I always welcome correspondence from constituents and I am here to help. Whether you write, call, or visit one of my surgeries, I want to hear from you. There has however been a trend of late for centrally generated standard emails, which are consistently inaccurate and recklessly scaremongering and it is particularly disappointing when those sending them cannot even be bothered to type their names at the top.
The volume of these cut and paste emails means that very often constituents with genuine problems or those who have taken the time to write their own correspondence in their own words can find themselves waiting longer than I would like for a reply. To that end, any mass generated campaigns received by my office will no longer receive a personal response but will instead be referred to my website which will contain the latest standard replies to these standard emails.
If of course you wish to contact me personally about any concern or if the replies below do not answer your query, I would of course encourage you write or email mark.spencer.mp_parliament.uk.
At the start of my Parliamentary term I made the decision not to sign any EDMs. Each EDM costs the taxpayer in excess of £700 and in this age of economic restraint, I do not feel that they represent value for money. Furthermore, EDMs too often represent a token gesture and rarely generate sufficient publicity to promote or progress their subject matter.
NHS Risk Register
NHS Risk Register
While the Department remains of the view that there is information contained within the risk register that should not be disclosed for the reasons already set out, it is aware of the public and parliamentary interest in this issue. The Department has acknowledged that arriving at an early solution would be beneficial to all concerned.
I am pleased that, for this reason, the Department has encouraged the Tribunal to schedule the hearing for as early a date as possible, while allowing of course for both sides to make the appropriate preparations. Following this the Tribunal has brought the hearing forward from its initial date in April, to a date in early March.
I do not think it appropriate to comment further on this issue until the outcome of the Tribunal is known. The Department will respond when the Tribunal has made is its decision.
Abu Qatada
Abu Qatada
As the Home Secretary has made clear, the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell and the right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell, far away from Britain. This is why successive British governments have sought to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan.
On 17 January 2012, the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment on the attempt by the UK Government to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan on national security grounds under what is known as a Deportation with Assurances agreement. The Court found that his deportation would breach Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) as there was 'a real risk that the evidence obtained from his co-accused by torture will be used against him'.
The Government disagrees vehemently with Strasbourg's ruling. It is considering all the legal options available, including referring the case to the Grand Chamber. As the Government does so, I understand it will continue to negotiate with the Jordanians to see what assurances can be given about the evidence used against Qatada in their courts.
The Government opposed Qatada's application for bail vigorously, but on 7 February it was granted. Although bail has been granted, the bail conditions are amongst the most stringent possible. If any of his conditions are breached, he will be re-arrested. But, however strict the bail conditions, I continue to believe Qatada should remain behind bars until he can be deported and the Home Secretary shares this view.
This is another example of why I believe we need significant reform of the European Court of Human Rights and I am pleased that the Government wants to use the UK's current Presidency of the Council of Europe to make progress on this issue. There are real problems with a massive backlog of cases and the Court considering matters that have been properly dealt with at the national level. I want to make sure that Council of Europe and the Court can focus on the important role it plays in encouraging freedom and human rights across the continent.
Community Sentencing
Community Sentencing
I believe that custody is necessary in some cases, especially where there is a risk to the public. However I agree with you that community sentences can, in some cases, be more beneficial than a short prison term.
The Government is already taking action on strengthening community sentences to seek to reform offenders for good. Through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, the Government is taking a number of steps to make community sentences more rehabilitative, such as increasing flexibility around the provision of drug and alcohol treatment.
The Government has already announced measures to make community sentences more effective. Unemployed criminals will be forced to work a minimum of 28 hours over four days, with the fifth day spent looking for full time employment.
Additionally, extending the maximum daily curfew time from 12 to 16 hours, and the period for which they can be imposed from 6 to 12 months, will better protect communities and ensure offenders face meaningful punishments that help stop them reoffending. Curfews not only restrict liberty but they can bring order to chaotic lives.
These proposals for community sentencing are part of the Government’s plans to reform sentencing and tackle the root causes of offending. As well as giving something back to communities affected by crime, they will help bring structure to offenders’ lives.
Ministers are also developing proposals to reform sentences in the community to ensure that they effectively punish and rehabilitate offenders and will consult on these shortly.
In addition, Staffordshire and West Midlands and Wales Probation Trusts have been selected to develop the Payment by Results (PbR) pilots which will seek to build innovative partnerships with the private and voluntary sector to deliver frontline services across their communities for up to 2,000 offenders.
Sustainable Communities Act
Sustainable Communities Act
I greatly value what the Sustainable Communities Act seeks to achieve – the devolution of power to local communities so local residents can control how taxpayers’ money is spent. It was after all a Conservative MP, Nick Hurd, who successfully introduced the Act through a Private Members Bill and the Party is now delivering on its 2010 manifesto commitment to implement fully the Sustainable Communities provisions.
The Government has published its response to the 200 proposals initially made under the Act and has also issued a second invitation for proposals to improve the Act. The invitation was clear that local councils should consult with their communities and try to reach agreement on their proposals before submitting them. The Government then consulted on regulations on reforming this process and are aiming to issue the summary of consultation responses in due course. The regulations will be made shortly after the summary.
I hope the second invitation under the Act provokes even more local debate and stimulates even greater energy and imagination. It is an excellent opportunity to reinvigorate local democratic discussion between councils, community representatives and individual members of communities, and to bring forward great ideas and translate them into practice wherever possible.
The Government is also looking into the composition of the selector and wants to remove the bureaucracy that surrounded the first invitation under the Act. Where a council which has submitted a proposal under the Act is dissatisfied with the reasons given by the Government about why a particular barrier cannot be removed, the Government intends to set out in regulations a clear role for the selector to challenge the Government in such cases. The selector will be able to resubmit a proposal with a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult and try to reach agreement with them, prior to reaching a final decision.
As part of the change in process outlined in the Government’s decentralisation agenda, local authorities can also submit their proposals via the ‘Barrier Busting’ portal on the DCLG website and there is no deadline for submitting proposals.
In relation to the Leiston planning proposal, the law has recently changed. To further strengthen the role of local communities in planning, the Localism Act introduces a new requirement for developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments. I believe this gives local people a chance to comment when there is still genuine scope to make changes to proposals.
These reforms are about making the process more efficient and user-friendly while ensuring that local communities maintain a strong role in decision-making. The proposals provide a much more direct and personal service dedicated to removing as many barriers to localism as possible.
Close Season for Hares
Close Season for Hares
As a farmer myself, I am broadly supportive of a close season for hares which for many farmers, certainly those I count as friends, would be a formality since the majority do not shoot outside the pheasant shooting season anyway.
There are currently no Government plans to an official close season, but let me assure you, the health and welfare of animals is of vital importance to the Government. The Animal Welfare Act (2006) makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal, and contains a duty of care so that people responsible for any animal must take such steps as are reasonable to ensure its welfare.
Furthermore, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) set a target to increase the population of brown hares to double the 1995 level by 2010; and to maintain the range of the brown hare at the 2006 level. Although this target was not fully met, the population of brown hares in Great Britain has increased exponentially during this time, and I am pleased to see the hare population is beginning to thrive again.
Blank06
Expansion of Church of England Schools
I am afraid that I do not accept the argument that all schools should be religiously neutral. The Governments education reforms are about ensuring that parents have the maximum amount of choice. The vast majority of state-funded schools in this country are, and will continue to be, non-faith schools. However, the tradition of the involvement of faith groups in the provision of education in this country is a long-standing one. Many parents value the ethos and standards of behaviour in such schools, even parents of no faith or of a different religion from that of the school. The fact that many faith schools are oversubscribed is testament to their popularity.
The Government believes that all schools, whether faith schools or not, should have the chance to enjoy the benefits of Academy status. However, it has been very clear that schools which are voluntarily converting to Academy status should not be able to use the process of conversion to gain a faith designation. Equally, existing faith schools are not able to change any faith characteristics through the process of converting to Academy status.
You may be also interested to know that it is not possible for a maintained school without a religious designation to convert to become an Academy with a religious designation in a single process. Any maintained school that wishes to gain a religious designation must follow a clearly laid out statutory process, which includes a requirement to consult on that change locally. That process must be successfully concluded before consideration of converting to Academy status can be given, although it is possible to publish concurrent proposals to cover the requirements of these two separate processes.
I believe the different faith-groups that exist in Britain today play an important role in enriching our nation. Religions help cement local communities together and can encourage the neighbourly society that too often seems to have been eroded. We can only benefit from our religious diversity if we sustain the freedom for these religions to reflect their differences.
The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has also worked closely with officials in the Department to ensure that the regulations that govern faith-based education are such that groups with an extremist, a fundamentalist or a narrow agenda are not able to take a school over.
Blank07
Power of Recall
As you may be aware, at the last General Election the manifestos of all three main parties included a commitment to establish a recall mechanism. I am pleased the Government has recently published a draft Bill, proposing to introduce a power of recall.
The Government is proposing to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10 per cent of his or her constituents.
The draft Bill is being published for pre-legislative scrutiny and sets out two triggers for a recall petition: firstly where an MP is convicted in the UK of an offence and receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, or secondly where the House of Commons resolves, through a vote by MPs, that a recall petition should be opened. The first trigger will close a gap in the existing legislation whereby MPs are only disqualified if they receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months. The second trigger is an additional disciplinary power for the House of Commons, which for the first time allows constituents to have their say in deciding whether their MP should stay in office.
The draft Bill is available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk) by searching for the term recall of MPs. Page 38 is helpful for outlining the Processes for triggering a recall.
As Mark Harper, the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, has said, the intention is to establish a recall mechanism which is transparent, robust and fair. The Government is seeking to trigger a debate about how recall could be implemented in the UK and I can assure you that Ministers will take all the views expressed into consideration.
Blank05
Please back pubs motion on 12th January
While I think we all accept that the nation does have a problem with the social, health and fiscal costs of anti-social and binge drinking, I also recognise that those of us uncorking a bottle at the end of a long day do not warrant Government attention.
Regrettably, enforcement of current licensing rules is not doing anything to curb those fuelling up ahead of heading into town for a night out and the idea behind the Governments policy is that through alcohol taxation, the consumption of lower strength beer will be encouraged by increasing duty on the strongest beers and cutting the duty paid on low alcohol beers by half. The Government and the Home Office has also clearly stated their intention to ban the sale of all alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT and these proposals will be implemented within the year.
Let me say however that I do have reservations regarding the Governments plans and I am sympathetic with your views. It does worry me that responsible drinkers might be punished for the actions of a reckless minority and I have followed with interest the various campaigns by trade bodies surrounding this issue and will continue to influence where I can.
Public Sector Pensions
Public Sector Pensions
Today’s (30/11/2011) strike is inappropriate, untimely and irresponsible, especially while talks are ongoing. Responsibility for any disruption which people may experience today lies squarely with union leaders.
We have listened to the concerns of public sector workers and that is why at the beginning of this month we put an improved offer on the table. The offer ensures that public sector pensions will remain among the very best available while also being fair and affordable to taxpayers.
We have been negotiating intensely with the unions. At the central TUC meeting on 2 November we agreed with them to continue negotiations at scheme level. Meetings took place yesterday and are scheduled for tomorrow. While discussions are continuing we would urge public sector workers to look at the offer for themselves rather than listening to the rhetoric of their union leaders. These are the sort of pensions that few in the private sector can enjoy.
The timing of this strike is indefensible and wrong. Union leaders should be responding in a responsible manner to reach agreement. A strike will not achieve anything other than causing inconvenience to hard working people at a time when we are trying to get the economy back on its feet.
Five top reasons why our offer is fair and affordable
· Public sector pensions will remain among the very best available – a guaranteed level and inflation proofed. Only 1 in 10 private sector workers have access to such schemes.
· Most will see no reduction in the pension income they receive at retirement and many low and middle income earners will in fact receive a larger pension income at retirement.
·Low earners making under £15,000 a year (FTE) - that’s 15 per cent of the workforce - will not have to make increased contribution. Another million workers earning up to £21,000 will have their total increase limited to 1.5 per cent over three years.
·The pension people have built up so far will be protected: a guaranteed benefit in retirement free from market fluctuations or fees.
· No one within ten years of retirement will see any change - either in the age they retire or in the amount of pension they will receive on retirement.
Five useful stats
1. People are living longer, so spending longer in retirement. Today the average 60 year old is living ten years longer, than in the 1970s (IPSPC, Interim Report, 7 October 2010). And a civil servant retiring at 60 now can expect to draw on a pension for 30 years.
2. Public sector workers are on average better paid than those in the private sector. Over the past three years median public sector salaries have increased by 8.5 per cent; 9.7 per cent more than the private sector (ONS, ASHE 2009-11). Full-time public sector workers earn an average of £28,802, nearly £4,000 more than the average private sector worker on £25,000 (ibid).
3. Over the past decade public sector pension costs increased by one third in real terms to £32 billion. Between 1999-2000 and 2009-10 the amount of benefits paid from the five largest public service pension schemes increased by 32 per cent in real terms (ibid). Public sector pensions now cost £32 billion a year – more than we spend on police, prisons and courts combined (HM Treasury, Good pensions that last, November 2011).
4. To get an equivalent pension in the private sector you would have to contribute over a third of your salary each year. Under our offer, a primary school teacher earning £32,000 per year could receive a pension worth £20,000 per year. A private sector worker would have to pay in 38 per cent of their salary to get an equivalent pension (ibid). And while nine in ten public sector workers receive pension contributions from their employer, just a third of those in the private sector get any at all.
5. Only around a third of union members actually voted for strikes (BBC News, 3-18 November 2011).
o Unison & Unite: 23 per cent of members voted to strike
o GMB: 28 per cent of members voted to strike
o NASUWT: 32 per cent of members voted to strike
o NAPO & Prospect: 37 per cent of members voted to strike
o NAHT: 40 per cent of members voted to strike
o FDA: 44 per cent of members voted to strike.
Waterworks Campaign
Waterworks Campaign
It is a terrible tragedy that even today almost 900 million people do not have clean water and 2.6 billion people do not have proper sanitation. I agree that we cannot stand by as 4,000 people, mostly children, die daily through lack of access to safe water and basic sanitation, many from easily preventable diseases like diarrhoea.
I welcome your support for the increase in development aid spending, which will be 0.7 per cent of the UKs Gross National Income from 2013. The Department for International Development (DFID) conducted a root and branch review of the aid budget and a series of challenging targets were set on water and sanitation as a result. Over the next four years, the Government will give at least 15 million more people access to clean drinking water; improve hygiene for at least 15 million; and give 25 million more people access to better sanitation facilities.
The Government will also be focussing more than ever before on the results and value for money achieved with these resources. That is why many DFID programmes will be in Africa, where access to sanitation is the most off-track Millennium Development Goal target and where access to safe water is also off-track, unlike in the rest of the world.
I agree that it will be important to have a strong UK presence at the next High-level Meeting of Sanitation and Water for All. Having the meeting alongside the Spring Meetings of the World Bank will be helpful in securing the attendance of key decision-makers. Ministers have not yet planned their detailed involvement in the Spring Meetings, but I can assure you that although they cannot commit at this stage, they will give this meeting due consideration and ensure that the UK is represented.
Blank04
Risk Register
It is important to understand that the risk register sets out all of the potential risks identified by the Department of Health for the entire range of areas for which it is responsible. These include financial risks, policy risks and sensitive commercial and contractual risks. It is a means by which the Department focuses on risks and acts to mitigate them.
Although the Government does recognise the public interest in this information, it needs to understand whether the public interest is best served by releasing this information, insofar as it could misrepresent the end result whether impacted or not by the mitigating action. That is why the Department of Health is currently considering its response to the Information Commissioners decision, and will respond to the decision in early December.
The risk register is intended to form part of an internal focus on action to minimise risks. Such risks are reflected in public statements, in a balanced and evidence-based format, through the publication of impact assessments. In relation to the Governments health reforms, I should like to assure you that the Government has been open and transparent about the results they will deliver, through the impact assessments published and updated as recently as September. These assessments, which include an assessment of the benefits and risks of the Governments health reforms, are available on the Department of Healths website (www.dh.gov.uk) by searching for Health and Social Care Bill: combined impact assessments.
Dow Chemicals and London Olympics
Dow Chemicals and London Olympics
Thank you for contacting me about the appointment of Dow Chemical Company to manufacture a wrap to cover the Olympic Stadium.
I do understand your concerns with Dow producing this wrap given that they wholly own Union Carbide, the company responsible for the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. I am aware that the fallout from this event continues to affect many families in India even today.
When Dow applied to the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) to produce the wrap, they were asked by LOCOG for a full briefing on the history of the Bhopal Gas tragedy and details of any ongoing litigation. From this briefing, LOCOG confirmed that Dow never owned or operated the facility in Bhopal. It was also found that the out of court settlement which was made between the Indian Government and Union Carbide in 1989 was agreed before Dow's involvement with Union Carbide. From these facts, LOCOG were satisfied with Dow's credentials and appointed them to produce the wrap.
Dow's sponsorship of the wrap has ensured that the cost to the taxpayer has been brought down and I believe that this is a positive development.
Dow will also continue to be an international sponsor of the Olympic movement. The decision to appoint them as a sponsor was made by the International Olympic Committee who have sole responsibility for negotiations concerning worldwide Olympic sponsors. This is therefore not a matter for LOCOG or the Government, who have their own domestic sponsors for the Games.
Action Aid Campaign on Tax Evasion
Action Aid Campaign on Tax Evasion
Thank you for contacting me about ActionAid’s tax evasion campaign. As I am sure you agree, effective tax systems play a vital part in promoting wealth creation in developing countries and enabling the eventual "exit strategy” from aid.
I thoroughly agree that increasing corporate transparency is vital. I welcome the commitment that the Government has made to delivering this. For example, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary are pressing the EU to adopt rules that would require multi-national companies in the extractive industries sector to be more transparent about payments that they make to governments in developing countries.
