House of Commons
Thursday 12 November 2009
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Business before questions
Canterbury City Council Bill ( By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order. No. 20).
Nottingham City Council Bill ( By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order. No. 20).
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 20).
Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] ( B y O rder)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 20).
Leeds City Council Bill ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 20).
Reading Borough Council Bill ( By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 20).
City of Westminster Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)
That so much of the Lords message [12 October] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [ Lords] be now considered.-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)
That the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if
they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)
That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Canterbury City Council Bill ( By Order)
That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Leeds City Council Bill ( By Order)
That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Nottingham City Council Bill ( By Order)
That the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Reading Borough Council Bill ( By Order)
That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Business, Innovation and Skills
The Minister of State was asked-
Higher Education
1. Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): What steps his Department is taking to ensure fair access to higher education for all. [299489]
The Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property (Mr. David Lammy): Last week, we published our higher education framework. There has been a narrowing in the gap between the least advantaged and the most advantaged in terms of higher education participation in recent years, but we want to go further, for example by supporting many of the recommendations in the recent report by the panel on fair access to the professions chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
Dr. Starkey: I thank the Minister for that answer. Increasing additional student numbers is incredibly important to constituencies such as mine in Milton Keynes where there is a relatively low participation rate in higher education. Can the Minister give me any good news about the expansion of the new university centre in Milton Keynes and perhaps about having additional student numbers for those who are studying HE in further education colleges?
Mr. Lammy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her doughty championing of extending universities' reach across Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes is offering higher education to more students through the Open university than any other university in the country. My hon. Friend was lucky and successful in her bid to extend that reach to mature students and part-time students in Milton Keynes. Additional student numbers are of course an issue for the funding council, but I know that the business plan, as it comes forward, will make that case even stronger.
Stephen Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): It is probably common ground between those on all three Front Benches that there is a problem of fair access to some of our research-intensive universities and to particular courses. Does the Minister not accept that the brave new world for which he is preparing the ground, with the connivance of those on the Conservative Front Bench, with fully variable market fees after the next general election will make those barriers even harder for people from poorer backgrounds to leap?
Mr. Lammy:
I am going to take every opportunity to expose the conceit of the Liberal Democrats over the next few months. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that they would turn their backs on the 50 per cent. participation rate and their leader said that they would downgrade their position on tuition fees
because they could not cost it after the election. That is the Liberal Democrats' position-conceit and taking our students for granted.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): My understanding is that Cambridge and Oxford still refuse to let full-time students work during term time. The access regulator, as I understand it, has never imposed any sanctions against any university. Will my right hon. Friend look into this?
Mr. Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that point to my attention. He knows that universities are autonomous, but I had not heard that before. I will look into the matter and discuss it with the funding council.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): In a written answer, the Minister confessed that only 6 per cent. of state school pupils aged 15 progressed to Russell group universities. Of those few, just one in 10 are from the bottom two socio-economic groups. It is clear that very few such students get to our longest established universities. Vitally, many from more disadvantaged backgrounds study HE in FE, but we know from an answer just this morning that this figure is falling too. So is the Government's expensive Aimhigher programme a failure, or are the answers to the parliamentary questions inadvertently incorrect? It must be one or the other: is it failure or fallacy?
Mr. Lammy: Universities, parents and students up and down the country will be very nervous that a Conservative Government would cut Aimhigher. The socio-economic gap between those in the highest and lowest groups is down by 7 per cent., while participation from the poorest neighbourhoods in the country and from state schools is up. All that is against the backdrop of the Conservatives slashing funding for universities. We have seen an increase of 25 per cent. in the participation rate, so will the hon. Gentleman commit to a 50 per cent.-
Mr. Speaker: Order. I gently say to the Minister of State that the purpose of Question Time is for questions to be put to Ministers, rather than to members of the Opposition.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. Friend knows that I have been campaigning for fair access for many years, but can we ensure that fair access means that students are suitably qualified and that they can speak and write English properly? In addition, do they not need to work a bit harder, as at present the average student in our universities does not work hard enough?
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend has been a campaigner for the use of contextual data in the past, and I hope that he will welcome that in the higher education framework. I think it best that I leave his words of advice to students to him, as that is a point that only he could make.
High-Speed Broadband
2. Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): What steps he plans to take to provide support for development of high-speed broadband networks. [299490]
11. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): What steps he plans to take to provide support for development of high-speed broadband networks. [299500]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Ian Lucas): The "Digital Britain" White Paper, published on 16 June, outlined the Government's plans for a next-generation fund, which will help to deliver at least 90 per cent. coverage of next-generation broadband for homes and businesses by 2017. The fund will be created through a levy of 50p per month on all fixed telecommunication lines.
Mr. Vaizey: The distinguished Government adviser Professor Andrew Cave has said that the wrong sort of regulation will deter private investment. Charles Dunstone of TalkTalk has said that the telephone tax will delay it. Why is the Minister introducing a telephone tax, and a wireless broadband tax of £100 a year that will hit our small businesses?
Ian Lucas: I am surprised and disappointed that the Opposition are setting their face against a policy that will extend broadband to rural communities and create an inclusive broadband system. The Government have a firm and decisive position, and I would be very interested to hear what alternative proposals the Opposition have for delivering broadband to the rest of the country.
Tony Baldry: Other countries are laying fibre-optic cable to thousands of homes, so why have UK operators barely started to think about doing so? BT, protected by its monopoly over the local loop, appears to be making minimal investment. If we are to get a universal 2 megabit broadband connection by 2012, are the Government not going to have to raise their game in a serious way?
Ian Lucas: With respect, the Government have set out clear policies to intervene, where appropriate, to take the market position forward. Of course, a great deal of investment must be made by the private sector to take forward the extension of broadband across the UK, but the Government must also play their part. We are doing that by making it very clear indeed that we will support the development of broadband so that we have an inclusive broadband system in the UK.
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire) (Lab): How acceptable is it that a village like Hilton in my constituency, which has a population of nearly 4,000, should have a speed that is too low to enable people to carry out any normal domestic activities? Its thriving business sector also struggles with a speed that is unacceptable. Is it not correct to take a tougher regulatory line with BT?
Ian Lucas:
Of course, it is not acceptable that individuals and businesses are excluded from access to broadband. It means that they cannot develop as they would like.
For that reason, the Government have set out a clear policy and are determined to act to extend broadband coverage across the country.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab): Internet service providers will lose income from people who are cut off as a result of allegations of illicit file-sharing, yet the figures used by my hon. Friend's Department to assess the scale of internet piracy are provided by the music industry and are based on a poor sample-fewer than 200-and have been soundly ridiculed by the BBC. Will he give me a guarantee that he will review those figures?
Ian Lucas: It is extremely important that we recognise the huge impact that illegal file-sharing is having on creative industries, such as the music and film industries, in which we excel in the UK. Any suggestion of removing access from individuals would be very much a last resort, but there is a real issue that we need to confront and deal with, and we shall look closely at the available solutions.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): Will the Minister accept that the way we shall get the private sector to create a really competitive market in the roll-out of broadband is by allowing different digital platforms access to content, particularly of BSkyB's premium programmes? What is he doing to make sure that Ofcom creates that wide competitive programme, rather than simply giving in to Murdoch?
Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Labour Members never like giving in to Murdoch and we are, therefore, very keen indeed to create and take forward a competitive business model. We are not in anyone's pocket. We want to create a level playing field in the UK and we shall work with business to achieve it.
Business Investment (Yorkshire)
3. Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): What steps his Department is taking to promote investment in businesses in Yorkshire. [299491]
The Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination (Ms Rosie Winterton): My Department is taking a number of steps to support businesses and promote investment across the regions, including schemes such as grants for business investment, the enterprise finance guarantee and support for collaborative research and development projects. In addition, BIS supports the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, which has spent more than £200 million supporting businesses in the last two years.
Hugh Bayley: York is performing better than many other cities in the economic downturn. We have a lot of vigorous private sector businesses, but they need help not just with investment, but with exports and in building up their skills base through training. To what extent is Yorkshire Forward focusing on those needs?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |