Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Debate between Richard Fuller and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the impact on children’s education, on children with special educational needs and on children being ripped out of their schools, perhaps in the year of their GCSEs or A-levels. This is obviously a debate about education. There are Members of Parliament in the Chamber from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as independent MPs and Members from Reform—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

And the DUP.

[Richard Fuller]

And the DUP.

[Jim Shannon]

I am always here, by the way.

[Richard Fuller]

It is not always about the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Labour party has marshalled all but two of their MPs, one of whom hates the policy—I do not know what the other thinks.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) think that it is shocking that not a single member of the Education ministerial team of the Labour Government has bothered to show up today, yet they continue to use the airwaves to spew out spiteful and divisive messages about this Labour policy? The Minister present, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), does not care about education; he cares about money—he is a Treasury Minister. He knows that the policy will not raise any money, but it is going to cost taxpayers.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and Jim Shannon

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her point clear.

As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know, my amendments relate to the ways in which the Government are seeking to restrict advertising for foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt as part of their obesity strategy. Those measures essentially ban such advertising on TV before the 9 pm watershed and ban all paid-for HFSS advertising online at any time of the day or night. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has already done a very good job in drawing out some concerns about that.

What are the concerns about what the Government are doing? First, I should mention that I have a number of important food businesses based in my constituency, including Unilever and the cereal company Jordans Dorset Ryvita, and I think everyone would be surprised to hear that products such as porridge, muesli and granola are going to be subject to these bans. All these products have ingredients such as naturally occurring oils and sugars, as well as fibre, vitamins and minerals, and because of those natural ingredients they will be caught by the Government’s definition of “HFSS”.

It is also worth considering—I was not on the Committee and I do not know if it was considered at length—the impact on food services such as takeaways and home-delivered foods. Papa John’s, which is located near me in Milton Keynes, supports hundreds of entrepreneurs and small businesses through its franchise model, and it writes to warn me:

“These would restrict our ability to invest in our businesses and our people, at a time of significant economic uncertainty for the UK economy, and would also place our franchisees, many of whom are single owner small businesses, on an unsustainable financial footing.”

I think the Government have to do a few more hard yards in support of our small businesses, and this is not a very good way of showing any support for them.

[Jim Shannon]

The number of diabetics, both type 1 and type 2, across the United Kingdom and the number of children with obesity is rising. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that new clause 14 cannot address the issue of those rising numbers? If it cannot, what more needs to be done?

[Richard Fuller]

I absolutely do not agree. The reason why the Opposition Front-Bench team are probing on this is that we are not harnessing all the talents to come up with the solution. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, he does not have, or want, any objection to the objective—he just feels that there may be better ways to do it. That is what my amendments are trying to create. They would introduce a better way, working with established principles and with the industry—let us face it, it has the experts in this—rather than undermining issues to do with how the Advertising Standards Authority has managed how products are advertised and rather than bulldozing through the industry, which is the current process that the Government, or this Department anyway, are proposing.

Let us just remember that this pressure on our food and drink manufacturers is part of a wider effort of social responsibility that we are putting on them. The proposal does not sit alone, but with other things, in particular around environmental protection. The Food and Drink Federation has calculated that the cost of the UK Government’s proposed environmental health policies is at least £8 billion. That is equivalent to £160 a year on household food bills that we are asking the industry to take on.

It is estimated that the introduction of this policy will cost £833 million, but the Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the benefits are likely to be in the order of only £118 million. That is a real dead loss that we will be putting, let us face it, on food bills, primarily of those in lower income brackets. Members on all sides should take a moment to consider whether this is the right time and the right process for doing that. As the Government’s own assessment shows, the actual effect on diet for those who are targeted is estimated to be 1.7 calories a day, so it is a lot of effort and cost, but not very much impact.

New clause 14 proposes an alternative that would require the regulator to implement an alternative set of increased restrictions for online, but developed through the industry by the Committee of Advertising Practice. The new clause would legislate for a three-step filtering process drawn up by the industry to appropriately manage the targeting of online ad campaigns.

Another of my amendments would introduce brand exemptions. I take a different view from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who said that brands are intrinsically tied to their product. The truth of the matter is that Coca Cola is made by Coke and Coke Zero is made by Coke. Coke Zero is advertised with the word “Coke” on it. This issue is not necessarily covered by the legislation, but Coke is not tied to one thing. Brands are extraordinarily flexible in how they can assist progress in achieving some social means. The Minister should consider looking again at this area.

