UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on iNewspaper

    Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on iNewspaper

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nigel Adams, the Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2020.

    The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has today written to Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) and JPI Media Publications Limited, the current and former owners of the i newspaper, to inform them that the Secretary of State for DCMS is “minded to” issue an intervention notice. This relates to concerns the Secretary of State has that there may be public interest considerations—as set out in section 58 of Enterprise Act 2002—that are relevant to the recent acquisition of the i newspaper by DMGT and that these concerns warrant further investigation.

    A “minded to” letter has therefore been issued to the parties on one public interest ground specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002:

    (2B) The need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in newspapers in each market for newspapers in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom​

    It is important to note that the Secretary of State has not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage. In line with the statutory guidance on media mergers, the “minded to” letter invites further representations in writing from the parties and gives them until 13 January to respond. The Secretary of State plans to make her final decision, which needs to be made on a quasi-judicial basis, on whether to issue an intervention notice no later than week commencing 20 January.

    If the Secretary of State decides to issue an intervention notice, the next stage would be for Ofcom to assess and report to the Secretary of State on the public interest concerns and for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to assess and report to her on whether a relevant merger situation has been created and any impact this may have on competition. Following these reports, the Secretary of State would need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

    DCMS will keep Parliament updated on progress with this media merger case.

  • Karin Smyth – 2020 Speech on VAT Rules and Hospital Improvement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Karin Smyth, the Labour MP for Bristol South, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2020.

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I am pleased to have been granted this debate at a significant time in Parliament, following this evening’s votes. I hope to shed some light on how complicated VAT rules, which have evolved over time in the NHS, are now creating incentives for trusts to behave contrary to the Government’s objectives, in particular those relating to capital investment and the implementation of the long-term plan.

    I am pleased to see the Minister for Health here to answer the debate. My expertise in the finer aspects of taxation policy and its operation is fairly limited, and I do not believe that he is a tax expert either, but before I came to this place I spent most of my professional life as an NHS manager so I know a lot about planning and delivering health services, including new hospitals. The Minister has clear policy objectives as the Government work to implement the NHS plan, which is predicated on place-based commissioning and improved capital infrastructure. I believe that, as the Minister for Health, he has an obligation to support NHS leaders by providing greater clarity on how the rules operate. Indeed, the Office of Tax Simplification agrees with me that this is a problem, with its 2017 report recording frustration

    “about a number of cases where the VAT position was unclear…with HMRC and government tendering departments having differing interpretations.”

    It noted that

    “VAT liabilities should be clearly outlined during the tendering process for public services and contracts.”

    The Government also appear to agree, and the spring statement announced a policy paper, although it was vague on details. The announcement was for:

    “A policy paper exploring a potential reform to VAT refund rules for central government, with the aim of reducing administrative burdens and improving public sector productivity.”

    The 2019 OTS update noted that that spring statement had involved a commitment to

    “a policy paper on VAT Simplification and the public sector”.

    It is essential to raise this issue now, because as we move towards implementing the NHS Plan we all need to understand exactly how the Government will allocate the necessary funding for hospital improvements and other infrastructure projects. The potential of VAT savings will increasingly become a major consideration for trusts up and down the country. Capital investment is always to be welcomed and it is long overdue. Whether we think we will have 40 or six new hospitals, my sympathies are with the finance directors and managers in trusts who are faced with the task of maximising these investments, and managing the competing interests of recruiting and retaining staff, developing integrated local health systems and securing local public trust in their plans. It is my belief that the underlying problem here is that the priorities of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department of Health and Social Care are not in alignment.​

    The problem manifests itself in a number of ways. First, a decade of underinvestment in our health service has led to NHS trusts desperately trying to recover whatever finances might be possible. Some of the VAT rules and debates go back decades. I hope the Minister does not rise to say that the last Labour Government used rules to involve the private sector and are responsible for some of this, and I respond by saying that it all started under Margaret Thatcher’s outsourcing, and we simply do not help anyone. I hope we can be more helpful than that. That was the last comment I had back, so I am just stemming that off at the pass.

    The real explosion in this issue came from the direction of the coalition Government and the creation of contracted-out services regulations. The HMRC manual “VAT Government and Public Bodies”, from 2012, states:

    “Government departments and health authorities have been encouraged to contract out services to the private sector which would have traditionally been performed in-house”—

    over many decades.—

    “It is recognised that many of these services would be subject to VAT and where they were acquired for ‘non-business’ purposes, the non-reclaimable VAT could act as a disincentive to contracting-out.”

    That was then the policy of the Government. The manual continues:

    “It was therefore decided to compensate government departments and health authorities by a direct refund mechanism, which is provided for in section 41(3) of the VAT Act 1994. Under this provision, the Treasury issues a Direction, commonly known as the ‘Contracting Out Direction’ which lists both the government departments and health authorities that are eligible to claim refunds of VAT, and the services on which VAT can be refunded.”

    For lay people, myself included, that in essence means that under these regulations full VAT could be recovered on the cost of a managed service which provided premises that could be used for delivering healthcare. Of course, the private sector was pleased, as it meant it could now, as it saw it, compete on a level playing field with the public sector. But really we should view any tax breaks or loopholes with extreme suspicion, as they lead to reduced revenue for the Exchequer. There should always be a compelling public interest for any tax breaks or loopholes. After this direction and as austerity has bitten, more and more complex arrangements have been set up.

    Following the OTS 2017 report, I am sure many in the accounting departments across the public sector were relieved to hear last year’s spring statement, when the then Chancellor announced a consultation on VAT in the public sector. This could mean a potential reform to VAT refund rules to reduce administration and improve public sector productivity. However, concerningly, the language of the spring statement, and the background to it, appear to suggest a widening of VAT refunds for those engaged in services—that, again, is reducing the amount of VAT paid by public sector contractors back to the Treasury. I am worried that the Treasury are going to make the situation worse.

