House of Commons
Thursday 14 October 2010
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
Prayers
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Business, Innovation and Skills
The Secretary of State was asked-
Adult and Community Learning
1. Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con): What plans he has for the future of adult and community learning; and if he will make a statement. [17252]
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): Adult and community learning make a vital contribution to building a big society founded on social mobility, social justice and social cohesion. We will strive to reinvigorate adult and community learning to make it part of the wider learning continuum and to enable providers to respond to the learning needs of their communities.
Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he managed to see research from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education that demonstrates that 28% of adult learners show an increased involvement in social, community and volunteering activity as a direct result of their learning? Does he agree that that demonstrates the vital role that adult education will have to play in contributing to the big society?
Mr Hayes: Yes, indeed. As it happens, I have with me the response to the study that he describes. The transformative power of adult learning is well understood by this Government. We know that adult learning changes lives by changing life chances. It gives some of the most disadvantaged people in our community their chance to gain learning. It is frequently progressive to further learning and takes them to the world of work. This Government unequivocally back adult learning.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): In our multicultural big society, which is being created, what specific help will there be for those who do not have English as a first language to help them acquire these skills?
Mr Hayes:
It is absolutely right-in the spirit in which I have answered the earlier question-that we should consider the particular needs of communities in the way that the right hon. Gentleman makes clear. Language is critical-it is critical in building the social
cohesion that I described. The chances for people in settled communities without a grasp of English to acquire that grasp are essential if they are going to learn and work.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): Evidence from the excellent West Suffolk college in my constituency suggests that those who participate in adult learning increase their activity in the third sector. Given the necessary constraint on public spending, would the Minister perhaps give us a clue as to whether he is going to encourage more co-payment of fees?
Mr Hayes: Any clues offered on that subject would do me no good at all. It would be entirely inappropriate to prejudge the discussions on the comprehensive spending review. May I just say how welcome it is to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber today?
Adult Education
2. Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the likely effects on development of small businesses of reductions in spending on adult education. [17253]
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the results of the spending review will not be announced until next week. However, a key consideration has been how we best ensure the skills of our nation are improved. I can also assure him that we have modelled the impact of our proposals on businesses and individuals. Skills are crucial to delivering growth and will play a key role in our agenda.
Mr Virendra Sharma: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that adult education provides essential work skills for some of my most vulnerable constituents and that 40% reductions in spending on adult education will hit those constituents, and consequently small businesses, hardest-when they are both vital in providing economic growth to tackle the deficit?
Mr Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that small businesses form the backbone of our economy, and it is our job to ensure that they get the support they need. An advanced economy needs advanced skills, and backing business and providing growth means investing in skills. As I have said, he would not expect me to prejudge the CSR, but he can be assured that the team on the Front Bench fully appreciates the power and value of skills.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): Will the Minister tell me whether his Department has made any progress on the skills needed for small businesses such as those in the curry industry and whether there has been any progress on trying to develop additional learning skills for that industry?
Mr Hayes: As my hon. Friend knows, because we have discussed the matter-by the way, I pay tribute to her work in that field-just this week I met my counterpart from Bangladesh to discuss the matter. [ Interruption. ] Sadly, we were not sharing a samosa at the time. I have asked my hon. Friend to make representations to the Department to talk about her work with that industry to deliver the skills that that industry needs.
Tuition Fees
3. Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): What plans he has for the future level of the cap on tuition fees which may be levied by universities; and if he will make a statement. [17254]
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): We welcome Lord Browne's independent report on higher education, which makes recommendations about the structure and level of graduate contributions. We are looking at his proposals carefully and considering a contribution level of £7,000.
Mr Kennedy: My right hon. Friend knows the reasons, which are well documented, why I cannot support the thrust and direction of Government policy on this one. Given the inevitable, and indeed immediate, ramifications of any policy change for the tertiary sector in England on Russell group universities in Scotland, is he willing between now and next May to enter into open-minded discussions with all the political parties in Scotland to see whether a modus vivendi can none the less be achieved to maintain some of the principles for which we have argued long and hard where Scottish tertiary sector education is concerned?
Vince Cable: That is a constructive suggestion. I am happy to do exactly what my right hon. Friend has said. To reinforce the point, yesterday the principal-the vice-chancellor equivalent-of Glasgow university, where I know my right hon. Friend is a rector and with which I have an association, said in relation to the growing funding crisis in Scottish universities:
"I believe we need to adopt a graduate contribution model that is properly designed, progressive and one which requires those who earn more during their lifetime to pay back more to society in order to fund higher education."
That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): On Tuesday, the Social Market Foundation published an analysis of how the Business Secretary's £7,000 a year minimum fee will hit different graduates. It shows that the hardest hit will be graduates who earn £27,000 a year, while students who get help from the bank of mum and dad to pay off early will get a £12,000 discount on the cost of their degree. Is that fair?
Vince Cable: It would not be fair, if that were the outcome. That particular analysis does not properly consider the true present value of the payments that people will have to make. There has been some excellent research on the operation of different interest rates in order to produce a genuinely fair and progressive outcome, which Government Members want and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman still wants.
Mr Denham: When my building society starts asking me to pay my mortgage in net present value, I will do so. Until then, I will talk pounds and pence like everybody else.
Does the Business Secretary recognise that if he allows universities such as Oxford and Cambridge to charge £10,000 or £12,000 a year, the gap between the few and the many will get wider? The Higher Education
Minister has said that it is not possible to stop people paying their fees up front. Will that not create the unfair situation in which those born into privilege, such as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick two at random, can get a huge discount for paying up front, while the bright child from a poor background who makes it to Oxford or Cambridge will pay even more? How is that fair?
Vince Cable: We are anxious to ensure a fairer solution than the existing graduate contribution system that we inherited. The right hon. Gentleman has used the analogy of mortgage payments, which is interesting. No building society or bank that I am aware of would exempt people from any payments until they were earning £21,000 a year, which is the progressive element that we are trying to introduce. He has rightly referred to the difficulties that would arise if certain Russell group institutions were allowed to charge very large variable contributions. That is why I made no commitment on Tuesday on how we would deal with that problem, on which we need to reflect further. He is right that there is an issue of fairness, which we will address.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to stop higher education from disintegrating into a free market free-for-all, either by imposing a cap or by requiring a high proportion of additional fees levied by some of the top universities to be paid out in bursaries to poorer students?
Vince Cable: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right; there has to be choice and there will be some competition among universities, which is welcome. That is very far short of a laissez-faire free market. We do not want that. There has to be protection for low-income students when they graduate. We will build in those protections and will ensure that there is a proper progressive scheme.
Local Enterprise Partnerships
4. John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): What steps he plans to take to ensure that businesses in deprived areas receive support through local enterprise partnerships. [17255]
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk): First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench as a shadow Transport Minister.
Local enterprise partnerships will be a vital element in our new framework for economic development. At the same time, we are planning to modernise business support to improve both access to information and the quality of advice. That will be especially important to firms in remote or deprived areas.
John Woodcock: I thank the Minister for that answer and for his kind words. Does he accept that the recovery is currently very fragile? What interim measures will he put in place while the regional growth fund is being established and will he commit to funding the vital marina project in my constituency?
Mr Prisk:
The hon. Gentleman has astutely got on to the record his local project and I commend him for that, but he will understand that a week before the comprehensive
spending review I am not going to pre-empt such matters. I will say, however, that the combination of making sure that we have genuine economic development partnerships that are rooted in the communities and ensuring that they are a genuine partnership between business and civic leaders will enable local areas such as Barrow and Furness to set their own priorities and not have Whitehall telling them what they should do.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): Although South Thanet is in one of the richest regions in the south-east, it is the 64th-most deprived district in the country. Does the Minister agree that LEPs must be there to support the most deprived districts even within richer regions?
Mr Prisk: One of the great advantages of moving away from the one-size-fits-all general regional development agencies is that local enterprise partnerships can respond to local needs. I know that my hon. Friend, who fights her corner for her constituents well, will make sure that that happens.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): Yesterday, PricewaterhouseCoopers warned of half a million lost private sector jobs with the Government's scrapping of schools, hospitals and road contracts. Meanwhile, Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government continue squabbling about what local enterprise partnerships can do, blocking resources that the private sector says it needs now. Why should businesses believe that the Minister and his colleagues have any plan for local growth or jobs when they are in such a shambles and chaos over LEPs?
Mr Prisk: We have inherited a situation in which the funds have run out, as the Labour party has said. That is why we are focusing on the things that really matter-tackling the public deficit to keep interest rates lower for longer, making sure that small businesses see their corporation tax go down and tackling red tape. The Labour party failed to deal with all that, but we will.
Apprenticeships
5. Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD): How many apprenticeship places his Department plans to fund in 2010-11. [17256]
6. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): How many apprenticeship places his Department plans to fund in 2010-11. [17257]
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): Just days after taking office we announced-
Mr Speaker: Order. It is always a terrible pain to have to interrupt the mellifluous tones of the Minister, but I think he meant to make it clear that questions five and six are grouped together.
Mr Hayes: I am always grateful for your benevolence and advice on these matters, Mr Speaker.
Days after taking office we announced an additional 50,000 apprenticeships over the financial year, taking the total to be delivered this year to well over 300,000
places-a record for the apprenticeship programme. The National Apprenticeship Service has assured me that we are on track to deliver on this commitment.
