Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

Everyone in the House will have been horrified and sickened by those edits on Wikipedia. I have been in close, daily contact with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has a highly deserved reputation as a campaigner for the Hillsborough families, and the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Hillsborough disaster. We are undertaking a rapid investigation, which is being led by my excellent permanent secretary, Richard Heaton. The first stage is to establish the facts as best we can and we will then deal with the matter. If this horrible issue is prolonged and there is no closure, it will be very unsatisfactory and distressing for the families, particularly at this time, when the events are fresh in their minds.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

12. Some 239 civil service jobs that have been outsourced to Shared Services Connected Ltd are being lost in my constituency. The people who may lose their jobs were presented with a new staff structure just a week ago, were given only until today to decide on voluntary redundancy and are not being given proper opportunities for redeployment. Will the Minister press SSCL, which is part-owned by the Government, to extend the voluntary redundancy deadline, and will he ensure that all Departments offer opportunities for redeployment?

[Mr Maude]

I shall certainly look at the last point that the hon. Gentleman made. Nobody takes any pleasure in job losses. We have had to lose jobs in the public sector. The civil service is 17% smaller than in 2010 because, sadly, we inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. We have to make economies and do things better. I hope that the new venture, SSCL, will emerge as a vibrant business in the private sector that can win more business and thereby create more jobs. However, it does need to restructure to begin with.

Shared Services Connected Ltd

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Owen.

I sought this debate on behalf of 239 Department for Work and Pensions staff at the Kings Court offices in the heart of my constituency, although the issue affects civil service staff more broadly.

I begin by citing the Prime Minister. Back in January, speaking at the World Economic Forum at Davos, he said that Britain had the potential to become the “reshore nation”. Talking about UK jobs lost abroad, through offshoring, he said,

“there is now an opportunity for the reverse…an opportunity for some of those jobs to come back.”

Should not the Government be taking a lead on this, setting the example through its own employment policies? Last week I received a letter from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General all but confirming that the work lost in my constituency was to be offshored to India, as I understand it.

Let me explain the background. Shared services are those parts of individual civil service departments, arm’s length bodies and agencies that provide corporate services for IT, human resources management, pay and payroll, procurement and finance to deliver their business outputs. In December 2012, the Cabinet Office set out its next generation shared services strategic plan to create five shared service centres. Two independent shared services centres, ISSC1 and ISSC2, would be formed for a number of departments and arm’s length bodies. The three remaining were to be stand-alone centres, based on the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

The first of these independent shared service centres, ISSC1, based on the Department for Transport in Swansea, was outsourced to German multinational Arvato in June 2013. The Public and Commercial Services Union, representing the majority of staff, engaged positively in the transfer process to secure the best possible outcome. The consultation led to agreements, including one on no compulsory redundancy for at least a year and an agreement that staff would retain their civil service status.

ISSC2, which affects Sheffield, was to consist initially of the shared services functions of the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. This was turned into a joint venture company called Shared Services Connected Ltd, in which the Government retained 25% of the shares, with the French multinational Steria’s UK subsidiary owning and controlling 75%. The creation of SSCL involved civil service shared services sites in York, Alnwick, Cardiff, Blackpool and Newcastle, as well as the one in my constituency in Sheffield. SSCL became live in November 2013 and 1,000 civil servants were privatised and TUPE-ed over.

The PCS secured agreements with the Government on this process, including a six-month no compulsory redundancy agreement and a one-year guarantee of no site closures. However, on 4 March 2014, SSCL announced 500 job cuts, office closures and the offshoring of work, quite cynically timed to the minute the one-year guarantee against site closures ran out.

As well as the closure in Sheffield, by October 2014, the DWP office in Cardiff will close, with a loss of 105 staff, and the Environment Agency office in Leeds will close, with a loss of 68 staff.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend understand the anxiety felt by staff at the Newport MOJ shared services centre—the situation is similar to the one in Sheffield that he is explaining—who understood that that was to be a stand-alone site, although it is now being considered for outsourcing to Arvato or Steria?

[Paul Blomfield]

I can indeed, and I will come to that issue. Closer to Newport than Sheffield, I met some staff from Cardiff last week. Like the staff in Sheffield, these are loyal civil servants who have contributed years of public service and, frankly, they feel betrayed by the decision and by the way that the decisions are being executed.

As well as job losses in Sheffield and Cardiff, 122 staff will go in SSCL offices in Blackpool, Newcastle, Peterborough and York. The DEFRA site in Alnwick has a temporary reprieve, but only until June 2015. The Government have not conducted economic impact assessments of the closure of these offices, although the loss of jobs will have a significant impact on local communities and economies. Indeed, in June 2013, Lynn Phillips, head of service improvement for DEFRA, wrote to the then Minister, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), highlighting the plan’s

“incompatibility with UK growth objectives”

because of the

“loss of jobs in regional locations”.

Will the Minister assure us and say that the Government will conduct an economic impact assessment and, if so, when that is likely to happen?

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Specifically, on the DEFRA issue, does not my hon. Friend think that the fact that the Secretary of State raised concerns and asked for a standstill period shows how serious this offshoring is and that it will lead to dire consequences?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right. I am coming to that point. Clearly, this issue has led to concerns being raised, even at Cabinet level. Yet, extraordinarily, the offshoring is being rushed through.

The speed at which SSCL intends to cut the 500 jobs is unprecedented. It aims to have all redundancies dealt with by the end of October. This does not allow enough time for staff to be re-employed or reinstated back into the civil service and means that compulsory redundancies are likely. Indeed, staff in Sheffield and in Cardiff, whom I met last week, told me that the redeployment opportunities have been limited, because there is no joined-up approach across Government. I find it extraordinary that most other Departments are not offering vacancies to those loyal civil servants who are losing their jobs. Do the Government think that this is the right way to treat any staff, particularly those who have given decades of public service? It sets a bad standard for employers throughout the country. I should like the Minister to reassure us on this issue. Will the Government commit to providing redeployment opportunities across all Departments? That would provide a lifeline for at least some staff. The limited opportunities that have been made available to date are inaccessible to many of those in Sheffield, and those at other sites, too.

SSCL is not acting in accordance with the special commitments given to staff before transfer, which stated that transformation would take place over two years and that everything would be done to avoid compulsory redundancies. The Government have a 25% stake in SSCL. At the very least, should they not use that position to challenge the speed of job cuts, to allow a thorough, ongoing programme of redeployment of staff? I should like the Minister to respond to that question.

There is also the issue of the data being handled. These sites handle the personal data of tens of thousands of civil servants. They also deal with commercially sensitive information relating to Government contracts and tendering. Despite the sensitivity of the data, when the Cabinet Office advertised for bidders to become majority partners in SSCL in April 2013, the selected bidders all had a significant element of offshoring functions as part of their bid.

Concerns about offshoring are not restricted to Opposition Members or their staff; they have, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) pointed out, been expressed at Cabinet level. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office last July, expressing concerns about DEFRA joining ISSC2 and a “possible staff exodus”. The Secretary of State asked specifically for a standstill period on “estates and off-shoring” and expressed concerns about data security. The head of service improvement for DEFRA wrote in her letter to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the DEFRA executive committee considered

“significant (or any) element of off-shoring”

to be unacceptable and that there was a

“significantly increased risk to service continuity from loss of current expertise”

on transfer. She also raised concerns about

“employee and detailed financial data transmitted, stored and processed outside the UK”.

Why are the Government sanctioning the offshoring of sensitive personal data and commercially sensitive information, on which objections have been raised at the highest level of the civil service and by members of the Cabinet?

[Jessica Morden]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is breathtaking hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to have been talking just weeks ago about Britain becoming the reshoring nation while the Cabinet Office pursues contracts that are explicitly relaxed about offshoring jobs, such as those at the shared services centre in Newport?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and again anticipates a point I will make. Before I do, I make one point about the remaining three shared service centres. Originally, they were to stand alone, but I understand that the strategic plan has been fundamentally revised. Peter Swann, who heads the Crown oversight function of the shared services agenda, has confirmed that the Ministry of Justice is considering transferring its shared services to one of the outsourced ISSCs instead.

I understand the concerns of the staff involved. If the MOJ was to join one of the already outsourced ISSC contracts, the sensitive data the staff handle, including criminal records and details of the police, the judiciary and security service personnel, could also be privatised and offshored. Why has the strategic plan been changed?

Finally, taking on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), I return to my opening point. What makes the cuts so much harder for the staff to swallow is that so much of the work for the three sites under threat of closure has been earmarked for offshoring. Indeed, the PCS told me that SSCL has explicitly said that a determining factor in deciding which sites are to close is the potential for the work to be offshored. Offshoring is the driver for decisions on closure and job losses.

As my hon. Friend said, how does that fit in with the Prime Minister’s assertion at the World Economic Forum that he wants the UK to become “the reshoring nation”? At Davos, he underlined that ambition by announcing the establishment of a new body, Reshore UK, which will sit within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Prime Minister clearly places great weight on that body in developing his reshoring strategy. Will the Minister commit to arranging for Reshore UK to meet with SSCL and the Cabinet Office with the aim of considering how the jobs they plan to offshore can stay in the UK? If not, does he accept that the Prime Minister’s statement at Davos will be seen as nothing more than empty words?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I was putting the debate into a wider context, which I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield Central would welcome, of vibrant job generation in this country. It does not just matter for statistics; it offers hope and security for people across the country. When the Prime Minister talks about jobs coming back, he means it. The issue is about restoring the means by which this country can secure its long-term future and competitiveness. The fact that that was entirely absent from the debate is regrettable.

[Paul Blomfield]

On that specific point, will the Minister note the regional imbalance in the creation of private sector jobs? He might have seen the report two or three weeks ago from the Centre for Cities, which pointed out that so many of the jobs being created are in London and the south-east, sucked away from the rest of the country. I think it said that there have been 217,000 new private sector jobs in London, with a net decline in private sector jobs of 7,500 in my city of Sheffield. The Government have a particular responsibility to address that regional imbalance and not take more jobs away.

[Mr Hurd]

That is a fair point, which the Chancellor has addressed directly by saying, “Yes, there is some very good news on job creation, but we still face a stubborn underlying challenge on the imbalance in the economy.” That is a fact, reality and challenge that the Government are addressing.

It would nice if we heard some voices from the Opposition Benches that recognised that these problems have been entrenched for a long time and were substantially not addressed by the previous Administration. I am trying to make the point that the broader context is one where the country is beginning to generate jobs again after some difficult years. Part of the reason why we have been able to create jobs is that at the core of the long-term economic plan is a plan to pay down the deficit. It would be nice to have a reality check on the Opposition Benches: that is the environment in which this Government have to work and in which the next Government will have to work, whatever their political colour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am trying to stress to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) that the bigger context is job creation throughout the country, which I hope she welcomes and is evidenced in her constituency as well. She makes a valid point about offshoring, to which I will return, because it was at the core of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central.

My point was that we are in the place where we are in terms of vibrant job creation around the country partly because of the confidence in the business community that there is a plan for economic recovery and that, at the heart of the plan, is a determination to get on top of the public finances. Simply put, that will be the reality for whoever is in power after the next general election, which is acknowledged by the people at the top of the Labour party. The Government therefore have to get serious about where they find savings and efficiencies. For a long time now, including under the previous Government, as highlighted in 2004 by the Gershon review, there has been consistent advocacy for the need and opportunity to consolidate back-office functions throughout government. The belief is that we can deliver between £400 million and £600 million per annum in savings for the taxpayer in such a process, while freeing the civil service to concentrate on its core role of delivering exceptional public services.

Significant public gain is to be had through the pursuit of efficiency, which the previous Administration did not pursue rigorously, despite the words. If any evidence were needed, the Efficiency and Reform Group in the Cabinet Office last year was able to realise £10 billion in savings to the taxpayer through our process. That is £10 billion that does not have to come in cuts to front-line services. It tells us a lot about the attitude of the previous Government to efficiency in the public finances.

[Paul Blomfield]

Does the Minister acknowledge that that is stretching the definition of efficiency a little? We are simply talking about taking jobs done in proper working conditions by loyal civil servants in the UK and putting them into a cheap labour market in India. That is not efficiency; that is exploiting the labour force.

[Mr Hurd]

I would like to see some recognition that it is not in the interests of the British taxpayer for there to be duplication or inefficiency in how services are delivered. For some time, and under the previous Administration, there has been widespread acceptance of the opportunity to share services such as HR, procurement, finance and payroll functions, and of the need to consolidate where those services are shared, given the number of centres that were in place. Obviously, in that process there is an ability to deliver efficiency, cost-effectiveness and, I hope, a better service.

There is no dispute about the opportunity—as I said, the debate has been going on for a long time—but the question is whether anyone is prepared to do something about it, and we are. We are delighted that the National Audit Office recognises our progress and, in a report of 31 March, considers that the programme is

“on track with the first shared service centre being outsourced by its target date of March 2013 and the second having a joint venture partner in place before its target date of March 2014.”

It also found

“no major issues with the services offered by”

either of the two independent shared service centres.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the second of the two centres was created in November 2013, when the Government signed an agreement with a private sector partner, Steria Ltd, to create a joint venture to deliver back-office services to 13 Government customers. The resulting company, known as Shared Services Connected Ltd, was formed from a consolidation of some existing shared service centres including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. In addition, in-scope services delivered by UK Shared Business Services Ltd are expected to move across by 2015.

It is important to keep in mind that the model is not a conventional outsourcing one. As the contracts are constructed, the bigger the volume, the lower the unit price goes, so it is in everyone’s interest, whether Government, private sector partners or employees, for the centres to win additional business from other Departments and from the private sector in the UK and overseas. If business grows, and there is an opportunity to grow the business and to recruit more jobs into it, public services can be delivered at lower cost. The taxpayer will share in the upside.

In order to develop SSCL as a world-class services organisation, it formally entered a transformation phase on 31 March 2014, which involves IT harmonisation, offshoring and the adoption of a centre of excellence model, which is considered good practice across the shared services sector. We believe that that will reduce costs, increase efficiency and deliver a consistent performance and an improved customer experience.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the centre of excellence consultation process commenced during March, and following discussions with employees, clients and trade unions, four of the existing eight core sites were selected as centres of excellence. Those are York, Peterborough, Blackpool and Newcastle. Initial proposals were to close the other five sites. However, after consultation and due diligence with clients and employees that was reduced to three—Sheffield, Cardiff and Leeds. Alnwick will remain open, although not as a centre of excellence. The sites selected as centres of excellence were the ones considered most likely to be able to serve existing customers, while also ensuring the sustainable future growth necessary to provide value for money to the taxpayer.

The core of the hon. Gentleman’s concern was exit and re-employment. I listened with concern to some of the points he made, and I undertake to write to those involved to make his concerns clear and seek assurances about the way in which some tough decisions on redundancy are being implemented. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with my view on the quality of the information I get back.

We believe that SSCL has approached the centre of excellence strategy with some sensitivity to the impact that it will have across the business, sharing plans with employees at the earliest opportunity, undertaking roadshows to explain the implications directly, and briefing employees on the proposals for site closures and the associated consultation process. At the same time, SSCL launched a voluntary exit programme for affected employees. The window for expressions of interest closed on 24 March.

As part of the negotiations associated with the ISSC2 deal, the Cabinet Office and Steria agreed a re-employment protocol with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for those staff members who transferred to SSCL under TUPE arrangements from DWP and DEFRA. That was put in place to try to mitigate the impact of key redundancies associated with the move to the new target operating model. Although that was not mandatory, both parties felt it was important to try to support the staff with continued employment.

The Cabinet is also proactively negotiating re- employment protocols with further Departments and agencies, including the Department for Education and the Office for National Statistics, where there are suitable roles locally. We are confident that we are doing all that we can to support SSCL staff with re-employment, within the confines of TUPE law and Government policy. If I may, I should like to send the hon. Gentleman a follow-up letter with more detail about those processes, to put some assurances behind those words.

The next stage of the SSCL transformation programme is to establish the four centres of excellence. The Alnwick office, previously a DEFRA site, will not be a centre of excellence, but will remain open until June 2015. SSCL hopes to move some NHS shared business services actively to Alnwick, to retain it beyond 2015.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for his assurances about letters and initiatives. Will the Cabinet Office extend the intentions he outlined across all Departments, and move quickly? There is a limited window, before people lose their jobs, to ensure that there are proper redeployment opportunities across government.

[Mr Hurd]

We are certainly negotiating re-employment protocols with other Departments and agencies, including DFE and ONS, but perhaps I may clarify the detail in the letter I shall be sending. As the hon. Gentleman said, we all know that any job loss is a personal tragedy for the individual concerned and their family. We want to minimise insecurity connected with that. The process is clearly difficult, and we are as confident as we can be that it is being handled with appropriate sensitivity. However, if the Members of Parliament for the affected constituencies have substantial evidence that that is not the case, we want to know. We will follow up such evidence, because we understand the sensitivities and want to test the assurances we are given.

In this context there is no black and white world; offshoring has been a feature of many successful Government contracts signed during this and the previous Administration, including a joint venture involving NHS shared business services, which created jobs and expanded the number of its offices from two to 13 in the past 10 years. Offshoring is not in itself an absolutely bad thing. I shall certainly contact Reshore UK to make it aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. It is unacceptable for any patient to be transferred such a long distance to receive proper care in the mental health system. As he will know, and as I announced in January in respect of our action plan on mental health, we are the first Government to put mental health and physical health on the same footing in the mandate for the NHS. It is now up to clinical commissioning groups and other commissioners within the devolved structures in the NHS to reflect that parity of emphasis on mental health and physical health in their commissioning decisions. Until that happens, I worry that some patients will fall between the gaps. That is why I am keen that commissioners should act on the mandate that we have given them.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T4. The Deputy Prime Minister actively campaigned on the campuses of both the universities in my constituency on his solemn pledge to oppose any increase in tuition fees. He has apologised for making that pledge. Now that the system is transparently broken, will he realise that his real mistake was to break it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The system of the hon. Gentleman’s party meant that thousands of part-time students paid up-front fees. We ended those. His party’s system meant that people paid more out of their bank accounts every week and every month repaying Labour fees than they are paying under the current system. Under his party’s system, a smaller proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds went to university. Instead of constantly denigrating the fact that under this Government more youngsters are going to university than ever before, he should be celebrating it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Director of Public Prosecutions is taking to improve the timeliness with which charging decisions are reached in cases of rape.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

8. What steps the Director of Public Prosecutions is taking to improve the timeliness with which charging decisions are reached in cases of rape.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The Crown Prosecution Service’s new rape and serious sexual offences units now advise police in all areas at the start of rape investigations. Rape charging decisions require meticulous attention and can include complex evidence. They are monitored by the Director of Public Prosecutions in all areas at six-monthly intervals, and recent improvements have resulted in the highest ever levels of rape convictions.

[The Solicitor-General]

It is important to charge as soon as possible, particularly when vulnerable witnesses are involved, and there is a protocol to that effect between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. However, it is also important for the CPS to be able to take on more cases that are referred to it by the police than has previously been the case, and to take on more complex cases involving more vulnerable victims. It is doing that now, and the result is an improved conviction rate. While timeliness is important, it is also vital for there to be that careful attention to detail which results in a successful outcome.

[Paul Blomfield]

What assessment has the Solicitor-General made of the impact on CPS charging times of the loss of a quarter of CPS solicitors and the closure of 40 operational offices since 2010?

[The Solicitor-General]

It has had no impact whatever, because there has been a clear prioritisation of cases of this kind—involving specialist rape prosecutors—and, indeed, of child abuse cases. Cuts would certainly never affect performance, and the overall statistics show that they are not doing so

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely back what my hon. Friend has said. It is excellent news that a royal prerogative mercy, which is very rarely granted, has been granted in this very special case. I would be delighted to visit his constituency to go to Bletchley Park. One of my wife’s family worked there during the war and speaks incredibly highly of Alan Turing and what he was like to work with. Historians can argue about the degree, but there is no doubt that the work done in my hon. Friend’s constituency was vital to winning the war.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q11. Before Christmas, I was contacted by a seriously ill constituent who is waiting for a kidney transplant. He needs five-hour dialysis sessions three times a week, yet in the Prime Minister’s Britain he has been told by the jobcentre that he is fit for work. On Monday, the Chancellor promised to take £12 billion more from the welfare budget. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no further cuts to benefits for the sick and disabled?

[The Prime Minister]

First, on the specific issue of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, if he wants to write to me about the individual case, I would be happy to look at that. In terms of making sure that dialysis machines are available and the expertise is available, we are putting more money into the NHS, even though the advice from the Labour party was to cut. The reason we have been able to put more money into the health service is because we have taken tough and difficult decisions about welfare. It is because we have put a cap on the amount of money a family can get that we have been able to invest in our health service; because we have put a cap on housing benefit—not giving £60,000 or £70,000 to some families—we have invested in our health service. We want to see more dignity, more security and more stability in the lives of Britain’s families, and we are making choices consistent with that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

1. What measures are in place to prevent a fall in the number of people registered to vote after the introduction of individual voter registration.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

4. What measures are in place to prevent a fall in the number of people registered to vote after the introduction of individual voter registration.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to colleagues.

There are three ways in which the Government are ensuring that the electoral register under individual registration is complete and accurate: first, using data matching so that the majority of voters are automatically registered; secondly, phasing in the transition over two years so that people who are not individually registered can nevertheless vote in the 2015 general election; and, thirdly, providing additional resources above what is usually spent at a national and local level to fund activities to boost the completeness and accuracy of the register.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One of the features of the transition that we are putting in place is to use Government databases automatically to register those whose details are held. In the test of this, well over three quarters were automatically registered; in fact, in his constituency the figure was 84%. We are continuing to make use of those sources.

[Paul Blomfield]

Ministers will recognise the particular challenge of encouraging young people to engage in the electoral process, so what consideration has been given to having polling stations in sixth-form colleges, further education colleges and universities to encourage 18-year-olds to vote?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, it is in all our interests to ensure that as many young people register as possible, especially in student cities such as his. It is for local authorities to determine polling places, as he knows, but I will take away his suggestion and raise it with the relevant authorities.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak today as one of the thousands whom my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described as having been involved, month after month, year after year, when the Anti-Apartheid Movement was unpopular, in raising the demands of Mandela and of the African National Congress. We had no personal connection with South Africa but were drawn into the movement by the horror of apartheid, by the courage of those who stood against it, and by recognising the complicity of our own country in the apartheid regime’s longer-than-fitting survival. I was privileged to be involved for 25 years, for 16 of them as part of the elected national leadership of the movement, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley).

In 1976, shortly after the Soweto uprising, the ANC asked me to go to South Africa because at that time I was co-ordinating the student campaign in the UK against apartheid. The ANC wanted me to meet those involved in the uprising to explore how we could work together to build international solidarity. I travelled widely throughout the country until I was forced to leave having drawn the attention of the South African security forces. Among many powerful memories, I recall staying illegally in an Indian district in Cape Town in a house with a distant view of Robben Island. The woman whose house it was, who was not herself involved in politics, was probably puzzled by my presence there, having done a favour for a friend in putting me up. I probably did not recognise the risk that I was putting her at by being there illegally. We were talking one morning in her kitchen, and she pointed across to Robben Island and said, “When you go back to your country, tell your Government that that’s where our leaders are—not in Pretoria.” Sadly, it took many more years before this country did recognise that that is where the leaders were and did recognise the extraordinary leadership of Nelson Mandela.

In acknowledging that leadership today, we should also remember those who stood alongside Nelson Mandela who are also no longer with us: Walter Sisulu, who recruited him to the ANC, and Walter’s exceptional wife, Albertina, who, four decades later, nominated Mandela as the first President of a free, non-racial South Africa; Mandela’s colleague in the law practice in South Africa and subsequently the person who flew the flag of the ANC in exile for so long and so well, Oliver Tambo; and those already mentioned who built the Anti-Apartheid Movement around the world and in the UK, particularly Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, who, as president, led it so wonderfully for so many years, and Mike Terry, who, as executive secretary over the longest and most critical part of its existence, provided strategic leadership and a sense of direction that made it into the organisation that it was in this country.

I am proud that my city of Sheffield played its part in that movement. Hundreds were involved in the campaign against apartheid and thousands more took up the call by refusing to buy South African goods, changing their bank accounts, challenging the trade missions that went from the city, and standing outside our theatres and other big venues when those who breached the cultural boycott of South Africa performed there.

Our city council led a network of local authorities against apartheid. One of our universities divested itself of shares in companies operating in South Africa and another named one of its major buildings after Mandela. Our churches took up the cause and our trade unions pressed the boycott of South Africa in the workplace. All were inspired by Mandela, the ANC and the values of the freedom charter agreed at the Congress of the People in Kliptown in 1955.

It is important that when we reflect, we learn the real lessons. A lot has been said today about reconciliation and rightly so. Reconciliation is built on forgiving, but not on forgetting. The starting point for the reconciliation process that Mandela put in place in South Africa was to confront the truth of those who had been involved in the apartheid regime’s oppression. Around the world, many of those who have been quick to praise Mandela now should recognise, with humility, that they were as quick to condemn him in the past.

The eulogies of the past few days have glossed over the reality of the struggle. The story has been told almost as if white South Africa had, in time, come to their senses, realised that they had got it wrong with apartheid and thought it was about time they released Mandela and negotiated a peaceful settlement. Actually, however, the Prime Minister was right to say in his opening remarks that justice in South Africa was not handed down; it was hard-fought for. The truth is that freedom was not, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) suggested, benevolently gifted to Mandela and the ANC by the regime. They fought for it and they won it in a victory over the apartheid state. They were opposed at every step of the way—brutally—by the regime and were too often let down by western Governments who put their economic interests first, blocked sanctions, applied the veto at the UN Security Council time after time during the ’80s and condemned Mandela as a terrorist.

It was only after years of civil resistance, often at appalling personal cost to the people of South Africa, that that resistance had made South Africa ungovernable. It was only when, despite the opposition from Governments including ours in the ’80s, sanctions had made South Africa more isolated internationally that the regime recognised it had no future. It was driven to the negotiating table by the uncompromising campaign led by Nelson Mandela and the ANC, and in the negotiations before and after his release he made no concessions.

Compassion, forgiveness and generosity were the characteristics of Mandela’s post-apartheid nation building, but it was his political vision, judgment and uncompromising determination that created the opportunity to build a new nation. Of course, Mandela could, as others have said, have led a revolution that simply turned the tables. As many have pointed out, he did not. Instead of revenge, he sought reconciliation. To honour his life, we should be learning from his values, seeking to build understanding and respect between communities, challenging at every opportunity the politics of hatred and division, committing ourselves to the cause of equality and justice, applying those values in our debates on domestic policy—on immigration and on human rights and when we consider our role in the world—and not making the mistake again of being on the wrong side of justice.

