Previous Section Index Home Page

4 July 2007 : Column 293WH—continued

I checked that with him at the time and it is exactly what he said. The point is that that will affect at least 32 of the 78 staff in the Kettering tax office at present.

The other alternative, which seems to have emerged rather later in the day, is relocating staff to Leicester. Leicester is even further away from Kettering than Northampton. It is possible for people to travel to Leicester by train, whereas there is no rail link to Northampton, but the car parking charges at Kettering station are already £5.50 a day. The train journey plus the travel to Kettering railway station plus the travel from Leicester railway station would in many cases take more than an hour and again would be impractical for most of the staff based at the Kettering office.

Of course, it is not only the staff who face those long and difficult journeys; it is also the people in Kettering who want to be able to speak to those tax experts about their complicated tax affairs. I have to tell the Minister that it is completely unreasonable to expect residents in Kettering to have to travel to Northampton to obtain the tax advice that they need. It would be even worse to insist that residents of Kettering go to the tax office in Leicester.

I know that the Treasury is saying, “Well, if we close the tax office in Kettering, we will have a customer-facing service that will be able to meet all the needs of local residents”, but I have to put it to the Minister that although I can see why she is saying that, the depth of expertise that exists in the Kettering tax office simply
4 July 2007 : Column 294WH
will not be available at a front-facing, limited customer facility in Kettering. In any case, the Treasury could obtain the economies that it needs by merging the two tax offices in Kettering and the tax office in Wellingborough on the existing Cytringan house site in Kettering. That building is a wonderful location on the outskirts of town. The cost of running it must be lower than that of running any tax office in the middle of Northampton or Leicester, and there is room for expansion and for files, storage and other facilities.

Other organisations in Kettering are looking into establishing offices nearby, such as the borough council, the fire service and the police service, as will other public services in the future. There is potential to develop a real public service centre that will be easily accessible for residents in Kettering both now and in the next 15 to 25 years, in which time the local population will increase by between one third and one half. The tax office needs to accommodate not only the existing needs of local residents, but the tens of thousands of new people who will live in north Northamptonshire and the businesses that will set up there in the next 15 to 25 years. Following my conversations with Treasury officials on 10 May, I do not believe that they appreciate the size of the growth in the north Northamptonshire economy or the demands that will be placed on tax advisers.

There is also the green issue to consider. Requiring the Kettering tax staff to travel to Northampton or Leicester is not environmentally friendly. Yes, they could get the bus to Northampton, but that is likely to take an hour and a half in peak times and it will be difficult to get to some of the proposed offices. Travelling by car along the A43 would be very environmentally unfriendly. It is possible to take the train to Leicester, but there are certain transport problems first with getting to Kettering railway station and then with getting from Leicester railway station to the office. In this era of climate change, requiring 170 staff from Wellingborough and Kettering to travel to disparate locations is not very environmentally friendly.

I am worried about the effects that closing the tax office will have on local customers, who need access to the excellent service that they have been able to use for so long. In welcoming the Minister to her new post, I add that she could establish her mark at the Treasury and win a lot of plaudits from the residents of Kettering if she were to consider the potential closure of this tax office and urge the Treasury to think again. This is a special case; yes, I would say that, as the constituency MP, but I genuinely do not believe that the Treasury appreciates the expected rate of growth in the north Northamptonshire economy in the next 15 to 25 years. Withdrawing Kettering’s tax office from the town at this time would send completely the wrong signal to its residents. We need more public investment in Kettering, not less, and to retain the loyal and dedicated civil servants who have provided such an excellent service to local people for so long.

4.13 pm

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on securing the debate on this issue, which is so important for the whole of north Northamptonshire. We all know that he fights valiantly for his constituents, but he has hit on an issue that
4 July 2007 : Column 295WH
affects many people and is not even in the Government’s interests. I also welcome the Minister. We are lucky to have such a highly respected Minister answering the debate, and I know that she listens to arguments. I add that we are not trying to make any party political points today. Also, I must declare an interest as a non-practising chartered accountant.

I have visited Cytringan house in Kettering. On the outside, it looks slightly like a Gestapo headquarters, because of the fencing, but inside it is a modern, out-of-town office that could easily be expanded. That is where the Government have got things wrong. It cannot be financially sensible to keep two highly expensive offices in Northampton open while closing three relatively cheap offices elsewhere in the county. It would be more obvious to have a centre at Cytringan house, although I do not want to lose my tax office on the Embankment. I do not know whether the Minister has the same problem as me: every Friday, about a third of my surgery is taken up with people who have problems with tax credits. When they go to the Embankment, they get advice that they find useful. We have a high level of deprivation in north Northamptonshire, and to expect people to travel by public transport to Northampton is unfair and means a loss of service to people in my area.

We are not asking for something special. The average public expenditure per head of population in the east midlands is £6,334, whereas it is £7,184 for the UK as a whole, so each citizen in north Northamptonshire gets, on average, 12 per cent. less public expenditure than the rest of the UK, yet we are talking about withdrawing public expenditure yet again from the Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby areas.

