Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Rob Marris

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset can clarify this, but the way I read it, clause 1(1) allows a Secretary of State—not an individual human Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State—to grant successive 150-year leases. That is what it enables; the power is vested in that office. One would expect there to be such leases, but of course we do not know what will happen down the road. None of us will be there then.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of when the current lease expires, so we know where we are in the process? If there are, for example, another 15 years on the current lease, will it be rolled over into a new 150-year lease from, say, next year? That is just so we are aware of the cycle.

In terms of what is envisaged in a longer lease, can the hon. Gentleman reassure me about two things? First, will the longer lease be on a peppercorn rent—in other words, a nominal rent, rather than a real terms value rent of thousands of pounds a year, which it would be at market value?

Secondly, he mentioned planning permission, which would restrict, for example, over-building on the site, but of course in a lease one can have restrictive covenants that trump planning permission. Those who are not planners or property lawyers may not know this, but even if planning permission is granted for a piece of land to construct buildings, for example, if the land is subject to a lease that has a restrictive covenant forbidding the construction of those buildings, buildings could be constructed legally pursuant to the planning permission, but cannot not be constructed in practice because of the restrictive covenant in the lease. That is a stronger brake on such developments, so I hope that can be done.

Those three things go together. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me on the restrictions in the lease, on the restrictive covenants and on whether there is going to be a peppercorn rent?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I have some questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West suggested that we might have had an evidence session, and there are certainly some questions that I would like to have asked. For example, one assumes that the board of trustees is happy with the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset knows that.

Secondly, are we talking about generating additional income or replacing what was in the past Government revenue support? Presumably Kew has land and other property that is surplus to its own requirements, and which it is quite happy to lease out to others for their use and to generate rent. How much land and property are we talking about for potential leasing? Those things are all of interest. I am sure the Bill will go through without any difficulty, but I think those questions ought to be asked.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Rob Marris

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making very thoughtful points. He may be aware that there is now a fairly successful political party in Lithuania that is against emigration, not immigration, for that very reason.

[Rob Marris]

I am not surprised about that. In the last Parliament but one, I had the joy of visiting Lithuania with what was then the Trade and Industry Committee, and that was the sort of issue we talked about. In those days, Lithuania was already starting to import labour from Moldova—outside the European Union—because so many Lithuanians had come with their skills particularly to the United Kingdom and Ireland to ply their respective trades, and I specifically mean trades.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) has sought to do from the Labour Front Bench is to beef up the Bill in two ways. One is to introduce even greater confidence in the new system that we will have, and part of that confidence building means moving towards national standards. This partly addresses the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about parity of esteem. We talked earlier this afternoon about parity between mental and physical health, but in this case, we are talking about parity of esteem between the vocational and the academic.

Having been a semi-skilled worker for a number of years as a professional driver and a bus driver, I faced a fork in the road. Was I going to go down the vocational route—I had my eye on being a plumber—or was I going to go down the academic route with an eye to being a lawyer? I went down the academic route and I became a lawyer. I do not regret that at all. One reason I did so related to esteem or lack thereof, and another reason was that lawyers get to work indoors whereas plumbers sometimes have to work on building sites outdoors—and I do not like the cold. I am talking about quite a while ago, and the money was better in law than it was in plumbing. I am not sure whether that remains the case nowadays.

We live in a capitalist society. Part of what needs to be done to move towards parity of esteem in a cultural sense is the sort of thing that the Minister has attempted to do during his tenure of office and through this Bill; and, frankly, in a capitalist society, part of it is about paying people more. If we want parity of esteem, we should start paying people equal amounts of money—and pay plumbers as much as lawyers. Given that we live under capitalism, we are moving towards that because of skills shortages.

On new clause 1, I quite understand the Minister’s point that some of the information is already published as a result of the Enterprise Act 2016, but I believe that building this into the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has proposed, would be helpful for sending out the right message about confidence. It is the same with new clause 2, so that the representative panels can become more representative when they are put in place. I welcome the Minister’s assurance this afternoon that those panels will be in place by April, and I hope they will have a breadth of representation that should, I think, be built into the Bill. I asked the Minister a similar question in a slightly different context about the involvement of trade unions. This is not just a tit-for-tat along the lines of “You have the bosses there, so we have to have the workers there,” although that is important; it more about getting buy-in to the new regime from all sections of our society to build towards addressing the skills shortages that we will face, as I have said, under Brexit.

Under Brexit, there is no mistake about it: the price for staying in the single market would be free movement of labour and people; and the UK population has said that it is not up for that and does not want free movement of people or labour. We will therefore not be in the single market, but we will not have free movement either, because there will be restrictions—whether Members like it or not. We should use these circumstances in a positive way, so that local people can train up for jobs and so that we do not keep poaching skilled people from abroad—whether from Lithuania, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned, or elsewhere. For that, we need national standards.

When it comes to confidence, we need proper advice. Careers advice in England has certainly been, to say the least, patchy over the years. I remember when my Government set up Connexions, which was not exactly a resounding success—certainly not in the west midlands. I urge the Minister to think again about new clause 4, which is all to do with building confidence. That is particularly clear in paragraphs (b) and (d) of new clause 4(3). These highlight the fact that the Secretary of State should seek to

“ensure that such information, advice and guidance may be taken into account by relevant authorities and partners to meet the needs of local or combined authority areas”

and to

“monitor the outcomes of such information, advice and guidance for recipients.”

It is part of confidence building that we have a regime that is sensitive to local labour markets, which will change greatly from April 2019 when we are out of the European Union.

This Bill is part of the Government—surprisingly, given what is not happening in other areas—showing a bit of foresight, on which I congratulate the Minister. If only we had such foresight about Brexit ramifications for other areas of public endeavour; we do not, but this Bill is a step forward and part of that jigsaw. I am not saying that this is why the Minister has sought to introduce the Bill, but I do think we should look on it positively in that way, and I think that new clause 4 would help to build confidence in the new system, by ensuring that it would be reflective and flexible.

In referring to amendment 9 and others that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South said were in a sense under its umbrella—amendments 10 to 16—the Minister talked about employers having freedom and flexibility. Amendment 9 deals with “recognised technical qualifications” and these are connected, certainly for England as I said, with national standards. We need those standards as part of the confidence-building measures, but also to make sure that we get the right people with the right skills—in a sense, workforce planning.

This country is pretty poor at workforce planning. The one area where we could have excellent workforce planning because the number of employees is so enormous and they almost all work for the state is in healthcare delivery, yet it is absolutely appalling. We do not have enough doctors trained here; we do not have enough dentists trained here; we certainly do not have enough nurses trained here; we do not have enough professions allied to medicine—whether radiographers or phlebotomists and so forth—trained here. Yet this is the one area of workforce planning that the Government could get right. I do not mean that only this Government have singularly failed. Under the coalition Government, things went backwards when some nurse training places were shut down. Figures on the number of employees working in the NHS in England alone are so huge that we could take social trends into account and do some pretty good workforce planning on the kind of skills that will be needed in five years or the 10 years that it takes to train a doctor, and so forth.

Arguably, we have been absolute rubbish at this since 1948. Having national standards is important not just for confidence, but for workforce planning. That is why I again urge the Minister to have another think about the import of amendment 9, if not its wording. It is all very well having flexibility and freedom for employers. These were the sort of words that the Minister used—he will correct me if I am wrong—when he explained why he thought amendment 9 was unnecessary and invited my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South to withdraw it. In my view, however, the Minister should have another think about that, because I believe that national standards are important. Again, I draw on my own experience. When I qualified as a lawyer, I took a national exam that had to be taken by all those seeking to become solicitors in England and Wales. For most of us, if we passed, that led to what was, in a sense, the equivalent of an apprenticeship. It was called “articles of clerkship”, and it involved two years in a solicitor’s office. What had been a national exam taken by everyone who wished to be a solicitor in England and Wales then became a moderated Law Society final exam. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) will remind me what it was called. [Hon. Members: “Legal practice course.”] Yes. It became a legal practice course, and standards went down. I say that having talked to people in post-secondary institutions at the time and having trained articled clerks who had experienced the later system when national standards no longer existed.

National standards are not, of course, a guarantee of quality output, but they can be used by any Government, legitimately and properly, to ensure that we have confidence in the system and to ensure that those who undergo an apprenticeship process and emerge from it fully qualified have a qualification that is worth their having as individuals, and worth our society having.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Rob Marris

Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). He is currently the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—a job that I had many years ago. I have had a long association with the further education and post-16 sector. I taught in further education more than 40 years ago, and while I was teaching a basic statistics course I discovered that one of the major problems with education in Britain is the poor level of mathematics teaching. The students I taught had difficulty with basic computation, multiplication and division. I found that quite shocking at the time, but the problem has continued.

Some 20 years ago, the great Lord Claus Moser produced a report on numeracy and literacy, finding that more than 50% of the population was functionally innumerate. He illustrated that point by saying that 50% of the population did not understand what 50% meant, which is quite surprising—if not shocking. More recently, I asked the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), why we were having to recruit so many qualified engineers from abroad and he said that it was because our mathematics is not good enough to produce sufficient engineers. There is a serious problem.

[Rob Marris]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with mathematics is down to English culture? It is still acceptable for people to say words to the effect of, “Ooh, I don’t do maths,” without that being seen by their interlocutors as an admission of abject failure. It is just seen as a bit of a joke. It is a cultural problem. This is about not only the education system, but our culture, particularly in England. It is appalling.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is changing and I am optimistic about that. People such as me who are good at maths are regarded as being a bit of a geek, but what is wrong with being good at maths? In the country of Isaac Newton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Alan Turing, why should we be ashamed of being good at maths? That is being addressed, but we are still having to recruit thousands of engineers from abroad because people cannot do the maths to become engineers through our education system.

As I said, I taught in further education 40 years ago, but I also spent four years as chair of governors at the then Luton College of Higher Education when we were producing hundreds of qualified engineers doing ONCs, HNCs and then AMIMechEs and so on. They were good engineers and they could do the maths. It may just be that we have declined in some areas because the manufacturing demand is not as great as it was. We are now trying to pick up the manufacturing sector again and we are realising that we have missed out on maths.

I am happy to say that Luton College of Higher Education went on to become the University of Luton and then the University of Bedfordshire. The vice-chancellor is now Bill Rammell, a former colleague in Parliament, and its chancellor is Mr Speaker—the greatest honour of all—and I am absolutely delighted about that. I have also been a governor of the superb Luton Sixth Form College for 25 years. It does brilliant work and gets better and better every year.

Barnfield College is also in my constituency. A dozen or so years ago, it was the first ever general FE college to be given beacon status, but it went into serious decline and wound up almost collapsing into a state of failure a year or two back. It has now been picked up by its great new principal Tim Eyton-Jones and I am sure that it will be revived, but it needs Government support. It should never have been allowed to get into that situation. The neglect of colleges was criminal. Barnfield is now on the up and will be great again, but it needs the active support of Government, particularly in finance.

In Parliament, I was for some years chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—lifelong learning is also important—but I am now chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form colleges and am pleased about that. Colleges in general, FE colleges in particular, have been neglected over decades. Colleges represent an abused sector of education, and one reason for that is that so many people in the political sphere have no connection with further education. They go to posh schools—grammar schools, public schools, whatever—and then to university. Indeed, some become special advisers—a former Spad is in our midst now—and then go into politics never having touched further education or understood what it is about.

[Rob Marris]

Does my hon. Friend recall the reorganisation of Government Departments in about 2007—sadly under a Labour Government—when the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was set up? It took a week for the Government to realise that they had not put further education in either of the two possible Departments.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is another story, which may not be true, about what happened when incorporation was introduced in 1993. When the legislation was going through, the then Education Secretary was asked what was going to happen to sixth-form colleges and he said, “Oh, shall we put them in the FE sector?” It was a last-minute thought just to drop them into that sector. Sixth-form colleges are really schools and had they stayed with the local education authorities, we would by now have a lot more of them because LEAs would never have given away all the sixth-forms from their schools to create new sixth-form colleges because they were a different, independent sector.

Unfortunately, LEAs, and indeed, councillors are possessive about their institutions and do not want to give them away. I have experience of that, because when I was chair of governors of the Luton College of Higher Education, we had a battle royal to get that college into the higher education sector—out of LEA control and into the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The chief education officer threatened to sack the college principal for pursuing that avenue, and I had to intervene to say to the CEO publicly, “If you sack the principal, you will have me to contend with and I will fight you all the way.” He backed off and we got what became the University of Luton and, subsequently, the University of Bedfordshire. LEAs are, understandably, possessive and they are not going to give away their sixth-forms to move towards sixth-form colleges. Had they done that, our education system would be much better, but that is another story.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Rob Marris

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

15. What assessment she has made of the effect on people on low incomes of changes made to the legal aid system by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his answer to my question, but a TUC report of this October raised concerns that the Act is a barrier to access to justice for victims of domestic violence. The regulations concerning the provision of evidence of domestic violence are restrictive and narrow and have led to a 16% drop in applications and a 17% drop in applications granted. Is it not time the Secretary of State admitted that the Act is denying access to justice for thousands and must be amended?

Finance Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Rob Marris

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak briefly on these amendments and new clauses. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) was absolutely right to mention HMRC. Successive Governments have consistently understaffed HMRC, consistently arguing that they would make it more efficient or whatever. When I was first elected to this House 19 years ago, I remember going to my local VAT office and being told that every member of staff collects five times their salary. Being a logical sort of person, I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggested that it was a good idea to employ more staff to collect more revenue for the Government. I received a letter back not from the Chancellor and not even from a junior Minister but from a civil servant, suggesting that HMRC was to save money by cutting staff. It was so irrational that it was just nonsense. That kind of nonsense has continued ever since—reducing the number of offices, making things more remote and so on. I was also not terribly impressed by the idea of having a benefits-distributing service—tax credits—going through HMRC rather than through the Department for Work and Pensions. I was not the only Opposition Member who was uneasy about that change.

I want to discuss new clause 3 and the tax treatment of workers employed through intermediaries and support my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on the Front Bench. It has long occurred to me that intermediaries and private agencies make lots of money out of both the public purse and the people they employ. That could be overcome if we instituted a substantial public ownership programme for agencies, particularly when the public sector is involved. If there was a local authority or NHS agency for nurses, the money would either go into the pockets of the staff employed through the agency or would be saved in public spending by the health service—everyone would benefit. However, the people who would lose would be in the private sector, which could not make profits out of employing people in this way. In that way, staffing and taxation could be properly regulated. There would be no cheating, irregularities or tax fiddles, because it would all be within the publicly accountable public sector.

[Rob Marris]

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend on organisations such as agencies that deal with supply teachers. As he will remember from his background in education, that function was commonly done by the local education authority before, sadly, a Labour Government started changing things. LEAs were then gutted by the current Government and their predecessor. Will my hon. Friend concede that in certain areas, such as construction or oil rigs, there is a role for specialist agencies and that it would be rather Stalinist to look at nationalising them or having them run by national Government bodies, as he appeared to suggest?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In the public sector, not everything that was in the past was bad. Some people say that we cannot go back to the past, but a succession of Governments have gone back to the 19th century in the way they run the economy, and neoliberalism was invented then. Since then, we have had social democracies and managed economies that worked well, but that has all been thrown away and we have gone back to the 19th century. Some things from the past that we can return to might actually improve things. I suggest that public agencies for temporary staff would be a good thing.

I might even debate with my hon. Friend that such a proposal could be employed in the private sector as well, because the staff involved would at least be properly protected, the companies would know that they are not being ripped off, and the Treasury would know that it is getting a fair deal through collecting its proper taxes. We could even have them properly organised with the trade unions, ensuring that they are properly paid and so on. We could go back to a splendid world of active social democracy. My hon. Friend’s new clause does not go quite that far, but I support it.

[Rob Marris]

I must say to my hon. Friend that I am quite in favour of a world of active social democracy. I am unsure whether my definition is quite the same as his if he seriously suggests that construction agencies should be run by some kind of state body—that is a step too far for me. I also caution my hon. Friend that, having got his way last Thursday, he is pushing his luck somewhat on this somewhat Stalinist approach.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend suggests that my proposal is Stalinist, but we are talking about a world in which we had several splendid democratically elected Labour Governments after the second world war that did wonderful things. Nobody would call them Stalinist. They submitted themselves to the electorate every five years and were sometimes defeated—sometimes even in this House—so I do not think “Stalinist” is the right word.

I do think, however, that there should be a bigger role for the public sector in regulating employment, making sure that people are properly paid and securely employed, even if they are temporary staff, that taxes are fully paid and that private sector agencies do not rip off both the public purse and employees. I will leave that suggestion with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will bring forward even more radical proposals along the lines that I have suggested.

Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Rob Marris

Monday 8th February 2016 General Committees

[Rob Marris]

Please do not tempt me. I congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The European Commission report came out on 31 July and he signed off the explanatory memorandum for Parliament on 24 August—during the holiday period. Clearly his family never get their holiday though, and I urge him to change that. Similarly, the Minister in the House of Lords, Baroness Verma, promptly signed off her explanatory memorandum on the European foreign aid report from the Court of Auditors on 10 December, and here we are having a fairly prompt debate.

The explanatory notes, as ever, are helpful—the Financial Secretary knows my penchant for reading explanatory notes carefully. Paragraph 2 refers us to the report:

“The report summarises and evaluates measures taken by the Commission and Member States to counter fraud and irregularities against EU spending in 2014.”

That is a major area of concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North mentioned. Page 2 of the document from the European Parliament refers to the amount of fraud, saying

“the Commission estimates that tax fraud in all its forms amounts to EUR 1 000 billion in the EU, or EUR 2 000 per European citizen.”

That is a huge amount of tax fraud.

The reports deal with the monitoring and auditing to see that there is not fraud—not only tax fraud, but fraud and irregularities in other spending. The Commission report on page 21 of the bundle refers to measures already taken and to AFCOS, to which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred earlier. It also refers to

“a draft directive on the fight against fraud by means of criminal law, proposed in July 2012,”

and goes on to refer to

“a draft regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), proposed in July 2013.”

The EPPO would be established under article 86 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. I hope that one of the Ministers present—I imagine the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—will be able to indicate what progress is being made on that draft directive and that draft regulation. With the passage of time, I hope that there has been progress.

There is a huge problem with fraud and irregularities, not just in terms of tax. What is meant by irregularities? Just as my father used to say—I do not know why he used this example—all St Bernards are dogs, but not all dogs are St Bernards, so all fraud is an irregularity, but not all irregularity is fraud. An irregularity can occur when a beneficiary is not in compliance with the EU rules, which could be down to a genuine mistake.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Should we accept that the term “irregularities” is merely a euphemism for fraud and that we should use the term “fraud” when we mean it?

[Rob Marris]

That is not my understanding of how the term “irregularities” is used in Euro-speak. It could be that there is non-compliance with the rules, but the reason for that non-compliance is not fraud but, for example, laziness, misunderstanding and so on. It does not necessarily have what us lawyers would call the mens rea for fraud.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is perhaps the same as the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

[Rob Marris]

That is perhaps not the greatest of parallels, but I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. Of course, tax avoidance is not illegal, but tax evasion is. Nevertheless, some tax avoidance—by, for example, Google—raises serious questions that my hon. Friend and I would agree on.

There is a great deal of difficulty with the error rates, some of which, again, will be driven by fraud and some by non-fraudulent irregularity. Take, for example, funds for jobs and growth on page 382 of the bundle. The hon. Member for Wimbledon talked about chapter 3, but, as lawyers often do, I went to the back to get to the juicy bits. The explanatory memorandum dated 9 December that was submitted by HM Treasury refers to chapter five of the European Court of Auditors annual report. That chapter is on funding for jobs and growth, for which research and innovation accounts for 60% of spending. At paragraph 16, the explanatory memorandum states:

“The estimated error rate for this area of expenditure is 5.6%, an increase on 4.6% for the 2013 budget.”

It refers to the European regional development fund and the cohesion fund. It states in paragraph 20, on page 383 of the bundle:

“The overall estimated error rate is 5.7%, an increase on 5.3% for 2013.”

The bête noire, of course, is the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Paragraph 26 states:

“The ECA estimates that the overall error rate for this area of expenditure stands at 3.6%, the same as in the 2013 budget.”

There are considerable concerns about error rates. A company trading in Britain, for example, with an error rate of 3.6% in its accounts would be open to serious questions about whether it knew what it was doing. The situation is more difficult with the number of member states in the European Union and the number of disbursements that they make to the hundreds of thousands of individuals and organisations in the European Union, but that is quite a large error rate.

In paragraph 4 of the Financial Secretary’s helpful explanatory notes, he refers to

“the various initiatives taken by the Commission in 2014 to counter fraud affecting the EU budget”.

If you will forgive me, Sir Edward, I will, because I have questions on these points, read out quite a long quote from paragraph 4. It concerns a series of 10 different areas and, with your indulgence, it will be simpler if I just read those out. They will then be on the record in Hansard. The areas are:

“negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council on the proposed Directive on the protection of the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law; ongoing negotiations concerning the proposal to set up a European Public Prosecutors’ Office”—

I referred to that earlier—

“a Commission proposal to partially revise the Financial Regulation to align it with the revised public procurement Directive; the 2014 Communication on fighting corruption in the EU; negotiations relating to four delegated and four implementing Regulations on the reporting of irregularities; actions concerning anti-fraud policy in customs; measures taken to fight against VAT fraud; negotiations to include anti-fraud provisions in international agreements; the entry into force of new public procurement rules; a Directive on protection against currency counterfeiting; and progress on the implementation of the CAFS and Hercule and Pericles Programmes.”

For those hon. Members who have temporarily forgotten, Pericles is a European Union exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, so it is not directly of interest to the United Kingdom, but is indirectly; and Hercule is the European Union programme to promote activities related to the protection of EU financial interests, which is very much of interest to the United Kingdom. I therefore hope that the Financial Secretary, either today or perhaps later in writing, can give me and the rest of the Committee an indication of what is happening as regards those 10 items of anti-fraud policy at European Union level, helpfully delineated in the Minister’s explanatory notes, and of how the European Union, in co-operation with the United Kingdom, is getting on in those areas.

The explanatory notes, at paragraph 7, say:

“The Commission considers that Member States have, in general, adequately implemented the recommendations in its 2013 report, for example, the designation of an AFCOS”.

I hope that the Financial Secretary can say a little more about what is going on in that regard.

The explanatory notes also say, at paragraph 14:

“The use of false or falsified documentation or declarations remained the most common type of fraud.”

The Financial Secretary will remember the debate that we had in Westminster Hall on 14 January regarding VAT fraud on online purchases. Online retail purchases in the United Kingdom have gone up by two thirds since 2010. It is a growing area and will continue to grow as an area of retail sales. One hopes that there will not be a commensurate growth in fraud, but that is of great concern.

The note from the European Parliament—this is on page 2—states:

“Two directives were also adopted in 2013, one on the common system of VAT concerning an optional and temporary application of the reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud, the other concerning a quick reaction mechanism against VAT fraud”.

Will the Financial Secretary indicate, first, what a reverse charge mechanism is in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud, because I do not know, and, secondly, what is being done about it? Clearly the European Parliament thinks it is a problem, and so do the member states, because a directive was adopted in 2013, more than two years ago—perhaps three years ago.

The second directive is a quick reaction mechanism against VAT fraud. Will the Financial Secretary enlighten us on what the European Union and, indeed, the United Kingdom are doing about a quick reaction to VAT fraud? As he will remember, considerable concern was expressed in the Westminster Hall debate of 14 January on both sides of the House about VAT fraud in online retail. VAT fraud does not only happen in online retail, but online retail is perhaps more susceptible to VAT fraud, as it is more difficult to address. As I have indicated, online retail is a growing area of commercial activity, and it is very big in this country.

Paragraph 22 of the Financial Secretary’s helpful explanatory notes refers to four specific recommendations contained in the report from the Commission on financial interests:

“urging Member States to use their AFCOS to its full potential; encouraging Member States to put in place effective measures to tackle conflicts of interest; asking specific Member States to strengthen their detection and/or reporting of fraud against the EU budget; and inviting Member States to inform the Commission of measures taken to fight customs fraud.”

Can he indicate, either today or later in writing to members of the Committee, what is happening in each of those four areas in terms of both the United Kingdom and the European Union? The report has indicated that something should be happening in each of those areas.

The European Parliament report—this is on page 4 —states:

“Particular attention should also be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention, early detection and customs transit monitoring”.

Can the Financial Secretary enlighten the Committee on what customs transit monitoring is? I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that it could be related to VAT fraud, which is of considerable concern on both sides of the House.

Paragraph 36 of the Financial Secretary’s helpful explanatory notes—he has repeated this today—states:

“The Government believes that the best way to reduce the level of irregularities and fraud is through a more preventative approach, such as greater simplification of the systems and regulations.”

I agree that simplification is desirable—he and I have discussed it many times over the years—but I draw his attention to paragraph 14 of his own explanatory notes, which I read out earlier, regarding the use of false and falsified documentation or declarations. Some of that might be addressed through simplification, but if false documents, et cetera, are the most common type of fraud, as he indicates in paragraph 14, I suggest that simplification, as per paragraph 36, although welcome, is not necessarily the best way to address false documentation. I hope he can enlighten the Committee as to what Her Majesty’s Government propose to do about false documentation.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is interesting to sit on one of these Committees for possibly the 19th time. I have debated in almost all of them, if not in every one. I was a permanent member when there was fixed membership of such Standing Committees, and for several years I have taken part in debate on the issue we are considering, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee.

It is amazing that no one has said how unacceptable and astonishing it is that for 21 consecutive years the European Court of Auditors has failed to sign off the European Union budget. If the National Audit Office could not sign off the budget of a Government Department for 21 years, and up to 4.4% of the Department’s funding had gone missing through fraud or irregularities, there would be a scandal.

We should raise our concerns again. We cannot just roll over and say, “Oh, well, it’s the European Union. What do you expect?” We should say it is not right. People’s money is involved—that is particularly an issue for substantial net contributors, of which we are one. We should not accept fraud or corruption, especially when, as I suspect, it happens in particular countries, and is less likely to happen in the United Kingdom and some of the better regulated countries. Perhaps I am claiming too much, but I suspect that certain countries and budgets in particular are involved.

I remember, going back years, a report of a beef subsidy being paid to a resident of a tower block in Turin. I suspect that there were not too many beef cattle in his tower block flat. I hope that these more extreme cases have been dealt with; nevertheless, there are clearly still things taking place that should not be. I hope that the British Government will take issue with the European Union over the matter in the strongest terms, once again. As the International Development Minister said, this sitting may well be the last of its kind. Who knows? I would certainly vote for that—not, I may say, with all my Opposition colleagues. Some of us, however, do take that sensible view, as I would describe it.

The level of corruption is ridiculous. Because of my concern, I made a serious suggestion in previous Parliaments that I want to repeat now. Let us consider, setting aside aid that goes to countries outside the European Union, fiscal transfers between members of the European Union. They could be made to member states’ Governments, so that there would be a net contribution to the budget of Latvia, for example. I know that there is a substantial net contribution to Latvia, and that a high proportion of its gross domestic product comes from European Union transfers.

If the transfers were done on the basis of GDP per head, so that those with the lowest level of GDP per head received the most net transfers, and those with the highest made the biggest contributions, but it was done to and through Governments, I think we would overcome much of the problem. The Governments of those member states would have the job of sorting out how the money would be spent—whether they would subsidise agriculture or industry, or simply reduce taxes. Whatever they did, it would be their choice, and they would do it democratically through their own Governments.

That would be seen as fair because rich countries would be contributing assistance to poorer countries on a proportional basis.

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend raises the intriguing prospect of a European Union Barnett formula, such as we already have, of course, in the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may take him back a bit, to his reference to fraud of more than 4%, and contrast that with what I understood from the Minister. Perhaps this is a comparison between apples and oranges, but the Financial Secretary mentioned 0.02%. There is a big discrepancy between those two figures. From where did my hon. Friend get his figure—or are we talking about two different measurements?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I took my figure of 4.4% from the Minister at the beginning, but I notice that the table on page 37—or 21; there are two figures—suggests that the actual amount involved is €500 million, as opposed to 4.4% of the budget, which would be much more. Nevertheless, substantial fraud is still going on, and substantial sums of money are still going missing inappropriately and sometimes corruptly, so we ought to take it seriously.

My suggestion for simplification is that even if we stay in the European Union, the budget should be allocated simply on a proportionate basis according to GDP per head, so that the fiscal transfers are from rich to poor and the countries themselves decide democratically how they allocate that budget. We would have the same privilege as well if we were in that position. If they want to subsidise their agriculture, they can; if they do not, they should not.

I was in Lithuania a couple of years ago with the European Scrutiny Committee. Lithuania used to be self-sufficient in food, but it is now being paid not to grow food, so thousands of acres in Lithuania are left fallow because the European Union does not want it producing too much food. That is nonsense. Lithuania ought to be able to decide for itself what it spends its income on. If it wants to stay self-sufficient in food, that is a sensible thing to do.

As I said, I put this particular suggestion in more than one previous Parliament, and the response—not to me personally, but in European documentation—suggested that people did not like it. The reason was clearly that it would weaken the glue holding the EU together, because there would be no European common agricultural policy—or fisheries policy; it would be very sensible to get rid of that. Instead, each country would get a fiscal transfer, or pay out a fiscal transfer, and expenditure would be decided democratically within member states.

That would make the European Union a very different place. If we must have a European Union with large fiscal transfers, it would be a much more sensible way to do it, and we would avoid all the problems with fraud. If there is fraud within countries, it would be their problem to sort it out. If they did not sort out their own fraud, it would in a sense be their problem, and it would be the problem of the democratic electors of those countries to ensure that their Governments did the right thing. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I think it is ridiculous that we have a vast amount of fraud every year, year after year.

I have one final question to the Minister. There is a table on page 129 showing the evolution of budgets and payments from 2010 to 2014. Interestingly, in the last four years, the payments made have been larger than the final voted budget in each case. The last time the payment was less was in 2010. Also, the amount spent on the budget increased substantially between 2010 and 2013, by 21% over those three years, which is way beyond inflation. Last year, because there was such pressure and such concern, it decreased, but payments made were still higher than the final voted budget.

Even over those four years, there is still a 17% increase in budget expenditure, at a time when we are supposed to be more concerned about reducing spending in the European Union. Can the Minister comment on that? He might be able to explain it simply to me as a problem that is not serious, but it looks serious in the table, given the calculations that I have suggested.