Summer Adjournment

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). Like the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), I want to raise the issue of avoidable deaths as a consequence of epilepsy. This issue does not get enough focus in the House. It causes a great deal of distress, for obvious reasons, to many families.

There are 21 epilepsy deaths each week in the United Kingdom. The organisation SUDEP Action does an excellent job in not only supporting bereaved families but highlighting this issue. What we want from the Government is an inquiry into avoidable epilepsy deaths; a funded annual risk check for all people with epilepsy; local training, so that all frontline professionals have greater awareness of this issue; and a willingness that has not been present for a number of years for Ministers to meet SUDEP Action and Members of Parliament to address these issues. A remarkable woman in my constituency called Lynn McGoff lost her daughter Samantha Ahearn 10 years ago to an avoidable epilepsy death. She has raised more than £45,000 for SUDEP Action, and she is a great advocate and campaigner for this cause and many others. Her courage, and that of the many people like her who turn personal tragedy into campaigns, is an inspiration to us all.

As we speak here today, there is a real risk that the English Football League is about to give Bury football club notice that it will have to leave the league due to a series of administrative issues. I want to use this speech to ask the English Football League to sit down with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) and the club to do everything we can to prevent that from happening, because it would be a devastating blow to the town of Bury.

When we come back, I hope to be in a position to confirm that we have submitted a bid to the Government for a new secondary school in Radcliffe in my constituency. It is a scandal that that community has not had a secondary school for well over 10 years, but we are making tremendous progress in submitting a bid to the Government, and I hope the Government will look upon it favourably. Likewise, for Prestwich precinct, we are making a bid to the town centre fund administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of antisemitism. It is important to say that this has ruptured the relationship between my former party and large sections of the Jewish community, and the consequence is that the majority—this is not an exaggeration—of Jews in the United Kingdom fear that they would not feel welcome in this country if my former party, under its present leadership, were to win an election. I therefore ask those who are still members of that party in this House to understand the impact of that on people’s everyday lives and their duty to send different messages to the Jewish community in this country from those they have been sending in recent times. That is a very serious issue.

I also want to raise the matter of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I had the privilege of meeting her husband Richard, as many others did, outside the embassy. The way Iran has behaved is scandalous. Whatever we say about wanting to stay part of the nuclear deal, Iran is a rogue state. It continues to fund and encourage terrorism around the middle east and then, despite this country staying in the nuclear deal, it imprisons and treats Nazanin in the most appalling manner. We should use every opportunity in this House to condemn the Iranian regime and say that we will not take our eye off the ball until she is released.

I want to raise the question of HS2. What I have discovered in recent weeks about HS2 is shocking. It seems that a significant number of former senior staff were made to sign non-disclosure clauses, as part of redundancy notices, because they had brought it to the attention of the company’s senior management that they were not providing accurate information to this House about the true costs of HS2. People were marched off premises and made redundant purely because they were whistleblowing and saying that this House and the public were being misled about the cost. I urge the Government and the Department for Transport to come totally clean and to be transparent about this issue, because if they do not come clean, we will drag out of them this information about what I believe is a public scandal.

May I welcome the new Prime Minister’s commitment to come forward with a fundamentally new plan for social care? This is one of the great public policy challenges of our time. Elderly people and their families, as well as disabled people and people with mental health problems, are being let down. I hope that the new Prime Minister is genuine in his commitment finally to bring forward, on an all-party basis, a radical plan for the reform of social care.

High Speed 2

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady is right that building a train line frees up capacity for freight lines and all sorts of other things; the question is the business case for this particular project. The question must be asked: is it worth spending £55.7 billion of public money, as allocated by the Department for Transport, to alleviate crowding issues in the morning and evening peaks? The main alternative considered by the Government, known as the strategic alternative, could have achieved the same result at a much lower cost, through a combination of infrastructure and rolling stock upgrades, at a cost of around £4.9 billion in 2011 prices. Additional capacity and more fast-line services could be delivered via Euston to relieve the specific pressure points during the peak-hour rushes, rather than building a whole new line that would create unneeded capacity throughout the day.

The Lords Economic Affairs Committee report concluded that the Government have

“yet to make a convincing case for proceeding with the project”

and it has

“not seen convincing evidence that the nature of the capacity problem warrants building HS2.”

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

On the point about finance, is the right hon. Lady aware that HS2 has entered into an astonishing 270 or more non-disclosure agreements with third parties? Does she agree that the Government should make public the number of non-disclosure agreements, settled agreements, compromise agreements and any other arrangements that include non-disclosure provisions with former staff members?

Does the right hon Lady share my concern that funding from an unauthorised redundancy payment scheme operated by HS2 was used to fund some or all settlement or compromise agreements with former senior staff? In some cases, those staff were regarded as having made serious protected disclosures about their concerns over HS2’s financial statements. Transparency is essential in the funding of this project. Does the right hon. Lady agree?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that to me yesterday, and I am gravely concerned. As all right hon. and hon. Members will know, I am extremely unhappy at the prospect of non-disclosure agreements preventing whistleblowers from coming forward with information that is vital to the public interest or their own personal interest. People should not be gagged under any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

We are given a tight deadline to respond to any Select Committee. We respond as much as we can to the deadlines provided. I will go on to address the business case.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

Will the Minister make public the number of non-disclosure agreements, settled agreements, compromise agreements or any other arrangements, which include non-disclosure provisions with former staff members? Can she confirm that funding from an unauthorised redundancy payment scheme operated by HS2 was used to fund some or all settlement or compromise agreements with former senior staff, and that in some cases those staff were regarded as having made serious protected disclosures as to their concerns—this is the same point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham)—over HS2’s financial statements? If she cannot answer today, will she write to me with detailed answers before the summer recess?

[Ms Ghani]

I know that NDAs are a particularly sore point for the Labour party right now, but we regularly engage with local authorities, sharing work at the early design stage with them, which is why they use NDAs, especially during the planning phase. They are used to protect commercially sensitive and personal information. I will take the point about using taxpayers’ money on the chin. We need to ensure that we are always using taxpayers’ money properly and transparently. We always hold HS2’s feet to the fire on all of those issues. I am happy to put all of this in writing, and to answer in writing any further questions that the hon. Gentleman has.

Religious Slaughter of Farm Animals

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is good to hear the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who secured this debate on such an important subject.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to suggest that shechita is any less acceptable than other forms of slaughter? Does he also agree that this country’s unwritten constitution has always made religious freedom a high priority? The changes that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggests risk undermining the central tenet of our unwritten constitution, which is that religious freedom is important in our society.

[David Rutley]

I completely agree that religious freedom is essential. We had a fantastic prayer breakfast this morning, at which the principles of respect and tolerance were at the forefront of our minds.

On religious slaughter, I restate that the Government’s preference is that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, we respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore allow the religious slaughter of animals by Muslims and Jews for intended consumption by them. The Government believe that that is an important religious freedom, and there is a long history of upholding it in legislation, dating back to the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exception from stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims.

When I spoke about religious slaughter in the debate in this Chamber just a couple of months ago, I said that the Secretary of State and I would be holding a roundtable with a number of interested parties, including religious groups, animal welfare organisations—some of which are here today—and industry representatives. That meeting took place in May, and was a positive and open discussion, with helpful contributions from all who attended. Key issues discussed during that roundtable were the welfare impacts of different slaughter methods, essential ways of improving consumer information, the scope of the labelling scheme and halal assurance.

I strongly believe that the way to make progress—notwithstanding the important contributions of hon. Members from across the political spectrum—is through a roundtable and ongoing constructive dialogue. It is important to remind ourselves that in EU and domestic regulations that protect the welfare of animals at the time of killing, there are additional rules for animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, specifically for the production of halal and kosher meat. The primary aim of the welfare at slaughter regulations, which are based on a body of scientific evidence and advice from the European Food Safety Authority, is to ensure that animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of killing. It would be wrong to assume that the legal requirements for religious slaughter have not changed in the past 25 years.

[David Rutley]

I would be surprised if the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee did not want faster action, as he regularly does. I hope he sees that we are upping the pace on animal welfare, with his support, for which I am grateful.

There are sensitivities on both sides—from a welfare perspective and a respecting religious freedom perspective— which we have to navigate our way through. This is an important debate, and the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth made in his well-considered speech must be taken into account. He mentioned New Zealand. I recently met one of the New Zealand Ministers of Agriculture, and we discussed this subject. I am aware that New Zealand has a quality assurance programme for halal, which we can look into. Some people suggested that Australia has a similar programme, but there is some non-stunned religious slaughter there in eight abattoirs. The focus should be on what New Zealand has to offer.

Mention was made of whether immediate post-cut stunning should be introduced to improve the welfare of animals killed without prior stunning, but when we look at that we must respect religious views. We are committed to continuing this dialogue and debate. The area that we should focus on, because it brings most people together, is labelling.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

It is very kind of the Minister to give way. He will understand that there is a great deal of insecurity in the British Jewish community as a consequence of institutional antisemitism in the Opposition party. Will he reassure that community, which feels insecure and anxious, that the Government will under no circumstances ban shechita, which is a central tenet of the Jewish faith, in the United Kingdom?

[David Rutley]

I assure Muslim and Jewish communities that we respect their freedoms. Through this debate and the roundtable process that we have put in place, we want to balance those religious freedoms with what more can be done to improve the welfare of animals. That is difficult, but not impossible, to juggle. Through dialogue, we can move forward and learn from what has taken place in other countries around the world. It must be done in the unique spirit of co-operation in this country. That should be respected by all parties in this House. I get the sense from this debate that people respect that requirement and the need to look more at animal welfare.

I think that the way forward is to look at these issues, consider the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, look at the mechanisms we have got through the roundtable forum that we have created, and move that on. We can focus more on labelling. We must engage with the communities and the industry to see how we can take this further forward. Our exit from the EU will provide an opportunity to do that with more conviction and at greater pace. I am sure that will please the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Thank you for your support in this debate, Mr Rosindell.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

2. What representations he has received on the 2019 loan charge; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

12. What steps he is taking to support people affected by the 2019 loan charge.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

Disguised remuneration is an aggressive and contrived form of tax avoidance that involves a loan, which there is never any intention of repaying, being routed via a low or no-tax jurisdiction and then back to the United Kingdom, to avoid income tax and national insurance. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs takes a measured, proportionate and sympathetic approach to the collection of this tax, which has always been due.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The loan charge is not retrospective. There has never been a time in the history of our country when the arrangements that I described a moment ago were ever compliant with our tax code. Of course, the loans, which there is no intention of ever repaying—they are simply there to avoid national insurance and income tax—persist into the present. Generous “time to pay” arrangements are available with HMRC; I urge anybody who is involved in avoidance of this kind to talk to HMRC and come to sensible arrangements.

[Mr Lewis]

Is the Minister not aware that the people affected by this charge are strivers and people who are just about managing? They are the people who are suffering as a consequence of this decision. How many times are the Government going to hit ordinary working people, including groups like the Women Against State Pension Inequality, without Ministers fulfilling their responsibilities, intervening in such circumstances and ensuring that common sense prevails?

[Mel Stride]

If we include the loans, the average earnings of those who have been involved in this egregious tax avoidance is twice our country’s national average wage. There is no need for people to get involved in these schemes, the sole purpose of which is to avoid tax. Some Members have raised amounts of some £700,000 or £900,000 that HMRC is pursuing in this context; that would equate to a couple of million pounds going through these schemes. I remind the House that these are schemes that take loans from the UK out to an offshore trust in a low or no-tax jurisdiction and route it back into the UK as a loan that is never due to be repaid, simply for the purpose of avoiding tax. We do not believe that is right.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I want to focus my contribution on the devolution deal for Greater Manchester. I welcome the principle of local politicians and communities having far greater control over the policies and funding that affect their localities. It is right that we have a much greater opportunity to shape our own destiny and build a world-class, fair and prosperous Greater Manchester. However, as we take greater responsibility, the Government, and especially the Chancellor, must understand that we are not prepared to be set up to fail or to collude with policies that are plainly wrong. Greater Manchester’s political leaders are right to do business with the Government, notwithstanding, in most cases, serious political differences. However, I have come to the conclusion that, in some key areas, the combined effect of the devolution deals so far is flawed. We must negotiate a new, fairer deal that enables us to tackle the inequality that has left too many people and communities behind.

On skills, it is essential that we raise our game in Greater Manchester, so that we can tackle the scourge of worklessness, improve poor levels of productivity and ensure that people living in our communities benefit from the future jobs that businesses will create at the cutting edge of the technological and green revolutions. The current devolution deal only gives Greater Manchester control over 19-plus education. This is nonsense and is setting us up to fail. I want local authorities and the mayor to have the power to support school improvement through a properly funded schools challenge, on a par with London, to build a 14-to-19 phase of education with a high-quality vocational offer and to have greater flexibility to work with employers on apprenticeships. If the Government are serious about supporting Greater Manchester to tackle the scandal that is 25% of children living in poverty, they will provide additional funding so that we can expand early childhood development programmes, not cut them, as is happening now.

On health and social care, we have agreed to create an integrated care and support system. However, we have a £2 billion NHS funding gap in Greater Manchester. Cuts to council budgets are severely restricting access to social care, and community mental health services are in crisis. In many areas, preventive services, often provided by voluntary organisations, are being cut to the bone. On top of that, we have no guarantee that the Treasury will not cut our funding further in the future. A fair deal would mean NHS England more than doubling the transformation fund established to support those changes in Greater Manchester, from the current £450 million to £1 billion. Any deal must also make it clear that in Greater Manchester we vehemently oppose the privatisation of the NHS.

Let me turn to business rates. I strongly support the principle of money raised in Greater Manchester staying in Greater Manchester. Indeed, in the longer term, devolution must mean greater fiscal autonomy on a much broader level. However, at the same time, Government cuts to councils’ grant aid and the disparity in revenue generated in the different cities and towns of Greater Manchester increase the risk that the deal will increase inequality, not reduce it. A deal that is fair must put in place transitional arrangements to ensure that the cumulative impact of 100% rate retention, combined with cuts to Government grants, does not disadvantage any of our 10 Greater Manchester authorities.

In some parts of our conurbation, the decline of town centres has damaged both economic opportunity and civic pride. Despite being identified as a priority in negotiations between Greater Manchester and the Government, bids for town centre renewal funding have so far been rejected by the Treasury—another flaw. A fair deal would recognise the importance of towns and district centres across Greater Manchester. Finally, the devolution deal is silent on accountability and public participation. While some of these issues require resolution at Greater Manchester level, a fair devolution deal would include funding to enhance public involvement and the accountability of the mayor and the cabinet.

A new, fair devolution deal is essential if Greater Manchester is to reduce inequality and become a world-class conurbation for all its people. This Budget reaffirms the Government’s commitment to a northern powerhouse, but I must warn Ministers that it has all the hallmarks of the big society—a tarnished brand, fatally undermined by reality. Disproportionate cuts and policies such as the forced academisation of our schools make a mockery of the northern powerhouse; indeed, we would be a northern poorhouse if it was not for the innovation and commitment of our local councils and communities. It is for that reason that our leaders in Greater Manchester have been right to be pioneers for devolution, but the time has now come to demand a fair, not a flawed, devolution deal.

Office for Budget Responsibility

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is worth reminding ourselves that the OBR June 2010 pre-Budget report is based not only on the previous Government’s tax and spending measures and decisions, but partly on the lower interest rates earned by the current Government in the decisions and announcements we have made over the previous month or so. That is why Sir Alan says in his forward that

“the fiscal path assumed”

by the previous Government

“would lead to higher interest rates and so lower economic activity ”.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Are cuts this year a matter of a small-state ideology or in our economic interests?

[Mr Osborne]

They are, above all, in our economic interests because of the mess left to us by the previous Government.

Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I would like to make some progress first.

I guess that the shadow Chancellor is entitled not to apologise. I would only say this to the people who are standing for the leadership of the Labour party. As far as I can tell from their contest at the moment, they seem to think that they just did not speak enough about immigration and Europe in the campaign. Let me tell him: I have done that campaign and I did not get the medal. Perhaps the leadership contenders will at some point turn their attention to the very serious economic problems that this country faces, and tell us what they would do—what they would cut. The amendment that we are being asked to vote for tonight—tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor—states that we need

“a clear plan to bring down the deficit”.

I agree with that; I would happily vote with the shadow Chancellor if he could perhaps tell me exactly what his clear plan to bring down the deficit is because, as far as I could tell, he opposed every single decision that we have taken to try to reduce the deficit.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

In The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister said that the cuts would be unprecedented in their severity and would change Britain. In The Observer, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the cuts would not at all be as serious as in the 1980s and ’90s, and would be progressive in nature. Can the Chancellor tell us—which is it?

[Mr Osborne]

It was the shadow Chancellor who said—and we were reminded of this—that the cuts would be deeper than anything that Margaret Thatcher had undertaken, and that was the proposal from the Labour party when it was in government. It is unfortunately an economic fact that the budget deficit that this country faces is higher than at any point in our peacetime history, and whoever forms the Government of this country has to deal with that budget deficit and cannot ignore it. Indeed, there is a rather striking fact about the Labour Government’s proposals, which they left in their Budget book—the shadow Chancellor has a copy in front of him. There are £50 billion of cuts built into the Labour Budget produced in March, and not one single pound of those cuts has yet been identified by the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

But the reason why European economies, particularly those in southern Europe and in the eurozone, are having to take the measures that they are taking is that there are concerns about sovereign credit worthiness. Of course they must deal with their situation, but, in the month that I have done the job, I am very aware when I sit down at ECOFIN or at the G20 that I represent the country with the largest budget deficit at either of those gatherings. That is the situation that we inherited—[Interruption.] For two years we had to listen to all the lectures about how the European Union, the G20 and the OECD disagreed with what we are saying. Now they agree with what we are saying. The G20 communiqué signed in South Korea stated:

“Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”.

That is the situation bequeathed by the previous Government to Britain.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

I thank the Chancellor for giving way. I have some simple questions. Were we right to save Northern Rock? Were we right to recapitalise the banks? Were we right to go for fiscal stimulus? Can the Chancellor be frank with the House about the decisions that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made?

[Mr Osborne]

Talk about refighting the last war. We spent the entire general election talking about those decisions. The answer is that the British people agreed with us and not with the shadow Chancellor.