The People’s Pledge ran a ballot in the Thurrock constituency last year that showed that 89% of local voters favoured the holding of an EU referendum. The constituency was chosen by the People’s Pledge because Ms Doyle Price had voted in the House of Commons in October 2011 against holding a referendum.

The Thurrock MP then abstained on May 14 against an amendment to the Queen’s speech, proposed by Basildon and Billericay MP, John Baron, condemning the government for having failed to introduce legislation stipulating that the British people must be given the chance to vote on whether we stay in or leave the EU. 131 MPs of all parties, including 115 Tories, supported John Baron’s amendment.

David Cameron, back in January, promised rhetorically that he would hold a referendum should the Conservatives win the next general election. Mr Baron’s amendment was intended to commit whatever political party wins the next general election to consult the electorate on this issue.

People’s Pledge campaign director Stuart Coster comments: “Yet again, Jackie Doyle Price has failed to vote to give the people of Thurrock and the rest of the UK the chance to have their say on the EU. It is incredible that she has done this given that the People’s Pledge Thurrock ballot demonstrated overwhelming support for a referendum. I suspect many local voters will take Ms Doyle Price’s voting record on this issue into consideration when deciding who to support at the next general election.”

Jackie Doyle Price only won at the last election in this constituency by 92 votes.

The EU issue will surface again in July when a Private Members Bill will be presented committing the next government to hold an in-out referendum. On this occasion, the current government will be whipping its MPs to support his measure while the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships, at this stage, are saying they will instruct their MPs to vote against the measure.

Jackie said, “clearly there is something not right with a regime which half of all offenders leave prison and commit fresh crimes which see them locked up again within a year. Of course our prison regime is about punishment, but it is about rehabilitation too. It is bad for public safety that criminals are simply released into the community simply to reoffend.

That is why I welcome Chris Grayling’s determination to reform the probation regime. We will only break the cycle of reoffending if we properly supervise offenders when they have been released. Rehabilitation isn’t working. We will not build a safer society until we fix it.”

Thurrock MP Jackie Doyle-Price has welcomed the review and is encouraging bereaved families and hospital staff to make representations and provide evidence for the review. She said,

“I am pleased that this review is taking place. Patients and regulators have consistently reported care which falls below standard and it is only by a thorough review that we will get to the bottom of what needs to change to make things better so that all patients at Basildon get the care they deserve.”

Conservative health spokesman Cllr Shane Hebb added “The Keogh review, specifically the review of mortality rates at Basildon, is more than a temperature check. The findings of the report, which will combine not only professional observation but public experience, will help us understand if the hospital is going in the right direction at a fast enough pace.

There is no doubt that such a radical overhaul of an inefficient hospital will not happen overnight – there is much to be done, and expectations have to be realistic. The new management regime has been in place for six months and are open about the challenges in front of them. It is my hope, along with residents, that Sir Bruce Keogh reports back on a hospital which is self-aware, focussing on improvement and getting results.

“If the feedback is positive we know things are getting better.”

The Care Quality Commission is pulling together material for the review and would welcome the opportunity to review the experience of patients and their families.

If anyone wishes to share their story they can either do so through me or directly to the Care Quality Commission by telephone on 03000 616161; by email at enquiries@cqc.org.uk; or in writing to CQC National Customer Service Centre, Citygate, Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4PA.

Comments about Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital can also be made directly and anonymously via the CQC website.

The survivors who shared their stories with the Human Trafficking Foundation to create the exhibition attended the opening. Among them was Cristina, a Romanian girl sold by her mother into prostitution in Birmingham when she was 16 and who narrowly escaped being snatched from her local authority care home by her traffickers. There was also a man, duped by a job advertised in Hungary, and on arrival here forced to work without pay, compelled to open a credit card account operated by his slave master and forced to claim benefits for non-existent children.

No one knows the real numbers involved. Yet, the Serious Organized Crime Agency knows that at least 2,000 victims are found each year. However, they believe that is the tip of the iceberg and that for every victim found, another ten remain hidden. The Human Trafficking Foundation concludes there must be up to 20,000 slaves in the cities, towns and villages of the UK.

Of these victims that have come to light, 49.5% are known to have come from the South East.

MP for Thurrock Jackie Doyle-Price said “I was appalled to learn about the extent of modern day slavery. There will undoubtedly be people who have been trafficked to the UK and abused living in Thurrock. “As a result of what I’ve seen today, I want to ensure that everyone is more alert to the signs of modern day slavery. WE have to learn to see the signs. People leaving home very early in the morning and not returning until late in the evening, properties with many people living in them and not engaging with their neighbours – if you see anything suspicious report it. This is a big business organised by organised criminal gangs.

Anthony Steen, Chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation said: “What is amazing is that trafficked children, unlike adults, are offered no special care in spite of what they have been through. They have no safe haven since in local authority care hundreds of trafficked children go missing each year.

Speaking at the opening of the exhibition, the Prime Minister said: “Modern day slavery comes in many forms, in many ways, and we have to have a really concerted approach to crush it, to stamp it out and to make sure that we look at the rights of those who are affected and take a criminal approach to those who are the traffickers and above all call it what it is: slavery. “Congratulations to all of you for putting on this exhibition here in the mother of parliaments; it’s the right place for it to be. I very much look forward to seeing the exhibition, to meeting those who have been caught up in this appalling trade and to leading a government that will help stamp it out.”

Ms Doyle-Price said on www.conservativehome.blogs.com

“AS the political parties digest the implications of Thursday’s election results, there is the predictable call by some colleagues that a UKIP vote means that the Prime Minister needs to do more on Europe. I have to advise them that the UKIP surge has less to do with Europe and more to do with a general discontent with the political class.

The way we deal with that is to become a lot better at communicating our messages. That is a challenge for the Party leadership, but it is also a challenge for all of us who are supporters of the Conservative Party.

Lets just look at the results with a cool head. The Conservatives are topping the polls. Mid-term in challenging circumstances that is no mean feat. The results are truly disastrous for Labour – fighting it out with UKIP for second and third place with a vote share in the low 20 per cents is a truly appalling position for a party with any expectation of forming a Government.

So to the naysayers in our Party, it should be clear that the prognosis for the General election is good, and that there is every prospect of securing the majority which eluded us in 2010, providing we all knuckle down and work towards it.

Of course there are those who are impatient with us – that is why we need to get out on those doorsteps and engage with them. Here in Essex, we have seats where some candidates think they needn’t bother knocking on doors. Such complacency leaves them as sitting ducks waiting to be picked off by UKIP. For those of us in battleground territory, it is something we do all the time, and we therefore have a good understanding about how opinion is shifting.

What we can see is no swing back to Labour, but a general frustration with politicians which has played out in a strong showing by UKIP. Put simply, many people feel that there is no one speaking for them and dealing with the things that really matter to them.

It is that section of the electorate who embraced Margaret Thatcher and embraced Tony Blair. It is a vote which says ‘a plague on all your houses’, It is soft and it swings all over the place. We haven’t yet managed to convince them that we are on their side. It is why we need to be so much sharper about getting our narrative out.

On welfare, on immigration, on Europe, and on allowing people to keep more of what they earn, we have a good and popular story to tell. We have to sell it. If some colleagues spent more time on the doorstep and less time picking fights with the Prime Minister, they would understand that the UKIP surge is not about European policy, and would fight the perception that the Conservative Party is out of touch and not for them.

There will also be those who renew calls for a Conservative UKIP electoral pact. It really should not be imagined that UKIP’s votes are all coming from the Conservative Party. They are not. In fact, the rise in the UKIP vote has much to do with the fact that voters who have supported Labour in the past are left cold by Ed Miliband.

The fact is that this country cannot afford another Labour Government. And it is incumbent on all of us who have the privilege of representing the Conservative Party to work towards attaining that majority.

On polling day, an Essex newspaper (The Enquirer) carried a letter from the MP for Billericay which was critical of the Prime Minister and as good as invited Conservatives to vote UKIP. It is unsurprising then that so many then did.

There is no room for self-indulgence which serves only to damage the Conservative brand. It is very easy to put out tweets that say ‘look at me’ but think on. Winning the battle will require focus, discipline, strong messages and hard work. It is time to stop fighting each other and take the battle to the doorsteps.”

The Challenge, which ends on 22nd May, sets participating organisations 24 activities to complete, with activities split across Game, Skill, Food and a special David Beckham 1 Minute Challenge. By taking part in all of the activities, Harris Academy Chafford Hundred will receive 200 Active Kids vouchers to spend this year and will also be in with a chance to win places at the Active Kids Challenge Live! event to meet Active Kids Ambassadors David Beckham and Ellie Simmonds.

Local MP Jackie Doyle-Price is calling on Active Kids registered organisations in Thurrock to have a go at the Challenge in the coming weeks. She is one of 15 MPs across the UK who will help a local organisation in their constituency take part in one of the activities in the Challenge, as part of a special national awareness campaign.

Jackie Doyle-Price said: “The Active Kids Challenge is really easy, fun and great for team building, whether it’s in the classroom or a P.E lesson. I am I’m pleased to be support the team at Sainsbury’s Chafford Hundred. I enjoyed getting involved in one of the activities on Friday and I hope others will to as there really are some great prizes on offer”

Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock, Conservative)

“Recent press reports have revealed that as many as a third of the number of cigarettes sold in the London area are contraband. Will the Minister discuss the matter with those in other Departments, in order to ensure that the objective that we are trying to achieve by standardising packaging will be achieved by that means?

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)

“I shall be meeting the relevant Home Office Minister today to discuss that very issue, but let me repeat that, far from being a counterfeiter’s dream, the packets produced in Australia would clearly be a nightmare here. A variety of colours, watermarks and holograms, and all manner of other things, can be attached to them, which is why they are described as “standardised” rather than “plain”.

Jackie said, “I am proud to represent Tilbury, which is in my constituency and has what is currently the world’s largest dedicated biomass power station. The history of Tilbury is interesting, because the power station was until very recently coal-fired, and it has been generating sufficient power for the whole of Essex for the past 50 years. However, the large combustion plant directive finished off Tilbury as a coal-fired power station, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be very aware of how much impact the directive is having on our power generation capability.

At its peak, Tilbury employed 750 people—today it employs 250, all in very highly skilled jobs—and it generated more than 1,000 MW, which is enough to power 1 million homes. In its 50 years of operation, it never breached its environmental licence. That prompts the question, although we implement EU directives with very good intentions, in terms of reducing emissions, when we look at the detail of the impact, are we really hitting the right things when we are looking at tackling climate change and environmentalism? I just put that out there. It is not unusual for the European Union to get things very badly wrong.

With over a third of our existing generating capacity due to close by the end of this decade, clearly, more investment in renewable and low-carbon technology is required—and quickly—so that, in future, we have a secure energy supply, a lower-carbon energy supply and an affordable energy supply. That is why we need to unlock the supply challenges quickly, because without increasing supply, the impact will be on price, and our most vulnerable consumers will be hit.

I know the Minister does not require too much encouragement in this regard, but I would like to highlight how much this issue illustrates what happens when Governments fail to fight our corner in Europe. I can see a situation coming down the track very quickly where we will be forced to buy more and more electricity from France, in particular, because the regulatory system has favoured nuclear over coal. We all want cleaner, greener energy, but we need to keep the lights on, and we need to make sure that people can afford to heat their homes. For our own energy security, therefore, we need to make the most of the potential of biomass as an energy source, given its generating potential, and given how much more of our domestic demand we will be able to supply.

It is telling that coal-fired power stations are being built in Germany, when we have made coal completely uneconomic in this country. When we are dealing with private investors and expecting them to invest billions of pounds so that we can keep our lights on, we must recognise that they are not in it for charity, and we must enable them to facilitate that investment in the best way we can. To put it bluntly, the Department has, hitherto, been not enough about energy and rather too much about climate change. I believe that really has to change.”

Jackie told the House “the Care Quality Commission voiced its lack of confidence in the management at Basildon, but there was no change and no one was held to account”

“Subsequent CQC inspections found Basildon failing in terms of care and welfare, safety of premises, safety and suitability of equipment, nutritional standards, dealing with serious incidents, record keeping and cleanliness. That is simply not good enough.”

“At Basildon, the board clearly failed in its duty to provide effective challenge and to hold the management to account. I think that we need to give a clear indication to directors of foundation trusts that in the event of poor performance, the buck stops with the board. They are accountable and they need to accept that responsibility.”

Since I started challenging Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust, I have been very heavily criticised, as if by holding the hospital to account for its performance I am attacking the NHS and its staff. The contrary is true.

If we really believe in the NHS and in providing the best possible health services for our constituents, we must challenge it when things go wrong. We should have zero tolerance of failure. Do we not owe it to the staff who do their job well to ensure that those who do not are disciplined and held to account for poor conduct?

Thankfully, Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust is now under new leadership. There are new non- executive directors who will provide a challenge. We have a new chairman, a new chief executive and a new medical director, and I am encouraged by the messages I have received from them.

However, when senior management have been excusing poor practice for so long, there is a need for profound cultural change to get things fixed. An NHS with a stronger emphasis on accountability would have allowed us to start that process in Basildon so much sooner and to save many lives.

http://www.pannone.com/media-centre/blog/medical-negligence-blog/14-trusts-investigated-for-high-death-rates

Ms Doyle-Price said:

“It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which has been characterised by positive and constructive contributions from all parts of the House. That shows just how much support there is for more and better apprenticeships.

I am proud to represent a constituency with a strong manufacturing base and a strong and vibrant logistics industry. Apprenticeships have always been a feature of these industries. When I meet the wealth creators in Thurrock, without exception they are people who have learned their skills in the workplace. That fact needs to be understood. For many people, choosing an apprenticeship will be the most effective route to their personal advancement. I would like to highlight some successful local programmes and, in doing so, highlight some areas where the Government could do more to encourage better apprenticeships.

The port of Tilbury has always offered a number of apprenticeships each year, placing a high emphasis on skills and even establishing its own logistics academy to provide bespoke training that suits its business. This year the port has developed a new apprenticeship in health and safety, which is central to its business, as ports are hazardous places. The port has advised me, however, that the apprenticeship framework can often prove inflexible for the kind of training that it wishes to offer. I suggest to the Minister that we need to ensure that the framework focuses on equipping workers with the intended skill, rather than just ticking boxes.

In addition to the established industries, Thurrock also has an emerging centre of excellence in the creative industries. My hon. Friend the Minister saw this for himself only last week, when he visited the new Backstage Centre, which will provide a great deal of training through putting on live musical and theatrical events. The creative industries are a growing sector, but it is also a sector that is characterised by self-employment and small and medium-sized enterprises. That is another area in which the Government really need to do more work. It can be daunting for a sole trader to take on the onus and responsibility of managing an apprentice, but the National Skills Academy for Creative & Cultural has provided a collective framework to enable a number of SMEs and sole traders to come together and offer training to young people. There is a need to pass on those skills to other people if we are going to make the most of that growing industry, in which Britain leads the world.

I want to highlight the example of a particular individual who is currently going through his apprenticeship with the Royal Opera House. Not all Members will know this, but the Royal Opera House’s production park is in my constituency of Thurrock. Everything that those Members who enjoy going to the opera see on stage has been made in Thurrock—and very proud of that we are, too.

The Royal Opera House’s current apprentice is a young man named Jamie Ashwell. He decided to take up the offer of an apprenticeship rather than doing a stage management degree at university. For Jamie, the choice was simple. He is working for a world-leading arts organisation, getting experience of real projects and working with leading practitioners in the industry—and he is being paid, to boot. I envisage that, in the future, some of the strongest apprenticeship places will be as hotly contested as some of our most prestigious university places.

The apprenticeship route also suits the Royal Opera House. It needs people with real practical skills in the type of work that it does. People with arts degrees who apply for jobs in its costume or make-up departments, for example, do not necessarily have the required technical skills. By offering apprenticeships, the Royal Opera House can train people up in areas such as bespoke tailoring and wig-making—true crafts that are not available to those studying for degrees.

Ms Doyle-Price said:

“My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the argument. There are regulators responsible for policing such activity, but as with any regulatory breach, regulators have to be fleet of foot in dealing with transgressions, or companies will just carry

on with them. Would my hon. Friend like to see a much more aggressive approach on behalf of the regulators so that action is taken sooner?

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan, Conservative)

My hon. Friend shows great interest in these issues and makes an extremely valuable point. I have already mentioned that Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office have been slow to respond to the problem, and as my hon. Friend highlights, the position is ever changing. Not only are telephone numbers changing but so too is technology. Although I welcome Ofcom’s five-point plan, which it would probably cite in response to the criticism coming from the Government Benches, it is not a game changer. The plan is helpful and welcome, but it will not make a significant difference to most people, particularly as it is an ever-changing situation.

I have serious concerns about the regulatory responsibility being split between two bodies. It causes confusion to the consumer and adds nothing to the prevention or resolution of the problem. Having one body—probably Ofcom—would be much more efficient. The issue of withheld numbers, however, is central. Technology improvements allowed caller ID to be introduced in 1994, and at that time a consensus developed that callers should be able to withhold numbers if they wished. Key reasons related to the need to protect people receiving calls from charitable groups, such as those supporting victims of domestic violence, and to the need for the police to contact someone without disclosing their identity. At the time, there was no major issue with nuisance calls, and it is fair to say that contact centres have now abused the protection that was intended for the greater good.

Nuisance calls could be compared to someone knocking at the door wearing a mask or a balaclava. Would we answer the door to such an unknown caller? Of course we would not. Why, then, do we allow the same thing to happen over the telephone? Ironically, door-to-door salesmen from some of the companies Ofcom has criticised must show identity cards. In recent years, some of those companies have used them as a marketing ploy to demonstrate how responsible they are. Salesmen are therefore showing ID cards when they call at the door, but nothing similar happens when they use the telephone.

Many people have been forced to ask their telephone operators to block all withheld numbers—for a fee, of course. That can leave individuals in a vulnerable position. GP practices, police stations or other essential service providers do not always display their number—possibly with good reason, possibly not—so constituents may refuse to answer the telephone.

Some innovations and new telephones can overcome part of the problem, but there needs to be a shift in policy to protect the consumer. One option is that organisations that wanted to withhold numbers would need to show they had good reason for doing so and to get Ofcom’s agreement. That, of course, should not apply to domestic users. We need to recognise that that will not always deal with certain situations, given technological developments and the ever-changing situation. Voice over internet protocol and the international calls I mentioned are particularly problematic.

I am not a fan of legislation for the sake of legislation, so I ask UK firms to play their part voluntarily. They should not only adhere strictly to the regulations, but go further and introduce higher standards, possibly in the

form of a code of conduct. It would be a good start, for example, if they agreed to stop using withheld numbers, rather than being forced to do so through legislation. Using withheld numbers is in their interests, not the consumer’s interests, so if they really want to react to consumer demands, that would be a good start.

Telephone network operators also have a part to play. They could establish a system that made it possible to identify callers using withheld numbers. That would allow complaints to be made to Ofcom or the Information Commissioner. Legislation may well prevent the caller’s number from being given to the receiver, but the network operator will often know what the number is. A simple system could be introduced to allow a consumer to make a direct complaint to Ofcom, with the telephone operator advising Ofcom what the number is. Those innovative, straightforward proposals would resolve many of the problems.

As I said, the situation is extremely complicated. I have not even got on to texting or calls to mobiles. However, my comments demonstrate the problem, which has increased partly as a result of payment protection insurance and partly as a result of the claims that have been made for many other things. Given that the data that have been published show a trebling of nuisance phone calls in one month alone last year, we can assume the figure is even higher, and it would be much higher still if the receiver of the call could complain because they had the telephone number. I am grateful for Members’ support.

If you live in the Thurrock constituency and feel Jackie or her team may be able to help give any advice and assistance, then please feel free to come along on the day.

Jackie said “This will be an informal event and there is no need for people to make an appointment beforehand. If you are from Thurrock and have a problem that I might be able to help with, then just pop along on the 26th January and I will be happy to discuss. I would also like to thank McDonald’s for letting us use their facilities”.

Residents can contact Jackie’s constituency office on 01375 802029 if they require any further information or email – Jackie.doyleprice.mp@parliament.uk

Ms Doyle-Price said: “I am very pleased to follow my hon. Friend Stephen McPartland. I think that his excellent initiative will do much to provide transparency, and to enable consumers to make informed decisions. If there is one thing that the debate has shown us, it is that consumer power is perhaps the most effective weapon that we have when it comes to ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend Ian Swales for securing this important debate. Let me say for the benefit of some of my colleagues that I am happy to refer to him as my hon. Friend, and that I am gratified to see that so many of his own colleagues are present. That contrasts markedly with the attendance on the Opposition Benches.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar will know, the debate was prompted partly by the work of the Public Accounts Committee—of which I am proud to be a member—and its work on tax avoidance by global companies. Our report at the back-end of last year found that HMRC’s performance in that regard was perhaps not as good as we would have liked.

I shall concentrate on some of the wider lessons learnt from the inquiry about how to make the UK tax system efficient and effective, while remaining competitive. I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend Mark Field and others about the debate becoming unduly political and playing to the gallery. It is good politics to attack global names as tax dodgers in the media, but we have to be careful about the messages we send out to potential investors in our country. I am pleased that, in the main, this debate has been a lot more mature than the debate that has played out in the media.

Members will know that the Committee heard evidence from Google, Starbucks and Amazon. We looked at the extent to which they exported their profits to more favourable jurisdictions and whether those arrangements could be described as fair. In that respect, the evidence supplied by Amazon was the least convincing—that has very much been the flavour of this debate. Those of us who have used Amazon—I am sure that many of us have—think we were dealing with a company in Slough, and those of us who visited our local post offices over Christmas would have seen just how much business Amazon was doing, yet, despite booking billions of pounds of sales through the UK, it pays less than £2 million in corporation tax, as has been said, with the profits being exported to the parent company in Luxembourg on more favourable terms.

Before we get too excited, we need to recognise that this is one of the things the European single market contributes to achieving—a company, wherever it is based in Europe, can sell across member states. The question is why, when Amazon has so much business here, it has chosen not to locate here. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with trying to limit tax liability. After all, that money is earned and owned by the individuals and business; it does not belong to the Government. We need to look at what more we can do to encourage those firms to be more honest in their reporting of how much money is made here. In that sense, I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend Mr Bacon: this is about simplicity of the tax system.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just a case of headline corporation tax rates—for instance, ours compared with Luxembourg’s—but about the special deals that those companies can do with the authorities in Luxembourg, the Republic of Ireland or the Netherlands, through which they pay very little tax and export their profits to tax havens? Does she agree that we need to do more at European level to ensure that those sorts of special deals do not happen in one jurisdiction in a way that disfavours another jurisdiction?

Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock, Conservative)

I suspect this will be a rare occasion, but I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. The important point to which he alludes is that we cannot afford to take unilateral action in this area. We live in a global marketplace, and in reality some countries—even members of the EU—are perhaps less honourable in their dealings under tax treaties than we are. We all need to be a lot more savvy and a bit more mature about what will make our tax system more efficient and competitive, and that comes down to simplifying rates.

Paul Farrelly mentioned the sweetheart deals made by other countries. In that respect, I would like to highlight the issue of Google. Google is an internet firm, but the language of the internet is English, so why would a company such as Google choose Ireland over Britain? It can only have been because of the offers made to it. Again, we need to use the institutions of the EU to ensure a level playing field and a genuine single market. We need to recognise that companies will locate where they like and make sure that everybody is doing their bit to ensure a genuinely competitive market between states.

In response to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, I mentioned the issue of consumer power. Perhaps the most telling thing about what has happened since the PAC’s inquiry is how Starbucks has reacted. Amazon and Google are in near-monopoly positions, so competition cannot make them change their behaviour. There is no doubt that the negative publicity Starbucks faced following our inquiry forced it to make its gesture of offering to pay more corporation tax. We are in the bizarre position where that company seems to behave as if the amount of tax it pays is very much a voluntary contribution. It is incumbent on the Treasury and HMRC to make it clear that such a practice will not be tolerated.

I wish to highlight another issue that the Committee found when it examined Starbucks and the more sinister impact it had on the marketplace here in the UK. This comes back to the degree to which the ability to export taxes on profits enables these companies to engage in anti-competitive behaviour. Despite the phenomenal growth in the presence of Starbucks throughout the UK, we were told throughout our inquiries that Starbucks had made no profits here. We were also told that Starbucks was committed to expanding its operation, as its presence in the UK was important to it. Those two statements simply do not add up. If we look a little more deeply, we find that it seems the most significant losses were run up during a bidding war with Coffee Republic for certain sites on our high streets, with the result being that Starbucks entered into more expensive contracts for property and Coffee Republic was reduced to having a mere fraction of the stores it had had hitherto. So we are talking about a global provider engaging in very aggressive anti-competitive behaviour against a home-grown provider, and the tax system, in effect, subsidising it to do so. I would like the Minister and the Treasury to reflect on the extent to which that sort of behaviour gives unfair competitive advantages to foreign providers.

I am running out of time, so I shall just come back to one point: we cannot afford to act unilaterally. I call on the Government to make full use of relationships in the G20, the OECD and the EU to lead a global effort to tackle these unfair and uncompetitive practices.

Ms Doyle-Price said:

“As we are approaching the end of a busy year, I thought I would update you on a number of campaigns which I have been running and to invite your support where it will make a difference.

Firstly, George Osborne has now confirmed that the Government will make funding available to commence the improvements to Junction 30 of the M25. It is unable to start straight away as there are not any shovel ready plans yet, but I am pleased to say that after a lot of lobbying we have finally achieved a breakthrough. At £150m this is the most expensive junction improvement project ever and will make life much easier for Thurrock’s motorists as well as encouraging more jobs and growth by making our road network work better. I am really grateful that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have agreed to find the money to start it as soon as possible.

The debate regarding additional river crossings will recommence next year. In the absence of any crossings between Dartford and Blackwall, we will continue to be plagued by congestion on the Thurrock road network. There will be a new crossing at Silvertown which will make a real difference. As for a lower Thames crossing, I am quite clear-any new crossing must not add to congestion in Thurrock; it must alleviate pressure at Dartford; and it must not lead to the construction of more motorways in Thurrock. However, it is clear that this question cannot be ducked for much longer if we are going to keep the traffic moving. I will keep you informed.

The campaign for a new free school in Chafford Hundred continues. I am really pleased that so many parents have given their support and I am grateful to Harris for stepping up to the plate to pull together the bid. There is still time for anyone who will have a child starting school in September 2014 to sign up and register their interest in attending the school. Similarly, for those children who started school this year but would benefit from a place in a Chafford School we are taking expressions of interest for them too. Please get in touch if you are interested. After years of talk about the lack of school places on Chafford we are now able to just get on and do something about it thanks to the policy of Free Schools.

As you will be aware, expanding the number of apprenticeships is central to our strategy for equipping people with good skills as well as tackling the long standing problem we have with our unemployment. It is working, this month youth unemployment fell to below 1million, still too high, but moving in the right direction. The expansion of apprenticeships has gone a long way to achieving that, but we still need to encourage more businesses to join in. To show your support, please sign up to my campaign at www.moreapprentices.com .

Finally, if you are fed up of receiving texts and phone calls from companies offering to get you a PPI refund, then please get in touch. I am leading the charge in Parliament to get more effective regulation of these companies who are both a menace and a rip off. I would be pleased to hear any stories you may have of your dealings with these companies so that we can look in to them.

Once again I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.