    My good colleague in the other place, Lord Hunt, followed up on the whereabouts of the review in October, when he asked for an update on the review’s progress. He was told by the Earl of Courtown to expect a policy paper for public consultation “in the coming months”. I know we have all been busy, but the world awaits and it ​would be helpful if the Minister provided the House with an update on that review, either tonight or in writing afterwards.

    The area of VAT avoidance that has attracted a great deal of attention, and that myself and many colleagues—including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—visited the Treasury to talk about last year, is the establishment of wholly owned companies in NHS trusts. Such companies can be seen up and down the country, from Northumberland to Yeovil. They vary greatly between those that try to remain part of the NHS and those that position themselves as separate corporate businesses only loosely connected to patients and the public. Most are set up to deliver a full range of facilities management services—including cleaning, catering, porters and security—and then charge the parent trust for this managed service on a private finance initiative-style unitary fee basis.

    We have heard that, to avoid charges of tax avoidance, which created a degree of media discussion, the new arrangements are supposed to be better from a service-delivery point of view. Ostensibly, they are solving problems with estates and facilities management and how staff are managed, but there is no evidence of that. In every case, almost all the benefits, some of which are considerable financial benefits for the trust, appear to come from tax changes, not service improvements. Many of the schemes have resulted in thousands of NHS staff being taken out of the NHS and transferred against their will into wholly owned subsidiaries. This increases fragmentation, and there are examples of companies falling out with their parent trust. There are also arguments about which organisation is responsible for what and who pays.

    Far worse is that in some cases the use of a separate company is used to undermine national agreements on terms and conditions. Around 50 such proposals have been progressed or are in the pipeline, and it is highly worrying that they were advanced in secret, without consultation with patients or the workforce involved. When freedom of information requests were made for access to the business cases that sought to justify the changes, trade unions and others were denied access, with claims that the information was commercial and confidential.

    Just this week, The Pharmaceutical Journal reported that 34% of trusts had outsourced their pharmacy service to a commercial firm and 16% have created wholly owned subsidiaries. The practice is now widespread. Despite that, the recent examples at the Bradford Trust and the Frimley Health Trust have been vigorously opposed, particularly by Unison, and it appears that both proposed schemes have been stopped. That is good news for thousands of low-paid staff who wish to remain NHS employees.

    Thanks to the considerable pressure put on NHS Improvement, trusts must now in effect ask for permission before they create a subsidiary company, although far from being a device to prevent the practice, the seeking of permission appears more like a scheme to embellish some badly written business cases so that the changes can go ahead with a veneer of justification. Under some pressure, that process is being reviewed.​

    Although in the short term it appears that individual trusts will gain through tax advantages offered by the wholly owned companies, other trusts will not, and it means less VAT for the Treasury. But the Treasury seems unconcerned about the lost income. The practice is not a strategic, collaborative or positive solution to the problems that trusts face, and it is not about better employment. The NHS has agreed national terms and conditions for a good reason: because overall it works. All these schemes try to undermine the national agreements and offer staff less favourable terms to save money.

    Having two-tier workforces is not a good way to progress. A few years ago, I made that point successfully in my own area of Bristol. The North Bristol NHS Trust, which was at the time under considerable financial pressure, was considering adopting a wholly owned company but, following local discussions, including with Unison, it recognised that in the local, highly competitive market for staff, at a time when the trust needed to start to collaborate on service development, it needed not to outsource. The creation of a second and third-tier workforce made no sense operationally and gave the wrong messages to staff and the public about valuing the all-important workforce across the entire Bristol health economy, so the trust did not do it.

    As I touched on in my opening remarks, the controversy over VAT and how it applies in the NHS is relevant to infrastructure investment, because the temptation for the trusts set to benefit from the new capital—I accept that there is new capital, and that is good—will be to avoid paying VAT to reduce significantly the direct ongoing costs. That is why it is so important that the Government give careful consideration to how the investment is going to be made.

    I believe the choices made by the Government on this issue will reflect how well they understand both the importance of the NHS estate itself, as part of the health ecosystem, and the direction of the long-term plan. I cannot emphasise enough—and I do think hon. Members understand this—that capital is not a technical, dry subject, but is crucial to the delivery of quality health care. It is not a burden on the system. It is time for us all to show we understand that we need a joined-up strategy and proper investment.

    The thing I kept at the forefront of my mind as an NHS manger, and do so now as a local representative, is that the health service is wholly funded by the taxpayer, and the public have a great attachment to people and place when engaging with healthcare. Buildings are so much more than a pile of bricks of which to sweat the assets, or empty vessels to lease for maximum return. Buildings really are a physical manifestation of local people’s love for and connection to their local health service. Local people are not over-concerned with how services are developed, but they do not expect their health service to behave in such a way as to constantly try to exploit tax loopholes or penalise staff.

    For 15 years or so I have been a supporter of the concept of place-based commissioning, by which I mean local collaboration across the public sector, making good use of the publicly owned estate to deliver quality health services and maximising the value of the taxpayer’s pound. Place-based commissioning has been the direction of travel for some time. It was knocked off course by ​the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but there is hope of getting it back on track once the long-term plan is in place.

    I understand that the setting up of a subsidiary might make sense in the short term for individual trusts, but it makes no sense for the wider health economy or the whole NHS. We must move from a competitive, short-term, market-driven approach at a micro level to a collaborative approach focused on overall gains. The logic of the VAT exploitation and WOCs practice is based on the old idea of trusts having autonomy, behaving like businesses and competing, but this is out of date and directly at odds with the NHS plan, which is built around place-based solutions like sustainability and transformation partnerships and integrated care schemes. On the contrary, the fundamental principle underpinning these initiatives and the Government’s own strategy is much greater collaboration across the system, which absolutely includes the use of buildings and any capital investment.

    Another example of what those running the health service are trying to grapple with is GP commissioning and the new primary care networks. One of my last jobs before coming to this place was running a GP commissioning group, so I understand how difficult it is to get practices to work together and align their businesses. Last summer the NHS published a document called “The Primary Care Network Contract DES and VAT”, referring to the way in which the health service funds these proposals. The document sought to give guidance about VAT in the new primary care networks. The author goes to some pains to set out over several pages what NHS England “expects” will be the best approach—and then comes the following caveat:

    “Although we anticipate the VAT treatment to follow the above analysis it is not straightforward. Practices should note that HM Revenue & Customs has not agreed the position described in this document and that they are the authority responsible for agreeing, administering and collecting VAT.”

    If the Government and NHS England are publishing guidance on how to set up these new organisations without really knowing how HMRC is going to treat them, how on earth can we expect people in the frontline to develop good services?

    Let me mention another issue, which is local to my constituents and which I have been working on for some time: GP employment status. For the last five years, HMRC has been reviewing the employment status of GPs who provide NHS out-of-hours services, which are now called integrated urgent care services. During this period, demand for GP services has risen and the need identified by NHS England for a substantial—that is, 5,000-plus—increase in the number of GPs has not yet been met with whole-time equivalent resourcing. Based on arrangements in place since the formation of the NHS, GPs have continued to work on a self-employed basis, and this remains the desired option for many of them. This has been the subject of some political debate over a number of years, but it is the position as people understand it.

    BrisDoc is a local GP organisation based in my constituency that provides urgent care services to the NHS. It has been faced with five years of uncertainty regarding its workforce because HMRC does not accept the legitimacy of independent GPs working on a self-employed basis, even though this correctly reflects the way services are contracted based on professional and ​legal advice. How they are funded is a separate debate, but if HMRC changed GPs’ status, it would increase the risk that GPs would not be willing to work and would increase the cost to the NHS. Both of these have a negative impact on NHS services, reducing GP capacity at a time when we need more, and costing more, which will ultimately lead to a greater cost for the Treasury.

    The priority has to be on patient safety and care, and the provider, BrisDoc, has continued to fight for this focus in order to maintain the best possible level of GP availability. However, HMRC states that its focus is simply on “employment status” and not any wider implications of any change, whereas NHS England indicates that it cannot get involved with determining employment status for GPs, who are an essential part of the NHS workforce. This leaves BrisDoc vulnerable to financial and workforce loss while doing everything possible to maintain the service. Its plea, and my plea on behalf of my constituents, is this: can the overall strategy for the GP workforce be reviewed to ensure that the key priorities and objectives are aligned with regard to any change in employment status? It is unacceptable nonsense for it to spend five years between the two Government Departments. Will the Minister be willing to meet me and BrisDoc to better understand the problem?

    I hope that I have impressed on the Minister not only the preposterous nature of this VAT problem but how critical it is that we sort this loophole out now through proper consultation with the NHS and an urgent publication of the VAT review. Finance directors in particular need the support to make decisions that align with the strategic vision of the long-term plan, not that are at odds with it. To do this, the guidance from HMRC and the policies of the Department of Health and Social Care must be joined up. If the Government are, as they have indicated, supportive of the strategic direction of the NHS plan, then this must mean supporting local health economies to flourish through the collaborative partnerships integral to STPs and integrated care systems. They simply cannot work if trusts, and other delivery partners, are in competition with each other.

    After a decade of fairly imprudent underinvestment and failing policy, we really are at a crossroads, and we need to get this right. If we can level the playing field for all trusts through proper funding, and consistent, sensible VAT rules that do not divert time and effort from the objectives of the trusts to serve their local patient population, we could have every reason to be positive about the potential of local place-based commissioning for success.

  • Heather Wheeler – 2020 Statement on Australian Bushfires

    Heather Wheeler – 2020 Statement on Australian Bushfires

    Below is the text of the statement made by Heather Wheeler, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2020.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you returned as first Deputy Chair of Ways and Means. With your permission, I will update the House on the bushfires in Australia.

    In the past four months, bushfires in Australia have killed at least 25 people and displaced thousands more, with over 1,900 homes destroyed. Millions more people have been affected by poor air quality as a result of fire smoke, with 10 million acres of land burnt. Meteorologists predict that the fires will get worse before they get better, as peak summer temperatures are yet to come. This crisis has been devastating and our hearts go out to the Australian people.

    The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth, the UN and South Asia, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have been in contact with their Australian counterparts to offer our condolences and stress our readiness to help in whatever way they need. Furthermore, our high commission and consulates general are in close contact with Australian authorities at federal and state level, exploring how the UK can support them and what assistance they would find most useful.

    The Australian Government have agreed an offer by the Foreign Secretary to deploy an expert support and assessment team of specialists from defence, health and fire. We have deployed this team to meet Australian officials, and they will be on site in the coming days. The team will include a senior member of the UK fire and rescue service, a medical specialist in trauma and mental health, and a military liaison officer. The team will work with Australian colleagues to establish the types, extent and duration of support that will be of most use to Australian emergency responders, and ensure that such contributions are fully integrated with Australian efforts. The specialists will liaise with regional co-ordinators as well as with the central Australian Government. The important point is that the help we are giving is the help we have been asked for.

    Such is the nature of our close relationship that co-operation between the UK and Australia is taking place all the time. Across the globe, UK forces are deployed alongside Australian counterparts. The recent radio interview with Lieutenant Grimmer, a Royal Navy pilot on exchange to the Royal Australian Navy who has been working on evacuation operations, demonstrates how we are already helping through our established relationships. The close ties between the UK and Australia are of course mirrored across families and friends in both countries, which makes this a very personal tragedy.

    As ever, our greatest and most immediate concern is the security of British citizens. We are grateful to the Australian authorities for the timely and professional advice they are providing to help keep British visitors to Australia safe. We also pay tribute to the heroism and professionalism of Australia’s emergency services, many of whom are volunteers, and some of whom have lost their lives as they tackle an unprecedented level of bushfire destruction. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our sympathies to the people ​of Australia, given what they are going through. The stories of valour that are coming out of Australia, which we have seen in the media and on an individual level, have been deeply moving.

    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) has pointed out on social media, fighting sustained crises is exhausting and we should support one of closest allies at this time. She has also rightly drawn attention to the impact on Australia’s unique wildlife, including koalas. The Government recognise that the environmental and agricultural impact of the bushfires is staggering. Almost half a billion animals are thought to have perished, and there are concerns that some species found only in certain areas of Australia may have been wiped out altogether. We stand ready to support Australian authorities to address the ecological damage in due course, and this is something that our support and assessment team will cover.

    Australia is one of our most valued allies, partners and friends. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the people of Australia and are ready to help in whatever way they need. The UK deployment this week reflects our measured approach, which will ensure that any assistance is appropriate and meets Australia’s specific needs, but the UK support is ongoing and long-term, reflecting the deep ties between our countries. The Australian authorities, from the Foreign Minister to Emergency Management Australia, have expressed how welcome our enduring assistance remains. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2020 Speech at Airbus New Year’s Reception

    Andrea Leadsom – 2020 Speech at Airbus New Year’s Reception

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrea Leadsom, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, at the Cinnamon Club in London on 8 January 2020.

    The Cinnamon Club is always a great venue.

    Believe it or not, this isn’t the first Indian restaurant to have caught Airbus’s passion for aviation.

    Several years ago, the story goes that a curry house in Filton spent £5,000 putting the cockpit of a Hawker jet inside the restaurant to attract Airbus staff in for dinner.

    One to try for next year’s reception, perhaps?

    The Prime Minister is sorry he can’t be here tonight – but sends his best wishes for the New Year.

    And he’ll see Guillaume (Faury, CEO Airbus) – as will I – at the Farnborough International Air Show in July – if not before.

    Now – ladies and gentlemen – as Business Secretary, there are some firms that are easy to get excited about.

    And Airbus is certainly one of them.

    From flapping planes, to flying taxis. From chasing comets, to exploring Mars. No other company is quite like yours.

    And while Airbus is undoubtedly a European company – it’s also something of a national treasure.

    For decades, the UK has had the privilege – and it is a privilege – of being one of Airbus’s 4 ‘home nations’.

    And it was great to hear Guillaume say that Airbus remains committed to the UK.

    So please rest assured that we also remain absolutely committed to Airbus – and to the industry as a whole.

    In November we increased our funding to the European Space Agency to record levels, signalling our commitment to international collaboration.

    And – of course – we will continue to support the EU’s efforts to negotiate a settlement to the current World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute.

    Both now and once we’ve left the EU.

    Yet, today, we should all be feeling optimistic.

    UK aerospace continues to go from strength to strength – with new figures showing the number of people working in the sector rose by 2,000 in 2018.

    I’d like to congratulate Guillaume – and Airbus – on another fantastic year for deliveries in 2019.

    And 2020 promises to be even better.

    A new year, a new decade, a new top team at Airbus, a newly elected government and – above all – a new sense of confidence in the future.

    To me, it feels like that moment after take-off when you hear the ‘ping’ of the ‘fasten-your-seatbelt’ signs turning off.

    We’re rising out of the clouds of Brexit uncertainty and finally have a clear view of the political horizon.

    Today, we have a real chance to build a stronger, greener United Kingdom.

    And I – for one – can’t wait to crack on with my department’s priorities:

    leading the world in tackling climate change

    solving the Grand Challenges facing our society – from healthy ageing, to developing autonomous vehicles and space technologies

    and making the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business

    As we build a better future for our country – your contribution will be crucial.

    We are immensely proud that Airbus’s flagship Research and Technology programme ‘Wing of Tomorrow’ is taking place in the UK.

    It’s a great example of government and industry working, and investing, together, in the carbon fibre wings of the future.

    A massive opportunity for Airbus – but also for the hundreds of companies in UK supply chains who help design and assemble the best wings in the world.

    So that in 1, 2 or 3 decades’ time, Airbus engineering will still be a UK icon.

    Of course, in the future, it’s not just the wings which will change – but the way planes are powered.

    Today, we’re just 8 days into a new decade of decarbonisation.

    And Airbus already have a head-start.

    Last month, they celebrated the first flight of one of their ‘Beluga’ Super Transporters with Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

    An aircraft over 50-feet high and nearly 200-feet long being powered – in part – by recycled cooking oil!

    In 2018, sustainable fuels covered just 0.1% of the industry’s needs. So there’s a massive opportunity to grow this – greening existing power sources as we develop new ones.

    On hybrid technology, Guillaume must have a certain sense of ‘déjà vu’. At the start of the last decade, when he was Peugeot’s Executive Vice-President for R&D in 2011, he helped launch the world’s first diesel-electric hybrid.

    And now, since becoming Airbus CEO, Guillaume has led a big push towards electrification – something Airbus can be proud of.

    Having legislated for net zero emissions by 2050 and with COP26 taking place in Glasgow later this year, we need companies to find solutions on decarbonising transport.

    And through the Aerospace Technology Institute, we are backing the E-Fan X hybrid demonstrator, developed by the ‘dream team’ of Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Cranfield University.

    Its first flight next year will be a huge step towards one of Airbus’s most ambitious goals: creating the technology to fly a 100-passenger aircraft based on electric and hybrid-electric technology within the 2030s timeframe.

    A breakthrough which would literally change our lives – and help create the net zero world we all want to see.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Lord Kings Norton, Cranfield University’s first Chancellor, once wrote:

    It is one thing to have an idea. It is another to have the technical … ability to give it flesh. It is still another to have the tenacity of purpose to drive through to success.

    He wrote these words about jet engine inventor Frank Whittle.

    And, today – we’re at the start of another aerospace revolution.

    Airbus undoubtedly has the ideas and ability.

    And under Guillaume’s leadership – I believe you have the ‘tenacity of purpose’ to pull it off.

    So please know that through the tests and trials, the demonstrators and development, the UK will stand firmly by your side.

    Together, I know we can succeed. Thank you.

  • Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on Bet365

    Nigel Adams – 2020 Statement on Bet365

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Adams, the Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2020.

    I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State to this urgent question.

    Recent reports on the streaming of FA cup matches by online bookmakers have rightly caused concern across the House. They relate to a media rights deal agreed by the FA with IMG in early 2017, within which IMG could sell on live footage or clips of certain FA cup matches to commercial partners. Bet365 and six other betting operators acquired those rights from IMG to use from the start of 2018-19 season.

    It is right that sporting organisations have the freedom to benefit commercially from their products and negotiate their own broadcasting deals, but football authorities also have an important responsibility to ensure that fans are protected from the risks of problem gambling. Since the deal was agreed, the FA has rightly reviewed its position on commercial relationships with gambling firms. It has ended a commercial partnership with Ladbrokes and announced that it will be reviewing its processes for tendering rights from the 2024-25 season onwards, and it is absolutely correct that it does so.

    The Secretary of State and I made our views quite clear yesterday and have done so previously on the wider responsibilities of sport and gambling sectors to their fans, their customers and our wider communities. We therefore welcome the fact that the industry has responded to public concern by introducing a whistle-to-whistle ban on TV advertising during daytime sport, and that the FA introduced a rule last year that prevents players, managers and members of staff in any capacity from deliberately taking part in audio or audio-visual advertising to actively encourage betting.

    While many people enjoy gambling as a leisure pursuit, we cannot forget that it carries a high risk of harm and can have a serious impact individuals, families and communities. All of us—Governments, gambling companies and sporting authorities—need to keep the momentum going so that we can protect vulnerable people from the risk of gambling-related harm.

    Carolyn Harris

    Problem gambling in the UK is now so endemic that it should be treated as a public health crisis. It causes untold misery to those affected and their families. Too many times, I have sat with men and women who are cursed with an addiction and who are battling mental health issues. Too many times, I have listened to the heart-wrenching grief of a partner, sibling or parent whose loved one has taken their life because the demon became too big to fight. Again and again, I have stood in this Chamber and vocalised my shock, my anger and my utter disgust at the greed and immoral behaviour of the gambling companies. It saddens me that I am having to do it yet again, yet here we are—the first urgent question of the new year.

    Three years ago, it appeared that the FA had turned a corner when it ended a £4 million-a-year sponsorship deal with Ladbrokes, distancing itself from the gambling industry—or so we assumed. However, what has come to light in recent days paints a very different picture.

    In 2017, the Football Association agreed a streaming deal through sporting rights agency IMG, which will run until 2024. That deal, thought to be worth in the region of £750 million, allows IMG to sell on live footage from cup matches to bookmakers and betting firms around the globe. Gambling companies can then stream matches on their websites and mobile apps, forcing fans to “bet to view” if they want to watch their team.

    We already know of some of the UK-based gambling companies who took part in the deal, but there are likely to be many more, both at home and across the world. I dread to think how many people will take the bait and place their first bet as a result of this deal, and how many could spiral into a dark addiction off the back of it. Just last weekend, Bet365 broadcast 32 FA cup matches online, in comparison with only two on terrestrial free-to-air television. To watch the matches on Bet365’s site, fans had to either place a bet before kick-off or open an account with a £5 deposit. Bet365 heavily promoted the matches on social media beforehand, offering tips to lure potential gamblers. Betting odds then accompanied the live footage, tempting viewers to gamble more.

    Everything about the deal is shameful, everything about it needs to be dealt with and everything about the Gambling Act 2005 needs reform. The Gambling Commission certainly needs reform. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments, but I urge the Government to do more to protect vulnerable people.

    Nigel Adams

    I congratulate the hon. Member, who I know is passionate about this issue and has campaigned very effectively in the House. The Government are also very angry about this arrangement, especially after a weekend when the FA worthily highlighted its Heads Together mental health campaign.

    I have spoken at some length to the FA since this broke. The arrangement has been in place for some time; the 2017 contract was a rollover of a deal. The Government have asked the Football Association to look at all avenues to review this element of its broadcasting agreement. This element of the broadcast arrangement is for matches that are not chosen for the FA cup online broadcast or do not kick off at 3 pm on a Saturday, and it does open up the opportunity for plenty of other games to be watched, but we have asked the FA in no uncertain terms to look at the deal and to see what opportunities there are to rescind this particular element. I will be meeting face to face with the FA next week.

  • Steve Reed – 2020 Speech on SPAC Nation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Steve Reed, the Labour MP for Croydon North, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2020.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important and alarming issue this evening, and I am grateful to colleagues who have stayed late to be present during this debate. SPAC Nation is an organisation that has been in the news recently, and I start by expressing my gratitude to Nadine White and Emma Youle at HuffPost, who carried out some extraordinary investigative journalism to bring the matter to light, to Greg McKenzie and the excellent BBC “Panorama” team for their work, and to many others working in the media and in the press.

    When I first became aware of SPAC Nation I thought, as many have done, that it was just another Church. I started to think differently when one of their leaders stood as the Conservative candidate in a Croydon council by-election. There is nothing wrong with a Church leader standing for election, of course, but it was odd to find hundreds of young members of this so-called Church shouting abuse at other parties’ canvassers, shouting obscenities at the council leader, and intimidating voters on their own doorsteps, including by videoing them. When I tweeted my concerns about this unchurch-like behaviour, I was inundated with emails and phone calls from young people and their parents, making alarming allegations about SPAC Nation. I took a full two days to phone them all back, and from that I was able to piece together what was really going on inside this organisation.

