Leveson Inquiry
There have been allegations made against the Culture Secretary regarding his role in News International's failed takeover bid of BskyB. Today Jeremy Hunt gave a statement to the Commons on this and I spoke about the actions this Government have taken to clean up the culture of the media.
Under this Government we have seen action on phone hacking, action with the Leveson inquiry, action on media regulation reform, and importantly, the Secretary of State tells us, no action in favour of the Murdoch empire in all the decisions that he made. Does he agree that that is in sharp contrast to all the actions of the previous Government which allowed the bent and dysfunctional media culture to be perpetuated in this country?
Jeremy Hunt:
That is absolutely right, and that is why we are trying to draw a line under what happened under previous Governments of all colours, and trying to sort this problem out. I think it is time that Labour Members took a responsible attitude, because this is an opportunity to do something about this problem and we are trying to do so honestly and conscientiously.
The EU should not undermine the Police or UKBA
The Government is looking at the possibility of sharing data across authorities. Many people are concerned that this will allow too much access into our personal details, and amount to a "snoopers charter". Needless to say this is an EUdirective, and one which I am very concerned about as a further example of the tentacles of Europe reaching ever further into our lives.
Today I said:
I represent what are probably some of the most Eurosceptic electors in the country, but they feel passionately about one issue: the need to ensure that Europe works when it comes to dealing with international crime. We see at first hand the problems of people-trafficking and people-smuggling, particularly the disgraceful exploitation of women who are carted secretly over our border and slipped into such places as Soho.
We see drug running, international organised crime, gun running and all the rest of it—that is, some of the most serious international crimes, on which we absolutely have to have co-operation. I therefore strongly support measures to ensure effective international co-operation. However, we have to ask whether this directive is on the side of international co-operation to tackle crime. Is it on the side of law enforcement, or is it on the side of the villain and protecting the villain's rights? Is it yet another villain's charter by proxy, emanating from the European Union?
For me, the balance shows the right intent—that we should co-operate—but what we have from the European Union is the wrong way of going about that. We need to give our law enforcement agencies the strongest possible tools to fight crime and the serious international gangs, and so on. However, I am worried because, having listened to this debate, it seems to me that we do not need to opt in at this stage. From the discussion and debate so far, it seems that we could take part in the negotiations, reserving our position, and decide to opt in later. We have the possibility of co-operating bilaterally. Up to now, we have co-operated quite successfully, and to date we have managed to data-share. Why will that suddenly come to a crashing halt if we have a right of privacy and a right not to data-share for criminals and villains, whom we should be fighting with all the data at our disposal?
My principal concern, and the principal concern that my constituents will have, is this. Of course we should have international co-operation, and of course we should combat international crime, but are our Ministers going to make the case passionately in Europe, on a line-item basis? Are they going to show that attention to detail, when they will not even accept an intervention from Members on their own side, which in my case was going to be helpful? I am concerned that we should be making sure that we are not frit when we put the case in Europe—that we are strong and trenchant, and that we ensure that our European friends focus on the necessity of ensuring that our law-enforcement agencies are sent into battle not with one hand tied behind their back, but with the full support of all European nations to ensure that we deal with the scourge and evils of international crime.
Many workers in my constituency work tirelessly on the front line for the UK Border Agency. Paragraph 30 of the impact assessment says that the UKBA is seriously concerned, because although people would normally be charged a tenner for a data request, under this proposal it will be completely free. That means that people could be bombing them in all the time, at great administrative expense and effort—for the UKBA, in this case. The UKBA receives 22,000 such requests every year. At the moment, the charge of a tenner wards off ever more requests. Indeed, the UKBA says that the charge should be higher, in order to ward off more vexatious requests. Its preference is for
"an increase in the fee limit to above the present £10 level."
The UKBA is not going to be happy that the Europeans come along and say, "Actually, it should all be free." We need Ministers to go to Europe to make the case passionately to our European colleagues that we must ensure that we do not give a blank cheque to anyone who wants to be vexatious in order to protect the so-called privacy of potential villains and criminals. We must send our law enforcement agencies into battle with our strong and passionate support, so we can deal with the great evils of international crime.
The one area on which my constituents support the EU is in respect of co-operation, but we must also ensure that our criminal justice services are not under threat of prosecution, as suggested at paragraph 50 of the impact assessment. I am deeply concerned that the overall impact of this will be substantially negative, even if it is difficult to be specific about that. I hope that Ministers will make a strong and passionate case for taking away the bad things in this directive and ensuring we keep the good things. I urge the Minister not to be frit. Instead, he must be strong and trenchant and win the day.
Tax changes to help the least well off
For me the centrepiece of the Budget was the decision to help the least well off – not just by increasing the personal allowance but also in the ways I set out in the House today, on the final day of the Finance Bill debate.
It is a matter of great concern that over the past decade and a half, the gap between the least well-off and the richest has grown. There is now more inequality. Will it not help to reduce the inequality between pensioners to increase the basic state pension by the biggest amount ever—£5.30, which is a big jump—and to ensure that the richest pensioners do not get such a high benefit, but do not lose out either, by capping the allowance?
One should also take into account the universal credit changes. The IFS report is quite clear that as a result of the changes taken by April 2014 the bottom two deciles are much better off than the other deciles, taking into account the changes made under the coalition. Over the longer term, as reforms are made, we are looking after the least well-off according to the IFS review.
There has to be austerity and there has to be a fiscal tightening because of the chaotic shambles of the nation's finances left by the former Prime Minister and the disaster that we have had, but leaving that aside, if one looks at where the most challenging things are falling, the least well-off are protected under the Budget policy up till April 2014 according to the IFS figures.
See here for the full debate.
Boosting Growth
Reducing the top rate of income tax to 45p, so Britain no longer has the highest rate of income tax in the G20 will boost growth. The 50p rate undermines our competitiveness and new evidence, endorsed by the independent OBR, finds that it only raises a fraction of what was intended.
Today in the third day of debate on the Finance Bill I spoke about this:
Much of the discussion on the 50p rate has been on whether it is an economic decision or a political one. My viewpoint is very simple. If we wanted a nice, easy time, and if our Ministers wanted a nice easy ride on the "Today" programme, where all those nice, gently liberal-leftie, metropolitan BBC people would congratulate us on doing nothing whatever, we would have left the higher rate at 50p. I am sure Owen Smith would have approved and been happy to congratulate us. If, on the other hand, we wanted to take action and do the right thing economically—the one thing that really matters is getting this country growing as quickly as possible—even if it were politically hard for us to sell, we would support the entrepreneurs, wealth creators and aspirant people who create the jobs and money that make this country go. For my money, that is the bottom line. The economics trump the politics.
You can read the full speech here.
Tax Avoidance
Today was the first day of debate on the Finance Bill - or what most of us call the Budget. It is the bill that sets the taxes and tax law which the Chancellor set out before Easter. See here.
I spoke about how we need to take strong action against tax avoidance by big business. At a time when so many people find it so hard to get by, it is more important than ever that big business pays its fair share of tax.
I spoke up for the need to reform our tax law fundamentally. To make sure that tax on profits from business carried out in the UK is paid. We need to make it clear that it is not acceptable that Amazon, Apple, Google and all these huge multinational companies pay their fair share.
Some excerpts are below with the Ministerial responses.
Charlie:
It is incredibly important that the Government are reducing the rate of corporation tax. That is great news for British business. However, British business pays corporation tax. Should not we take proper action against multinationals that rip off our country and do not pay proper taxes, and ensure that they pay a fair share of tax, like every British business, so that we have a level tax playing field for all companies?
Danny Alexander:
My hon. Friend is right that we must deal with tax avoidance by companies, and there are a number of measures in the Bill that are precisely aimed at ensuring that businesses pay their fair share of tax, which I am sure he would wish to support. Furthermore, through clause 180, we are introducing vital reforms to the controlled foreign companies rules, and, through clause 19, a patent box to allow UK businesses to operate in an ever-more globalised world. Hopefully, we will encourage some of the businesses to which he refers to return to the UK. The latter measure has already secured a major investment in this country by a major chemicals company.
Charlie:
Our job is to secure our own tax base in the UK. That is what I want to focus on, and it is what the previous Government totally failed to do over many, many years. If we put a stop to it and raise the due amount of tax from companies not resident in the UK with anti-avoidance measures and proper tax reform, we could have lower fuel duties for hard-pressed families and a lower basic rate of tax—and goodness knows we could even pay down some more of the debt that the previous Government shockingly, disgracefully saddled this country with.
I hope that the anti-avoidance measures in the Bill will be widened in the following way: the first principle is that business tax rates should be low, simple and attractive. Britain should be open for business, but open for business on a level playing field for national and international companies. Businesses should have a social responsibility to pay a fair share of tax. Some object to the idea of morality in the tax system, but this is an issue of corporate social responsibility. Tax avoidance should be dealt with firmly and rules changed to stop the avoidance.
For the full debate see here.
As a former tax lawyer I know how tax reform works and know the reform we need. It's not right that people should be facing rising taxes, suffering from the cost of fuel and cost of everything while some big international businesses have an effective tax rate of less than 1%. The system needs reform to bring fairness and social justice. I am fighting to see that happens.
Capping Donations to Political Parties
There is an urgent need for party funding reform in this country. Every party has suffered problems with donations. We need to draw a line. I think there should be a cap on individual political donations.
This must apply equally to trade unions as well as private citizens. The hard pressed taxpayer should not be forced to cough up for political campaigning. Today I asked Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude about this.
Does the Minister agree that for the last two decades all major parties in this House have been affected by donor scandals of one sort or another, and that, rather than more hammering and rock throwing, we should in the next Session get on and legislate to bring in a donor cap, without state funding for political parties?
Francis Maude
I would be delighted if we were to do that. It is a long-established convention that reform of party funding proceeds by way of consensus. That was definitely the view that Mr Straw, my hon. Friend Mr Heath and I took when we conducted previous discussions on this topic. We need to have another try at that. It is unsatisfactory for the party in power to legislate unilaterally to change the party funding system. If at all possible, we must proceed by consensus, as before, so we will strain every fibre to try to achieve consensus.
Tackling Alcohol Crime in Deal
There has been a big rise in problems in the centre of Deal caused by drinkers. No-one minds people going out and having a good time yet they have to respect residents whose lives are currently being blighted by noise, vandalism and general anti social behaviour. I have been working with the local Councils and Police to try and help, and I took the opportunity to ask the Home secretary today about how the Government can also assist by giving councils more power to stop late night drinking where it is causing real problem.
In the town of Deal that I represent, residents are beset in the early hours of the morning by drunks returning home, smashing up property and fights breaking out. The district council says that there is nothing it can do because of the rules brought in by Labour's 24-hour drinking culture. In changing the rules, will the Home Secretary give real power and discretion to the district councils?
Theresa May
My hon. Friend is right. We are changing the law on the powers of the licensing authorities, and I am sure that Deal and other towns and cities will find very helpful the early morning restriction orders, which will be introduced later this year and will enable local authorities to restrict licensed premises' ability to open between midnight and 6 am.
The Budget
Today was Budget day. This is when the Chancellor sets out the economic plan for the next year, and is one of the most important days in Westminster.
This is a radical, reforming Budget which helps Britain earn its way in the world. That rewards work. That backs business and puts us on the side of those who aspire to do better for themselves and their families. This is a Budget with far reaching tax reform which will benefit 24 million ordinary families up and down the country. Most basic rate taxpayers will gain £220 every year.
This is a sensible Budget which sticks to the plan to reduce Labour's debts, and helps the least well off whilst getting the richest to contribute more.
I attended all three days of Budget debate, speaking in the Chamber, making a number of interventions, and posed questions of Ministers and the Opposition. You can see full transcripts here, but excerpts are also below.
we need more women in work, and to look after women and take them out of tax, which is what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, she mentions jobs. In her constituency in the last Parliament, unemployment increased by 44%; in this Parliament it has hardly changed. Does she agree that the previous Labour Government's policies caused massive damage to this country?
this Budget shows....that those in the top decile—that is, the most well off—will experience the greatest reduction in income? They are being made to pay, despite Labour's 1970s class war rhetoric.
this April petrol duty will be a full 10p lower than it would have been under the previous Government's plans. That will save the average family £144 and be a massive benefit—a far greater benefit than if Labour had remained in office.
Predictably Labour have failed to acknowledge the help for the poorest and that the richest are worst hit.
More Business for Small Business
Small businesses should have a better shout at Government contracts. Big Government likes to deal with big business. This shuts out small business. Yet the wider the net of Government contracts, the better value. It also helps small businesses grow to become the success stories of the future.
In Cabinet Office questions today I said;
In the past decade, small business has increased employment by 1 million and big business cut it by 1 million. Does that not show that procurement for small businesses is about not just fairness but more jobs and money?
Francis Maude
My hon. Friend is completely right. That is why we have an aspiration to increase the direct spend to 25% of what the Government spend. We have already more than doubled that, and we intend to go further.
Safer Borders
Does the Home Secretary agree that it is really shocking that we have had a relaxation of our border controls from 2007 onwards about which Parliament was never told? Will she confirm that since that came to light she has been taking action to reintroduce the concept of border security for our country?
Theresa May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that the Vine report indicated that there had been problems with border controls since 2007—a fact that, sadly, Members on the Opposition Front Bench seemed unable to recognise when the Vine report came out. We have, indeed, reinstated full border security checks—that is absolutely right and proper—and we have taken action to make sure that by separating the UK border force from UKBA it can concentrate on the issue of establishing and maintaining proper security at our borders.
Kent Police Increase Frontline Officers
Despite opposition claims to the contrary, the most recent figures show that Kent Police has actually increased frontline officers. Today I celebrated the work of our local Police force, and asked the Home Secretary to join me in this.
Will the Home Secretary congratulate Kent police, which has increased the number of front-line police officers, has 520 more neighbourhood police officers on the beat, has been cutting crime and doing a great job, and has written to me complaining bitterly about this nonsense about a reduction in first-line responders?
Theresa May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to commend the work of Kent police. By transforming the way it undertakes policing and by looking at issues such as shift patterns, Kent police has been able to increase neighbourhood police officers by 520, which shows that money can be saved while maintaining or improving front-line services.
Cracking Down on Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is a particularly evil form of abuse and today I took the opportunity to ask the Home Secretary about the Government's plans to tackle this.
What steps she is taking to reduce levels of domestic violence.
Home Secretary Theresa May:
The Government's updated action plan for our strategy to "End Violence Against Women and Girls" was published on 8 March. We have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services until 2015. The plan also includes new actions to help reduce domestic violence, including a one-year pilot to test a Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme from the summer of 2012.
Keeping Big Ben Free
Parliament has committed to reducing spending in line with reductions being made across the wider public sector. One of the proposals put forward was to begin charging visitors £15 to tour Big Ben from July 2012.
I was against this as I believe that as taxpayers pay for Parliament they should be able to visit it for free. I also think there are other ways of saving money, like getting rid of the £1million it costs to print Early day Motions and getting rid of grace and favour apartments. I made these points in the debate today;
Is it not better to treat the Houses of Parliament in the same way as museums, with free access as a principle?
We need to look again at the issue of grace and favour apartments, which do seem outdated in the modern age? Does she also agree that we should look at parliamentary outreach and perhaps talk more about parliamentary in-reach? Parliamentary outreach is perhaps better left to the Electoral Commission.
Following the debate on this, MPs agreed not to charge for any tours during this Parliament.
International Women's Day - More women are in the workplace than ever before
Every year on 8 March countries around the world celebrate International Women's Day. This means thousands of events are held across the globe to inspire women and celebrate their achievements. Today in the House I spoke in support of this great project.
There are many loving relationships, and there has been a revolution meaning that there are more women in the workplace than ever before, and also in relationships in which the children are cared for and deeply loved. Men even change nappies, as I did. Should we not celebrate the good things about men and women, and about women in the workplace?
Putting Rail Passengers First
Today in Transport Questions I asked the Transport Secretary to confirm that this Government will not pander to the railway fatcats but will make sure that the customer's interests are the first consideration. This means bringing rail fares down, and providing a better, faster, easier service.
I welcome the Secretary of State's determination to put the customer first. Does she agree that for too long the railway industry has been imprisoned by provider interest, whether greedy, bank-owned train leasing companies, bonus-hungry managers or dinosaurs and luddites from the trade unions, while the previous Government walked on by? Is it any wonder that our railways are among the most expensive in Europe?
Justine Greening:
In many respects it has been an impossible situation, and certainly one that cannot continue. We cannot allow £3.5 billion of inefficiency a year to go unchecked and always to be paid for by taxpayers and fare payers. That is what this document and this strategy are all about tackling.
Megger Success
On 1 March I mentioned that I would be visiting Dover based business Megger. Today I reflected on the visit and asked the Government to hold a debate on investing in business in the UK. From my postbag I know that help for start-ups and SME's is a big issue.
May we have a debate on business investment in the UK? Last week, I visited Megger, a high-tech manufacturing and export powerhouse in Dover that makes diagnostic testing instruments. I saw at first hand the massive investment that it has put into its manufacturing process, and it struck me that we could create more jobs, more productivity and more economic success by further boosting business investment in the UK.
George Young
I am delighted to hear of the success of the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. Medical technology is an area in which we have a competitive advantage and in which we are making progress in the export market. I hope that it will be possible to have further debates, on the back of the Budget statement, on exports and on the steps that the Government are taking to enable such firms to flourish and create more jobs.
Taking the Poorest Out of Tax
I believe the best thing we could do to help the least well off would be for the Government to raise the tax threshold to £10,000. This would lift millions out of tax altogether, and would help countless other struggling families and workers.
Today in Treasury Questions I urged the Government to consider this.
Should we not look at providing tax help for hard-pressed families in totality and in the round, in particular, through measures such as increasing the personal allowance to £10,000 for income tax?
Chloe Smith
I certainly agree, and my hon. Friend will know, just as other Members of this House do, that that measure would take more than 1 million low-income earners out of tax altogether, which is a healthy start and a step on the path to our economic recovery.
Campaigning to Cut Fuel Bills
Labour believed that low carbon commitments should be balanced on the backs of the poor through their energy bills. Their push for alternative energy has meant that regular fuel bills have shot up – hitting hard pressed families and the least well off the most. This is wrong, and I want the Government to reverse this.
I questioned the Energy Secretary Ed Davey about this today during a debate on growth in a low-carbon economy
My constituents are concerned about the many renewable and carbon commitments that the previous Government put on the backs of the poor through energy bills, particularly those such as the renewable heat incentive, carbon capture and storage commitments and feed-in tariffs. How are this Government looking after the least well-off, whom the previous Government were busy plunging into fuel poverty?
Edward Davey
My hon. Friend will know that the costs of the renewable heat incentive and CCS were put on to consumer bills under the previous Government. We have removed those levies, and those schemes are now paid for through taxation. That is a classic example of how we have helped consumers.
I also had the chance to point out to the shadow Energy Secretary Caroline Flint that Labour's policy did not even do what it was supposed to;
The right hon. Lady waxes lyrical about the importance of a low-carbon economy, but is it not the case that under the previous Labour Government, emissions barely changed at all and were rising when her party left office? Does not the fact that there are so few Labour Members in the Chamber today show how little commitment her party has to this issue?
Emissions were rising, and so were fuel bills. This is the legacy of a Labour government that created a total mess.
On 8 March during Energy Questions I underlined the same point and urged for consumer energy bills to be lowered. You can see the full transcript here.
More free trade in Europe
The meeting of the European council on 1-2 March focused on the measures needed to address the growth crisis in Europe and complete the single market. The Prime Minister gave a statement on the outcomes of this today, and I spoke in support of what it had achieved.
May I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement? I am especially pleased with the measures in paragraphs 15 and 19 of the Council conclusions on the completion of the digital single market, the energy market and the services directive. Can the Prime Minister tell us a little more about how he was able to move Europe in the direction of growth by getting the measures in the conclusions renegotiated?
David Cameron
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Most of the measures in paragraph 15 were not in the original draft of the communiqué. What was decisive was that it was not just the usual suspects, such as the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch and the British, coming forward with the agenda; we also had support from the Italian and Spanish Prime Ministers, who have not always championed this agenda, but who now see that it is vital for European growth.
Helping Local Business
I try and visit local businesses as much as possible. They are a great way to talk through the issues affecting small business, and also to celebrate success stories. Megger, a business based in Dover, provides 300 local jobs, is at the cutting edge of technology and is a major exporter. Before my visit I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on how the Government can go for growth and see more businesses thrive.
Tomorrow, I will visit Megger, a very successful business in my constituency. May we have a debate on how we can accelerate economic growth in the UK, particularly in the light of the excellent news in the International Monetary Fund report that Britain is likely to grow more quickly than Germany and France this year?
Sir George Young (Leader of the House)
Indeed. The best news for Megger would be a continuation of the Government's economic policies, which allow low interest rates to endure. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fact that, this year, we are growing three times as fast as France and twice as fast as Germany. That is a tribute to the economic policies that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has championed
Conservatives care about the NHS
As I said on 23 February there has been too much scare-mongering about the effects the Health and Social Care Bill will have on the NHS.
There is a very simple reason why the Government has introduced this bill – it wants to protect the NHS for future generations.
Today after the Health Secretary gave a statement on the bill I made this point to him;
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the principles underpinning the Bill are that the NHS is and will remain free for all patients; that a person's GP knows them and their needs best; and that although we are spending billions of pounds more than Labour would have done, every pound needs to work as hard as possible if the NHS is to be modern and provide care for the future?
Andrew Lansley
My hon. Friend is right, not least on his point that the coalition Government are investing in the NHS, with real-terms increases each year. That contrasts with the Labour Government in Wales, who in the course of this Parliament intend to reduce spending on the NHS by more than 6% in real terms.
This Government believes in the NHS and its core principles - that treatment should be free when you need it, regardless of your ability to pay but the NHS needs to be modernised if it is to be protected for future generations. This will make sure that more money gets straight to the frontline where it makes a real difference to patients.
No to Boris Island
Today I made the case for making better use of our existing airports in Kent and Essex, as well as for the Lower Thames Crossing.
May I urge the Secretary of State in considering aircraft capacity to look first at the possibilities of expanding existing airports east of London, rather than building new ones, and at how the lower Thames crossing could assist with infrastructure?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to point out two things. First, we need to look at our transport system as a whole. It is about getting around, and that can involve not only aviation, but railways and roads. Secondly, the matter of the hub airport is incredibly important. It is also a medium to long-term issue. We received more than 600 responses to our original scoping document. We are considering those and will take some of them forward in the strategy document we will publish in March.
NHS Risk Register – an exercise in opportunism by Labour
There has been much talk of the so called "risk register" in the last few weeks. This concerns the Health and Social care Bill that is currently before Parliament, and which seeks to ensure that the NHS continues to provide a world class service.
I am not sure why Labour are seeking to make political capital over this. Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham refused a similar request for the Department of Health risk register when he was Secretary of State in 2009. So it looks like opportunism to me.
Today I spoke in a debate on the NHS and the release of the risk register and you can see the points I made to the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and former Labour Health Secretary Alan Johnson below.
I am proud of what this Government have been doing for the NHS. Indeed, we can see what happens when we protect NHS spending and when we have a cancer drugs fund. We do not need a risk register to see the difference that that makes; we can just look at Wales, where waiting times are rising and cancer patients are being denied access to life-saving drugs and having to wait longer. That is the benefit of the Conservative policies in England.
Andrew Lansley
My hon. Friend is safely in Dover, a long way from Wales, when he says these things, but I go to Wales and he is absolutely right. It is staggering. The right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues can stand there and say, "Oh, well, you know, it's only"—what is it?—"8% of patients who are not being seen within 18 weeks." In Wales it is 32% of patients who are not being seen
Charlie:
On 31 July 2008 and on 17 September 2008, the right hon. Gentleman decided not to release risk registers or risk assessments. Why was he right then and the Secretary of State wrong now?
Alan Johnson
I see that the Whips' brief dragged up something I did in a previous life. The risk register is, with respect, a second-order issue. I cannot understand why the Health Secretary does not publish it. He is in enough trouble already, and the Government are in enough trouble already without adding an issue of transparency that simply makes the situation worse.
So there we have it – a "second order issue". In other words opportunism and scaremongering of the worst possible type.
Border Security
Border security will always be a priority for Dover. Representing the border officials who live and work here, I know that their great work has been let down in the past by the previous Government's handling of the Agency. Today I urged the Home Secretary to learn from past mistakes, and she took the opportunity to praise the management of the busy weekend at Calais by Border officials.
A couple of months ago, I toured the border controls at Dover. I would like to make the Home Secretary and the excellent Immigration Minister aware of the following: first, the problems at Calais are the result not of budget cuts but of coaches queuing back on to the motorway, causing the police to put pressure on the UKBA to hurry people through; secondly, the previous Government also did nothing about eye scanners that did not work properly; and, thirdly the previous Government supplied laptops that did not work properly and took too long to load up. While she is addressing the problems of the past, will she take an interest in those things too?
Theresa May
My hon. Friend, given his constituency, takes a particular interest in border matters. He is assiduous in dealing with these issues, in liaising with those at Dover port responsible for such matters and in taking up any issues with Ministers. He raised several matters. I am happy to say that despite this weekend being the busiest weekend for returning school coach parties—the thoughts of the House must be with those affected by the terrible school coach accident in France—the UKBA, by working with the French authorities and putting in place mitigating measures, achieved a greater throughput than was achieved previously. There were also fewer problems with coaches on the motorway.
Defence Exports
In Defence questions today I asked the Minister how the MoD are seeking to improve the UK's trade by promoting defence exports. We need to export more to grow our economy.
What steps he is taking to promote defence exports.
Gerald Howarth
We have made exports a high priority and are supporting the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation through an active and innovative defence diplomacy initiative. I have recently returned from a successful visit to India where I led a delegation of some 25 British defence companies to promote the best that Britain has to offer. The White Paper "National Security Through Technology" published this month by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend Peter Luff, reaffirms our support to defence and security exports.
Charlie Elphicke
Over the past few months we have heard much concern expressed about the Typhoon contract. Will the Minister tell the House a little more about the exports that he is working on so that buyers are not gulled into buying second-rate outdated equipment?
Gerald Howarth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. It is important that we recognise that in the United Kingdom we are fortunate. We do not rely just on major defence companies such as Thales, BAE Systems and QinetiQ. We have a raft of medium-sized companies such as Cobham, Ultra, Chemring and Martin Baker, well known for its ejector seats, and those companies have a rich supply of high technology to offer other countries. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working hard to promote those companies as well.
Saving Money in Government
I hate bureaucracy and waste. At a time when the country's finances are struggling and hard working families in Dover are trying to watch the pennies, the Government must follow suit.
One way of doing this will be to smash the big business IT cartel I spoke of in the House of Commons, and I questioned the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude about today.
What recent progress he has made on bringing forward proposals on Government IT procurement
Francis Maude
Soon after the coalition Government came to office, we introduced strict controls on ICT spend that saved £300 million in the year to March 2011 alone. We have opened up procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, we are moving towards open standards and interoperability, and we are examining some of the incredibly expensive and burdensome ICT contracts that we inherited from the previous Government.
Charlie Elphicke:
Will the Minister tell us more about how open source, getting computers to talk to each other through common standards, and smarter procurement can help to save billions of pounds, secure better computers, and break up the IT cartel that was fostered under the previous Government?
Francis Maude:
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government have opportunities to handle their IT and increase their digital offering in transactional public services very differently from that which we inherited. It is also becoming increasingly clear that it will be possible for both the quality of those public services and public interaction to be massively improved, at a fraction of the cost incurred by the previous Government.
Abu Qatada
I questioned the Home Secretary today in the House over the case of Abu Qatada.
The decision to grant a terrorist like this bail has shocked and sickened my constituents, and I share their disgust. It has been caused because of the Human Rights Act and the ECHR –both of which we should tear up and chuck away.
I said:
Does the Home Secretary agree that entrenching the convention by the Human Rights Act was a catastrophic error on the part of the previous Labour Government? Will she set out a process that she will follow to take us towards a British Bill of Rights?
Theresa May:
I have made my views on the Human Rights Act clear, but I also point out that even before that Act we were signatories to the European convention and subject to the European Court of Human Rights. On the process of reforms towards a possible Bill of Rights, a commission is examining a possible UK Bill of Rights. It was set up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe that it is due to report before the end of this year.
Financial Services Bill
This Bill is really a response to the banking crisis of 2008. It aims to set up a new framework for the regulation of the banking industry to try and prevent this happening again.
Labour's failure to regulate the banks properly has cost the taxpayer billions. That is why the Government are abolishing their failed tripartite system, and moving bank regulation to the Bank of England.
In the second reading of the Bill held today I questioned the Chancellor about the lessons that we could learn from the last Government's mismanagement in how to better regulate the system.
With the tripartite system, of which I believe the shadow Chancellor was the architect, a tick-box culture of regulation grew—a one-size-fits-all approach, and that sort of thing. Can the Chancellor tell the House a bit about how we will get rid of that tick-box culture and move towards a culture of more individual and tailored regulation?
George Osborne:
The key thing is to empower the regulators both to exercise judgment and then to be able to do something about it. My hon. Friend is right: there was no shortage of regulation, in that sense, in 2006-07. RBS complied with every bit of regulation in its decision to try to take over ABN AMRO; it is just that no one felt empowered to say, "Is this the right thing, for this firm and for the financial system, at a point when the financial markets have already frozen up?"
Rather than wait for this legislation to pass through Parliament, we have gone ahead and created the Financial Policy Committee on an interim and non-statutory basis. It is already meeting regularly to assess risks across the financial system, such as the need for banks to provide for adequate capital before determining the distribution of profits, as well as drawing attention to specific products, such as exchange-traded funds, whose excessive use may be a cause for concern. It has already produced two impressive financial stability
There was also an opportunity to quiz the Shadow Chancellor on his shifting position to banking reform. You can see our exchanges here
Empty Properties in Dover
The rise in empty homes and properties over recent years has been a scandal when the national housing shortage is considered. I know from my surgeries how many people are waiting to be re-housed, so I urged the Government to take steps to help.
Although the number of homes empty for six months in the Dover district has fallen sharply, to 872, do Ministers agree that a lot more work is needed to undo the damage of the past in Dover? In 2005, there were 674 empty homes. I urge the fastest possible action. During the same time, the social housing waiting list has grown by 14%.
Andrew Stunell:
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is an urgent task to get empty homes back into use, particularly affordable use. Often, the waiting lists facing many local authorities could be shortened if those authorities tackled empty homes vigorously. That is why we have provided the new homes bonus as a reward and are investing £100 million to switch empty homes to affordable homes.
EU Criminal Policy
Today's debate was about the EU commission's push for Euro crimes
I questioned the Justice Minister about the implications this would have
To make it absolutely clear, will the Minister confirm that the EU criminal policy outlined in the document would not apply to the UK in any way, shape or form unless or until the UK chose to opt in?
Crispin Blunt:
Yes, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that that is the position.
In my speech I used the Minister's reassurance to argue that if this is the case, the Government should be looking to opt out on these measures, for the reasons explained below.
My concern is about this kind of extension of the whole European project. We see it creeping on further, out of taxation and all the other measures with which we are familiar, into the criminal sphere. I find this policy document highly objectionable in many areas. First, I find objectionable the statement that "EU Criminal Policy should have as overall goal to foster citizens' confidence in the fact that they live in a Europe of freedom, security and justice". That is not the point of European criminal policy. Rather, it should be the criminal policy of each individual member state. The EU, by trying to say that its policy is somehow about these principles and that citizens look to it for the execution of those principles, is overstretching and overselling. It is also misreading the situation, given that it is so far removed from people and has done so little to instil confidence.
It is not for the European Union to start defining crimes; it is for individual nation states to do so. There are areas where we should consider opting in. For example, I intervened on the Minister and talked about the issue of drugs. Let us look at the measures in the list provided by the Home Secretary. On one side, it talks about co-operation between customs authorities and business organisations on combating drug trafficking. Good. That is what we should have—cross-border co-operation. As the representative of Dover, I know that that is really important and makes a difference. Another 1996 justice and home affairs measure that was proposed, concerns "the exchange of information on the chemical profiling of drugs to facilitate improved cooperation between Member States in combating illicit drug trafficking." Good. Yes, we should do that.
However, the dividing line for me is the 1996 JHA measure No. 750, which concerns "the approximation of the laws and practices of the Member States of the European Union to combat drug addiction and to prevent and combat illegal drug trafficking." When one considers the approximation of laws and the issue of codification and requiring member states to treat everything the same way, one is rapidly moving into the area of a common criminal law—Eurojust, the European arrest warrant, the Euro-investigator, Europol and Euro-crimes. If we are to take that route, my point is simply that we should engage the country as a whole and have a proper, open discussion about what is going on, not try to spin it.
There are some cases where a common criminal law may be appropriate, particularly in the cross-border context; in others, we might conclude that it is not the right way to proceed. But to draw up a cynical list of everything that everyone would agree are the most heinous crimes known to mankind, in order to get the principle and then to extend it later, is something that we have seen with the European Union time and again. It is the fundamentally wrong thing to do, and it would be the wrong thing for us to do in terms of the opt-in or opt-out debate. I believe that when we have that opt-in/opt-out debate over the next two years, we should ensure that we include the country as a whole and have a proper, national discussion.
Following this, I organised a letter to the Telegraph to underline the concern so many of us have about the whole EU criminal justice agenda. See the letter here.
How Tax Changes Will Help Families
Charlie Elphicke:
Will the Minister tell the House how families can have a greater option of part-time working under the taxation changes, and whether they will have more encouragement to work with the introduction of the benefits cap?
David Gauke:
With the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has undertaken, the Government are determined to ensure that work will always pay and that we do not have people trapped on benefits.
Fairness and the Benefit Cap
In today's Treasury questions I asked Ministers how the Treasury is using the tax system to help families who work, and how the benefits cap will help;
Will the Minister tell the House how families can have a greater option of part-time working under the taxation changes, and whether they will have more encouragement to work with the introduction of the benefits cap?
David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury:
With the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has undertaken, the Government are determined to ensure that work will always pay and that we do not have people trapped on benefits.
The benefits cap will ensure that there is a limit on benefits equivalent to a £35,000 salary. Not many people in Dover and Deal have that large a salary, so how can it be fair for a life on benefits to pay so well?
Youth Unemployment
It was interesting to see that after 18 months opposing the Government's economic policy, the Shadow Chancellor recently told the Today programme that Labour would have to do the same.
In the debate on unemployment today I had heard enough opposition MPs berating the coalition so intervened to ask:
Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he agrees with the Shadow Chancellor, who said the other day, "we are going to have keep all these cuts"?
Labour MP Geraint Davies replied:
I am not opposing having to make savings and cuts.
It is good to know where the opposition stand.
European Infrastructure Funds
Today I spoke about Euro infrastructure money. I made the case for this money to be used to improve our local roads and transport connections;
My principal concern is that for many years there has been under-investment in those networks. We have the M20, which is a kind of concrete motorway, and the A2, which has been waiting to be upgraded. On the continent, likewise, the road network, as anyone who has travelled there knows, could be better. A key area for cross-border co-operation could be for the UK Government to consider how those networks could be improved along with the French, the Belgians and the Dunkirk port. A map of Europe shows the so-called golden banana stretching from south-east England towards lower Bavaria, at the heart of which is the Dover strait and the Dover-Calais crossing. Indeed, the Dover-Dunkirk crossing is an important part of the communication and trading links that are so important to our nation's prosperity and to that of Europe.
If the fund is to be extended as suggested, it should not be invested in rail networks in Romania, as my hon. Friend Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested it might be, but in upgrading international transport links between the UK and other countries in the so-called golden banana to help Europe to grow. It is important that we have more growth in Europe and that we support first the area that can provide the value added and recovery generation to drive our European economy forward. My plea to the Financial Secretary and to the Minister of State is to meet me to discuss what we can do in Kent to make the case to France and our friends in Belgium to ensure that we at least get a fair part of the fund to see whether we can improve the transport networks in Kent and take forward the lower Thames crossing.
NHS and Private Sectors
Allowing local health chiefs to run local hospitals could be a good step for the NHS, and would benefit the local community.
During today's debate on the NHS I intervened on Andy Burnham a couple of times to ask why Labour would oppose initiatives that would hand control to local doctors and help maintain community healthcare:
In Dover, our hospital was run down over the 13 years until 2010 and is now a shell. Why should the GPs not be able to commission another provider if the foundation trust will not fulfil its long-standing pledge to build a hospital and provide proper services for my constituents?
Andy Burnham
If those decisions are to be made, the people who make them should be accountable to the hon. Gentleman and the House, whereas the Bill that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is introducing proposes to push those things away. There will be an independent commissioning board that GPs and clinical commissioning groups will not be able to overturn; it will make the decisions. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
Before the last election, we proposed a modest loosening of the private patient cap in response to pressure in another place when we were debating the Health Act 2009, but compared with our modest reforms, the Government's plans are off the scale. Instead of private sector activity at the margins, the Health and Social Care Bill places market forces at the heart of the system. The private sector will not support the NHS, but will replace large chunks of the service in commissioning and provision.
It's quite clear - Labour still won't help us with our Hospital!!
To illustrate the positive difference the reforms can bring I also mentioned Whizz Kids;
My right hon. Friend mentioned the provision of wheelchair services, which is a matter we have been looking at in Kent when considering how commissioning can be taken forward offers really great and radical ideas. Is it not the case that the Labour party would have condemned disabled people to the same standard-issue NHS wheelchairs rather than allowing them real choice across the spectrum?
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely why on that basis, using the any qualified provider approach, the chief executive of the NHS can set out the ambition that a child who needs a wheelchair should get it in a day. In the past they would have to wait and then would not necessarily get the wheelchair they wanted, or in any reasonable time scale. This is about driving improvement and quality. That used to be what the Labour party believed in, which I suppose was why its last manifesto, written when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, stated:
"Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs."
That is a complete description of what we are setting out to do. It is a description of the any qualified provider policy and something that he has now completely abandoned, and he has abandoned patients in the process. It is absurd.
The objective of the Bill and of the Government is simple: continuously to improve care for patients and the health and well-being of people in this country, and that includes improving the health of the poorest fastest, and to ensure that everyone, regardless of who or where they are, enjoys health outcomes that are as good as the very best in the world. That is what we are setting out to do.
The motion states that the private sector already plays an important role in providing that care. Indeed, once upon a time the Labour party was in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman said in May 2007:
"Now the private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate."
Whether the hospital or community provider is operated by the NHS, a charity, a private company or a social enterprise is not the issue from the patient's point of view. From our point of view, we should not make that the issue. The reason it will not matter is that, whoever is the provider of care, the values of the NHS—universal health care, paid for through general taxation, free and based on need, not ability to pay—will remain unchanged. No NHS patient pays for their care today; no patient will pay for their care in future under this Government. On that basis, I can absolutely restate what the Prime Minister said: under this Government and on our watch the NHS will not be privatised.
