Mass Campaigns
I always welcome correspondence from constituents and I am here to help. Whether you write, call, or visit one of my surgeries, I want to hear from you. There has however been a trend of late for centrally generated standard emails, which are consistently inaccurate and recklessly scaremongering and it is particularly disappointing when those sending them cannot even be bothered to type their names at the top.
The volume of these cut and paste emails means that very often constituents with genuine problems or those who have taken the time to write their own correspondence in their own words can find themselves waiting longer than I would like for a reply. To that end, any mass generated campaigns received by my office will no longer receive a personal response but will instead be referred to my website which will contain the latest standard replies to these standard emails.
If of course you wish to contact me personally about any concern or if the replies below do not answer your query, I would of course encourage you write or email mark.spencer.mp@parliament.uk.
At the start of my Parliamentary term I made the decision not to sign any EDMs. Each EDM costs the taxpayer in excess of £700 and in this age of economic restraint, I do not feel that they represent value for money. Furthermore, EDMs too often represent a token gesture and rarely generate sufficient publicity to promote or progress their subject matter.
Post Offices and the DVLA
The DVLA is running a procurement competition for the services that are presently provided by the Post Office. It is required by EU law to competitively tender this contract and it is therefore, a fully, open and entirely commercial process and one which the Government cannot take sides on.
However, the Government has made clear that it wants to see the Post Office become a genuine front office for Government at both the national and local level. I completely agree with this position as Post Offices are a natural place for people to access government services such as identity verification.
Many services are already available such as: managing “Passport Check & Send” on behalf of the Identity and Passport Service (IPS); simple bank accounts for those receiving benefits, state pensions and tax credit payments; and most recently, the collection of biometric data for the residence permits.
In addition, the Post Office continues to actively engage with Government to explore how it will deliver more key services. The Post Office is further expanding its existing identity verification capability, which is becoming increasingly important as more services can be delivered online, and is developing new services to help those who are unable to access services or information online, such as print-on-demand kiosks.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Airline Passenger Duty
The Government recognises that times are tough for everyone and that is why it is taking action to help. Basic rate taxpayers will gain by £210 a year next year as a result of this Government raising the tax free allowance of income tax. In addition, petrol prices in the UK are now 10 pence per litre lower than they would have been under the previous government’s fuel duty plans. This Government is committed to helping people get through these difficult times.
The Government also appreciates the valuable role that aviation plays in enabling tourism, connecting consumers and businesses with international markets, and making long distance visits between friends and relatives possible. Whilst the recent economic environment has been challenging, we hope that the recent increase in passenger numbers will see UK airlines prosper.
Increases in APD were legislated for by previous Governments. Since June 2010, despite the challenge of the budget deficit that we inherited, the Government has only legislated for increases in line with inflation. The rates rise in April 2012 does no more than maintain revenues from the duty in line with inflation over the two year period since 2010. For the majority of passengers – those flying to Band A (Europe) in economy class – APD rates have only increased by £1.
It is also important to understood that Ministers have to strike the right balance on taxes, and that maintaining APD revenues is necessary if the Government is to meet its overall revenue forecasts and stay on course with its deficit reduction plans.
Unlike many other countries, the UK does not levy VAT on domestic flights. More generally, in any comparison, it is important to look at the tax picture as a whole. The UK compares favourably in international comparisons of the tax burden on consumers.
The Government is also firmly committed to ensuring aviation in the UK remains affordable and will continue to monitor the situation to ensure the industry is able to compete in international markets.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Diabetes
I commend the work done by Diabetes UK, and its aim to raise awareness of the pressing issues in diabetes services and care and the importance of preventing, postponing and better managing the condition.
Supporting healthy behaviours that improve the population’s health is absolutely key to successful prevention. We need to tackle the main risk factors that are particularly relevant to type 2 diabetes. The Government’s Change4Life campaign continues to help influence and shift behaviours around diet and physical activity, by giving families clear consistent messages on why and how they should change their lifestyles.
I recognise that if diabetes is well managed, with the right education and support, it is possible to prevent severe, sometimes fatal complications. I know that the Department of Health is taking a number of steps to help children and young people with diabetes, including working with the Department for Education to make sure children have the necessary support to manage their condition at school.
Steps have also been taken towards tackling variations in care. The National Diabetes Audit, which is considered to be the largest annual clinical audit in the world, will enable the Government to gain a very accurate picture of the state of diabetes care in England, providing a benchmark for improvement of support. NHS Diabetes continues to work with managers, commissioners and providers of diabetes services to improve the quality of care for people with diabetes with the aim of tackling variations in service. Additionally, the Government is developing an outcomes strategy for long-term conditions and a companion document will be published on diabetes alongside this by the end of 2012.
The system also needs to be supported by incentives such as payment by results. This is why the Department of Health has introduced a mandatory best practice tariff for paediatric diabetes from April 2012, the aim of which is to enable access to consistent high quality management of diabetes, including a requirement for 24-hour support and advice to be available to patients and their families.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Legal Aid
Legal aid forms a vital part of a system of justice of which we are rightly proud. The Government strongly believes that access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society. Our legal aid system is, however, now among the most expensive in the world, costing over £2 billion a year or £39 per head of population, compared to £19 per head in New Zealand. In the current fiscal climate, this is simply unsustainable.
Legal aid has also expanded far beyond its original scope, and is available for a wide range of issues, many of which should not require any legal expertise to resolve.
The Government has therefore introduced reforms which will drive down the cost of criminal legal aid, and redefine the scope of civil legal aid so that the focus will be on those who need it most, for the most serious cases in which legal advice or representation is justified. The Governments principled stance is that legal aid should routinely be available in cases where peoples life and liberty is at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where their children may be taken into care. It should not routinely be available where other funding is available, where litigants can present their own case, or where the taxpayer is at risk of paying for litigation that any person paying from their own pocket would not finance and participate in.
One of the key principles behind the Governments reforms is that it wants people to take more responsibility for exploring the range of advice available to them to tackle problems early, rather than immediately taking legal action which should be a last resort. Mediation, for example, can be cheaper, quicker, simpler and provide better outcomes for many people.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Communications Data
Communications data information such as who called whom and at what time is already vital to law enforcement, especially when dealing with organised crime gangs, paedophile rings and terrorist groups. It has played a role in every major Security Service counter-terrorism operation and in 95 per cent of all serious organised crime investigations. But communications technology is changing fast, and criminals and terrorists are increasingly moving away from landline and mobile telephones to communications on the internet, including voice over internet services, like Skype, and instant messaging services. The Government estimates that it is now only able to access some 75 per cent of the total communications data generated in this country, compared with 90 per cent in 2006.
Given the pace of technological change, our future capability is very uncertain. That is why, in the Governments Strategic Defence and Security Review, it said it would introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework. It also made it clear that in seeking to ensure our law enforcement agencies continue to retain capabilities to protect us from harm, civil liberties would be respected and protected.
The Government therefore proposes to require internet companies to collect and store certain additional information, like who an individual has contacted and when, which they may not collect at present. The information will show the context, but not the content, of communications. So we will simply have for internet-based communications what we already have for mobile and landline telephone calls. The data will be available only to designated senior officers, on a case-by-case basis, authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and the process will be overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner. It will be available only if it is necessary and proportionate to a criminal investigation. It should be noted that the police and other agencies will have no new powers or capabilities to intercept and read emails or listen to telephone calls and existing arrangements for interception will not be changed. No increase in the amount of interception is envisaged as a result of this.
