it, and the consultation revealed the depth of feeling on the subject, which all the interventions that we have had so far have reinforced. The responses came not just from the pubcos and the tenants, but from supply chain companies, consumer groups and trade bodies, all of which fed into the consultation, and they were so many and diverse that we published them just before Christmas so that hon. Members were aware of what was being said before we came to a conclusion on how to respond.

As I have said already, we want to respond as quickly as possible. We fully understand the problems, not just because distressing cases are continuing but because people in the industry want clarity, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to want regulatory certainty. We do not want to rush into a decision. We want to get this right, but we realise that there is some urgency because people need to make investment decisions. We are trying to get this absolutely right and we want the intervention that we make to be proportionate and properly targeted.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking a further intervention and for all the others that he has taken. He makes the case for urgency, which is reflected across the House. Does he not accept that his failure to answer the question from the shadow Minister and the Chair of the Select Committee, together with the wording of the Government’s amendment, will be seen widely throughout the country as an attempt simply to kick this issue into the long grass? Will he reassure the House that that is not the case by giving a commitment that legislation will come forward in this Parliament?

[Vince Cable]

There is no attempt to kick this into the long grass. We are trying to do this properly. I can assure him that it will be dealt with in a timely way. We are not cutting corners. As I said at the beginning, we have a large number of responses and different strands of evidence that we are trying to reconcile and respond to properly. We must do this right.

The whole issue of the beer tie, the relationship with the pubcos, is crucial, and we must take action in the way that we have discussed, but it is not the only set of measures for the pub industry. We are sometimes in danger of losing sight of the bigger picture. Thanks to interventions from Government Members there was reference to the budgetary measures that have been taken, and I would add to that the action taken on business rates, including the capping of the business rate increase, the continuation of business rate relief, the £1,000 discount for retail outlets, which include pubs, and some of the action taken by my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, for example the pub is the hub scheme and the community right to bid to keep pubs open. A lot needs to happen and a lot is happening on a broad front, and I reassure the House of my commitment, which remains as strong as ever, to addressing the unfairness in the relationship between pub companies and their tenants.