The Economy - helping those most in need
I want to make a few remarks about economic impacts on the households and families that find it the hardest to make ends meet. Some call them the strivers; some call them hard-pressed families; I have even heard them talked about as alarm-clock Britons. Many families with children find it very hard to make ends meet, so it is worth underlining the strong action that the Government have taken to help people in that position.
First and most important of all is keeping interest rates low. I noted with interest the intervention of the shadow Chancellor on the Chancellor to point out, "Well, there is a liquidity trap; interest rates are too low; it is a bad sign; we need higher interest rates." I think that that will ring very poorly with Britain as a whole. For people who are striving and finding it hard to make ends meet, having to pay higher mortgage interest is not in their interest. The shadow Chancellor and the Labour party are wrong if they are entertaining a policy that is about raising interest rates. That was my understanding of the drift of the shadow Chancellor's speech. I regret it; I do not think it is the right thing to do. Let us bear in mind that a 1% hike in interest rates would mean £10 billion more in interest payments—about £1,000 extra on the average mortgage. People are finding it hard to make ends meet because of rising global commodity prices and the current difficult situation. Higher mortgage interest rates would be a massively retrograde step. One of this Government's most important achievements has been to keep interest rates low by providing stability, clarity and a positive deficit reduction plan to get our finances in order. That is helping millions of families up and down the country and millions of businesses with lower interest rates are far better off than they would be otherwise.
The other really important thing is the help the Government are providing with child care. For a long time it has been difficult, particularly in deprived communities like parts of Dover and Deal in my constituency, for joint working parents to juggle child care. The announcement to help those deprived areas with extra help for child care places was one of the most important in the autumn statement.
You can see the full debate and speech here – and for those interested in my dialogue with the Shadow Chancellor, there are some good examples here – I always enjoy sparring with him in the Chamber.
Financial Transaction Tax
I do not agree with the calls for a financial transactions tax, and believe it will impact negatively on our economy at a time when it needs help – this would be only a hindrance. Today I pressed the Chancellor to make sure he will not agree to this.
While I congratulate the Government on holding to this spending and maintaining this commitment, is the Chancellor aware that France, Germany and other European nations have not done so well in adhering to their commitments and are therefore pledged to, or desire, a financial transaction tax? Will he be trenchant in making sure that this does not happen, as it will damage our economy and our growth?
George Osborne:
There are arguments for, and very much against, a financial transaction tax, but a real red herring is the idea that a financial transaction tax could be used to meet the aid commitments that countries have entered into alongside Britain but have not delivered on. The financial transaction tax which is proposed in Europe, and which we will not accept, has been spent about four times over on domestic programmes, on the EU budget, on climate change measures, and on aid. A far better thing for the countries of the European Union to do is to live up to the commitments they made on international development and deliver them out of their domestic budgets.
Living Standards
I believe the Government's course of action, coupled with the policies they have announced over the last 18 months, are the right way to help raise living standards in our country, and help all those in Dover and Deal who are struggling to get by.
During the debate on Living Standards today I said:
I want to talk particularly about the importance of getting the country going in order to raise living standards. I pressed Mr Byrne on what Labour's growth plan was and how much it would cost. I will happily accept any intervention from Opposition Members on this, but it seems to me that it would cost billions. How would it be funded? It is clear that it would be funded by debt––more borrowing.
We have narrowly avoided suffering from the debt storm throughout Europe, but were we to give way on the fiscal rectitude that we have shown and to go to the markets and borrow to fund Labour's extravagant growth plan, we would be at risk of higher interest rates. Let us bear in mind that every one percentage point increase in interest rates means another £1,000 on the average mortgage.
Painful though the programme to cut overspending has been for so many people throughout the country, the most important achievement—the most important tax cut, if we like—has been the reduction in the cost of borrowing. It has helped so many hard-pressed families, including those in my constituency, to muddle through the recession as best they can, in a situation in which global inflation from imported goods, such as petrol and so on, has been higher and has put pressure on living standards, as every constituency MP understands all too well.
These are very difficult times not just for my constituents in Dover and Deal, but for everyone in the country who finds themselves without a large pay rise at work and facing rising global food prices. It has been a very difficult year, as the OBR makes clear. This year, average inflation has been 4.5%, yet average earnings have not kept pace. It has been difficult, and it has been a squeeze, but world prices, including in commodities and food, are something over which no Government have any great control. I, like my hon. Friend Mr Syms, have not heard from the Opposition any clear plan for what they would do differently to deal with the situation, but it does get better next year as those things work their way through the system.
See the rest of my speech and interventions here.
Public Sector Strikes
I do not agree with the Industrial action that has taken place today. This does not mean though that I do not have huge respect for the hard-working men and women who keep our vital services running, particularly all those in Dover and Deal. We depend on them every day and they do a brilliant job. However I am angry that union bosses are ordering millions of public sector workers to strike this week - even while talks are under way. Only around a third of union members backed industrial action.
Today I asked the Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude about the responsibility of these strikes:
As a former private sector worker, I know how many people will be wondering, given the irresponsible nature of these strikes, why £113 million of Government money is paid to the unions. Would it not be better used on body armour for our troops in the field, or on looking after sick babies in our hospitals by improving intensive care?
Francis Maude
It is entirely correct that a large amount of taxpayers' money is effectively used to pay for full and part-time union officials. There can be perfectly good justification for some of that, in order to sort out local disputes quickly and effectively, but that there should now be 260 full-time union officials on the civil service payroll is really hard to justify, and we are reviewing it.
I hope we can spend that £113 million on much needed public services rather than hand outs for trade unions.
Development of the Western Docks
I have welcomed the National Policy Statement (NPS) on Ports which should bring such benefit to our community by helping developments and investment at the Port of Dover.
Today in the House I said;
The NPS is extraordinarily important. Representing Dover, I know just how important it is. Only today, the approval has been announced of a plan for the development of the western docks at Dover. It is a gold-plated plan on a rather larger scale than it needs to be, with a price tag of £400 million of investment, and the application has taken getting on for five years to go through the system—an awfully long time. Although the planned capacity will possibly not be needed until 2025 or 2030, owing to the economic difficulties that the country has faced in recent years, and although a gold-plated scheme certainly is not needed, it is an important step forward for the development of the port of Dover. It is much easier to amend an application once permission has been granted than to make a new one.
The fact that it has taken so long for the application finally to be approved underlines the need for a far swifter system of getting applications passed and sorted out. As the Transport Committee made clear in its report, there have been calls from business interests and others for major infrastructure projects to be handled properly, not with extensive public inquiries and long drawn-out decision-making processes but in a shorter and sharper way—something a bit less than the terminal 5 or Sizewell B inquiry nightmares. The NPS is therefore extraordinarily welcome.
My hon. Friend Dr Lewis was right that the application at Dibden bay took a long time and got thrown out. It took four years, and I believe that it cost the applicant some £45 million, so that was dead money. That makes no sense whatever. The new, swifter method will be much better.
The shadow Minister, John Woodcock, rightly made the point that it is desirable to consider the wider aspects of the matter. My understanding is that the NPS is more focused on planning applications for ports than on whether development rights will be granted. I agree with him that, some years on from the Eddington report, which was produced back in 2006, not a lot has happened to the road infrastructure to ports. Although I picked him up for making a slightly partisan point about that, the fundamental point was accurate. We in Dover have been waiting for the upgrade of the A2, which is an important potential artery to the port. It was in the roads programme back in 1997, but was taken out and has not yet got back in. We have been waiting for that road to be dualled and upgraded for years, but it has not happened. We feel very strongly about that, and the Eddington report was fundamentally correct on the matter.
I turn to the NPS itself. The contents page reveals a massive focus on the environmental side of things. There are sections on, for instance, the environmental impact assessment, habitats and species regulations, pollution control, climate change control, biodiversity—so the list goes on. There is, one suspects, a greater concern about flood risks, coastal change and all the environmental things—including, I dare say, the lesser-spotted shellfish—than on socio-economic impacts, tourism and, above all, regeneration.
Chief Coroner
The news that the role of the Chief Coroner will be retained was welcome news.
In the debate on this I spoke about the need for families to get closure following the passing away of a loved one.
Surely having a right of appeal would just mean more cost and delay. The really important role that the coroner has had historically is to make a judgment and provide closure. Is not that the most important of the coroner's responsibilities?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being typically generous and kind. Judicial review is not a form of appeal. Sometimes it is used as collateral challenge, but it is not a form of appeal. It is used when there has been a procedural irregularity. The key message must be that the whole point of the coroner system is to get closure so that people can move on with their lives. A person has to get leave to apply for judicial review, and they must show that there has been some procedural irregularity or proper grounds for that kind of action to be taken.
Economy - The Autumn Statement
George Osborne outlined measures to protect the economy, support infrastructure, support enterprise, and support fairness for all hard pressed families.
I welcomed the Chancellor's statement and made the following intervention:
I give a wholehearted welcome to the announcement concerning the lower Thames crossing, which will make a big difference to Kent, as will the massive help for small business finance. May I make a plea to the Chancellor to look further at small business equity finance? In particular, will he consider whether there is scope for expanding, or possibly floating, the business growth fund?
George Osborne
I am very happy to look at ideas to enhance the business growth fund, which is principally operated by the banks, under which they have committed to invest in the equity of small companies. We have already announced the seed enterprise investment scheme, which will help angel investments in companies. I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the commitment that we made to the new crossing at the lower Thames.
See the full statement here.
Taxation Freedom Day
I attended a debate today to speak on the Bill that has been proposed by my colleague Philip Hollobone, for the Government to observe Taxation Freedom day. Now this does not mean no tax is paid on salary or purchases for a day(we wish..), but, as Philip explained:
Each year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must, by way of a statutory instrument, specify a day that will be observed as taxation freedom day. The purpose of this taxation freedom day will be to mark the day in any given calendar year on which the United Kingdom's net national income reaches the level of the United Kingdom's estimated level of national taxation for that calendar year.
Taxation freedom day in 2011 was 30 May—three days later than last year—which means that, on average, every British taxpayer had to hand over all their income to Her Majesty's Government for the first 149 days of 2011. Only after 30 May did they get to keep for themselves any income they earned. Having recognition of such a calendar date would reflect and get across in a very simple and straightforward way the burden of taxation on our economy.
I made numerous contributions during the debate, and the whole debate can be read here.
Below are some extracts from my points:
Is not a central point about tax freedom days the need to avoid the risk of creative accounting? We must be sure that accounts are accurate, especially where there has been a change of Government. We must ensure that, whatever happens, there will be no creative accounting; we must be able to trust the figures.
May I suggest one saving that could be made to help fund the cost of these regulations? The excellent TaxPayers Alliance recently published a document showing that we could save £113 million by getting rid of all the full-time paid union officials, which would also enable people to work more effectively.
My own research has indicated to me that the effective tax rate on the least well off in the past 10 years, under the previous Government, was higher than the effective tax rate on the richest. That is the inequality fostered under the previous Government.
Extradition of UK Citizens
Reform of the UK's extradition laws is much needed. The case of Gary MacKinnon, who is threatened with extradition to America has caused much concern.
I therefore welcomed my colleague, Dominic Raab securing a debate on this need for reform. It was great to give my support to protecting our UK citizens – the first duty of any country.
The situation has long troubled me: in principle, if people commit an offence in this country, they should be prosecuted in this country. Many of us feel that way. According to paragraph 4 of article 8 of the treaty on extradition with the States:
"If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances."
Perhaps I am an old-fashioned lawyer—that is my background and training—but I feel deeply that the right forum for prosecution in such a case is in the UK and that people in this country should be tried by their peers. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, perhaps it is our jurisprudence and long legal tradition, but that is how I feel, as so many of us do.
You can see more of my points, and the debate in full here
Feed In Tariffs
The Government's reforms to Feed-in Tariffs aim to move the system to a more predictable, market responsive model, similar to that in Germany, helping to drive down costs and deliver better value to energy consumers while still making solar a sensible choice for those with homes and businesses in the right location. However I am very mindful of the impact this will have on businesses in Dover and Deal.
Today I spoke in the debate on this to emphasise that the decision was to try and help the squeezed middle.
Charlie Elphicke
The Opposition seem to be on the side of big business, while we are on the side of the squeezed middle. Does the Secretary of State agree that the £1 figure Ofgem cited was for back in the summer when installations were running at about 2,000 to 3,000 a week, rather than the recent rate of 9,000 or so a month, and would that figure not have grown exponentially over time?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend is correct. I wish the House had facilities to show a PowerPoint presentation at this point, as I am now holding up a chart showing what has been happening with the scheme. The rising curve represents the installation rate increase. The Opposition cite the Ofgem figure of £1, but that applies down in the foothills of the curve, and we are dealing with a rather different real world today. Installed capacity has doubled since August, and has increased by three times since June and by tenfold since the start of the year. The right hon. Member for Don Valley is laughing; she has obviously had no experience of attempting to manage a budget, because if she had, she would not be laughing at all. This adds real costs to the electricity bills of real people—people the Opposition claim to represent.
Economic Growth and Employment
The Chancellor has taken tough but necessary action to turn things around economically and deal with Labour's debt so we can unmortgage our children's futures. Labour have failed to come up with any credible alternative policies.
Today I intervened on the Shadow Business Secretary to put this point to him. I said:
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his much-deserved elevation and on his speech, which has been very interesting so far. I put it to him that the Opposition's plan would have been to borrow about £100 billion more than the Government plan to borrow in the current Parliament, which would lead to higher interest rates and push us closer to the situation Italy and Greece find themselves in and to what is happening in the Eurozone, which would be irresponsible and reckless.
See the full debate here, which details my other interventions.
Trade Union Lobbying
Today I asked for a debate to be held on the worrying practice of members of the opposition being influenced by the Trade Unions to table amendments to legislation. I think it's totally wrong that any MP can be bought.
I asked the Leader of the Hose, Sir George Young:
May I echo the call by the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on lobbying, particularly that by trade unions? Many of my constituents have expressed concern to me, as they feel that trade union cash should not buy a vote or an amendment in this House.
Sir George Young:
I would welcome such a debate. My view is that it would be in the interest of the Labour party to have a slightly weaker link with the trade unions. I think that many Labour Members, in their heart of hearts, believe that the pension deal on the table is a generous one which they would like to commend but cannot because of the links to which my hon. Friend has just referred.
Health Funding for Dover
Today in Health Questions I raised the issue of how local authorities can work to deliver health services and a world class service for patients. It's really important we make the most of the health reforms. I want to see our local councils and the GPs working together to get the best for our community – including a proper hospital for Dover.
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Kent county council and Dover district council on their enthusiasm for taking over public health responsibilities and on the fact that they are looking at how to expand the resources that are available by considering the co-commissioning of social services with local GPs? Finally, may I inject a note of caution about the new community health trusts?
Anne Milton:
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kent county council. As he rightly points out, these moves have been welcomed by many local authorities, many of which already do much to improve the health and well-being of their populations. It is extremely important that councils are eager to start, as I know they are, and eager to get that money and see the public health outcomes framework so that they can build on some of the good work they have already done.
Protecting Our Borders
As MP for Dover – the Gateway to England – the issue of border security is at the forefront of all our hearts and minds.
The news that senior UK Border Force officials, without authorisation, ordered the regular relaxation of border checks has caused real concern. I spoke in today's Opposition Day debate on this subject to find out what was going on, and to urge members of the House to recognise the work that the frontline staff do in Dover.
Here are some excerpts from my points:
I am a representative of Dover. This issue is a key concern to my constituents, as is Brodie Clark's statement that such controls had been relaxed since about 2008-09. Who authorised that relaxation? We need more controls for people from outside the European Union. The figures reported by the labour market survey show a total increase of 966,000 in employment between quarter 1 of 2004 and quarter 3 of 2010—that is, 966,000 people not born in the UK. UK-born employment fell by 334,000, while foreign-born UK employment rose by 1.297 million. Of those, 530,000 were born in the EU8 countries. The essential point is that the majority—800,000—were born outside those countries. We see immigration as somehow an EU problem, but there is a bigger problem with people born outside those areas—people for whom we can take controls. I hope that in time we will not only do that, but do more to make the Home Office fit for purpose, after the mess of the past 13 years.
The full debate can be read here
Tough Action on Knife Crime
Knife crime is a serious ill in our country. It must be tackled, and there must be proper sentences put in place for anyone caught with a knife.
Today I raised this with the Police Minister in Home Office questions:
Is not the key to cutting knife crime the sending of a clear social message that anyone who commits a crime with a knife or gun will go to prison, actions that this Government have taken, along with the excellent ideas that Brooke Kinsella has come up with?
Nick Herbert:
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about tough enforcement and sending a clear signal that those who carry knives and use them in a threatening manner will receive a custodial sentence, which we are legislating for, and about the programmes that work with communities to deter people from using knives. That is what Brooke Kinsella's excellent report focused on.
It is clear this Government are tackling the scourge of knife crime with the tough sentences Labour failed to deliver. It has been announced that automatic prison sentences for any adults who use a knife to threaten and endanger will be brought in. To send a clear message about the seriousness of juvenile knife crime, it is also proposed to extend a suitable equivalent sentence to 16-17 year olds.
Home Secretary Congratulates Dover UKBA Staff
In Home Office questions I took the opportunity to recognise the great work that the border staff at Dover undertake to protect our country. With the news this week that senior civil servants acted on their own to let people into the country unchecked we do not want to lose sight of all those people on the frontline who do such important work every day.
I said:
Will the Home Secretary congratulate the front-line UKBA officers who do a brilliant job around the country, including in Dover, and is she aware of Phil Woolas's comments that his efforts to tighten our borders were opposed by Treasury and Foreign Office Ministers?
Theresa May replied:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will indeed pay tribute to the work that is done by UK Border Agency officers at our ports, including those who are at Dover. As I made clear in an earlier answer, they do very good work on a daily basis to stop people coming into this country illegally and to seize goods that should not be coming into this country. As I say, those who operate at Dover should be commended for the work that they do on a daily basis.
Pass the Passion & Olympics Tickets
As part of the lead up to the London Olympics the Torch will be visiting Dover. I think the schoolkids in the Dover area who campaigned for this with such enthusiasm via Pass the Passion should be able to access free tickets to the Games themselves.
I asked the Sports Minister about this:
Children have been heavily involved in the "pass the passion" celebration in Dover, where the torch will stop on the way to London. Is it not particularly important for children to have access to free tickets when they have played a real role in the torch's progress around the country?
Hugh Robertson:
Of course it is. The very fact that the torch will spend a night in Dover, which is emblematic as a port of entry to the United Kingdom, is yet another powerful reason for young people to become involved.
I very much hope that the Government may allow school children from Dover the opportunity to see the Games for themselves.
Public Service Pensions
With people living longer, public sector pension reform is inevitable. The Government today set out its offer to the unions which is fair and affordable. The lowest paid and people ten years off retirement will be protected – and public sector pensions will still be among the very best available. Unfortunately the opposition refuse to back this offer. I asked the Chief Secretary today about the Government's plans;
Does the Chief Secretary agree that, as longevity is still increasing by about two years a decade and is likely to carry on doing so, we cannot stick our head in the sand or sit on the fence, as we have seen the Opposition do? All parties need to work together to reach a proper consensus, so that we can achieve a long-lasting, sustainable settlement.
Danny Alexander (Chief Secretary to the Treasury):
I think that it would be in the national interest to have a proper cross-party consensus on today's proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the increases in longevity. By linking the normal pension age to the state pension age we can ensure that the taxpayer is protected from that in future, because as longevity increases, the state pension age can be changed. That is the right way to protect pensions, rather than the previous Government's cap and share arrangement, which would have meant complex negotiations every three years. That would have resulted in both increases in contributions and reductions in benefits every three years. By setting out this scheme now, we have one that can last for 25 years without the need for further negotiation
Transparency in Government
We must have an open Government that details spending in order to restore the public's trust in the political establishment.
Today in Cabinet Office questions talk turned to whether all Government spending should be revealed, rather than only that which is above the current cap of £500.
I said:
I thank the Minister for that response, and in particular for what he said about the last Government. I believe that the limit should be zero rather than £500, because we would not have known about the expenditure of the NHS on finger puppets if a higher limit had applied.
Francis Maude:
My hon. Friend makes the purist case for the disclosure of absolutely everything, but we have gone infinitely further than any Government have ever gone before in exposing the spending of Departments. Of course we will keep that under review, but the first thing we need to do is complete the publication of the data on transactions below £500, including some that took place under the last Government.
Economic Growth
In today's Treasury questions I took the opportunity to welcome the news that the UK's economy had grown. It may be a small amount, but it signifies that the Chancellor has taken the right course and we are moving in the right direction.
May I welcome today's excellent economic growth figures, which are well ahead of forecasts at 0.5%? Our growth is just as high as US growth this year, without the massive fiscal stimulus. Is that not right?
Mark Hoban, Treasury Secretary
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would have been better if the Labour party had welcomed today's growth figures rather than talking our economy down.
See the full transcript here
MPharm Qualifications
Part of the role of an MP is to represent their constituents' concerns in Parliament. A case that has recently struck me is that of Louis Leir who wishes to undertake an MPharm degree following the closure of Pfizers. Currently though that degree will cost £10,000 per year. Today in Business Questions I asked the Universities Minister David Willetts whether he would consider changing the level that MPharm is set at to reduce this fee.
If he will consider changing the MPharm qualification from level 6 to level 7.
David Willetts:
The Government do not determine the academic levels of higher education qualifications. The Higher Education Funding Council funds the MPharm as an undergraduate master's degree, to the benefit of 10,000 students a year who are entitled to teaching grants and student support.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituent Louis Leir has done an undergraduate degree and wants to do a MPharm, but unfortunately it is classified as an undergraduate-level degree. He is therefore caught by the equivalent or lower qualifications —ELQ—policy and is unable to get help with tuition fees. Will Ministers give further considerations to the issues relating to master's level qualifications? The MPharm truly is one of those, as most of the House probably recognises.
David Willetts
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in pursuing that constituency case, about which we have corresponded. Just as he was with the Pfizer case at Sandwich, he is a persistent hon. Member and I congratulate him on that. However, we believe that if we were to take the ingenious approach he proposes, it might mean that the 10,000 undergraduates currently benefiting from financial support lose it.
Helping Families
As a father of two little ones myself I know that we need as much help as possible from the government during these difficult economic times. Residents in Dover and Deal always ask me about family related issues so today during Business of the House I took the chance to find out what plans the Government have to continue to assist young families;
May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to be more family-friendly? Child care, child tax credits, Sure Start and the role of health visitors all matter greatly to people in Dover and Deal.
Leader of the House Sir George Young replied;
I welcome my hon. Friend's question, which contained within it the answer, as he outlined a number of measures—child tax credit for struggling families, early years support for vulnerable two-year-olds, more support for child care within universal credit and increasing the number of health visitors. The Government would welcome such a debate.
Port Developments
Today was the Report Stage of the Public Bodies Bill.
I wanted to ensure that the Port of Dover could be treated as a quango in need of reform instead of a business to be sold off to the French or whoever.
To do this I tabled an amendment to the Bill during the Committee stage held on 11 October which would allow Dover Harbour Board to be included. My amendment was passed, and it meant the path to a People's Port becomes – a little – clearer, though it still needed Government support
I was therefore pleased when the amendment made in the bill committee was not taken out at the Report stage. It means Ministers will have greater powers in deciding the future of the Port.
You can see the full transcript of the debate here.
Riots
The scenes that have played out across London and the country have been sickening. It has been criminality pure and simple and has to be confronted and defeated. The Government is on the side of the law abiding people who are appalled by what has happens in their own communities.
Police officers have shown incredible bravery confronting the thugs, and I welcomed the recall of Parliament so that all the issues – cause, effect, and solution - could be properly debated.
Charlie Elphicke: May I urge the Prime Minister to consider not just the amount of compensation and business continuity assistance, but its speed? Time is of the essence in getting businesses back on their feet, so that there are more jobs and money in communities that so badly need them.
David Cameron : My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can say that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend Mr Prisk will, from his office, be giving one-stop-shop advice to all Members of Parliament who have affected businesses that want to see that money flow quickly. It is very important not just to set up those schemes, but to make sure that the money is paid rapidly.
Public Confidence in the Media
Following the recent shocking revelations about the extent of phone hacking undertaken by some journalists and newspapers it was decided that Parliament should sit for an extra day before breaking for summer recess, in order that there could be a full debate on the implications of this.
Therefore rather than us all whizzing off to our constituencies, we all packed into the House to listen to the Prime Minister's statement on Public Confidence in the Media and Police, and have a chance to debate how to react to this significant time.
I asked David Cameron: The Prime Minister has said that contacts with the media since the general election will be published. I do not think that that is good enough. We need to know the contacts that the Government have had with the media for the past 10 years. We also need an investigation into the Home Office and into what Home Office Ministers were doing.
Prime Minister: The point that I have just made is that this inquiry is specifically looking at the relationship between politicians and the media, and—at the request of Hacked Off and the Dowler family—at the conduct of both. That inquiry can go back as far as it wants to go back, to examine the relationship between politicians and the media. Frankly, I think that we all need to be clear—particularly the two main parties—that the level of contact has been very great, and that we did spend too much time trying to get on with media companies to get our message across. As a result, the last Government and the last Opposition too often put on the back burner the issue of how to regulate the media. That is the mistake that we made. We have both—all—got to be honest about it. And by the way, this is not just about the relationship with News International; it is also about the work we do trying to win over the BBC or The Independent or The Guardian. Let us be frank about this, and let us be transparent about the meetings that we have. Then we can learn the lessons and use this as a cathartic moment to sort out the relationship and put it on a better footing.
