Bob Blackman
Main Page: Bob Blackman (Conservative - Harrow East)Department Debates - View all Bob Blackman's debates with the Leader of the House
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to wish you and, indeed, all the officers and servants of this House the season’s greetings and the very best for Christmas and the new year?
It has been a privilege this year to attend the 25th anniversary of the Brent pensioners forum in my constituency. The forum has been led and championed by Vi Steele.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman knows the forum well from his time in Brent. It has done a fantastic job over the past quarter of a century, fighting for elderly people and ensuring that their voice is heard.
The impact of fuel poverty on people such as members of the Brent pensioners forum has led me to consider the UK’s energy policy, which focuses on three things: first, how to drive investment of £110 billion into our electricity infrastructure and £200 billion into energy as a whole; secondly, how to avoid the cliff edge of 2016 to 2018, which Ofgem has characterised as a period when reserve margins will be dangerously low, or, as other people say, when the lights might go out; and thirdly, how to tackle fuel poverty.
We—the Government and Parliament—have been like industrious phlebotomists transfixed by the diseases of the blood, but ignoring how the blood supply contributes to the health of the whole organism, which is the UK economy. Energy is the lifeblood of industry and manufacturing in this country. It should be seen as an integral part of a wider industrial and economic policy. Where this Government have gone wrong is to treat energy policy as ancillary to—or, if one believes the Treasury’s rhetoric, sometimes even running counter to—our wider economic goals. The key question that we should ask about the Government’s Energy Bill, therefore, is not about the strike price or whence the single counterparty will get its money, but how it will promote sustainable growth and jobs in the UK.
The Committee on Climate Change was established to act as an adviser to Government to present coherent proposals about future energy policy that meet our need for sustainable growth, while respecting the cross-party commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. That was intended to depoliticise energy policy as far as is possible. Earlier this year, the Committee on Climate Change recommended three things in its report to Parliament. It said that
“a carbon objective should be set and a process put in place to ensure that this objective is achieved”.
That target is not in the Bill. It said that
“it is important that technology policy objectives are set to resolve current uncertainties about the future for less mature technologies.”
Those objectives are not articulated in the Bill. It said:
“There should also be a clear statement as part of the Government’s planned Gas Generation Strategy that there will not be a second ‘dash for gas’”.
The Chancellor has given what amounts to a clear statement to the contrary and the Department of Energy and Climate Change is banking on 27 GW of new gas capacity. The Energy Bill is an unprecedented and wholesale rejection of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. Politics has been given primacy over evidence.
This year, hopes ran high that we would see the go-ahead for the Don Valley carbon capture and storage for coal scheme. The European Commission had rated it one of the top 10 most attractive schemes in Europe. Even though £3 billion of the original £4 billion budget was cut, the Government still had £1 billion earmarked for a coal-fired CCS pilot. The other day, when the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was asked why his project had been ditched by the Government, he replied that what the UK really needs is CCS for gas, because it fits better with our future power mix. Insanity! The International Energy Agency projects that at current rates, the world will be burning 59% more coal in 2035 than it is today. Even if every country were to fulfil its mitigation pledges, the rise in coal burning would still take it to 21% above current levels. Gas CCS might help the UK to reduce its emissions during the dash for gas that the Chancellor wants to foist upon us, but the future of the UK economy lies in developing the technology for coal CCS that we can export around the world.
I am an environmentalist. I believe that the world must move to decouple growth from carbon emissions. However, I understand that coal is the major world fuel and will continue to be so for many decades to come. To have a sustainable future, therefore, we must sequester the emissions from coal in the medium term. It must be part of our integrated energy, climate and industrial strategy to develop CCS for coal. Was the £1 billion ever really there? I do not know. Was this a project that we should have prioritised? The answer is clear: yes it was.
The recent report from Cambridge Econometrics has tried to link energy policy with wider industrial strategy. Its findings are significant for a Government who appear to be determined to move us away from renewables and into gas. The report shows that although offshore wind currently costs more than gas, it also creates more jobs in the UK and has a bigger beneficial impact on the UK economy. The trouble with the new dash for gas is that it will limit the capacity for investment in other technologies that ultimately may be more important for both our energy policy and our industrial policy.
It is important to recognise two things. Gas is an essential part of the energy mix in the UK, as it has the flexibility to cope with intermittent peaks and troughs in the supply from renewables, and the peaks in demand from industry and the public. Gas is being proffered as a solution to the 2016-18 cliff edge, when electricity demand could exceed supply. But it is not a solution. Even the gas stations that already have consent will not come on stream quickly enough to meet that potential shortfall. A possible solution is to make the capacity mechanism available to coal-fired power stations in the short term and use them to provide the load that we need. That might also help to stop the loss of jobs and the closure of pits, and avoid the building of numerous new gas-fired power stations that will lock us into much higher levels of fossil fuel emissions in the long term, while making us feel virtuous in the short term as coal emissions fall.
The recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change to include carbon targets in the Bill is important because this is about the long-term certainty and stability that business and investors need. The Government argue that the legally binding targets for 2050 are still in place, but few of us in Parliament or business will be in our current positions in 2050. Business needs not just a 40-year aspiration, but clear staging points and standards in 2020, 2030 and beyond, to ensure that our energy infrastructure is invested in and properly structured so that it can deliver our emissions reduction targets by 2050.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour and constituency MP, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), in this debate, and I join him in celebrating the 25th anniversary of Brent pensioners forum, and that of St Luke’s hospice, which is on the border of our two constituencies.
May I pay tribute to the late Betty Geller who sadly died in the early hours of Sunday morning? Betty was a leading light of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Harrow East Conservative association and, most particularly, the campaign for a fitting tribute for Bomber Command and its veterans. Sadly, her husband died some 30 years ago—a premature death that was probably as a result of strain put on him during the war. I was privileged to attend Betty’s funeral on Monday morning, and it is fitting to pay tribute to her in the House. Sadly, she did not live to hear the Prime Minister’s announcement that, at last, her husband and all those who put their lives on the line to allow this country to be free from fascism are to be honoured.
I want to take this opportunity to mention some of the problems caused by the use of pre-packed sales when companies enter administration, and the related pre-packed phoenix companies that can be created. It is right to encourage and promote entrepreneurship in this country. Indeed, in this tough economic climate we desperately need entrepreneurs who will put their spirit and creativity into protecting jobs that the UK needs. In some cases, however, it appears that the law is being abused by unscrupulous company directors for their own purposes at the expense of hard-working employees. I have heard of a number of examples of that, and it gives me no pleasure to note that one such case comes from my own constituency.
On 16 June 1997, Medi-Vial Ltd was founded. By 2008, because of the financial crisis, the company had fallen into difficulties and sought to manipulate its employees into working for a period of time without pay. The 55 members of staff, who were naturally desperate to protect their employment, took the directors at their word in the hope of securing the company’s long-term future and ultimately obtaining the money they were owed. On 3 August 2008, Medi-Vial was liquidated and the entire work force was left without work—except for the directors, Mr and Mrs O’Connor.
I am able to say that with confidence because on 2 September 2008, Mr and Mrs O’Connor established Vial Manufacturing Ltd in what one presumes was a pre-packed sale. They were able to secure all the assets for the phoenix company, without the liabilities of the debts such as the money owed to the employees. So well did that work and so easy was it to achieve that they went on to establish Glass Vials and Closures Ltd on 27 October 2011. Once again, that was preceded by the liquidation of their previous company.
Although I have no details about the second and third companies, I can provide greater insight into the first. Many of its 55 employees spoke English as a second language, and that lack of proficiency in English made it easier for the directors to make excuses and avoid explaining why wages were not being paid. My constituent, Mr Pacey, was an employee of Medi-Vial who went to great efforts both during and after its liquidation to obtain justice for him and his colleagues. It is worth noting that he went to a list of agencies and individuals as part of his campaign. He won an employment tribunal relating to the compensation of his earnings. He also took the matter to the police, the Insolvency Service, my predecessor as MP, the Serious Fraud Office and others.
None of those institutions could offer any remedy whatever—hon. Members can imagine how frustrating that was to Mr Pacey and the other employees, who obviously had a problem seeing their previous employers go on to operate a new business just one month later, in the same practice, on the same premises, using the same equipment, employing the same management, using the same suppliers and having the same customers. The only difference was that the employees had all lost their jobs.
I have previously brought the matter to Ministers’ attention. In January, the then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumers and postal affairs, now Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, informed the House:
“Having taken account of all the issues…the Government will not be seeking to introduce new…controls on pre-packs at this time”.
He continued by assuring the House that:
“The Insolvency Service, an Executive agency of BIS, already monitors compliance by insolvency practitioners”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 23WS.]
The overall benefits of pre-pack sales are doubtless genuine and substantial. Statistics show that all employees are transferred to the new company in 92% of pre-pack cases, compared with 65% of employee transfers in a business sale. That is to be welcomed, but we must not turn a blind eye to cases in which directors deliberately abuse the process.
In those circumstances, insolvency practitioners are required to report the directors’ conduct to the Insolvency Service and suggest that they should be disqualified from being involved in the management of the company, but that system does not appear to be working, as is suggested by declining disqualification rates in the past decade. In 2002, 45% of reports from insolvency practitioners resulted in a disqualification, but by 2011, only 21% did.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has said that legislation is not the right option for solving the problem, but will the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills explore other measures? It is largely a matter of ensuring that we prevent those who abuse their position from doing so, but in order to protect the benefits to the system, I suggest that extra resources are needed so that the Insolvency Service can concentrate its efforts on disqualification. It could introduce an electronic system so that insolvency practitioners can submit reports online. In making those recommendations, I am conscious that we should not attack those who, through no fault of their own, place their companies into administration and wish to carry on their business—on the contrary, I have every sympathy for people who seek to create wealth and jobs—but the key point is that we cannot allow people to abuse their position and their employees.
I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by wishing you, the staff of the House, all colleagues, the staff of my office, and Members who have given me support in the past few days, and, in particular, my wife, who has been long-suffering for many years, a very happy Christmas. I wish everyone a happy, peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year, and trust we can look forward to returning to the House and enjoying many such debates in future.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I wish to draw attention to the mismanagement and—some fear—worse of contracts by Hillingdon council and to call on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to send in commissioners to take control of the council, clean up its affairs and restore confidence in local government in my area. For some time, I have raised in the House my constituents’ concerns about the administrative competence and probity of Hillingdon council, but recent events have confirmed the need for more serious and urgent action.
The recent background is as follows. Two years ago, I learned of Hillingdon council’s proposal to demolish a residential home for the elderly in my constituency called Triscott House and to rebuild it as a modern elderly care facility. The elderly residents were decanted to other establishments, and the new facility was to open in September 2011, but the unit was not ready. Many of the elderly people who had been allocated a place in the new residential home were promised that there would be only a short delay. Ten months later, in July 2012, the home was still not open, and I was contacted by the families of the elderly people who were promised a place. The situation was extremely distressing. A lady in her 90s, with all her belongings packed in packing cases, was waiting to move, in tears. She had been promised, month after month, that her move was imminent. Others in their 80s and 90s were equally upset at the delay. I made representations to the council on behalf of them and their worried families. I, too, was promised that the situation was being resolved and each month told that the move was to take place. Eventually, the new facility opened, after a 14-month delay and dreadful distress caused to my constituents.
Rumours were flying in the area about the delay, and I called for an independent investigation into the catastrophic failure of the council to deliver the new facility on time. The council refused. There was coverage in the local press, and after that I was sent anonymously information on the cause of the delay. Information is difficult to retrieve from Hillingdon council because the administration places any reports that expose failings or poor administration—or worse—in the secret element of its cabinet meetings. It argues that this is done on grounds of commercial confidentiality, but it is certain that it is to cover up incompetence and possibly worse. In this case, the information I received confirmed that the delay to the new elderly care facility was because of a dispute with the contractor for the project.
The contractor was a company undertaking another contract for the council that required additional expenditure. The contractor was told to load the cost of that additional work on to the bill for Triscott House, the residential home for the elderly, and then told to charge the amount as “design fees”. Effectively, this was laundering money from one contract to another to the builder. Other works were undertaken by the contractor on other sites, it appears without contracts, and also charged to the Triscott elderly care home account, again as design fees.
Major contracts are approved either by the leader of the council or a cabinet member, and the responsibility for overseeing the performance of council officers in relation to such projects lies with the leader of the council or cabinet members. The question I have been asked by residents is what those people were doing when all this was going on.
After the exposure of the Triscott House fiasco in the local press, the floodgates opened, with information being sent anonymously or by residents about other council contracts. The information revealed that the new swimming pool leisure centre, recently constructed in my constituency at a cost of £30 million, began construction without a contract, only by exchange of letters of intent. Now the centre has sprung leaks, and without a contract the council is exposed to the cost of repairs.
Five years ago, and again in 2010, I raised the disgracefully poor performance of the council contractor with regard to the repair and refurbishment of Avondale flats in my area, which resulted in one of my constituents, Mr Bernard Fagan, being injured and then compensated by the council. It has now been revealed that, as we suspected, there were irregularities in the award and administration of these housing maintenance contracts. They do not comply with council standing orders.
Complaints have repeatedly been made about the delays to adaptations funded by the disability facilities grants. Concerns have now been raised that there were irregularities in the process for awarding those contracts. Another Hillingdon resident has contacted me because he has challenged the council over its expenditure of £1.17 million on three consultants since April 2010, which the council legal services department has now confirmed was without tendering, with no specification for the works and with no contracts.
I have raised these issues with my local councillors in the ward I live in, but they are unable to respond to me as virtually all these issues have been forced on to the secret part of the cabinet agenda by the ruling councillors. My local councillors have been threatened with the criminal law if they discuss matters with me. However, my ward councillor has informed me that he has written to the chief executive, the borough solicitor and the leader of the council to urge that the district auditor and the police are now brought in to investigate these activities. So far he has received a truculent reply from the leader of the council, claiming that it is an attack on staff. It is not an attack on staff: it is an attempt to hold councillors and senior well-paid officers to account.
The situation has gone beyond anything that is acceptable. Up to £50 million of work and contracts are now associated with irregularities in Hillingdon. My constituents and local tax payers are suffering now and cannot wait any longer for redress. At meeting after meeting, residents are alleging backhanders, brown envelopes and various fiddles. I have no answer for them. We need action now, and that is why I am urging the Secretary of State to send in commissioners to clean up this mess. Before I came to this place, I was in local government for 20 years. I have not seen anything on this scale since the 1980s, when some activities caused so much concern in local government. There may be reasons why contracts were not awarded and why a £30 million swimming pool was done with a letter of intent. If those reasons are valid, then fair enough. However, my understanding is that they have opened up the council to real risk. The scale of mismanagement is appalling.
People know me in this House for my independence of mind. I do not care whether this council is controlled by Labour, the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. If this was happening under any political administration, I would be saying the same thing. We need action now. We cannot rely on the existing administration to tackle these issues. That is why I think the drastic step of the Secretary of State sending in commissioners to clean this stable out, which I have never called for before anywhere, is absolutely essential if we are to retain any confidence in local government and local administration in my community.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Northumberland has much that it could teach the rest of Britain. My constituency is home to a vast number of civic groups, charities and volunteer organisations and people who give up their time to get involved, help their communities and improve people’s lives. They are passionate about the place in which they live. From the team in Tarset who organised the first oil-buying groups, pioneered a bastle trail and created the famous Murray henge, to Joan Russell, who runs her fantastic community allotment in Prudhoe, and Tom Martin, who led the creation of a community orchard in Wylam, there is a real sense of engagement, of getting involved and of local people creating the community they want.
Of all the places in the country that would engage in the concept, spirit and actuality of localism, this is the place. Indeed, when the previous Labour Government wanted to get rid of the district councils and move to a single unitary authority, the people robustly said that they would like to keep Tynedale and Castle Morpeth. The Labour Government famously held a consultation, complete with referendum, lost it and pressed on regardless. As a result, we now have Northumberland county council in its current form.
The Conservative party manifesto in 2010 promised specifically that
“people in each neighbourhood will be able to”
choose
“what kind of development they want”.
In 2010, I found that that commitment to localism resonated loud and clear with local voters, who wanted a better kind of local politics. Very rarely if ever do Government know best on local issues. For the first time since Queen Victoria sat on the throne—not dissimilar to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—this Government’s Localism Act 2011 saw real power going from Government back to the people, putting into reverse gear 100 years of centralisation. My simple phrase is: “Trust the people”. The Localism Act 2011 did just that.
Planning is the key aspect of the 2011 Act. It is most welcome for its transformation of the process that people have to deal with. We ripped up the previous top- down regional spatial strategy, which was a Westminster-enforced, target-driven system, which in any event failed to produce any houses, with the lowest house building since 1929. To deliver the change, a local development plan is required from each local authority. The plans will be crucial to deciding planning applications. The Government guidance is that local plans must be in accordance with section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the national planning policy framework. The only mandate is that the authority must complete a plan. Already, 48 local plans have been adopted since May 2011, and more than 65% of councils in the country have published a plan for public consultation. Those are accompanied by more than 100 smaller neighbourhood plans. The vast city of Manchester, for example, went from start to finish in less than 18 months, finishing in the summer of 2012.