My hon. Friend touched on an important issue when he noted that many of the people who are employed on the Embankment could not travel to Leicester or Northampton. Never mind the green issues, which are real; it is ridiculous to ask young women, who may have families, to travel that distance and back every day. One might say that Northampton looks to be only a few miles away on the map—that is probably how the accountants do it; they probably say, “We’ll just have those two and knock those off”—but there are no easy transport links. It is much easier for my constituents to go to Kettering. The tax office there is just down the road from the hospital, so they could go to the hospital to have their hand fixed and then along to the tax office to have their thumb screwed. It is in a good location for both my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine. Indeed, it is not a bad location for people from Northampton, because they can just pop along the A14.

The matter needs to be reconsidered. We are not saying that there should not be rationalisation, but we do not think that the Government’s proposal is sensible. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on our comments.

4.17 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Kennedy): It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Mr. Conway. It is even more of a pleasure for me because it is a real honour to be speaking from the Front Bench again after my chequered career of recent years. I compliment the hon. Members for Kettering
4 July 2007 : Column 296WH
(Mr. Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on their speeches, and thank them for their kind comments and welcome. However, I must warn them that in every Department in which I have served, I have been responsible for programmes in which various Government and public sector organisations have undergone thorough reviews of the way in which they provide services and, in particular, the locations from which they provide them. What we are asking Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to do as part of this programme is a very sensible and normal practice in government.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented his case. I would have been proud to have made such a speech when I was elected in 1992 and made representations to a Conservative Government about very similar issues. I assure him that having listened to his speech, I shall also read carefully in the record the case that he has made.

When the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise merged, the Treasury recognised that the new, merged organisation had significantly more office accommodation than it needed. Indeed, HM Revenue and Customs told us that it had about 40 per cent. more office accommodation than it needed to support its operations across the regions. The annual cost to the Department of accommodation in the urban centre of Northampton is about £1.3 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Revenue and Customs board is charged with the responsibility of reducing unnecessary cost. Both hon. Gentlemen have acknowledged that they are not against reorganisation per se, but against its affecting their constituencies.

Beyond that, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is making significant changes to the way that it carries out its business. That has a further impact on these locations and the way in which staff are organised. Many customers now choose to telephone the offices or use the internet to file returns or make their claims, so it is right that the senior management examine all their operations to ensure that they are run as efficiently as possible. In some work areas, they see that need as best being served by concentrating work in larger units where the processes can be streamlined. In other areas, a more mobile work force are seen as the best solution to meet customer needs. Finally, there must be an emphasis on improving compliance by matching resources to the risks that HMRC deals with in particular locations. HMRC is ahead of schedule on its general efficiency programme, having made a reduction of 11,000 posts through a combination of restricted recruitment and voluntary early retirements.

Both hon. Gentlemen made the point about the advice that is available through these offices and on which their constituents rely. I emphasise that HMRC’s approach is to reduce its use of office accommodation by concentrating on the back-office functions and making them as efficient as possible, rather than on the public inquiry facilities. One of my predecessors in the Treasury, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who was speaking in this Chamber a few moments ago, made it clear that the network of inquiry offices must be maintained. Where an inquiry centre is to close because a lease cannot be renewed, for example,
4 July 2007 : Column 297WH
HMRC has been asked to re-provide the facility as close as possible to the current inquiry centre. That will be the case across Northamptonshire.

A point was made about the reliance of local businesses on a local HMRC presence. Very little of what HMRC is carrying out locally is related to local business need. The HMRC plans are predominantly about reorganising the back-office function and do not affect face-to-face services. The skills set of the staff in those front-facing offices will be maintained.

The new department has been asked to draw up plans to improve services and reduce costs over the next five years—that includes the current one. The Government will invest significantly in each of the next four years to improve Revenue and Customs services. That will involve up to £1.5 billion-worth of resources.

As part of the review programme, a number of commitments have been given by my right hon. Friend, and we will stand by those: all inquiry centres are to be maintained; staff will not be compulsorily moved from an office ahead of the completion of the review for that office; and staff will not be required to move to an office that is beyond a reasonable daily travelling distance.

The two offices in Kettering that have been mentioned accommodate nearly 100 staff, and I understand the concerns that staff will have. In the entire urban centre, it is expected that over the next three years about 10 per cent. fewer staff will be needed than are currently employed. That is not a reflection on the staff currently working in Kettering; I join the hon. Member for Kettering in saluting the skills and experience that they have and the service that they provide to the public. It is worth bearing in mind that the number of public sector jobs in Kettering has increased by more than 2,000 in the past 10 years and the number of such jobs in Northamptonshire has increased by nearly 13,000 in the same period.

I will examine the statistic that the hon. Gentleman cited about the unemployment—I will do the same with regard to all his comments—because I was particularly drawn to it. I understand the concerns that people working in the area will have if the offices relocate. Such concerns relate to the following: the extra travel time that will be involved for some; the availability of transport links from people’s homes; the environmental consequences of more journeys being made by road; and the impact on the local economy. He has raised exactly those issues.

For just those reasons, I have asked HMRC’s senior management team to undertake the process of consultation in each of their offices, and to assess the impact of the proposals on customers, staff—that includes equality issues, which I shall discuss in a moment—local communities and diversity. I have asked that issues of equality and diversity be explored as part of that feasibility process. I am always happy to welcome Conservative Members to the debate on equality—they are welcome recruits—to ensure that equality is maintained.

Only after the completion of a detailed impact assessment reflecting those factors is a decision taken on whether to close an office. HMRC intends to provide as much flexibility as it can for staff to work part-time hours, alternating working patterns within the constraints of rationalising its office network. All proposed changes of location or work will be subject to a discussion between
4 July 2007 : Column 298WH
the individual member of staff and their manager to see whether arrangements can be made to support staff in their work-life balance.

Throughout the programme, the senior management in Revenue and Customs are committed to being open with staff, explaining the options available to individuals and exploring how their expectations can be matched with the need to make the operations more efficient. These are not easy decisions and they can be made only once all the facts are known.

HMRC recently announced decisions on its review of urban centres in outer London and the south-east. I wanted to cite that example to both hon. Gentlemen. As part of the support process in implementing those decisions, those staff will go through a detailed process with their managers. I can report that as a result of the representations made during the outer London and south-east consultation process and further feasibility work that was undertaken by HMRC, the initial proposals set out for consultation were revised. My point is that we are listening to the representations, and where a strong case is made, we are prepared to reconsider the proposals.

Mr. Hollobone: I am most encouraged by the Minister’s remarks. The obvious solution to this problem is to combine the tax offices in Wellingborough and Kettering at Cytringan house in Kettering. When she studies the statistics, that will leap out at her. Staff are uncertain, so I must ask her when the decision is expected.

Jane Kennedy: I am coming to that in a moment. I shall want to consider the words that have been said in this debate, and the representations that have been made by both hon. Gentlemen, both today and previously, such as in the letters that the hon. Member for Kettering has written. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), has also written on this matter and we have received a wide range of representations from trade unions and the public. I shall want to consider all those things carefully. I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman a time frame because I am still catching up on what the issues are and I want to understand them before a decision is made.

The proposals are still under consideration and consultation. Final decisions have not yet been made. All the information that has been provided during the consultation, including the petition that I understand was presented to Parliament, will be considered before an announcement is made.

I welcome this debate as part of our commitment to consult before taking final decisions. This is a long-term programme that will deliver a more responsive and efficient service for taxpayers and claimants in the long term. We have placed a heavy responsibility on HMRC and I have been pleasantly encouraged to see the care that is being taken over these decisions by the senior management team. The consultation exercises are the vehicle for taking into account the views that have been expressed today by hon. Members, and the views of staff, trade unions and the public. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised these matters today.

Derek Conway (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next debate, may I apologise to the Chamber for the fact that from time to time we hear the loudhailing from outside? I shall report it to Mr. Speaker, but hopefully it will not distract us from our deliberations.


4 July 2007 : Column 299WH

Air Passenger Duty

4.29 pm

Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): I am delighted to have secured this debate on air passenger duty double payments, which the Government and the airline industry should examine urgently. I welcome the Minister to her new position and am confident that, if anyone can help to find a solution to the problem, she can.

I have pursued the issue for some time and exchanged a great deal of correspondence with the Minister’s predecessor, but without securing a satisfactory outcome. That is not a reflection on the former Minister, who always listened carefully to my constituents’ concerns, but we never achieved the necessary firm action, and I hope that in the days and weeks ahead we shall be able to change that.

Most hon. Members know that air passenger duty is an excise duty that was introduced to help to address the increasing environmental damage resulting from increased air travel. The duty is charged on the carriage of passengers flying from any United Kingdom airport on an aircraft with an authorised take-off weight of more than 10 tonnes or with more than 20 passenger seats.

The purpose of this debate is not to question the nature of the duty. Like most people, I accept that some changes are necessary in the provision of services, but what concerns me and my constituents, and many other people who travel abroad and who live in areas outwith easy reach of London, is the double charge with which they are often hit. Many regional airports offer a limited number of international destinations, and passengers are often routed through Heathrow, which is the central hub for UK international flights, from a regional airport to catch a connecting flight. Those living in Scotland, the north of England, Northern Ireland and, in some cases, Wales are often hit with a double or even triple charge because they must take two domestic flights to and from London and their long-haul flight. The Government’s provisions to tackle that inequity and to ensure that passengers pay air passenger duty only once are fine in theory, but do not work so well in practice, resulting in many people being hit with the double whammy.

John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Many of his colleagues have tried to find an answer to the problem.

People in my constituency, which borders my hon. Friend’s, are charged £40 to go to London and then £40 to go to New York. They may have scraped and saved to obtain the most economic flight to New York, only to find that they must pay an extra £160 per person to travel both ways. Is it fair that those who can least afford it suffer the most?


Next Section Index Home Page