Crisis in the Eurozone - Greece
The economic stability in Greece has been very worrying to witness over the past few weeks, not only for the future of the Greek economy and people, but for the whole of the Eurozone and EU. It is therefore in all our interests that a stable solution is found to the crippling sovereign debt that Greece is now sinking under.
In light of the pressing importance of this, today in Foreign Office questions I asked Minister David Lidington:
Will Ministers say what reports they have received on the economic situation in Greece, on whether there has been any intelligence on the likelihood of a default and on the likelihood of Greece remaining in the euro?
David Lidington MP: We receive many reports on Greece—including, of course, on the very grave economic situation there. The economic health of the eurozone, including that of Greece, is important in assuring jobs and prosperity in this country. It is important both that the Greek Government deal with the structural reforms and the changes to bear down on their own deficit and that the eurozone more widely addresses the causes of instability. We hope that they do so at their meeting planned for this week.
Phone Hacking
Over the last couple of days the issues of phone hacking by journalists, the involvement of the Met, and the implications this will have on the media and politicians has been the big topic across the country, as well as in Westminster.
There have been three debates on the issue, and I spoke in all three to put across the point that there has been knowledge of these practices stretching back to 2003, yet nothing was ever done, and that we must now take a strong stance on this to put those past mistakes right.
On 11 July:
Charlie Elphicke: Between 2003 and 2010, successive reports set out that there were serious problems. Can the inquiry cover the relationship between the media and the Government to look at why action was not taken before now?
Jeremy Hunt: Yes.
On 13 July during the Phone Hacking debate:
I said: May I welcome the Prime Minister's reaffirmation that sunlight is the best disinfectant? If we are really going to sort things out on a cross-party basis, surely it is not good enough for this to involve only Government Ministers and special advisers—surely it should involve shadow Ministers and their special advisers as well.
David Cameron: I think that is right. The point about the relationship between politicians and the press, and where that has gone wrong, is, as I said, that we have been courting support rather than confronting problems. That has been the case for Oppositions. I freely admit that as Leader of the Opposition, you spend quite a lot of time trying to persuade newspapers and others to support you, because you want to explain your policies, your vision and what you are doing for the country. That will not stop. We are not all going to go and live in a monastery and never talk to journalists ever again, wonderful though that might seem by moments. We must have a healthy relationship where we can have those meetings and discussions, but at the same time confront the difficulties that we have. That is what the commission will do.
Later on 13 July I also spoke in the Opposition Day Debate on Rupert Murdoch's bid for News International. I asked separate questions directly to the current Labour leader, and to his immediate predecessor and ex Prime Minister Gordon Brown:
- The right hon. Gentleman talks about the "recent past". As a new Member, I look and see that this goes back to 2003. We had deeply concerning reports from the Information Commissioner in 2006, so why was action not taken before 2010? Why was this not dealt with?
- I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a parent myself, I share the disgust at the invasion of his privacy, and I agree with him that the police have serious questions to answer. Nevertheless, criminality was disclosed in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report in 2003 and by the Information Commissioner in 2006. As a new Member, I ask him: why was nothing done?
On 18 July the conversation moved to look at the actions of the Metropolitan Police.
I asked the Home Secretary: The allegations that payments were made improperly to the police were first made in 2003. The House needs to know what action was taken by the Home Office and by successive Ministers over the period since that date. Will the Home Secretary do a review and make a report to Parliament?
Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. As I indicated in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, there were indeed a number of times under the last Government when these issues and concerns were raised and no action was taken.
Ripplevale School
Ripplevale is a very special school nestled in the middle of the beautiful countryside that surrounds Deal, that caters for boys aged 7 to 16 who have ESBD or ASD. I was welcomed to the school a few weeks ago, and one of the issues that was raised with me was the difficulty that parents have getting their child's needs recognised by the Education Authority.
Therefore I took the opportunity today to ask Schools Minister Sarah Teather about this in Education Questions.
I asked: How can parents of children with special needs be more involved in the education of their children? I recently met parents at Ripplevale school in my constituency who say that they must not only battle the difficulties and challenges that are obvious to all but battle the education authority, time and again, to get a fair, decent and proper education for their children.
Sarah Teather: We finished our consultation on the Green Paper on 30 June and received 2,300 responses along similar lines to those my hon. Friend has outlined. I feel very passionately about the need to involve parents better, particularly if their child has special educational needs. That is one of the reasons we are rolling out Achievement for All—a programme that does exactly that.
I am committed to helping Ripplevale and the parents and pupils, and have also contacted KCC about this. I will keep fighting to ensure that our children's needs are recognised and helped by the authorities, so that parents do not have to struggle alone.
Help for the Horn of Africa
Today I asked Sir George Young, Leader of the House, for a debate on the crisis in the Horn of Africa. The area has been hit by a terrible drought, and countries affected include Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya and Somalia.
I said: The UN estimates that about 10 million people face food shortages or starvation. The assistance being provided by DFID is precisely the sort of practical, targeted aid that makes a difference and which we should encourage.
It was later confirmed that the UK would be providing food to help those stricken by the shortages, and the DEC have set up an Emergency Disaster Fund to raise aid money for the area.
Day care and respite care for elderly
The way that we fund social care is, understandably, an issue of great concern to people up and down the country. It is an issue that has been ignored for too long. I am pleased the Government is acting decisively to tackle this problem.
I wanted to celebrate the excellent day and respite care we have locally. To ensure it gets the funding it needs. So in today's debate on the reform of social care I said:
As we know, going into a home is long on cost but short on life expectancy. I particularly welcomed my right hon. Friend's comments about greater prevention. What more can be done to promote access to—and promote in general—day care and respite care?
The Health Secretary responded:
We have made specific additional provision to support respite care. I hope that people will be given more independence and support at home not only as a result of NHS support—the £648 million that will be provided this year is a great deal of money, which will substantially increase access to such facilities as community equipment, home adaptations, reablement and rehabilitation —but through, for instance, telehealth, which I mentioned in response to an earlier question. I think that we can transform the quality of care and health services provided at home.
I hope the Government will really focus on helping people find a solution that does not necessarily mean full time care, and will continue to press the Secretary of State on the need to do this.
National health service
Today I spoke in the debate on the Finance Bill. I questioned why Labour had tried to privatise the NHS when they were in power. I asked former Labour Health Secretary Frank Dobson about this:
- I am puzzled that Labour Members oppose the new clause as creeping privatisation, because when they were in office they privatised large sections of the NHS, with the independent sector treatment centre programme. I do not see how those two views sit together.
- The right hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in taking interventions, and he has a long-held principled position on the national health service. On the private sector creaming off, as he would say, the easy cases, does he agree that, first, he would not have acceded to the independent sector treatment centres programme and, secondly, that it was wrong for the private sector in that case to charge for operations which were not carried out?
- I respectfully put it to the right hon. Gentleman that our priority is not to bung £200 million at people, as he describes it, but to see real increases in NHS spending as against the cuts that were in the last Budget of the Government whom he long supported.
Help for working mums
There are thousands of working mums in Dover and Deal and today in Women and Equalities questions I asked the Minister about some of the issues which affect them.
I asked: What assessment she has made of the effects on women workers of proposed reforms of parental leave.
Theresa May: Our proposals for a new system of parental leave will protect mothers' rights while giving families more choice and flexibility over how they can share their work and caring responsibilities. The proposals mean that working mothers will be better able to keep in touch with their employer, and they will also aid career progression for working mothers and help to tackle pregnancy discrimination.
Charlie Elphicke: One of the key problems faced by working mothers is the gender pay gap, which is a shocking thing. Will these reforms help to reduce the gender pay gap?
Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I think that the reforms will reduce the gender pay gap, because the division of caring responsibilities between parents is one of the underlying issues. The current arrangements for parental leave reflect an expectation that the mother will stay at home and care for the children. Those arrangements urgently need reform. Although we will use a range of approaches to reduce the gender pay gap, this is an important element.
The economy
Today was an Opposition day in Parliament. This means that rather than the Government setting the business of the House, the Opposition party does. Labour chose to debate the Government's economic policies.
MPs from both sides of the House engaged in lengthy debates about how the Government is tackling the deficit and I made a number of interventions on the Shadow Chancellor. You will see from his response that I may have riled him somewhat!
It is a great asset of our democracy that backbenchers and frontbenchers can debate in such a way, and I relished the opportunity to stand up for the Government's policies.
Whilst my speech is too long to show in full here, I have given an extract below of matters pertinent to Dover and Deal:
Youth unemployment has also started to move strongly— although perhaps not as strongly as wider unemployment —in the right direction. Surely the House must welcome that. Manufacturing output is also moving more in the right direction, after being halved in the Labour years, and now being about 11% of our economy. I hope that the economy will rebalance under this Government so that we are less dependent on banks and fat cats—for party donations, frankly—on handing out knighthoods and on bonuses, and more dependent on much more productive service and manufacturing industries. We need less of financial services and housing, and more of making things, producing things, servicing things, and—yes—education.
The narrative of what this Government are doing is to ensure that our economy is stronger, that our work force are more incentivised to work by making work pay through universal credit, and that they are not only incentivised to work but given the skills to work under the Government's skills and education agenda. We can have a country that is more productive, where more people want to be in employment, where we do not suck in people from overseas to do the jobs, and where we ensure that our countrymen are encouraged to get into work, do their part, fulfil their potential and have more of a sense of dignity, happiness and well-being. That will allow us to build a Britain that is fit for this decade, and it will ensure that we steam ahead, further ahead, of our European colleagues, and do well.
The full debate can be found here
Job creation
There was good news today on jobs. I asked Ministers about the trend in unemployment.
I asked the Treasury Secretary:
Will the Minister confirm that the recent announcement of the sharpest fall in unemployment in a decade and the creation of 500,000 jobs in the private sector over the past year shows hope that things are going in the right direction for unemployment?
Danny Alexander replied:
We always said that the economic recovery would be choppy, but it is none the less welcome that we have seen significant job creation in the private sector over the past year. That offsets some of the job reductions in the public sector that are necessary as part of our deficit reduction programme.
Media Ownership
During Media, Culture and Sport questions today I asked the Culture Secretary:
Is it not the case that the development of the media market in this country is such that newsprint, internet, TV and, indeed, mobile platforms are coming together? Such common ownership will become more obvious, as reflected in the drift of policy. Would it not be wrong to hold that policy back and oppose that sort of development just because of the Labour party's hatred of a single individual?
Jeremy Hunt replied: We absolutely want media policies that allow convergence. In fact, our local TV policy is a precise example of that, as we want to encourage local newspaper groups to get into other platforms. This particular issue, however, is about media plurality. It is about making sure that no one has too much power in any one part of our media. That is the prism through which we have to look at the issue, and that is what we are doing
Government plans for trust ports
The Public Bodies Bill will enable the reform of quangos. I want trust ports like Dover included in it.
Today I asked Cabinet Office Minister Nick Hurd; Under the Bill, public statutory corporations such as British Waterways will be reformed and become mutuals. Have Ministers considered other similar public bodies, such as trust ports, for inclusion in the Bill?
Nick Hurd replied: I understand that my hon. Friend is frustrated by the pace of progress in his committed and spirited attempt to allow the people of Dover to take over the port. He will know that the Transport Secretary, who is sitting alongside me, has announced a consultation on the criteria for assessing the sale of trust ports in England and Wales, largely to reflect the Government's localism and big society agendas. It is right for that consultation to conclude before further decisions are taken.
As you can see, I'm still fighting for the People's Port bid, wherever I can!
GP commissioning
The proposed NHS reforms are necessary in order to ensure the NHS remains one of the best healthcare systems in the world. It is also the only way we will get a hospital back in Dover as the GPs want that, and the GPs will soon have the power to enforce their will.
I sought reassurance from the Health Secretary today, as requested by local GPs, that individual GPs won't be forced to help get our community a fair share of healthcare if they don't want to.
I said: In Dover and Deal, we have dynamic GPs, many of whom want to get involved in commissioning, but not every GP wants to do so. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no individual GP will be forced to be involved in the work of the commissioning group and that that was always the case under his reforms?
Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many GPs across the country understand that clinically led commissioning is the right thing to do, but they do not personally want to be involved in that process. There are, however, leaders who do, and leaders across the country have already come forward through pathfinder consortia and will be a basis on which we can create much greater clinical leadership across the service. The Future Forum was very clear that leadership from within the service, from doctors, nurses and other health professionals, will be instrumental in improving care in the future.
Bringing people out of poverty
Today in Work and Pensions questions I asked the Secretary of State about his plans for the Universal Credit. This is one of the central planks of the welfare reform bill, which I have been heavily involved with. The key thing is that people will always be better off in work. It will see existing out-of-work and in-work entitlements, such as Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, and Housing Benefit paid as a single lump sum. Beginning in 2013, Universal Credit will make sure that the poorest in society are better off and make it easier for people to claim benefits. It will demonstrate the value of being in work and reduce administrative costs and the risk of fraud.
One particular aspect of its introduction, and which needs to be brought better to the public's attention, is how it will reduce poverty.
I asked: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what effect universal credit will have on child poverty and wider forms of poverty?
Iain Duncan Smith: We estimate that universal credit as a static system, not even taking into account any dynamic effect, will lift 900,000 people out of poverty, about 350,000 of whom will be children. It is worth remembering that under the present child care systems that people have spoken about, at least 100,000 people do not get the child care for which they are eligible. Under universal credit, the take-up will be higher, so it will have a better effect.
This will make an important difference to huge numbers of families up and down the country, not least many in Dover and Deal. I think it will help prove that this Government are committed to helping the poorest, most vulnerable in society, and will never leave anyone without support.
Reform of the House of Lords
One of the responsibilities of the Deputy PM is to look at constitutional reform. Specifically he is looking at the possibility of changing the make-up of the House of Lords to an elected chamber. At the moment the Lords consist of a mix of life peers, who are appointed by the Government, and some hereditary peers.
I asked Nick Clegg in Deputy PMQ's whether given that reform was in every party manifesto, it should be looked at cross-party by a Parliamentary Committee. The Deputy PM replied
Yes, and that is precisely why we look forward to a Joint Committee of both Houses being established through the usual channels which will be able to get to grips with all the many questions, queries and objections that have been raised, so that we can as far as possible proceed on a cross-party basis on something which all parties are committed to seeing through.
Reform of our political system should not be undertaken lightly. I want to see an elected House of Lords. Yet this is best done with all parties working together to agree a common plan.
Honouring our military heroes
Ours is a constituency with a proud military history. The brave servicemen and women who live in Dover and Deal must always be honoured as the heroes that they are. Representing such a constituency means I am passionate about the need for the military covenant to be properly recognised in British law, so that all military personnel are rewarded for their dedication to serving the country.
Today the Defence Secretary spoke about this in the House to confirm that the military covenant will be enshrined in law for the first time, in the Armed Forces Bill.
I asked Dr Liam Fox: Is not today an important day of justice for the honouring of the armed forces after the disgraceful neglect of the past 10 years?
Liam Fox: I think that the whole House, in fact the whole country, will want today to rally behind the Government's proposals, which I believe represent a wide consensus across those with different political views and those with none.
I am sure we will all agree that this cannot come soon enough.
Gold Reserves
The economic mismanagement of the last Labour Government is summed up by the then Chancellor's decision to sell off our Gold at rock bottom prices. This was a terrible error of judgement, and today in Treasury Questions I asked the current Chancellor about this.
I asked: If our gold had not been sold off some years ago, how much would it be worth today?
George Osborne answered:
The gold was sold, I think on the advice of the current shadow Chancellor, at $3.5 billion—a princely sum, except that it would now be worth $19 billion.
There is no comment needed on this matter – the truth speaks louder than words.
Help for Japan
Today I spoke in Foreign & Commonwealth questions to ask for an update on the situation in Japan.
We were all so shocked by the dreadful earthquake which caused so much devastation. This took place only two months ago, but the stoicism and resilience of the Japanese people and Government has been amazing to see.
I asked the Minister how the situation was developing, and impressed on him my belief that we must continue to assist Japan by any means necessary to allow them back on their feet and to make a full recovery – even though the emotional scars will take so much longer to heal.
Charlie Elphicke: Japan is a major friend, ally and trading partner of the UK, and it is right that we should be there for a friend in need. Will the Minister tell us what help is being given to assist its economic recovery, and what steps are being taken to help following the nuclear disaster?
Jeremy Browne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend's assertion about the deep friendship between the United Kingdom and Japan. We have expressed that friendship and it has been evident in our actions. Our economies are intertwined, but we are also leading the debate within the European Union on a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan.
Right of childen to have access to their parents
Today I presented a bill to give children the right to have access to their parents. Highlights of what I said include:
"We need to reform and enforce contact properly. We need to place a duty on all involved. Too often, people say it is about mums' rights or dads' rights, but actually it is about the rights of a child to know and have a relationship with both their parents. That is the nub of what the Bill is about. It is not right that parents should sink their children's right to know them in a sea of acrimony when they split up.
"The reason I am putting this Bill before the House is to ensure that there is a clear and enforceable right of the child-a clear presumption in law-that will send a clear message to all those involved, including CAFCASS and all the weak-kneed judges who will not make or enforce any orders. To the parents who have residence orders and should know better, I want us to send the message that this is not about their rights: it is about their children's rights to grow up knowing both their mother and their father."
The cost of fuel is too high
Today I spoke in a debate on the cost of fuel. I share the frustration we all feel about the cost of travel. It really annoys me that we can't rework the train franchise for two years thanks to a daft agreement struck in 2005. The price of fuel is a disgrace, after a decade of fuel duty rises. High oil world prices make it hard.
We need to cut the cost of fuel and help hauliers. What's happened to our haulage industry is shocking. I want to see a level playing field against foreign truckers. A Britdisc in place of lorry fuel taxes and lorry tax discs is the way I want to see things go.
Highlights of what I said include: "Constituents write to me daily expressing concern about the cost of living and how they will manage, given the way the cost of fuel has risen in recent times. It is a just concern that is understood on both sides of the House. Hauliers in my constituency write to me expressing grave concern about the situation they find themselves in and their ability to compete with operators on the continent who undercut them."
Port of Dover
Today I asked a question in Transport Questions about the port of Dover referendum and whether Transport Ministers' would heed the Prime Minister's Big Society policy.
I said: "On 23 March, the people of Dover will vote in a referendum on whether they want a people's port big society change in Dover. If the people vote for the big society, will the Secretary of State help to implement it?"
Ports Minister: "My hon. Friend is tenacious in his work for the people of Dover. As he knows, the Minister of State is still looking at the proposals for Dover, and at this time it would be improper for me to say any more."
Well . . . nice try anyway!
Welfare Reform
The Welfare Reform Bill debate today was about a bill that will reform benefits and ensure they are paid to those who need help most.
I said: "Government Members are all aware that behind the Bill stands the financial destiny and future of millions of people. There is a great human aspect to this. Only today, I spoke to my constituent, Kelly Banks, whose son Ben is 12 years old and has a serious heart condition. The allowances that he receives are going to be taken away because he can walk to school-never mind the fact that it takes him half an hour, and by the time that he gets there, he is out of breath. Those hard and difficult decisions must be taken, and we must make sure that the right balance is struck to ensure that people who need help receive it, and that those who do not, do not do so.
That is a particular concern, because the figures show that disability living allowance has gone up by 30% in eight years. Housing benefit has gone up by 45% in the past five years. In the past 13 years, the benefits bill for working-age people has increased from £52 billion to £74 billion. Those are the numbers in the years of plenty, but we have inherited a catastrophic economic situation and difficult decisions must be made. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the nation's credit card having been maxed out and, on the other, the need to ensure that those who need help receive it. Most importantly, the universal credit will help people to be sure that work always pays.
We need to do more to crack down on fraud and error, which costs £5.2 billion in wasted benefits. We need to ensure that there is a proper cap on the number of people coming in to the country. We have 5 million people who could work, but do not do so, yet we all know that in the past few years 1.2 million people who were born overseas came and took jobs. We should do more to ensure that those 5 million people who could work but do not do so receive help, support and encouragement to get into work. We have to do the right thing by our own countrymen and our neighbours. It is time to reform. It is time to make work pay, and it is time to bring the benefits bill under control and ensure that there is fairness for those in need and those who are paying taxes."
Concerns about Europe
Today I spoke about the concerns many of us hold about the European Union. I expressed concern about how detached the EU is from reality and the people of Europe.
Highlights of what I said included: "The debate on the new clause has been largely underpinned by a dislike and distrust of the European Union and its works, and I share that distrust. Many Members feel that an organisation that spends vast swathes of our money and imposes massive increases in our budget contributions in return for no obvious value, at a time of great downturn across the continent, is not an organisation that is in touch with this country-or any other country. They do not trust an organisation that feels so remote from the electors of this country and every other country in the European Union. Even in Germany, an increasing number of people are finding the European Union and its works troubling."
Pfizer
The South Thanet MP Laura Sandys secured a debate on the Pfizer shutdown. I joined in to support Laura in his fight to get the strongest possible Government action to help.
I said: "I congratulate my hon. Friend Laura Sandys on her heroic efforts to corral and bring together the east Kent MPs, Kent county council, Dover district council and Thanet district council within 24 hours to make sure that there was a clear plan for a changeover from the large "big pharma" site to the new model of universities and smaller businesses collaborating and developing things in the future. I simply wish to support her point about the disgraceful transport links that we have to put up with. We need to get the fast line put in from Sandwich and Deal through to London, and we need Manston and the A256 corridor to be developed. That would enable us to have more jobs and more money, and would provide more effective business options for the people of Dover, Deal, south and north Thanet, and east Kent as a whole."
How to improve HMRC?
The situation of HMRC was debated today. There are a lot of problems because the previous Labour Government loved consultants, didn't know how to buy computer systems and managed to destroy morale to the point that millions of people have found their tax matters totally messed up.
I said: "I do not condemn HMRC, as many of its officers and officials have worked very hard, but I do condemn the previous Government for using the expertise of these wretched consultants time and again to answer all their problems, instead of using the expertise that existed within two institutions with long, proud and successful histories . . .
"We also need to sort out the information technology. It is clear from the Treasury Committee report that, under the previous Government, IT was an unmitigated disaster."
Moving a debate on the Big Society
Today I secured a debate on a motion in the House of Commons on the Big Society. The aim was to seek the House's approval of the Prime Minister's vision for a Big Society. I put the case for our port to be owned by the community.
Highlights of what I said were:
"I shall take the example of Dover, my constituency, which I advance as a case study of the difference that can be made. Before the election, the previous Government were planning to sell off the port of Dover. That proposal was in the operational efficiency report, the so-called car boot sale. There was to be an allegedly voluntary privatisation, but it was pretty clear that there was a desire for the port to be sold. My constituents understood that it would almost certainly go to a buyer overseas, and there was a sense of frustration about that.
That sense of frustration in relation to the port has existed for many years, because the directors have always been appointed by Whitehall and have had very little to do with the local community in their direction or in community engagement. That connection with the community has not been in place. The port is not simply an economic and transportation facility, it is also a social facility, as anyone with a port in their constituency will know. The interconnection between a town and the port in it is deep, and there is a symbiosis between the two. That is very much the case in Dover. With a whole load of directors having been appointed in Whitehall, hundreds of miles away, the people of Dover have been unable to effect positive engagement.
If the port were sold off overseas, we would simply be swapping one remote interest for another, and the community would not be engaged with it. Part of the difficulty in that situation would be that the community would think that the port's management did nothing for the town and did not engage positively with it. Sadly, the port has gone to war with the ferry companies, which are the key port users for both berthing charges and general relations. There has been a breakdown of the relationship in the heartland of Dover's local economy. The town and the community are not happy, and the key businesses are not happy. The port is on the block, threatened with being sold off overseas.
What can the community do? Under the traditional model, the solution would be about either the big state or big business. We say that it is time to try something new and different-giving the community a chance to take charge of its future and its destiny. We have been asking why, instead of the port being sold off overseas, the community cannot buy it as a community mutual and run it in partnership with those who use the port, the ferry companies that effectively account for all the port's money."
Question to the Prime Minister
Today I asked a question at Prime Minister's Question Time.
I said: "What investigation has the Prime Minister made into the allegation that the IMF was bullied into toning down its assessment of the dangers facing the UK economy?"
Prime Minister: "My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that the IMF was reporting on the state of the British economy, and was arguing that we did have a structural deficit and that it was a problem. However, Labour attempted to gag the IMF when it was in power, because the previous Government did not want to own up to the mess that they had got this country into. Even now, the Opposition are still denying the fact that they left us with a dangerous fiscal deficit that is the cause of many of the problems that we face today."
Calling for more lending to small business
Today I pressed the Chancellor on getting more lending to smaller businesses to create more jobs and money. This is a key concern in Dover & Deal as most people work in smaller businesses.
I said: "Have we not moved on from excessive bonuses to an emphasis on lending more money to small and medium-sized enterprises? Are we not seeing £10 billion for SMEs and £2.5 billion in total for the new growth fund?"
The Chancellor said: "My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For me, in these discussions the absolute key has been the additional commitment to lend to small and medium-sized businesses. Over the past couple of years, all Members have had people in our constituencies come to us with very difficult stories about the failure of banks to lend to such businesses, and we now have a commitment to increase the lending available by 15%, which is a substantial increase. Alongside that-I did not have time to go into all the detail, but it is being published this afternoon-there will be a new code of practice for the banks to treat their customers much more fairly: for example, they should engage with small businesses a full year before an overdraft comes up for renewal. For me, dealing with that crucial area of the economy-getting credit to small and medium-sized businesses-has been one of the most important parts of the new settlement."
Care for the elderly in Kent
Today I secured a debate on elderly care in Kent. This was really about putting the case for Deal's much loved Sampson Court to be saved, possibly by a transfer to a community interest company.
Here are the highlights of the points I made:
"Sampson Court provides a range of services-palliative care, day care and respite care-and specialises in dementia and separate elderly mentally infirm care. It is extremely important to the community and loved not only by residents but by their families, all of whom have been passionate in their support for keeping that important community facility open. Despite that, Sampson Court is no longer classed as meeting care standards-hon. Members will recall that the previous Government introduced the decent homes standard-and because it does not have en-suite bathrooms and the building is costly to maintain and in need of renovation, Kent county council says that it is too expensive to make those changes and that it cannot continue to run the home . . .
As well as criticising Kent county council, I want to be positive about it. I understand the challenge to its budget, the challenge in meeting the decent homes standard, and the challenge of the EU public procurement regime, which is expensive and, frankly, gold-plated-it ought to be minimised. Can anything be done about public procurement in this kind of case?
The other case I have been making to Kent county council is that it could transfer the home, not as a going concern in the market but to a community interest company. That is where my interest particularly lies. Allowing a community outside the regime of Government, the procurement rules and all the regulations to take it on would enable the expertise of local care home operators to be captured so that a home could continue to operate on that site in the future. I am asking for Government support and guidance on how Sampson Court might be transferred to a CIC in partnership with local care home operators."
Written answers - our port and the A2
I have received answers to a number of written questions. You can read the questions and the answers here. The issues covered include matters relating to the Port of Dover, the plan to sell off our nation's key Uranium enrichment company and A2 upgrade plans as well as taffic usage on the A2.
In other words there are no plans to upgrade the A2.
Our roads around Deal are terrible and the single carriageway between Dover and Whitfield is a nightmare. Last week I took the train to London and drove to Dover as I cannot get HS1 from Deal. I was unable to park at Dover no spaces whatsover. The transport options around Deal area are third world.
- John
Exactly. And it all takes time to turn around. First you have to find the block. Then unblock it. KCC are now keen to see the upgrade. It's clear the DfT is the problem. So I will get to work with my plunger . . . !
I am working on the fast train from Deal. Will keep all posted on progress.
- Charlie Elphicke
Speaking up for Suzanne Lloyd
Today I quizzed Ministers on the case of Suzanne Lloyd who lives in Deal and has been battling cancer for nearly a decade. You can read about Suzanne's case in the press here.
I said: "May I raise the case of my constituent, Suzanne Lloyd, who was diagnosed with breast cancer a decade ago? She was told that she had two years to live, but has successfully battled cancer for the last decade. The problem is that she has also been battling health chiefs to give her the drugs that she needs to extend her life. Will the Minister tell the House about measures to increase longevity through greater drug access?"
The Minister said: "Just last year the national clinical director published a report on the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage, which revealed that the UK tends to lag behind other countries in its use of newer cancer drugs. That is one reason why we have introduced the interim cancer drugs fund of £50 million in this current year and will introduce the full fund of £200 million from this April. That will help my hon. Friend's constituent."
Speaking up for European referendums
Today I spoke in the debate on the European Referendum Bill about the importance of ensuring there is a strong referendum lock on new treaties. We all remember how we were cheated out of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Most of the speech was about Labour's attempt to water the bill down so they could cheat us all out of a referendum again. My speech which you can read clicking this link was very long - good if you are having trouble getting to sleep! - but here is a highlight:
"I believe-because I am a bit old fashioned-in government for the people, by the people and of the people, that that should not perish from this earth, and that my constituents should have a say on the great matters of our times. Given that, the Bill is important and the right step towards more public power. The people and their sovereignty should be recognised, and they should be given that say, which time and again they have been cheated of-to my mind, unacceptably."
I added that the bill "shows the respect that the new Government have for our democratic process, for consulting the people and for taking bold steps in the national interest-not just bringing Britain back from the brink of bankruptcy, but ensuring that the British people have a say in referendums."
Raising Dover's hospital and border security
Today I raised border security issues in Parliament with the Immigration Minister. The previous Labour Government took away many of our civil liberties in the name of counter terrorism while doing nothing on border control. So I pressed the case that we should dismantle Labour's Police state and do more to strengthen our borders. This matters to us as many people locally work for UKBA and are losing their jobs - especially recently on the French side of the border.
I asked: "Is not proper border control an essential part of a review to deal with terrorism? It is no good building a police state at home if we allow pretty much anyone, be they friend or foe, to wander into the country. Will the Minister consider stronger measures?"
The Immigration Minister replied: "My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, having strong and secure borders is one of the essential elements in our fight against international terrorism, and that, as he knows, is why one of the Government's priorities is to make our borders more secure. We have been making significant progress on that over the past nine months."
I went on to ask for a debate on the NHS. This is because I want to draw the House of Commons' attention to how we lost out in healthcare in the past and how we need to see through the promise we now have of a new hospital for Dover.
I said: "May we have a debate on the NHS? In my constituency, our hospital has been decimated and all but closed over the past decade. A new hospital has now been announced by a new Government, with the beds provided by GP commissioning. It is important that the House explore that issue and the ring-fencing of the NHS budget compared with the cuts proposed by the previous Government."
The Leader of the House replied: "I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that he will speak on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill to make the point, which he just touched on briefly, that GP commissioning is the way forward, is popular in his constituency, and is the right way to go as we reform the NHS."
Taxpayer funded lobbying is an abuse of public money
The Dover Harbour Board appointed lobbyists Bell Pottinger to press their harbour sell off case. I think it quite wrong that public money is used to lobby to get more of our money under any circumstances. The more so when executives involved are financially conflicted. So I have been pressing for reform - today in Parliament I extracted a promise from Ministers to act on this disgraceful abuse.
I said: "Public expenditure by quangos includes expenditure on lobbying, which is an abuse of public money. Will Ministers ban quango lobbying?"
The Cabinet Office Minister said: "The code for public bodies already purports to make it impossible for quangos to employ lobbyists from outside in order to lobby the Government. However, that code has not been effective, and considerable amounts of taxpayers' money have been spent by public bodies, frequently in order to lobby the Government for them to spend more taxpayers' money. We will make absolutely certain that the code is watertight and that that becomes impossible."
Making the case for the People's Port
Today I raised with the Communities and Local Government Minister in a Parliamentary debate on the Localism Bill. I continue to press the case for our community to take over the Port, while we - still! - await a ministerial decision from the Transport Dept.
I said: "This is a truly radical Bill from a truly radical Secretary of State. It brings closer to reality the dream of government for the people, by the people and of the people that shall not perish from this earth. In my constituency, people want to buy the port of Dover. People in other constituencies want to buy forests and other such community assets. Will the Secretary of State and the Government consider going faster, deeper and wider, so that we have a community right to buy from central Government as well as from local government?"
Eric Pickles, DCLG Secretary of State replied: "My hon. Friend tempts me to become a bit Maoist in these matters, but we will certainly consider what he says and look towards giving greater powers to local people."
Pressing to keep the Council Tax down
The council tax hits hardest the least well off and the elderly in Dover & Deal. I am a strong believer in keeping the council tax down. So I raised this with the Minister in a question:
I said: "The elderly, vulnerable and least well-off constituents of mine in Dover and Deal and I am sure across the country will welcome the Government's efforts to freeze council tax. May we have an assurance from Ministers that we will never again return to the dark days of the past, when council tax doubled under the previous Labour Administration?"
The Minister replied: "My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that between 1997 and last year council tax rose by 109%, so the elderly, the frail, the most vulnerable and those with fixed incomes had absolutely no defence against what was happening when the current Opposition were in government. I am very proud to say that £650 million is being made available for this important priority: a 0% rise."
Controlling bankers' bonuses
Residents in Dover & Deal tell me time and again how angry they are about the culture of vast bank bonuses under the Labour Government. I kept up the pressure on this issue in Parliament today, calling for a debate on bank bonuses.
I said: "May I echo the call of the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on bank bonuses? My constituents are enraged that Fred Goodwin got £15 million in bonuses, that knighthoods were thrown about like confetti, and that bank bail-outs encouraged excessive bonuses for the fat cats. We need a change in policy from "everyone out for themselves" and "up with the fat cats," to more "all in it together."
The Leader of the House replied: "I applaud my hon. Friend's sentiments. He was probably in the House when the Chancellor made his statement suggesting a very robust negotiating position with the banks. The Chancellor also indicated during questions and answers that he would want to report back to the House once those negotiations had been completed."
The other day on 11 January I raised the subject of bank bonuses with the Chancellor. He had told the House how Labour secretly encouraged fat bonuses to be paid this year under the contract they'd entered into with the banks before they lost the election. I wanted to know what Labour had done to help small businesses in communities like ours - it turned out the answer was basically nothing. They'd looked after the bankers and forgotten about us!
I said: "The Chancellor has already told the House that under the banking contract, bonuses were actively encouraged by the previous Government for the current year. Can he tell the House whether lending to cash-strapped small businesses was also encouraged under that contract?"
The Chancellor replied: "Nothing meaningful was secured on lending to small businesses by the previous Government at the very moment when they had maximum leverage: when they were bailing out these banks. That is part of what we are dealing with. We are also dealing with the situation in which they bought their very large stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland-as I have said, the deal explicitly says that the bonuses covering the year 2010 should be paid at market rates. I am saying that we want to see the bonus pool smaller and the Royal Bank of Scotland as a back-marker, rather than a front-runner."
Europe and the Human Rights Act
Today I made a long speech on Europe, the fact that it has ... and the need to repeal the Human Rights Act.
Here are some highlights - you can read the whole speech by clicking here - which reflect comments a lot of people locally make to me about these issues:
"Underlying this entire debate about the European Union, sovereignty and the exact meaning of clause 18 is the fact that many Members of this House, myself included, would like to see a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union. We would like to have a discussion about whether we control, or Europe controls, what happens in the regulation of the City, industry and business, and how we operate as a nation. There is an underlying desire on the part of many hon. Members to have a review of whether we should be part of the European Union at all. There is a desire to have a reworking of the Human Rights Act 1998 and a question mark as to whether it should be on the statute book at all-a concern that I share and that my constituents continually write to me about with a great level of invective.
"I think that we should be more honest, realistic and straightforward about what really concerns us: the fact that we have too many laws from Europe. There are too many interventions in relation to the Human Rights Act, which causes too many problems and too often gives the sense to many of my constituents that the innocent are punished and the guilty go free. That is shocking. Time and again, constituents approach us to express those concerns.
"It is a concern that the EU has grown too much, extended too far, cost too much and intruded too much into our national life. It should cost less, intrude less and our relations with it should be reworked."
Honouring the Military Covenant
Today I spoke in the Armed Forces Bill. Every five years, Parliament renews this bill - as a standing army may only be maintained with the leave of Parliament. An ancient constitutional custom, but a chance to underline my support for the Military Covenant.
Here are some of the highlights of my speech:
"I represent Dover and Deal, which today still feels like they are at the front line of the nation in its dealings with the continent, not all of which have been happy in the past. Not so long ago, in the second world war, we were the front line and responsible for helping ensure the success of Dunkirk. Before that, in the 18th century, the channel fleet was stationed off the coast of Deal and we retain a strong link with the Royal Marines. I was privileged to be at the installation of the captain general of the Royal Marines as the captain of Deal castle. We also have the lord warden of the cinque ports in Walmer castle, Admiral Boyce, and a brigadier in Dover castle.
The constituency feels strongly about the military covenant. It has a strong cadet movement. It is a privilege for me to be the honorary president of the Deal Air Training Corps, 2235 squadron. It is a considerable privilege for us to have so many Gurkhas living in Dover and Deal, who go on active service and do great things for our nation. I am therefore proud of what our constituency has achieved in the service of this nation and of our military links. The constituency takes a strong and passionate view of the military covenant.
As someone who deeply respects all those who put their bodies and minds in danger on our behalf, I want to stress how pleased I am that we are finally putting the military covenant on to a statutory footing in clause 2. It is absolutely right that the Bill will give the military covenant the increased recognition that it should have had long ago. By enacting the measure, we will give legislative force to the "Army Doctrine Publication", particularly chapter 1.
However, it is not a no-cost option to back the military covenant in statute. With it comes responsibility, which, in recent years, has been lacking. We must ensure that service personnel and their families are properly cared for, not only in health but when they are hurt, particularly when that hurt happens on active service. What has been going on is not good enough. However, each small measure brings us closer to what we mean by the term "military covenant"."
Charlie Elphicke MP
On this page is my work speaking up in the House of Commons. I try to press the case for Dover & Deal whenever possible.
Best wishes
From Twitter
@fitafolkestone thank you. The Dover team did a great job. Your video is v good too. Best of luck to you all!
46.2 days ago
@fitafolkestone best of luck to are friends in Folkestone. Hope Dover AND Folkestone win portas pilot status!
46.2 days ago
ElphickeTV
Donate or join up
Donate or join up to Charlie's campaign by clicking here.
Facebook
YouTube
Flickr
Centre Right
Centre for Policy Studies
Conservative Home
Conservative Party
Saturday night in Deal there was a fight involving at least 10 youths in the street. I called Kent Police who informed me a patrol car was on its way. It never turned up and I have never had it followed up by Kent Police. The Police force in Deal has been significantly cut back and our Police station opening hours have been cut to just 2 hours on a weekday. Pitiful!
- Jonathan