Unlike the previous Governments proposals, there will be no government database and the data recorded will be strictly limited and regulated and will be destroyed after a year. The police and Security Service will not be able to intercept the content of calls and emails, except as now when it is necessary and proportionate as part of an investigation relating to serious crime or national security, and only when they have obtained a warrant signed by a Secretary of State.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Update to the Fuel Duty Policy
I understand the impact high world oil prices, and the high cost of fuel, is having on families across the country at a time when household budgets are being severely stretched.
It is very important to remember that the Government has listened to these genuine concerns and has already taken firm action back to help hard pressed motorists this year. Under the previous Governments plans, fuel duty was due to rise twice this year. In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor scrapped the second planned increase and delayed the first increase until August.
Despite the huge deficit we inherited and against a tough global economic background, the Government cut fuel duty by 1 pence per litre last year and announced the introduction of a new Fair Fuel Stabiliser that ensures North Sea oil companies contribute more at times of high oil prices.
This amounts to a £4.5 billion support package for motorists from 2011-2013. Thanks to these measures, fuel prices will be 10 pence per litre lower as of April 2012 and, the steps Ministers have taken means families will save £144 on filling up the average sized family car by the end of the year. In addition, the Chancellor increased Vehicle Excise Duty by inflation only in this years Budget.
I appreciate these significant reductions has not ended the pressure on families and businesses. The UK is spending over £120 million every day on debt interest payments alone and our priority must be to restore the nations finances. Tackling the debts we inherited from Labour will also keep interest rates lower, helping businesses and families with mortgages. Without dealing with this, there can be no sustainable economic growth.
I fully support the measures the Chancellor has already undertaken to help motorists.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Thank you for contacting me about the Rio+20 Conference
I share your view that the UK should lead the world in the transition to a fair and green global economy. The challenges of food security, environmental degradation, climate change and poverty eradication are inextricably linked and I am confident that these are all areas where Rio can make real progress.
The Government sees Rio+20 as an important opportunity for international co-operation on sustainable development and promoting a global green economy. The Government will be driving forward proposals for new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which will guide international action on major sustainability issues including food security, water and access to sustainable energy. The UK will also be seeking agreement to move away from using GDP as the sole indicator of progress in government figures to encourage countries to also measure and account for the value of their natural resources.
The private sector is the engine of development, driving opportunity and prosperity for the poor, but companies must play their part in protecting the environment and natural resources. One of the UK’s key priorities for the Conference is to drive private sector uptake of transparent sustainability reporting and investment. UK Ministers have already been vocal in this area, pressing the EU to adopt rules on transparency in the extractive industries.
The Deputy Prime Minister will be leading the UK delegation to the conference and has stated that promoting a green economy will be a key UK priority. The UK is already playing a leading part in the preparations for the Rio+20 conference and I can assure you that the delegation will have my full support as we move towards the summit in June.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Heath Bill Risk Register: Update
Risk registers are departmental management tools that play a key role in the formation of government policy – a worst case scenario hypothetical analysis which all departments use. We believe that their publication would risk seriously damaging the quality of advice given to ministers and of any subsequent decision making. We will await the outcome of the Department of Health’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Every Disabled Child Matters
I understand that the introduction of the Health and Social Care Bill has led to concerns being raised about children with disabilities accessing the health system. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you of the Government’s commitment to helping and supporting children with a disability.
The aim of the Bill is to create parity between all health care providers. In doing so, patients can be safe in the knowledge that they are receiving the best care possible. It is because of a desire to maintain the ‘patient comes first’ ethos that the Government is giving patients a choice of provision. I believe this will allow patients to get the most suitable care for their needs and the increase in fair competition will ensure that this care remains patient-focused.
As you will know, in March the Government published its Green Paper ‘Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability’ which outlined a significant shift in the approach to helping children with disabilities. Included in the proposals were plans to include parents in the assessment process and introduce a legal right, by 2014, to give them control of funding for the support their child needs. The Paper also proposes to replace statements with a single assessment process and a combined education, health and care plan so that health and social services is included in the package of support, along with education.
In the light of these proposals, I am pleased that the Department of Health has appointed 20 pathfinders representing 31 local authorities and PCT partners, who will ensure not only full engagement with children, young people and their parents, but will also work on developing the new birth to 25 assessment process and single plan, incorporating education, health and social care assessments. Taken together, these important steps will ensure that a clear vision for disabled children and children with complex health needs is established.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
EHRC Budget
As you are aware, on taking office, the Government sought to increase radically the transparency and accountability of all public services through a reform process which reviewed all Government's Non-Departmental Public Bodies. Following this process, the decision was taken to retain the Commission but substantially reform it to focus it on the areas where it alone can add value, and to increase its accountability to Government, Parliament and the public. To achieve this aim, the Government set out its proposals for legislative and non-legislative reform to:
. Amend the legislation that established the EHRC to clarify the Commission's core functions, to allow the EHRC to focus on the work that really matters.
. End the undertaking of non-core activities by the EHRC.
. Ensure that that the Commission provides greater value for money and transparency.
Problems with financial controls mean that each set of the EHRC's accounts have had to be independently inspected since its creation, and it has struggled to deliver value for money. Under the Government's plans, it will be a legal requirement for the EHRC to publish an annual business plan in Parliament, and comply with the same rules as all other public bodies when spending money.
The breadth of the Commission's remit has encouraged it to extend beyond its core role to, for example, operating a helpline and grants programme. The Commission has struggled to do these things well in the past, so the Government has decided that it should not fund it to do them in the future, especially as this work could be done better or more cost-effectively by others.
Please rest assured, however, that the Government is commissioning a new information and advice service from a private provider/civil society organisation or a combination of both. The Government has now issued an invitation to tender for these services.
These reforms will focus the EHRC on the areas where it can add value, and increase its accountability to Government, Parliament and the public.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Beer Duty Escalator
Pubs play a vital role in community life and job creation. However, we must be clear that the Government inherited the largest deficit in the G20 when it came to power in 2010 and the UK currently spends over £120 million every day on debt interest payments alone. This is clearly unsustainable and tough decisions are unavoidable. The revenues from alcohol excise duty make an important contribution to reducing the deficit.
Ministers have already taken a number of other steps to support British pubs. A community right to buy has been introduced which will enable residents to save struggling pubs by taking them over rather than seeing them lie empty and derelict.
We are cutting red tape to make it is easier for pub owners to attract new business by putting on live music events. The Government has also abolished the cider tax and is stopping unfair sales of alcohol below cost-price by supermarkets.
This is on top of the doubling of small business rate relief for another year, which will help publicans across the country during these difficult economic times, and the decision to appoint Bob Neill as the Minister responsible for community pubs.
Decisions about tax policy are announced by the Chancellor as part of the Budget process and I will follow developments closely. I know Treasury Ministers are aware of the concern over this issue.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Social Care
I recognise that the issue of social care is hugely important, particularly to those who have family members who rely on care. It is essential that the system works for people of all ages, and the families who support them.
I would like to assure you that the Government is fully aware that the current system of social care funding is not fit for the long-term. To support local authorities in the medium term, the Government has allocated an additional £2 billion a year by 2014-15 in the spending review to support the delivery of social care. This represents a total of £7.2 billion of extra support for social care over the next four years, including an unprecedented transfer of funds from the NHS to support social care services.
The Government is now working to examine the Dilnot Commission’s recommendations in full. I can assure you that the Government does intend to bring forward a White Paper in the Spring on how it will reform the social care system. This will set out the steps it will take to ensure that the social care market is fairer, cheaper and more sustainable so that people have access to the highest quality of care when they need it.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Child Benefit Reform
The Government has been clear that it is fair to ask those who are better off in our society to make a contribution to paying down the debts that we have built up over the last decade in Britain. It is not fair to ask someone earning £20,000 to pay for the child benefit that goes to someone earning more than twice that much.
