Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I am very happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the package of support that the Chancellor set out in his winter plan will assist businesses in Stoke and elsewhere, bringing back jobs that are viable and supporting them in terms of their cash flow. Furlough has already seen more than half the jobs—from a peak of 8.9 million—come back, so it has served a key part of its purpose. I know that my hon. Friend is also a keen champion of the wider levelling up agenda, so as those businesses bounce back, it will also be important that we work together on that agenda, which I know areas such as Stoke should benefit from very strongly.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the leisure and entertainment industry in my constituency, Cineworld shut its cinema, Hollywood Bowl has written to me about the problems that it has, wanting a further cut in VAT because of the impact of additional restrictions, Peller Agency has had virtually no work for any of its artists in live entertainment venues since March, and Central Travel and Linburg Travel were offered no help by the Government at all because, perversely, coach companies are not seen as part of the leisure industry. Those are effects on the constituency without additional restrictions; it can only get worse if additional restrictions come into play. Will the Government introduce a comprehensive range of measures to help the leisure and entertainment industry? Ultimately, if measures are not brought in, such products and offerings will not be available for all of us to enjoy once the restrictions are lifted.

[Steve Barclay]

I gently take issue with the point about coaches not having support. One of the areas where coach firms have been able to benefit hugely from our response, and to work with the Government, has been in school transport. We were able to secure the additional capacity that we needed in part through the willingness of coach companies to adapt as part of our response. It is not the case that coach companies have been unable to get any business during the pandemic.

On more comprehensive measures, the hon. Member is right that the cinema industry has been hit hard. We were all concerned to see the announcement from Cineworld at the weekend. Together with Odeon and Vue that is 75% of the market, but as he knows it is not simply down to one issue. With cinemas, there is the supply of films—the delay of some of the blockbuster films has had an impact—and consumer confidence. Attendance is significantly down compared with last year, and there is also the impact of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. There is not one single factor, but we continue to work with the cinema industry in shaping our response.

Discrimination in Football

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I think the two go together. We can tackle the ills in wider society by rooting out the use of football as a cloak for bad behaviour in wider society. We must not use football and sport as a way to have intolerance. We don’t want it—get rid of it.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that racism does not merely exist in football grounds; it also exists in the boardroom? Some 30% of players are black and minority ethnic, but less than 5% of managers are. What will she do to require the football authorities to address this issue?

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. At the racism summit I held, there were people outside football holding football to account for not being diverse and welcoming enough. They know the problem. It is time to change who is at the top, because that changes everything.

Flybmi

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

It is good that my hon. Friend notes the importance of Derry City and Strabane District Council’s role in procuring and maintaining the contract, and it is interesting to note the council’s positivity about other airlines taking on the route. I noted over the weekend that Ryanair was offering flights for less than £10 for those who wished to travel from Belfast, although that means making another journey. We are obviously committed to supporting our regional airports, to holding the CAA to account so that it monitors what airlines are doing when they are struggling and to examining what we can do to help passengers to continue their journeys across the UK.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is quite frankly astonishing that the Minister did not mention Brexit in her initial comments, because the company certainly did. Flybmi said that uncertainty around Brexit and the possible costs of needing both UK and EU licences in the event of a no-deal Brexit were factors in its decision to go out of business. Will the Minister now make it clear whether all airlines should be planning for a no-deal scenario and looking at how to get dual licences?

[Ms Ghani]

The EU has been very clear that the UK aviation industry can continue as it is. We have been having good conversations with the EU on this, and we have tabled a number of statutory instruments and regulations to make sure we can continue flying. I just do not buy the argument that planes will not fly.

[Mr Betts]

These won’t fly anymore.

[Ms Ghani]

No, but Flybmi’s accounts show that, as far back as 2014, it was not as healthy as it could have been. If a company undertakes flights that are barely at 50% capacity, it is making a loss. To make an assumption that it is all down to Brexit just does not wash.

Grassroots Football Funding: Wembley Stadium

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right. As the shadow Sports Minister, she will know far more about the challenges than I do. When we compare our facilities with other countries, we are lagging behind. We have half the number of third generation pitches that Germany has and, shockingly, only one in three grass pitches are of adequate quality. Some 5 million playing opportunities were lost last year because of inadequate facilities. With the NHS struggling, schools facing a funding crisis, and the challenge of affordable housing, it is fair to say that we cannot expect the taxpayer to find the resources for this. However, as my hon. Friend said, there are huge opportunities for the grassroots in terms of the cash that is washing around the game.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

There are some really good examples. The Sheffield junior football league is the largest junior football league in Europe. The Isobel Bowler Sports Ground in my constituency is part of the Parklife project, funded by the FA and the Football Foundation. It has a great artificial pitch and a wonderful gym, where Disability Awareness with Sport runs facilities for disabled people. That is all wonderful and very positive—as is Mosborough rugby football club, where the Rugby Football Union has come in with support—but let us contrast the £300 million that local authorities spend on pitches in parks with the more than £200 million that the premier league’s clubs spent on agents’ fees alone in the last financial year. Is that not a contrast that we simply should not accept?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his excellent work with the parliamentary football club and with the Football Foundation. He is absolutely right about the cost: £200 million on agents’ fees, more than £1 billion in transfer fees every year now, and the direction of travel is only upwards. I know a levy operates at the moment on transfer fees, but a significant amount of that goes to players’ pensions and academies. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is for the professional side of the game and we are talking about the grassroots. I believe a small levy or a redistribution of existing funds could do an awful lot more for grassroots football.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate today and to make the case to the House for backing the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, ensuring a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union, delivering on the referendum decision of the British people and, at the same time, securing a close economic and security partnership with our nearest neighbours and most important trading partners. I will also make the case for rejecting the calls from those who would prefer to plunge the country into the uncertainty and economic self-harm of no deal and from those who would seek to undo the referendum decision and, in doing so, fuel a narrative of betrayal that would undermine the broad consent on which our democratic politics is based.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said recently that backing the Prime Minister’s deal would be better for the country than remaining in the EU. However, during the referendum campaign in February 2016, he said that a yes vote would lead to “very significant uncertainty” and would have a “chilling effect” on the economy. What information can the Chancellor share with the House that has caused him to have such a fundamental change of opinion?

[Mr Hammond]

I have always recognised that leaving the EU will have an economic cost, but the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated minimises that cost. Our nation is divided on the issue, and I fundamentally believe that we have to bring the country back together in order to succeed in the future. This deal offers a sensible compromise that protects our economy but delivers on the decision of the British people in the referendum. My judgment is that, if we want to maximise the chances of our nation being successful in the future, this is the right way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice. That is absolute generosity. I will press on, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

The Government need to recognise what motivated the Brexit vote. Over time, industries that sustained whole communities around the country have been destroyed or allowed to wither, tearing the heart out of our towns, from fishing ports to mining and manufacturing communities. This week’s report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation should be a wake-up call to us all. It confirmed that 1.5 million people are living not just in poverty, but in destitution, including 365,000 children. If we are to learn anything from the referendum vote, it is that so many of our people want change, and the decision on Brexit is fundamentally a choice about the kind of country we want to live in.

[Mr Betts]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever deal we come up with and wherever we move to on Brexit, we need to recognise those left-behind communities and what drove many people to vote leave, and we therefore need a major package of economic and social reconstruction in those areas, to support them?

[John McDonnell]

We need a major package, but one of the key criteria of that package is that it has to go beyond London and the south-east. It has to ensure that we invest in our regions, coastal towns and small towns—not just the cities. It has to bring everyone with us, as the result of a prosperous economy where prosperity is shared by everybody.

Labour has set out our stall. We stand for change, for an economy that works collaboratively and closely alongside our European partners, for an economy that invests in all the regions and nations of the UK, and for higher wages, driven by investment in skills and greater trade union rights. That is what our proposal embodies. I firmly hope that Members will agree to reject the prospect of no deal. Let us accept that the Prime Minister’s deal will not protect our economy and has to be rejected. Let us work together to secure the long-term interests and future prosperity of our country and our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the referendum, Sheffield voted 51% to 49% to leave. My constituency voted two to one to leave. Like the country, the city was split, with the more affluent western parts voting to remain and the poorer eastern part voting to leave. Whatever happens with this deal and the vote on it, we have to understand the reasons that led many of the poorest parts of the country to vote to leave. People feel left behind, disadvantaged, and that the burden of austerity has been placed on them unduly. That is the truth of the matter, and we have to recognise that. As I said to the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and I think he agreed—we need a major programme of economic and social reconstruction to help these areas.

We also need to understand the issue of migration, which affected many people in these areas. It is not good enough simply to dismiss the concerns and fears that people had as racism. We should recognise that migration from eastern Europe had real impacts on communities, which got very little help to deal with it—in fact, they got no help at all from the Government. We also have to recognise the feeling that people come over here and claim benefits, having paid nothing into the system. We did not use the 90-day rule in the way that countries such as Belgium did to prevent that from happening. It could have removed many of the concerns, or more appropriately dealt with them.

I think back to Sheffield in the 1970s and 1980s, when we lost 45,000 jobs in steel and engineering in the Don valley alone. Now, with the advanced manufacturing research centre, we have Rolls-Royce coming in, and Boeing and McLaren, and, building on the companies that are left, such as Forgemasters and Outokumpu, we have created new, high-tech, advanced jobs. I will not vote for any deal that puts those at risk. That is the fundamental issue for me to consider in deciding whether to vote for this or any other deal.

Some 56% of Sheffield exports go to the EU. That is higher than the national average. I have had a lot of advice, as I am sure all hon. Members have, from constituents telling me how to vote. Interestingly, very few people have written to me saying, “Vote for this deal.” The Prime Minister has managed to unite leavers and remainers against her deal. I have, however, had one letter, from Tinsley Bridge, an important exporter in my constituency, saying, “Please vote for the deal,” not because it thinks it is a particularly good deal, but because it worries that the alternative is no deal, which would put its just-in-time business at risk. I say to Tinsley Bridge and other businesses that we are not going to leave with no deal; that is not a good reason for voting for the bad deal that the Government are putting forward.

In the end, businesses are concerned about uncertainty, and the Government’s deal is all about uncertainty. It perpetuates uncertainty. Everything is postponed until 2020, at the earliest, and almost certainly until later, and the chances of getting a good deal then will be lessened because we will have given away all our bargaining power. The EU can keep us in the backstop until it chooses to let us go. We will have no bargaining power whatsoever. According to an article in the Financial Times, the path to an independent trade policy

“is one of the most ambiguous and contradictory parts of the political declaration.”

This is an uncertain deal, an unclear deal and a contradictory deal. I cannot vote for no deal, because that is the greatest risk to jobs in my constituency, but I cannot vote for an inadequate deal either. I want a deal that keeps us in a customs union and closely tied to the single market. If we cannot get a deal that protects jobs in my constituency and preserves living standards, environmental protections, health and safety protections and workers right—or rather if we cannot get a change of Government to secure that deal, since no one can trust this Government any more to secure a deal in the interests of the British people—I will, at that point, be prepared to consider voting for a second referendum, so that the British people, knowing clearly what they are voting for, can choose between clear-cut options. If we have to do that, it should be seen as an enhancement of the democratic process, not a negation of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

I will not give way again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was clear that we must beware of some of the siren voices on other alternatives, particularly the EEA/EFTA option. We would pay highly for such an option. We would have to negotiate membership from outside the EU. The EU members as well as the EFTA members would all have to agree such a membership. We would have full regulatory alignment inside the single market and have less freedom on future trade agreements than we have under the agreement being put forward by the Government. We would be hamstrung by rules on our financial services—not even able to set the rules in our own City—and we would have full freedom of movement applied to us. It could not be further from what the public voted for in the referendum.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

Mental Health: Absence from Work

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Mr Betts.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing the debate. His introduction was excellent. The subject is important and topical, and one that I am aware of primarily through my constituents, as will be the case for others who participate in the debate. I hope that the Minister will give us some answers.

Recently, I read an interesting article in the Safety and Health Practitioner about this very issue. The crux of the matter is clear: with great respect, we are doing a disservice to those suffering from mental health issues if we make no changes. That is why this debate in Westminster Hall is important, even though many other things are happening in the House at the same time.

We are all aware of the massive impact that mental health issues have on our physical wellbeing, our mental acumen and our ability to cope with work relationships, home life and, simply, life in general. As an elected representative, I am into my 34th year, whether as a councillor, an Assembly Member or, now, an MP. Over all those years I have been very aware of those with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, and the impact that all that has on their life, work, income and whole lifestyle. The issue is so important.

The article is worth reading—it would be time well spent—but I do not have the time to repeat it verbatim in full:

“In the workplace, mental health issues can have a serious impact on both the morale of employees, those suffering from mental health issues and their colleagues who then pick up the additional workload.”

If an individual is under pressure to work but is not able to cope and is doing less, who knows who else will have to do more? That is one of the reasons why I want to highlight the issue.

The article goes on:

“It can also impact an organisation’s productivity and profitability through overtime costs, recruitment of temporary or permanent cover—absence from work due to mental health issues is thought to cost the UK economy £26 billion per annum.”

That assesses the magnitude of the issue financially, but it only tells a small part of the story. Each one of us, as elected representatives, will have individual cases with which to illustrate matters. Furthermore:

“Mental health issues can appear as the result of experiences in both our personal and working lives.”

Sometimes people’s personal life spills over into their working life, and sometimes their working life spills over into their private life. The person who is always happy and jolly in the workplace might not be a happy or jolly person when he or she gets home.

The Health and Safety Executive’s draft health and work strategy for work-related stress identifies that 1.5% of the working population suffers from mental health issues, a figure that resulted in 11.7 million lost working days in 2015-16. That is another indication of how, if we improve the health ability of our workforce, we can save working days and thereby turn around the profitability of a company. Compare that figure with self-reported injuries: 4.9 million working days lost—the scale of workplace mental ill health is almost two and a half times the physical impact of unsafe workplaces and working practices. Clearly, something needs to be done. Perhaps the job of the Minister and his Department is to lead the way. Furthermore, it is suspected that at least a third of injuries go unreported, and the same is likely to be true for work-related stress.

The initiative “Mates in Mind” has identified that the suicide rate in the construction industry could be 10 times more than the rate for construction fatalities. If that estimation is true, we have a massive problem that needs to be addressed. I am pleased that the Government created a suicide prevention Minister—that is a direction we need to be moving in. That Minister is not present, but perhaps the Minister responding to this debate will also comment on that initiative.

In 2011, the then coalition Government developed “No Health Without Mental Health”, a cross-Government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. It was a great idea, but it has not stopped the rise in the numbers of those with mental health issues. The document states how the Government want people to recognise mental health in the same way as they view physical and biological health.

The strategy also set out the aspiration of improved services for people with mental health issues. However, only an extra £15 million is expected to be pledged for creating places of safety and, with respect to the Minister, that amounts to only about £23,000 per parliamentary constituency. That is not a terrible lot per constituency—mine has a population of 79,000; I am not sure about the Minister’s constituency, but the average one has about 70,000, 75,000 or 80,000. If that is the case, that is about £3 per person, which does not really go anywhere towards addressing the issue.

According to the Centre for Mental Health, the financial cost to British business of mental ill health is an estimated £26 billion per annum, but positive steps to improve the management of mental health in the workplace can enable employers to save at least 30% of the cost of lost production and staff turnover. We are looking not only for the Government to do something but for companies to. It is important for companies to accept their responsibility—clearly, if they cut down on days lost to mental stress by making some changes, they thereby help themselves. If they can indeed save at least 30% of the cost of lost production and staff turnover, I say gently that it is an open-door policy and one that should be adopted right away.

One in four people will experience a mental health problem in any year. A common misconception is that mental health problems are only caused by issues at home—no, they are not—so some employers feel that it is not appropriate, or their responsibility, to intervene and provide support to employees. More commonly, the cause of an employee’s mental health problems is a combination of issues relating to both work and private lives.

To conclude, what I have sought today is not only to show in a small way support for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire but to seek Government intervention and help, and to raise company awareness. Companies have a clear role to play and one that they cannot ignore or not take responsibility for. I believe that the hon. Gentleman intended to demonstrate in his introduction to the debate that it is more cost-effective to take small steps to promote good mental health in the workplace, rather than having members of staff feeling like they cannot cope and going on the sick. We want to prevent that if possible.

I believe that enforced lunch breaks away from desks are an essential component, for example. It is all too easy for people to stay at their desks—my staff do it all the time. I was thinking about this before the debate: sometimes we ought to say to our staff, “Girls, go on down to the wee café there and take half an hour, 45 minutes or an hour, whatever it may be, away from the office”, because if they stay to eat their lunch, they also answer the phone. If someone comes in, they speak to them. I am not saying that they should not do that, but I am saying that the two—work and breaks—need to be divorced from each other.

I do not have all the answers but I do believe that we must do more—not because that is good for business, but for the sake of our one in four who are struggling with their mental health and who simply need help.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We are going to have a Division imminently, so it is sensible to suspend the sitting now for 15 minutes. We can go to vote and then come back to resume the debate.

Business Rates

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing this important debate about the relevance of business rates to our local communities, and the impact that they may be having on them.

I may approach the debate slightly differently, from a local government perspective, because I have the privilege of chairing the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which has looked recently at business rate retention. The Committee will also look at the future of the high street in an inquiry for which we are taking evidence.

First, I am pleased that the motion moved by my hon. Friend is about a “review” of the business rates system. I think that is important. I wish to begin by saying that I hope we end up with a review rather than a complete abolition of the system. I am sure that the Treasury will be the first to say that abolishing taxes and starting again has slight dangers attached to it, in terms of a complete dislocation. Reorganisations on that sort of scale rarely go well.

I would also argue that property tax is quite important. We tax many things in this country. Nobody particularly likes taxes, but taxing property in some way is quite an important element of our overall taxation system. Of course, households pay a property tax—through council tax at one time. Some of us have been around in various forms of representative government long enough to remember when we had a rating system that covered both domestic and non-domestic properties. The change was made when the poll tax was brought in, and business rates were effectively nationalised and council tax came in instead.

Secondly, we have to make it clear that business rates are an important source of local income for councils. Councils have a Government grant, council tax and business rates—that is basically it. They can raise certain charges, but those are their meaningful sources of money. I would strongly argue, and the Committee has, that over time we should find more ways for councils to raise money at a local level, so that local people can see accountability and the direction between the money they pay and the services that they get. However, that wider discussion is for another day.

The issue is becoming more important because in 2020 the Government intend to move to 75% business rate retention from the current 50%. Some pilots are doing 100% around the country. Increasingly, it is not about merely the totality of business rates, and what is raised in a local area is extremely important for that council. The Finance Bill before the election was going to move to 100% business rate retention. I am disappointed that we have stopped at 75%. The Government say that they will look in the future to moving to 100%, but that makes it even more important that we do not just tear it up and start again.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I urge my hon. Friend and colleagues to consider the importance of continuing the pilots for retaining 100% of business rates, which many local authorities in the pilots find very effective. The Berkshire unitaries all have a one-year 100% retention, and they very much wish to continue that. If the Minister considered that, I am sure it would be greatly appreciated in our county.

[Mr Betts]

That was a very helpful intervention. It shows that some very interesting things are going on at a local level. Very often, ideas begin in local government, are tried and tested at a local level, and then are moved on to the whole country. It is very important that we do not simply say that now we want to move away from the whole system, and leave those valuable lessons unlearned and unapplied.

The other point is that there is the capability for even more local control of business rates. In the days when we had domestic and non-domestic rates, councillors set the rates. They were nationalised when the poll tax came in and the control for setting the rate in the pound was moved to national level. That is an argument that we have had on the Select Committee. I would like to move towards more local control eventually and the system is at least capable of doing that. Business rates are also easy to collect and difficult to avoid, and we should see that as quite a strong benefit of the system.

The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) raised some very pertinent concerns about the impact on high streets, which we see whether it is a village, a small town or a major city. We see derelict shops and the change that is happening. The Select Committee is therefore taking evidence in an inquiry on what high streets are going to look like in 2030. We are trying to look ahead to see what change is happening and whether people are planning for it.

A good point was made about the planning system. We ran an inquiry a few years ago on the high street, and it was stark then that very few councils seemed to be adapting their local plans in recognition of the change in shopping habits. Everyone can see it happening, but nobody seemed to be recognising it when they were looking at what town and city centres would be used for in the future. That will be an issue to address.

