Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The national living wage has gone up to £8.21 an hour. The Government’s aspiration is to allow it to rise to 60% of median earnings. It is important to acknowledge that in 2010 take-home pay was £9,200 after national insurance and tax. For someone working full time on the national living wage, that figure is now £4,500 more, at £13,700.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Investing in education and skills is a positive, proactive means of promoting aspiration and ensuring that the families of the future are in working households, not in poverty. To that end, what discussions are being had between Ministers in the Treasury and elsewhere in Government about education funding and investment in skills and training?

[John Glen]

Conversations are going on among Treasury Ministers. The Chief Secretary has heard that representation, and announcements will be made in the autumn Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, we have committed ourselves to ensuring that schools will be funded for that purpose.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor explain why the customs union is the wrong policy choice for the future strength of the UK economy?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The Prime Minister negotiated a deal with the European Union which gave us many of the benefits of being in a customs union, while preserving our ability to conduct an independent trade policy. We put that deal to the House effectively three times and it was defeated three times, so we have to pursue other options.

Food Labelling and Allergy-Related Deaths

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

Yes, we need to get the rules right, we need to enforce and we need to ensure that business steps up to the plate. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that Pret is not a corner shop, but a major player in the food sector. I hope Members of this House will read the coroner’s report, because it is incredibly challenging and Pret needs to step up to the plate and see what the reports are—[Interruption.] She asks from a sedentary position what the Department is doing. As I have said, we are going to be strengthening the allergen labelling framework. That review is under way, but I hope she will understand when I say that we do need to take into account what the coroner’s report has said and we received it only this morning.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I absolutely share the sentiments that have been expressed this afternoon, but in advance of being able to change the law is there any scope for an industry-led approach, working with Government, to see things improve sooner?

[David Rutley]

It is important that we take forward this review to ensure that this is done robustly, but it is crucial that businesses step forward and address any concerns that consumers have. It is good business practice and businesses should be doing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Police force funding has been protected in real terms. The nature of crime is changing, and police forces are reforming to reflect that.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Corby and East Northamptonshire are seeing considerable housing growth, and it is essential that the infrastructure keeps pace, so will my right hon. Friend consider a new round of enterprise zone bidding opportunities to support more growth and jobs?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I think I will treat my hon. Friend’s comments as a Budget submission.

Public Sector Pay

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

This Government have achieved some of the lowest levels of youth unemployment for years. Under the Labour party, people were left on the scrapheap and we had rising youth unemployment, with up to 20% of our young people unemployed in 2010. What is important is that while people are training and gaining skills, it remains affordable for companies to take them on.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I very much welcome these pay awards. Will the Chief Secretary say a little about the difference that taking millions of people out of income tax altogether will make in tandem with these pay awards?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have seen disposable incomes—the money people have to spend—increasing under this Government because we have cut tax for basic rate taxpayers by £1,000 a year. We know that the Labour party wants to raise tax to the highest peacetime levels, and the reality of that would be less money for hard-working public and private sector workers.

Trade Bill (Second sitting)

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q Do others have a view on that?

Dr Hestermeyer: There are certainly examples of standards being used only for protectionist purposes, but it is far more common for standards that one side sets to be perceived as protectionist by the other. Let us take hormone beef. There is real concern on the part of a lot of European consumers that hormone beef is not healthy. There is no direct scientific evidence to show that that is true, but the concern is nevertheless there. So the standard reflects the democratic choice of the populace—whether we think it is adequate or not. That is important to see. With any standard set, some sides will say, “This is protectionism,” and it is also rhetoric to attack the standard.

Jude Kirton-Darling: I guess the last point missing from that is that if we look at where trade agreements and trade policy have been controversial in recent years, it is when the perception is that standards held very dearly by the public for exactly those reasons are perceived to be negotiated away behind closed doors, with only a certain number of vested interests having access to the process. That is one more reason why having an open process, with parliamentary scrutiny and engagement, gives credibility to any final agreement, which at the end of the day has to have public support, after the negotiations. You build in societal acceptance through the process by engaging Parliament in an active way.

Dr Fowler: I would very much endorse that. If it is the case that some degree of secrecy or privacy is an advantage in one respect, there is probably a trade-off in terms of not being able to have that societal buy-in that might be wanted at the end of the process. There is a trade-off and losses if it is all done in private.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Q Quite a bit has been said, not just in this sitting but in the sitting earlier today, on the issue of checks and balances, and scrutiny. Would the witnesses accept that all of these agreements initially, when they were brought into being in the first place, went through an impact assessment process and that, on ratification, they were scrutinised thoroughly by the scrutiny Committees in both Houses? Also, the 2010 CRAG process—under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—allows Parliament to pray against a treaty and indefinitely deny ratification, including bringing it to a debate. Do the witnesses recognise that and think it is sufficient?