Bob Blackman
The process of local plans is key for local people participating in democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong for any councils to drag their feet on this, postponing the process of getting democracy into planning at a local level?
Guy Opperman
I entirely agree. It does not really matter which political party is in charge of the local authority. I am criticising Northumberland county council, which happens to be Liberal Democrat in its persuasion, but I would still be criticising it if it were Conservative or Labour. It is a question of competence and leadership, organisation and logistics; it is not about money. Lots of authorities up and down the country have been able to sort this out over an 18-month period—we should bear it in mind that authorities have up to three years to do so. Otherwise, 65% would not have gone down this track.
Everybody knows that the plans have to be completed by spring 2013. Indeed, I was present when the then Communities and Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), came to Stannington in Northumberland in August 2011 and met NCC planning officers and developers. He stressed the need for NCC planning officers to press on with their plan. It is not as if the local authority has not been warned. It appears certain that Northumberland will now not complete its plan by the March 2013 deadline. I have had that confirmed to me in person by senior councillors and it is an open secret at county hall. Indeed, it appears that the situation is worse: the plan might not be produced and finalised before 2014.
The county council’s failure to deliver the local plan will be an unmitigated disaster for Northumberland. The law is absolutely clear. If a planning authority has an up-to-date local plan, with identified sites to meet five years of objectively assessed need, it has all the powers it needs to resist speculative applications for development. However, if an authority does not have a plan in place or even a draft plan containing an objective assessment of housing needs and identifying five years of developable, deliverable sites, it runs the risk of speculative planning applications from developers and its decisions being overturned on appeal. As the Minister with responsibility for planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), told the House on 7 November 2012, an authority with a local development plan has nothing to fear from the Planning Inspectorate.
The Liberal Democrat county council’s failure will, I sadly suggest, be a green light for developers to run amok—in Ponteland, in Darras Hall, in New Ridley, in Ovingham and possibly in the west of Hexham. All those applications are mooted and the list is growing every month. Nor do we have minerals or renewables plans as part of the local development plan. That makes it hard to resist applications to do open-cast mining on green belt land, and our landscape is being affected by the random development of wind farms with little consideration of the cumulative impact.
I am not against development; far from it. I see the need for more houses. I have supported developments at the police headquarters in Ponteland, on the Prudhoe hospital site, and in villages such as Allendale. I must be the chief advocate for house building on the redundant Stannington hospital site. I even brought the developer to Westminster to meet a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to try to make it more likely that that development could happen in a sustainable way.
In the past, I have been harsh in my criticism of developers and big business seeking to cash in on the council’s slow progress in delivering a local plan. Perhaps that is just the old socialist in me, but I do not believe that the market always knows best. However, I am all too aware that Northumberland county council is the architect of all our problems. By failing to create a local plan, it is failing Northumberland. I do not blame the staff at county hall, who are as bright and capable as those at any county hall in the land. I do not blame the squeeze on council budgets, as more than 50 other councils have delivered a plan. A comparison with the other authorities shows that that is not the issue. This is an issue of competence, leadership, management and organisation.
The situation is not satisfactory; it is divisive. Worst of all, it creates a sense that democracy is not working, that big business holds all the cards and that the protector of local people’s rights, the local authority, is failing them. I am helping local people all I can, but as the county council is stuck in the slow lane, I must ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether there is anything the Government can do to aid that incompetent administration. How can we ensure that cumulative impact is considered so that applications are not treated in isolation, creating a patchwork quilt of development with no real thought to its impact on local people? How do people challenge developers when local authorities are not prepared to fight challenges to their local decisions which are appealed?
I know that, if we had a local plan, we would have the tools to fight, and the local will to create a sustainable Northumberland, created by the people, for the people, and with appropriate development for the people. The sad fact is that there is a fundamental lack of leadership to drive things forward and get things done. To say that there was better leadership on the Titanic would be unfair—accurate perhaps, but unfair. An expedited plan would provide a way forward. Without one, I fear for my county, and I fear the sense of unfairness that local people will feel. That cannot be good for sustained locally driven development, and it is not good for democracy.