I understand concerns about couples where just one partner pays higher rate tax losing Child Benefit while two earners just below the threshold keep it and know that this matter has been raised with Ministers.
In his Budget Statement 2010, the Chancellor announced that child benefit would be frozen for the next three years in order to control costs. It is too early to make decisions about the Budget in 2014 but I believe the measure strikes the right balance between keeping this important benefit for the majority and tackling the huge budget deficit.
The Government remains committed to recognising marriage in the income tax system. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the Coalition Agreement. It is important to value commitment and Ministers will be bringing forward proposals to achieve this. However, the most pressing issues facing the country must be tackled first.
I do appreciate that these decisions are not easy but this is one of a package of steps we need to take as a country to fix the economic mess we inherited.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Let’s give kids a free range future
I am a vocal advocate of cycling and will be taking part in a 150 mile sponsored cycle this summer to raise money for cancer charities. The Government is committed to supporting sustainable travel initiatives, including cycling. Given half of car journeys are under five miles there would be improvements to health, air quality and traffic congestion if more journeys were undertaken by bicycle.
The Coalition Agreement contained a key commitment, stating the Government will support sustainable travel initiatives, including the promotion of cycling and walking. As part of this, the Department for Transport announced funding of £560 million for the Local Sustainable Transport Fund to finance a range of travel measures which could include cycling infrastructure projects. Ministers announced the first tranche of funding in July last year and 38 of the successful 39 projects in the first wave included a cycling element. Also, Ministers have just announced an additional £15 million for Sustrans and the Cycle Rail Working Group for cycle infrastructure, some of which will help develop traffic free and traffic calmed routes.
The Government takes the safety of cyclists extremely seriously and I understand that Ministers are taking a number of steps to ensure that Britain remains a world leader in road safety. Ministers have pledged £11 million a year for Bikeability training to help a new generation of cyclists gain the skills and knowledge they need to cycle safely. In addition, the Government is funding £13 million for Links to Schools, Bike Club, and walking to school initiatives which will make cycling and walking to school both safer and easier.
Ministers are providing local councils with the tools they need to improve safety on their roads, for instance cycle lanes and 20 mph zones. The implementation of these will, however, depend on local decisions and need to reflect local priorities. I hope local authorities will take advantage of Government support to promote walking and cycling to school and children will habitually adopt healthier travel options for their later life.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Abu Qatada
As the Home Secretary has made clear, the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell and the right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell, far away from Britain. This is why successive British governments have sought to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan.
On 17 January 2012, the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment on the attempt by the UK Government to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan on national security grounds under what is known as a Deportation with Assurances agreement. The Court found that his deportation would breach Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) as there was 'a real risk that the evidence obtained from his co-accused by torture will be used against him'.
The Government disagrees vehemently with Strasbourg's ruling. It is considering all the legal options available, including referring the case to the Grand Chamber. As the Government does so, I understand it will continue to negotiate with the Jordanians to see what assurances can be given about the evidence used against Qatada in their courts.
The Government opposed Qatada's application for bail vigorously, but on 7 February it was granted. Although bail has been granted, the bail conditions are amongst the most stringent possible. If any of his conditions are breached, he will be re-arrested. But, however strict the bail conditions, I continue to believe Qatada should remain behind bars until he can be deported and the Home Secretary shares this view.
This is another example of why I believe we need significant reform of the European Court of Human Rights and I am pleased that the Government wants to use the UK's current Presidency of the Council of Europe to make progress on this issue. There are real problems with a massive backlog of cases and the Court considering matters that have been properly dealt with at the national level. I want to make sure that Council of Europe and the Court can focus on the important role it plays in encouraging freedom and human rights across the continent.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
NHS Risk Register
While the Department remains of the view that there is information contained within the risk register that should not be disclosed for the reasons already set out, it is aware of the public and parliamentary interest in this issue. The Department has acknowledged that arriving at an early solution would be beneficial to all concerned.
I am pleased that, for this reason, the Department has encouraged the Tribunal to schedule the hearing for as early a date as possible, while allowing of course for both sides to make the appropriate preparations. Following this the Tribunal has brought the hearing forward from its initial date in April, to a date in early March.
I do not think it appropriate to comment further on this issue until the outcome of the Tribunal is known. The Department will respond when the Tribunal has made is its decision.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Football Governance
In England, we are all hugely passionate about our national game, and there are many reasons we should be pleased with how it has progressed over the last two decades. However, it is clear that there are improvements that can be made in the governance arrangements of football clubs.
This is why, when the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee looked into this issue, they laid out in stark detail the way in which the existing structures and arrangements have failed to keep pace with the challenges and expectations surrounding the modern game.
Following the Committee's report, the Football Association together with the Premier League and Football League have submitted proposals for reform to the Government. It is my understanding that this includes plans related to the licensing of all football clubs, with oversight of these licences by an independent body, and potentially a larger role for supporters' groups. I understand that the Government is now considering these proposals, and will publish this information shortly.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Tim Yeo’s Amendments:
Earlier this week Tim Yeo brought a number of amendments to the Energy Bill, which I decided that I could not support. I want to explain here why.
The Bill has three principal objectives: to tackle barriers to investment in energy efficiency, enhance energy security, and enable investment in low carbon energy. The Bill will provide for the Green Deal, which finances fixed energy efficiency improvements to properties. It will be supplemented with a new Energy Company Obligation, focussing on households that could not save money without support on top of the Green Deal finance.
The Bill will also allow tenants who rent privately to ask for reasonable energy efficiency improvements to be made to their homes, and allow local authorities to insist that landlords improve the worst performing homes.
Clean energy forms a central part of the UK’s future energy needs. This is why I have been a firm supporter of carbon capture and storage for many years. However, it is also vital that we maintain a balance in our energy supply to ensure that we have enough energy at a good price. Both gas and coal have a role to play in achieving this.
The UK will still be dependent on oil and gas for many years as we make the transition to a lower carbon energy world. Therefore, we must either produce oil and gas in UK waters, where we have one of the most robust safety and regulatory regimes in the world or buy oil and gas from elsewhere. The new Bill will allow us to make the most of our substantial resources as well as boosting our economy.
The main problem with moving to carbon capture and storage now is the commercial viability of the technology. If the UK were to adopt an energy policy that excludes gas and coal, we risk losing our global competitiveness. The great danger of adopting wholesale an energy system that does not work well enough on a commercial scale is that business is exported abroad, in particular to countries where carbon energy is not as well-developed. The result would be that global carbon emissions would remain the same, and the UK would lose jobs. I could not support amendments that would risk this.
Even so, I remain acutely aware how important it is to develop and support clean energy. As I said at the ‘Lambley Green Day’ last year, held in conjunction with the Lambley Parish Plan Group at Floralands Garden Centre:
“I want people to be able to see what’s available to them and what’s possible with carbon reduction. I think Government talks in the abstract about saving carbon without ever explaining why or how ordinary people can do it. This is not just an environmental crusade; ordinary families can make real savings on their bills which, given today’s announcement that energy prices are set to rise by up to 19% for some accounts, has never been more relevant.
“I’ve been raising the issue of energy security in the House since I was elected but I feel very strongly that it’s time to stop talking and start acting by showing my constituents how this technology can benefit them directly.”
As I hope this illustrates, we need to introduce changes in such a way that people can incorporate clean energy into their lives at their own pace. In this way, the whole country can be united in tackling climate change. I have full confidence that Ministers will continue to tackle energy inefficiency, improve energy security, and cut carbon emissions as part of their pledge to make this the greenest Government ever.
...................................................................................................................................................................
TB Control:
When it comes to TB in wildlife I have one aim: to prevent TB coming to Sherwood. It is a sad fact, but at the moment there are parts of the country which are swamped with TB, and we need to use every tool in the toolbox to bring the epidemic under control. This includes better bio-security, preventing animal movements where possible, vaccination and, where there is no alternative, culling.