Gordon Birtwistle: I am particularly pleased to hear of the efforts being made to fund more apprenticeships and I thank the Minister for his involvement in securing this scheme. However, I am concerned that many businesses in my constituency who want to take on more apprentices are struggling with access, support and advice. Has the Minister, or the agency responsible for the scheme, made any advertising plans to broaden participation in this excellent scheme?
Mr Hayes: Yes; we appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I have asked my officials to look closely at these matters. We appreciate that some of the supply-side barriers to small businesses, in particular, getting involved in apprenticeships need to be lifted. We know that to rebuild the apprenticeship programme after the sorry state it was left in by the previous regime-I do not want to be unnecessarily unkind, but I emphasise the word "unnecessarily"-we will have to do a lot of work to involve more businesses to satisfy our demands and learner wishes.
Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Minister for the answer that he has just given my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). How will the Minister ensure that apprenticeship schemes are made available to all people, not just young people?
Mr Hayes: My hon. Friend is right that we need to consider closely not just the apprenticeships that are available to people as they leave school or college, but those for people who want to reskill or upskill. Lord Leitch, in a report that the previous Administration commissioned, made it clear that that is vital because of the demographics, the challenges that we face and the competitive pressures from those countries that have invested in apprenticeships. We will certainly take his remarks on board.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): What preliminary discussions has the Department had with private sector employers who are about to provide those many hundreds, if not thousands, of apprenticeships? Does the Department have a target or time scale for delivering them?
Mr Hayes: I do not want to be repetitive, Mr Speaker, and you would not let be so, but I make it absolutely clear that almost as soon as we entered government we transferred an additional £150 million into the apprenticeship budget to create extra apprenticeships. Yes, of course, I am working with businesses, small and large, to make that dream-that vision-a reality. Indeed, we held a consultation on that over the summer, which I know the hon. Gentleman will have studied closely.
Science and Innovation
7. Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): What steps he is taking to ensure that Britain's science and innovation sector contributes to economic growth. [17258]
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): Science and innovation are critical to our future prosperity and strongly supported by this Government. As part of the spending review, we are continuing to strengthen the way we support science and innovation, and improving the way they contribute to economic growth.
Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that we all agree that the Government have a very important role to play in supporting science and innovation, but there are many other organisations and businesses that need to come together to support more scientific research. What steps can his Department take to foster the big society approach to more research and development?
Mr Willetts: In Britain we are very fortunate to have some very substantial charities that support scientific research, especially medical research, such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. Indeed, only this week I was able to announce a £50 million joint project on tumour profiling to improve cancer treatment between the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): The Minister will be aware that knowledge transfer partnerships mean that the Russell group universities contribute £2 billion to British exports. Is he surprised, therefore, that Lord Browne dedicated just 300 words in a 30,000-word report to the employer contribution? Will the Minister say more than his colleagues have about the contribution that employers will make to higher education funding?
Mr Willetts: It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman in the House, and I look back to our exchanges when he was a Minister with responsibilities in this area. Of course, when he was a Minister in the Department, he was one of the people who commissioned Lord Browne's review and agreed its terms of reference. I very much regret that in his first intervention on the review, he has not welcomed the fact that Lord Browne discharged the remit that he was set. It is very important that businesses contribute, alongside individuals and the taxpayer, and we are pursuing that as part of the CSR.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): Does the Minister accept that the performance of higher education in engaging with the private sector varies considerably? Will he consider making the handing out of research grants conditional on institutions finding private sector partners?
Mr Willetts: That is a very important point, and we certainly welcome business backing for research, alongside public funding. There is very important evidence that public funding for research can be complemented by business backing. If I recall correctly, one of the best pieces of evidence on the subject is a research paper where one of the authors is now an official in Her Majesty's Treasury, so it is a document that we particularly value.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): In mid-September, apparently preparing the way for big cuts in the science and research budget, the Secretary of State managed to insult hundreds of hard-working British scientists by implying on the "Today" programme that
"something in the order of 45 per cent of...research grants...were going...to research that was not...excellent".
As the US, France, Germany and China are increasing their investment in science and research to drive economic growth, is not this just one more reason why those who thought we had the Sage of Westminster and Two Brains running the ship are finding that we actually have Arthur Daley and the rest of the cast of "Minder" running the sails?
Mr Willetts: The countries that the hon. Gentleman cites-incidentally, I welcome him to his new position on the Front Bench-do not have the mess in the public finances that we inherited as a result of the performance of his Government. None of them is borrowing at the high level that we inherited, yet despite that, we remain strongly committed to science and excellent research in our universities.
Small Business Finance
8. James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses. [17260]
9. Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con): What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses. [17261]
15. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses. [17270]
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk): The Government believe that improving access to finance is vital for small businesses. In response to our formal consultation on access to credit, we received more than 170 representations, and we will respond to them shortly. In addition, yesterday the British Bankers Association published its taskforce report on business lending, which has 17 separate recommendations. The Government welcome the progress made by the taskforce to date.
James Morris: I thank the Minister for his answer. Many small businesses in my constituency and in the broader black country are still complaining about their inability to get capital to grow their businesses. Does he agree that this is now becoming a vital issue? Will he outline the steps that the Government are going to take to ensure that we get that capital into those businesses, which are absolutely vital to the future of the region and the areas that I represent in generating private sector jobs growth?
Mr Prisk: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, right away, within a month, we extended the enterprise finance guarantee by £200 million to help up to 2,000 more businesses. More than that, we have been actively pressing the banks to sort out the lending code, to deal with information so that it is more transparent, and to ensure that businesses have the opportunity to appeal. Yesterday, the taskforce reported back, and we will study its proposals. Let me make it clear, however, that as far as this Government are concerned, the real test now will be for the banks' words to be matched by their actions.
Jake Berry: Small businesses in my constituency, which includes some of this country's leading manufacturers, are reliant on credit insurance. What steps are being taken to ensure that such insurance remains available to them?
Mr Prisk: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, which he has discussed with me in the past. This is a particularly acute problem for those in the construction sector. We have sought assurances from the principal insurers in this area that they have now put in place for the coming year a sufficient risk capability, and they have given us those assurances. As with the banks, we will be closely scrutinising this to ensure that what they have said they have done is implemented in the coming months.
Jason McCartney: I echo my hon. Friends in pointing out that one of the biggest issues that I am facing in my constituency is the lack of lending to small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, Lloyds TSB has announced in the past month that it is closing the only branch in a market town called Meltham. In stressing to the banks that they need to get lending, will the Minister also stress that they need to start serving our communities?
Mr Prisk: This is something that we have raised with the banks. On Monday, however, I want to go further-that is when we will convene our new small business economic forum with the express intention of bringing Government, businesses and the banks together so that we can deal with these issues and start to ensure that credit is available for all businesses, large and small.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State has rightly commented on the obligations of state-supported banks to do more to help our small businesses in the interests of the national economy. Will the Minister tell us whether the new growth fund set up by the banking taskforce and announced yesterday will have on its board a Government representative in order to influence policy decisions?
Mr Prisk: We met the banks yesterday and are perfectly willing to engage with them on how that could happen. We may well wish to ensure that the Government have a stake in that role, but as we received the recommendations just yesterday, I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that he chairs will understand that we want to examine them more closely. The new growth fund is a positive step which will deal with the gap that Rowlands identified in the case of mid-cap businesses. It is a welcome step, and the Government want to work with the banks to make it work effectively.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): But does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said on 27 April on Radio 5 Live about state-owned banks not lending enough to small businesses:
"What we're saying is that the directors of those banks should be held responsible and if they fail to honour those lending targets they should be sacked"?
Mr Prisk: I have learned to make a habit of always agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): I do not believe that the Minister is really focusing his attention on the question. By his own Department's definition, small enterprises are those with zero to 49 employees, and they have an average turnover of less than £3 million. How will the new business growth fund proposed yesterday by the British Bankers Association help those businesses, given that businesses will have to have a turnover of between £10 million and £100 million to apply and the average turnover of a small business is £3 million?
Mr Prisk: May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position? Unfortunately, however, his first question confuses two matters. The growth fund is about investing equity into mid-cap businesses, as I described to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). Micro-businesses, which are very important, are an entirely different animal. That is where bank lending is crucial, and that is what we are dealing with. We are particularly keen to ensure that there is a proper lending arrangement for micro-businesses, and we are talking to the banks about how we can get one, but Members should not confuse capital investment and bank lending. They are two different things.
Grocery Supply Code of Practice
10. Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): When he intends to introduce an ombudsman to enforce the grocery supply code of practice. [17264]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): May I begin by recognising how long and hard my hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue, and indeed how successful he has been? He will know that the coalition statement commits the Government to introducing what we are now calling a groceries code adjudicator, and in our response to the consultation on 3 August, we set out how we would take that forward. I am pleased to be able to tell him that we now have approval to introduce a draft Bill this Session, and that the aim is to publish it for pre-legislative scrutiny before the end of the year.
Andrew George: I am very grateful to the Minister. The long-awaited code is now in place, but without an adjudicator it is like having rules for rugby without a referee. As the initiative has cross-party support and we have an extended Session, is it not possible to implement it this Session?
Mr Davey: I very much hope that my hon. Friend will engage in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill as actively as he did in campaigning for the code. As we have not even published the draft Bill yet, it is a little early to say when the actual Bill will be introduced or whether that will be this Session or next, but I will keep him and the House informed.
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
11. Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con): What progress he has made in reducing the number of non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies sponsored by his Department, with particular reference to bodies responsible for further and higher education. [17265]
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): We are taking radical steps to reform the network of bodies sponsored by my Department. We announced this morning that we would abolish 17 partner organisations, merge eight, reconstitute two as charities and give further consideration to the future of nine more.
Jesse Norman: I thank the Secretary of State for that excellent response. Hereford college of technology is an outstanding institution, and I would welcome his visiting it if he should choose to do so at some time. Like many colleges, it labours under regulation by five separate bodies covering both further and higher education. Is there further scope to streamline the regulation of bodies covering such combined institutions?
Vince Cable: Yes, there is further scope to simplify the landscape of further education quangos, and we intend to pursue that. There are far too many organisations, making it impossible for further education colleges to do their job, and we will remove some and simplify the whole system greatly.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): Has the Secretary of State also done a U-turn on his views of Sir Philip Green, who gave advice about non-departmental public bodies? Once upon a time he said, talking about Sir Philip Green, that he had
"no time for billionaire tax dodgers who step off the plane from their tax havens...and have the effrontery to tell us how to...run our tax policies".
Has he changed his mind on that as well?
Mr Speaker: Order. We do not need a character assessment of Sir Philip Green, what we require is comments on the subject matter of the question. The Secretary of State is welcome to volunteer them, otherwise we will move on.
Vince Cable: I am certainly happy to answer. I have not changed my views-I think Sir Philip Green should pay his taxes in the UK.
Green Investment Bank
12. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): What recent progress he has made on the creation of a green investment bank. [17266]
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): We remain committed to creating a green investment bank that will support the growth, industrial transformation and greening of the UK economy. Over the summer, we made good progress on the role and form of the bank and its relationship with other Government policies. I will make a statement on the bank shortly after the spending review.
Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I encourage him, in the remaining days before the final settlement of Government spending is reached, to ensure that a green investment bank has sufficient funds to make it a real agent for change towards a sustainable economy as well as the ability to lever in the maximum additional investment, and to follow the best models in other countries and among those proposed to the Government? This is a real test of the Government's green credentials, and I hope he fights that case to the wire.
Vince Cable: I accept that the test my hon. Friend sets is a good test of the Government's green credentials. The bank must be ambitious and it must lever in substantial amounts of private capital. We must not be excessively constrained and must open up the possibility of subsequent expansion. I am sure we will give him a satisfactory answer.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a green investment bank is to be successful, it must embrace all the science and technology available in our country? Much of that is seated in our great universities-we have over 120-but has he not already sold the pass? There will be substantial cuts in university budgets, which will affect towns, cities and innovation in this country.
Mr Speaker: Order. Can we focus on the green investment bank?
Vince Cable: You are right, Mr Speaker, that we have strayed a little.
The hon. Gentleman chaired the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families for many years, so I am sure he knows that in my statement on Tuesday, I spoke about the implication of the teaching grant for student-graduate contributions. The implications for research remain to be seen till next week.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that the green investment bank is a key part of the important task of shifting our low-carbon policy from one that is based on restriction, targets and negative regulation to one based on enterprise, innovation, science and community? Crucially, does he also agree that the bank must be able to issue bonds? Will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that its ability to do so is established in the legislation?
Vince Cable: At this stage, we are not specifying the precise financial techniques that will be employed, but clearly, we will retain options and look at the variety of possibilities in future. Moreover, I would stress that the green investment bank is one of several policies that is driving the low-carbon economy, which also include reform of the electricity tariff system, the green deal and those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is pursuing.
Royal Mail (Yorkshire and North East)
13. Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): What consultation Royal Mail plans to undertake with businesses and the public on proposals to close sorting offices in Yorkshire and the North East. [17267]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey):
Decisions regarding the rationalisation of Royal Mail's mail centres are operational matters, which are the responsibility of the company's senior management team. The Government are not directly involved in those decisions. The rationalisation process was centred on an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail. I understand that Royal Mail is not obliged to consult publicly on its internal review of proposals for restructuring its mail centres. However, it commits to
keep all interested external stakeholders informed, and I believe that it has been in contact with the hon. Gentleman.
Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman and the Government should be concerned about how the Post Office and Royal Mail serve their customers. Two years ago, when Royal Mail shifted the sorting of second-class mail from York to Leeds, it gave me a firm undertaking that it would consult the public if ever it considered shifting the sorting of first-class mail as well, and closing the York sorting office. That is what the company now proposes, but it has not consulted. Will the Minister ensure that the company consults businesses that will be affected and the general public in my constituency, or does the Government's enthusiasm for privatising Royal Mail put them in a position in which they are no longer concerned about the customer?
Mr Davey: I am sure that Royal Mail will again be in contact with the hon. Gentleman on those points, but he must tell his constituents that the experience of rationalising mail sorting centres has led not only to efficiency improvements that reduce the costs of sorting and delivering mail, but to an improvement in customer service to his constituents. If he wants quality and delivery to improve for his constituents, he should support that rationalisation.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): May I urge the Minister to consult carefully with the remote businesses and communities of the Yorkshire dales which rely hugely on the Royal Mail to survive and conduct their business?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is right that the Royal Mail needs to consider the interests of small and medium enterprises. Indeed, it is part of our approach in the Postal Services Bill to ensure that our new policy framework will do that. I hope that he will be reassured that experience of rationalising mail sorting centres has led to significant improvements to customer service.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Can the Minister explain what guarantees he will give that a privatised Royal Mail service will continue to do business through the Post Office rather than looking for other outlets and perhaps leaving rural post offices in Yorkshire and elsewhere with very little hope of survival?
Mr Davey: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new role? I look forward to many weeks in Committee considering the Bill. She will know that there is an agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, called the inter-business agreement, and it is that agreement-not a Government guarantee-that decides that relationship. We expect and believe that that inter-business agreement will continue.
Business Regulation
14. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): If he will take steps to ensure that his Department's one-in, one-out plan for business regulation will include new business regulations originating at EU level. [17269]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): This Government are determined to reverse the rise in regulation that is constricting enterprise and stifling growth. We have introduced the one-in, one-out system of regulatory control for domestic regulation, to bring about a fundamental change in the way that regulations are drawn up, introduced and implemented.
We will also take a rigorous approach to tackling EU regulations. The Government will engage earlier in the Brussels policy process; take strong cross-government negotiating lines; and work to end the so-called "gold-plating" of EU regulations, so that when European rules are implemented into UK law, it is done without putting British businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr Hollobone: May I urge the Minister to include EU regulations in the one-in, one-out system, as I understand that compliance with EU regulations costs this country some 3% of its annual gross domestic product?
Mr Davey: May I reassure my hon. Friend that once the system is embedded with respect to domestic regulation affecting businesses and the third sector, the Government plan to extend it to other areas, including EU law?
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I note that the Minister did not address the question asked by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Is he not willing to tell Parliament the truth that in fact business regulations are part of the common market, which means that they cannot be vetoed by the Government? What is required is for the Government to stop the gold-plating that is done by the civil service when regulations come from Europe.
Mr Davey: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to either my first answer or my second answer. The Government are committed to ending gold-plating and I have said from this Dispatch Box that, once the one-in, one-out system is embedded, we will apply it to EU legislation.
Company Reporting (Operating and Financial Review)
16. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): What progress has been made towards reinstating an operating and financial review to ensure that directors' social and environmental duties have to be covered in company reporting; and if he will make a statement. [17271]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey): The Department is currently consulting on the future of narrative reporting which addresses the coalition commitment to reinstate an operating and financial review. The consultation closes on 19 October and we will then consider the responses and take a view on how to take this commitment forward by the end of the year.
Roger Williams:
I thank the Minister for that reply and his active interest in this matter. I believe that this coalition Government will be the greenest Government ever, but we need to promote sustainable investment. The OFR will have a key role to play in that, especially
in ensuring that the same standards apply for independent verification and financial reporting. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will support that?
Mr Davey: This Government will be the greenest Government ever, and when my hon. Friend reads the consultation document he will see that we have some very interesting ideas about how to improve the way in which companies report on social and environmental matters. I hope that we will be able to drive up the quality of reporting and disclosures by companies in that area.
Graduate Employability
17. Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): What steps he is taking to encourage universities to focus on the employability of graduates. [17273]
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): Students rightly expect better information about their chances of a job after studying different courses at different universities, and universities need to do more to improve the employability of their graduates. That is why I have asked universities to publish statements on what they do for students' employment prospects. The vast majority have now done so.
Nigel Mills: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that a key method of achieving increased employability are schemes such as those set up by David Nieper, a full service clothing manufacturer in Alfreton in my constituency? It has agreed a scheme with Nottingham Trent university that will ensure that students get a full range of experience and skills in the textiles sector to increase their chances of employment after they finish their course.
Mr Willetts: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, one of the proposals in Lord Browne's report that we are looking at very carefully is to do more to encourage the accreditation of skills developed in businesses and the workplace as part of a degree qualification.
Small Business Finance
18. Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses. [17274]
19. Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): What recent representations he has received on access to finance for small businesses. [17275]
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk): I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave to a similar question earlier.
Chris Evans: Atega Business Solutions, a new business start-up based in my constituency, tells me that part funding is available to it, but that in most cases it has to spend 100% of the cost before it is eligible to claim back 50%, which deters it from applying. What advice would the Minister give to Atega to secure funding when money is tight?
Mr Prisk: It is important that businesses not only press their own bank, but shop around, because there tends to be an anxiety that, having been turned down by one bank, they will not be successful elsewhere-I remember that when I started my own business in the last recession. It is also important, if the hon. Gentleman can, to press that case on his constituents' behalf with the British Bankers Association. If he does so, would he copy me in? If his constituents continue to have problems, I would like to ensure that the banks understand that we take an interest in the plight and prospects of our small businesses.
Mr Baron: The measures introduced by the coalition Government to help small businesses have been a vast improvement on what went before under the previous Government. However, in the specific cases bought to the Department's attention by Members of Parliament in which commercially viable small and medium-sized enterprises are still being denied access to capital, can I have the Minister's assurance that the Department will do everything it can to help?
Mr Prisk: We can and we will, and I will be happy to support any Member who wants to press that case. This is a very important issue, and it should be cross party. We can make a difference.
Topical Questions
T1. [17277] Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): My Department's responsibilities include helping to drive growth and rebalance the economy, which we can do by building on the strength of manufacturing, other knowledge industries and the science and research base, by helping businesses to grow by getting rid of excessive regulation and helping them access credit, by being open to trade and foreign investment, by encouraging the development of a skilled work force and by spreading opportunities and life chances to as many people as possible.
Dr Poulter: Working in agriculture is still an important life choice for many people in rural areas, and I am sure that, like me, the Minister would like to see a profitable and vibrant agricultural sector. However, will he please outline what steps he will take to support vocational and apprenticeship schemes in the agricultural sector?
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): Like my hon. Friend, I care about growers and farmers, because of the constituency I represent and because I know the difference that they make to our nation. Mindful of the concerns he expressed, and of others like them, I have already asked officials to work with the sector skills council in this area to see what further apprenticeship programmes can be developed in agriculture and related subjects.
T4. [17280] Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab):
What action is the Minister taking, alongside his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, to prevent the regional economy of
the south-west from entering a slump because of the parochial disagreements in the region? Or are DCLG and businesses unable to agree, in the same way that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seem unable to agree in the south-west?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk): I will ignore the flim-flam at the end. What matters to the hon. Lady is ensuring an effective partnership in her area. There is squabbling in Somerset and Devon, which the people concerned have to sort out. If they do not, they will fall behind. That is the message for them, and I hope she will support me on that.
T2. [17278] John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): Odstock Medical Ltd in my constituency was the first commercial entity to be set up under the NHS. It does vital work developing medical devices alleviating the condition of people with multiple sclerosis. Unfortunately, it is unable to access the SME support from the Department. Given that its major shareholder is the local hospital, will the Minister meet me to discuss how it can be reclassified as an SME so that it can access that support and grow its business, which does vital work?
Mr Prisk: This is a peculiar glitch in the way the law works, and I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend and the business in his constituency to see whether we can wrinkle it out.
T5. [17281] Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Can the Minister explain what he will do to ensure that our universities stay at the leading edge of research and innovation? That is especially important as, for many universities, the Browne proposals will mean only replacement income, not growth and investment money, despite the quite disgraceful hike in tuition fees proposed.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): The package proposed by Lord Browne as a whole is intended to put our universities on a stable and secure long-term funding basis that will enable us to support and encourage their work in research, and we are considering carefully the new proposals from Sir James Dyson for technology innovation centres.
T3. [17279] Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Further to the excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), given the volume of regulation that comes from the EU, does the Minister accept that unless the one-in, one-out policy applies to EU regulation as well, it will have only a limited impact? I understand that the Minister said that the policy would apply to EU legislation in due course, but can he give us a time scale for that?
Mr Prisk:
There are two steps. One is to ensure that the practice that we follow deals with the gold-plating, which has quite rightly been raised by Members on both sides of the House. That is our first step, but as my hon. Friend has pointed out-and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) pointed out in his answer earlier-we are ensuring that we deal with domestic legislation first. We will then ensure that we look to include EU legislation. [ Interruption. ] I love this coming
from the Opposition, who allowed 14 new working regulations every working day. We are tackling regulation; they funked it.
T10. [17286] John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): If the Business Secretary had been able to accept my invitation to open the world's most advanced plastics recycling factory in my constituency two weeks ago, he would have learnt that the decision to invest in this country was based on a £1 million grant from the regional development agency. How much will be available through such grants to attract other overseas businesses to invest in my constituency in the next three years?
Vince Cable: I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will try to make up for that in future. We want to attract inward investment, but it was not at all clear that the best way of doing so was through the RDAs, which were duplicating each other's work. In key overseas countries, for example, there have often been several RDAs competing with each other, using public money in a completely unstructured and unhelpful way. We are going to resolve that.
T6. [17282] Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): In my constituency of Pendle, many graduates earn far less on average than those working in other parts of the country. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Browne review's proposals to raise the threshold for fees repayment from £15,000 to £21,000?
Mr Willetts: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important feature of the Browne review, which is also one reason why the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that the poorest 30% of students would be better off as a result of those proposals.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): Can the Minister state whether he has received the petition from the Science is Vital group, which lobbied Parliament last Saturday, and also say whether he has listened to the group, and if not, why not?
Mr Willetts: I believe that the Science is Vital group is also presenting a petition today. I hope to meet the members of that campaign to discuss their commitment to science and to emphasise that this Government are committed to excellent science research.
T7. [17283] Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): The Minister will be aware of the thousands of companies that in the past have supplied Departments, an example of which is F. J. Bamkin in my constituency, which used to supply socks to the Ministry of Defence. Can he say what progress his Department has made in achieving the manifesto commitment to deliver
"25 per cent of government research and procurement contracts through SMEs"?
Mr Prisk:
The key to changing the system is to ensure that we open up the contracts. That is why we have already started to publish those contracts online, so that every business, large or small, can see what is on offer. Then we need to remove the barriers that exist, which is why we are tackling things such as the repeated pre-qualifications that are necessary for the same work in
neighbouring areas. Removing those barriers, opening up the contracts-that is how we are going to hit the targets.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): Yesterday I spoke to Dr Paul Greatrix, registrar of the university of Nottingham. He described the Government's immigration cap as wrong-headed and perverse, because it will hamper the free trade in ideas and prevent our world-class international university from recruiting the brightest and best minds to join its highly skilled research team. What will the Minister do to ensure that our university's excellent reputation is maintained?
Vince Cable: We very much believe in the free trade of ideas, and we want Britain to be open. We are looking at the moment at how we can reconcile this with the coalition's policy to maintain a cap on non-EU migration.
T8. [17284] Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con): Cumbria university, which has one of its largest campuses in the Lancaster part of my constituency, has experienced a number of financial and managerial problems over the past few years. Can the Minister comment on the university's viability, given its new business plan?
Mr Willetts: I know that my hon. Friend has been closely involved with that university, as have other hon. Members. The Higher Education Funding Council for England advises me that, with the university's new management arrangements and its new plan, it will have a far better prospect for the future.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): On Tuesday, Tata Steel announced its intention to close its Living Solutions business in Shotton, with the loss of some 180 jobs. This is a hammer blow to all those employees and their families, as well as to the local economy. Will the Secretary of State join me in pressing the company to reconsider its decision, and also look at the future of the whole modular construction business?
Vince Cable: I am always happy to meet Opposition Members who have local difficulties with local companies; I have already done so and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this. I do not know the details of the case, and I have to say at the outset that we are not in a position to make available large amounts of public money, but if we can help in other ways, we will.
T9. [17285] Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): Will the Minister confirm his commitment to ensuring that the nation has the right kind of skills for a sustainable economic recovery by supporting ambitious young people and adults such as those studying at Kirklees college to improve their education and skills in further education?
Mr Hayes: Yes, I do indeed recognise the excellent work of our colleges. That is why we want to give them more freedom, more discretion and more power to respond to the needs of learners and local businesses. We have begun to do that during our time in government, and I should like to draw the House's attention to today's written statement, which goes further along those lines.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab):
Does the Secretary of State remember the Lib Dem halcyon days when he sat here on the Opposition side of the House opposing university top-up fees and walked through the same
Lobby as me? He was also against the privatisation of Royal Mail, but we now know the price of a Liberal pledge: a seat on the Government Front Bench and a ministerial salary. What a price to pay.
Vince Cable: I have always enjoyed- [ Interruption. ]
Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State's reply.
Vince Cable: I have always enjoyed joining the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby, and I have done so on many occasions. I have also enjoyed his humour. If he had followed my writings as closely as he claims to have done, he would have realised that I was advocating the introduction of private capital into Royal Mail about six years ago.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the poorest 30% of graduates would pay less than they do now if the Browne review were to be implemented. However, potential students do not automatically assume that they are going to be among the bottom 30%, so any increase in tuition fees would surely be a disincentive for them to apply to go to university, even if they would ultimately be better off.
Mr Willetts: We can see from the evidence that the introduction of fees by the previous Labour Government did not have the effect that many people in all parts of the House feared. In reality, we have seen an increase in the number of applications from students from poorer backgrounds, because they knew that they would not have to pay up-front fees. That key feature of the system would be maintained under Lord Browne's proposals.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab): A lot of the businesses in my constituency are involved in the offshore oil and gas sector, which is a global business that depends on the movement of labour so that it can move its work force around the world. That business is seriously concerned about the cap on immigration, and I hope that the Secretary of State is having very detailed discussions with the Home Office to ensure that that business remains in the North sea and does not go elsewhere in the world.
Vince Cable: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have had many such representations, not only from that industry but from others. I have had discussions with the Home Secretary about this, and we are determined to keep Britain open for business and attracting the kind of companies that she has in her constituency.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): Will the Business Secretary set out the timetable for the setting up of the local economic partnerships? Will he explain which umbrella body should be used to apply for European funding such as the rural development programme? Will he also guide us on the position on match funding going forward?
Mr Speaker: One answer to those three questions will suffice.
Mr Prisk: You are very kind, Mr Speaker. There will be a sub-regional White Paper in due course.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): The deep-seated structural challenges facing the west midlands economy mean that our region has been hit harder by the downturn than anywhere else in the country, and the recovery will take longer, too. Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet a cross-party delegation of Members of Parliament from the west midlands and business leaders from the region so that we can discuss plans to bring new industries and new jobs to the region?
Vince Cable: I am happy to do that. In recent times, I have met Opposition Members from the west midlands who were concerned about the car industry and others who were concerned about ceramics. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): My right hon. Friend has asserted the Government's determination that graduate contributions should be linked to ability to pay. Will he therefore consider supplementing the Browne proposals with a less advantageous interest rate for the highest earners?
Mr Willetts: We are, of course, considering Lord Browne's proposals very carefully and in greater detail. One issue that we will certainly consider is the exact interest rate that should be applied.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab):
What an incredible transformation the Business Secretary has made from a Labour councillor in Glasgow to a Tory
front-man in Westminster, with every principle dropped at the first sniff of power. Will he please detail what consultation process took place with the National Union of Students before reaching his own conclusions on the Browne report?
Vince Cable: I fondly remember my days on the Glasgow city council, where we achieved much. I have met representatives from the National Union of Students on several occasions. We have consulted them and continue to do so. The NUS has some useful ideas, which will hopefully supplement our response to the Browne report. We shall continue to maintain a dialogue.
Mr Speaker: Order. All good things come to an end, and there is heavy pressure on time today.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member. He has now ratcheted up something in the region of 31 years in the House, so he knows that points of order come after statements.
Mr Sheerman: This is about the statement. There is no list with it. We were promised a list. We-
Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very dextrous parliamentarian. He will try to catch my eye during business questions and he will be able to wrap his various points into a beautifully textured question if he gets the opportunity.
Business of the House
11.32 am
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young): The business for the week commencing 18 October will be as follows:
Monday 18 October-Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 2).
Tuesday 19 October-My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the strategic defence and security review, followed by proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 3).
Wednesday 20 October-My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer plans to make a statement on the comprehensive spending review, followed by proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 4).
Thursday 21 October-Second Reading of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
Friday 22 October-Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 25 October will include:
Monday 25 October-Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and -Constituencies Bill (Day 5).
Tuesday 26 October-Second Reading of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill.
Wednesday 27 October-Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to economic policy co-ordination.
Thursday 28 October-General debate on the comprehensive spending review.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 October will be:
Thursday 28 October-A debate on the internet and privacy.
Hilary Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. May I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). The House will be pleased to know that she has moved one seat along on our Front Bench, as a reward.
Mr Speaker, you have been clear and consistent with Ministers in saying that they must make major policy announcements to this House. On 9 September, the Leader of the House assured us that the Government would adhere to the ministerial code in this respect. Over the weekend, however, the findings of Lord Browne's report on tuition fees were extensively leaked to the media, and this morning we heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office talking to the "Today" programme about the future of public bodies before talking to us. It seems that Mr Holmes and Dr Watson, as I understand the Leader of the House and his deputy were christened by my predecessor, have made no progress at all in dealing with this serial problem.
Following Tuesday's statement, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Browne report, so that Liberal Democrat Members in particular-who, before the election, knowing about the deficit, signed solemn pledges to vote against lifting the cap on fees-can
tell us whether they now intend to follow the Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary in ripping up their pledges? I think that their constituents deserve an answer.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also find time for a debate on the decision to take child benefit away from so many middle-income families while leaving it in place for households earning nearly twice as much? It is unfair, it is unjust, and no credible explanation has been offered. We certainly heard none from the Prime Minister yesterday. Given the Prime Minister's inability to answer the Leader of the Opposition's perfectly straightforward question about the number of families who would be affected, will the Leader of the House ask him to do his homework, and place the information in the Library so that we can obtain the full facts and then have a debate? I am sure that that would be welcomed by the many members of the Cabinet who clearly had no idea that the decision had been made, because the Chancellor decided to tell the media before he told them. Should not the House show some compassion to those unfortunate individuals by giving them the chance denied by the occupant of No. 11 to tell us what they think about this terrible policy?
Earlier this year the Prime Minister said that the comprehensive spending review
"will affect our economy, our society-indeed our whole way of life...for years, perhaps decades, to come."
In the light of that, a single day's debate is wholly inadequate. Given the scale and extent of the cuts, the House must have the time that it needs to discuss the implications for the people whom we all represent. Will the Leader of the House provide that opportunity, and will he confirm that the House will have a chance to vote on the comprehensive spending review?
While the Leader of the House is thinking about his answer to that question, will he explain why he has not yet made time available for an Opposition day debate? Is it because he fears the holding of such a debate while all these bad decisions are being made? Can he also tell us why the Defence Secretary will not be making next week's statement on the strategic defence review? Is it because the Government are afraid of allowing that as well, given the Defence Secretary's well-publicised views?
Can the Leader of the House clear up the confusion about a statement on cold weather payments? On Monday the legislation was laid without the clause on higher-rate payments of £25 a week, and yesterday the Prime Minister refused to guarantee their future, saying that an announcement would be made next week. Today's Guardian quotes Government sources saying a whole load of contradictory things. When will this shambles come to an end, so that the people who rely on those payments can have the peace of mind that they deserve?
Finally, can the Leader of the House tell us what chance the House will have to discuss the work of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in time to inform the current review, given the bureaucratic burden that it continues to place on all Members, and the cost of its operations to the taxpayer? Does he not agree that Members' time should really be spent holding the Government to account, rather than doing accounts?
Sir George Young:
First, let me join the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in paying tribute to the former shadow Leader of the House, the
right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). She brought a ray of sunshine into the Chamber at 11.30 every Thursday, which will now illuminate the dark recesses of the Whips Office. We wish her luck in her new disciplinary role of enforcing Opposition policies, the moment they have some.
I welcome the new shadow Leader of the House to his post. He has inherited from his father a deep affection for, and commitment to, the House of Commons, which will stand him in good stead in the job that he now does. We learnt from the excellent diaries of Chris Mullin that the right hon. Gentleman was once eyed as a contender to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister in 2005. The House will be disappointed that he did not throw his hat into the ring. There was a time when there was always a Benn on the ballot paper. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman and his new deputy, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), in our efforts to strengthen the House.
Let me now deal with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are making four statements this week, including the one that is to follow the business statement. We have averaged 2.8 statements per week: we have been very forthcoming in making statements to the House.
The Browne report was Lord Browne's report; it was not the Government's report. The moment it was available, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary came to the House and made a statement. I am sure the House will want to debate the report, and in addition to my Liberal Democrat friends clarifying their view, I hope that the Labour Opposition will explain exactly where they stand on student finance, because there is open warfare between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary.
Our proposed child benefit changes are scheduled to be introduced in 2013, and there will be an opportunity to debate them. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one injustice between two high-income households, but there is another injustice that he did not address: that between households on much lower incomes who are paying standard rate tax, and through that tax are subsidising the child benefit of higher rate payers. I thought the Labour party stood for the many, not the few.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the comprehensive spending review is an important issue, which is why the Government have found time for a debate, notwithstanding the Wright report recommendations, which implied that debates on spending reviews should be secured by the Backbench Business Committee. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about making time available for a second day of debate, and the Chairman of the Committee has no doubt also noted that bid.
The Opposition will get their full quota of Opposition days, and in view of the extended length of the current Session we would be happy to enter into a dialogue on how we might increase the quota to reflect that additional sitting time.
On cold weather payments, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the statement about the rate will be made after the CSR. We are committed to making cold weather payments to those on low incomes when the weather demands it.
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that it is the Prime Minister who is to make the statement on the strategic defence review, instead of complaining about it. Could there be a subject of higher priority on which the Prime Minister might address the House?
On the question about IPSA, I am not sure that the Government would want to find time for that debate, but it is perfectly open to the Backbench Business Committee, which has a quota of approximately one day per week, to find time for such a debate if the issue is thought to be a priority.
Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As colleagues will be aware, ordinarily I seek to ensure that all Members who wish to do so can participate, but I give notice that that is extremely unlikely today in view of the pressure on parliamentary time and the very important Back-Bench business that is to follow. I therefore merely reiterate my usual exhortation to Members to stick to single, short supplementary questions, and to the Leader of the House to demonstrate his typical pithiness in reply.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Why do we still have to go through the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn, thereby plunging the nation into darkness by mid-afternoon? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will not seek to talk out the private Member's Bill on this subject that is due to come before the House shortly? If he does as I ask, I suspect the only opponents will be a handful of Scots. If that is the case, should they not be told, "You've got your own Parliament. If you don't like it, go away and give yourselves your own time zone"?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and I note the suggestion of independence in respect of the time zone. If he looks at the record, he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) introduced a private Member's Bill in, I think, the last Parliament, and if he looks at the Hansard account of its Second Reading debate he will find a speech that I made setting out my views. Notwithstanding that, when the current Bill's turn comes to be debated, my ministerial colleague who will be responding for the Government will make the Government's position clear, and I will pass on my right hon. Friend's strong views.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): At the Commonwealth games closing ceremony in a few hours' time, Prince Edward will be sitting alongside the head of a regime accused of war crimes: President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on whether the Commonwealth should be giving succour in that way to countries with such appalling human rights records, and on whether allowing a member of Britain's royal family to sit next to Sri Lanka's leader represents a change in Britain's foreign policy to one that puts trade considerations ahead of human rights?
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and I understand the strength of feeling. I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon.
Friend the Foreign Secretary and ask him to write to her with a response to the points that she has just raised.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): The Leader of the House has given us the business until Thursday 28 October. The day after that, Friday 29 October, this House will be used for the second time for the UK Youth Parliament to hold a day of debate. I am sure that many hon. Members will be delighted to see that, as will I as a trustee of that organisation. I wonder whether this would be an appropriate time for this House to debate the important issue of how we can get more young people better involved in the political process, as that is something that everybody wants.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that the Youth Parliament will sit in this Chamber on that date, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be representing the Government. If the sitting is anything like last year's, it will be a fantastic success. I agree with her on the importance of engaging young people in the political process. I think it would be worth while to have a debate, and she can either apply for one in Westminster Hall or catch the eye of the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee at one of her Wednesday sittings.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that there will be 1,000 job losses in every university in this country if we have the predicted cuts in university budgets? Is it not about time we had a serious debate on this essential element of our prosperity in this country?
Sir George Young: The Government will be spending some £90 million on universities and student support this year. The hon. Gentleman will know that this was not a protected area for the outgoing Labour Government; they had pencilled in cuts of some 20% for that budget, and we need to bear that in mind. He will have to await the outcome of the comprehensive spending review to see the resources that we are making available to the universities in the next three years. [Official Report, 2 November 2010, Vol. 517, c. 10MC.]
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on fire safety linked to building regulations and materials? According to the chief fire officer for Kent, it takes a matter of minutes from ignition to collapse, and the lives of fire officers and members of the public are thereby endangered.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the safety of those in buildings. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and see whether he can respond to the point that my hon. Friend has made.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House ask the Ministry of Defence when it plans to come to give a statement on the compensation payments for nuclear test veterans? We have now been waiting five months for this Government to get their proverbial finger out and make a decision.
Sir George Young: I am sorry if there has been any discourtesy in not making information available to the House. I will contact the Secretary of State for Defence today and see whether we can expedite an answer.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): One of my constituents recently brought to my attention an extraordinary, but perfectly legal, tax avoidance scheme that shocked me as well as him. I am in favour of tax incentives for growth, but this particular scheme does nothing for growth. Given the welcome recent pronouncements on tax avoidance from the Treasury, will the Leader of the House consider having a debate where Members could highlight such schemes so that the Treasury could indeed make a bonfire of them?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are committed to tackling tax avoidance and we welcome any debate on the subject. The best way to deal with such schemes is to bring them to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at the Treasury. The Government are making improvements to a scheme called DOTAS-Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes-with which I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar, so that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs receives better and earlier information about tax avoidance schemes.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): I hope that the Leader of the House will be aware of the collapse of Crown Currency Exchange, which has left people across the country, including some of my constituents, hundreds or even thousands of pounds out of pocket. Will he encourage Ministers to investigate the collapse, and in particular the fact that the company continued to accept currency orders when it had already gone bust? Will he also allow time for a debate on such matters?
Sir George Young: In common with many other Members of the House, I too have constituents who have lost money through Crown Currency Exchange. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Financial Services Authority does not regulate retail foreign exchange services, so it did not regulate in any way the business of Crown Currency Exchange. The business model was exceptional and involved taking forward risks. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury to see whether there is any further legislative action that the Government might take.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): The House will know of the wholly wrong-headed proposals made by the Sentencing Guidelines Council for a reduction in sentences for violent crime. Given that today we are examining the abolition of a number of out-of-touch and superfluous quangos, may I add the Sentencing Guidelines Council to that list?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right that the Sentencing Guidelines Council has made some proposals that would impact on short sentences. The Government's view is that short sentences are appropriate in many cases, particularly those that involve assault, and the Government will respond in due course to the views of the council.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): Hull has already seen the withdrawal of the university of Lincoln from its Hull campus. I am particularly concerned about the Browne recommendations on funding and their effect on Hull university. Will the Leader of the House make space in Government time for us to debate the effects on local constituencies of the withdrawal of funding to higher education institutions?
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady makes a serious point. I am sure that the House will want to debate, in due course, the recommendations of the Browne report. When we have details of how much is being made available in resources for next year, there might be an opportunity in the debate on the CSR to make the point that the hon. Lady has just made.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the necessary upheaval caused by the important work going on in many constituencies to amalgamate several special needs schools, their transfer on to the site often of other big schools and the traffic chaos that can ensue, understandably but regrettably? Will my right hon. Friend consult the Department for Transport to see whether there is an opportunity for a debate with Ministers from both the Department for Transport and the Department for Education to try to hammer out some of those difficulties and see whether a more effective protocol could be found?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a forceful point, and that sounds to me an ideal topic for a debate in Westminster Hall. I know that many local education authorities, when they are considering the amalgamation of schools or the construction of new schools, take into account the traffic that would be generated. Sometimes they make it a condition for approval of the expansion of a school that there should be a green transport to school policy. I can only encourage my hon. Friend to make a bid for a debate in Westminster Hall.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the Government's significant decision to allow deep-water drilling off the west of Shetland, a decision that raises serious environmental concerns, and which was slipped out at a time when the House was not sitting and the relevant Select Committee had not yet reported, and the US investigation into the gulf of Mexico disaster still is not complete?
Sir George Young: I am not sure whether that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change or whether it falls to the Scottish Administration to resolve it. I shall make some inquiries and ensure that the hon. Lady gets an answer.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): When does my right hon. Friend expect Parliament square to be cleared of demonstrators? Is he aware that the situation is worse than it was in the summer, with 20 illegally placed tents on the pavement meaning that nobody can use the square at all? When is he going to deal with this situation?
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising this issue. I support the action that the Mayor of London took a few months ago to clear the green in the middle of the square, and I hope
that that area will be restored to the condition in which it used to be. In the meantime, the camps have simply moved to the pavement. That is wholly unacceptable, and it is not what one should see in the centre of an historic capital city. We are going to consider legislation in the forthcoming Home Office Bill to put the situation right.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): May we have a debate on the Air Force's view that if it faces cuts, it is quite likely that it will be unable to protect Britain in the case of a 9/11-type attack in the future?
Sir George Young: I said in my business statement that the Prime Minister would make a statement on the strategic defence and security review. I expect that there will be a debate shortly after that in which the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise his concerns.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): As the Government strategy rests on raising £176 billion a year more tax at the end of this Parliament than last year, may we have an early debate on economic growth, the measures the Government can take to promote it, and how we can lift spirits in this country so that that is feasible?
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend will know that we have already introduced a number of measures to promote growth, such as reducing corporation tax and encouraging the establishment of new businesses in certain regions of the country. I hope that on the back of the CSR he will have the opportunity to make his points in the debate that I have just announced.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): May we debate early-day motion 805 on the brutal, unfair and irrational proposal that would deny Wales and the west of England our only regional passport office and destroy the jobs of 250 loyal workers, who were recently commended by a Minister for their splendid can-do attitude?
[ That this House regrets the proposal to close the Newport Regional Passport Office which would result in the loss of 300 jobs and leave Wales and West of England without the services currently available only from regional offices; notes the closure would make Wales the only devolved nation in the UK without a regional office; welcom es the Newport passport workers' commendation for the high quality of their work and their can-do co-operation when faced with the new challenges; believes that moving work and jobs from Wales to London damagingly reverses the 50-year all-party policy of relocating public sector jobs from the South East of England to areas of high unemployment; and calls for the withdrawal of this irrational, wasteful proposal.]
Sir George Young: Of course I understand the local concern about the proposed closure of the passport office in Newport. I will share that concern with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so that she is aware of it, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD):
May we have a debate on the purpose and adequacy of the Office of Fair Trading, which today issued an extraordinary conclusion on the beer tie and the pub companies, whose conduct was widely criticised by the then Select
Committee on Business and Enterprise? That criticism has been accepted by the previous Government and by this Government. May we have a debate on this important subject to see whether that body is fit for purpose?
Sir George Young: I commend the work that the hon. Gentleman in the last Parliament did to safeguard pubs up and down the country. The question of the OFT might arise in the statement to be made shortly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): Earlier in the week, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that it was a "constructive" suggestion from Sir Philip Green for the Government to save money by delaying payments to suppliers for up to 45 days. Small and medium-sized enterprises will find that highly concerning, as they work hard to prosper in these difficult times. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on this issue to clarify the situation?
Sir George Young: My view is that Government Departments should settle their bills promptly.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the scope of our health and safety legislation, because it appears that now even the Scouts are being prevented from enjoying their usual games and activities?
Sir George Young: As a former Scout, I would regret any curtailment of the activities that I used to indulge in. I shall raise my hon. Friend's concerns with the appropriate Minister and get a reply.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): May we have a debate in Government time on the need to update copyright law, especially to protect small businesses such as The Priory, which is a hair and skin clinic in Bridgend? It inadvertently downloaded from the internet images that were not properly identified and has subsequently faced horrendous bills from Getty Images demanding that it make exorbitant payment for the accidental use of ill-marked images-
Mrs Moon: It is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend says, and is damaging a number of small businesses that cannot afford to take legal action to protect themselves.
Sir George Young: I share the hon. Lady's concern. I thought that there had been legislation relatively recently to address that problem, but if there is a loophole in it, I shall raise that with my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): May we have an urgent debate on Burma? With the Burmese elections due on 7 November, does the Leader of the House agree that those elections need to be free and fair, and that if the Burmese regime is serious about engaging with the international community, it needs to honour its pledge and release Aung San Suu Kyi?
Sir George Young: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's point about the release, and I know that the British Government share that concern. He will have an opportunity on 16 November to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about this. Alternatively, he can apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): I would like to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the real consequences for women of the proposed loss of child benefit-just one example of which would be the effect on their state pensions.
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady raises a legitimate point about whether the loss of child benefit will have an impact on the entitlement to a state retirement pension in the wife's own right, and that is something that we will want to consider.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): Thanks to a bizarre decision by the Planning Inspectorate, next year Tamworth faces the prospect of severe traffic chaos and potentially long-term congestion thereafter. Will my right hon. Friend give an indication of when it will be the business of this House to abolish the Planning Inspectorate and devolve power to local planning decision makers? In the course of that debate, will we be able to discuss and review some of the decisions made by the inspectorate that have yet to be implemented?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to address those concerns when we reach the localism Bill. We have no plans to abolish the Planning Inspectorate, which allows individuals a right of appeal against refusals by local authorities, but against that background we want to push down decisions, such as those that were previously taken by regional bodies, to a local level.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 742, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy).
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to propose a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the implications for Wales of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.]
Under current proposals, Wales will lose 25% of its parliamentary seats, yet there will be little time for discussion on the Floor of the House of the implications of that for Wales. Will the Leader of the House discuss that matter further with the Secretary of State for Wales, so that legitimate questions and grievances in Wales are given a proper hearing in the Welsh Grand Committee?
Sir George Young:
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has written to all Welsh Members setting out her decision not to refer the matter to the Welsh Grand Committee. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional issues, is giving evidence today to the Welsh Affairs Committee. The hon. Gentleman
will also know that one reason why the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House is to allow Members from all parts of the UK to make their contributions. We have provided five days for debate in Committee of the whole House and two days on Report, which is an adequate opportunity for all Members to make their points. The specific issues concerning Wales arise under clause 11, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to contribute to that debate.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): May we have a debate on plans by the banks to phase out the cheque? Cheque guarantee cards are due to be phased out in June next year, which will cause enough problems, but that will be nothing compared with the problems that will be caused for small business people, charities, the housebound, pensioners and many others. They will suffer for the convenience of bankers, who seem to have forgotten what customer service is.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has raised concerns that are felt in constituencies represented on both sides of the House. As I understand it, the Payments Council announced last year that it had set a provisional date of 2018 to close the cheque-clearing system, and it is keen to hear as many views as possible. I also agree that that would be a perfectly legitimate subject for a debate. Perhaps she will contact the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and see whether it catches her eye.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House confirm whether we can expect a statement on Monday by either the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary on the review of foreign and security policy? Does he share my concern at reports that that will be done by a written statement rather than by an oral statement in the House, which would be subject to proper scrutiny?
Sir George Young: I announced in my business statement that the Prime Minister will make a statement on the strategic defence and security review, and I announced a further statement by the Chancellor; I did not announce any other ones.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): Earlier this week, we witnessed the spectacle of the unapologetic chief executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs admitting to even more mistakes with PAYE and trying to justify a £50,000 a month fat cat salary to the head of IT in that bureaucratic organisation. At the same time, she refused to take any responsibility for the misery that that organisation is causing my constituents. May we have a debate in Government time on that organisation's failure to be more accountable and transparent?
Sir George Young: Evidence has been given to the Public Accounts Committee by HMRC. The Government want to see the PAC report on HMRC before responding in due course. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's criticisms.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab):
May we have a debate on the implications of the Government's changes to housing benefit? Many Members have raised serious concerns about the impact of those
changes on driving up homelessness. In constituencies such as mine, where more than half of housing benefit claimants are over 60, the changes will hit pensioners particularly hard. In addition, the Government have been extremely unclear about the effect that the changes will have on homelessness provision, such as hostels and women's refuges.
Sir George Young: I understand the hon. Lady's concern. There was a debate on housing benefit in Westminster Hall yesterday, but I am not sure whether she was able to attend. The proposed changes will require legislation, and there will be an opportunity as the legislation goes through Parliament to raise the issues that she touches on.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): May we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on the dreadful-I mean dreadful-state of much of the education in our youth offenders institutions?
Sir George Young: There may be an opportunity to raise that particular subject at Justice questions, or it may be an appropriate topic for a debate. In the meantime, I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Justice to my hon. Friend's concern.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Leader of the House inform us when we will get a statement on the future of the BBC World Service, particularly given my understanding that it is being treated not as a non-departmental public body or as a quango in the traditional sense, but as an arm's length organisation? The matter is particularly important given the work that the BBC World Service does around the globe.
Sir George Young: Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the work of the BBC World Service. It may be that that issue is better debated after next Wednesday's CSR.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con): I was selected as a parliamentary candidate by virtue of an open primary. The coalition agreement includes a proposal to conduct 200 all-postal primaries during this Parliament. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on progress on that issue?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the coalition agreement includes a commitment to fund 200 all-postal primaries over the course of this Parliament as part of our overall programme of reform to make our politics more accountable. As he knows, we have already embarked on a major programme of constitutional reform. We are considering how best to take forward the proposal on all-postal primaries in the light of other changes that will impact on our electoral process.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab):
Can we have a debate in Government time on the appointment yesterday of the Prime Minister's new military assistant, to clarify not only the role of the Chief of the Defence Staff, but, more importantly, the role of Her Majesty the Queen as head of the armed forces? Yesterday, the justification from No. 10 was that both President Sarkozy and
President Obama have military advisers and therefore so should our Prime Minister, which does not recognise the fact that they are Heads of State, unlike him.
Sir George Young: I am sure that the Prime Minister is entitled to military advice. I will give the Prime Minister notice that after his statement on Tuesday he can expect a question along those lines from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Last night, there was an absolutely splendid debate in the House: the Government Benches were packed; 44 Members spoke; and parliamentary history was made when for the first time the Government accepted an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on a European matter. However, the Opposition Benches were empty-Opposition Members were absent without leave. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Opposition to hold the Government to account?
Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was, of course, here. I am sorry that Opposition Members were not here, because they missed a first-class performance by the Economic Secretary. They also missed a moment of history, when, for the first time in my life, I voted for an amendment on Europe tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): In light of the huge threat to hundreds of voluntary and community groups in my constituency and across the country because of cuts imposed by the Government, may we have a debate on the Government's vision for the big society?
Sir George Young: I say very gently to the hon. Lady that the cuts imposed by the Government-to use her words-are necessary because of the deficit that we inherited from the previous Labour Government, who had pencilled in 20% cuts. Until Labour Members are much more open than they have been to date about how they would deal with the deficit, they have no credibility whatsoever on financial issues.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): The cull of quangos is welcome in enhancing accountability, but the corollary is that that accountability must go to Secretaries of State and Departments. Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Table Office and the departmental parliamentary Clerks to be more welcoming on the tabling of written questions to Departments? There should be a general principle that if a Department spends money on it, we should be able to ask questions about it.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which relates to the announcement in the written ministerial statement that Ministers will have direct responsibility for a number of issues that were previously covered by quangos. It follows from that that there should be a change in process at the Table Office to recognise the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): The Government efficiency tsar, Sir Philip Green, is famously efficient in organising his own tax affairs. May I add my voice to the clamour from across the House for a debate on the antisocial behaviour of tax avoiders?
Sir George Young: I think that that issue was raised and dealt with by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in departmental questions. As I said in reply to one of my hon. Friends, we welcome the initiatives of HMRC to close down tax avoidance. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific scheme in mind, perhaps he would like to contact the Treasury.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on houses in multiple occupancy owned by private landlords? A constituent of mine, Mrs Sullivan, has talked to me in my surgery about overcrowding and antisocial behaviour in some HMOs in Harlow that are becoming an urgent problem.
Sir George Young: Local authorities have fairly extensive powers in relation to HMOs. My hon. Friend might want to establish whether his local authority is using those powers. If he believes that there is a deficiency in the powers available to local authorities, I would be happy to raise that issue with my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider having a word with the Secretary of State for Wales about holding a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee? I cannot remember an occasion in recent years on which there has been overwhelming demand for such a meeting and it has been denied by the Secretary of State. Not even the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is in his place, would have done such a thing when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Rather than just face me down at this point, will the Leader of the House agree to have a word with her and to think again?
Sir George Young: The Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) discussed the Bill's provisions and their effect on Wales with Members who represent Welsh constituencies at a recent meeting in the House. The Secretary of State has set out her reasons for not acceding to the request of the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). There are Welsh-specific clauses in the Bill that will provide adequate opportunities for Members from Wales to have the same opportunity as other Members to raise their concerns in the House.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con):
The regulators are placing great demands on the banks to build up capital reserves while, as we learned today, 125,000 small businesses are in danger of going to the wall. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time so that we can talk about ways of
unlocking that money to ensure that small businesses can play their part in ensuring the success of the Budget strategy?
Sir George Young: Of course the banks, particularly those in which the Government have a substantial stake, should help to promote recovery by lending to small businesses that have worthwhile propositions. I am not sure that there is a total contradiction between rebuilding the balance sheets on the one hand and lending to small businesses on the other. If one has a robust balance sheet, it should be possible to make more provision for lending.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): It is quite clear that the comprehensive spending review will mean massive consequential cuts for the funding of the Scottish Government. We understand that a dirty deal has been done between the Conservatives and their new Scottish National party allies to postpone those cuts for one year. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that the figures are published so that people will know what the double-whammy cuts will be in the second year, and how will they be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or the Scottish Grand Committee?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman must await the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Wednesday. Perhaps he will catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and ask questions about the consequences for Scotland of the overall settlement in the UK.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): May we have a debate about the recent Commission for Rural Communities report that highlighted major issues with access to services in rural North Yorkshire?
Sir George Young: I have a rural constituency, like my hon. Friend, in which it is often more difficult to provide a range of services. I hope that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, who heard that question, will add it to her list of bids.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): My constituent James Goodman is a hard-working electrician who has invested in property in Egypt only to find that local builders have seized that property. His only advice from the embassy has been to get a lawyer. He has done that, and it has cost him more than £9,000. The Russian Government have looked after their citizens and have made representations to the Egyptian Government. May we have an early debate on what this Government are going to do to protect British citizens abroad?
Sir George Young: I am sorry to hear what has happened to the hon. Lady's constituent. I suggest that she applies for an Adjournment debate and seeks the support of a Foreign Office Minister in the cause that she has just espoused.
Mr Speaker: Last, but certainly not least, I call Mr Ian Austin.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Despite what the Leader of the House said earlier, the rate at which emergency cold weather payments will be made this year was fixed on Monday when the regulations were made. As things stand, 4 million of Britain's poorest families and pensioners are to have their benefits cut by two thirds and to receive just £8.50. Should not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the House at the earliest opportunity to clear up this shambles?
Sir George Young: The rate of payment will be announced in the spending review next week. We are committed to helping vulnerable people and we will continue to make cold weather payments as and when they may be triggered, but we will not comment on the rate of those payments ahead of the spending review.
Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful both to the Leader of the House and to all colleagues whose succinctness has meant that all 44 hon. Members who wished to question the Leader of the House have had the chance to do so. That shows what can be done when we put our minds to it.
Public Bodies Reform
12.15 pm
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude): Today, the Government have taken decisive action to restore accountability and responsibility to public life. For too long, this country has tolerated Ministers who duck the difficult decisions they were elected to make. For too long, we have had too many people who were unaccountable, with a licence to meddle in people's lives. For too long, we have had quango pay spiralling out of control, so that seven people in the Audit Commission are paid more than £150,000 a year at a time when the average civil servant's pay is £23,000.
The landscape for public bodies needs radical reform to increase transparency and accountability, to cut out duplication of activity and to discontinue activities that are simply no longer needed. My written statement this morning outlined the start of a process to curtail the quango state. I have led an intensive review into public bodies, subjecting each to four tests. The first test was existential and asked, does the body need to exist and do its functions need to be carried out at all? The answer to that question in some cases was no. For example, we decided that the Government probably do not need an independent body to deliberate on the purchase of wine.
If, as in most cases, the body's functions were deemed necessary, we then sought to establish whether those functions should properly be carried out at arm's length to government. If the body carries out a highly technical activity, is required to be politically impartial or needs to act independently to establish facts, then it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial accountability. That is the case with bodies such as the new Office for Budget Responsibility and Ofgem. However, any quango that does not meet one of these tests will be either brought back into a Department or devolved to local authorities-in both of which cases, there will be democratic accountability-or its functions will be carried out outside the state altogether in the private or voluntary sectors.
We have gone through an extensive process to determine the outcome of the review. Our first task was quite simply to identify how many quangos there are and what they do. It may sound absurd but it was and remains incredibly difficult to gain firm information on such bodies. Many do not publish accounts, there is no central list and there are myriad different types all with different statuses. The official list of non-departmental public bodies has 679 bodies, excluding those in Northern Ireland, but that does not include non-ministerial Departments, Government-owned public corporations or trading funds. Our review covered 901 bodies and we believe, but cannot be certain, that that is the true extent of the landscape. I stress that departmental agencies-Executive agencies-are not in the review's scope. They are directly controlled by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for what they do.
Once we established the overall lists, each Department went through a rigorous process to determine whether each of its quangos met any of the tests. The list I have published today is not complete but is a work in progress. The House will note that a number of bodies are subject to a longer-term review-for example, the Children's Commissioner and the Office for Fair Access.
Of the 901 bodies in the review, substantial reforms are proposed for more than half. We propose that 192 should cease to be public bodies at all and that 118 should be merged down into 57 successor bodies, removing wasteful and complicating duplication of effort. Some 171 bodies are proposed for substantial reform while retaining their current status. For those bodies that we are abolishing, I stress that in many cases that does not mean the end of the function. Abolishing the regional development agencies, for example, does not mean that we no longer care about promoting regional business- [ Interruption. ] The Opposition's response is very revealing, because it suggests something fundamental about what we are trying to change: the assumption that one can prove that one cares about something only if one sets up a quango. We think that there is a different and a better answer, and that we can promote regional business in a better way.
Since the introduction of RDAs, regional imbalances have become not better, but worse, and the development agencies carried a staggering £212 million in administration costs. We believe that local businesses and local authorities are better placed to decide what they need, not highly paid executives imposed on them by Government. An activity does not need an unaccountable bureaucratic structure to signify its importance; the exact converse is true. If something is important, someone who is elected should make decisions about how it is done. That is why we are bringing a host of functions back into Departments, such as those of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and the Renewable Fuels Agency to name but two.
All remaining public bodies will be subject to a rigorous triennial review to ensure that the previous pattern of public bodies often outliving the purpose for which they were established is not repeated. They will be expected to become more open, accountable and efficient. In the new year, I shall outline to the House in more detail the new framework for those remaining quangos.
All proposed changes will be delivered within Departments' spending review settlements. Those bodies whose status is being retained may be subjected to further reforms following the spending review, in the same way as all other parts of the public sector. I want to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of those who work in public bodies. We are committed to working with the chairs and chief executives of those bodies to ensure that change is conducted as fairly and as smoothly as possible.
To enable the proposed changes to be implemented, the Government will shortly introduce a public bodies Bill, which will give Ministers power to make changes to named statutory bodies. Other forthcoming legislation, such as the education Bill and the localism Bill, will also be used to make changes directly.
I believe that these reforms are the first and necessary step to restoring proper democratic accountability to public life. They signal a complete culture change in government, from one that ducks difficult decisions, is opaque and allows profligacy, inflated salaries and waste, to an Administration who are open and transparent about what they do, with Ministers who take responsibility for their actions and are mindful of every penny of taxpayers' money. I commend these reforms to the House.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab): I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement-in the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph this morning. He is a man who appreciates the courtesies of this House, so I know that he will provide you, Mr Speaker, with an explanation of how the media could possibly have been briefed before Members were.
May I, however, start on a note of consensus? I thank the Minister for his work in completing a process that was set in train during my time at the Treasury. In March I told the House that 123 quangos would need to close, and from first glance at this statement it appears that two thirds of the 192 arm's length bodies that need to close are those that I announced in March. Instead of 20% of quangos being closed, the Minister has announced that 25% will be.
I am grateful, too, that his tests largely confirmed the approach that I set out in March. I welcome his endorsement of the principles of a sunset clause for quangos and of triennial reviews. I am especially grateful for his confirmation of our decision to mutualise British Waterways, which will be an important institution in the third sector that I know we both support.
May I, however, raise the slightly obvious question about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted this exercise? All of us want to improve accountability-it was one of the three principles that we set out in the ALB review in March-but we also want to save money, and once upon a time I thought that the current Prime Minister agreed, because, in a typically thoughtful and measured intervention, he said in October 2008:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |