Economy and Jobs

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is an honour for me to conclude this debate on the Gracious Speech, Mr Speaker, and a great pleasure to see you in the Chair.

At the start of a new Parliament, we have particularly enjoyed hearing the maiden speeches of many new Members. Today we have heard from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). We have also heard again from my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). All of them have shown their passion and their commitment to their constituents.

Hon. Friends will be friends for life. I encourage them—and, indeed, all hon. Members—to be civil and respectful of each other across the Chamber, recognising that each of us was democratically elected to this place; but to respect the mandate that was given to this Conservative Government by the electorate last month, on which we set out the first part of honouring our manifesto commitments in the Queen’s Speech.

After a decade of recovery, we have a decade of renewal ahead of us, and the road map for a renaissance of our great country as we leave the EU next week and can take advantage of the opportunities to truly unleash Britain’s potential. The last decade has been challenging as we have had to recover from Labour’s record peacetime deficit. The famous note—“I’m afraid there’s no money”—reflected the economic crisis. Labour had splashed the cash, and took their eye off the horizon without being prudent about the unforeseen storms, particularly the global economic crash. We ended up with unemployment and income inequality both higher after they left office than when they had entered it.

We made some tough calls on spending, but we steadied the ship, and thanks to the resilience of the great British people, we have seen both economic growth and a record number of people working: 3.7 million more than in 2010, including record numbers of women and people with disabilities who are being supported so that they can fulfil their full potential. That record of success has not come about by chance. We have had a proactive, pro-business Government who have reduced taxes for employers and allowed businesses and employees to keep more of what they earn, which actually leads to increased tax revenues to support our public services. We have lifted more than 4 million people out of income tax altogether, and have increased the national living wage so that everyone gets a share in the country’s economic growth. We have also seen over a million new businesses start up, as people have the confidence and support to go out on their own and start to create new jobs. Behind the numbers are the inspirational stories of lives transformed by work: stories of hope, pride, determination and horizons opening up to new skills and better prospects.

Work is not just a wage. We will continue to help those who can work to work, not because we want them to get off our books but because a working life offers so much more purpose and potential than a life on benefits. I pay tribute to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), because this is shown by the numbers of disabled people entering work. In the last six years, 1.3 million have joined the labour market. No longer are they written off; they are contributing their considerable talents to the workplace and holding a stake in society. As a Government, we will not stop there. The new national strategy for disabled people will draw together how we operate to optimise the experience and participation of disabled people in society, better co-ordinating policy across Whitehall to meet their needs.

After challenging times for families in the country, we now have wages increasing ahead of inflation consistently. That has also helped pensioners, who will see a 3.9% increase in their state pension this April, and income inequality has yet again reduced under the Conservatives. Compared with 2010, there are 1 million fewer workless households, and 730,000 fewer children in such households. That is a record low number of children in workless households.

One of the Government’s fundamental principles is to help people get on in life, and my Department has a key role to play in that. The transformation in that approach is underpinned by the key principles of universal credit: people will be better off in work than not in work, unless they cannot work. We are removing the dystopian disincentives for people who wanted to work and earn more but were penalised under the legacy benefit system. This is a Government who do not just think that getting a job is job done. Work coaches across the country are helping people to get a job and to get on in that job. Helping people to progress in work is the future of employment and skills support. We will deliver this new approach through more support for childcare, creating a £3 billion national skills fund and repatriating the EU funds to create a UK shared prosperity fund. We will work as one Government with one vision to ensure that wherever you live and whatever your background, you can achieve your dreams and ambitions through work.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

In this utopian vision that the Minister is presenting, I wonder what message she is delivering to the 3.8 million 1950s women who have been denied their pension. Where is the vision for the women who have been told that they will have to wait an additional six years?

[Dr Coffey]

As right hon. Gentleman knows, the original change in the legislation was done in 1995, and he will also know this is still under legal processes, so I cannot comment further.

However, I was just about to come on to people in later age. We will continue to support people in retirement and help them to prepare for retirement. Automatic enrolment has been a huge success, with 10 million employees joining workplace pension schemes since 2012, but we will go further to offer choice and protection through the Pension Schemes Bill in this Queen’s Speech. It will introduce three main measures: to help people to be better informed through their individual pension dashboard, which will allow them a better understanding of their path to a comfortable retirement and of how they can boost their savings; to create a new type of pension scheme that is sustainable for employers and employees; and to extend jail sentences for reckless bosses who plunder pension pots.

We want to ensure that people’s prosperity grows in a way that increases opportunity right across the country. That is at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has put on the agenda to level up the whole of the UK economy and unleash our potential as a nation. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out, we have ahead of us a decade of renewal through targeted investment in infrastructure, in skills and education and in our public services. That starts with the Queen’s Speech, with its 25 new Bills.

I really do not understand how anyone could disagree with any of the legislation going through. The employment (allocation of tips) Bill shows that we are the party of the worker, promoting fairness in the workplace and providing flexibility and security in jobs. The environment Bill will do much to ensure that we achieve net zero by 2050 and also support our natural environment and air quality. The NHS long-term plan funding Bill will legislate for the largest cash settlement in NHS history. The sentencing Bill and the serious violence Bill will make our streets safer and punish the most serious violent and sexual offenders. As the House knows, we will also continue to increase the living wage. This bold new agenda will show our constituents that this Government will deliver and stick to its promises.

I am conscious of the other matters that people have raised today. On zero-hours contracts, we are going further with the employment Bill, as I just outlined, but the coalition Government recognised the potential for such contracts to be used to exploit workers, which is why we banned the use of exclusivity clauses in 2015. I am also conscious of people using support networks, such as food banks, and that is why we are committed to helping people find work through a wide range of support targeted to each individual’s circumstances, which is why the help to claim support is there. The Government have lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010, and I reiterate again that income inequality has fallen.

Under this Government, people know that we are working on their priorities. We will rise to the challenge of reuniting and rejuvenating the country. As we enter a new decade and a new political era, the Prime Minister has shown a Britain renewed by our resolve to optimise its strengths at home and abroad. Whether people live in cities or towns, in the countryside or on the coast, this one nation Conservative Government are on their side. After the recovery of the economy and employment, we will continue to renew public services and our infrastructure, so that we can bring about a great renaissance in our country. That is why we do the work we do. The Conservative party is leading the charge, which is why I call upon the House to reject the amendments and commend this Queen’s Speech to everyone.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I would like to thank the Members who have made valuable contributions to this important debate. As has been explained, one of the key purposes of the Bill is to ensure that there is a deterrent to animal cruelty by extending the maximum sentence possible. The many examples that have been given, particularly by the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will reverberate among those for whom the welfare of animals is close to their heart. I am on to my fourth rescue dog, and it is noticeable that when a dog’s history is not known, they often flinch when they see people of a certain character, which perhaps reflects the horrendous experience they have been through. They often require a lot of extra training and support to recover from that.

I genuinely hope that this legislation, which has good support, will make quick progress under the stewardship of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). I should point out that the Bill is just one element of the action that the Government intend to take to improve animal welfare. There have been a number of pieces of legislation, and I hope they will soon be joined by this Bill and the Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill, which is progressing well through the other place.

I now turn to the points made by individual Members. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) mentioned feral cats. It is important to state that the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which this Bill is modifying, covers protected animals. In its legal definition, a protected animal is a vertebrate animal of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Isles. This Bill ensures that stray dogs and feral cats will be covered.

Several Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), have referred to the issues of horse tethering. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 and these new maximum penalties will absolutely apply to horse tethering where that leads to unnecessary suffering. Horse tethering is fully covered in the equine welfare code made under the 2006 Act, which gives clear guidance on appropriate tethering. Anyone not tethering in line with the statutory code risks prosecution under the Act. My hon. Friend the Minister recently hosted a roundtable with local authorities and welfare bodies, and he agreed to share best practice on enforcement on this very specific issue.

The hon. Members for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) both mentioned wildlife, as did the hon. Member for Bristol West. The House will be aware that this Bill is specifically about amending the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Other legislation does apply to wildlife, with different levels of penalties that can be imposed, including unlimited fines. However, I am conscious, as they are, that the commitment was specifically made to amend this Act. Who knows whether there will be opportunities for further legislation in a new Session of Parliament, if—dare I say it?—we are ever allowed to prorogue so that we can move on to the next Queen’s Speech. That is a matter for debate on another day.

It is important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said, that we consider Finn’s law part two, or the sequel, but this Bill does actually provide good strengthening. He referred to other parts of the United Kingdom, but it is important to say that this is a devolved matter and the Government take that seriously. I want to commend him and others for their national campaign and what they have been doing to take the case to other parts of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said, Northern Ireland is already at that stage, and we will be joining it.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Lord Chancellor’s proposals about custodial sentences. My right hon. Friend is considering the issues relating to more minor, short-term custodial sentences. He is on record as saying that there is a very strong case to abolish sentences of six months or less altogether, with some closely defined exceptions, but any such proposals do not affect this Bill, which is about increasing the maximum available penalty for animal cruelty to five years. It may apply to the more minor offences under the Animal Welfare Act, but those offences, such as in section 9, do not generally attract a custodial sentence now, and an unlimited fine will continue to apply.

We also have the issue of the sentencing guidelines. The Government have already been in contact with the independent Sentencing Council about the change to the maximum penalty, which we hope Parliament will introduce shortly. There is already an existing sentencing guideline in relation to animal cruelty offences under the Act. It was reviewed and updated by the Sentencing Council as recently as 2017. However, I am pleased to say that the council has confirmed that, once the Bill is passed, it will consider the need to revise the guidelines and any revision would involve a public consultation.

[Angela Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for the clarification she has given, but let me be clear that, in my speech, I was absolutely defending the need for this Bill in the context of the potential change in the law in relation to six-month sentences, which I think strengthens the need for this legislation. That is all I will say.

[Dr Coffey]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s point, which is why I am sure the House welcomes what she has said and also the progress on the Bill.

The hon. Member for Redcar referred to filming and to making this an aggravating factor. I think this is a very useful point, and we will certainly raise it with the independent Sentencing Council. As I have said, it has already indicated that it will consider and revise the guidelines once this Bill has become legislation.

One of the things my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West mentioned was enforcement. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is for local authorities, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and indeed the police, which all have powers of entry, to inspect complaints of suspected animal cruelty and take out prosecutions, where necessary. It is for local authorities to make decisions about what they consider to be local priorities, rather than for the Government to decide. However, it is important that local authorities have the opportunity, as they do now, to continue to work in close partnership with others. We know that the RSPCA does investigate allegations of cruelty. It has successfully prosecuted between 800 and 1,000 people on average every year, and in doing that, it does a very valuable job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) mentioned the impact of animals being held in kennels. I think it is fair to say that we do not necessarily expect a large number of cases to come before the Crown court, where the issue about the length of time may arise. At present, we estimate that about 25 cases that would previously have been held in the magistrates courts may well now be held in the Crown court. However, we consider that only a very small number of animals may need to be held in kennels for an extended period.

We cannot say from the Dispatch Box today precisely what decisions will be made about which animals would need to be taken away from the owner while somebody is awaiting sentencing, and such an action would not necessarily follow. However, it is also important to state that the Animal Welfare Act has provisions that allow a court to disqualify anyone from having animals, if necessary for life, if they have been convicted of an offence.

The court can also issue orders under section 3(6)(b) of the Bail Act 1976 to prevent the commission of further offences while on bail. The courts can make the sale of existing animals, and indeed a prohibition on owning animals, a condition of a defendant’s bail. It is important to stress that courts already have the power not only to prevent people on trial for animal welfare offences from acquiring new animals, but to remove the animals they already have. I do not believe we need further legislation to bring that about.

On what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol West, this legislation does apply to farmed animals. It is about animals that are under the care and protection of humans. I am pleased that she recognises the things we have done on animal welfare.

[Kerry McCarthy]

rose—

[Dr Coffey]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady wants to intervene, but if she will allow me to say a few more things—

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way on a point of clarification?

[Dr Coffey]

I am going to try to answer the points the hon. Lady made, and I have said that I would then give way.

We have made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, as she has pointed out. As she is aware, we are considering carefully the export of live animals. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee has recently submitted its advice on the welfare of animals in transport, which includes advice on controlling live exports—not only to the Government, but to the devolved Administrations. We are considering that carefully, and we aim to publish it with a Government response in due course.

[Kerry McCarthy]

All I wanted to say was that the Minister has twice referred to me as the Member for Bristol West, and I am the Member for Bristol East. I would have thought she would know that by now, because we do tend to go head-to-head rather a lot.

[Dr Coffey]

I do apologise. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) was not here at the start of the debate, and I thought my hon. Friend the Minister had referred to her as the Member for Bristol West, but I do apologise.

On the other issues that have been raised, I was pleased to hear from the Members who made contributions today. A number of interventions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), as well as by the SNP spokesperson on these matters, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). It is important that we continue to make good progress in Committee, so that we can bring this Bill swiftly back to the House and it can make its way to the other place. With that, I commend this Bill. The Bill represents the fact that we are a nation of animal lovers, and it certainly reinforces that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 July 2019.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Freer.)

Question agreed to.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is my pleasure and privilege to respond to this debate, and I thank hon. and right hon. Members from all parties for their contributions. I am encouraged by the general consensus in the House that this Bill addresses an important question about the treatment of wild animals, and I am convinced it can make quick progress, which is clearly the desire of hon. Members present today.

Many animal welfare charities, veterinary groups and, of course, parliamentarians have been calling for this ban, and I recognise the huge public support for it, too. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), is particularly grateful to the RSPCA, the Born Free Foundation and the British Veterinary Association for their support on this matter.

Public attitudes have clearly changed over time, and we now recognise that wild animals no longer belong in travelling circuses. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) is not yet back in his place—perhaps he is not as quick as a zebra or a racing camel—but there were 10,572 responses to the consultation issued in 2009, and an additional 2,500 postcards. Approximately 95% of those who responded to the consultation suggested that the best way to improve welfare would be to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and the whole team has done a great job on this Bill. I apologise for being late, but I was at the World Wildlife Fund launch of “Our Planet”, which is another wonderful Attenborough film about biodiversity and protecting our wonderful cornucopia of wild species. It seems so timely that we are discussing this Bill in a week when the UN has published a big report on declining species. It is more important than ever that we make our mark by saying that we cannot have wild animals performing for us in circuses.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the state of biodiversity in the world. I was privileged to be at the G7 summit when we had a presentation from the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services on this issue, and I can assure her that the leading countries of the world are actively working together and have declared the Metz charter on biodiversity. She is right to stress the importance of wild animals being in their normal places, rather than providing unusual forms of entertainment, which is what the Bill seeks to address.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Can the Minister tell the House how we will define “wild animal”? That is central to this Bill and we need a clear definition of where we stand, as some countries have definitions that are different from what we may be considering.

[Dr Coffey]

I can answer my hon. Friend directly, because clause 1(5) states that

“‘wild animal’ means an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain.”

I hope that answers his point.

The Scottish Government’s 2014 consultation ahead of their ban showed similar figures in support, and last year’s consultation by the Welsh Government on a proposed ban found some 97% in favour. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said earlier, this is an outdated practice that no longer reflects the views of modern society, and I am pleased that we have started the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

My hon. Friend has already replied to some of the points raised in this debate, and he was generous in saying that some of the issues that have been raised can be considered in Committee, and it is important that they are.

On the European Union and the limits of legislation, there was a legal challenge to the ban introduced by Austria under the European services directive. I am confident the Government did not say a ban could not be introduced, but we had to wait for the outcome of that challenge to understand how we can properly legislate to do this. The legal challenge failed, which has given us confidence to bring this Bill forward.

It is also worth pointing out to the House that, although we have heard about a number of countries that have banned wild animals in circuses, many of the exemptions are a lot more generous than the Bill allows for. We have come up with an exemplary Bill that will be more comprehensive than the legislation in other countries.

Are birds included? If they meet the definition of “wild animal” in clause 1(5), they will be included.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and a number of other Members mentioned the Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is conscious of that. He is responsible for animal welfare—I tend to deal with wild animals—and we are both committed, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to making sure that we find the appropriate parliamentary vehicle to do so.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) asked about Northern Ireland, and the Administration have been consulted on this issue. As it stands, the Administration do not believe it is appropriate at this point to join in this Bill, recognising it is a significant policy decision and would need to be devolved.

I assure the House that we have been told by the owners of the two circuses that they will not be putting down any animals as a consequence of this Bill. Indeed, their retirement plans are already in place, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made clear.

A variety of questions have been asked about the potential definitions and about the amendments that might be tabled, such as on powers to seize an animal. Where any evidence is found of a wild animal being mistreated, the Animal Welfare Act will, of course, apply and provides powers to seize animals should there be grounds to do so. The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 also provides powers of seizure and, depending on the species of animal, may also be applicable. We have not provided powers to seize animals where it is demonstrated that an offence has been committed, but inspectors have powers to video or photograph an animal to provide evidence of such an offence.

Several Members mentioned the national wildlife crime unit, for which there is funding here, but I am sure the House understands that the Government will shortly be starting their spending review. I have no doubt that my Department will be pushing for the unit to continue being funded because we believe it has an important role in tackling wildlife crime. Indeed, the unit received additional funding from the Department to address new avenues of wildlife crime.

The Conservative party introduced the most important piece of legislation, on which we still heavily rely, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have had additional legislation specific to badgers and wild mammals in 1992 and 1996. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was another milestone in making sure that appropriate legislation was put in place.

On biodiversity, I am pleased about our position on international obligations; I genuinely believe the passing of the Ivory Act 2018 will be a significant element in that.

On the welfare of pets such as snakes, we were asked why it is okay to have no regulations. In fact, there are regulations; these animals are covered by the Animal Welfare Act, as they are seen as animals that are cared for, as opposed to other kinds of animals that may be used in so-called performances, be it in Santa’s grotto or elsewhere. The new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) England Regulations 2018 apply to those, and there is a specific reason in respect of what is happening in circuses. This Bill does not seek to prohibit wild animals in other activities; it is not a loophole. Those regulations specifically require those activities to be licensed.

There has been a lot of discussion about ethical and welfare matters, and why one thing is happening and not the other. The Government are clear, and have been for some time, including under previous Administrations, that the scope of the 2006 Act did not give the necessary powers in this regard. Section 12 provides powers only to regulate to promote the welfare of animals. I appreciate that people, including hon. Members, may have different views on this. No robust scientific evidence is available to indicate that the basic welfare needs of wild animals cannot be met in a travelling circus environment. Moreover, the review of the Department’s interim circus regulations found that the regulations were successful in establishing an effective licensing scheme to promote and monitor high welfare standards for wild animals in travelling circuses in England.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I wish to clarify something for the benefit of the whole House and everyone outside who works with animals, including performing animals. The Minister mentioned Santa’s grotto, and we have all seen animals in our constituencies for different special events. Can she tell the House how this new law will affect such events? In line with the question I posed earlier, may I ask where the ultimate end to this is? Is she saying that, ultimately, animals will not be able to take part in any kind of performance, be it a film, special activity or outside event? Where will this conclude?

[Dr Coffey]

This is specifically about circuses, and the basis for it is the itinerant nature of such events and what happens when these animals are moved. Falconry and displays have been mentioned. Typically, a falcon returns to its principal place of residence after such a display, so the effect is not the same. I assure my hon. Friend that mobile zoos will still be mobile, but of course licensing is undertaken, through the 2018 regulations.

Let me return specifically to the evidence. My understanding is that after the 2006 Act came into place, the academic lawyer Mike Radford was appointed to chair a circus working group. His report concluded that there were no welfare concerns over and above those applying to animals kept in other captive environments, and therefore any attempt to take forward a ban on welfare grounds under the 2006 Act would fail the test of proportionality and primary legislation would be needed. I should also point out to the House that that is also the legal position of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and that the bans that have been brought forward have been justified on ethical, not welfare, grounds.

Let me deal with some other aspects of questions that have been asked. I think I have addressed the questions asked by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and I welcome the fact that the legislative consent motion will go through to make sure that the amendment is passed and the legislation has a smooth passage. I have already addressed the question about animal sentencing and when that can be undertaken.

I am very conscious of the strong support given today by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Tiverton and Honiton and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), the hon. Members for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). A variety of people have decided to attend this debate and support this Bill. I hope that that support will continue in Committee. It is an honour to have closed this debate. We care passionately about this and I am sure the same spirit will continue as the Bill makes its passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 May 2019.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jeremy Quin.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

3. If he will introduce topical oral questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

We gave this matter careful consideration, but the Leader of the House recently wrote to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee stating the reasons we will not be introducing topical questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As a consequences of devolution, the range of issues that are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office is narrower than for most other Departments. The introduction of topical questions might lead to a situation in which some questions fall outside the range of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.

[Danny Kinahan]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer. I do not want to stop all of us playing a part in each other’s areas and constituencies, but when we look at Question Time we see that the same questions are repeated, which minimises the number of Members who can get in. Topical questions might be another way of increasing participation and having more varied questions.

[Dr Coffey]

Each Member is responsible for the questions they submit. Because of the way the process of tabling questions works, the Table Office is able to ascertain whether a question relates to a devolved matter or is the responsibility of a UK Government Minister answering at this Dispatch Box.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Would not one way of increasing participation in Northern Ireland affairs, especially by Northern Ireland Members, be to have more frequent meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

[Dr Coffey]

That is an interesting suggestion. It is not one to which I can commit, but I will certainly take it away.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I appreciate the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. However, in relation to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I suggest that members of the public are entitled to expect members of the Government representing those posts to be subject to the same level of scrutiny as their peers around the Cabinet table. I therefore hope that further consideration will be given to introducing topical questions for all those areas.

[Dr Coffey]

As I have already indicated, we have given this matter careful consideration and, for the reasons I have set out, decided that it is not appropriate to introduce topical questions at Northern Ireland Question Time—and that would also be true for Wales and Scotland.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

In response to the rather disappointing answers from the Deputy Leader of the House, may I ask whether she will consider introducing topical oral questions for Scotland and Wales?

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; I think that this is the first time he has asked a question from the Dispatch Box. I genuinely want to put across quite carefully the level of consideration that we have given to this matter. The Table Office is a very useful filter that enables us to ask questions that are in order. The risk is that Members could end up being ruled out of order while trying to ask their topical questions, which would not be good for their reputations either.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

6. How long the House spent voting in the 2015-16 Session.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Government do not collect this information and do not have the information available. However, the House publishes a record of the time taken on all types of business in the House, and that will be available in the next Sessional Return when it is published in due course. As has been published, hon. Members had the opportunity to participate in 269 Divisions during the last Session, but the total time taken for all business that gave rise to one or more Divisions was 471 hours and 46 minutes.

[John Mc Nally]

We will all be aware that on Monday night we began voting on the Investigatory Powers Bill at 8 pm and finished voting at 11.14 pm. Members’ meetings and other engagements were disrupted for three and a quarter hours for only four votes. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are able to vote on all Divisions at once. What consideration has the Deputy Leader of the House given to a daily unified decision time?

[Dr Coffey]

The Government made sure that on Monday a decent amount of time for debate was protected rather than compressed. On having a decision time, as in the Scottish Parliament, I suggest that separating decisions on an important piece of legislation from the discussion of them is not to the benefit of that discussion. We should try to ensure that we vote on matters that the House has debated. As we have seen in many debates, people have changed their minds as a consequence of listening to what was said.

[Alan Brown]

One of the defences the Leader of the House has previously given for the current voting system is that it allows Members to grab a Minister in the voting Lobby. The thing is that guys on the SNP Benches are never in the same voting Lobby as Ministers. The 269 Divisions in the last Session meant that we spent roughly 60 hours of our time hanging around in the voting Lobbies, which is equivalent to a football player’s entire season in the premier league, so are we going to see electronic voting or the continuation of an inter-party league?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman has made an estimate based on the information I have just given him, but a lot of Members value the opportunity to see each other in the Lobbies. I recognise what he says about SNP Members often being in a different Lobby from the Government, but perhaps he should learn from his more experienced neighbours on the Labour Benches, who certainly use the voting process to grab Ministers when they leave the Lobby. Frankly, this Parliament spends more time scrutinising legislation than any other Parliament in the world, and I genuinely believe that our voting system is appropriate for that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House for changing the list of initials under which we go through the Lobbies to vote. Moving the Gs to the left-hand column has speeded up the voting process, and as an H, it is now bliss to vote. I might add that I know from personal experience that it is very easy to vote against the Government and then to nip to the other Lobby to wait for the Minister to come out and ask them a relevant question.

[Dr Coffey]

I was trying to suggest that that was what Opposition Members tend to do, but I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. As a C, getting the Gs in with us has seemed—apart from the fact that I now vote in the same queue as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is a G—to increase the time it takes for us to vote. Nevertheless, we are all happy together in our Division Lobby.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

While I am sure we are all very sorry that the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) had his dinner plans messed around on Monday night, may I urge my hon. Friend not to listen to those people who come here and within five minutes want to change long-established proceedings in this House that many of us value?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Of course, matters of voting are ultimately for the House to decide, although I do not sense an extended appetite for the changes suggested.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to review English votes for English laws.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

We have fulfilled our manifesto commitment in introducing English votes for English laws, which we believe will continue to strengthen the Union. However, the Government will undertake a review of the English votes for English laws procedure in the autumn, as we said we would, drawing on the work of the Procedure Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

[Mr Hanson]

Some aspects of the Wales Bill currently before the House are solely Wales matters on which every Member of this House can vote, and yet if similar provision were put in place in England, my vote as a Welsh Member of Parliament would not count. Is that fair?

[Dr Coffey]

All Members’ votes in this House count. The process is very clear. The change that we introduced ensured that matters that are devolved must now have the explicit consent of English Members. On the Wales Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are transferring powers from this House to the Welsh Assembly, creating a stronger Welsh Assembly, and as a consequence we believe that all Members should be involved in that discussion.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Helen Hayes—not here.

Carnforth Station

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing a further debate on Carnforth station, but first may I extend apologies to you, Mr Davies, to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry)? She is unable to be here to respond to the debate. She will write to our hon. Friend and she pays tribute to the campaigning that he continues to do for his constituents on this important issue.

As has been pointed out, this is my debut at the Dispatch Box, and it is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, especially as we served together on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South for her warm welcome and her—dare I say it?—little joke. I am sure that it could go down well in a Christmas cracker, and I will use it again myself at my next constituency do.

As has been eloquently said, many people will be familiar with Carnforth station only as the setting for Noël Coward’s famous 1945 film “Brief Encounter”, which is commemorated in the excellent heritage centre and refreshment room. Indeed, when I informed my mother this morning about my debut today, she said that she had visited the heritage centre and would thoroughly recommend it to others. However, as my hon. Friend has so eloquently explained, this is about more than a heritage centre. The station plays an important role in supporting the economy of north Lancashire. Good transport links, such as the Furness line linking Carnforth with Barrow, Lancaster and beyond and the links to Morecambe, Skipton and Leeds, are essential to support a growing economy. I acknowledge the importance of good rail services and connections to delivering the economic priorities of our local partners in Lancashire and Cumbria.

I will turn shortly to my hon. Friend’s main concern, the question of reinstating the mainline platforms, on which he has spoken with great clarity, but I want first to assure him that the prospects for Carnforth station are good even without that development. As he observed, Carnforth station has seen encouraging growth in the past few years. The Office of Rail Regulation statistics show that 206,590 passengers used the station in 2013-14. That was an increase of 10,000 on the previous year and 29,000 higher than in 2009-10. We want this station and the services using it to continue to prosper, and this Government’s plans for record investment in the railways and the refranchising programme will help to ensure that.

Long-distance connections from the south, via a change at Lancaster, have been enhanced. From December 2013, Virgin Trains combined the hourly Birmingham to Scotland service with a London to Birmingham service, which improved connectivity from Lancaster to places such as Birmingham International, Coventry and Milton Keynes. Additional capacity has been provided on Virgin Trains services, with 106 additional Pendolino vehicles added to the fleet in 2012.

I recognise that the reduction in through services between Carnforth and Manchester from December 2013 caused much local disappointment. The effect on services to Carnforth is the result of a new timetable that introduced a new electrified TransPennine Express service between Manchester and Scotland from May 2014. The introduction of new electric trains has facilitated an increase in services, including a fifth TransPennine Express train each hour to increase capacity between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and York. Additional TPE services between Manchester, Lancaster and Scotland now offer additional capacity on that popular route.

TransPennine Express has had to decide on the best balance of services to meet its passengers’ needs across the franchise. To provide additional services and capacity on the North TransPennine and Manchester to Scotland routes has required amendments to the overall timetable. Every effort has been made to retain as many services as is practical. Carnforth and stations on the Furness line are being served by through services to and from Manchester airport over and above the minimum number required by the May 2014 passenger service requirement on Mondays to Saturdays.

Let me turn to future developments. To address record and growing demand, we are continuing to invest in the most significant rail modernisation programme for generations. Network Rail’s northern hub programme, together with electrification of routes in the north-west, including the recently announced confirmation of electrification of the Windermere branch, and the North TransPennine line and other enhancements—together adding up to more than £1 billion of investment—will transform rail connectivity across the whole of the north of England by increasing capacity, reducing journey times and facilitating the introduction of cleaner, more reliable electric trains and new direct services. Those investments provide an essential foundation to the wider plans for a northern powerhouse on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken in recent months. That includes Government backing for the development of a high-speed rail link—HS3—further to improve connectivity between our great northern cities. I am particularly keen to see that happen, because although I represent a Suffolk constituency, I was born in Lancashire and spent my early years there.

As I mentioned, new electric services between Manchester and Scotland and a fifth train per hour on the North TransPennine route have already been introduced. However, there is much more to come. The transformation of Manchester Victoria station is nearly complete, and other schemes will come on-stream in the next few years.

Our new franchising programme is key to delivering the benefits to passengers of the investment. A new directly awarded franchise agreement with Northern Rail, agreed in March this year, sets challenging new targets for customer service. Shortly after that, we concluded an agreement to provide four-coach electric trains on Northern Rail services between Liverpool and Manchester. Those will commence passenger service early in 2015, with further electric trains due to enter service on local routes in the north-west in the next few years.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Obviously, the new electric trains will be incredibly welcome, but can the Minister give us a date by which she expects that there will be no Pacers operating on Northern services?

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am not in a position to give her an answer today, but I am sure that if there are questions that I do not manage to cover in my response, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to her.

In June, we launched the competitions for the next TransPennine Express and Northern franchises—they are due to start in February 2016—with a consultation document. We have ambitious plans for rail in the north of England to support the growth of the economy in the north, and those franchises will be key to transforming the way in which rail contributes to communities and businesses across the region—including Carnforth—building on our investment. I am very pleased that we are taking the franchises forward in partnership with the Rail North association of local transport authorities from across the north of England, including Lancashire and Cumbria county councils. Our developing partnership with Rail North is bringing a much stronger local focus to the franchises.

The consultation on the franchises posed important questions relating to the future operation of the Furness line, including the possibility of transferring the Furness line stations and services from TransPennine Express to Northern, and sought views on the appropriate number of through services and shuttle services to Lancaster and which destinations should be served by the through services. We received more than 20,000 responses to the consultation. Those included representations from the Carnforth railway action group, authored, I believe, by Peter Yates, to whom I pay tribute.

I welcome the fact that the response to the consultation has been so strong. It is important for us to hear the views of the public and stakeholders, so that we can take those into account in developing the specifications for the two franchises. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale that before reaching final decisions, we will give very careful consideration to the views expressed. I hope that he will understand that I cannot go further at this stage. The invitations to tender for the franchises are due to be issued early next year.

Work is already under way, led by Network Rail, to consider the strategic priorities for further investment in our railways in the next control period from 2019. Network Rail is undertaking a long-term planning process in consultation with industry partners and other stakeholders, including local enterprise partnerships, to develop the industry’s priorities and inform the Government’s next rail investment strategy. Key future stages relevant to the services at Carnforth are a refresh of the industry’s electrification strategy, which is due for publication for consultation in spring next year, and the northern route study, on which work is due to commence in early 2016.

I recognise that there is strong local interest in the potential for the electrification of the Furness line. My hon. Friend may be aware that to inform decisions on the next generation of electrification projects in the north of England, the Secretary of State announced in December last year the creation of a taskforce consisting of three MPs from the north of England, Network Rail and two council leaders nominated by Rail North to advise him on the priorities.

The taskforce is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale that it is carefully considering all remaining non-electrified rail lines in the north of England, including both the lines that serve Carnforth. The taskforce expects to submit its interim report in early 2015, to enable its recommendations to be considered alongside Network Rail’s draft electrification strategy. Through a supporting stakeholder working group, which includes local authorities, the taskforce is drawing on a wide range of relevant information including local enterprise partnerships’ strategic economic plans.

Looking further ahead, to provide the capacity and connectivity the country needs in the longer term, the Government continue to progress High Speed 2. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support, and the support of the hon. Member for Nottingham South, for that vital infrastructure project. As has been noted, HS2 offers the prospect of faster connections from Carnforth and the Furness line to London and the midlands. We are considering the impact of HS2 on other routes, and Network Rail is closely involved in the discussions. The Government are fully behind HS2, and the Bill is being considered in Select Committee.

I have heard my hon. Friend’s strong representations in favour of the reinstatement of the mainline platforms at Carnforth station. Government policy makes it clear that it is for local bodies to decide whether that would be the best way to meet local transport needs. Local bodies would have to prioritise that solution to receive funding from the resources that the Government make available to local bodies through the local growth fund, and they have not chosen to do so to date. The Department would, of course, be happy to provide advice and guidance should those local bodies change their minds.

[David Morris]

My understanding is that reinstating the platforms is within the remit of the county council, in any case. Will my hon. Friend join me in some kind of communication with the county council to ask it to push forward a feasibility study for these platforms to be reinstated?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I urge the council to give every support to the project that he is backing so strongly; it would be of great merit for the residents of Carnforth. Although not everyone might agree with my hon. Friend that Carnforth station is the centre of the rail universe, it is an important connection for many people and businesses in that community.

My hon. Friend alluded to the process followed to close the platforms in the 1970s. I assure him that the Government are of the opinion that the mainline platforms were correctly closed. There was no statutory requirement at the time for any form of consent to be sought for the partial closure of a station. I understand that the Department wrote to his constituent in detail on the matter on 8 December this year.

I hope that my hon. Friend can persuade the council to look in more depth at the possibility of reopening the platforms. It may be helpful, however, to remind hon. Members of some of the operational and commercial challenges that would need to be addressed in developing any viable proposal. A key issue is whether a proposal to stop mainline services at reinstated platforms at Carnforth would work operationally and commercially. As was indicated in the last debate on the subject in July 2011, line capacity would be reduced.

The west coast main line is heavily used, with up to three long-distance services per hour between London, Birmingham and Manchester, and Glasgow and Edinburgh, plus regular freight services. Those trains are already popular and well loaded, and further growth is expected. Network Rail’s 2011 route utilisation strategy for the west coast main line corroborates the heavy usage of the line and the resulting capacity problems.

The journey time of a service that called at reinstated platforms at Carnforth would be increased. Further examination, with Network Rail and the relevant train operator, would be required to determine the potential commercial impact of that, and to determine the impact of such a stop on other services that used the line. The modernisation of the west coast main line and the introduction of the December 2008 timetable delivered some significant journey time reductions and more frequent services, which have delivered significant revenue growth since December 2008 and increased rail’s share of the total travel market on the routes served by the west coast main line. Rail serves those markets well, and there are strong calls for further journey time reductions.

