Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

Failure—[Interruption.] As usual, my hon. Friends have anticipated my answer: there, on the Labour Benches, is the picture of failure. We have had to write off £50 million from the failed Labour scheme to deliver broadband in South Yorkshire. If a Labour Government had been elected, they would be two years behind us in the roll-out of superfast broadband; they had a target of 2017 to get to 90%—we have already reached it.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What estimate he has made of the UK’s balance of trade in services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

1. What recent progress has been made on improving access to broadband in urban areas.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am very pleased to tell you, Mr Speaker, that the broadband roll-out is going extremely well, particularly in our cities. I am also particularly pleased at the success of our business voucher scheme, under which 50,000 businesses have benefited.

[Richard Graham]

I make no apology for returning to the thorny issue of the frustrations of e-poverty in the city of Gloucester. In 2013, BT promised to upgrade box No. 90. In 2014, it said it was sorry for the delay, but that it would still happen. In 2015, it changed its mind. In 2016, at a meeting with me earlier this week, it asked, “Could you send us the original emails saying we would ever upgrade this box?” At what stage is a commitment from BT a real commitment that will not result in constituents turning around to me and saying, “You lied”?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am obviously not BT’s spokesman, but I hope BT is listening to what my hon. Friend has to say. He is a fantastic constituency MP. While I am very proud of the success of our roll-out programme, it is incumbent on BT to get its act together in terms of customer service and delivering on its promises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T3. The long-serving Minister responsible for arts and broadband will share my disappointment that despite his welcome promise to ensure that no home in the country has broadband speeds of less than 2 megabits per second, there are apparently parts of my constituency in Gloucester that have still not reached that speed. I have raised one particular area and problem with BT since 2013. First BT promised to upgrade the cabinet, then it failed to do so, and now it says that it is commercially unviable. Will the Minister meet me and celebrate his long tenure by resolving this problem?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend at any point. I am pleased that at least 93% or 94% of his constituents have superfast broadband. Of course, it is more difficult because of state aid rules to subsidise broadband in cities, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and discuss the particular issues he faces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to reduce regulation on businesses.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am delighted to say that we are the first Government in modern history to reduce the overall burden of domestic regulation on business. Our one-in, two-out approach has cut the annual cost of regulation for businesses by £1.5 billion so far, and the red tape challenge has identified more than 3,000 regulations that we are planning to scrap or improve.

[Richard Graham]

One of the Government’s most encouraging steps has been to speed up payments by Government to suppliers that are small and medium-sized enterprises, but the Federation of Small Businesses and others estimate that the problem of late payment by businesses to businesses has increased significantly. Will my hon. Friend therefore work with business groups, such as the CBI, to encourage all their members to settle within 30 days, and will he consider establishing a kitemark for businesses that live up to that?

[Mr Vaizey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We really need much greater openness about the payment practices of businesses. Knowing who are good payers and bad payers is essential in deciding with whom to trade. We will therefore bring forward legislation to require large and listed companies to publish their payment practices and performance. We will also work with business groups to strengthen the prompt payment code.

Nuisance Calls

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Everybody has their favourite moment in terms of nuisance calls. Mine came one new year’s day in the late 1980s, when, as duty officer at the British high commission in Nairobi, I was woken at 3 am by a gentleman on a crackling line from the Indian ocean coast assuring me that he had a vital issue on which he needed my help—he wanted to know the result of the previous day’s Liverpool-Manchester United game, on which he had a small bet with a neighbour.

This debate is about an issue that concerns Members in all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), in an otherwise interesting speech containing two ideas on which I share her views, had a brief go at trying to make it a party political debate, but it is not that. Nor is it only a Scottish matter, as was somewhat suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) being swiftly followed by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir); it happens in all parts of the country. I want to highlight a couple of specific issues and then outline three or four recommendations, at least one of which has already been mentioned, for the Minister to mull over during this important debate.

In November, one of my constituents, Mrs Jill Smith, wrote to me saying,

“As you know we changed our number in the summer & have listed 9 such calls since the 16th Sep. on our new number. It never stops & is worse for the elderly at home all the time.”

Sadly, as all hon. Members will know, the issues that Jill Smith raised with me after she changed her telephone number and registered with the Telephone Preference Service by no means represent an isolated case. If we quantify her problem around the country, we see that it has increased enormously. Statistics revealed by a written question to the Minister at the end of last year show that the number of calls where a recorded voice was heard increased from 1,640 in 2009 to 59,447 in 2013-14, and that the number of calls where a consumer spoke to a person increased from 1,735 to 40,231. The increases in both cases were very similar and there was an enormous, gigantic increase—a big leap forward—in the leap year of 2012-13.

The situation has got worse and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, whom I congratulate on securing the debate, has highlighted that regulators receive about 6,000 complaints a month. BT estimates that it receives about 50,000 calls a month to its nuisance calls bureau, including, no doubt, a large number of nuisance-like calls complaining about significant nuisance calls, so the number of nuisance calls and nuisance calls about nuisance calls becomes an increasingly circular frustration and irritation for all involved. We all agree that the worst affected are the elderly and the vulnerable. When it comes to dealing with nuisance calls, the Ofcom online guide will not necessarily help many of those worst affected, because they are not online.

During the course of my research for this debate, I discovered—I am sure many other Members found this, too—that regulatory responsibilities are split between several agencies: Ofcom is responsible for taking action on abandoned and silent calls and for maintaining the TPS; the Information Commissioner’s Office takes action against companies that breach the TPS and follows up on consumer complaints; the claims management regulator has a responsibility, because the vast majority of calls are from claims management companies; the Office of Fair Trading regulates debt management companies; the National Fraud Authority and/or the police are responsible for taking action on scams and fraudulent activities; and PhoneplayPlus is responsible for premium rate numbers.

One cannot help reaching the tentative conclusion that six different bodies—seven, if one includes the TPS—is too many. It is time for the Government to consider who is ultimately responsible for tackling the problem, which is a problem of practical politics rather than party politics. It relates to implementation and reducing the number of people who have some responsibility to a much smaller number with complete responsibility. That is my first point, having looked into the business of nuisance calls.

My second point relates to the TPS, which, in concept, is a brilliant idea. There are 19.5 million numbers registered with the TPS and it is free. It has to be a good thing, but the question is whether it is still fit for purpose. The June edition of Which? said that the TPS is failing to cut off nuisance calls—we all know that that is true: Jill Smith’s letter makes that clear—which leaves 57% of those registered with the service unhappy. The head of the TPS, John Mitchison, told The Guardian last year:

“It has eradicated lots of unwelcome calls…But the rules are complex, have loopholes, are split between agencies, tend to lag technology advances, and have been low priority.”

Numbers registered with the TPS have to wait 28 days before a breach counts, which raises a practical question: could not the TPS be updated in real time? On market research, perhaps it does not behove a politician to suggest that it should be banned—legitimate opinion pollsters have a role to play—but there is an issue.

An ICO review of the TPS was due this spring, but Ofcom has said that it will now be released this summer. The definition of summer sometimes stretches out during the course of a year, so the Minister will no doubt want to comment on when he expects the review to be delivered. It is important and I think it will lead to other opportunities, which I will touch on in a moment.

Another point is about possible conflicts of interest. BT, which is keen to block persistent offenders, is concerned about being in breach of the universal service agreement. That area could perhaps be tightened up.

I turn now to the whole business of trying to make recommendations about how things could be improved. First, we can all agree that there are too many nuisance calls and that the number ought to be reduced. We know that our constituents want them to be eliminated or reduced as much as possible.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to the fact that some telephone companies charge for services that ban numbers from ringing us, particularly at home, which is disconcerting. I am encouraged, however, by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned a change in policy by TalkTalk, which suggests that it may lead the way to other telephone companies recognising that such services should be provided to consumers free of charge.

Secondly, on rationalisation of the regulators, there are too many bodies with different responsibilities, and there is a need to simplify and clarify the system. Thirdly, there is a particular opportunity to look at whether the TPS should be a separate organisation or effectively merged with the ICO. Fourthly, as a couple of speakers have mentioned, the ICO currently has the ability to fine offenders, but the reality is that one was fined in 2012 and three in 2013. I think that we all therefore want the threshold to be lowered. Whether the change is a legal or a practical one, nuisance callers should be fined on the basis of anxiety and stress as defined by the consumer. That gives the Minister four opportunities on which to respond.

I conclude by returning to Mrs Jill Smith. The Minister kindly replied to my letter, stating that

“we believe in greater enforcement and robust action rather than sweeping changes to the regulatory framework”.

In an answer to a written question, he promised an action plan early in the new year. Today, we are indeed early-ish in the new year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Time for action.

[Richard Graham]

It is indeed time for action. I very much look forward to hearing more from the Minister about a robust action plan—I know that he cares and that he wants to solve this problem—so that Mrs Jill Smith and many others like her can look forward to a new year free from nuisance calls.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on securing. It is worth noting the contributions of three hon. Members who are not present. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh West mentioned, is co-chairing the all-party group on nuisance calls. When the date of this Back-Bench debate was changed, it meant he could not be here, but he has put a huge amount of work into the issue and would have liked to be present. For good reasons, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) cannot be here for the debate’s conclusion, but she made a powerful speech as Opposition spokesman.

The presence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who was in his place earlier, was significant, because it showed that one of those rare, almost unheard of events had taken place—joined-up government. When the new Minister was appointed over Christmas, I reached out, made a nuisance call to him out of the blue and told him that I would be very pleased if he would engage with me on this issue. He certainly has engaged with me, and I look forward to working with him more, as he gets his feet under the desk. Joined-up government between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is highly important. As many hon. Members have pointed out, this is a complex regulatory landscape, involving two regulators—Ofcom, for which my Department is responsible, and the Information Commissioner’s Office, for which my right hon. Friend’s Department is responsible. It is important for our two Departments to work together.

We have heard a number of valuable contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West who opened the debate. Other contributors were the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland who is the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and, last but by no means least, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who contacted me about this issue many months ago. She requested a meeting and has maintained her interest and her campaigning work on the issue.

To put an end to any speculation from the outset—I know that hon. Members are on tenterhooks—let me say that the strategy document is ready to go. It was originally due to be published on 31 October. I discovered that if a Minister tells officials that a document will be published on a certain date, the work starts to crank up exponentially. I congratulate my officials on their excellent work over the period to hit that deadline. We were ready to publish then, but we decided to wait for the all-party group on nuisance calls to conduct its report because a lot of hard work had gone into it. We said that we would also wait for the Select Committee report, which came out at the beginning of December. Once those two reports had been published, we incorporated their findings in our strategy document, which then began its meander around Whitehall for clearance. One thing that we inherited from new Labour is the grid—the grid that sits in Downing street: the holy grid—and we are waiting for a slot in that grid, which, I assure Members, is harder than finding a slot at Heathrow. However, the document is ready to go, and I shall now reveal to Members what, broadly speaking, is in it.

We all agree that nuisance calls are a menace. I was extremely grateful to some Members for saying that they sympathised with my position and recognised that I was working hard in trying to make an impact on the problem. They did not need to say that, and it was very kind of them to do so. I was also grateful to the Members who pointed out that the direct marketing industry is valuable to the UK economy. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater—we must recognise that a legitimate industry is doing a legitimate job—but make no mistake: as is clear to all Members who have done so much work on the issue, nuisance calls are a scourge that needs to be tackled.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland observed that the number of such calls seemed to have increased significantly. That is partly because it has become easier to report them, but I suspect that it is also due to the increase in the number of calls relating to payment protection insurance, which has, in a sense, been a unique phenomenon, in that it has provided an opportunity for—perhaps—the more careless members of the industry to seek ways of making an income.

There are three categories of nuisance call. Both live, unsolicited marketing calls, when someone—a real person—rings up out of the blue, and automatic pre-recorded calls are covered by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, and fall within the scope of the Information Commissioner. Silent and abandoned calls—automatic calling machines repeatedly make the calls, but when one picks up the receiver no one is there—are covered by Ofcom, which can tackle them by means of its powers to oppose the persistent misuse of networks under the Communications Act 2003. We have increased the maximum fine that Ofcom can impose for silent and abandoned calls from £50,000 to £2 million, and have given the Information Commissioner’s Office the opportunity to impose a fine of up to £500,000 for unsolicited calls and texts. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned my letter to him, in which I referred to the need for enforcement. The powers are there to make an impact, and since January 2012, Ofcom and the ICO have issued fines amounting to £2. 5 million.

We have also sought to give Ofcom and the ICO a closer working relationship. I now regularly chair a round table that brings them together, along with representatives of telecoms companies and interested Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West.

What more can we do? As a number of Members have pointed out, the legal threshold that the ICO must meet before it can issue a penalty is too high. It requires the ICO to demonstrate that a breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations would result in “substantial damage” or “substantial distress”. The ICO has argued that the threshold should be lowered, and has suggested a test involving

“nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”.

I agree with the ICO that a lower threshold would generate more effective enforcement, and we are keen to legislate this year. That will be in the strategy document. There will have to be consultation on it, because it will require legislation.

[Richard Graham]

Is it on the grid?

[Mr Vaizey]

I do not know whether it is on the grid, but the announcement is governed by Downing street, and the legislation is governed by the Leader of the House.

In order to improve the working relationship between Ofcom and the ICO we also want to make it possible for Ofcom to share the data it has with the ICO, which is not possible at the moment. We will introduce a statutory instrument. That order will be brought into force by the beginning of April. We will look at consent. That will be in the strategy document as well. Members have rightly pointed out that there is frustration with the Telephone Preference Service but again the frustration partly arises from the fact that consumers may not realise they are giving consent and therefore effectively allowing the marketer to override the TPS.

The PECR states that a marketing call cannot be made to a consumer who has registered with the TPS unless consent has been given. The ICO has updated its guidance on this issue, but I accept there is scope for greater clarity to help consumers make informed decisions. We are considering the scope for action in this area and once we have published the strategy document we will launch a hands-on consultation working with consumer groups, particularly Which?, which has been excellent in the area of nuisance calls, and with our regulators to look at a practical way forward. Incredibly complicated regulations could inadvertently be brought in were we to introduce detailed regulations about when informed consent is given. If we are to change the regulations, it is important that we get them absolutely right and that they are clear and not confusing.

Many Members have made the point that there is no silver bullet and I thought the Select Committee report was excellent on that. For example it is easy to say we should just merge the regulators, but when we look into the issues, we see the situation is much more complicated than that and we are much more likely to make more rapid progress by simply making the regulators work together.

In a complex and fast-moving environment, it is also important that we look at what measures we can take without legislation. With developments in telecoms technology, it is now easier and cheaper than ever before to make calls. That is good news for consumers, but rogue companies can also utilise the same technology to circumvent regulation and bombard us with unsolicited calls and texts. We therefore need to look at not just legal measures, but industry collaboration, technical standards, and support from telecoms providers.

We also want improved information and guidance for consumers, to enable them to register complaints on regulators’ websites more easily and also access information about steps they can take to deal with nuisance calls. This information is available, and the guides have been viewed more than a quarter of a million—or perhaps I should say 250,000, as I think that is the new parliamentary expression pioneered by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday—times and are clearly proving to be a valuable tool. Additionally, as a result of our engagement with the consumer organisation Which? it has now developed a user-friendly page on its website whereby consumers are automatically directed to the right place to access information as well as to make complaints. In addition to issuing fines, the ICO “names and shames” persistent offenders on its website so that consumers are better informed about those who break the law.

I mentioned earlier the upswing in the number of nuisance calls. I think that has been generated by the payment protection insurance sector. There is an alphabet soup of regulators with a role in this area, and that sector is regulated by the claims management regulation unit. Through our engagement with it, it has put more resources into tackling the problem of unsolicited calls and text messages to ensure that it can move more quickly to investigate and take enforcement action. It is working actively with the ICO, Ofcom and other relevant bodies to detect and punish those involved. I welcome the action it has taken and continues to take against claims management companies that fail to comply with the rules. From June of last year it started to publish the names of companies under investigation or subject to recent enforcement action. Between July and September 2013, it conducted 41 audits, issued 25 warnings, commenced 11 investigations, cancelled 109 licences and visited 407 claims management companies.

When introducing measures it is important that Government start to think about what impact they might have on nuisance calls. For example, the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases appears to have had the knock-on effect of reducing the volume of marketing calls to potential clients, because claims management companies can no longer receive a fee for referring client details. The claims management regulation unit is actively policing the ban on referral fees, in addition to the ban on claims management companies offering financial rewards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T2. I recently raised with the Minister the case of a constituent in Gloucester who has been plagued by nuisance calls even after she had changed her telephone number and registered with the telephone preference service. Sadly, as all hon. Members will know, that is not an isolated case. I was grateful for his reply, in which he said that what we need is more enforcement, not more law. Will he outline what specific action he intends to take to make that happen?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We intend to publish our action plan early in the new year. As well as looking at the issue of the threshold, it is important that we bring the two regulators closer together. It is also important to note that Ofcom is undertaking a review of the telephone preference service to check what changes can be made to make it more effective.