Dr Bartels: I will kick off. Yes, I would agree with that, but I would also say that what is important about the Bill is that it gives the Government the power to change those agreements. They are, legally, new agreements, and that is recognised specifically in the Bill and in the explanatory memorandum, where no bones are made about saying that new obligations might be undertaken, so it would not be the same agreement that is subject to scrutiny. What is important here is to work out whether there are any limits on the Government’s ability to undertake new agreements—or new obligations in what are named as existing agreements—and implement those obligations, and if they do that, whether that is then sufficiently being scrutinised by Parliament.

Dr Hestermeyer: I would like to go back to my first answer and take as an example the Turkey agreement. I do not think that we would want the kind of customs union that Turkey has, but currently the Henry VIII power would allow implementation of any agreement that we then make with Turkey, even if in the end it looked completely different. That is the first problem with this scrutiny process.

The second problem, as Lorand identified at the beginning, is that some agreements have been signed but not ratified, so the scrutiny part of ratification has not yet happened. They have not been fully scrutinised.

The third element is that I do not think that the Ponsonby rule, as qualified, is sufficient because, first, it allows only delay and not a straight up-or-down vote; and secondly, it requires scheduling of an actual debate and vote. With Government control of parliamentary timetables, there is no guarantee that it cannot be indefinitely delayed. Even theoretically, therefore, that is not possible.

Jude Kirton-Darling: I fully agree with previous speakers.

[The Chair]

In which case, you may just nod.

Dr Fowler: I would agree with that. In terms of existing scrutiny through the European scrutiny system, one point is that it is imperfect. As we know, the European Scrutiny Committee here spends a lot of time trying to get time on the Floor of the House and trying to ensure that it sees documents in time and to arrange things so that it can have a meaningful say. Then there is the problem of the agreements that will not have been fully through the European scrutiny process before they come back again. Then there are the CRAGA problems—it seems that no one quite knows how the CRAGA provisions would work. That may be because no one in either House has ever tried to do anything under them, but it seems to me that part of this process ought to be that agreements are going to come before Parliament that it might want to do something about, and merely as a minimalist position—

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have given councils the power to raise more funds in the draft local government finance settlement, but councils also need to look at how they can become more efficient, share back offices and use modern technology.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Unemployment in my constituency is down by over 50%, but will my right hon. Friend consider a new round of enterprise zone bidding opportunities to help further that success story?

[Mr Hammond]

We will give consideration to my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

Summer Adjournment

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) who is a tenacious parliamentarian. He has used the opportunity of this debate very effectively and has raised some important issues that must be considered. All Members of this House—both current and former—have an obligation and a duty to their staff.

We have seen lots of variety in this afternoon’s debate. I wish to focus on one particular issue that is incredibly important to my constituents in Corby going into this summer recess. I am talking about the Corby urgent care centre, which many colleagues will know, because I have raised it in questions on many occasions in this House. When I went back through my speaking record, I was interested to note down how many times I had raised it in different contexts.

Let me provide some background: the Corby urgent care centre was first opened in 2012 under the coalition Government with a Conservative Health Secretary—I am incredibly proud of that. It is a flagship facility, class-leading, hugely popular and a beacon of best practice. It is also the envy of many other communities across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is in his place, would like to have exactly the sort of facility that we have in Corby at the Isebrook site in Wellingborough.

Perhaps most importantly, the biggest advantage of the Corby urgent care centre is the enormous impact that it has in relieving pressure on the A&E at Kettering general hospital, which, as we all know, has been under some strain in recent months and years. The urgent care centre makes a big difference. Let me give Members an idea of its impact. Last year, the urgent care centre in Corby saw more than 70,000 patients. Of all those who came, only 6% had to be referred to Kettering general hospital for further treatment. That shows how many people are dealt with in Corby that would otherwise have to go across to Kettering.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that such great alarm was caused by this press release issued by the clinical commissioning group. Issued on 13 July, it said:

“As has been reported previously, the contract between the Commissioners…and Lakeside +, the current provider of services at the Urgent Care Centre, expires on 30 September 2017.

In order to ensure service continuity and to safeguard the future of the centre, the Commissioners ran a competitive procurement inviting bids to continue the service for a further 12 months. Unfortunately, the only bidder in the process formally withdrew their bid yesterday and so the process has failed to generate any bidder willing to continue to provide the service.

In light of these developments, the Commissioners will be considering what options exist for the Corby Urgent Care Centre.”

Interestingly, that runs completely at odds with what I was told earlier in the year by the commissioners. We have known for some time that there has been a contractual dispute between Lakeside Plus and the CCG, and we have always known that the current contract with Lakeside Plus would finish at the end of September, so there has been plenty of time to plan for this.

The earlier reply that I received on 22 March said:

“I can confirm that Corby Urgent Care Centre is not closing. The organisation running the Urgent Care Centre, Lakeside Plus, have given notice that they wish to withdraw from their contract at the end of March, but it is not their role to decide whether the service comes to an end. That decision rests with the CCG as commissioners of healthcare for the people of Corby, and we will ensure that the service continues—with another provider if necessary. We are now working urgently to make that happen.