My hon. Friend referred to the potential impact of HS2. I caution that released capacity is likely to be on sections of the west coast main line further to the south that are bypassed by the new high-speed line. Nevertheless, the advent of HS2 services will provide a further useful stimulus to rail demand in the area. All those issues, and others, mean that stopping any service at Carnforth could involve a number of trade-offs, now and in the future, which are less straightforward than they might first seem.

It is already possible to travel directly between Carnforth and stations to the south, including Preston and Manchester. As my hon. Friend has noted, that means that the main benefits of stopping Windermere services at reinstated mainline platforms at Carnforth would be to create better journey opportunities between Carnforth and stations to the north, including Oxenholme, Penrith, and Carlisle, and to provide better connections to the north from other stations on the Furness and Skipton lines.

I certainly do not want to rule out the possibility of developing a viable proposition at some point, but local authorities and local enterprise partnerships must want it to progress, and they must back it financially. They did not identify such a proposition as a priority in their response to the franchise consultation. The position of the current holder of the TransPennine Express franchise is encouraging, but that franchise is coming to an end and my hon. Friend will need to encourage the local authority to engage with the shortlisted bidders for the new franchise as they develop their bids next year.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I was about to answer one of the hon. Lady’s questions. She asked about the delay to Northern invitations to tender. My understanding is that, as stated by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, the invitations to tender will be published in early 2015, but the date for publication will be announced in due course. Does the hon. Lady still want to intervene?

[Lilian Greenwood]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Coffey]

In conclusion, I should say that my hon. Friend has been a real champion for his constituents. He has achieved a lot for them, including the securing of the Heysham-M6 link road. I can see how hard he is working for his constituents on this important rail matter. I hope I have been able to assure him that the Government’s plans to invest in, and develop the services on, the rail network to address record levels of demand provide the conditions under which Carnforth station can continue to prosper and develop its important role in supporting the economy of north Lancashire.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s continued and assiduous campaigning on the matter, and I hope that he will pursue the case for reinstating the mainline platforms with Lancashire county council and the local enterprise partnership. They would need to take the lead, working with Network Rail and a train operator, in establishing whether there is an operationally and financially viable proposition.

If there are questions that I have not been able to cover, I will ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to write and respond to those points. As we approach the busiest weekend of the year for rail services, I wish all hon. Members a merry Christmas and I hope that everyone gets home safely on the train tonight.

Childcare Payments Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which brings us back to the issue of child poverty and the importance of child care in supporting families and particularly children in getting out of that situation. She raises an important point, and I shall be coming on to ask some questions about the Bill’s implementation in that regard. Contrary to the impression given by the Minister, there is still a lack of clarity about who will and will not benefit from the changes. I shall reflect only momentarily, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the wider point that my hon. Friend raises. Our very flexible labour market can make it difficult for many parents to manage their child care arrangements. We know that many women, for example, are subject to zero-hours contracts, which can make it very difficult to plan for child care and the costs and availability of child care, when they might not know what hours they will be working from one week to the next. I hope that the Minister will take all those issues into account, particularly in respect of supporting families, which could be dependent on the interaction between the implementation of this policy and universal credit.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned universal credit. Earlier, she was saying how difficult it was to plan for child care. Government Members were surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not condemn last week’s strikes, because those are exactly the kind of issues that are a nightmare for parents.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think that the hon. Lady is straying somewhat from the subject of the debate, but I also think that a number of the workers who were involved in Thursday’s strikes were among the very lowest paid, who we know need this child care support and who are struggling to make ends meet. That was one of the motivating factors in the action that they took last week. I therefore do not think that the hon. Lady’s point was entirely irrelevant, but let me now return to the issue that is under discussion, which is child poverty.

There is concern about the fact that much of the progress that has been made has been either halted or, even worse, reversed by the Government’s policies over the last four to five years. The Government are absolutely on track to miss spectacularly their statutory obligations in terms of eradicating child poverty. As their own child poverty adviser Alan Milburn said recently,

“The Government’s approach falls far short of what is needed to reduce, let alone end, child poverty in our country.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I had assumed that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) would speak ahead of me, but it is a great pleasure to be called today. You are right to looked puzzled, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is there nobody on the Opposition Benches? We all know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke for 52 minutes to mask the fact that no one else on the Opposition Benches would be speaking. That contrasts with 19 and 20 November 2013, when we debated child care in the Chamber. I am slightly disappointed, because I had a good exchange with the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and I am sure that we could have had a similar debate about statistics and measures. Nevertheless, it is great news that we are finally getting to the Childcare Payments Bill and I am pleased to support it today.

One of the big things about the Bill is that it puts matters into the hands of parents. Instead of having to rely on employers setting up schemes, which I believe only 5% of employers actually set up, we will have a system that is effectively direct. Families with two working parents who earn at least £50 a week will benefit in one way or another from Government help towards child care, recognising that we will not double-subsidise those who receive tax credits or universal credit.

On that note, it is my understanding that we will provide an extra £200 million to support those families claiming universal credit, so instead of having 70% of their child care costs paid, as they do today, they will receive 85%. I am sure that will be very welcome to all working families.

Of course, the very richest in our society—those who earn more than £150,000—will not benefit, but I am sure that they will recognise that we must target a welfare system at the broadest number of people.

[Hywel Williams]

Is the hon. Lady confident that when parents in deprived and rural areas are enabled as proposed, the market will deliver the places?

[Dr Coffey]

I do not pretend to know much about Welsh schools, although my cousin goes to school in Wales and I have many relatives there. I am not necessarily aware of the provision that exists, but I know that this Government are keen to work with schools in England to increase the number of schools choosing to make provision for young children. I do not know what the Welsh Assembly Government are considering, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), has consistently tried to introduce reforms that will make child care provision an attractive career. We are right to press ahead with some of the childminder agencies we are introducing, not through this Bill but separately, to remove some of the administrative burdens that might be deterring people from entering that career. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage such agencies to set up in his area of Arfon, bringing new employment opportunities for both men and women and making provision for working parents.

It is great news that under this Government more women are working than ever before, yet we would like to see even more women—and even more parents—going into work. This scheme is part of our long-term economic plan. We recognise that the cost of our child care is the second highest in the OECD as a percentage of family income; only Switzerland’s is higher. I think that it is fair to say that under Labour the number of childminders decreased significantly and costs went up. Before the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North springs to her feet—if she is not following the latest reshuffle news on Twitter—let me say that I recognise that that trend has continued, but it is not going on at the same level. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for referring to my haircut. It was nothing to do with the events that seem to be unfolding on Twitter. I merely got a phone call from my own mother complaining that my hair was too long and, as we know, in these situations mothers know best. I am not a mother, so I have to stick with what my mother tells me.

Let me give a few of the reasons why these things matter. A couple of years ago, the Conservative Women’s Forum undertook an inquiry, in which I think you might have participated, Madam Deputy Speaker, into the executive pipeline of talent. It focused not only on the number of women on boards, but on how we encourage women to get up the executive ladder and, more importantly, on what women can do for themselves, what Government can do and what companies can do. The issue of child care was a running theme throughout the inquiry, particularly for those in junior management. Once people are at a certain level, they probably receive a salary that means they do not have to think about the issue; they can pay for a nanny and even though it might be painful, the costs are not quite so prohibitive. We consistently received evidence that the voucher system was inadequate. It did not cover enough of the cost, it was very limited or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned earlier, it did not help people such as the self-employed. I am pleased that the Bill extends the provision to almost anyone in work and it is right that we should do that.

It is also fair to say that no one magic bullet emerged as a result of the inquiry to solve some of the challenges in the pipeline of talent or in how we tackle child care, but nevertheless the discussions before the Budget announcements on how to help with tax relief were exactly the issues being brought up by senior executives. I was glad that the subsequent announcement was made in Budget 2013.

The proposals in Budget 2013 were limited to £6,000 of child care costs, which would have meant a maximum benefit of £1,200. I was pleased that after the consultation, to which significant contributions were made, we were able to change the age limit to 12 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has pointed out, to change the age limit for children with disabilities. We also increased the limit to £10,000, with a maximum of £2,000 support. That was the right thing to do, because it recognised the costs of child care. Nevertheless, it is important that we have retained the choice for parents who are in employer-supported child care schemes to stay in that system while recognising that we will close it to new entrants, so to speak. I support that because, understandably, companies have gone to some expense to set up these schemes and they are popular. We should not withdraw one thing simply for the sake of simplicity for the Government.

The hon. Lady from Northern Ireland—I have forgotten her constituency—

[Mark Durkan]

South Down.

[Dr Coffey]

Thank you. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the situation in which one parent was not working and asked why they would not get support with child care costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has accurately pointed out, the consultation raised those points and we have extended the provision when there is a working person and somebody on carer’s allowance or employment and support allowance. When people are enjoying parental leave after having children, they should not be penalised if they have children in child care. We do not want any unintended consequences.

I am a strong supporter of the traditional family. I am sure that I am not the only person whose mother did not work initially after having me, although she did start to go back to work as a supply teacher. It is fair to say that although the Government have scarce resources, they are offering both parents the choice to get back into the workplace, as opposed to one person having to choose, for perfectly good reasons, not to return to the workplace. I therefore support the gist of what the Government are saying about restricting support to cases in which both parents are working or the other cases that have been alluded to.

I am surprised that there are no Members in the Chamber from the Scottish constituencies, because, of course, this is a United Kingdom measure, although I am delighted that we have had contributions and interventions from Members from Wales and Northern Ireland. Much has been made of the fact that National Savings & Investments will initially be providing the child care account. You may have read in the weekend press, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the people of Scotland choose to go ahead with separation, NS&I will not be able to provide accounts to people living in Scotland, as they will effectively become foreign nationals. They might wish to consider that as another element of the question. I am sure that if somebody from the Scottish National party were here, they would leap up and say, “We will have an even better scheme and it will cost less than yours.” Nevertheless, I am sure that the good people of Scotland recognise that that is unlikely to be the case. The Minister might want to consider the issue in her regulations for this provision, but let us not prejudge the outcome of the referendum. I strongly believe that the people of Scotland will recognise that staying together is better for us all.

[Hywel Williams]

Shall I indulge in some karaoke and repeat the words that the hon. Lady used herself? I am sure that Scotland will provide a much better scheme when it is independent.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman would say that, and he has been very loyal to his nationalist friends. I recognise that.

On the timing, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that if we could bring in the scheme tomorrow, we would do so. However, we do not want to repeat—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? I think she said that we have been in power for four years, and I recognise that we are bringing this into play rather late in our parliamentary term, but she will know some of the challenges of government from her previous experience. Nevertheless, I would rather we got this right than end up with the fiasco we had over tax credits, which were brought in in quite a rush, with all the accompanying problems. The hon. Member for Manchester Central might be slightly bemused by that, but overpayment of tax credits and trying to reconcile figures and help people out with that is one of the biggest issues in my constituency casework. She will, I think, recognise some of the challenges of bringing in a new system.

The Bill rightly provides that the connections between the different agencies will be updated quarterly. We are not going to get into penalties and going back and forth, but provision is made for recovery. It is important that parents recognise that they should anticipate the potential impact if their conditions change. To be frank, I think the biggest change will occur when people move from one salary bracket to another, or decide to stop claiming universal credit and simply to claim this instead. At least the hurdle or cliff edge when people have to change is fairly black and white.

[Mark Durkan]

Would the hon. Lady like to see a strong information and advice offer built into the scheme, so that people who are having to decide how to navigate between universal credit and the scheme will get advice and without-prejudice, better-off calculations?

[Dr Coffey]

My expectation is that that would happen naturally. I do not want to overplay it, but I think it would be a natural consequence when people say, “I’m coming off universal credit to get this.” It will be a straightforward calculation, which should be readily understandable.

[Hywel Williams]

I wish I could share the hon. Lady’s confidence. I remember when the tax credit was brought in warning the Government at the time that it was complicated. It was to be administered by HMRC, which was not good at giving people money instead of taking money off them. Despite the confidence displayed at the time, HMRC included in its letters such sentences as, “Even though we told you your assessment was correct, it was not reasonable for you to believe this.” That is a direct quote from a tax credit letter. I am afraid I do not share her confidence that HMRC or any agency of Government is completely competent to administer this scheme.

[Dr Coffey]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, based on the experience of tax credits. That is why I think the Bill deals with it rather well: the period of entitlement is three months. As it is split up quite well into quarters, it should be quite straightforward for parents to make that assessment of what is better for them to get support. Of course, I am sure we all share the aspiration of reaching a stage where everybody is earning over a certain threshold and does not need to make those calculations.

I will not repeat everything my hon. Friends have said about the excellent work being done through nurseries for three and four-year-olds. I will simply reiterate my view that the Bill brings the balance back into the hands of parents and recognises that child care is normally needed all year round. Something that will need to be tackled with child care provided through primary schools by extending their playgroup is how to ensure that continues through the school holidays, but instead of trying to devise a perfect scheme that meets the demands of every single scenario, which is rather difficult when dealing with millions of children and parents, the Bill simplifies and gives people, through the child care account, the ability to build up balances and use the money as and when they need it. What is important is that parents will not pay fees for the accounts. I heard what the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said about online access, but there will be assisted approaches available for those who cannot access the internet. Internet access is the general default in our efforts to get people on to digital services.

I have not been able to speak for quite as long as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), but I am delighted to say that there are other Conservative Members here, and I did not spend 27 minutes talking about stuff that is not connected to the Bill. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill. Today is an historic day in Parliament, as we embark upon a piece of legislation that will affect many working families. I hope the Bill has the unanimous support of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

These pilots began in June, so they are very recent and it will take a number of months before any results are known. We have deliberately picked a number of different companies with different types of technology to ensure that we learn as much as we can. I envisage that we will have more information in six months.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to support the tourism industry.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)]

The tourism industry is central to the Government’s long-term economic plan, which is why we are investing over £177 million, including partner funding, in the GREAT campaign and other international and domestic marketing campaigns. We recently re-launched the Tourism Council, a partnership between industry and the Government.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The Suffolk coast is well known as a very attractive place to visit, with its open skies, beaches and cultural offerings. You are certainly most welcome—both you, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State—as the shadow Secretary of State will know. However, also adding to the long-term economic plan will hopefully be the construction of Sizewell C. My local businesses have understandable concerns about the impact of the construction phase on tourism in the area. Can he offer any helpful advice?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady wins her badge for the corps diplomatique.

Finance Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

If I did not know better, I would suspect my hon. Friend of having read my speech. I was just about to come to that very point. The infamous Lamborghini comment might have been made in jest, but that sort of joke is entirely lost on those who have already lost their savings because of poor or insufficient advice. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point indeed about people’s confidence in what they can do with their own resources. To an extent, the Government may have begun to acknowledge the need to expand the range of choices available and ensure that consumers have help to navigate those choices—I think that was the phrase used. That sounds pretty sensible and commendable, but we need to make sure that it actually happens.

The second test we have set is the fairness test—the new system has to be fair to those on low and middle incomes, which means they still should be able to access products that give them the certainty in retirement they want, and the billions we spend in pensions tax relief must not benefit only those at the very top. That is why we have called for restrictions on pensions tax relief for those earning more than £150,000 a year. The third test is the cost test: the Government have to ensure that the policy does not result in extra cost to the state. That point was made earlier, and I think the Minister, to his credit, understands that there is an issue with social care and pensioners having to fall back on means-tested benefits—housing benefit, for example—later in their life if they do not properly or sensibly manage their resources. As yet, however, the Government have not explained how all that will be joined up in policy terms. In our view, if the Government’s pensions reforms fail any of those tests, the negative impact on savers could be considerable.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) talked about protecting people from the “sharks in the market”. That brings us to the vexed question of guidance. Going back to the Chancellor’s no doubt innocent slip, there is a serious point to be made about definitions. When pressed subsequently, the Chancellor said:

“There is a technical distinction between advice and guidance. The budget document exists, I don’t get up and read it out because it contains all the technical details of the Budget and we publish it at the same moment. The speech needs to also communicate in English so people watching it can understand what is meant.”

I understand that, but as I emphasised strongly in Committee, there is a world of difference between advice and guidance in technical terms and in terms of legality. The Government need to deal with that.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am listening carefully and trying to understand. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Government should be people’s financial adviser? I am not sure that is what the role of Government should be. I thought the reform was about opening up choices and making sure that people realise what steps they can take, not telling them what direction they should go in.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is important that Government use language consistently and do not inadvertently mislead people about what they are going to get, whether it is guidance, advice or information, given face-to-face, over a telephone or through the internet.

The Red Book states:

“from April 2015, all individuals with defined contribution pension pots are offered free and impartial face-to-face guidance at the point of retirement”.

One might consider that a good and positive measure, but it raises some questions—questions that largely accord with the three tests we have set. First, there is a question about cost: the budget for guidance of just £20 million—£10 million each for 2015-16 and 2016-17—gives rise to some concern, as does its including no provision for this year. According to the tax impact and information note, the measures in the Bill will enable up to 400,000 people to draw down their pensions. I note that the Minister referred earlier to an updated tax impact and information note. Perhaps he can tell us whether he has revised any of those sets of numbers. We need to understand why nothing has been put aside for that free and impartial guidance in this financial year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Well, it simply reinforces the impression—in fact, the reality—that the Government are perfectly well disposed to chopping and changing their policy and approach to the annual investment allowance. That is the point we are trying to make, and the point behind the new clause. The Government should stop and take a look. I have heard from businesses that they would rather have no investment allowance than have chopping and changing of the AIA, because that can be destabilising for investment decisions. They would rather have a more stable approach to policy making than that being displayed by the Government.

Returning to the history of the investment allowance, the previous Labour Government doubled it, recognising its importance to giving businesses confidence to invest for the future, and to be supported within the tax system to make such decisions. What happened after it was doubled? We know that, in his infinite wisdom, the Chancellor decided as part of his emergency Budget—or so he called it—in June 2010, to announce to great fanfare that the annual investment allowance would be cut. However, it would not just be cut. At a time when the economy was growing after the financial crisis, the Chancellor decided that the best way to secure the recovery and back British businesses and jobs was to slash the annual investment allowance to just £25,000 from April 2012, as in the Finance Act 2011. He sought to reassure us that the impact of that reduction from £100,000 to £25,000 would be limited because:

“Over 95% of businesses will continue to have all their qualifying plant and machinery expenditure fully covered by this relief.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]

In other words, the Chancellor believed in June 2010 that only 5% of firms were receiving any benefit from the annual investment allowance. HMRC’s tax information note at the time stated:

“Over 95 per cent of businesses are expected to be unaffected as any qualifying capital expenditure will be fully covered by the new level of AIA (£25,000).”

It went on to clarify that

“between 100,000 and 200,000 businesses will have annual capital expenditure of over £25,000”.

Therefore, in the Chancellor’s terms, only 5% of businesses would have been affected by his decision to slash the allowance. In anyone else’s terms, however, that is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 firms. That is a significant number of businesses that are employing—or potentially employing—a significant number of people, while also indirectly supporting employment through their supply chains. That seems to ring true of the Government’s approach because when they speak about being pro-business, they seem to forget the many businesses out there that do not fit the Tory vision of what businesses are, and it seems that those 100,000 or 200,000 firms did not feature on the Chancellor’s radar.

Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the views expressed at the time about the decision the Chancellor took. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies commented that losers from the cut

“would be those firms with capital intensive operations—with long lasting equipment and machinery—that currently benefit most from the capital allowances. While this is likely to apply to more firms in the manufacturing and transport sectors, it may also be true for some capital intensive service sector firms.”

A senior economist at the manufacturers association, the Engineering Employers Federation, said that financing cuts to corporation tax by

“cuts to investment allowances will be a heavy price to pay, especially for smaller companies. It might be a positive signal for large companies, but not for their suppliers.”

In evidence to the Treasury Committee on the June 2010 Budget, John Whiting, then tax policy director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation and now director of the Office of Tax Simplification, expressed his concern that the measure would particularly hit medium-sized firms.

The June 2010 Budget cut the annual investment allowance to £25,000 from April 2012 on the grounds that, in the Chancellor’s view, only 5% of firms would be affected. We then had two autumn statements and two Budgets, at which we put these arguments to the Government, before the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement 2012, again to great fanfare, that he would “temporarily” increase the AIA—the one he had just cut to £25,000—to £250,000 from January 2013.

What happened to business investment between the June 2010 Budget and the 2012 autumn statement that drove the Chancellor to move from feeling perfectly comfortable in slashing the annual investment allowance, because more than 95% of businesses would be unaffected, to announcing in 2012 a significant increase in the AIA to £250,000? Let us cast our minds back to what the Chancellor said when he announced that decision in autumn 2012. He said he was increasing the annual investment allowance because:

“It is a huge boost to all those who run a business and who aspire to grow, expand and create jobs.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 881.]

What exactly does that say about the Chancellor’s cavalier approach back in 2010? Surely the complete opposite—[Interruption.] I see Government Members rolling their eyes, but unfortunately they need to face the truth.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The hon. Lady is right—I should not roll my eyes; I should get up and engage in debate. We know about the note left by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne): “There is no money left”. Since then, the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that the recession was even deeper than expected. The Government made choices at the time, and there was a clear intention to start to reduce the rate of corporation tax in the grand fiscal regime. Nevertheless, there has certainly been a successful demonstration of industrial strategy, and many more millions of jobs are now being created. It is right that we put our backing behind reinvestment in capital allowances.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is a little desperate to try to justify what is proven to have been a flawed decision-making process back in 2010. By the Chancellor’s own accounts, the measure was a huge blow to all those businesses that aspire to grow, invest for the long term and create jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Government Members and Ministers do not understand how important it is that we ensure that the recovery is sustained and sustainable. A premature rise in interest rates has considerable risks. Three quarters of credit and debt is floating, so if interest rates do rise prematurely, significant harm will come to many householders. Even a quarter point rise in interest rates will cost the typical householder £240 per year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) may be relaxed, as the Chancellor is relaxed, about interest rates. The Chancellor says that he is not bothered—that he is relaxed about rising interest rates. Is the hon. Lady relaxed about rising interest rates? I will give way to her if she is.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

All I will say is thank God we have not had a Labour Government for the past four years, because I expect that interest rates would now be at 10% and people would be handing back their keys and hoping that the hon. Gentleman does not get into power next year.

[Chris Leslie]

I do not know what evidence the hon. Lady has for that spurious assertion.

We will see what happens in the coming months. We will make sure that mortgage customers in the hon. Lady’s constituency know that the increases in interest rates are partly related to the condition of the housing market, which is causing significant risk. The Governor of the Bank of England is trying to deal with this very lopsided situation. Of course, it is a matter for him to decide on. Government Members need to speak to the Chancellor to get him to pull his finger out on the housing market and make sure that this is pursued correctly. They do not understand why it is important for the recovery to be fair for all—to be something that everybody in every part of the country benefits from. The richest 1% having been doing especially well in the past year.

The Economy and Living Standards

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I am very happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that not having transitional controls in 2004 was a mistake, and one that we all still deal with the consequences of. The question is whether we should have allies in Europe whom we can persuade to do things better for the future or walk away from our European partners and find that we are treated with disdain in the decision-making halls of Europe. That is the real question for statesmanship and politics in our country at the moment.

Our view on that question is clear. We say that there is no future for Britain in walking away from the European Union. It is the biggest single market for the companies, regions and countries of the United Kingdom. We have to reform Europe to make it work better for Britain, but we are much more likely to win the arguments if we are fully engaged, rather than having one foot out of the door.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor used to agree with that argument. They came though the Lobby with us in 2011 to oppose an arbitrary timetable for an EU referendum. Then, they changed their minds. The Prime Minister flounced out of a summit and decided to appease Tory Back Benchers by performing a U-turn. In the memorable words of Lord Heseltine,

“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble.”

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker was very clear in his guidance earlier that we should speak to the amendment. I am struggling to find in the amendment any mention of a European referendum.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Fortunately, that is a matter for me, and not the hon. Lady. The clear argument that is being advanced is about the importance of that matter to the economy. As long as the right hon. Gentleman stays on that point, he is in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

The kindest thing that can be said about this Queen’s Speech is that it is simply inadequate to address the problems which, sadly, our country and its people still face, and about which it is evident that the Government parties are still in denial.

The Chancellor said in his speech that he had made the mistake of reading the record before coming to the House. I made the same mistake: I read the record of the Chancellor’s Budget speech on 22 June 2010. He said today that what we must now do is stick to our long-term economic plan, which is what Government Members continually say—they say it as if saying it were as good as having one—but today’s economy does not reflect the long-term economic plan that the Chancellor set out in 2010.

The Chancellor said today that the Government were “holding out the prospect”. Well, they held it out then. According to that plan, by this year debt was supposed to have fallen as a percentage of GDP, and the structural current deficit should have been eliminated. The public sector borrowing requirement should be down to £37 billion, falling to £20 billion next year. Growth this year was then projected to be 2.7%, but the plan was for growth of well over 2% in 2011, 2012 and 2013. As we all know, that simply did not happen. In other words, far from sticking to a long-term plan that is now delivering, which the Chancellor described as the “inescapable truth”, the inescapable truth is that Government Members have seen their plan and their forecasts fall to pieces around their ears.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I do not recognise the picture that the right hon. Lady is painting, given the increased number of jobs and other improvements. Does she recall the statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility that the recession was even deeper than it had seemed to be when first analysed? That means that it has been even more difficult for us to fill the hole that was left by Labour and to achieve growth. That is finally under way, but the job is not yet done.

[Margaret Beckett]

I think the hon. Lady will find that the OBR’s argument does not account for the total discrepancy between what the Chancellor said would happen and what has actually happened. We have had the nonsense of Government Members claiming that we were wrong to say that their policies might curtail growth, when that is precisely what happened. As for the OBR, if the Chancellor is so proud of it—and I think that he has created a good institution—why does he not allow it to scrutinise our plans, rather than making up his own version?

The Queen’s Speech demonstrates the Government’s utter failure to address the difficulties that people face. The eventual return to growth has been as welcome as it was long overdue, but it is seriously alarming that Government Members do not seem to recognise the great difficulties that still confront so many. Only yesterday, we learned that Ofgem had written to the energy companies highlighting the fall in wholesale prices over the last 18 months or so, and asking them nicely if they ever intended to pass it on to their customers. Where is the legislative framework to underpin action to tackle the energy companies’ disregard for the interests of their customers?

Where are the proposals for reform of the banks, which demonstrate almost daily that for them too it is back to business as before, bonuses and all? Why is there nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address either the decline in housing starts or the increasing pressure and insecurity experienced by many tenants? And why, oh why, have no steps been taken to ease the increasingly intolerable pressures on the many people who have been forced by circumstance to rely on benefits to make ends meet? So many of those people are in work, albeit work that is low paid and insecure.

People with disabilities, in particular, are still being hit by the iniquitous bedroom tax. The Government must have been advised that people would not be able to move because there was not enough alternative accommodation. During the same week in which they introduced that tax, they cut taxes for those who were already the wealthiest.

The most noticeable aspects of the Queen’s Speech are the measures that are not in it and should be. Some of its proposals merit a cautious welcome, although as yet, in many instances, we have only the headlines. However, I want to single out the issue of pensions. I am pleased that the Chancellor mentioned it. I urge caution on all Members, but especially Opposition Members, because in this regard the Conservative party has form. Annuities have long caused concern, although an answer has not been easy to find, but the more that I listened to the Chancellor talking about giving people control of their own money and about the exciting new freedoms that were on offer—which, according to him, were heralding a revolution—the more uncomfortable I became, because, like the Conservative party, I have been here before.

It was in identical terms that the 1980s Tory Government sold so-called pension reforms to an unsuspecting public. That resulted in one of the greatest pension scandals of all time, the mis-selling of personal pensions. Shamelessly misleading advertising implied that if people left existing pension schemes and put their savings in the hands of the financial services experts, they could miraculously put less in and get more out. People were encouraged by the then Government to gamble with their retirement savings without their employers having to contribute, and without even the safety net of pooling their own risk—and it all ended in tears. I heard what the Chancellor said about the assurances that he had given and about whom he had consulted, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider what he said in great detail. We have asked the Government to publish in full the assessment of the costs and risks of their proposal, but so far they have refused to do so. I hope that they soon will.

I have noticed that there is an incentive for the Government in this proposal, over and above the well-being of pensioners. The Chancellor stands to gain a few billions of pounds in extra tax. So there is something in it for the Treasury—probably rather more than there is for pensioners, in the short term—and the most careful scrutiny of the details will be required.

Over the past few days—and, today, in the excellent speech with which he opened the debate—the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has drawn attention to our proposals to raise the minimum wage and encourage the use of the living wage so that work can be made to pay; to tackle the abuses of wage and employment law that enable employers to use immigrant labour to undercut the wages and conditions of others; to set up a British investment bank and regional banks to support small businesses, which—as was pointed out earlier—our existing banks are still failing to do; and to address the crises in housing and health care. We would have seen all those proposals in a Labour Queen’s Speech. There is much along those lines that the House and the Government should and could be doing, but clearly it will not be done under this Administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Queen’s Speech said that the stated objective of this legislative programme was to build a stronger economy. It said that it was to strengthen the economy. The Prime Minister used many of the same phrases in his speech last week, and spoke again, as the Chancellor did today, about this fabled long-term economic plan, which is a bit like a fabled unicorn: everybody knows what is meant, but no one has ever seen one. This long-term economic plan is much the same. Anyone with any common sense would assume that a long-term economic plan was predicated on substantial above-trend growth, yet the word “growth” did not appear once in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, the Prime Minister only uttered it twice: once to chide the leader of the Labour party, not unreasonably, and another time in response to an intervention from his own side. Why the coyness? Where is the plan for real growth in the economy? When one looks at what is proposed in this legislative programme and at what has come before, particularly in the Budget, one can see that, at its heart, this is still an austerity Government. Yes, there are some helpful Bills, such as the national insurance contributions Bill and, potentially, the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, but there is nothing that anyone can point to and say, “That will make a real difference in delivering growth in the economy.” Perhaps the Government think that mining tunnels under people’s homes without permission to carry fracked gas qualifies as a growth measure.

Why are the Government so coy? Why are they giving us this convoluted formulation of words about long-term plans and a focus on a very narrow, although helpful, policy about national insurance? It is because they have failed and they know it. Nothing the Government said last week or this week changes the underlying direction of travel or the underlying shape of the economy as described to us in the Red Book only a few months ago.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I am really interested in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. The International Monetary Fund has confirmed that we are the fastest growing country in the G7. We have seen growth in all sectors of the economy in the past year. That must be welcomed. There is no unicorn. The only unicorn is the Scottish National party’s claims that Scotland will be better off out of the UK.

[Stewart Hosie]

That is because we would be. Although I welcome the limited growth that we have had, the actions taken by this Government since the last election stifled and strangled the recovery for some years, and that is the underlying problem with their plan.

Let me take Scotland as an example. What the Government are proposing—this was before the Budget—is an 11% fiscal expenditure cut, a 27% cut in capital and a real terms 9.9% cut in the overall budget. This year’s Budget made that position worse, and that applies to spending Departments throughout the UK. Nothing in the Queen’s Speech changes that. Nor does it change the fact that the Chancellor told us that for 2013-14, the current account deficit would be down to 2.3% of GDP, borrowing would be reduced to £60 billion and the net debt would be at 70% of GDP. He was forced to tell us this year that the current account deficit was higher, borrowing was actually £95.5 billion and the net debt was 75% of GDP. The short-term metrics were wrong.

What about the big targets the Chancellor set for himself? They were that the debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP by this year, that the current account would be in balance next year and that the same year borrowing would be down to £20 billion. Presumably, that is what the Prime Minister meant by financial security. Of course, as we know—nothing in the Queen’s Speech changes this—the debt will not fall until 2016-17, two years late. The current account will not be back in the black until 2017-18, two years late. Public sector net borrowing in 2015-16 will not be £20 billion but £68 billion, three and a half times higher.

Although the limited recovery we have seen in the past year is of course to be welcomed—this directly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—not a single one of the Chancellor’s key targets has been met and his actions, as this is an austerity Government, stifled growth and delayed recovery year on year. No amount of convoluted formulations or warm words about long-term economic plans can change that.

What are the Government planning? It is there in black and white in the Red Book, on page 20 for anybody who wants to have a look. There will be a discretionary consolidation—that is cuts, and tax rises—next year to the tune of £126 billion. That is £2,000 per person in tax rises and cuts. That is what they are planning and that is what they have signed up to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a great honour to contribute to this debate on the Gracious Speech. Some Members have made their final contribution to such a debate, certainly in this House, but I am sure that some will reappear in the other place.

It is fair to say that the Queen’s Speech is an attempt to build on the Government’s good efforts over four years in order to make our country continue its journey towards a fairer society with a long-term economic plan. Unemployment, long-term unemployment and youth unemployment are all down. That is far from the misery that was predicted several years ago. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Chancellor would be the first to admit that we have not tackled the deficit as quickly as we would have liked. Of course the issue is that, as the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out, the recession was deeper than was initially realised, and therefore it is taking longer to get out of.

Given the amendment we are considering and the guidance given earlier, I cannot talk about some of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but there is one that I think will be iconic and will I am sure receive the support of the whole House: the Modern Slavery Bill. I will keep to the guidance, but it is important that instead of having just a budget debate, we continue to consider the ideas that we will all contribute to in the next 10 months.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) put a question to the Chancellor, to which my right hon. Friend replied, in which he rightly pointed out that productivity is not recovering. As the Chancellor said, however, to some extent choices have to be made. It is fair to say that keeping people in work—indeed, having more people in work—is probably a better choice at this moment in time, which will then allow us to focus on the productivity challenge that all of us in this country need to address in order to keep our economic plan going. However, that challenge is not unique to our country, which is why we continue to seek reform at the European Union level.

The Bills that we have put forward include the small business Bill. One of the things that the Government have been trying to do is to remove some of the barriers to growth, while enabling some of the activities that they would like to see. We will see that with export finance, and with finance being targeted at small businesses and the help in that sector. There is also the important measure adding a deregulation target—a commendable element that I think we will all enjoy passing.

Of course, there are important measures to help people with work and the cost of child care; child care payments will be addressed in the Child Care Payments Bill. The National Insurance Contributions Bill is really important. I am sure that many Members of this House have examples of companies having done the wrong thing, and we will set that right, just as we will on issues such as zero-hours contracts and removing the exclusivity clause.

On the infrastructure Bill, I welcome some of the plans related to housing. I give a cautious welcome to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime, with Sizewell C hopefully being built in my constituency. However, I want to ensure that the voice of the community is still part of that NSIP regime, as it should be.

There is no doubt that the economic plan is working. In my own constituency, unemployment is now at 604, which is the lowest it has been since December 2007. These are all good things, but the journey is only halfway completed. That is why I am confident that the British public, having seen five good years of government, will make the right decision next May and allow us to propose another Queen’s Speech in 12 months’ time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome. We looked at the previous Government’s proposals. The reason we changed the policy was that, frankly, it was not working. Already under this Government, superfast broadband coverage has risen from about 45% when we came to office to 73%. The UK has better coverage than the other EU5 countries. I hope that she will join us in implementing these policies.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

16. The broadband programme in Suffolk is going rather well, but to reach the 95% figure and cover places such as Wangford and Yoxford, we need a bit more money from the Government. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) will welcome our representations.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is passionate about this issue and has brought it up a number of times. I would be happy to meet her to discuss it further and to see how we can better use the existing resources that are available.