Gloucestershire Libraries

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important debate and the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I understand the concerns that are being raised, and will no doubt continue to be raised, in several quarters.

My hon. Friend made some effective points about the importance of libraries and prayed in aid the children’s laureate, Julia Donaldson. He and I have something in common in that we are both regular readers of Ms Donaldson’s wonderful literature. I think that all Members of this House agree with the sentiments that she has expressed about the importance of libraries, reading and literature. I respectfully disagree, however, with Ms Donaldson’s analysis of the state of the public library service in England, for which I am responsible. It is worth making it clear that I am not responsible for superintending the library service in Scotland or, indeed, in Wales or Northern Ireland. Those powers have rightly been devolved.

Libraries remain a statutory service, and it is worth putting on record that this Government have no intention of changing that. That is a very important safeguard for the future of libraries in England. It is worth pointing out, when one considers the history of public library provision in this country, that libraries have always been supported and paid for either by councils or by philanthropic endeavour. In fact, the growth of the public library service in this country initially started with the grant so generously provided by Andrew Carnegie, and continued with Parliament’s enabling of councils to raise rates in order to pay for the service. Nobody should be in any doubt about the importance of the public library service in promoting literature and education, because in the 19th century many councils opposed building public libraries in case there was too much education in their area. Public libraries are, therefore, a local authority service, and it is important for central Government to recognise that and to be cautious about when they intervene.

The thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks was that he wants a public inquiry into Gloucestershire county council’s decision. He is right to say that we are still looking at and gathering evidence about the changes being made by the council, so it is worth putting on record that it would be wrong for me to comment on the particular changes that are being made until the Department reaches a decision, but I will enlighten my hon. Friend on how it goes about making those kinds of decisions.

[Richard Graham]

The critical point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was the scare that libraries in the county will be closed, but my clear understanding from the county council—this is certainly true in my constituency and, I believe, in that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael)—is that no libraries will be closed. There is a danger—I do not know whether the Minister has spotted this—that this is an artful and early kick-off to a Lib Dem county council election campaign, with scares about libraries being closed when the reality is that none will be closed. What would the Minister say to that?

[Mr Vaizey]

As I have said, libraries are a local service, and county council elections are local elections. I hear what my hon. Friend has said, as have the electors of Gloucester no doubt. I look forward to observing—perhaps from a distance—the vigorous election campaign that will be conducted in Gloucestershire in the weeks and months to come.

[Martin Horwood]

I want to put on record my absolute rejection that this is in some way the launch of a Lib Dem election campaign. I wish we could recruit 13,000 petitioners and the High Court to our cause, but I do not think that that is credible. However, if the electors of Gloucestershire wish to try a different approach, they will know which way to vote in May 2013.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

If my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) will forgive me, I will not give way. The election campaign seems to be beginning in the middle of this debate; I want to get back to the issues at stake.

Let me be clear: it is genuinely the case that the position in Gloucestershire has been uncertain for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham pointed out, Gloucestershire county council made its final decision in April 2012, but that was then called in for scrutiny by the Liberal Democrat opposition and, after that scrutiny was rejected, there was further consultation. As I understand it, the final decision about the shape of Gloucestershire county council’s library service was made only this month—September 2012—so I respectfully suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be difficult for the Government to call a public inquiry when the position of the public library service is changing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham rightly said that these are serious powers not to be used lightly. When one reads debates about the future of library services and calls for inquiries, one assumes that an inquiry is called every minute. In fact, the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 has been on the statute book for almost half a century, and in that time only one inquiry has ever been called, and that was the inquiry to which he referred—the Wirral inquiry. I hope that he will understand, therefore, that one cannot simply call an inquiry will-nilly.

Since being honoured to take up this position in the coalition Government, I have always taken the independent advice of my officials about whether there is a prima facie case that a particular council has breached the requirements to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. I will take their advice on Gloucestershire in the fullness of time, now that its provisions have become clearer.

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Without wishing to comment on the specific issues in Gloucestershire, it is worth pointing out that there are great examples of innovation in the public library service up and down the country.

It is my job to tell the good news about public libraries in this country, because the press are interested only in publishing the bad news. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) pointed out, Painswick, which was closed under the previous Government—I do not remember calls for an inquiry then—has reopened as a volunteer library. So there are many positives.

In fact, at a time of economic difficulty, when, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham pointed out, people have to look at their budgets—whichever party was in power, there would have been cuts to public expenditure—the public library service is funded by local authorities to the tune of £900 million a year, and more than 3,300 libraries are still open and serving the public across the country. When the news is all about whether a library is closing, the libraries that are opening or being refurbished are rarely reported. The Society of Chief Librarians estimated that, at the end of last year, 40 new or significantly refurbished libraries would open in 2012, and that has already been achieved. Libraries are opening as well as closing.

[Richard Graham]

For the Minister’s benefit, may I put it on record that, as far as I know, not a single library in Gloucestershire will close? Given that this debate is about Gloucestershire libraries, we should have clarity on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has been unable to name a single library that will close. It was simply a scare that some might close. I have been told by the county council that that is not the case.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Not only are libraries purported to be closing not actually closing across the country, but new libraries are opening, including, for example, the Hive in Worcester, which is the first ever joint public and academic library in the country—as well as the renovation of the Passmore Edwards centre in Newton Abbot. In 2013, the city of Birmingham will open Europe’s largest public library, costing more than £100 million, and the refurbishment of the Liverpool central library will be completed. Three quarters of children in England and 40% of adults still regularly use our public libraries.

We are doing all we can to support libraries. The first speech I made as a Minister was about libraries and the first action I took was to write to every local authority to remind them of their statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service; to point them to the Charteris review, which was the inquiry conducted by Sue Charteris into the Wirral closures; to guide them on how they should approach any review of libraries; and to make it clear that every council thinking of reorganising its library service should do so only after a thorough review.

We handed responsibility for libraries to Arts Council England—a bigger organisation than the Museum, Libraries and Archive Council that was previously responsible. We have united under one roof the provision of culture and of libraries, to provide a more joined-up and effective service. At the end of the month, the Arts Council’s new grants for the arts fund will open for applications—£6 million for libraries to work with artists and cultural organisations on arts and cultural activities. In June 2012 the Government announced a series of pilots to test automatic library memberships for schoolchildren.

[Martin Horwood]

Perhaps I can emulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and try to draw the Minister back to Gloucestershire. The hon. Member for Gloucester made the confident assertion that no libraries in Gloucestershire will close, yet Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries lists seven that are still at risk of closure, at least as public libraries, if not completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear my hon. Friend; sometimes the headlines belie what is happening on the ground.

[Richard Graham]

I suggest that the easy way to resolve this issue is for the Minister to come and see what is happening in Gloucestershire. He could admire the renovation of the central library in Brunswick road in Gloucester, which has been magnificently restored and improved by the county council. He could see what has happened in Painswick where the library has reopened, and the community library in Brockworth mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). He could see the efforts being made in Hesters Way, and review the situation for himself. He would be welcome in Gloucestershire to see our magnificent libraries.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am running out of time.

In conclusion, my Department reviews all proposals for library reorganisation put forward by councils. We will review Gloucestershire’s proposals and issue a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry in the fullness of time once those proposals are clear. A £6 million fund has been provided by the Arts Council, which is now responsible for superintending and promoting the library service. Yesterday, the Cabinet Office announced an initiative to promote volunteering by young people in libraries, and we are piloting automatic membership of libraries for schoolchildren. We are publishing data by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publicly so that members of the public, MPs and councillors can compare their library services with similar services across the country. To echo some the remarks made by my hon. Friends, I make no apology for the increase in volunteers in libraries. They make an enormous difference to the provision of library services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

Part of the problem with e-books is that most publishers do not want e-books lent in libraries. I have had discussions with publishers on that on at least two occasions, and would happily discuss it jointly with publishers and the hon. Gentleman so he can hear their views first hand.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

15. What recent discussions he has had on nominating a new sport for the next Olympics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Graham and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Lady has to say, and I have no doubt that she fights hard for her constituents. I hope that she will therefore support not only the Leeds city region LEP but the regional growth fund, which exists to promote private sector growth, as well as a whole host of other measures such as the reduction in corporation tax, the national insurance holiday and the sustained investment in transport infrastructure, all of which will also help to create jobs.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

19. What his Department’s policy is on the future of the post office network.