    I am convinced that SPAC Nation is a cult. It advertises events targeted mainly at young black people in poorer parts of London. It offers free food or free bowling sessions to attract young people to come along. The young leaders vet the young people who turn up and then target those who appear to be most susceptible. They befriend these particular young people and invite them to further functions and events, including dinners. One of the organisation’s leaders will start phoning them, sometimes several times a day. They are then given lifts by that individual to meetings. Then, what appears to be brainwashing starts. They are told that if their life is unsuccessful, if their family is poor, that is because they are not giving enough money to God. They call it seed: “If you give seed to God—as much as you can lay your hands on—you will become rich.” This is the message they try to pump into these young people’s heads.

    The organisation’s leaders display extraordinary wealth. They drive cars worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. They wear Rolex watches and expensive designer suits, and they live in multimillion-pound properties. All of this is way beyond the experience of the young people they are targeting. They tell these vulnerable young people that they became rich by giving seed to God and tell them that they can have the same, but first they have to give, and by any means possible.

    Some young people are encouraged to break their links with their families and move into properties rented by the organisation’s leaders. They call them “trap houses”, the term used for drug dens in the United States. A woman leader of this organisation running one of these trap houses where vulnerable young girls ​were placed has 27 convictions for serious fraud. No vulnerable child should be allowed anywhere near her. Once in these houses, the control and coercion becomes far more insidious. One young victim told me they had prayer sessions, which she described as brainwashing, for up to eight hours a day, but the emphasis was not on God or spirituality; it was on wealth and money and the need to give seed to God in order to get rich.

    Once the organisation has control of a young person’s mind, it pressures them into making fraudulent personal loan applications so that they can hand the money to the organisation’s leaders. They are pressured into setting up fake businesses so that they can apply fraudulently for business loans. The so-called pastors show the young recruits how to fill in the application forms with false information. In some cases they fill in the forms for the young person simply to sign. In at least one case, an application was made in a young person’s name without their knowledge or awareness.

    Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)

    On SPAC Nation and the financial implications of some of its dealings, my hon. Friend will be aware of the case of the late Mrs Osinlaru, who seems to have obtained a £150,000 secured loan on her house. Tragically she passed away, leaving her two young adult daughters and 13-year-old son in the house, unaware of this control over it. The house was later repossessed and a bailiff’s warrant secured, but that was stopped only because of the presence of the young 13-year-old son. That family risk losing their home and becoming homeless because of a loan they did not know about, and their mum has passed away. I have written to the Church and it has admitted that it was involved in securing, or helping to secure, that loan. Does that give my hon. Friend further cause for concern?

    Mr Reed

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another alarming case of what appears to be a form of fraud and deception perpetrated on a family who had just lost their mother. It seems to have been deliberately intended to disinherit her children.

    There are many ways in which the leaders of this organisation appear to be perpetrating fraud in order to enrich themselves. I have spoken to young people who, sickeningly, were taken to private clinics to sell their blood, with a so-called pastor pretending to be their parent in order to sign consent forms. I have spoken to young people who were coached to commit benefit fraud. I have met students—I have also spoken to their parents—who were coerced into handing over their entire student loans before being taken to banks to raise further money through personal loans, so they lost their ability to continue in education and ended up in serious debt.

    Tragically, where criminal exploitation is taking place, there is often also sexual exploitation. One young woman told me that she was just 16 when she moved into a trap house and, in her words,

    “everyone was having sex with everyone else, it was disgusting”.

    I asked her to clarify whether she meant older pastors having sex with younger girls, and she said yes.

    When that young woman complained to her pastor, she was taken to the organisation’s leader, who told her that if she complained to the police, it would rebound ​on her, because he was powerful and had friends in high places. He made that claim look real to these vulnerable young people by inviting politicians and senior police officers to his church services. He even met the Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing Street. I believe all those people thought they were engaging with a Church that helped vulnerable young people, but in reality they were being used to intimidate young victims and prevent them from speaking out.

    SPAC Nation is not an organisation that is getting young people out of crime, as it claims; it is an organisation that is criminalising young people for its own ends. It operates right across London and has already expanded into other cities, including Birmingham and Leicester.

    Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and raising what is clearly an important issue. Does he agree that what he has described is criminal activity and preying on the most vulnerable, and it is essential that the Government intervene and take action?

    Mr Reed

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. I look forward to hearing what Ministers have to say about how we can work constructively and collectively to tackle many of the problems and horrors that are associated with this organisation.

    As I was saying, SPAC Nation started in London. It seems to have spread right across the city, and it is expanding into other cities including Birmingham and Leicester. It has no fixed location—it does not have a home church—which makes it much harder for the authorities to track it. There is no home police unit keeping track of what it is doing. There is no local safeguarding board keeping track of the risks to young people. It holds its services in vast venues in many different boroughs and cities.

    I have reported to the police and safeguarding authorities every single allegation that has been made to me, but I am deeply worried that more has not been done to stop this organisation from exploiting vulnerable young people. SPAC Nation claims to have up to 1,000 young people involved right now, and every one of those young people is at risk. It appears to have up to 15 trap houses scattered across London, and every young person inside those properties is at very serious risk. A teacher in north London told me that SPAC Nation had been recruiting schoolgirls outside the school gates. A youth worker in Croydon told me that it had been recruiting outside the youth centre. SPAC Nation is targeting young people so that it can exploit them, and it is imperative that the organisation is stopped.

    I have some questions that I would like the Minister to answer this evening, if possible. Allegations about this organisation have been circulating widely in the black community and on social media for up to four years, so why has police intelligence failed to pick anything up? I was able to find out most of this information over a couple of days by speaking to people and googling on social media. If I can do that without the resources of the police, why has police intelligence failed to recognise what is happening to potentially thousands of vulnerable young kids across this city? What action can be taken immediately to stop this organisation recruiting any more vulnerable young people for abuse and exploitation in my constituency and beyond? Given what we have ​heard, and given what victims have told us, we surely cannot allow this organisation to continue targeting other young people for abuse and exploitation when we can take action to protect them.

    What help can be given to young people involved in SPAC Nation now? That includes those living in trap houses who urgently need to get out before they are further criminalised, their family relationships destroyed and their future lives ruined. And why has no help been offered to potentially thousands of young people who have managed to get away from SPAC Nation but who are left burdened with huge debts and who have been criminalised, many of them homeless and many suffering trauma and mental ill health? We cannot simply leave these young people to suffer the consequences of abuse by an exploitative organisation.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    What the hon. Gentleman has illustrated tonight is worrying to everyone who has heard it. It is hard not to be moved and to feel concerned. The magnitude and the massiveness of what he has outlined indicates that it should not be an ordinary police investigation; it probably needs a specialised unit with the resources and the manpower and womanpower to conclude the investigation and put an end to what has gone wrong. Exploitation of young people is abysmal and despicable, and it needs to be addressed.

    Mr Reed

    As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with every word he says.

    What concerns me further are the worrying echoes of the Rotherham child abuse scandal. In that case, vulnerable young girls’ allegations of serious abuse were dismissed because they came from poor or difficult backgrounds, and it is the same with SPAC Nation. I cannot help wondering, as one desperate mum told me: if this was happening to white middle-class children, would it have been ignored for so many years? Would it have been allowed to go on in this way? We need to address that question, because it is a real feeling and concern in the community. In my opinion, SPAC Nation is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a Church, because that gives it access to vulnerable young people and cover for exploiting them.

    I would like to say this to every young person who is afraid or at risk from SPAC Nation’s activities tonight. This organisation might seem powerful, but we are stronger and we are on your side. Collectively, we will not stop until every young person is safe. We will not stop until the wrongdoers inside SPAC Nation have been brought to justice. And we will not stop until this dangerous, manipulative organisation can do no more harm.

  • Hannah Bardell – 2020 Comments on Ken Maginnis

    Hannah Bardell – 2020 Comments on Ken Maginnis

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hannah Bardell, the SNP MP for Livingston, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2020.

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. Yesterday, on re-entering the building for the first time after Christmas, I witnessed one of the worst cases of abuse of security staff that I have seen in my time here. One of the Members of the other place, who I will name so as not to incriminate anybody else—Lord Ken Maginnis—had forgotten his pass, something we have all been guilty of. However, instead of taking the advice of the security staff, who as we all know are here for our security and safety, he proceeded to verbally abuse and shout at the member of staff, calling them “crooked” and saying did they not know who he was, he had been here for 46 years, and refusing to take the advice and assistance of myself, the security staff and the police who then attended.

    I have reported this incident to the authorities, but I seek your advice. The Member is not elected, so I am interested to know to whom he is accountable, and what can be done to make sure that no member of staff on the estate is ever treated in that way, or abused in the manner that I and others witnessed yesterday.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2020 Statement on August Power Disruption

    Andrea Leadsom – 2020 Statement on August Power Disruption

    Below is the text of the statement made by Andrea Leadsom, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    On Friday 9 August 2019, over 1 million customers were affected by a major power disruption that occurred across England and Wales and some parts of Scotland. The power outage was due to the loss of a mix of generation including a gas-fired power station and an offshore wind farm.

    Though the power disruption itself was relatively short-lived—all customers were restored within 45 minutes—the knock-on impacts to other services were significant. This is especially true for rail services which experienced major delays that extended into Sunday 11 August. The wider disruptions were caused by automatic safety systems under the control of individual service providers, which reacted to frequency and voltage fluctuations, or problems with their back-up power supplies.

    Given the severity of the incident, I commissioned the Energy Emergencies Executive Committee (E3C) to conduct a review to identify lessons learnt and put in place a robust action plan to improve the reliability and integrity of our power network. The committee’s final report was published on Friday 3 January. This follows the publication of its interim report on 4 October. The final report sets out 10 clear actions and these will be implemented in full, to help prevent and manage future power disruption events.

    Alongside the E3C report, Ofgem also published the conclusions of its own investigations into the incident. This set out a series of cross-industry actions for maintaining the resilience of the electricity system, as well as announcing voluntary payments totalling £10.5 million for companies involved in the power outages.

    GB power disruption: E3C lessons learnt and actions

    Following a lightning strike on an overhead transmission line, there was a near simultaneous generation loss at two transmission-connection generators; and a significant number of smaller embedded generators connected to the distribution network.

    The two transmission-connected generators experienced technical issues near-simultaneously. Both generators have acknowledged the role they played in the incident and since implemented technical fixes to ensure that their systems can withstand similar incidents in the future. The E3C will share the lessons identified with generators across the UK.​
    The loss of smaller embedded generation on the day was greater than expected. The E3C report sets out a series of actions to assess the need for improvements to the governance, monitoring and enforcement processes for large and smaller generators.

    On 9 August, the cumulative loss of generation exceeded the amount of back-up generation on hold. This triggered the first stage, a demand disconnection protection system, which is the last line of defence when the system is out of balance. This resulted in over 1 million customers being disconnected from the network.

    Given the events on 9 August, the E3C report recommends a review of how much back-up generation the electricity system operator should be required to hold. As this is funded through consumer bills, the review will include a cost benefit analysis of increasing the amount of reserves.

    Although the demand disconnection protection system worked broadly as intended, the review identified some discrepancies in its operation; therefore, the report recommends further analysis of the schemes performance in order to develop options for short and long-term improvements. This includes considering whether distribution network operators should afford particular types of customers any form of protection, especially during the early stages of an incident.

    In addition to the direct impacts of customers being disconnected from the electricity network, wider disruptions on the day were caused by the automatic safety systems owned and operated by individual service providers reacting unexpectedly to the frequency and voltage fluctuations on the electricity network; or problems with their own back-up power supplies.

    The E3C will consider what more can be done to support essential services owners and operators with advice and guidance to put in place more robust business continuity plans.

    Effective communication is a vital part of any emergency response. Unfortunately, industry communications on the day fell below the standard expected, with infrequent and disjointed updates to the general public.

    The E3C will develop and roll out new communications processes to ensure the general public receives regular updates during any future disruptions. There will also be a review of operational protocols to make sure they are fit for purpose.

    Where appropriate, the E3C and Ofgem reports contain jointly agreed actions and recommendations. The E3C will take the actions set out both reports to drive forward changes across the sector. The committee will provide quarterly updates to my Department and Ofgem.

    The UK leads the world by working to eradicate its contribution to climate change by 2050. The actions I have outlined here today will form part of a wider package of work already under way across government and industry to ensure the UK’s energy system remains resilient as we transition to clean and affordable energy.

  • Kelly Tolhurst – 2020 Statement on the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage

    Kelly Tolhurst – 2020 Statement on the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage

    Below is the text of the statement made by Kelly Tolhurst, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    I am writing to inform the House that the Government are pleased to accept all of the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for the new national living wage and national minimum wage rates, which will come into force in April 2020.

    The Low Pay Commission is an internationally renowned independent and expert body which conducts extensive analysis and stakeholder research to make its recommendations.

    The Low Pay Commission has recommended that:

    The national living wage (for workers aged 25 and over) should increase from £8.21 to £8.72;

    The rate for 21 to 24-year-olds should increase from £7.70 to £8.20;

    The rate for 18 to 20-year-olds should increase from £6.15 to £6.45;

    The rate for 16 to 17-year-olds should increase from £4.35 to £4.55; and

    The apprentice rate (for apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship) should increase from £3.90 to £4.15.

    The Low Pay Commission has also recommended that the accommodation offset increases from the current rate of £7.55 to £8.20 from 1 April 2020.

    We welcome the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation of an increase to the national living wage rate such that it meets the Government’s objective of reaching 60% of median earnings by 2020.

    The new national living wage rate of £8.72 will be the highest ever UK minimum wage and benefit over two million workers. From April 2020, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their earnings increase by nearly £4,000 over the course of the year, compared to when the national living wage was introduced. This increase in the national living wage is the first step in ​meeting our commitment to raise the NLW to two-thirds of median earnings, provided economic conditions allow, within the next five years.

    The Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for increasing the national minimum wage youth rates, by between 4.6% and 6.5%, are well ahead of forecast inflation.

    These increases are due to come into effect from 1 April 2020, subject to parliamentary approval. The Government intend to lay implementing regulations before Parliament in due course.

    A copy of the response will be available from the BEIS website at: www.beis.gov.uk.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on the New Year Honours List

    Oliver Dowden – 2020 Statement on the New Year Honours List

    Below is the text of the statement made by Oliver Dowden, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

    On Friday 27 December 2019 at 22:30, the Cabinet Office published the New Year Honours List 2020 on www.gov.uk. As part of this publication a version of the honours list was published online which contained address details of the 1,097 recipients. This was done in error. The document was accessible for approximately 40 minutes, and was available to those who had already accessed the information for a further 150 minutes via the original web link.

    This incident was a result of human error. The Honours and Appointments Secretariat is responsible for managing and publishing the Honours lists. The New Year 2020 honours round was the first to use a new IT system from which a report was downloaded to create a file for publication.

    The sensitivities around address data had been identified as a risk and previous versions of the file prepared for publication had not included address data. As part of the final checking process, further amendments were made to the file and a version of the file, including address data, was mistakenly sent for publication.

    The team was made aware of the error at 23:00 on 27 December and the link was removed from the Cabinet Office web page within 10 minutes. It took a further 150 minutes to close the link to the document and remove the page altogether. In this intervening period those who opened the link or had the web page address could still open the document.

    The immediate concern following the publication of this information was to ensure that there was no increased risk to any individuals and that their security was being appropriately managed. The Cabinet Office worked with the police and relevant authorities to identify any potentially high risk cases and put in place any necessary actions. Over 48 hours, the Department made contact with all affected individuals to inform them of what had taken place, provide contact details and to apologise for this incident. Chief Constables were briefed through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and local forces made assessments for all recipients.

    The Department has worked with the relevant organisations to ascertain the extent of the access to the data. We have no evidence that data has been exploited by a third party, or shared more widely though we continue to be vigilant.

    The Government have been informed by the police and other agencies that there is no information to suggest an increased risk in relation to any persons as a result of this data breach. This is not to underestimate the concern this incident may have caused for individuals. On behalf of the Cabinet Office I apologise unreservedly for any distress or inconvenience caused.​

    Appropriate management action will be taken in response to this incident. Changes have already been made to ensure the relevant IT system generates reports containing only data that is suitable for publication, removing the scope for further human error. I have also instructed the Government Digital Service to improve their processes to ensure all access to data can be removed much more rapidly when required.

    The Department reported the matter to the Information Commissioner on Saturday 28 December 2019 and will co-operate fully with its on-going inquiries. In addition, I am announcing today an independent review of data handling practices within the Cabinet Office. This review will focus on process, culture, policy and practice within the Department. It will establish whether appropriate controls are in place around the storage, sharing and deletion of personal data, including learning lessons from this case. More information on this review will be published shortly.