One key way to address the erosion of developing countries’ tax bases is to work with developing countries to enforce transfer pricing rules, which prevent multinationals from artificially shifting profits. That is why I support the work of the Department for International Development and HM Revenue and Customs, who provide considerable support to developing countries to develop robust, fair and sustainable domestic taxation systems.
With regard to the G20, the Global Forum on Tax Transparency and Exchange of Information, an intergovernmental body with worldwide membership, has been encouraging the signing of Tax Information Exchange Agreements and conducting peer reviews of countries' implementation of international standards. The Global Forum is due to give its latest report to G20 Heads of Government at the summit in November.
I hope this reassures you that there is a lot of work now going on at the international and UK level precisely to address the issues that you have raised. I join you in encouraging the Government to work ensure that developing countries have appropriate taxing rights over businesses that operate there.
Shared Accommodation Rate (EDM 2317)
Shared Accommodation Rate (EDM 2317)
Our Housing Benefit system traps the poorest in society into areas where there is simply no employment. In many cases there will be a prosperous location where job opportunities exist on the other side of the city or the county, but the travel costs are prohibitive and they dare not move their families as they know this will mean putting their home in jeopardy, as well as their benefits.
This Government is determined to ensure that people are better off in work than on benefits. It is highly regrettable that five million people of working age are on out-of-work benefits, with over one million of those for nearly a decade. It is also tragic that unemployment has become entrenched in many communities clearly signalling that the current welfare system is broken.
As you may be aware, the Shared Room Rate is a lower level of Local Housing Allowance based on the cost of a room in a shared house. Under the existing system under-25 year olds are restricted to this rate but the Government has decided to extend this to under-35 year olds from April 2012.
I appreciate your concern over the proposed changes but I am confident that the Government has made the right decision for the right reasons. The under-35 year olds rate will save money and ensure that there is a level playing field for young people on benefits and other young people on low-paid jobs who will commonly share accommodation.
I understand that you are concerned that these measures will impact on the most vulnerable. The Government is working with councils on the transition and is increasing support where it is most needed. That is why the Government has announced an additional £10 million in 2011-12 and an additional £40 million each year from 2012 - 2015 in the Additional Discretionary Housing Payment, to allow local authorities to provide additional support where it is most needed.
Energy Prices
Energy Prices
As winter gets closer and the weather gets colder, we’re all starting to think about our energy bills; indeed it seems that every year these bills get more expensive. This is something we need to take action on and I welcome the government’s commitment to keep energy prices in check and hope that this week’s meeting with the ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers is the first in a number of steps to keep energy prices down. I also welcome the Government’s drive to cut regulation and red tape in the sector so as to allow smaller energy companies to compete with the ‘Big Six’ as more competition will lower prices.
It is an unfortunate truth that the high price of fossil fuels leads to an increase in our energy bills; indeed the cost of wholesale energy now accounts for more than half of our bills. Until we can reduce our dependence of fossil fuels energy prices will fluctuate with the price of fossil fuels. We are running out of these fossil fuels and unfortunately we can expect the cost of energy to rise in the long term unless we take action now to reduce our need for them.
I have long been calling for a full and frank discussion of nuclear power and I believe that in committing to expanding our nuclear capability the Government showing how seriously it is taking the deficit we have in our energy supplies. Building new nuclear power stations would ensure that we can keep energy prices down; energy security, which is vital in a world where energy supply is becoming increasingly politicised and reliability, which many of the newer renewable technologies are not yet able to do. However, there are other angles to the nuclear argument that it would be reckless to ignore and we be clear as a nation how we want to proceed .
Alongside this drive for nuclear power we must also invest in other renewable energy sources. While these sources are not as reliable as nuclear energy, they will help us meet our obligations to ensure that renewable energy accounts for 15% of our energy production. Additionally the rollout of these technologies will further reduce our dependence of importing supplies.
As we approach the winter we will hear more and more about the cost of energy from all political parties and many other organisations. I am pleased that the government has been working consistently to ensure that hard working families are not paying over the odds for their energy bills. In the meantime I would join the Prime Minister in encouraging people to shop around to find cheaper energy providers. Changing provider is nowhere near easy enough and we need to reform this process however there are significant saving available and so the effort is well worth it.
Womens Pension Reform
Womens Pension Reform for those born in 1953 or 1954
I do understand the anger about the Governments plans to increase womens State Pension Age and appreciate many are upset that they now have to wait longer before receiving the State Pension. As one of the women born in 1953 or 1954, you could see the date at which you reach State Pension Age increased by up to two years.
Unfortunately, dramatically increased longevity and the terrible public finances are issues we cannot ignore. Given that life expectancy has increased so considerably, we need to be mindful of the best balance between the impact on individuals and fairness to the taxpayer, who will fund the cost of that increased longevity.
Understandably, this decision has been met with disappointment, particularly for women born between 1953 and 1954. The Government is aware of the issues facing you and other women born around this time and wants to ease the transition. The Government needs to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly, and has been very clear that it will work hard to get the transition right. As such, I welcome these assurances and discussions on transitional arrangements. I can assure you that I will continue to follow this issue closely.
Coroner System Reform
Chief Coroner
The Government is in complete agreement with you about the need for reform of the coroner system its proposals are designed to ensure that it achieves this as quickly and efficiently as possible. It may be useful if I explain how these proposals will deliver this urgently needed improvement, but without projected set up costs of £10.9m and running costs of £6.6m per annum of a Chief Coroner. Such costs are not justifiable in the current financial environment.
Under the Governments proposals, the office will be retained in statute, but key functions transferred to either the Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor. This will ensure that the Government protects the independence of coroners when they are exercising their judicial functions, whilst at the same time ensuring that they deliver a high standard of service to the bereaved. This will allow for the implementation of a number of key reforms and achieve improvements in the service. These include:
Training: the Lord Chief Justice will have the power to issue training regulations for the first time, which can include specific requirements for certain cases, such as those involving the deaths of service personnel. The Lord Chancellor (who must agree the regulations) is clear that better, more targeted training of coroners for military inquests is necessary;
Transfer of cases: the Government is making it easier for coroners to transfer inquests in England and Wales, and for the first time allowing the transfer of service personnel cases to and from Scotland. This will minimise the inconvenience that can be caused to families suffering from a traumatic loss if an inquest is conducted significant distance from their home; and
Leadership: the new Ministerial Board, supported by a Bereaved Organisations Committee, will focus on matters of policy, standards of service and other administrative aspects of the delivery of service by coroners to ensure consistency of service across England and Wales.
The Government is also currently consulting on a new National Charter, which sets for the first time the avenues of redress which can be sought, including how the bereaved can challenge a coroners decision or make a complaint about the coroner or the service provided.
These plans will ensure that the objectives which the establishment of a Chief Coroner sought to achieve can be met robustly and speedily, without incurring the costs of establishing the Office itself. They will deliver a much better service to users of the coronial system, not least to the bereaved families of our brave military personnel. For this reason, I will not be signing EDM 2042.
Christian Aid, Tax Havens Campaign
Christian Aid, Tax Havens Campaign
Effective tax systems play a vital part in promoting wealth creation in developing countries and enabling the eventual "exit strategy from aid.
Consequently, although greater transparency in tax matters is welcome, the most effective way of addressing the erosion of developing countries tax bases is to help them to build their expertise. That way, these countries can enforce transfer pricing rules, which prevent multinationals from artificially shifting profits.
The UK, through the Department for International Development and HMRC, continues to provide considerable support to developing countries to develop robust, fair and sustainable domestic taxation systems.
The Government is also working with the OECDs informal taskforce on tax and development, which was set up in January last year, to make progress in this area. At the G20 summit this year, the OECDs informal taskforce on tax and development will be reporting on the most effective ways to support capacity building in the tax administrations of developing countries.
The Chancellor and the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, have also made a clear commitment to increased corporate transparency. The Government is pressing the European Union to adopt rules that would require multi-national companies in the extractive industries sector to be more transparent about payments that they make to governments in developing countries.
I hope this reassures you that there is a lot of work now going on at the international and UK level precisely to address the issues that you have raised and I join you in encouraging the Government to work with other countries to find the most effective way of tackling these issues.
Blank03
National Trust: Concerns re: the Government's proposed planning reforms
Englands national planning policy is now over 1,000 pages long, on top of volumes of Regional Strategies, and in addition to councils own Local Plans. The planning regime has become the preserve of lawyers, town hall officials and pressure groups, rather than empowering local communities.
The National Planning Policy Framework is committed to decentralising power and making the planning process more accessible. The Government is already abolishing Labours unpopular Regional Strategies and local communities will now be in the driving seat though the innovation of neighbourhood planning, which will increase the involvement of local residents in the planning process.
The Government is also committed to protecting our natural and historic environment. The Framework safeguards valued, national protection such as Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, as well as ensuring measures which protect wildlife, biodiversity and cultural heritage. It also proposes a new designation to secure local green spaces in need of special protection.
Indeed, the Framework explicitly attaches great importance to Green Belts in safeguarding the countryside and checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. It also directly states that local plans should minimise adverse effects on the local or natural environment. There will be no free reign for developers to build wherever they like.
These changes are part of broader reforms to drive sustainable development, promote local economic growth, tackle climate change and protect the environment. Local firms and communities are hindered by a planning system that can be slow, costly and uncertain. Yet development will not be allowed if it is clearly in conflict with the environmental safeguards in the Framework. The Government believes that environmental standards should be higher to save on energy bills and cut carbon emissions. It is for these reasons that I believe the Framework will encourage truly sustainable development and tackle issues relating to climate change.
I would encourage you to read the summary to the new Framework online (www.communities.gov.uk) and please do use the opportunity to communicate your views directly via the public consultation.
Blank02
“
Firefighters Pension Scheme
I fully recognise the important work undertaken by our fire and rescue service and the bravery, dedication and professionalism of the men and women who work within it.
I know that the Government is committed to providing public service pensions that are sustainable, fair and effective. However, dealing with the nation's deficit, inherited from the previous administration, putting our finances back on a stable footing and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain.
At present, public service pension benefits continue to outpace both private scheme benefits and the contributions that are collected to fund them, with taxpayers’ money currently meeting the difference. This cannot be justified at a time when public expenditure needs to be controlled which is why this Government set up the Independent Public Service Commission, chaired by Lord Hutton, to make recommendations on how such pensions can be made sustainable and affordable, whilst remaining fair to the workforce.
There is cross party consensus that public sector pensions need to be made fairer and more sustainable. Lord Hutton stated that there was a clear rationale for public servants to make a greater contribution. This will not only support improvements to the schemes and make them sustainable for the future, but also represent a fairer package to taxpayers. The Government has accepted the broad principles set out in Lord Hutton’s final report as a basis for consultation.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has recently launched a consultation on their proposed changes to increase employee pension contributions. The Department assures me that it is seeking to ensure a fair and sustainable pension scheme by recommending that the lowest earners see the lowest increases. Although it did say it was important to note that members of the New Firefighters Pension Scheme, which has more balanced contributions, would see lower contributions increase. They are, of course, committed to protecting those pension pots that firefighters have already accrued.
Although I feel unable to sign this EDM, I am convinced that Ministers are working hard to ensure we provide an affordable and equitable pension scheme. I also recognise the crucial role that firefighters play in our society and I can assure you that they will be kept fully informed as any proposals are taken forward.”
Blank
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Protecting the public from crime, ensuring those who break the law face the consequences, and providing swift, cost-effective and fair access to justice are fundamental responsibilities of the state towards its citizens.
However, the last 13 years of government have left a justice system in urgent need of reform. That is why the Government has recently brought forward a package of reforms to strengthen public protection and cut crime. It is vital we have sentences that ensure prisoners face tough punishment, as well demanding programmes of reform. The Bill will ensure this by introducing a proposal which will mean more of the most serious offenders receiving life sentences, and serious sexual and violent offenders spending longer behind bars. A mandatory custodial sentence for knife possession in aggravated circumstances will also be introduced.
This Government is particularly determined to attack the shamefully high rate of reoffending, which means cracking down hard on drug abuse inside prison. That is why it has launched ambitious new drug recovery wings which will get prisoners clean and stop them committing more crime. Ensuring that community punishments are tougher and properly enforced will also help to reduce reoffending rates.
Moving forward, the Government will also clarify the law on self defence, so that it is clear it is based on a persons undoubted right to use reasonable force when they choose to defend themselves or their home against any threat from an offender. It will likewise consult on proposals to criminalise squatting, so that property owners can better protect their property.
Legal aid reform is a crucial element of the Ministry of Justices shift towards greater effectiveness and efficiency in the justice system. Our current legal aid system is now among the most expensive systems in the world, second only to Northern Ireland, costing over £2 billion a year, or £39 per head of population compared with £8 per head in New Zealand, a country with a broadly similar legal system, and as low as £5 per head in some EU countries. In the current fiscal climate, this is simply unsustainable. That is why the Government is ensuring access to public funding in those cases that most require it and is encouraging early resolution of disputes instead of unnecessary conflict.
What all the proposals being taking forward amount to is a clear break by the Government from the mistakes of the past. Implementing these reforms will allow us not only to deliver a system which effectively punishes the guilty whilst substantially improving the national scandal of our reoffending rates, but also achieve significant savings whilst protecting fundamental rights of access to justice.
Blank01
Publish What You Pay - Tearfund
Bribery and corruption are barriers to trade and growth. They hinder development, distort competition and perpetuate poverty. That is why, along with the United States and others, Britain is leading the drive against corruption in world trade. Both Transparency International and the OECD have recognised that the UK is one of the few 'active enforcers' of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, even before the Bribery Act comes into force on 1 July.
I hope that you will be pleased to know that our Government is pressing the European Union to adopt rules that would require multi-national companies in the extractive industries sector to be more transparent about payments that they make to governments in developing countries.
While greater transparency in tax matters is welcome, the most effective way of addressing the erosion of developing countries tax bases is by working with these countries to ensure that they can enforce transfer pricing rules, which prevent multi-nationals from artificially shifting profits. The UK provides considerable support to developing countries to develop robust, fair and sustainable domestic taxation systems.
These plans will give citizens of those countries the information and the tools that they need to hold their governments to account over the revenue generated by mineral exports.
EDM 799
EDM 799: Consultation on mandatory carbon reporting
I want to see more companies actively managing and reporting their emissions. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and I believe that everyone has a part to play in saving energy and reducing carbon emissions.
I am proud that the Government is leading by example on this issue, cutting Whitehall emissions by 13.8 per cent in just one year. This is a great result that has demonstrated the seriousness of its pledge to make this the greenest Government ever - and this is only the beginning. The Government will go further, reducing emissions by 25 per cent by 2015.
In addition, the Responsibility Deal will be launched this autumn to encourage the UKs businesses to set similar targets. This new initiative invites businesses and other organisations to make public commitments to reducing their energy use and emissions by a specific date in the future. Ministers will help by putting in place a simple and trusted online mechanism for organisations to make transparent pledges so they can be measured by customers, business partners and the public.
Turning to the mandatory carbon reporting, I can assure you that Ministers are looking for the most effective way to improve the reporting of emissions by companies. They have put forward four proposals for consideration and three of these would make reporting of emissions mandatory.
Reducing regulation is a key priority so Ministers are considering a range of views from businesses and interested parties on the best way to achieve more widespread and consistent reporting. I expect that a decision will be made in the autumn.
38 Degrees Health and Social Care Bi
38 Degrees: Health and Social Care Bill
The Government has already responded in detail to 38 degrees and in that response we made clear the Secretary of State will continue to be responsible - as now - for promoting a comprehensive health service. The NHS will always be available to all, free at the point of use and based on need and not the ability to pay. To say otherwise is absolute nonsense.
Our reform plans were examined in detail by the independent NHS Future Forum, which comprised the country’s leading doctors, nurses and NHS experts. They concluded that the twin demands on the NHS – of an ageing population and of rising costs of new treatments and technologies – meant that reform of the NHS was needed. They also recommended significant changes to the Government’s original plans, which we have accepted. These significant changes have addressed many of the concerns originally raised by 38 Degrees and others.
I am unsure as to the basis of the latest concerns expressed by 38 Degrees but suspect reckless and baseless scaremongering. First, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill, “removes the Secretary of State’s duty to provide”. However, 38 Degrees’s own legal advice states that the Secretary of State has never had such a duty to provide. Therefore, the Health and Social Care Bill makes no changes to the Secretary of State’s duty to provide, because it never existed in the first place.
Second, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill opens up the NHS to competition law. However, once again, 38 Degrees’s own legal advice states that competition law already applies to the NHS.
Competition is not, and will not be, used as an end in itself. The Bill does not change current UK or EU competition legislation or procurement legislation or the areas to which they apply.
I hope you agree with me that 38 Degrees’s concerns are without foundation, as their own legal advice has confirmed.
Government Policy Outline:
We are committed to an NHS that is free at the point of use and available to everyone based on need, not the ability to pay. We want to free NHS staff from political micromanagement, increase democratic accountability and give patients the power to choose the treatments that are best for them.
-We are increasing investment in the NHS year after year.
-We are cutting the cost of NHS administration by £5 billion and reinvesting this money to support doctors and nurses on the front line.
-We are putting patients in charge of making decisions about their care, including control of their health records.
-We are giving every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards, within NHS prices. This includes independent, voluntary and community sector providers.
-We are establishing an independent NHS board to allocate resources and provide commissioning guidelines.
-We are enabling patients to rate hospitals and doctors according to the quality of care they received.
-We are publishing data about the performance of healthcare providers, so everyone will know who is providing a good service and who is falling behind.
-We are strengthening NICE and have already created the Cancer Drugs Fund, so that all patients can access the drugs and treatments their doctors think they need.
-We are strengthening the power of GPs as patients' expert guides through the health system by enabling them to commission care on their behalf.
-We are stopping the top-down reconfigurations of NHS services, imposed from Whitehall rather than led by the local NHS, family doctors and local communities.