Finally, on the nutritional profile, the issue is consultation. I can see that the Secretary of State has tabled some amendments on that, and perhaps the Minister can talk about that. They do not seem to make the changes I would like to see, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say.

It is worrying that the Government have undermined the Advertising Standards Authority with their approach. One of the other things is targeted advertising. I am sure it has struck hon. Members here as it has me that the tech revolution of the dotcom era was 20 years ago, and two decades of technical expertise in understanding how adverts are targeted is being swept away or ignored by the Department of Health and Social Care, which would much rather have “nanny knows what’s best”. The truth of the matter is that, by harnessing technology, the Government could get a better outcome than this official ban. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, there are plenty of other ways to do it that would be hard for advertisers to get around.

I say to the Minister that I am trying to be helpful, as always, and, to be serious, as are the Opposition. The Government have made a slight misstep by adopting a top-down, state-driven model. I say to the Minister that the path of good intentions is littered with unintended consequences. The essence of conservatism is not to use the state to bully or, as perhaps the advisers in the various Departments say in modern parlance, to nudge. It amounts to one and the same thing. The Department’s attempt to censor products such as these is profoundly un-Conservative. Our party believes in individual responsibility and that families are the foundation of society where choices and power in society most naturally lie. Nowhere is that more important than in health matters, yet these proposals extend the role of the state and undermine parental responsibilities.

The measures make the Department of Health and Social Care look like a new outpost of cancel culture that denies free speech and has a predisposition that individuals should conform to what the state determines, rather than enabling informed free choice. It is desperately sad to see them being pushed through by a Conservative Administration. I say to my colleagues on the Back Benches: when will we wake up and realise that we need a Government who support free enterprise and individual responsibility, and who understand that the way to create growth in the economy is through enabling people to make free choices, rather than expecting the state to be the answer to every problem? With that question, I will wait to listen to what the Minister has to say.

Detention of Vulnerable Persons

Debate between Richard Fuller and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am delighted to have the opportunity, presented by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) at this important time, to review progress on the detention of vulnerable persons and to welcome the Minister. He is in the middle of a process, which is probably the most difficult period in which to be questioned, but I know that he is made of stern stuff. As others have done, I would like to thank some groups in particular—Medical Justice, Women for Refugee Women and Liberty—which have been constant companions on the journey for reform.

We have heard a number of reasoned and thoughtful voices in this debate. I shall be neither of those things. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from voting against the Immigration Bill and every part of it that dealt with the detention of women, or indeed detention, in due regard for the efforts of the Government to recognise that a well-entrenched policy in the Home Office was in need of root and branch reform. The then Immigration Minister presented it skilfully, I am sure with the support of the then Home Secretary, who is now our Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned, the Prime Minister has shown a sensitive interest in trafficking issues, many of which overlap with the issues that we are debating.

Here we are again. We have heard from members of the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party, Labour and the Conservatives, in a cross-party consensus, arguing for the replacement of the default of detention with a case management system for those in this country with no right to remain, for the important reason, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, that it is the most cost-effective and most just method of doing things.

The Shaw report, produced in January 2016, contains 64 recommendations. How many of those have been accepted, and how many have been implemented? I would like to ask the Minister how many victims of torture, rape and war crimes are currently in detention, but as we know, it is difficult for him to answer, because how do we differentiate a claim from a proven fact? He can get around that, but the man or woman in detention cannot, because the system in immigration detention is that if they cannot prove that they were a victim of rape, torture or war crimes, the claim has to be denied. That has led systematically to the detention of men and women who are vulnerable because of their physical history and their treatment, in a country that likes to call itself civilised.

With Stephen Shaw, we got a light that we could shine on Governments, of whatever colour, to say that this is not acceptable in a modern society. There are better alternatives, and we—this Government—have the courage to implement change, so that we will never again have to ask such questions about the detention of victims of torture, rape or war crimes. I do not want to ask those questions any more.

The Government have made some progress. They have drafted a detention services order on segregation—the most significant part of detention—but the draft order was deficient in many respects. It said that someone could be segregated for being a refractory detainee, defining “refractory” as “stubborn, unmanageable or disobedient”. I know many MPs who are stubborn, unmanageable or disobedient, but I would not say that they should be segregated.

[Jim Shannon]

Are you one of them?

[Richard Fuller]

I could well be. So why is that in the draft DSO? Why is it not phrased more tightly? There is not enough protection in the draft DSO against detention of more than 14 days, which was itself deemed unacceptable, but which the draft DSO said might be possible and could be applied for. No—we will not have that. We shall not have that, if the Government really mean business. The Government have really got to get to grips with the fact that they have to provide mental health support—the personnel there making the judgments—before they segregate anyone because of their mental health status.

I do not have enough time to go into more controversial topics about which I am slightly more passionate than the ones that I have mentioned. I will just say that the care progression plans that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate are the way in which this Government can demonstrate progress. So, can my hon. Friend the Minister please give us an assurance that he remains committed to those plans and that they will be implemented by the end of the year?

Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Vehicles

Debate between Richard Fuller and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I was prompted to call this debate to discuss the safety of private hire and taxi drivers and their passengers as a result of recent events in my constituency—the death of a constituent who was a private hire driver and an assault on another driver. More broadly, I want to encourage the Minister to make it his priority to transform the perception, and too often the reality, that private hire and taxi drivers are given second-class status in our public transport system when it comes to their safety. I also wish to highlight to the Minister some of the impediments to the safety of passengers that have been highlighted to me by Am I Safe?, a developer of applications to help passengers to verify at the point of hire that a vehicle is legitimately licensed. Those impediments arise from the complex regulatory structures, differing rules, and inconsistent interpretation of access to information rights that arise from the various licensing authorities.

Private hire and taxi drivers are a vital part of our public transport system, and when it comes to their physical safety and the safety of their property, they deserve to be afforded the same protection as our bus drivers, airline staff and railway employees, but they are not. In many towns such as Bedford, if a person has been out for the evening with their friends, private hire vehicles and taxis are often the only answer to the question, “Who will take me home tonight?”, yet drivers routinely have to deal with people who can be abusive, and may be under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both. A journey may end with someone vomiting in the vehicle or running off without paying. Private hire and taxi drivers run those risks—not routinely, of course, but much more frequently than many of the public would appreciate.

Let me turn to recent incidents in Bedford. As Adam Thompson of the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper reported,

“Fayaz Alhaq…who runs AGS Cars in St Peter’s Street, Bedford, says his employees are ‘running a gauntlet’ every weekend and have a job ‘as dangerous as the police’. His words come after 61-year-old grandfather Mehar Dhariwal of…Kempston…died…having been assaulted the week before while working.”

Mr Thompson’s report went on:

“Only last month Bedfordshire on Sunday reported how 24/7 private hire driver Turbez Ahmed…was attacked…by a gang of eight who wouldn’t pay their fare up front.”

Efforts by Bedfordshire police to bring to justice the assailants in those two horrific and sad cases go on. I do not want to obscure those efforts by talking further about those instances, but although they are specific cases, sadly they are not isolated examples.

A freedom of information request to Bedfordshire police showed that there had been 93 assaults in the preceding 12 months on private hire and taxi drivers, including 35 cases of aggravated bodily harm and 30 common assaults. My local authority estimates that that amounts to 2% of drivers being assaulted each year. Very few jobs have such a high rate of unprovoked violence.

I have spoken with the National Private Hire Association, the Licensed Private Hire Car Association, and Private Hire News, and I am indebted to them for their engagement and assistance with my preparation for the debate. They all, without exception, talked openly and depressingly about the widespread nature of violence towards drivers, and said, even more worryingly, that the level of violence continues to increase.

The National Private Hire Association sent me news reports of attacks on drivers with knives; guns, fake and real; baseball bats; a hammer; a fire extinguisher; and even a wheelie bin. Drivers have been set on fire and run over by their own vehicles. I have not found any nationally collated statistics on assaults and murders of private hire and hackney carriage drivers. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether those statistics are collated. If not, that in itself indicates that the issue of safety is not receiving the attention that it should. The GMB union kept a record of attacks between April 2007 and February 2008; it listed that nine drivers were killed and 45 suffered serious physical assaults while doing their job. The Department for Transport conducted research on personal security issues in 2008 and found that, on average, three drivers a year are unlawfully killed—evidence from across the country that our private hire and taxi drivers are at risk. I would argue that we have not made sufficient progress in mitigating those risks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) raised the issue in a debate on 24 June 2009. That debate was interesting because of a number of points that he raised, but also because he noted the extent of the private hire and taxi sector. He said that

“we are talking about an industry that employs 340,000 people…The industry makes about 700 million taxi journeys a year, which means an average of roughly 11 journeys for each member of the population. About £3 billion is spent on fares each year. We are therefore talking about a sizeable industry that plays a major role in our public transportation.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 912.]

The Minister responding that day, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), was alert to the issue of driver safety and made some useful suggestions, but underlying that debate and much of the industry commentary is a sort of shrug-of-the-shoulders view that the issue is just too tough to tackle, and in some sense that it is the cost of doing business. What strikes me is not the fair and sometimes compelling explanations of the complexities of implementing changes that will tackle these widespread instances of assault, but that given these horrific attacks at such high incidence rates for so many years in a single sector of the economy, we have allowed the complexities to thwart our action for so long.

In the search for remedies, I turn first to the perception of the industry. Department for Transport research in 2008 found that

“a strong belief held by many drivers, controllers and others representing the trade is that the root cause of many of the problems is a lack of respect from the public for taxi and private hire drivers.”

That lack of respect can make the transition to abuse or to violence a much easier step to take. It is a sad fact also that this lack of respect too often descends into racial abuse.

I understand that a similar issue confronted the door security sector—I am not sure whether we can call them bouncers these days. The violence against bouncers was seen as part of that job, but a focused effort on changing that perception, together with other initiatives, has had a positive impact, reducing the incidence of attacks on door security staff at our pubs and clubs. What, in practical terms, has the Department for Transport done since 2008 to tackle the public perception of the industry, and what steps would the Minister consider undertaking? Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Transport Committee to assist in this effort.

Also in 2008 under the previous Government, the Sentencing Guidelines Council included taxi and private hire drivers in that category of workers where longer sentences would result from a crime. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of those changes in sentencing guidelines? Does the Minister believe that further action to strengthen the guidelines is warranted?

The national associations and the GMB raised with me the issue of the introduction of CCTV and/or driver shields. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on those, as I understand that there are differing opinions about the desirability of each of those options, but he will be aware of the initiatives by some local authorities to investigate or roll out CCTV solutions. They have been considered for Brighton, Braintree, Oxford, Manchester and other locations. He will be equally aware of the very high cost of some of these solutions. It is unfair to expect drivers to bear the full cost of the equipment, particularly if the market price continues to be hundreds of pounds.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There has recently been a change to legislation in Northern Ireland to increase safety for taxi drivers and passengers and to regulate the sector. That resulted from attacks on both parties. Does the hon. Gentleman think that where there is good practice somewhere in the United Kingdom—in this case, in Northern Ireland—that could be used as an example to produce better regulation for taxi drivers on the mainland?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which highlights the fact that so many authorities are responsible for licensing, and the complexity of various initiatives taking place. I understand that the Law Commission will examine certain aspects of regulation, but he makes an excellent point about the need for best practice to be applied across the country. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response and his thoughts on the balance between localism and trying to tackle a national concern.

My view is that it would be unfair to expect drivers to bear the cost of CCTV, particularly if the price of the equipment remains in the hundreds of pounds. I do not expect public money to be made available in these straitened times, but I do know that in 2006 Bedford borough council worked with Bedfordshire police to use some of the proceeds of crime moneys to implement CCTV in a pilot scheme at low or no cost to drivers. In Leicester, funds from the tackling knives action programme have been used. In other local authorities, advertising on cabs has been enabled to fund the cost of CCTV. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of the more widespread use of proceeds of crime moneys for this purpose.

I mentioned the lack of statistics on crime. I always think that if we do not track something, we will find it hard to make improvements. Therefore, will the Minister work with the Home Office to track more formally the statistics on criminal attacks on private hire drivers, including aggravated racial abuse? Will he also comment on whether he will seek opinions from the private hire and taxi trade as input to the Prime Minister’s alcohol strategy? Unfortunately, so many of these incidents of crime correlate with alcohol and drug misuse.