I know business rates are an issue for some small retailers, and I will come on to a couple of points we ought to address, but I suspect that that is sometimes an excuse when the real issue is the change in shopping habits. People are just changing what they do. Whatever shopping centre it is, people are simply choosing not to go there, or, as has already quite rightly been said, they go to have a look and then buy online. About 30% of retail shopping is now done online. There cannot be that degree of change without an impact on the retail floor space needed. All the signs are that that is going to continue, and I am sure it is one of the issues we will address in our inquiry.

We are also going to look at some of the things being done by retailers and the property owners, such as the company voluntary agreements that are coming out now as retailers try to negotiate their leases effectively, with a bit of pressure. The retailers did sign up to those leases and there are reasons why they did, sometimes on a long-term basis. We are going to have a look at the issues there as well.

We will also look at revaluations, but we have to remember that revaluation is a zero-sum game: it simply changes who pays what and does not actually raise more money. I am not saying that some centres and high streets are not disadvantaged, but somebody somewhere is probably gaining in the system, which is something that we have to think about.

Two points that we have to look at were powerfully raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. In terms of retailing, the change in shopping habits is to businesses that by and large pay very little in business rates. That is absolutely fundamental if we are going to review the system. How do we get from a system that is a bit archaic and a bit stuck in a particular rut, to a situation where we can charge more for those big online retailers, and indeed the out-of-town shopping centres that were mentioned? Why do they pay relatively so little in rates, compared with the often smaller shops on the high street?

[Ruth George]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that we need to make sure that we incentivise British businesses that trade in this country and make sure that they cannot be undercut, whether on the high street or online, by companies that are directly importing and often avoiding customs and other charges by doing so?

[Mr Betts]

It is important that we look at those issues in wider taxation. I am not sure we can quite go there this morning, but we certainly need to look at whether we can tax some of those major companies—we know the international conglomerates of online shopping without necessarily having to name them—on the turnover that they have in this country rather than on the profits that they declare, as they move those profits into the lowest- tax countries. Of course that is what happens.

There is a wider tax issue about how we deal with some of those online companies, but in terms of business rates, the unfairness between them and retailers on the high street is very stark, as with out-of-town shopping centres. It always seems unfair. I have a major out-of-town shopping centre in my constituency, Meadow Hall, which provides a great service to people, is incredibly well used and provides a lot of jobs, but nevertheless the rates paid there are not comparable with those paid by many shops in the high street.

We also have to bear it in mind that business rates are not just about retail. Commercial, manufacturing and other businesses pay rates and there are some disparities. One point we picked up was that where manufacturing industry innovates and improves, it gets an increase in business rates on that improvement. There is something odd about taxing improvement in that way. We should also look at that. There are some other strange things, such as hospital trusts trying to claim exemption from business rates, or lower rates, under charitable status. I mean, come on—that is about moving money from one bit of government to another! The hospitals are saying they are not going to pay, but then local authorities do not get the money. The Government have to sort out those issues. There are some nonsenses around.

If there is a review and there are changes, we have to be very clear that, if the Government legislate for those changes nationally, there is a mechanism to compensate local government for any money that it loses collectively. After 2020, that is going to be quite a challenge. My understanding is that when the 75% retention of business rates comes in in 2020, local authorities will receive only council tax and business rates, which will then be redistributed in some form. There will not be a central Government grant, so if central Government are going to compensate local authorities for any change to the business rate system that reduces the amount of money in total going into local authorities, how will they be compensated? That is a challenge we all need to think about.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Lady had attended DCLG questions earlier in the day, she would have heard me confirm that every penny will be made up. I am sure she is delighted to hear that.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I asked the Secretary of State about this issue in questions earlier. He said that the cost of small business rate relief in this Parliament would be funded by section 31 grants. Will he confirm that that grant will not come from any other part of local authorities’ budgets, and if it is not will he point out precisely where in the Red Book it says how that is funded?

[Greg Clark]

On page 84, line 15.

Let me turn to the subject of today’s debate, which is infrastructure and devolution. Those issues will still matter a year from now—indeed 10 years and 100 years from now. In “The Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith spoke of three fundamental duties of Government: the defence of the realm, the maintenance of law and order, and a third duty that he described as follows:

“the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit would never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”

We can therefore take it from the father of free market economics that there is no contradiction between faith in free markets and public investment in infrastructure. Indeed, they support one another and this Budget shows how.

The Budget announces new infrastructure investments in every part of the country—from Crossrail 2 in London to High Speed 3 for the northern powerhouse. There can be no more tangible demonstration of our belief in a one-nation economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I want to make some progress.

[Mr Betts]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State gave me a direct answer about where in the Red Book the cost of the compensation for local authorities will come from is specified. He referred to page 84, line 15. However, that deals with the cost of the loss for small business rate relief, and does not deal with the grant that will replace it. Whereabouts is the section 31 grant covered in the Red Book?

[Greg Clark]

I have told the hon. Gentleman where it is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to get beyond the Budget headlines, which often lead to cheers from the Government Benches, and instead consider some of the details and try to get some answers.

I want to return to the point I raised in Communities and Local Government questions earlier, in an intervention on the Secretary of State and then in a point of order, because I still have not had an answer. The Government have said that local authorities will be compensated for the change to small business rates relief, which amounts to £1.7 billion in the next financial year—2017-18—and to similar amounts in years after. He said it was mentioned on page 84, line 15, of the Red Book, but that refers to the cost to the Government of the small business rates relief changes; it does not show how local authorities will be compensated for that loss by a section 31 grant. Will someone please show me where in the Red Book the section 31 grant is described as compensating local authorities?

[Barbara Keeley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very pressing issue? In Greater Manchester, the business rates retention scheme could be put in place as early as 2017. Will the Government even have finished the consultation by then? Where are we? We need to know where we are.

[Mr Betts]

Local authorities are entitled to absolute certainty. We can welcome the help for small businesses but not at the cost of local authorities and their services. If the Minister cannot explain this today, I hope that the Secretary of State, to whom I have written, can at least give us a written answer that can be made available to everyone else through the Library.

The Secretary of State went on to say that after 2020, because no grant will be available, compensation will be provided by a reduction in devolved powers to local councils, so that they will not have as many things to spend their money on—money they now will not get through business rates relief. It is a bit disappointing that the Government’s way out is to reduce devolution. That does not seem to be consistent with their claim to be devolving more powers all the time.

More worryingly, on the change between the retail prices index and the consumer prices index, which comes into force in 2020, how on earth will the Government find a mechanism by which to compensate authorities for that change, given that it will vary year on year? How will they do it, when the only way to provide compensation will be by changing the devolved powers available to local authorities, which cannot be done on a yearly basis? Will the Minister please provide the mechanism and explain it to us?

There will be a fundamental problem here after 2020. If any future Government were to introduce the sorts of changes this Government have made to business rates, where would it leave local authorities? Their income would simply be cut, and there would be no means by which to compensate them because there would be no revenue support grant in existence. Local authorities’ devolved powers cannot be changed on a year-to-year basis. This does not just throw up the need in future to devolve receipt of business rates to local authorities; we also need seriously to consider devolving the right to set business rates and business rates assistance. If that is not done, this will be sham devolution, and it will raise the great risk of future Governments on a whim being able to change the system on which local authorities will rely for a good percentage of their income. This problem has to be thought through.

I turn now to the four-year settlement that the Secretary of State rightly offered to local councils for the rest of the Parliament. Where is that left by the £3.5 billion of efficiency savings the Chancellor announced in his Budget and the £4.4 billion of extra savings that presumably have to be found now that the PIP cuts are not being carried through? In total, it would seem to amount to an extra £7.9 billion that he will have to find. Can we have a categorical assurance from Ministers that this will not affect the four-year settlement offered to local councils? I hope that it will not once again be a case of giving local authorities certainty for the Parliament, only to come back within a few months and ask for more cuts, which would put them in an impossible position.

Moreover, are we going to see further cuts to the public health grant, which the Government have not preserved? In the last Parliament, the public health grant was initially—up to 2013—part of the health budget and ring-fenced accordingly, but it is now part of the local government budget, and already this financial year it has seen a one-off cut of £200 million. It is estimated that there will be £600 million more in real-terms cuts by 2020. Will the grant face any further cuts as a result of the Chancellor’s need to fill the £7.9 billion black hole?

Finally, the Government have announced £115 million of help to tackle rough sleeping. It is a blot on our society and it is right that extra help is being given to deal with it, but to tackle homelessness properly—apart from the prevention at one end—we need more social housing to offer to homeless people. What do the Government have to say about the Chartered Institute of Housing’s report stating that there will be 300,000 fewer social rented homes by the end of the Parliament than there were at the beginning? What about the evidence that St Mungo’s gave to the inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Committee the other day stating that, unless the Government changed the link to the local housing allowance, all its help and provision for homeless people will have been closed by the end of the Parliament? That is a situation that no one can tolerate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) had certainly prepared his soundbites earlier.

In every region of the United Kingdom, the policies announced in the Budget will bring the economic security that Britain needs. They are the commitments that we set out in our manifesto last year, and the Budget will help to deliver them. Over the past six years, we have worked hard and made the tough decisions. That has brought our country’s economy back from the brink, and growth and jobs are now delivering greater economic security for everyone. Today, I am proud that, here in the United Kingdom, a record number of people are in work, the deficit is down by two thirds and we are well on the path to surplus. Our whole economy is set to grow faster next year than any other major advanced economy in the world. However, with the pace of growth in the global economy showing signs of weakening, now is the time to redouble our efforts, and that is precisely what the Budget does.

Today’s debate is about devolution and local government. The foundations of our long-term success are laid in each and every corner of this country. Every region makes a distinctive contribution to the UK’s economic success and every region benefits from this Budget’s programme for growth. Hon. Members should listen to the facts. Employment is growing quickest in Wales, and it is a shame that we did not hear Welsh voices today. Youth unemployment is falling quickest in the west midlands. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said that we were not delivering a budget for the next generation, but the next generation is finding work in the west midlands, which I am sure he will welcome. The number of people claiming unemployment benefits is falling fastest in Yorkshire and the Humber. Through a combination of greater devolution, greater investment and targeted support, the Budget will allow our regions to continue growing from strength to strength.

The Budget also delivers for the devolved Administrations. To help Scotland, there are tax breaks worth more than £1 billion to support the North sea oil and gas industry through challenging times and a freeze in duty on Scotch whisky. The Scottish National party had three demands for the Budget—action on oil and gas, action on fuel duty and action on Scotch whisky—and we have delivered on all three fronts. To help Wales, there is a £1.2 billion deal for the Cardiff capital region and a 50% reduction in tolls on the River Severn crossings in 2018. To help Northern Ireland, there will be enhanced capital allowances for investors in the Northern Ireland Executive’s pilot enterprise zone near Coleraine. For all three of our devolved Administrations, the Budget delivers the benefits of being part of a strong, successful United Kingdom, with the opportunities that come with devolution.

For the cities and regions of England, this is a Budget that creates fresh opportunities and opens new doors. For the north, there is greater devolution to Liverpool and Manchester, a schools strategy for the northern powerhouse, more than £700 million extra for flood repairs and resilience, and the go-ahead for HS3, bringing Leeds and Manchester closer together. For the midlands, the midlands engine investment fund will get £250 million, and there is a new devolution deal for Greater Lincolnshire and a strong statutory body to help provide the transport that the midlands needs.

For East Anglia, we have another new devolution deal, and I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) that the £30 million is indeed new money and that an elected mayor will be the single point of accountability. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that we plan to make the most of the Oxford-Cambridge-Milton Keynes corridor. For the south-west, almost £20 million will help young families on to the housing ladder. For London, the green light has been given for Crossrail 2. In addition, policies such as the cut to businesses rates and our reform of commercial stamp duty will revitalise high streets up and down the country, including those in Bury South.

This is a Budget for a nation of shopkeepers whether they are in Cardiff or Cornwall, or Chester or Chelmsford. We have heard from 27 Back Benchers from all over the country in tonight’s debate: North West Norfolk, Glasgow Central, Rugby, Jarrow, Telford, Sheffield South East, Blackpool North and Cleveleys, Bury South, Poole, Batley and Spen, Milton Keynes South, Copeland, Bolton West, and Birmingham, Hodge Hill.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will not as I have very little time, but I will get to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The list continues: Chesham and Amersham, Henley, Harrow West, Wealden, as well as Southampton, Test, and Bromley and Chislehurst, Washington and Sunderland West, Hazel Grove, North Norfolk, Warrington South, Dulwich and West Norwood, and Aberdeen North. A number of common themes came up in those speeches. Almost everybody welcomes the business rates cut and the help for the self-employed. This is a Budget that puts our small business job creators front and centre. Many points were made about northern infrastructure, so I draw everyone’s attention to page 77 of the Red Book. I am not referring to Mao’s little red book on this occasion. Page 77 gives a list of projects, including £130 million of road repair funds to deal with the damage caused by Storm Eva and Storm Desmond, in Cumbria and elsewhere.

A number of colleagues mentioned devolution and the impact on business rates. I can confirm that local government will be compensated for the loss of income as a result of the business rates measures announced in the Budget with a section 31 grant. The impact will be considered as part of the Government’s consultations on the implementation of 100% business rate retention in summer 2016.

Local Government: Ethical Procurement

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing this debate. I want to put on the record something that will appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when it next comes out. I recently visited the west bank and Jerusalem, the trip being sponsored by the UK branch of Fatah.

I want to emphasise some of the questions my hon. Friend asked. Does the guidance on pension investments and procurement change the law in any way? Does it in any way fetter local authorities’ decisions on best value in procurement? That is not simply about cheapness. We are not going back to the compulsory competitive tendering days. The last Labour Government brought in best value, which takes account of social and environmental matters, as the Government have confirmed. Does it in any way fetter the discretion of pension trustees to exercise their fiduciary duties, which go far wider than the narrow responsibility for public sector pensions? Will the Government confirm that the guidance for private businesses on their engagement with the settlements, on goods from the settlements, and on trade with the settlements, applies to public bodies as well? Can we have clarity on that?

During the 1980s, some local authorities sought to sever links with firms that traded with South Africa. I think local authorities were right then and I think there is a lot of shame on the Conservative Benches about the action that the then Conservative Government took in defence of the apartheid regime.

There is a story about what happened. Shell took Leicester city council to court because it said that by refusing to allow it to compete for a tender, the council was losing out on a potentially cheaper contract. Shell won in court. Sheffield city council decided not to put Shell on the tender list for a contract because of its dealings with South Africa and justified that because it had wider responsibilities for good race relations and to take account of the views of its citizens. Shell did not take Sheffield city council to court because it was recognised that it had behaved legally in taking those views into account.

The Secretary of State has said that the actions of councils have caused community division. The Minister must say precisely what examples he has of that division. The Government have a responsibility not just for race relations but, under the Equality Act 2010, for equality impact assessments and public sector equality. The Act requires public authorities to have regard to a number of equality considerations affecting race, and also religion.

The House of Commons Library has produced a good note, which says:

“A Minister must assess the risk and extent of any adverse impact and the ways in which such risk may be eliminated before the adoption of a proposed policy and not merely as a ‘rearguard action’”.

Have the Government done that? Where is the equality impact assessment? Do local authorities not have a duty to have regard to the effect on equality in their area in terms of both race and religion when considering whether to buy goods from the illegal Israeli settlements? Can the Minister explain what he thinks the effect will be on race relations in my constituency, which has a large number of people of Muslim faith from a background of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Somalia and Somaliland? What would be the impact on them if they saw their council tax being used to buy goods from the illegal Israeli settlements? How could that possibly be good for community relations? That is where the division is in this argument and the Minister must come clean about the Government’s objectives, how they assessed them and whether they think local authorities have the wider responsibility that I contend they have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

Those Palestinian workers are paid on average three or four times more than they could earn elsewhere. About 500 Palestinians lost their jobs in October 2015, when international pressure from the BDS movement led to the closure of SodaStream’s factory in Ma’ale Adumim. That demonstrates that the BDS movement only seeks to harm Israel, with little consideration of how its actions will affect the livelihood of Palestinians, even though Palestinians employed by Israeli companies enjoy substantially higher wages and improved living conditions than those employed elsewhere.

[Mr Betts]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Offord]

No, I will not. Supporters of the movement claim to embrace the boycott tactic as a non-violent way to pressure Israel into negotiations. The campaign is clearly a biased effort to demonise Israel and place the entire onus for the conflict on one side—the Israelis.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

The point is that although we are clear that the settlements themselves are absolutely illegal—I am happy to clarify the Government’s foreign policy—that does not necessarily mean that activities undertaken by firms that happen to be based there are themselves automatically illegal. A separate, case-by-case decision must be made about whether each potential supplier satisfies the rules. I will give more detail about that as I go, if I can.

We have flexibilities in our procurement rules. Some things are explicitly ruled out—

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

I am running out of time. I will give way very briefly, and then I will have to make progress.

[Mr Betts]

We are back to the point about how to distinguish between one activity of an organisation and another when deciding whether to have a relationship with it. To go back to banks, for example, it was rightly decided not to have any dealings with Barclays back in the 1980s because of its particular link with South Africa. One could not distinguish between the money it lent to South African firms and the money that it lent to other firms. How then does the Minister distinguish between the activities of financial organisations now and their treatment of the settlements?

[John Penrose]

I am explaining how the law is, rather than how the hon. Gentleman might like it to be. As I said, we are clear that the settlements themselves are illegal, but a firm based or trading within one of those settlements may be operating in an entirely whiter-than-white, above-board fashion in how it treats its suppliers, staff and customers. Therefore, I suggest, one cannot assume that absolutely everything done in a particular place is implicitly wrong.

There are flexibilities in our procurement rules. Some things are explicitly ruled out. Discrimination is absolutely ruled out as a matter of law and policy. The problem with boycotts in public procurement is that they may often stray over the line from acceptable ethical procurement within the rules that I have described to become an act of discrimination. The principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment underpin the UK’s whole approach to public procurement policy—we have heard examples of that from other speeches already—and are mandatory under UK, EU and World Trade Organisation procurement rules.

Moreover, public policy that includes decisions on whether to impose Government sanctions on other countries is a matter reserved for central Government. We are devolving a great deal down to local government and other Parliaments within the UK, but foreign policy, particularly sanctions against other countries, is a matter still reserved for central Government. It is therefore the Government’s position that discriminating against any supplier based on geographic location is unacceptable unless formal, legal sanctions, embargoes or restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government here.

Despite those long-standing rules, we have been concerned to learn that some authorities have decided to impose local-level procurement boycotts, which is why on 17 February, as we have heard, the Government published guidance to remind authorities of their obligations in that respect. I hasten to add that it is not an Israel-specific policy, nor is it focused on the Israeli settlements, in line with the initial remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. It is general guidance about procurement principles, so it does not address directly or in detail any questions about procuring from Israel or the illegal settlements. The Minister for the Cabinet Office highlighted the guidance when visiting some technology companies during his trip to Israel to reassure them that the UK Government marketplace is open to overseas bidders, despite what they might have read elsewhere.

Of course, the WTO Government procurement agreement has its limitations. It applies only to countries that have signed up to it. Israel is a party to it, so it clearly applies to Israeli suppliers, whereas the Government do not recognise the illegal settlements as part of Israel.

Guaranteed Income for Retirees

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am not quite sure what the sporting achievements mentioned earlier are, but I look forward to hearing about them.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I think the word “achievements” might be stretching it a little bit, but we will pass over that for the time being. [Laughter.]

[Harriett Baldwin]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing the debate and making a thoughtful, constructive contribution to our national debate on securing a guaranteed income for retirees. Perhaps I should not confess this, but if Wikipedia is correct, I am the one who should declare an interest as being closest to retirement age of all those speaking in the debate—but perhaps Wikipedia may not be accurate. That has happened before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is a passionate feminist and thinks it important that men and women have the same pension age. I appreciate, however, that the process of transition from the much earlier age at which women were retiring will, depending on people’s circumstances, have posed a range of challenges, of which the Government are well aware. As a constituency MP, I am also well aware of such issues. I will write to the hon. Member for Torfaen and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) with more specific points from my noble colleague.

Shall I conclude with my impassioned concluding remarks, Mr Betts, or is everyone happy to stop there?

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

It is up to you, Minister. You have time if you wish to impassion us.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will say something in conclusion as we have time.

I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. How people access an income in retirement is an incredibly important question. It is also an issue of huge international importance. I have summarised a range of changes that have been made over the past five years. The more recent pension freedoms are major changes and it is important that we get them right, which is why the Government and the regulator will continue actively to monitor the post-reform retirement landscape closely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I was only too pleased earlier that, as I was in the Chair, I was not able to join in the competition about who was nearest to retirement age. We will move on to Mr Ian Blackford winding up briefly.