Standing up for those values, even when it is uncomfortable or when it is inconvenient, would be the measure of our tribute to Mandela.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for constitutional affairs and city deals, met leaders from the council and those sponsoring the city deal just last week. As my hon. Friend will know, we are very enthusiastic about city deals generally. They are a very significant step in the further decentralisation of powers away from Whitehall to our communities. We very much hope to make progress on the Cambridge city deal and, indeed, on others as soon as we can.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T3. The Deputy Prime Minister will know the anger within the voluntary community and faith sector in the city that we both represent, and indeed across the whole country, about his enthusiastic support for the gagging provisions of the lobbying Bill that will do so much to undermine political accountability and transparency. He has been generously provided by 38 Degrees with a platform in the heart of his constituency on Friday to justify his position. Will he take it up on the offer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

1. What his policy is on third party campaign expenditure.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

Before turning to the question, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) for her excellent work in the past year on political and constitutional reform. I welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who will bring unique zeal to decentralisation in particular, which he has championed within Government. I also welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench.

It is of course good that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in, whether inside or outside a traditional political party. However, it is also important that the integrity of democratic political campaigning is maintained. Campaigning by third parties at general elections should therefore be made more transparent and accountable.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has, like many hon. Members, been contacted by hundreds of people from the voluntary, charity and community sectors who are vehemently opposed to the gagging provisions in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has assiduously cultivated those groups in the past, and frankly, they feel betrayed. Will he explain to them why he has led the Liberal Democrats in support of this assault on grass-roots politics? Better still, will he recognise, even at this late stage, that he has got this badly wrong and join us in opposing the Bill?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My view is that if we did nothing about the increasing trend of big money in British politics, which seeks to influence the outcome of political contests through groups that are not political parties, those very same groups would campaign after the next general election, saying that we should do something about that trend. At the general election, non-party political funds doubled to £3 million. We have seen what happens when that gets out of control. Just look across the Atlantic at the United States: super-PACs—political action committees; the increasing polarisation of politics; and people outside the democratic political process, non-political parties, trying to influence the outcome of elections. We will maintain the rules, as they have existed since 2000, on whether groups are regulated as third party campaign groups. All we are saying is that non-party political parties that want to act like a political party should be asked to fill in the same paperwork as a political party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about air quality. We have seen real improvements in recent years, and that makes a genuine difference to public health. Important discussions are ongoing in the European Union at the moment, particularly about car emissions, and I will perhaps write to him about our conclusions on those issues.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q3. The Government have diverted EU regeneration funds intended for South Yorkshire to benefit wealthier parts of the UK. The chair of Sheffield City Region local enterprise partnership has said that the arguments of local business have been ignored, and that the decision will have a hugely negative impact on jobs and growth. Why has the Prime Minister ignored local business leaders, and how can he justify allocating 34% more per head to Cheshire than to South Yorkshire? Do not this Government always have the wrong priorities and stand up for the wrong people?

[The Prime Minister]

We have done a very fair assessment not only between the regions of the United Kingdom, but between the nations of the United Kingdom about how to distribute this money. We have distributed it in a fair way. If we look at Yorkshire and the Humber, we see employment up by 11,000 this quarter and 86,000 since the election, but as the hon. Gentleman is a member of Unite, it is not surprising that he does not mention that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I urge my hon. Friend to look very closely at those regulations, because he will find that they are absolutely in line with the principles that the last Government put in place, and withdrawing them would actually lead to more competition in the NHS, rather than managed competition, managed by Monitor. I therefore think what my hon. Friend wants us to do would achieve the exact opposite of what he seeks.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q6. The Energy Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Committee on Climate Change, the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change and a group of over 35 businesses, non-governmental organisations and faith groups are among those in this country who back the inclusion in the Energy Bill of a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030. Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government have failed to include such a target in the Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

We do not believe it makes sense to set a target range for 2030 in advance of setting the fifth carbon budget, which covers the period 2028 to 2032. We will be taking a power in the Energy Bill, but setting it in advance would not make sense.