We have been expecting Lakeside Plus to continue the service until November, as stated in the contract notice issued by the CCG last year. We appreciate that this sudden announcement will be a cause of some disquiet for the people of Corby, who are always our primary concern. We therefore regret the alarm that is being caused by misleading suggestions that the Urgent Care Centre is to close, and would appreciate your help in putting people’s minds at rest.”

The statement issued last week is inconsistent with the reassurances that I was given earlier in the year. The current position is much more ambiguous, so I wrote to the commissioners on 13 July, seeking reassurance for my constituents and clarity on what the future might hold. Their reply was equally ambiguous:

“Following withdrawal of the remaining bidder for the caretaker contract, we are urgently considering the options available. It is therefore not possible at this stage for me to say exactly what services will be in place on October 1st, when the existing UCC contract expires. I realise that this does not give you the absolutely clarity you and local people are seeking, but it is very important for me to be honest with you. The CCG is facing an unprecedented situation, with a very challenging timescale and a highly restrictive legal and commercial environment.

As you know, the CCG is also looking at how the healthcare system in Corby can best meet the needs of the community. The CCG is in the process of engaging with the community on this issue.”

To my mind, that is wholly unacceptable. I have written again, pressing for reassurance, seeking details about the contingency plans, which earlier this year I was assured were in place should agreement not be reached by 30 September—I was told that it was all in hand—and requesting an urgent meeting. I am currently awaiting a reply.

People in Corby and the surrounding areas are very worried about this. With the summer holidays coming, people are coming together to campaign on the issue. I am going to meet the Save Corby Urgent Care Centre campaign group, which already has a huge social media following. We are working cross-party. Tom Beattie, the Labour leader of Corby Borough Council, and I are dusting off our joint campaigning attire and getting ready to campaign together on this, as we have done a number of times on the steel issue. I am grateful to him for being so willing to work together on this, because it is relevant to all our constituents, regardless of how they vote, or indeed whether they vote at all.

One of the points that Tom raised with me was the challenge of housing growth in our area. Our health infrastructure needs to keep pace. The Corby site is very relevant in the context of the hub-and-spoke model that Kettering General hospital is trying to develop, with a new urgent care hub at Kettering General, a hub in Corby and hopefully a hub in Wellingborough.

What needs to happen? We need urgent reassurance from the commissioners that the current service will be not only protected, but further improved in the years ahead, and that the quality that we have become used to will continue. We must always review our health infrastructure, but to my mind it is unthinkable that the urgent care centre would not be a key component right at the heart of our local health infrastructure. Given that the procurement for the new contract was for only 12 months in any event, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down with the current providers and try to come up with an agreement—I have offered to help facilitate that process—or, failing that, to put in place the arrangements that I was previously told were available. What we need is a bit more dialogue, properly listening to local people, because local wishes are exceptionally clear on the matter. The CCG was set up to advance Corby’s cause. It represents only the borough of Corby—it is the smallest CCG in the country—so I would like to think that its key focus would be on listening to local people and putting them first without having to take into account the needs of wider north Northamptonshire.

Therefore, over the summer recess I plan to be—to use a variant of a phrase—a bloody difficult man on this issue. I am going to stand up for my constituents. I really hope that the commissioners will be listening to me this afternoon and to my constituents—please do not let us down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As the article 50 notice letter set out very clearly, the Government are seeking to negotiate a deep and special partnership with the European Union, at the heart of which will be a comprehensive free trade agreement covering goods, services and networks. That will allow us to continue to work closely with the European Union after leaving the organisation.

The Government do carry out detailed analysis to inform their negotiating strategy, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want me to reveal the outcome of that analysis, which would be of great use to our negotiating partners on the other side. That is not the way to get the best deal for Britain in these negotiations.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

In Corby, there is a huge appetite for a new enterprise zone to help to boost jobs and growth further. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the introduction of a new round of opportunities?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has made an important suggestion, and I will undertake to look at it carefully. No doubt an exercise will take place over the next few weeks that will involve our thinking about what commitments we want to make for the future, and I will take his question as a representation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I would say to her constituents that we said that we would get to 90% by the end of last year, which we achieved, and that we would get to 95% by the end of 2017, so we have been completely transparent about what we are planning to do. We are now consulting on a USO precisely to help those constituents of the hon. Lady who are not in the rural broadband programme. We are bringing in important changes to planning in the digital economy Bill, which I hope will have the support of the Opposition Front Bench team. She should congratulate the Government because the way the contracts have been constructed means that almost £300 million is coming back, so we are going to go further than 95% and reach more of her constituents. She should be telling them that rather than complaining.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Residents in Denford are extremely frustrated at the lack of progress in securing superfast broadband. Will the Minister encourage Superfast Northamptonshire and BT to redouble their efforts to get Denford connected?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will certainly do that.