The reality is that there is no vaccine at present but there very definitely is TB. The main problem with current vaccines is that, while it can prevent badgers catching TB, it does not cure badgers who already have it. British Agriculture has been waiting for a generation for an effective TB vaccination and it feels that we have been ‘on the cusp’ for over fifteen years; without action soon, we will lose the British dairy industry.
Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on farms and families. In the last year alone, 38, 000 cattle were slaughtered in England because of the disease, bringing with it not only huge emotional cost but a financial cost of £90 million. Unless the Government takes effective action, which it is now starting to do, TB will continue to spread amongst the wildlife population as well as amongst livestock. It could cost an estimated £1 billion over the next decade to deal with it.
Any cull is deeply unpleasant and it is with a heavy heart that I advocate deploying this measure in the battle against TB. There are however a number of points which I feel make it clear that a cull, as part of a package of measures, is a regrettable necessity:
• Scientific evidence suggests if culling was conducted in line with strict criteria, it would reduce bovine TB in cattle over a 150 km² area by an average of 16 per cent in incidence over nine years whereas doing nothing will inevitably lead to an increase in bovine TB incidence.
• Culling boundaries: Defra will require culling areas to have controlled boundaries in the surrounding 2km to prevent the disruption of badgers and livestock outside this area.
• Cattle controls: as part of the overall package of measures, Defra will put in place tougher measures for farmers including penalties where TB tests are overdue, strengthen control and enforcement of cattle movements, remove some pre-movement testing exemptions and consider the rules for infected herds regaining TB-Free status.
• Vaccination: I understand a usable vaccination is some time away. To develop one as quickly as possible, Defra is investing £20 million over the next five years.
• Culling: The proposed shooting method is used widely and considered humane for culling a range of mammals including deer. Operators will have to prove competence and attend an approved training course to obtain a licence to carry out culling. Pilot culls will test the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting, overseen by independent scientific experts;
• Controls: To limit the impact the culls have on badger populations, the number of issued licenses and the number of badgers culled will be limited. Additionally, Defra will take mitigation measures if local badger activity appears very low in a licensed area to ensure badgers do not disappear from a licensed area.
But there are some things that have been suggested that we cannot do. For example, we cannot restrict the movement of badgers, and using existing vaccines on cows would mean that farmers could no longer sell either their meat nor their milk and the prospect of ‘battery cows’. What is more, we cannot simply keep cattle permanently in sheds.
The cull was originally postponed because the National Farmers’ Union did not believe that they were able to cull sufficient numbers of badgers required for meaningful pilots. This was the right decision to make: if we must take this step, we must ensure we get it right. However, conditions now exist which should mean that the cull will be successful.
I know this has been a very difficult decision, but we need to eradicate this terrible disease as swiftly as possible. It is important that we stick to the scientific evidence on this issue and this is the basis for the Government’s decision.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Transparency of Land Acquisitions
Thank you for contacting me as part of Oxfam’s campaign on the transparency of land acquisitions. I’ve spoken many times in the House about the pressure we will face globally in terms of land and water needs over the next generation and competing pressures on land for fuel and food risk impacting adversely on the food security of the poorest. I recognise that high commodity prices and other factors have lead to a rush in large-scale land acquisition domestically and internationally.
Both private sector investments in poor countries, and the growth of small and large agriculture, are key to achieving global food security and economic growth in Africa. When done well, commercial investments in agriculture have the potential to be transformational, but it is vital that the rights and interests of the people living on the land are taken into account.
The importance of responsible investment of course extends to World Bank supported investments. However this Government does not agree that a six-month freeze on agricultural lending by the World Bank, as proposed by Oxfam, is necessary or desirable. For example, the Government is actively engaged in discussions with the World Bank on its investment policies and support the World Bank’s current efforts to be more transparent in its land grab programmes.
In addition, the UK will push for the implementation of the Committee on World Food Security’s Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests, which will help share best practice, and shape land laws, policies and programmes. The Government has also welcomed the Committee on World Food Security’s move to develop Principles on Responsible Agriculture Investment.
The Prime Minister has announced that the UK’s G8 presidency will focus on the golden thread of open economies, open governments and open societies to help advance trade, ensure tax compliance, and promote greater transparency and accountability. The G8 should prove an important opportunity for the UK to get international engagement on these issues.
Finally, UK Aid is supporting efforts to secure land rights for individuals, businesses and communities in at least 8 countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, and through investments in key multilateral organisations. Over this spending review period the Government will commit £100 million to programmes that improve land and property rights. An example of this investment is in Rwanda, where UK Aid has helped at least 4 million landholders obtain formal titles. The Department for International Development is also providing core funding to the International Fund for Agricultural Development which supports poor people to secure their land rights in about 45 countries.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Employee Shareholder Status
Employee Shareholder would be an innovative new type of employment status. Individuals who accept this status would be given shares in a company of between £2,000 and £50,000 that will be exempt from capital gains tax. This new status would be in addition to the existing statuses of worker and employee. The UK has different employment statuses with different levels of rights and obligations to allow businesses and individuals to choose the right type of contract that suits their particular circumstances.
I believe this new status would give businesses increased flexibility about how to grow and adapt their workforce. It would be entirely voluntary for employers to offer the new status and for individuals to choose to accept it. Employers would still be able to choose the new status and continue to offer more rights such as the right to request flexible working or higher levels of contractual redundancy pay. Employees would retain core rights, including protection from discrimination, the right to the minimum wage and entitlement to parental leave.
The Government recognises that this status may not be appropriate for every business, but believes that it will be particularly attractive to fast growing businesses that desire the increased flexibility. Moreover, engaged employees are more productive and motivated, and this contract will give employees a financial stake in their company’s growth and success and benefit from capital gains exemptions.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Teachers’ Pay
As you may know, the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, commissioned the School Teachers’ Review Body to see how reforms could be made to help address the quality of teaching, along with raising the status of the profession and supporting the recruitment and retention of teachers in different areas of the country. They have recommended a simpler, more flexible national pay framework for teachers.
Included in the recommendations are moves to end pay increases based on length of service and also linking all teachers’ pay progression to performance, based on annual appraisals, which is already the case for some teachers who are on a higher pay scale.
These recommendations will make teaching a more attractive career and a more rewarding job. They will also give schools greater flexibility to respond to specific conditions and reward their best teachers. I think that it is important to clarify that a broad national framework, including the higher pay bands for London and fringe areas and an upper pay scale as a career path for experienced teachers who make a wider contribution to the school will be retained.
No education system can be better than its teachers and I pleased that the Government is taking steps to ensure great teachers are rewarded.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Changes to Child Benefit
By now I think we all realise the extent of the financial mess we are dealing with and while we are making some progress – we’ve managed to shift a quarter of that massive debt and the economy is slowly recovering – there is still no doubt that as a nation we must look seriously at how we spend what we have.
I believe in social security, I believe that we should protect those of us who fall on hard times or who need support but I also believe that the previous child benefit system which saw low earners paying tax to support the wealthiest 15 per cent of families in society was unfair. The recent changes to child benefit seek to address this imbalance.
As you know, the Chancellor announced that households with a taxpayer earning over £60,000 will no longer receive child benefit. To prevent a cliff-edge, this withdrawal will be gradual for those households where someone earns between £50,000 and £60,000. The Government has made sure that 90 per cent of families will still receive the benefit, with 85 per cent getting the full amount.
I appreciate that there has been frustration over the implementation in terms of each parent’s earnings and the often quoted couple each earning £49,000 being exempt but the truth is that with modern families as there are, often with parents living in different homes or with new relationships, there was never going to be an easy way to means test this benefit. Ministers looked at a measure based on household income but concluded it would mean bringing eight million households into the tax credit system and impose a much greater administrative burden, undermining any savings to the taxpayer. In short, the current method, while not ideal, is the best method at our disposal.
Of course I understand why this arrangement may be irritating but maintaining the status quo, a situation where the taxes of low earning childless workers support high earning families with children is intolerable and the fact that in a few cases one’s neighbour may have squeaked under the line is not a reason to allow that injustice to continue.
Government spending cannot continue the way it did under Labour – that’s how we got ourselves tied in knots in the first place – and it seems fair to me that those with the broader shoulders should bear the wider load until we can work our way out of this economic period.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sea Turtles
As you may be aware, responsibility for the Cayman Turtle Farm rests with the Cayman Islands Government. However, I can assure you that the British Government places great importance on conserving the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories and takes seriously reports of animal cruelty throughout the world. It therefore welcomes the work that non-governmental organisations such as the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) undertake in support of international animal welfare issues.
I know that the Government is aware that the WSPA has conducted an investigation into the Turtle Farm, and that it has recently made its findings public.
Foreign Office Minister Mark Simmonds has stated that: “the Government understands the farm has carried out a review of its operations and found no basis for WSPA's allegations. The farm itself has ordered that an independent assessment take place in December. We encourage WSPA, the management of the farm and the Cayman Islands Government to continue to engage constructively.”
National Wildlife Crime Unit
The Government is committed to tackling wildlife crime and fully supports law enforcement agencies who are working through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. The Government also recognises the important contribution of the NWCU, which offers advice for law enforcers on wildlife crime matters and coordinates activity to tackle the current UK wildlife crime priorities. The NWCU produces every six months a tactical assessment of progress against each of its priority work areas. This assessment is then considered by the Home Office, Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and others members of the UK Wildlife Crime Tasking and Co-ordinated Group.
As you may be aware, with the introduction of elected police and crime commissioners and the creation of a National Crime Agency, there are significant changes taking place in the broader policing landscape. The role played by the NWCU will evolve in accordance with these. I understand from Ministers that decisions regarding Government funding for the NWCU beyond 2012-2013 will be taken as soon as possible. It may be that it is better to let the new police and crime commissioners decide how best to allocate resources at a local level rather than providing specific central funding.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Guide Dogs
Regulations require audio-visual systems on trains but on buses such systems are not mandatory and for this reason, levels of provision vary. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) do, however, require all new buses and coaches on local or scheduled services and designed to carry more than 22 passengers to be accessible to disabled passengers. All existing buses and coaches used to provide local or scheduled services will have to comply with PSVAR by end dates between 2015 and 2020, depending on vehicle type. As a result I am glad to report local buses are steadily becoming more accessible and by the end of 2011-12, 71 per cent of the bus fleet in England met the PSVAR requirements.
The Government does not, at this point, intend to legislate to make audio-visual systems on buses mandatory. This is because it considers that the business case for operators cannot be demonstrated and, particularly in the current economic climate, it is not appropriate to force financial burdens of this kind on the industry.
However, I understand the social benefits of having passenger information available for all bus users and Ministers have written to bus operators to encourage them to work in partnership with their local authorities, to see if the uptake of the necessary systems can be increased on a voluntary basis. In addition, the Department for Transport has committed via its ‘Accessibility Action Plan’ to develop costings on audio-visual technical options for buses and determine the way forward.
I can assure you my colleagues in the Department for Transport will continue to work to tackle the transport issues faced by those who are blind or partially-sighted.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Justice and Security Bill
The Justice and Security Bill seeks to deal with an extremely serious problem. Under current court rules, known as Public Interest Immunity (or PII), national security evidence is excluded from the courtroom. It means that some of the actions of our security and intelligence agencies are not being scrutinized in the courts.
This has become particularly problematic given the rising numbers of compensation claims being brought alleging that the British Government has been involved in the mistreatment of detainees. The Government is now facing around 20 live cases in which national security evidence is central.
The deficiencies of the PII system mean that the claimants in this small number of cases will never have their case properly heard. The public will never ever get an answer as to whether the serious questions raised about the activities of the state have any truth or not. Instead, because the key national security evidence can’t be brought before the court, the claim has to be settled by the taxpayer to the tune of potentially millions of pounds. Given that some of the individuals involved in these cases are suspected terrorists there is a high risk that this money could make its way back into funding terrorist activities.
The Government agrees that Closed Material Procedures, or CMPs, clearly do not provide an ideal form of justice. No hearing in which the claimant is unable to hear the evidence disputing his claim ever is. However, they are much less secret than the current PII system which excludes the material at issue entirely. Domestic and international courts have declared CMP’s to be fair.
In my view CMPs are quite simply an infinitely preferable way of getting to the bottom of these cases than both the current PII system. At least with a CMP we will have a judge looking at all the facts and providing a judgment. They will also put an end to Government being forced into making pay-outs to former detainees who have not proved their case.
The Government has now ensured that a judge will be entirely responsible for whether a CMP can be held. There will be no question of cover-ups being allowed, and indeed a claimant will be able to request a CMP if they believe that there may be national security evidence which would help their case.
The amendments brought forward at Committee Stage in the House of Commons give effect to the principles behind the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The judge now has full discretion to decide whether a CMP would be 'in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice'. Indeed, going beyond the Committee's recommendations, the Government have introduced a new power for the judge to be able to revoke a CMP at any point during the proceedings.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Energy Bill
Tim Yeo has recently brought some amendments to the Energy Bill to introduce a clean electricity target.
The Energy Bill has three principal objectives: to tackle barriers to investment in energy efficiency, enhance energy security, and enable investment in low carbon energy. The Bill will provide for the Green Deal, which finances fixed energy efficiency improvements to properties. It will be supplemented with a new Energy Company Obligation, focussing on households that could not save money without support on top of the Green Deal finance. The Bill will also allow tenants who rent privately to ask for reasonable energy efficiency improvements to be made to their homes, and allow local authorities to insist that landlords improve the worst performing homes.
With significant challenges ahead for the energy sector, all action taken over the next decade and beyond must be closely aligned. The Government has launched a consultation on electricity market reform, which will include an Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) for new power stations. The Government has already committed to an EPS and made it clear that coal-fired power stations could not meet an EPS without sufficient carbon capture and storage.
The UK will still be dependent on oil and gas for many years as we make the transition to a lower carbon energy world. Therefore, we must either produce oil and gas in UK waters, where we have one of the most robust safety and regulatory regimes in the world or buy oil and gas from elsewhere. The new Bill will allow us to make the most of our substantial resources as well as boosting our economy.
I am acutely aware how important this issue is, which is why last year I hosted the ‘Lambley Green Day’ in conjunction with the Lambley Parish Plan Group at Floralands Garden Centre. Exhibitors at the day included Peugeot, British Gas, The Plumb Centre as well as local biofuels producer Green Dragon Fuels. My thinking behind the event is illustrated in the speech I gave, which I have quoted from below:
“I want people to be able to see what’s available to them and what’s possible with carbon reduction. I think Government talks in the abstract about saving carbon without ever explaining why or how ordinary people can do it. This is not just an environmental crusade; ordinary families can make real savings on their bills which, given today’s announcement that energy prices are set to rise by up to 19% for some accounts, has never been more relevant.
“I’ve been raising the issue of energy security in the House since I was elected but I feel very strongly that it’s time to stop talking and start acting by showing my constituents how this technology can benefit them directly.”
The main problem with green energy is that, in the short-term, it is likely to push up the cost of people’s household energy bills. This is why we need to introduce changes in such a way that people can incorporate clean energy into their lives at their own pace. Nevertheless, ministers will continue to tackle energy inefficiency, improve energy security, and cut carbon emissions as part of their pledge to make this the greenest Government ever.
......................................................................................................................................
Pupil, citizen, lifesaver
There have recently been calls for including emergency life support skills (ELSS) in the curriculum. I think we can agree that knowledge of first aid is a life skill we can all benefit from and I recognise the importance of ELSS and the benefit pupils can gain from acquiring them.
As you may know, the non-statutory framework for Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education already provides a context for teaching young people about emergency lifesaving skills (ELS). At primary level, pupils can learn about basic emergency procedures and where to get help, and at secondary level they can develop the skills to cope with emergency situations that require basic first aid procedures, including resuscitation techniques.
Schools are also free to support their teaching by using reputable organisations to deliver training where that meets the needs of their pupils.
........................................................................................................................................................................
FairFuelUK Campaign
FairFuelUK has recently launched a campaign calling for fuel duty to be reduced.
I am acutely aware how difficult the rising cost of living is for people at the moment. Unfortunately, the state of the country’s finances means difficult decisions have to be made, and fuel duty is not something we can afford to cut. Nevertheless, there are things we can and have done to ease the problem. For example, in December last year, the Chancellor scrapped the 3 pence fuel duty increase that the last Government had planned to come into force this January. This means that fuel remains 10 pence per litre cheaper than the last Government had planned and, from this April, fuel will be 13 pence per litre cheaper. This means that fuel duty will have been frozen for nearly two-and-a-half years by September this year.
........................................................................................................................................................................
IF Global Hunger Campaign
The Tearfund IF campaign on global hunger continues to draw attention to the unacceptable fact that, in 2013, nearly a billion people globally continue to be hungry or malnourished.
This year the Government will meet its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of our gross national income on development spending, and is the first G8 country to meet this commitment. Britain is leading the fight against global hunger and will continue to do so in 2013. As President of the G8 this year, the UK will build on the work that has already been done to end hunger. I understand that ministers will be using a major event before the G8 summit to drive further global action to reduce hunger and malnutrition. They will also drive forward progress on the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.
What is more, the Prime Minister has put tackling tax avoidance at the top of the G8 agenda. We live in a globalised world where no one country can, on its own, effectively tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, which is why the UK is taking this opportunity to galvanise collective international action. In the Prime Minister’s recent letter to G8 leaders he highlighted that they can lead the way in information sharing to tackle abuses of the system, including in developing countries, so that governments can collect the taxes due to them.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Tax Avoidance
The Spill the Beans on Tax Dodging Campaign from Christian Aid and ActionAid emphasises the need for an effective tax system to promote wealth creation in developing countries.
I thoroughly agree that we need more corporate transparency and the Government is committed to delivering this. For example, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary are pressing the EU to adopt rules that would require multi-national companies in the extractive industries sector to be more transparent about payments that they make to governments in developing countries. One key way to address the erosion of developing countries’ tax bases is to work with developing countries to enforce transfer pricing rules, which prevent multinationals from artificially shifting profits. That is why I support the work of the Department for International Development and HM Revenue and Customs, who provide considerable support to developing countries to develop robust, fair and sustainable domestic taxation systems. What is more, the Global Forum on Tax Transparency and Exchange of Information, an intergovernmental body with worldwide membership, has been encouraging the signing of Tax Information Exchange Agreements and reviewing countries' implementation of international standards.
With regard to tax avoidance in general, the Government is introducing the first ever General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR). This general rule will target artificial and abusive tax avoidance schemes and will improve the UK’s ability to tackle tax avoidance, while maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a location for genuine business investment. The Government consulted on its proposals over the summer and there is a further consultation on proposed draft legislation currently taking place, with a view to passing the general rule into law this year. The Government has already said it is investing over £900 million in tackling tax avoidance, which will bring in an extra £7 billion a year in tax revenue by 2014-15. This includes lifting the lid on tax avoidance schemes, reviewing offshore vehicles used to avoid tax and closing loopholes.
A lot of work is being done at the international and UK level precisely to address tax avoidance, and I encourage the Government to work to ensure that developing countries have appropriate taxing rights over businesses that operate there.
.......................................................................................................................................
Spare Room Subsidy
Social housing is invaluable for the hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who need help and support getting accommodation. Unfortunately we also have a major problem: over two million households in England are on housing waiting lists and 250,000 families live in over-crowded accommodation.
Under the last Government, this problem was grew out of control: local authority housing waiting lists rose from one million in April 1997 to 1.8million in April 2010; and by April 2010, house building in this country had fallen to its lowest peacetime levels since the 1920s, with the number of social rented housing stock falling by 421,000 units from 1997 to 2010. To address this problem, the Government has invested £19.5 billion in affordable housing and will deliver 170,000 new affordable homes by 2015, but this is still not enough.
By removing the spare room subsidy, the Government is trying to restore fairness to the welfare system by bringing housing benefit and social housing back into line with the private sector, so you only receive a payment for the number of rooms you need. Some people will lose out as a result of this change, and the Government has made £155 million available to Local Authorities through Discretionary Housing Payments to alleviate this problem.
As an MP, I have to try and balance those who will lose out as a result of these changes with case studies of children who have to stand to do their homework and others sharing bedrooms with their parents and baby siblings. There are nearly a million spare rooms which are currently being paid for by taxpayer and which could be used to house people on the waiting list. As such, this change had to be weighed against the need to ensure that our limited social housing stock is used as evenly as it can be so as many people as possible can benefit from it.
......................................................................................................................................................................
NHS (Procurement, patient choice and competition) Regulations
The Government has now laid out revised regulations which put beyond doubt its strong commitment to putting doctors and nurses in charge of local health services.
The previous regulations went no further than the set of procurement guidelines issued in March 2010. However, I recognise that concerns were raised about the wording. I am pleased that the Government has listened carefully to those concerns and has improved the drafting of the regulations so there can be no doubt about how they apply.
The position remains the same as now, that there is no requirement to put all contracts out to competitive tender. This means that commissioners are able to offer contracts to a single provider where only that provider is capable of providing the services.
Monitor, the regulator, has no power to force the competitive tendering of services so decisions about how and when to introduce competition to improve services are solely up to doctors and nurses in clinical commissioning groups.
Competition should not trump integration. Commissioners are free to use integration where it is in the interest of patients.Monitor and the NHS Commissioning Board will publish guidance to commissioners to help inform their decision making in the coming weeks. This guidance will make clear that the existing requirements on competitive tendering will continue to apply.
I want to assure you that it has never been the Government’s intention to make all NHS services subject to competitive tendering, or to force competition for service. That would compromise the power and freedom that the Government is giving to local doctors and nurses. I believe we now have a set of regulations which puts this beyond doubt.
The regulations were laid in Parliament on 11 March 2013 and will come in to effect from 1 April.
13/08/2013
Royal Mail:
First of all, I want to assure you that I know how important Royal Mail is to the British economy and society. This is why the Government placed the requirement for a universal postal service at the heart of the Postal Services Act 2011. As part of this, the regulator Ofcom has a statutory duty to ensure that Royal Mail remains a universal postal service which runs for six days a week at uniform prices. Ofcom has specific powers to intervene when it believes that there are unfair competitive practices that could undermine the universal service obligation. What is more, as part of the service standards set by Ofcom, Royal Mail will continue to have to provide services to armed forces personnel, and this will remain the case regardless of ownership.
The Government has done a lot to help the Royal Mail in recent years. For example, it has relieved it of its historic pension deficit and replaced it with a fully-funded and more cost-effective scheme. This means that Royal Mail has been able to invest in modernisation projects and to increase its turnover to nearly £9 billion. However, like any company, Royal Mail needs extra capital to be sustainable in the long-term. Rather than competing for scarce public resources, the Government has decided to find private capital investment. This should allow it to increase the efficiency of its service, and open Royal Mail up to new markets, not least those arising from online retailing. As set out in the Postal Services Act, at least ten percent of the company’s shares will be made available to employees.
Royal Mail has an enviable heritage and the Postal Services Act 2011 includes a safeguard which allows the Government to require any future owner to include an image of the monarch’s head on stamps to maintain its historic royal association. What is more, Royal Mail has maintained its distinctive red post boxes across the UK and is required to report annually to Parliament on its heritage activities.
13/08/2013
EFRA Report on the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill:
As a farmer, animal welfare is something I take very seriously, and this is which is why I welcomed the Government’s decision to publish the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill on 16 April 2013. As you know, the proposed Bill would, if passed, make it an offence for any circus operator to use a wild animal in a performance or exhibition in a travelling circus in England.
The House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee has subjected the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny, which included taking evidence from experts, and has published a report. I appreciate that many people do not believe that the report goes far enough, but I would emphasise two things: first, the Select Committee was still broadly supportive of the Bill, even if it believed that the current draft of the Bill goes too far; and secondly, the report is only advisory, so it is still up to the Government to decide whether to introduce a Bill in its current form or not. It is important that the Government considers the recommendations made by the Select Committee in full first before it decides whether to introduce the Bill to Parliament when legislative time allows.
I am aware that this is a frustratingly slow process, but, as with any legislation, it is vital that it goes through all the essential legislative stages before becoming law. Nevertheless, wild animals are protected in the meantime in England through the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. This means that anyone who runs a travelling circus with wild animals in it must first get a licence. The Regulations also ensure that if a travelling circus continues to use wild animals before a ban can take effect, they will be subject to regular inspections to make sure they are complying with the strict licensing conditions and welfare standards.
30th August 2013
This is the full motion from last nights debate
That this House:
• Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
• Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
• Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
• Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
• Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
• Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;
• Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
• Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;
• Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and
• notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
9th October 2013
Lobbying Bill:
The aim of the Lobbying Bill is to bring transparency to the way third parties interact with the political system. Campaign groups play an important role in our political process, helping to inform policy making and allowing different opinions to be heard, and this sort of campaigning should continue. In fact, back in May, I appeared on Newsnight specifically to defend the importance of campaigning and to warn against legislation that would undermine it.
The Government also recognises how important this sort of campaigning is, which is why these proposals only affect third-party organisations which campaign for the electoral success of a particular political party or candidate. The Bill has been specifically drafted to be applicable only to so-called “controlled expenditure”. This is campaign spending which promotes or procures the electoral success for a particular political party or candidate. An organisation campaigning only on particular policy issues, such as charities, are not included in these changes. As such, there is no truth to the allegations that charities would be forced to stop campaigning. Such organisations would only fall foul of this clause if it campaigned for a particular party because it supported the similar policies. But charities are already not allowed to campaign on behalf of a particular party or candidate in order to qualify as a charity, and the Bill will not change this.
Many of the letters I have received are particularly worried about clause 27. Clause 27 will do two things. First, it will reduce the limit for when campaign spending has to be registered. Currently, campaign groups only need to register when they spend £10,000 in England or £5,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clause 27 will reduce these limits to £5,000 and £2,000 respectively. This strikes me a perfectly reasonable reform, which will help improve the transparency of campaigning organisations. The second change will be to set the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns at a lower percentage of the amount of money that political parties are allowed to spend. Currently, third party spending is limited to around five per cent of the overall maximum campaign limit for a political party; under clause 27 it will be limited to two per cent. Once again, this seems like a reasonable change to limit the role of big money in political campaigning.
Even so, the Bill still has to go through a number of legislative stages. I have been assured that the aim of this Bill is only to make the system more transparent, but I and my colleagues will continue to attempt to influence the Bill in the right direction.
Badgers – EDM 299:
I understand people’s concerns on the issue of badger culling entirely: on such an emotive topic, it is important that there is transparency and openness. I am a reluctant supporter of badger culling in order to control TB. It is clear from the evidence that, in addition to controlling cattle movements and developing vaccines, we need to use all the tools available to us to stop the spread of this terrible disease. At the same time, however, it is important always to ensure that the pilot cull is properly scrutinised.
The ‘Good Practice Guidelines’ for the badger culling pilots have been agreed with Natural England, and set out the features that need to be compiled with to ensure that badgers are killed humanely and under controlled shooting. These guidelines will be followed throughout the pilots, with personnel from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency (AHVLA) observing the controlled shooting on 60 occasions in each of the two pilots. What is more, a scientifically valid sample of 120 badgers carcasses killed during these observations will then be subject to a post mortem by the AHVLA; and a further 120 carcasses killed by the same marksmen on an unobserved occasion will also have post mortems to check for any variations in the observed outcomes. In addition, Natural England will observe six nights of controlled shooting and carry out a series of follow up visits and telephone interviews with marksmen to check what happened on the previous night's shooting. I am assured that this information will then be reviewed by a group of independent scientific experts. Only after this is done will a final decision will be made on whether to roll-out the scheme further, and this decision will be reported to Parliament in 2014.
Lobbying Bill: Update 28/01/2014
I’ve received a lot of emails about the Lobbying Bill, so I want to clarify what precisely the Bill intends to do and why, on balance, I have decided to support it.
If you recall, this Bill was introduced after revelations surfaced of some MPs and Lords using their position to get money in exchange for access and changes to the law. The Bill is designed specifically to address this issue and to prevent MPs and Lords from abusing their position. Clearly the newspapers and investigative journalists who uncovered this abuse are to be congratulated: exposing wrongdoing and holding people in power to account is why freedom of the press exists. It is one of the reasons I have consistently championed freedom of speech and the press, which is why I was one of the many MPs who didn’t want to see the introduction of a statutory regulated press. Press regulation if done by MPs would, I believe, undermine press freedom and make it harder for things like the expenses scandal to come to the light.
There are a lot of allegations going around about what the Lobbying Bill will do. I want to assure you that I would not support this Bill if even a handful of these allegations were true. It is simply untrue that charities would be prevented from campaigning as a result of this Bill. What the Bill does do is to clarify that there is a difference between campaigning and political campaigning. Charities should and must be allowed to campaign on issues they care about. But, charities should not be allowed to campaign for a particular MP or a particular political party. In fact, charities aren’t allowed to do this anyway. But this Bill makes this principle absolutely clear.
It is right that charities are allowed to campaign. It is not right, however, that charities, or any organisation for that matter, can buy political influence by giving money to MPs. It is this which this Bill will help to prevent, and I think this is a good thing.
Even so, the Bill in its original form clearly had problems. This is why the Government consulted with a wide range of charities in order to make improvements. As a result of this, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations recently said:
“Much of the risk to charities from this legislation has now been averted. We are grateful that the government has listened to the concerns charities have raised in recent months. Charities, by law, may not campaign in a party political manner…The bill now provides a much more sensible balance than it did to begin with between creating accountability and transparency in elections while still allowing for charities and others to speak up on issues of concern.”
It should also be remembered that the House of Lords made more than 100 amendments to the Bill. All but three were accepted. The three that were rejected would have undermined the purpose of the Bill, namely to bring transparency to the system of lobbying, which is why they weren’t accepted.
In summary, this Bill only affects third party organisation which campaign for a particular MP, candidate or political party. It will also limit campaign spending, which has always been a central part of our democracy. Unlike America where there are no limits on political spending, the UK has always set limits to prevent a situation where those who spend the most win an election.
Before finishing, I want to stress again that no organisation campaigning on a particular issue will be affected by this Bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that I would not and could not support this Bill if that were the case.
Badgers- 12/03/2014
I have been told that there will be a Backbench Debate in Parliament on the badger cull on Thursday 13th March. Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend because of a prior commitment, but I wanted to give my perspective on the debate and the motion presented here. The motion at the debate will be to condemn the Government’s action on the badger cull and to call for it to stop. In my view, it is simply too early to consider a motion like this.
The fact is that the Expert Panel looking into the cull and its effectiveness has not produced a report yet. There have been some suggestions in the media about what the report will contain, but these are all speculative. On an issue such as this, it is important that we only act on facts and on the evidence, and not speculation. It is also worth restating here why the badger cull has been done at all. Bovine TB has resulted in the slaughter of more than 30,000 cattle each year for the last three years. In the last 10 years, the cost of Bovine TB to the taxpayer has been in the region of £500 million.
As I hope these statistics show, something has to be done, and culling is only one part of it. It is only on very clear evidence that badger culling has been used. In Ireland, badger culling has worked. As a result of culling, the number of infected cattle has fallen from more than 28,000 to a little over 18,000 and the trend is clearly going downwards. Culling is not being done in isolation, other measures include cattle controls and vaccination. Defra has put in place tough measures for farmers including penalties where TB tests are overdue, strengthened control and enforcement of cattle movements, and removed some pre-movement testing exemptions.
A useable vaccine is, unfortunately, some time away, but Defra is investing £20 million to try and develop one as quickly as possible. I know this is a really difficult issue for a lot of people, but I assure you that the Government would only have considered it if it were absolutely necessary. Now we need to wait and see what the Expert Panel says about the trials.
Care Bill – Clause 119 and Amendment NC16
I’ve received a lot of emails about the Care Bill, and specifically about clause 119. I have supported the Government’s version of the clause, and I would like to explain why here. Clause 119 concerns the Trust Special Administrator regime (TSA). The regime was originally introduced by the Labour Government in 2009 and is only ever used to assist failing NHS trusts or foundation trusts.
At present, when a trust is in danger of becoming clinically unsafe or financially insolvent, an Administrator is appointed who produces a report on financial and clinical improvements that can and should be made. Since it was introduced, the regime has only been used twice, once in Mid-Staffordshire and once in South London. Considering the extraordinarily poor care that patients received at Mid-Staffordshire and the high mortality rates, you can see that the regime is only used in the most extreme cases of failure by an NHS trust and is only ever used as a last resort.
As I hope this demonstrates, the regime is not intended in any way to reconfigure hospitals in a general way; TSA is designed only for the most urgent cases where a trust is failing and action has to be taken to make sure that patients do not suffer. Clause 119 seeks to build upon the success of the TSA regime. The problem with the TSA regime in its current form is it is too limited. When an Administrator is appointed, he or she is only authorised to make recommendations in relation to the trust that is failing. NHS healthcare providers, including the Foundation Trust Network and the NHS Confederation, told the Government that this was a problem. They said that Administrators need instead to look at the wider health economy when making their recommendations.
As I’m sure you can appreciate, lots of hospitals and health centres work together, and this means that if one trust is failing, it may be because of the way neighbouring health organisations operate. As such, it is surely better if Administrators appointed under the TSA regime can look at the wider health economy to find out precisely why a particular trust is failing and make appropriate recommendations. It should also be remembered that any changes recommended by an Administrator would be subject to consultation. The Government has always made clear that full public consultation is required before any major change to services takes place. What is more, under the Care Bill, an Administrator would have longer to come to their conclusions, and the length of the consultation will be extended from 30 to 40 working days, giving the public more time to make their views known. As for the amendment proposed by Paul Burstow MP, it had two problems. First, the amendment would have required the Administrator to consult with commissioners from other trusts at a very early stage. This is unnecessary.
Already under clause 119, other commissioners must be consulted about any recommendations the Administrator makes before any action is taken, and all of them must consent. What is more, by bringing in too many people too early, the Administrators recommendations could lose its focus on how to address the problems in the failing trust. Secondly, the amendment would allow the commissioners to be the final decision makers on whether to accept the Administrator’s recommendations rather than the Secretary of State or Monitor. This would mean that changes could be introduced in an ad hoc way, rather than introducing a comprehensive set of changes which would guarantee results. It would, in other words, make any changes introduced as a result of the Administrator’s recommendations incoherent. Ultimately, when a trust fails, it is NHS patients and the public at large who suffer. The TSA regime is a good way to solve these problems. All clause 119 attempts to do is to make this regime more effective by allowing Administrators to look at the wider health economy.
Hunting with Dogs- 25/03/2014
While the Government has pledged to allow Parliament to express its opinion on whether the Hunting Act should be repealed in a free vote, it has decided not to bring such a vote in this Parliament. In my opinion, this is entirely right.
There are currently far more important and pressing issues to be dealing with than repealing the Hunting Act, whether directly or indirectly. I find it strange that this has come onto the agenda again. Since 2010, Conservative MPs have only twice raised the issue of hunting in Parliament. Labour, on the other hand, has raised the issue 19 times. In fact, since 1997, not counting the debates on the Hunting Act, Labour MPs have raised the issue of hunting 134 times. It strikes me that the Conservative Party and the Government is happy to allow the hunting ban to continue, because they recognise that there are far more important issues to be dealing with. The Labour Party, on the other hand, continues to bang on about this issue to distract from its terrible economic legacy and the absence of any economic plan for the future. The reason the Hunting Act has been in the news again is because of some research from Scotland.
Under the current law, farmers are limited to using two dogs to flush out foxes to be shot. The research has shown that this approach is simply not working since it makes the job of locating, flushing and following up wounded animals much harder. As such, it has been suggested that the Hunting Act should be amended to make sure that this problem is addressed. Ultimately, the research shows that, in its current form, the Hunting Act is detrimental to the welfare of animals. What is being proposed would bring the Hunting Act in England in line with the Scottish Hunting Act, which has not limited the number of dogs that can be used in the flushing out of mammals for over ten years. In fact, the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) firmly supports the Scottish Hunting Act, and it seems strange that it does not support an amendment to the English Act to bring it in line with the situation in Scotland. Ultimately, Ministers have looked at the research and have decided that action must be taken. Even so, I can assure you that any amendments brought to the Act will not be the same as repealing it and the chasing and killing of a fox with hounds will continue to be an offence.
HMRC Data Sharing
I have had a large number of emails from constituents inviting me to attend the HMRC data sharing roundtable on 8th July. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the roundtable event due to prior commitments. However, I am happy to explain what HMRC is proposing to do.
I think two things need to be stressed from the outset. First, any data shared by HMRC will be completely anonymous so that it will not be possible to identify people from it. And secondly, the data will only be shared for the purposes of research and analysis. The benefits of researching analysing this anonymous data are numerous. They include: improving policy making across Government; helping improve access to credit for businesses; and making it easier to protect against fraud. It is important to emphasise that any anonymous data will only be shared where there is a clear public benefit to do so.
It is also important to stress that there will be safeguards in place. The data will not be accessible to everyone who wants it. Rather, only those who have passed a rigorous accreditation process through HMRC will be allowed to, and they would only be allowed to access the data in a secure environment. Those accessing the data would also be subject to the same confidentiality provisions as HMRC staff, and this includes criminal sanctions for any unlawful disclosure of taxpayers’ information.
Ensuring that taxpayers’ information remains confidential is so important that HMRC will be consulting further on these proposals. This is why there is still no final decision on this issue, and the Government will not be making one until it is assured that there are sufficient safeguards in place.
Finally, if you want to read more about HMRC’s Data Sharing proposal you can find the consultation document at: