7 Feb 2013 : Column 403

7 Feb 2013 : Column 403

House of Commons

Thursday 7 February 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock


[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before questions

New Writ


That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough constituency of Eastleigh in the room of Christopher Murray Paul Huhne, who since his election for the said Borough constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckingham.—(Mr Alistair Carmichael.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Business, Innovation and Skills

The Secretary of State was asked—

Workplace (Women)

1. Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): What steps his Department plans to take to increase the number of women in the workplace. [141927]

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): The number of women in work is higher than at any time in British history. We propose a new system of shared parental leave and extending the right to request flexible working to all workers, which will further promote female participation in the workplace by increasing flexibility and choice. We are also committed to seeing more women in senior positions in the UK’s top companies, initially focusing on board representation.

Harriett Baldwin: In the last tax year men paid £92 billion in income tax whereas women paid £36.8 billion, which is 60% less. Normally I am in favour of lower income taxes, but in this case will the Secretary of State explain what else he is doing to help to equalise those figures and, most importantly, bring an extra £55 billion into the Exchequer?

Vince Cable: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she has done through the Working Families charity to promote shared parental leave and on female participation in the finance sector. It is not entirely a problem that women are paying less income tax; raising the tax threshold will help low-paid women in particular to pay less tax, which is one of our objectives. Female

7 Feb 2013 : Column 404

participation and promotion and women rising to the top in business are also key objectives of our policy, and that will produce the equality for which my hon. Friend strives.

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Warm words butter no parsnips. The cost of child care holds women back from entering the work force. Does the Secretary of State regret his decision to support the reduction in child care tax credits and will he now push for that to be reversed?

Vince Cable: The Government are supporting women with young children, and families in general, to the tune of about £5 billion through the child care element in tax credit and free early years tuition, which for low-income families has been extended to two-year-olds, as well as tax relief on employers’ schemes. That amounts to very substantial support for child care.

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): The number of women in the workplace has been increasing for some time, of course, but in Wirral women public servants faced with the threat of redundancy and women leaders of small business tell me the cuts to Wirral council are threatening their job security. Will the Secretary of State ask his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to have a rethink about some of the heaviest cuts that are falling on places such as Merseyside?

Vince Cable: It is never good when people lose their jobs, and I always regret that, but the simple fact is that in Wirral, as in other parts of the country, the number of public sector local and national Government jobs lost is far outweighed by the number of jobs created in the private sector; over 1 million have been created over the past two years.

Net Lending (Businesses)

2. Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): In how many months net lending to businesses has (a) increased and (b) fallen since January 2011. [141928]

12. Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): In how many months net lending to businesses has (a) increased and (b) fallen since January 2011. [141940]

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): Figures from the Bank of England show that between January 2011 and December 2012 lending to businesses by UK banks increased in six months, and decreased in the others. The Government and the Bank of England are working to increase lending across the economy, for example through the funding for lending scheme and the new business bank.

Mike Gapes: Over the last two years net lending has gone down by £28 billion. What is the Secretary of State doing about that, apart from his various failing piecemeal initiatives, which do not get to the nub of the problem? The problem is a lack of consumer confidence and the banks’ failure to lend enough because of their lending criteria. What is he going to do about that, so that he will have a better record in two years’ time?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 405

Vince Cable: Certainly, the decline in net lending to SMEs is a serious issue, which I frequently refer to. It is a genuine problem and Government schemes have provided support in a variety of ways, including about £7 billion of net lending and £1 billion alone from the enterprise guarantee scheme.

Before we are lectured on this, we need to go a little further back and remember who was in charge when the banks collapsed and the lending crisis erupted. The hon. Gentleman may recall, given that, like me, he has been a Member of the House for some years, the Cruickshank report of 2000, which pointed out that the banks were overcharging their business customers, providing a poor service and making excess profits. The last Government had an opportunity to reform the banking system then. They did absolutely nothing about it, which is why we are in this mess today.

Debbie Abrahams: Small and medium-sized enterprises in Oldham have told me how they are struggling to access finance. We now know from Bank of England data that bank lending fell by £18.6 billion last year. On top of this, SMEs were owed more than £36 billion in late payments in 2011. Will the Secretary of State back an inquiry I am launching as part of my Be Fair—Pay on Time campaign to investigate the issues associated with late payments?

Vince Cable: I would like to acknowledge the contribution the hon. Lady has made through debates in the House to this very important issue. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has launched a significant initiative with business in order to reduce that problem. We also have a trade financing scheme, working with Kingfisher to try to ensure that credit flows through the supply chain. The key point is that credit does not depend solely on banks; it also depends on the big primes, whether in the retail sector or in manufacturing, and we are providing substantial support to small companies caught up in that problem.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Businesses in Huntingdonshire are reporting to me that access to credit has significantly improved over the last year, which is very good news indeed. The complaint I am increasingly getting is that banks are becoming detached from their customers—that, because of regionalisation and formulaic processes, they still cannot get to the right people. Are the Government addressing this issue?

Vince Cable: Yes, the decline of relationship banking has been a long-standing problem and it underlines the difficulties my hon. Friend describes. The factual position is that last year a third of all applications to the banks for loans were declined, according to SME Finance Monitor. When appeals were made to an independent arbitrator, some 40% were successful, which shows how bad the banks are in sifting good credit from bad.

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new business bank is not the silver bullet solution for all firms’ financial needs? What is he doing to diversify the sources of finance for business, particularly SMEs?

Vince Cable: No, it certainly is not a silver bullet but it will make a significant difference in increasing diversity in the system, in providing wholesale financing for some

7 Feb 2013 : Column 406

of the new entrants into the market, and in making Government support more concentrated and easy to access. It will be an important contribution, and the plans are already under way. The expert committee met for the first time a couple of days ago, and we are already looking at products and projects that hopefully will provide some £300 million, geared substantially with private money, over the course of this year.

Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): Banks tell me that small businesses will not ask for money because of their lack of confidence in a flatlining economy. Small businesses tell me that banks will not lend to them because of the risk factor and the desire to increase their capital balances. The Government say they are going to introduce a business bank. When will the business bank be up and running to address these problems, and in what different way will it operate to overcome them?

Vince Cable: The business bank has already been organised and as I just mentioned, the expert committee met for the first time a couple of days ago and its products are already being prepared. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have to go through the state aid process before it can operate fully. In the meantime, it can operate within constraints—pari passu lending, for one thing—and I can assure him that it will make a significant contribution.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the news that in the third quarter of 2012 there was a record number of company formations in Gillingham?

Vince Cable: Yes, and I think my hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that although we frequently hear from the prophets of doom on the Opposition Benches, a large amount of entrepreneurial activity is taking place. The percentage of the population engaged in business has increased from about 6% to 9% in the past two years, and what is happening in Gillingham is an example of that.

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): Once again, anyone listening to the recent exchanges will not have the slightest confidence that this Government are taking any meaningful steps that will make a difference. Six weeks ago, in the last Business questions, the Secretary of State told us that after the expert group had met he would come here to tell us the timeline and what was going to happen. He keeps telling us that this bank is going to make a significant difference, but nobody really believes we will see any meaningful progress in the next two years. Certainty and responsibility are very important, so can he unequivocally confirm today that the Government are following the policies that he is advocating on access to finance for small businesses? If not, can he explain what the Government should be doing to make a difference on that?

Vince Cable: Of course I can confirm that we are pursuing the policies I have described. I get a sense that the hon. Gentleman has not the faintest idea about the issues involved in establishing a new bank. This Government have established, through government, two new banks, one of which is already operating on a significant scale—

7 Feb 2013 : Column 407

the green investment bank. The other is the new business bank, which is going through the necessary processes. [Hon. Members: “When?”] Opposition Members ask when, but do they have the slightest idea what is involved in running a bank and doing due diligence, having presided over the collapse of the banking system ignominiously and having allowed the banks to get totally out of control, with the disastrous consequences that we are now dealing with?

Life Sciences Sector

3. David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): What support his Department is providing to the life sciences sector. [141930]

9. Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): What support his Department is providing to the life sciences sector. [141937]

The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): Our life sciences strategy, launched by the Prime Minister, has already triggered more than £1 billion of business investment in life sciences. That is good for growth and good for the NHS.

David Rutley: As my right hon. Friend is aware, Macclesfield and north-east Cheshire are well known for their strong base in life sciences skills and the economic contribution of companies such as AstraZeneca. In the light of that, what further steps is he taking to encourage investment in the north-west, and in north-east Cheshire in particular?

Mr Willetts: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, and I recall visiting the AstraZeneca facility at Alderley park with him last year. There is a very strong life sciences cluster in the north-west. We are supporting it with extra investment in the new Manchester cancer research centre and in the Manchester collaborative centre for information research.

Stephen Metcalfe: At a recent meeting of the Science and Technology Committee, Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Government’s chief medical officer, talked about the increasing amount of antibiotic resistance in disease and stated that

“the apocalyptic scenario is that when I need a new hip in 20 years I’ll die from a routine infection because we’ve run out of antibiotics.”

Will the Minister therefore tell the House what steps the Government are taking to fix what some have described as the “broken pipeline” in the development of new drugs?

Mr Willetts: I have heard Dame Sally Davies speak eloquently about that challenge, which is why the Secretary of State for Health will, I understand, be launching an action plan on that particular issue in the spring. What we are doing in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is backing investment and ensuring a pipeline of new drugs for the future. That is what the patent box is about, it is what research and development tax credits are about and it is what the new biomedical catalyst is about. We can be confident of the support we are providing for medical research in the UK.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 408

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): I hope the Minister will forgive me for describing that answer of his as a tad complacent. The fact of the matter is that when we talk to leading academics and leading investors in business we find that they think that in life sciences we are lagging behind the other countries we are competing with—particularly China, but also many other places. They are worried that what will happen in life sciences is what is steadily happening in pharmaceuticals, whereby we are losing our pharmaceutical industry and it is switching overseas.

Mr Willetts: There is certainly a global race and I believe that the Government’s policies are securing us a strong position in it. We are not complacent, but the improvements in the tax relief, the protection for medical research and the innovations taking products closer to market ensure that when companies look around Europe it is clear to them that Britain is the best place to locate their pharmaceutical activities.

Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): The Scottish life sciences sector is worth £3 billion to the economy and employs 32,000 people. Last week, Edinburgh’s BioQuarter announced that three new companies have just moved in. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we have already heard, the life sciences sector is about more than the golden triangle in the south-east of England?

Mr Willetts: That is absolutely right. As well as what is happening in the north-west of England, the Edinburgh BioQuarter is of international repute and the university of Dundee is the centre of another excellent cluster of medical research. This is a British strength, not simply a strength in the London-Oxford-Cambridge triangle.

Business Certainty

4. Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of the need for business certainty for firms to secure investment and long-term growth. [141931]

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): Industrial strategy sets out a long-term approach to deliver greater certainty and growth in partnership with business. We will publish 10 sector strategies jointly with business throughout 2013.

Stephen Doughty: Whether it is on energy, infrastructure or Europe, the Government are sending out confused signals, no signal or the wrong signal to business. On the latter point, what representations has the Secretary of State had from businesses on the impact on investment and growth of his Government’s decision to hold an in/out referendum on EU membership in 2017?

Vince Cable: Inward investors always make it clear that they want certainty and clarity in that matter. TheCityUK recently did a survey which suggested that the stability of our membership of the single market accounted for roughly 40% of decisions to commit to the UK.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 409

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that it serves no good purpose at all in the context of certainty to delay airport decisions until way after the next election. Will he confirm that he has put pressure on his colleagues in government to use the opportunity of the interim report at the end of this year to provide clarity for businesses, residents and communities?

Vince Cable: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares many of my concerns about airport expansion. The wider national interest must be safeguarded and we have commissioned Sir Howard Davies to do a proper and thorough investigation into the extremely difficult issues associated with Heathrow expansion.

Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab): Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the leaked letter from the Business Secretary to the Prime Minister, in which he acknowledged the need for

“a compelling vision of where the country is heading…Where we know big investment decisions are going to be made…we need to…provide certainty to business.”

In only the past few weeks, Bloomberg New Energy Finance stated bluntly:

“Investors have made clear to the UK government that policy uncertainty has undermined investment”,

and the National Audit Office said in its report on infrastructure that

“uncertainty over government policy might lead project sponsors, lenders and contractors to defer or abandon projects in the UK for opportunities elsewhere.”

One year on from his letter, why has nothing improved?

Vince Cable: A great deal has changed. There is now a great deal of support not only in government but across business for the industrial strategy. If the hon. Gentleman had been following the news he would have seen that some sectors, particularly the car industry and aerospace, have highly impressive growth and a long-term commitment to Britain. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): Will the Secretary of State look again at the sudden change in the combined heat and power regime announced in the 2012 Budget? The CHP provisions are expected to last until 2023 and the change has resulted in a severe financial penalty to energy investors, such as Sembcorp in my constituency.

Vince Cable: My hon. Friend’s question more directly relates to the responsibilities of my colleague the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. On the broader point about energy policy, however, there is much greater clarity with the electricity market review. Particular sectors and their treatment under it, such as those involved in CHP, perhaps need to be reconsidered and I am sure that my hon. Friend will talk to my colleague about that.

Higher Education (Student Fees)

5. Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): What recent assessment he has made of the effects of his reforms to higher education and student fees; and if he will make a statement. [141932]

7 Feb 2013 : Column 410

The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): Our higher education reforms are increasing cash for teaching at our universities and delivering more choice for students. Higher applications this year are up by 3% and the proportion of 18-year-old applicants from the most disadvantaged backgrounds has increased to the highest level ever. Every English region has seen applications increase.

Mr Thomas: With £9,000 tuition fees, universities are seeing considerable variations in their student numbers—potentially up to 40% in some cases. What research has the Minister done into the reasons behind the 13% drop in student numbers last year?

Mr Willetts: The variation in applications between universities is what happens when there is competition and when the money goes with the student. That is a key feature of our reforms. This year we are seeing applications up. Given the hon. Gentleman’s genuine concern about this issue, I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that the application rate for disadvantaged young people from England is at its highest ever level—19.5%.

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): May I congratulate the Minister on his excellent reforms and urge him to push forward with all the efforts that he is making to attract foreign students to the UK?

Mr Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. There is no cap on the number of overseas students who come to Britain. All legitimate overseas students are warmly welcome in our country.

Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): Will the Minister acknowledge that both universities in my constituency, along with many others across the sector, have been negatively impacted by the ill-considered and hastily introduced student control measures last year? Will he recognise that he made a mistake by rushing into that and explain what he is going to do to mitigate the damage?

Mr Willetts: Let us be clear. The student control system that we inherited involved allocating a fixed number of student places to every university in England. We do not believe that that is the right way of ensuring competition and choice in our education. That is why we are introducing new flexibilities, so that universities that succeed in attracting more students can take on more students.

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): The Government are right to be encouraged by the fact that we have seen the highest ever number of applicants this year from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the EU and outside the EU, and the third highest ever from England, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds. Will Ministers continue to focus on those from disadvantaged backgrounds and on young men, of whom there appear to be relatively smaller numbers of applicants, compared with young women? I am sure we need both to feel encouraged to go to universities in equal measure.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 411

Mr Willetts: My right hon. Friend is right and I pay tribute to his efforts in this area. Clearly, we must not be complacent. There is always more to do, and I hope that in all parts of the House we can agree that we must communicate the crucial message that no student has to pay up front to go to university; they pay back only if they are graduates in well paid employment.

Regional Growth Fund (North-west)

6. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effect of the regional growth fund on job creation in the north-west. [141933]

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon): To date, 59 projects in the north-west have been awarded a total of £225 million. In addition, £153 million has been granted to 16 programmes, specifically aimed at supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in the region. Taken together, this money will help create tens of thousands of jobs in the north-west.

Andrew Stephenson: The regional growth fund has been a great help to businesses across Lancashire and the north-west. In the next round my right hon. Friend can expect to see some excellent bids from Pendle. Will he confirm that he will look closely at these fantastic bids? If they are approved, they will be a real boost to Pendle and east Lancashire.

Michael Fallon: I certainly will. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the fourth round of the regional growth fund is now open. I urge any colleague in the House to encourage potential applicants to apply before 20 March, not least because the fund is proving good value for money. In the north-west it is leveraging in some £5.50 for every £1 of public money spent—some 10 times the proportion of the unlamented regional development agency.

Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): Will the Minister confirm that the average cost of jobs created by regional growth funds such as that in the north-west is £33,000? This is more than the cost of jobs created by the regional development agencies, which the Government abolished.

Michael Fallon: No, I cannot confirm that figure. This is taxpayers’ money for projects that would not otherwise go ahead. They are recommended by an independent advisory panel as good value for money and they are subject always to proper due diligence.

Royal Mail Privatisation

7. Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): What discussions he has had with Royal Mail regarding its privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [141935]

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon): I regularly meet Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union to discuss a future share sale. Since Parliament decided to secure the universal postal service through the Postal Services Act 2011, we have relieved Royal Mail of its historic pension deficit and established a new regulatory regime. The

7 Feb 2013 : Column 412

final step is to give Royal Mail access when it needs it to private capital and to honour Parliament’s commitment that at least 10% of the shares will be made available to employees.

Ian Lavery: Royal Mail is the jewel in the crown of this nation, and it is cherished by millions. There are grave concerns about the privatisation of Royal Mail in terms of price hikes, job losses and a reduction in services. May I urge the Minister to withdraw the privatisation plans and invest heavily in a publicly owned Royal Mail?

Michael Fallon: It would be very odd to deny Royal Mail—a business with a turnover approaching £9 billion—access to the capital markets that other large, successful companies enjoy, and which it will need in order to innovate and invest for the future. It would also be wrong to withhold from its 130,000 staff the chance that Parliament has given them to own shares in the company.

Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): Having served on the Committee that considered the Postal Services Bill, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to implement the will of this House and to succeed where the previous Labour Government tried and failed. Is it not clear that for Royal Mail to benefit from the enormous growth in online retail, and consequently in its parcels business, it needs to be free to invest without competing for scarce public money?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend puts it very well. Royal Mail, like any business, needs capital to be sustainable over the long term in order to continue to improve its efficiency, to invest, to innovate, and to seize the opportunities presented by new markets, not least those arising from online retailing. It should not have to compete for scarce public capital against other services such as schools and hospitals.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): What measures will the Minister put in place to ensure that Royal Mail is not taken over by a private equity firm following privatisation?

Michael Fallon: No decision has yet been taken on the timing and size of any share sale. The key is to ensure that a big, successful company is no longer denied access to the capital markets.

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): This week Royal Mail reported that it had selected a number of agencies to assist in the

“largest privatisation since British Rail”.

The Ofcom consultation, “End-to-end competition in the postal sector”, has stated that that is not relevant to its primary duty of protecting the universal service obligation as regards rival operators cherry-picking profitable Royal Mail work without having to meet its high standards of same-price, every-place, six-days-a-week delivery. What guarantees can the Minister give that Royal Mail’s service standards will not be put at risk? Does he share my deep concerns about Ofcom’s stance on end-to-end competition?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 413

Michael Fallon: Only the ideologues on the Labour Benches could possibly want to continue to block the access of this company to the private capital markets. Let us be clear: Parliament gave Ofcom a clear statutory duty to secure the provision of the universal service six days a week, and we expect it to carry that out. Ofcom’s consultation on delivery competition has now closed, and it will issue its guidance in the spring, subject to that duty to safeguard the universal service.

Tobacco Industry Exports (Egypt)

8. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What the tobacco industry exports which created 2% of Egypt’s sovereign debt owed to UK Export Finance were used for; when those exports were made; and whether they were to the Government of Egypt or to private companies. [141936]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): The 2% of Egypt’s sovereign debts relating to tobacco industry exports arose following defaults by the Government of Egypt, who purchased tobacco-processing equipment from UK exporters in the 1980s. The debts were rescheduled in 1987 and 1991 through the Paris Club. The 1991 rescheduling included 50% multilateral debt forgiveness, resulting in the UK forgiving £260 million of debt.

Mr Hollobone: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of my constituent, Rev. David Milner, and the Jubilee Debt Campaign that Government-backed UK loans and credits to developing countries should be for worthwhile projects based on responsible lending criteria, should have affordable repayment terms, and should not imperil sustainable economic growth in the countries concerned?

Matthew Hancock: Of course UK Export Finance should support growth that is sustainable. It has recently published on its website the sovereign debts owed to it by overseas Governments in order to become yet more transparent.

Strategic Defence Review

10. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the development of the Government’s strategic defence review. [141938]

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon): Preparations for the review are under way. My Department is fully engaged on the industrial aspects. Together with Steve Wadey from MBDA, I co-chair the defence growth partnership, which is addressing the competitiveness of the defence sector and especially how we can better exploit the links between civil and military technologies.

Mr Cunningham: May I do something unusual, which is to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their help in saving the London Taxi Company in Coventry? What discussions has the Secretary of State or the Minister had with Rolls-Royce on the possible impact of its decision on the supply chain and through job losses?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 414

Michael Fallon: I know that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) discussed that matter in the Department on Monday. I met Rolls-Royce yesterday. I understand that its decisions have to be made primarily in response to changes in key international defence programmes. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the potential decisions about Ansty, he will know that any run-down there is expected to take several years and that no final decision has been taken.

Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con): The biggest threat to British defence companies is the shortage of engineering skills. That threatens our prosperity, their success and our security. I therefore invite my right hon. Friend to look as sympathetically as possible at the ten-minute rule Bill that I will introduce next week, which aims to inspire more young people, especially girls, to take up the exciting opportunity of pursuing a technological or engineering career.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the number of engineering apprenticeships and applications to study engineering are already increasing. The skills needs of the sector will be a key focus for the defence growth partnership.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Redundant Ministry of Defence sites can blight a local area, but they also offer the potential for new jobs and brownfield development, as is recognised by the Swindon and Wiltshire local enterprise partnership. Will the Minister recognise that in any advice that he gives to colleagues when they are considering the bids for the second wave of city deals?

Michael Fallon: That was a most ingenious formulation in support of the bid from the Swindon and Wiltshire local enterprise partnership in wave 2 of city deals, which is under consideration at the moment. I will ensure that the use of redundant land is one of the aspects that we consider.

Debt Advice

11. Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the effect on consumer behaviour of Government advice on debt. [141939]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson): The Government established the Money Advice Service in July 2011 to co-ordinate and monitor free debt advice. We also support advice through the National Debtline and Citizens Advice. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that many people are still unaware that there is free debt advice and so fall prey to high up-front fees and profit-driven advisers. Today, I am therefore announcing a new debt management protocol that will protect consumers and ensure they know where to go for free debt management advice.

Ann McKechin: Last week, I listened to a pointless radio advert from the Money Advice Service that advised people how to get a mortgage. Surely debt advice from the Government should focus on priorities such as vulnerable families who are finding it difficult to afford basic food or their rent, far less the luxury of obtaining a mortgage.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 415

Jo Swinson: I understand the frustration that the hon. Lady feels. Of course, the Money Advice Service is there to provide not only debt advice, but information on a wide range of financial issues and there is place for that. She highlights the huge importance of raising the awareness of the free debt advice that is available. The new protocol that has been published today should help to do that, because debt management providers who charge for their services will have to make people aware that free options are available before they sign up. That will help people to get the advice that they need.

Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): Last week, I met representatives of Corby citizens advice bureau, which does an excellent job in my local community. Given the appalling human cost of the cumulative impact of the Government’s measures, such as the cuts in council tax benefit and housing benefit, and the crisis that we expect to see in April when universal credit is implemented, does the Minister regret scrapping the financial inclusion fund, with the loss of 500 citizens advice advisers at a time when their help is most needed?

Jo Swinson: It is a little rich of Labour Members to talk about the difficult situation that people are in as if they had nothing whatever to do with it. They forget that they left this country in a perilous economic situation. The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that people are finding it very difficult. That is why the Government are helping by cutting income tax for 20 million people and taking more than 2 million of the lowest-paid people out of paying income tax altogether.

Export Support Services

13. Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): What steps he has taken to raise awareness of export support services among small and medium-sized enterprises. [141941]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): We have reformed UK Trade & Investment to ensure that it better supports small and medium-sized enterprises. Some 90% of UKTI’s trade customers are SMEs, and its awareness raising includes a plethora of local activities, including MP constituency trade seminars. One hundred and forty colleagues, including me and my hon. Friend, are holding UKTI trade seminars in their constituencies, and I urge Members from all sides to get involved.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Minister for that response. In my experience, and that of my constituents, UK commercial banks could do more to promote trade finance. Does my hon. Friend think they are doing enough to promote services offered by UK trade finance?

Matthew Hancock: Not yet, but they are about to. UK Export Finance is establishing a series of regional advisers who through banks, lawyers and accountants will reach more SMEs. That is part and parcel of a widespread message going out to all businesses that if they want help exporting, UKTI is there. The trade seminars in Members’ constituencies will be an important part of that.

George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con): Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest frustrations for small businesses is the Government’s tendency to launch a

7 Feb 2013 : Column 416

plethora of schemes and press releases to go with them? I congratulate the Government on holding a bonfire of the brochures in the life sciences sector, and on setting up a dedicated life science investment office that is staffed by two industry experts who support the Department’s generalists in providing targeted advice.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes that comment far better than I could.


14. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): What proportion of new over-18 apprenticeships have been taken by people in existing employment since May 2010. [141942]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): Apprenticeships are designed to help people develop the skills they need to enter an occupation, and to reskill and progress within a job. The 2011 apprenticeship pay survey found that 77% of apprentices had some experience of work with the same employer before the start of their apprenticeship.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister undertake to make clear in all statements about apprenticeships how many are new starts in employment, and how many are existing employment? Will he confirm that a lot of the increase in the number of apprenticeships has come from converting the previous Train to Gain scheme into apprenticeships?

Matthew Hancock: It is very important not only for people to enter the workplace, but to improve their skills within it. For instance, 99% of those on management apprenticeships had some previous experience of work in the company, which is to be expected. It is about getting people out of unemployment, but also ensuring that their skills improve while they are in a job.

Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): North London chamber of commerce and Enfield’s Johnson Matthey are tonight hosting a local business awareness of apprenticeships programme, and are determined to exceed last year’s recruitment of 107 new apprentices. Will the Minister offer a message of support for tonight’s event and, in particular, for Mr Barry Connelly of Johnson Matthey of Enfield who has led that programme?

Matthew Hancock: I would be pleased to support Johnson Matthey and the work it is doing to expand the number of people in apprenticeships, and indeed to increase the quality of apprenticeships. I know that the apprenticeships it offers are of high quality and it is well worth raising awareness of that and getting involved.

Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): The Government’s latest figures show that apprenticeship starts for young people under 19 are down by 15%, and Ministers are complacent about the risks to apprenticeships for over 24-year-olds from their further education loan plans. It is obvious that we urgently need a game- changer for apprenticeships, so why is the Minister still ignoring what the Opposition and now the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee have called for: Government procurement contracts, not least on projects

7 Feb 2013 : Column 417

such as high-speed rail, to ensure that companies sign up thousands of new apprenticeships in order to win those contracts?

Matthew Hancock: The shadow Minister does rather better when we take politics out of apprenticeships, not least because there has been a record number of apprenticeship starts over the past year. On HS2, I say only that Crossrail—the largest construction project in Europe and signed off by this Government—has precisely the sort of arrangement for which he asks.

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): Apprenticeships are rightly a focus for the Government, and the extra investment is extremely important and welcome. Does the Minister acknowledge that some companies have a problem when apprentices choose to leave? Will he consider ways in which to compensate the company that puts people through an apprenticeship scheme in the first place?

Matthew Hancock: Ensuring the success—wherever possible—of apprenticeships is important. I will look at the issue the hon. Gentleman raises, but the most important thing in ensuring as high a success rate as possible is that the learning within apprenticeships is as relevant as possible to the company involved. We are working to improve that, and I hope that will reduce the incidence of the problem he describes.

Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): Schools and colleges still do not promote apprenticeships for the most able students as an alternative to university. What are the Government doing to rectify that situation?

Matthew Hancock: That is an important question. This summer, we introduced destination data that showed not only the proportion of children who go to university but the percentage from each school and college that go into apprenticeships. There is a new, important duty on schools to provide independent and impartial guidance. Ofsted will conduct a thematic review—to report in the summer—to show how progress has been made.

Topical Questions

T1. [141952] Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business to deliver growth, while increasing skills and learning.

Stuart Andrew: A number of businesses in my constituency that I have visited have reported welcome news of an increase in orders from abroad. However, they have raised concerns about the time it takes to get export licences. In order to help those companies to remain competitive, what is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to try to speed up efficiency in that respect?

The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon): The Export Control Organisation is currently meeting its primary target of

7 Feb 2013 : Column 418

approving 70% of licence applications within 20 working days. Last year, it met its secondary target of approving 95% within 60 working days. However, I well understand the frustration of legitimate exporters. The ECO is working with the Foreign Office to improve performance still further.

Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): The EU Council is gathering as we speak. From the common agricultural policy to the absurdity of the European Parliament sitting in two places, it is clear that the EU needs reform. It is also clear—to the extent that any reform involves a significant transfer of power from Parliament to the EU—that we all agree there should be a referendum. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although reform is crucial, the immediate priority for British business is to grow our economy, and that continued membership of the EU is fundamental to that goal?

Vince Cable: I agree. The way the hon. Gentleman phrased the question suggests that, despite some of the drama, there is a lot of common ground. As I understand it, all three party leaders want us to remain within the EU. We all support the need for radical reform and for a referendum on the conditions set out in recent parliamentary legislation.

Mr Umunna: To pick up on a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) earlier, I have spoken to many businesses—large and small—that believe that the Prime Minister’s approach to the EU risks Britain stumbling out of the EU. Companies in numerous sectors—from Virgin to Siemens, and from BMW to BT—that account for 170,000 direct jobs, never mind indirect jobs, have reiterated the importance of our continued membership of the EU to their businesses. In the Secretary of State’s leaked letter to the Prime Minister, he said the Government must build more certainty and confidence for business to invest. Does the Secretary of State believe the Prime Minister’s EU policy has helped or hindered that process?

Vince Cable: The Prime Minister’s pressure for EU reform is necessary. I work with like-minded Ministers in other European countries to help to deliver that reform. We are all agreed that we need a minimum of uncertainty to attract inward investment. It is incumbent on all who want jobs in Britain to sound that positive message.

T2. [141953] Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): With youth unemployment falling—sadly, it is still too high—is it not more important than ever that we prepare young people to enter work properly with the right skills, on which York college and Askham Bryan college in my constituency are doing great work? How will the proposed traineeship scheme support that?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock): I am extremely enthusiastic about the proposals for traineeships. They will help to get people who need work preparation, work experience, English and maths and a plethora of other skills ready to take on an apprenticeship and go to work. Colleges such as York college will play an important role in delivering that.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 419

T3. [141954] Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): This week the British company Centrica withdrew, along with RWE and E.ON, from investments in nuclear power following its investment of £1 billion. That proves that nuclear electricity is now unaffordable unless the Government invest £20 billion of subsidy in a French company. Will the Secretary of State follow his commendable initiative on Greencoat UK by investing in what is Britain’s greatest unused source of power, which is tidal power—clean, green, British and eternal.

Vince Cable: We are certainly promoting research on new generations of renewable energy, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the new centre in Glasgow established specifically to look at tidal and wave power. I do not recognise his figure of £20 billion of subsidy for the nuclear industry. I am sure we are not going there.

T4. [141955] Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con): Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Sam Davies from Whitland in Carmarthenshire for doing so well in the “We Made It” competition recently? Will he also get behind that competition, as it encourages so many young people into STEM-based jobs?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, we welcome the “We Made It” competition. Manufacturing offers young people enormous scope to do something really worth while and to be well rewarded in the process. Through programmes such as See Inside Manufacturing, we are ensuring that young people see for themselves the wealth of career opportunities in manufacturing, and understand how studying science, technology and engineering at all levels leads to well-regarded career opportunities.

T6. [141957] Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): The Secretary of State is aware of concerns about anti-competitive practices in the waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling market. What will he do to protect the position of small and medium-sized recycling companies such as Mercury Recycling in my constituency? Will he meet me to discuss this issue and wider concerns?

Vince Cable: We have a tough, respected and effective system of competition and anti-cartel policy. If the hon. Lady is concerned about anti-competitive practices, I will certainly raise this with the Office of Fair Trading, but it is an independent agency that makes its own decisions on which cases to investigate.

T5. [141956] John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con): I, like many, welcome the substantial increase in apprenticeships. However, it is equally important to encourage as many employers as possible to take on apprentices. Does the Minister agree that giving employers a national insurance holiday during the period of an employee’s apprenticeship would encourage more employers?

Matthew Hancock: I certainly agree that encouraging more employers to be involved is critical. The apprenticeship grant for employers in small and medium-sized businesses

7 Feb 2013 : Column 420

that have not taken on apprentices before is worth more, at £1,500 per apprentice, than a national insurance holiday. I encourage companies to get involved.

T7. [141959] Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): The Secretary of State was briefed about the York central site next to York railway station when he was in my constituency last year, so he knows well its potential to generate growth and jobs, a potential improved by the Government’s welcome decision to join High Speed 2 with the east coast main line at York. Will he meet me and representatives of York city council to discuss what the Government can do to help the council bring the site into use?

Vince Cable: Yes, I am familiar with the site. It was strategically important for childhood trainspotting, as I recall, quite apart from its potential for housing and regeneration. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already discussed this matter with the council leader and the chief executive. They need some support for infrastructure, although the scale of that is not terribly clear, but we are certainly keen to take this forward.

T8. [141960] Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con): Does the Secretary of State share my concerns that the Financial Services Authority redress scheme for businesses mis- sold interest rate swap products excludes those businesses that have a life swap value in excess of £10 million, despite the fact that those businesses would otherwise be characterised as “unsophisticated” by the FSA’s own rules?

Vince Cable: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on behalf of the up to 100,000 companies that have been mis-sold these swaps. It is a terrible scandal and he was one of the first people to highlight it. I think the position is now much better, but he is right to say that there are some anomalies at the borderline. The definition of “sophisticated companies” is not simply confined to scale, which I think is the point he is trying to make. I will continue to make that point to the FSA and the banks.

Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab): The Secretary of State knows that Nissan is vital to the north-east’s long-term economy and provides much-needed jobs and investment. Is there not a significant risk that the uncertainty about Britain’s future in Europe, which will continue for many years, could jeopardise this?

Michael Fallon: I am well aware of Nissan’s importance to the north-east. I visited recently and have spoken to the senior management at Nissan about the Prime Minister’s speech to reassure them that we see a future for this country within a protected and enhanced single market. That is what is important for Nissan and many other companies in the sector.

T9. [141961] Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing funding problems for postgraduate students. Most have to pay large sums up front, borrowing from banks or their families if they are rich enough, which creates huge social mobility problems. Has he had a chance to look

7 Feb 2013 : Column 421

at the proposals in my policy paper, “Developing a future: Policies for science and research”, or, indeed, the very similar proposals from the Higher Education Commission and the National Union of Students?

The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts): Postgraduate education is very important. We have maintained funding for it through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, but I am following with great interest the imaginative ideas being brought forward and we are open-minded if people have proposals for increasing access to borrowing and finance for postgraduates.

Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): In an earlier question, on the privatisation of Royal Mail, the Minister deliberately referred to the fact that shares would be sold off to the people in Royal Mail. It almost harks back to the “share-owning democracy” of Mrs Thatcher, when she privatised all the public utilities and almost without exception those public utilities—E.ON, EDF and all the rest—are now owned by Germany, France, Spain and even further afield. That is what happens to share-owning democracies. Instead of gazing into crystal balls, read the history!

Michael Fallon: I not only read the history, I remember the history because I was here, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—

Mr Skinner: You voted for it!

Michael Fallon: I voted for it, and he and his colleagues advised the workers in BT—[Interruption]—not to buy the shares and more than 90% of them did buy them. In this instance, Parliament has quite rightly provided that up to 10% of the shares should be reserved for employees. I think that the more than 130,000 people who work for Royal Mail should have the chance to share in the success of their company.

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): There will be no swearing in my question.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities will be aware of Chester university’s great success in getting industrial support. The vice-chancellor, Professor Tim Wheeler, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and I all have a free spot in our diaries on 1 March. I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend would come and join the celebrations with us.

Mr Willetts: I very much hope to join that event. I hope to be up there that day. If not, I will be there on another occasion, because I am a great admirer of what has been achieved at the university of Chester.

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State imagine that the counterfeiters, the smugglers and the others will welcome the introduction of plain packaging for the tobacco industry?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson): I know that there have been strong views on this issue in all parts of the House, and the Department of Health has undertaken

7 Feb 2013 : Column 422

a consultation on it. We await the results of that consultation, which will be analysed carefully. I am sure that the interesting counterfeiting issues that the hon. Gentleman raises will need to be considered alongside the health issues.

Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): With Chinese new year celebrations and firework displays this weekend, will the Minister urgently receive a delegation of MPs and immediately suspend new regulations—which have just been implemented five years early—that will lead to the collapse of the British fireworks industry?

Jo Swinson: I know that my hon. Friend is speaking up for the industry on this issue. I met him at the end of last year. BIS policy officials have had two meetings with the industry. Lawyers have also had meetings, and a further meeting is due next week to try to resolve the issue he raises. Yesterday I received a letter from him and the hon. Members for Bracknell (Dr Lee), for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I will be happy to meet them next week as a matter of urgency to discuss this.

Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): There are concerns that the UK is lagging behind its competitors in the registration of graphene patents. The USA has more than 1,100; we have just 46. Does the Minister agree that this is an example of why the Government need to provide more strategic direction and to support important technology sectors for the future?

Mr Willetts: We have, of course, invested more than £60 million in graphene research, notably, but not only, in Manchester. I have seen that evidence from patents. It is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that we are absolutely out there supporting the commercialisation of graphene, and that is what we are committed to doing.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on taking the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill through Parliament, and on allowing the adjudicator to impose fines. Will she look favourably on the adjudicator taking their own initiative in investigations from day one?

Jo Swinson: I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question and, indeed, MPs from all parties who have campaigned for the adjudicator. Christine Tacon was announced as the adjudicator-designate a few weeks ago and we are looking forward to the pre-appointment scrutiny by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We want to make sure that the adjudicator will be able to undertake investigations where there is any suggestion or suspicion that the code is not being complied with.

Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Last week, at a time of great uncertainty on the high street, the Co-op, working with the Farepak victims committee, announced that it would be the first major retailer to protect and guarantee customers’ Christmas savings in

7 Feb 2013 : Column 423

the future. Will the Minister welcome that move? May I also thank her and the Secretary of State for their work with Farepak victims? Long may it continue for consumer protection in the future.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the excellent scheme that the Co-op has just announced. It should be celebrated and I hope that other companies will be encouraged to follow suit, because I know that giving this kind of protection to customers will be very welcome indeed. I will continue to work with her and other hon. Members on the issue.

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con): Although I welcome the fact that university applications are up and that a higher proportion of them are from people from poorer backgrounds, will the Minister for Universities and Science join me in reminding my young constituents that, whatever the fees they are charged, they will only start paying them back once they earn more than £21,000?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 424

Mr Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These reforms increase resources for universities. They are not putting off students from less affluent backgrounds and it is graduates, not students, who pay. That is a very fair and progressive way of financing higher education.

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the United Kingdom stayed in the European Union and completed the single European market, our growth could increase by 7% within a decade, but that if we left the EU and had a relationship with it such as that of Norway or Switzerland, our exports could be as much as 14 times lower over the same period?

Vince Cable: I certainly agree that it is desirable, for reasons of economic growth, that we remain part of the European Union and single market. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, however, that both Norway and Switzerland observe the rules of the single market as well.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 425

Business of the House

10.32 am

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley): The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 11 February—I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on the local government finance settlement for rural local authorities. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 12 February—Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day]. First part, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on education. Second part, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on infrastructure.

Wednesday 13 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports, followed by motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2013 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2013.

Thursday 14 February—Debate on a motion on protecting future generations from violence against women and girls, followed by general debate on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The business for the following sitting week will include:

Monday 25 February—Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill.

Ms Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House. Yesterday a number of supermarkets and suppliers withdrew ready meals because of concerns about contaminated meat and adulteration. There is growing concern about this issue and consumers are rightly worried and want reassurances, yet the Government appear to be slow to react. Could the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on this matter by a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

On Tuesday, the Lords accepted amendments to the Defamation Bill that included plans for a new arbitration service to hear libel cases, along the lines of the recommendations of Lord Leveson. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at those who voted for the amendment? This week’s alternative coalition included Lord Fowler, Lord Hurd, Lord Ashcroft and the Prime Minister’s father-in-law, Lord Astor. Half of the Conservative party voting against him on equal marriage is one thing, but now the Prime Minister cannot even persuade his own father-in-law to vote for the Government. Tuesday’s vote showed that there is cross-party agreement on the need to implement Lord Leveson’s recommendations, to ensure that the suffering of the Dowlers and the McCanns will never be repeated. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the legislation will be returning to this House for Members to consider? Will he undertake to ensure, when it does, that he will keep within the spirit of that cross-party agreement and not seek to rupture it?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 426

Yesterday, astonishingly, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government’s taxes and benefits were progressive. On that very day, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies claimed that the tax changes being introduced this April were regressive, with the richest tenth gaining the most while the bottom 50 % lose. At the same time, the IFS warned that the social security bill was going up and that borrowing was going to overshoot by £64 billion. The reason is that the Government’s economic strategy is failing. May we have a statement from the Chancellor, ahead of his Budget?

Yesterday, the motion on the Order Paper from the Leader of the House that the House should sit on Friday 22 March was objected to. It is not immediately apparent why Government business managers need the House to sit on that day, so will he explain that in his reply? The Government’s legislative programme is hardly packed, so that cannot be the reason. I wondered whether, after last year’s omnishambles Budget, the business managers might have been planning an extra day of debate to give the Chancellor room to perform a few U-turns. An extra sitting day on the Friday would, of course, enable the House to rise on the Tuesday, meaning, conveniently, that the Prime Minister could once again miss Prime Minister’s questions. Given the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, it is little wonder that the Prime Minister wants to duck out of PMQs after the Budget. Will the Leader of the House now think again about that Friday sitting, given that it is a day on which many MPs will already have constituency engagements?

The Daily Mail reported yesterday that the Prime Minister recently spoke in the ballroom of the Hurlingham Club, where

“the Dom Perignon flowed like water at £100 a bottle”


“ordinary club members complained about being unable to get in the entrance because of all the Rolls-Royces and Daimlers clogging the drive”.

In that rarefied environment, did the Prime Minister really make a speech about how the Conservatives had

“modernised and were no longer the party of privilege”?

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team who found the remains of Richard III? He was only in charge of this country for two years, and he was of course the first leader of the country to lose his horse and get stabbed in the back. The Prime Minister has already lost the horse lent to him by Rebekah Brooks, and he has found a stalking horse in the form of the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). And as for being stabbed in the back—well, it is no wonder that the Education Secretary is so keen on the history of our kings and queens.

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her questions. I thanked her and her colleagues at business questions last week for having announced the subject for the Opposition day debate prior to that, and I thank her again today for having ensured that I was able to announce the Opposition day business for next week. I appreciate that.

The hon. Lady asked me a question last week during the debate on the effectiveness of Select Committees, but I did not have the relevant figures in front of me at the time. She sought the publication of more Bills in

7 Feb 2013 : Column 427

draft. I can confirm that, in the last Session, we published more Bills in draft—13 Bills—than in any previous Session under the last Government.

Ms Eagle: A two-year Session.

Mr Lansley: The shadow Leader says that it was a two-year Session, so I am happy to be able to tell her that in this Session, which is not a two-year Session, we have thus far published 10 Bills in draft, and I am hopeful that before the Session is ended, we will match the record of the previous Session.

The shadow Leader of the House asked me about my colleagues at DEFRA. As she will know—there was an equine theme to her questions—

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Come on—get a move on. If not a gallop, at least a canter.—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: There should be no chuntering from a sedentary position. Less of the wit or attempted wit.

Mr Lansley: That was not even an attempt to be funny. I will talk to my colleagues in DEFRA and in the Department of Health, which is responsible for the Food Standards Agency and has given evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I will ask them to ensure that the House is kept up to date. Following previous business questions, I will ensure, too, that before the House rises for the short recess next Thursday, we are updated in respect of the situation in Mali by means of a written ministerial statement.

The hon. Lady asked about the timetable for the Defamation Bill. That is a matter for the other place, although I understand that it is intended that Third Reading there will take place on 25 February. It will, of course, arrive here thereafter. The hon. Lady will recall that in that debate in the other place, my noble Friend Lord McNally made it clear that we expect to be able to publish proposals relating to the response of the Leveson recommendations in the course of next week. We are doing so actively on a cross-party basis. It is precisely because we want to secure cross-party agreement that we are acting together in that way. To that extent, the amendment passed in the other place was clearly premature. I hope that, when people see the proposals as they come forward, they will recognise that we are actively seeking to ensure that we achieve the recommendations and principles set out in Lord Leveson’s report, albeit in a way that continues to respect the need for a press free from political interference.

Curiously, the shadow Leader seemed to ask me to seek from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Budget statement prior to the Budget statement. We will settle for one Budget statement; that will be more than enough. It will give the Chancellor the opportunity to reinforce the simple fact that we in this country have credibility behind our fiscal stance and, indeed, our monetary policies. The new Governor of the Bank of England is giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee right now, but we all know from what was said by the OECD and others internationally that the commitment of this coalition Government to the reduction of the structural deficit and to the achievement of fiscal consolidation has allowed for our active monetary policy, notwithstanding

7 Feb 2013 : Column 428

the international pressures, and has gained us the credibility that has clearly contributed to the confidence that has brought 1 million more jobs since the election and low interest rates, which are of central importance, not least to mortgage holders.

The hon. Lady might have explained the Labour party’s policy to colleagues—a confused complaint about borrowing yet wanting to borrow more—but it was responsible for the most appalling inheritance of debt.

The hon. Lady asked about last night’s motion on the sitting of the House on 22 March. The reasoning is very straightforward. There is a calendar—the House has welcomed this fact—that has allowed Members and the House service to plan ahead. The calendar was very clear that the House would rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 27 March—I hope that date is right—and colleagues will have planned on that basis. Following the Budget on 20 March, accommodating both the requirements of the Budget debate and the needs of the Backbench Business Committee for a pre-recess Adjournment debate will require the House to sit on 22 March. I hope Members will recognise that that is for the benefit of the House, enabling business to be secured, including Back-Bench business.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating the archaeological team from the university of Leicester. Let me add, on a personal note, that I remember visiting the archaeological team with my daughter. She subsequently went to Southampton university, but at that time she was considering reading archaeology at Leciester, and perhaps she now regrets not having done so.

It will, of course, be a matter for the university of Leicester, in due course, to deal with the question of the re-interment of Richard III, but, like the shadow Leader of the House, I hope that the interest generated by the discovery of his remains will enable those who are interested in the history of this country—not least young people—to recognise what a significant date 1485 was in that history.

Several hon. Members rose

Mr Speaker: Order. As per usual, dozens of Members are seeking to catch my eye. I simply remind the House that there is a further statement to follow—from the Secretary of State for Education—and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is real pressure on time, and I appeal to colleagues, whom I am keen to accommodate, to ask short questions, and, of course, to the Leader of the House to provide us with pithy replies.

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): May we please have a debate on the future of pedlary in the United Kingdom? During last night’s debate on opposed private business, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), announced that the period for consultation on the proposed reform of the laws on pedlary and street trading was to be extended by a month. A debate would enable Members in all parts of the House to contribute to that consultation. Pedlars are the ultimate in micro-businesses, and we need to ensure that there is no danger of their being regulated out of existence.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 429

Mr Lansley: I am sure the House continues to take an interest in that issue, as it did yesterday. I heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say that the consultation period had been extended, and that the promoters of the four private Bills were well aware of that and were able to accommodate it in relation to their Bills. I am sure that the House will have an opportunity to ask questions about the matter—perhaps during the next session of questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, which might correspond with the timetable.

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): Today’s Hull Daily Mail reports that Peter Del Grosso, a former rogue wheel-clamper with a recent criminal conviction for racially aggravated assault, is now a legally registered parking ticketer. Given Labour’s warning, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, that that would happen, may we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the effectiveness of the coalition’s legislation on the issue?

Mr Lansley: I should be happy to ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport about the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised, but I think that, in general, it should be recognised that the coalition Government have achieved a £3.3 billion reduction in cumulative regulation costs since the election. One cannot wish for growth and at the same time continue, as the last Government did, with the constantly accumulating cost of regulation.

Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes sobering reading. It emphasises the need to continue to control public spending. May we have a full day’s debate on the economy? Given that there are only about two years to go before the general election, and given that the Opposition have so far failed to support a single public spending cut or endorse a single welfare reform, the nation is entitled to be able to consider in some detail how both we and the Opposition are to address control of the nation’s public finances in a responsible manner.

Mr Lansley: We made an additional day available for a debate on the economy following the autumn statement, and we do not have long to wait until the Budget and the debates that will follow it. However, my hon. Friend has made some good points. Control of public spending is integral to our economy. If we did not control our spending, we would lose credibility. There would be a risk of a rise in interest rates, and a significant risk of our losing the international confidence and credibility that we currently command. The Government have maintained that spending control: we have consistently met the target in the spending plans that we have set out, or even achieved a reduction below that level.

Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): May we have a debate on how foreign companies can be prevented from buying British companies and then closing them after a short period of time after removing their assets and sending them to China? Some 80 jobs in my constituency are currently under threat because of that, and it is not the first time this has happened in the Govan area in recent years.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 430

Mr Lansley: As the hon. Lady knows, it is never easy to reconcile oneself to these things, but we live in an international marketplace. We need to win in what is a global race and, frankly, the capacity of investors to invest in this country is integral to that, and to the free movement of capital across the world. We benefit from that free movement of capital, not least in terms of inward investment, but sometimes it has a downside as well.

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): The Pennine Sailing Club and the Valley Bowmen of Huddersfield archery club in my constituency recently each got £50,000 of Olympic legacy lottery funding. May we have a debate on the success of the national lottery, and can we also help our constituents and community groups navigate their way through the myriad funding schemes so they can benefit our local communities?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that, and I am sure the Pennine Sailing Club and the Valley Bowmen of Huddersfield archery club are very deserving recipients of lottery funding support. Some 400,000 groups and organisations across the country have now benefited from lottery funding since the lottery was established in 1994. There are some very good mechanisms for organisations to access lottery funding, including the funding search tool at lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/funding.

Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): At yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions it was clear that the Prime Minister had no idea about the implications of his bedroom tax. May we have an urgent debate on that, so the Prime Minister can get up to speed?

Mr Lansley: On the contrary, the Prime Minister absolutely understood that housing benefit has risen dramatically and that it is essential to control it. He was absolutely clear, too, that under the last Labour Government the kind of rules that were applied to social housing had been applied to private rented accommodation, and that raises the question of why there should be a difference. He was also very clear that, as resources are finite in the current circumstances, we should ask why we are funding almost 1 million unused bedrooms in the social housing sector when there are 1.8 million people on the social housing waiting list.

Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): May we have a debate on the negative role of parasitic agents in professional football?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend and many other Members have, over quite some time, raised the question of football governance. I will discuss the possibility of holding a debate on the subject with colleagues, although I am unsure which mechanism might be used—perhaps the Backbench Business Committee. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on football governance is a good starting point for moving on to consider when the House might look at these issues more generally.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): Targets to reduce the number of people being killed and seriously injured on our roads served the country very well for over 30 years. In 2010, the then Transport Secretary abolished targets. The new Secretary of State has introduced

7 Feb 2013 : Column 431

forecasts. May we have a debate on road safety in general, in which we might clarify the difference between targets and forecasts—or, indeed, if there is any difference at all?

Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters, and I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to respond to his question. What I will say, however, is that we are looking for outcomes, and what really matters is finding the mechanisms that enable us to improve road safety.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Harrow council tops the league for both the number of staff suspended and the length of time for which they have been suspended. One member of staff has been suspended for two and a half years on full pay. The council has also refused £3.6 million in Government grant to freeze the council tax, preferring to raise it to the third highest in London. May we have a debate on inefficiency and ineffectiveness in local government?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend makes important points relating to his constituency and local authority. If he catches your eye, Mr Speaker, in the debate on the local authority finance report, he will have the opportunity to raise the issue of securing value for money in his constituency and others.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): Is the Leader of the House aware—he will not be, but I will ask him anyway—that at 9.30 this morning, the Post Office announced that it will be seeking franchisees for 50 Crown offices across all the constituencies in the UK? I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about that as he was leaving the House this morning, and it appears the Post Office did not tell him about the announcement. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on what the Post Office is up to, where the Crown offices in question are, what will happen if a franchisee cannot be found, and the impact this will have on the Government’s promise to seek a mutual arrangement for the future of the Post Office?

Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman correctly understands that he could have raised these matters during BIS questions—

Michael Connarty: I was not called.

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining, but I simply mention in passing that he was a relatively late entrant to the Chamber. No offence was committed, but there were other Members who had been here longer whom I thought were more deserving at the time.

Michael Connarty: I was not complaining; I was making a joke.

Mr Speaker: Indeed. He is a good-humoured fellow.

Mr Lansley: I am accustomed to questions to me being described colloquially as “poor man’s Prime Minister’s questions”; I did not realise they had become “poor man’s BIS questions”, as well—perhaps poor man’s every kind of question.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 432

I will secure an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question from my ministerial colleagues. However, we are very clear—in contrast with the record of the last Labour Government—that there will be no programme of post office closures under this Government. I have seen in my own constituency the confidence that gives, particularly to villages where post offices have temporarily shut down.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Virtually every week, I read in my local papers the Bradford Telegraph & Argus and the Yorkshire Post about serious offenders having been brought to justice through advances in DNA testing and the use of the DNA database. Extraordinarily, however, this Government seem to think that there are far too many people on the database and are trying to find ways to take them off it. May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the DNA database in bringing serious offenders to justice, and how we should use it to maximum effect to help the police bring them to justice?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend addresses a very important point, which we understand: the need for effective use of the latest forensic techniques to enable us to tackle crime; but at the same time, the need to respect civil liberties and people’s right for their DNA, which can be acquired in a range of circumstances, not to be held where there is no good reason for the authorities to retain it. The balance between those two issues has been discussed, but my Home Office colleagues will be happy to discuss the issue again and answer questions in future.

Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab): May I ask the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions on its promise to give £8 million to redundant Remploy workers to get them back into work, and to give them benefit advice? To date, there is little evidence of any of that money reaching the people it is supposed to reach. A statement would help to clarify where their money is and how it is being used.

Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will recall, as I do, that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), referred to this issue when she was here answering related questions. I will encourage her to identify an opportunity, at Work and Pensions questions or before, to update the House on the redundancy arrangements for Remploy workers.

Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): May I congratulate the Chair on invoking Standing Order No. 40 last night, which I think we all enjoyed, thus expediting a whole series of votes called by only a dozen or so Members? Some of them seemed to take sport in delaying the passage of Bills against the will of the House. This has affected the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, costing the council hundreds of thousands of pounds and delaying the Bill for about three years. May I therefore ask for an urgent review of the voting process for private Bills?

Mr Speaker: I was waiting for the appearance of the word “statement” or “debate”. I am most grateful for the compliments of the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he wants not just a review but a statement.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 433

Mr Lansley: I never fail to be impressed by the judgment of the Chair on these matters, but the Chair, like all of us, works within the Standing Orders of the House. If my hon. Friend feels that the procedure of this House requires a change, I would encourage him to address his points, along with his evidence, to the Procedure Committee.

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): May I press the Leader of the House again on the urgent need for us to have a debate on the bedroom tax when the Prime Minister is present? He needs to understand the disastrous consequences he is inflicting on thousands upon thousands of people in this country, particularly those in my constituency; I receive letters by the day telling me about the consequences of this decision.

Mr Lansley: I will not reiterate the points I made to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), but I just say to the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday about the necessity of this measure. I do not hear, nor did we hear yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, any explanation from the Labour party as to how it proposes to meet the financial requirement that we have to control expenditure. Labour Members are occasionally free in debates to say, “Oh yes, we must control expenditure” but they have resisted every measure that has been introduced, be it on welfare, on the benefit cap, on housing benefit or on other things. They must understand that they cannot criticise in circumstances where they do not have a credible alternative.

Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con): Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on the publication of the Francis report, will the Government make time for a full debate in this Chamber, so that MPs from all parts of the House can discuss the report and its conclusions?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be very concerned to ensure that the report is fully debated, and he may know that a number of Staffordshire MPs have sought a debate through the Backbench Business Committee. The Committee will consider that request and I will be happy to understand in due course whether the Committee can accommodate such a debate.

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): In a particularly callous move, the Foreign Office has withdrawn concessionary visa arrangements for children from Chernobyl, thus depriving many of an opportunity to receive respite and to boost their immune system in constituencies such as mine. May we have a debate about how the Foreign Office decides on these concessionary visa arrangements, so that we can try to persuade the relevant Minister to change his mind about this appalling decision?

Mr Lansley: From memory—obviously I will correct this if I am wrong—Ministers at the Foreign Office have met representatives who are seeking these concessionary visa arrangements. I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed about the result of those discussions, but I am not aware that I will, before Foreign Office questions, have a likelihood of being able to ask that question directly.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 434

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): If the Backbench Business Committee is good enough to grant a debate on the scandal at Stafford hospital, will my right hon. Friend avoid arranging any Government statements for that day, so that we can have a full debate about the implications of the Francis report? After what we learned yesterday about the culture of box-ticking managerialism at the hospital, it seems to me that those people who close their eyes to reform of the NHS should open them and let us get on with it.

Mr Lansley: Of course my hon. Friend understands that we always endeavour to keep the House fully informed of announcements of Government policy, through the means of statements, and to seek not to impede the business of the House. That always involves a balance, and we will endeavour to strike it well. I understand his point that many Members, understandably, feel strongly about what Robert Francis had to say in his report. I feel strongly about it, because it demonstrates that appointing Robert Francis to undertake that public inquiry was absolutely the right thing to do. It also points clearly to the kind of changes in culture and behaviour that the NHS needs now and has needed for a long time. This is not about the structures, because in the course of the past two and half years we in this House have given the NHS the structures it needs. In the introduction to his report, Robert Francis makes it clear that we now need to achieve those culture changes within the structure of the new reforms and they can be achieved in that way.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Would it not be a really sneaky trick for the House not to sit on the Wednesday after the Budget? It would mean that the Prime Minister would not be able to answer in relation to the Budget for four full weeks, by which time, if last year’s Budget is anything to go by, nearly every element of it will have been undone. The Prime Minister would then have to do a massive mea culpa and apologise to everybody for having misled them all the way along for four weeks. Would it not be better to sit on the Wednesday or for the Prime Minister to lead the debate on the second day?

Mr Lansley: I published the calendar for the House last October. It set out very clearly, to correct what I said earlier, that Tuesday 26 March was to be the day on which the House would rise. It is perfectly possible for the business of the House to be accommodated by that date, but we must sit on the Friday for that to happen.

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): Notwithstanding the comments made by the Leader of the House a few minutes ago in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), there is an evident lack of democratic accountability in the national health service. I am sure that all Members have come up against those barriers at various times. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that issue?

Mr Lansley: I am sure that when we come to debate the Francis report my hon. Friend and others will be able to make many points, including that one. I draw his attention to the simple fact that the implementation this year of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will give local authorities much stronger powers through the

7 Feb 2013 : Column 435

health and wellbeing boards to ensure that commissioning is agreed with the local authority and democratically elected representatives, as well as direct powers to fashion a public health improvement plan for their area.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the deployment of British troops in Mali and north Africa and he promised me that the House would be kept updated. I raised the question again yesterday on a point of order following the Prime Minister’s extensive visit to the area last weekend and apparently all we will get is a written statement. That is not good enough and is not acceptable. We need a full statement and a full debate on the significant deployment of British troops in that area, which might last for a very long time and should be of great concern to everybody in this House. I ask him again: may we have a debate with a votable motion so that we can discuss the situation and the long-term objectives of the British deployment?

Mr Lansley: I noted the hon. Gentleman’s point of order yesterday and I will reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House earlier: I and my colleagues will ensure that there is a report to the House next week before the House rises. I will not reiterate all that I said last week, but we continue to look carefully to ensure that we meet fully the convention that before there is a commitment of our armed forces to conflict and combat for any substantial period, when it is not an emergency, this House should have the opportunity to debate that. As the hon. Gentleman understands from what I said previously, this involvement has an urgent character but it is not the Government’s intention or plan to commit our forces to combat and conflict.

Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I welcome the fact that the Government have increased the income tax threshold, lowered corporation tax, worked with local authorities to freeze council tax for the third year and scrapped Labour’s fuel duty escalator. A report earlier this week said that if we were to abandon air passenger duty we could increase economic activity by £18 billion a year and increase GDP by 0.46%. May we therefore have a debate on how tax reductions can stimulate the economy further?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will understand that the level of tax must be set in a way that optimises revenue while minimising the adverse impact on economic performance. That is a constant effort on the part of the Treasury, and it is one reason—this is not specifically related to air passenger duty—why reducing the top rate of tax to 45p makes good economic sense as well as revenue sense. That has been done in the context of completely understanding, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has agreed in its analysis, that following the Government’s tax changes the wealthiest 10% are making the greatest contribution to meeting our requirement for fiscal consolidation.

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): I make no apology for raising this matter as a business question—I tried to raise it at Prime Minister’s questions and during topical questions today, and I arrived early on both occasions. The Leader of the House has said how passionate he is about global capitalism and free

7 Feb 2013 : Column 436

markets, but media ownership is a different question. We have had no statement, and I think we should have a statement or a debate, on the fact that Virgin Media might be taken over by an eccentric American oligarch. That means that two major American companies, led by rather strange characters, will own our media empire. When will we have a statement about that threat to our media?

Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman shares my belief that if we are to be competent and create wealth, we must be prepared to understand that we do so in a global marketplace and there are capital and investment consequences from which we will benefit. But he should not confuse that with a belief that competition and rigorous competition authorities are essential to make that happen. I will take no lessons in relation to that because as a Back Bencher I wrote, together with the noble Lord Puttnam, the provisions that were put into the Communications Bill to apply a public interest test to media mergers.

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): May we have a statement on the repeated Spanish military incursions into British waters off Gibraltar, and an opportunity for us to pass on our thoughts to the Government on how robust the British response should be?

Mr Lansley: I will of course be glad to see if there is anything further that needs to be said to my hon. Friend in relation to these matters. I answered questions in the latter part of November, I believe, relating to Spanish incursions and made it very clear that we would not allow those to impinge in any way on the integrity of the position of Gibraltar.

Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): The Royal College of Physicians says that by 2050 half the population will be obese, at a cost of £5 billion to the NHS. May we have a debate on how to deal with this public health time bomb?

Mr Lansley: I am sure that, if time allows, it would be helpful to debate that issue. We must understand, however, that it is not just a matter of childhood obesity. Most of the people who will be obese by 2050 are already adults, so we cannot solve the problem by tackling childhood obesity alone. It is adults who must take responsibility, but we must understand that at the same time as we do all the things that we are doing—calorie labelling, calorie reduction, getting rid of artificial trans fats, reducing saturated fats—people need community support and opportunities to get more exercise and to make better decisions. Features such as front-of-pack labelling give them that opportunity, but they must be willing to take it.

Several hon. Members rose

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to remaining colleagues to ask single, short supplementary questions without preamble, and to the Leader of the House for brief replies. We might then get on to the next business.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 437

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): May we have a debate about Leicester’s historically dodgy, bogus and arrogant claim on Richard III and why north Yorkshire is the only place that he should be returned to, according to his wishes?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend knows that the legal position is straightforward. The licence gives to the university of Leicester an obligation, but also discretion as to the choice of location for the interment of Richard III’s remains, but there will be other claims. I completely understand the claims of both Westminster abbey in relation to the burial of Anne Neville, and York minster.

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): We need an urgent debate on the bedroom tax and particularly the exemptions. I have a constituent who is a foster carer and who needs the extra bedroom. She provides a service for vulnerable children and she should not be penalised for that.

Mr Lansley: The deductions from housing benefit were explained by the Prime Minister yesterday, and I have heard them being explained very carefully to the House previously. The hon. Lady should understand that in addition, as the Prime Minister said again yesterday, resources are provided to meet the specific requirements she raises and local authorities can respond to such circumstances.

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): On 29 January, Mary Portas visited the town of Nelson in my constituency following the Government’s decision in May to designate it a Mary Portas pilot town and to give it £100,000 to revitalise its high street. May we have a debate on the excellent Portas pilots and what the Government can do to breathe life back into our high streets and town centres?

Mr Lansley: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the Portas pilots. The funding of £2.3 million is only one little part of the effort that it has enabled. The multiplier effect in high streets is very important, including on those beyond the Portas pilots. It might be a slight contrivance to extend next week’s debate on local government finance to discuss the matter, but I hope that it might be one mechanism used to illustrate how local authorities can use resources effectively to generate economic activity.

Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): You will remember, Mr Speaker, that I have raised the idea of Bob Dylan coming to Swansea to play at a centenary Dylan Thomas concert in 2014. Well, the times they are a-changing, and I have had a letter from Bob Dylan’s manager to say that he would prefer to perform in the summer in case of inclement weather. I wonder whether the Leader of the House would find time, as the House’s “Mr Tambourine Man”, to come to the concert and, more importantly, timetable a debate in this House before 2014 on cultural and literary icons of the UK and Wales.

Mr Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I must say, though, that I am surprised by what he says, since I have understood from him that the sun always shines in Swansea.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 438

Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), may I ask, as a proud Yorkshireman and a York MP, for a debate on returning Richard III, the last king of the House of York, to his rightful resting place—the great city of York?

Mr Lansley: I will not reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). The claims are there, but the law is very clear.

Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): In business questions in May, I raised the scandal of Criminal Records Bureau checks blighting the lives of tens of thousands of people years, or even decades, after conviction, or even cautions for minor offences or misdemeanours. The Leader of the House’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was graciously helpful, the Home Office less so. In the autumn, the exclusions from the police commissioner elections highlighted how absurd and outrageous this practice is. The High Court has now told the Home Secretary to think again about CRB checks. May we have a debate in which the Home Secretary can explain why she stubbornly refuses to correct this gross injustice?

Mr Lansley: The House will be aware of the recent High Court case. The Government must recognise our responsibility to ensure that CRB checks are thorough and comprehensive. We are directing them towards jobs with access to children and vulnerable adults where the vulnerability is real and the need for confidence is absolute. Having said that, the Home Office will respond in due course, and the right hon. Gentleman might like to think about raising the matter in Home Office questions on Monday.

Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): On Christmas day in 2011, my constituent Khuram Sheikh, a Red Cross worker, was brutally murdered in Sri Lanka. Since then, the justice system in that country has moved exceptionally slowly. I met his family just before Christmas, and they are still mourning. Foreign Office Ministers are putting pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, but still more needs to be done. A parliamentary debate on the failure of the Sri Lankan justice system would be very welcome.

Mr Lansley: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituent’s family circumstances. Foreign Office questions are on 5 March, and he might like to consider raising the matter then. Alternatively, Members often think that an Adjournment debate on such circumstances might be appropriate.

Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): On 4 December, I tabled a round robin question asking each Department how many computers, mobile telephones, BlackBerries and other pieces of IT equipment had been lost. I have received answers from every Department —very interesting they are too—apart from the Cabinet Office. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to get me an answer, bearing in mind that I also tabled a named day question on 16 January and have not had an answer to that either?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 439

Mr Lansley: I am sure that the House knows that I am anxious to ensure that we are always timely in our answers to questions, and I will endeavour to secure an answer for the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Following the right hon. Gentleman’s alleged answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), will he arrange a seminar for all Ministers to explain the precise meaning of the word “question”, the precise meaning of the word “answer”, and the need for a link between the two?

Mr Lansley: I will not organise such a seminar because I think that that is understood by Ministers.

Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab): Last month in Education questions, I raised with the Secretary of State the latest delay to the rebuilding of Hetton school in my constituency due to Government financing issues. Will the Leader of the House impress upon his ministerial colleague the urgency of that matter because I am yet to receive a response?

Mr Lansley: I will seek a response from my right hon. Friend. The Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) is on the Front Bench and will, no doubt, have heard that question.

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): May we have a debate on the best use to which the Government can put the rather hefty fines that some banks are paying over the manipulation of LIBOR? Do the Government agree that it would be a good idea to transfer that money to the new green investment bank in Edinburgh?

Mr Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would agree that the fines have so far been used very well in support of the military covenant. However, I will raise his suggestion with Treasury colleagues.

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the effects of the bedroom tax in Glasgow? Is he aware that the tax will remove £18 million a year from the Glasgow economy, cost 202 jobs and reduce wages by £5.3 million? Do we not need a debate to expose the tax as not just socially brutal, but economically disastrous?

7 Feb 2013 : Column 440

Mr Lansley: I will not reiterate what I have said. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that to meet our requirement to reduce the deficit that we inherited from the last Government, we inevitably have to make decisions, including decisions about the level of benefits. As he knows full well, when 1.8 million people are seeking accommodation in social housing, the fact that there are nearly 1 million underused bedrooms across the country must be factored into how we constrain housing benefit expenditure.

Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Last year, G4S secured the contract to service court buildings. It is now drastically cutting the hours of cleaning staff and making them redundant. May we have a debate on introducing plain English into written parliamentary answers, because it is not clear from the slippery replies that I have received so far from the Ministry of Justice whether that is being done as part of the MOJ contract or whether low-paid, part-time workers are paying the price for another G4S miscalculation?

Mr Lansley: I have always been a devotee of Sir Ernest Gowers’s pursuit of plain English. I will endeavour to ensure that I and my colleagues meet those kinds of strictures.

Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): On Richard III, the case for Leicester is overwhelming, so hands off, York! I ask the Leader of the House to really think about holding a debate on the bedroom tax. When that policy was debated in Westminster Hall recently, no Government Back Bencher turned up to defend it. Given that it will affect so many vulnerable and disabled people, Opposition Members are keen to hear from the Government how it can possibly be described as fair.

Mr Lansley: I have made it absolutely clear, as did the Prime Minister yesterday rather better than I could, that we must meet the requirement to control the ballooning housing benefit expenditure left by the last Government. The Labour party have resisted every effort to do so. When there is unused accommodation in the social housing estate, it is important for there to be incentives for it to be better used. There are nearly 1 million unused bedrooms. It is not a tax; it is a deduction in housing benefit expenditure. Many of the examples that have been presented by Opposition Members completely ignore the fact that there are other deductions in housing benefit expenditure, particularly in relation to private rented housing, which demonstrate that Labour always accepted this as an argument.

7 Feb 2013 : Column 441

Curriculum and Exam Reform

11.23 am

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of qualifications, school league tables and the national curriculum.

Last September, we outlined plans for changes to GCSE qualifications that were designed to address the grade inflation, dumbing down and loss of rigour in those examinations. We have consulted on those proposals and there is a consensus that the system needs to change. However, one of the proposals that I put forward was a bridge too far. My idea that we end the competition between exam boards to offer GCSEs in core academic qualifications and have just one wholly new exam in each subject was one reform too many at this time.

The exam regulator Ofqual, which has done such a great job in recent months upholding standards, was clear that there were significant risks in trying to both strengthen qualifications and end competition in a large part of the exams market. I have therefore decided not to make the best the enemy of the good, and I will not proceed with plans to have a single exam board offering a new exam in each academic subject. Instead, we will concentrate on reforming existing GCSEs, broadly along the lines put forward in September. There is a consensus that the exams and qualification system we inherited was broken.

Our first set of reforms were to vocational qualifications, which had been allowed to become less rigorous options under the previous Government. Alison Wolf’s report outlined how to improve the quality of vocational courses and expand work experience. It secured near universal support and it will soon all be done. We are also reforming apprenticeships. Under the previous Government, the currency of apprenticeships was devalued alongside every other qualification. The Richard report on apprenticeship reform will restore rigour, as Andrew Adonis has explained so powerfully.

We are also reforming A-levels. Schools and universities were unhappy that constant assessment and modularisation got in the way of proper learning, so we are reforming those exams with the help of school and university leaders. GCSEs will also be reformed in a similar fashion. The qualifications should be linear, with all assessments normally taken at the end of the course. Examinations will test extended writing in subjects such as English and history, have fewer bite-sized and overly structured questions, and in mathematics and science there should be greater emphasis on quantitative problem-solving. Internal assessments and the use of exam aids will be kept to a minimum and used only where there is a compelling case to do so, to provide for effective and deep assessment of the specified curriculum content.

Importantly, the new GCSEs will be universal qualifications and I expect the same proportion of pupils to sit them as now. This is something we believe the vast majority of children with a good education should be able to achieve. However, reformed GCSEs will no longer set an artificial cap on how much pupils can achieve by forcing students to choose between higher and foundation tiers. Reformed GCSEs should allow students to access any grade while enabling high-quality assessment at all levels. The appropriate approach

7 Feb 2013 : Column 442

to assessment will vary between subjects, and a range of solutions may come forward—for example, extension papers offering access to higher grades alongside a common core. There should be no disincentive for schools to give an open choice of papers to their pupils. 

I have asked Ofqual to ensure we have new GCSEs in the core academic subjects of English, maths, the sciences, history and geography, ready for teaching in 2015. These proposals will, I believe, achieve a swift and significant rise in standards right across the country, equipping far more young people with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve their full potential.

However, reforming qualifications alone is not enough to ensure higher standards for every child, and we must also reform how schools are graded to encourage higher expectations for every student. Existing league tables have focused almost exclusively on how many children achieve a C pass in five GCSEs, including English and maths, but that deceptively simple measure contains three perverse incentives. It encourages schools to choose exams based on how easy they are to pass, rather than how valuable they are to the student; it causes a narrow concentration on just five subjects, instead of a broad curriculum; and it focuses teachers’ time and energy too closely on those pupils on the C/D borderline, at the expense of their higher or lower-achieving peers.

Today I am proposing a more balanced and meaningful accountability system, with two new measures—the percentage of pupils in each school reaching an attainment threshold in the vital core subjects of English and maths; and an average point score showing how much progress every student makes between key stage 2 and key stage 4. The average point score measure will reflect pupils’ achievement across a wide range of eight subjects. As well as English and maths, it will measure how well pupils perform in at least three subjects from the English baccalaureate—sciences, history, geography, languages—as well as computer science, and also in three additional subjects, whether arts subjects, academic subjects or high-quality vocational qualifications.

That measure will incentivise schools to offer a broad, balanced curriculum, with high-quality teaching and high achievement across the board. It will also affirm the importance of every child enjoying the opportunity to pursue English baccalaureate subjects. By measuring average point scores rather than a single cut-off point, the new measure will ensure that the achievement of all students, including low attainers and high achievers, is recognised equally.

Alongside today’s proposed changes to exams and league tables, we are also publishing our proposals for the new national curriculum in England. Over the past two years, we have examined and analysed the curricula used in the world’s most successful school systems in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Massachusetts and Singapore. We have combined the best elements of their curricula with some of the most impressive practice from state schools in this country. The result is published today in a new draft national curriculum for the 21st century, which embodies high expectations in every subject.

We are determined to give every child, regardless of background, a broad and balanced education, so that by the time their compulsory education is complete, they are well equipped for further study, future employment and adult life. All the current national curriculum subjects will be retained at both primary and secondary levels,

7 Feb 2013 : Column 443

with the important addition of foreign languages, to be taught in key stage 2. Our new draft programmes of study in core subjects are both challenging and ambitious. They focus tightly on the fundamental building blocks of study, so that every child has the knowledge and understanding to succeed.

A key principle of our reforms is that the statutory national curriculum should form only part of the whole school curriculum, not its entirety. Each individual school should have the freedom to shape the whole curriculum to their particular pupils’ aspirations—a freedom already enjoyed by the growing numbers of academies and free schools, as well, of course, as schools in the independent sector. Programmes of study in almost all subjects—subjects other than primary English, mathematics and science—have been significantly slimmed down, and we have specifically stripped out unnecessary prescription about how to teach, and concentrated only on the essential knowledge and skills that every child should master.

In maths—learning from east Asia—there is a stronger emphasis on arithmetic and more demanding content in fractions, decimals and percentages, to build solid foundations for algebra. In the sciences, there is rigorous detail on the key scientific processes from evolution to energy. In English, there is more clarity on spelling, punctuation and grammar, as well as a new emphasis on the great works of the literary canon. In foreign languages, there will be a new stress on learning proper grammatical structures and practising translation.

In geography, there is an emphasis on locational knowledge, using maps and locating key geographical features from capital cities to the world’s great rivers; and in history, there is a clear narrative of British progress, with a proper emphasis on heroes and heroines from our past. In art and design, there is a stronger emphasis on painting and drawing skills. In music, there is a balance between performance and appreciation. We have also replaced the old information and communications technology curriculum with a new computing curriculum, with help from Google, Facebook and some of Britain’s most brilliant computer scientists. We have also included rigorous computer science GCSEs in the English baccalaureate.

With sharper accountability, a more ambitious curriculum and world-class qualifications, I believe we can create an education system that can compete with the best in the world—a system that gives every young person, regardless of background, the high-quality education, high aspirations and high achievement they need and deserve. I commend this statement to the House.

11.32 am

Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Under this Government, the words “GCSE” and “fiasco” seem to be linked indelibly. This is a humiliating climbdown. The trouble with this Secretary of State is that he thinks he knows the answer to everything, so he digs out the fag packet and comes up with his latest wheeze. What does that result in? It results in free schools that do not get built, scrapping AS-levels, which Cambridge university hates, and the rejection of English

7 Feb 2013 : Column 444

baccalaureate certificates by the CBI, which says they are a mistake. This is a familiar routine; one of the Secretary of State’s advisers briefs the

Daily Mail

, and when it falls apart by lunchtime, it is time to blame the Liberal Democrats. His priority is pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party.

Parents and pupils are left confused and frustrated. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to them for this shambles? Having done down their hard work on GCSEs, will he accept that that was the wrong thing to do? The statement demonstrates once again his flawed vision for education and a total misunderstanding of the future needs of our country.

Last September, the Secretary of State said: