House of Commons
Thursday 4 March 2010
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
business Before Questions
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Second Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 18 March (Standing Order No. 20).
Oral Answers to Questions
Business, Innovation and Skills
The Minister of State was asked—
On 2 July 2009, the Government published the consumer White Paper, which details plans for more effective enforcement against those who deliberately set out to defraud consumers. I recently announced funding of £4.3 million for the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards to tackle those who use the internet to con consumers.
The majority of victims of cyber scams are people aged between 35 and 44, but those aged 55 and over lose most money and are more likely to succumb to scams on more than one occasion. What specifically are the Government planning to do to assist those people to understand the dangers that they are face?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that it is very important to consider the impact on vulnerable people, including the elderly, of the sorts of scams that we have seen operated on the internet. That is why we are investing in the scambusters team and trying to raise awareness of the problem among older people. She might be interested to learn that my predecessor and former First Minister of Wales, Rhodri Morgan, has just taken up the internet; when he was recently in the office he received an e-mail, which he showed to me, from a woman who said that he was exactly the kind of man she was looking for. I did point out that it was not from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan)—his wife.
Will the Minister examine the OFT’s powers to tackle this issue? The electronic version of these scams is new, whereas the paper version is not, but, like the paper one, it is becoming much more sophisticated and much more believable. I am not sure that the OFT has sufficient powers to tackle those scams, particularly when they originate from another country.
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The OFT and trading standards have powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, but we are examining enforcers’ powers to tackle online consumer problems to see whether they need to be strengthened, and we are discussing that possibility with the relevant key players.
I last met the director general of the Russell group on 23 February, when we discussed higher education funding, among other subjects.
The Minister will be aware of my association with the university of Glasgow, which is a member of the Russell group. The Beatson institute for cancer research remains at the cutting edge and international forefront of cancer research generally. Given the squeeze on higher education funding, can he assure us that internationally leading research of the type at Glasgow will continue to receive the support that it both needs and, as I am sure he will agree, deserves?
I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s position as rector of that university and his continuing championing of it in this House. I also recognise that that cancer facility is world renowned. He will appreciate that the Scottish Funding Council and the research council are rightly responsible for science funding more broadly, and that any funding decisions are rightly their responsibility under the Haldane principle.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the research money is allocated there is no further concentration of funding, for example, on the Russell group? Will he confirm that all centres of excellence in research, wherever they may be found across the university system, including in the superb materials science group in the university of Bolton—my own university—are considered equally for funding with the top-level research universities?
Can the Minister give an undertaking that when the Browne committee reports after the election and imposes greater debt on students in order to fund universities, that funding will not be removed from universities in terms of their central Government funding? Can he assure us that universities will at least be better off if students have to pay higher fees through increased debt?
I recognise that this is a very serious issue. I was pleased to meet the all-party group against anti-Semitism and to meet Jewish students recently to discuss these matters. My right hon. Friend will know that I have regularly brought together universities, students and others in the sector to discuss these matters. I do not believe that this is a widespread problem across British universities, but I recognise that examples of it are patchy. We must remain vigilant and we must not allow anti-Semitism anywhere on campuses in this country.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government have set a target of 50 per cent. of young people going to university, and that this year—the very year to which the target applies—they are fining universities to the tune of £10 million simply because they have recruited more students? Is it not the final absurdity of Labour’s target culture that it can set a target and then punish institutions for taking the measures needed to hit it? Why does he not instead match our pledge to offer 10,000 more university places this year?
Because the hon. Gentleman’s pledge is bogus and ridiculous. It would involve the Government borrowing more money to help which students pay off their loans quickly? The richest students. That is where his heart lies. The 50 per cent. participation rate is an aspiration that his party has continually opposed. We have got the figure up to 43 per cent., so there are more young people than ever before going to university, including more young people from poorer socio-economic groups than ever in our history, but his party has opposed the measure at every opportunity. This is the most opportunistic volte-face I have seen in the House for a long time.
Excellence should always be invested in. In the north-east, both Sunderland and Teesside universities offer such excellence, so is it not about time that they received research moneys equivalent to those received by the Russell group universities and the greater amounts received by universities in the golden triangle?
My hon. Friend continues to make the case for the north-east and for excellent universities such as Teesside and Sunderland, which do fantastic work, particularly in applied research. She is right that funding must follow excellence wherever it is found. I cannot anticipate decisions that are appropriately the domain of peer review, but she is absolutely right and the Government support that approach.
In January, fewer than one in 18 supplier invoices to the Department took longer than 10 days to pay. Data are not kept separately for small businesses, but data regarding the invoices of all suppliers are published on the Department’s website every month.
About 4,000 business failures were caused by late payment last year. How will the Government protect failing businesses as a result of late payment and what sanctions have they promised to impose on businesses that contribute to the problem by delaying payment?
The hon. Gentleman will know about the legislation that we have introduced, but, in reality, companies are reluctant to take sanctions against their customers. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this issue and to draw attention to those 4,000 businesses. That is why we launched the prompt payment code for government at the start of the downturn. We have committed to a central Government target of 10-day payment of invoices, on which we have a very good record of adherence. In addition, we have taken very successful action to support small businesses through the Revenue and Customs’ time to pay initiative. The measures that we have taken have made a big contribution to the relatively low record of business failures during the recession that we have just come through, compared with past recessions.
The Government are committed to maintaining the one-price-goes-anywhere universal postal service. In the UK, the universal service provides a six-day-a-week letter service and a five-day-a-week parcel service. This goes beyond the minimum requirement in the relevant EU Directive and we have no plans to change the universal service obligation.
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that Postcomm has issued no fewer than 46 licences entitling companies to deliver to the door? Does he accept that that raises a real danger of cherry-picking in urban areas? That would leave Royal Mail having to deliver the universal service to the rural areas, and raise long-term concerns about the sustainability of that service. Are the Government looking at the future in that context?
As I said, we are determined to keep the universal service. It is an important part of the social glue of the nation, and it is particularly valued in constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman’s, which is one of the most beautiful and remote parts of the UK. He referred to competition, but most of the competition developed in mail so far has been in upstream access and not door-to-door delivery. The vast majority of letters—I think around 98 or 99 per cent.—are still delivered every day by the Royal Mail. We express our gratitude to the hard-working postmen and postwomen who do it.
Of course my right hon. Friend is right to show his commitment to the USO, and we are pleased to hear it. Does he accept, however, that the USO ought to be backed up with a very strong post office network with a community bank? The two go hand in hand: will he please show the same commitment on that?
I agree that banking and financial services are already a very important source of revenue for the Post Office, which has some 2 million financial services customers. We recently issued a consultation document asking the public about the extra services that they would like, and also about things such as current accounts, weekly budgeting accounts, children’s savings accounts, and so on. Like my hon. Friend, I think that such services offer huge potential for Post Office revenues. Traditionally, people went along to the post office every week to claim their pensions or benefits, but those claimant patterns have been in decline in recent years. That decline is probably likely to continue.
The Government have ignored the sensible recommendations of the Hooper report and abandoned their own Postal Services Bill, so does the Secretary of State have any policy that is designed to save the universal service—or, for that matter, the future of the Royal Mail?
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for my premature and—at the moment—fictional promotion, but I will stick to the job that I have. The most important thing for the future of Royal Mail is a comprehensive modernisation package that covers the introduction of new technology into the network as well as the number of mail centres, delivery offices and so on. The package should also cover the working practices that will need to alter to accommodate those changes.
For the past couple of months, these very matters have been the subject of intense negotiations chaired by Mr. Roger Poole, the former deputy general secretary of Unison. I am hopeful that a comprehensive modernisation agreement will be reached. If it is, that will be in the interests of Royal Mail, its staff, and the public.
Three major banks still do not let customers use banking facilities at post offices, even though two of them are partly owned by the Government. What progress is being made towards allowing customers of those banks to use post offices? That would provide extra business for post offices, and extra facilities for their customers.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a very good point. We have been talking to the banks about this, particularly in the light of consultation on post office banking. Members of the public may not be aware that some 20 million high street bank accounts are currently accessible through the post office, but I agree that we want that number to rise. We want more banks to allow people to access their accounts through the post office network.
Sector Skills Councils
Sector skills councils help raise demand for skills, provide authoritative labour market intelligence and ensure that qualifications meet employer needs. Their annual skills assessment sets out how the skills needs of their sectors are being met, and all SSCs have recently undergone a robust and rigorous relicensing process.
The Minister will be aware of the recent Baker Tilly report, which indicated the positive impact that sector skills councils are having on the UK economy. But is he also aware of the memorandum of understanding that is being signed next week by the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils and the Federation of Small Businesses to ensure that qualifications being offered in the future by the SSCs are more relevant to micro and small businesses?
Yes, I am aware of that, and later today I will meet John McNamara, who is in charge of the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils, when I can discuss the points that my hon. Friend raises. He is absolutely right; qualifications should be those that employers find useful, and the involvement of sector skills councils in developing qualifications is one of the features of the skills system that the Government have developed that makes them more relevant to employers and, therefore, to employees and learners.
This week a delegation from the print industry in the Yorkshire and Humber region told us clearly that sector skills councils are not hitting the mark. Please will the Minister make them more responsive to the needs of employers, particularly to train the up and coming leaders of local businesses?
Yesterday, in the Department, we held a summit at the behest of the sector skills council employers and trade unions in the print industry to consider its future and its needs. If the representatives from the hon. Lady’s constituency were not invited to that, perhaps she will let me know. We would certainly like to involve them in those discussions because the print industry has a great future. It is not the old-fashioned industry that it sometimes has a reputation for being. It has lots of small and medium-sized enterprises, and great and exciting technological developments are going on that we need to take advantage of.
Is the Minister aware that the largest single employer of apprentices in Scotland is those firms that are currently engaged in building the aircraft carriers? Does he agree that all those apprenticeships, both for adults and for youngsters, would be lost if the Conservatives carried forward their proposal to examine the break clauses of the contract on day one of any future Conservative Government?
Of course, Mr. Speaker. Sector skills councils have a UK-wide responsibility in the defence industry and with regard to apprenticeships. I am proud of the fact that under this Government apprenticeship numbers have risen from 60,000 in 1997 to nearly 250,000 now. It would be a great danger if a Government committed to cutting public investment were to come in because that would impact on the number of apprentices.
The important work of sector skills councils is inhibited by the Government’s emphasis on unelected regional authorities, and Ministers’ preoccupation with the Train to Gain programme, which spends taxpayers’ money funding training that people would fund themselves anyway. In confirming that the dead-weight costs of Train to Gain may be more than 80 per cent., will the Minister concede that he has finally listened to my complaints about this waste and so cut Train to Gain funding in the Budget and spend the money on apprenticeships instead?
No, we will not do that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of regional development agencies, because his party’s policy of abolishing those was described recently by the Engineering Employers Federation as a disaster. I do not know about other hon. Members, but when engineers warn me of impending disaster, I listen, and people should listen carefully to that advice.
National Investment Corporation
We are working to set up a national investment corporation, alongside working with the banks to establish a growth capital fund. We will announce further details of both shortly.
Do the Government understand that what firms want is lower taxes, fewer regulations, less red tape and the ability to borrow from their usual bank, many of which the Government control, anyway, so it should not be too difficult to ensure? What is the point, therefore, of this new lumbering state corporation, of the type that we thought we had buried in the 1970s? And how many banks have signed up to it, anyway?
In terms of the venture capital funds that the Government have been supporting, we have been getting help to small and medium-sized enterprises in order to ensure that they can take advantage of the recovery, when it comes, and develop new technologies and enterprises. Owing to the investment that we have put in, something like £1.5 billion has been given to 600 small and medium-sized enterprises to undertake such work. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) says that
“the words ‘industrial strategy’ send a slight shudder down my spine,”
but, if that type of help were not available in his constituency, it would be very bad news for small and medium-sized enterprises.
That type of help is not available. I think that the expression is “all talk and no trousers,” because nothing has happened. Being a bit of an internet wizard, I googled “national investment corporation” just before I came into the Chamber, and interestingly the last reference to it was a press report on 9 December, so that shows how much activity has been going on. Will the Minister now say that it was a scheme dreamt up by Peter and Gordon, over a brew, to a whiff of sulphur, and will they concentrate on helping businesses, not on announcing great, grandiose schemes that go nowhere?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands at all the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises at the moment. He does not acknowledge that in his region 627 loans have been offered to companies, totalling £67 million. His party would reduce—indeed, take away—all the assistance that we are giving to small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is very sad that he does not understand the importance of our strategy.
Would not more money be available if everybody paid their taxes? A fella is getting away with £127 million, without paying his taxes, and he is running the Tory party. They talk about being the party of change. They are the party of money-changers, and we ought to—
The most worrying threat to the future growth of the economy is the appalling decline in business investment. All we get from the Government is a series of grandiloquent announcements or press releases from the Prime Minister and the Industry Secretary. Does the right hon. Lady recall replying to a question in December last year by telling us:
“Further details of the National Investment Corporation will be announced by the time of the pre-Budget report.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2009; Vol. 501, c. 987W.]?
She will recall that nothing appeared in the pre-Budget report. Will she admit that it was just another public relations announcement, and that nothing substantial has been done to encourage the banks to return to providing normal lending, normal credit facilities and normal commercial services to small and medium-sized businesses, in particular?
It is astonishing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept that providing something like £1.5 billion of assistance in venture capital funds to small and medium-sized enterprises is important. We know that he wants to abolish regional development agencies; and we know that he does not believe in intervening, because he said that “industrial strategy” sends a shudder down his spine. But I should like to know how withdrawing investment allowances from small and medium-sized businesses would help whatever. Again, the Engineering Employers Federation said:
“Reducing the level of capital allowances would be a big problem for manufacturers”.
The Opposition do not care about small and medium-sized enterprises, but we do.
Queen’s Diamond Jubilee
Planning for Her Majesty’s jubilee is still in its early stages. I made a statement to the House on that matter on 5 January. We are working closely with Buckingham palace, which is developing a programme of events. However, it is too early to provide further details.
Does the Minister agree that we would do well to follow the lead of the Secretary of State’s grandfather by having a festival of Britain in 2012, when so many people will be coming to the UK for the Olympics? We could celebrate business talents, perhaps a recovering economy and what we have to offer outside the financial sector in terms of manufacturing and technology.
The great 1945 Labour Government made a very wise decision in instigating the festival of Britain, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is offering positive suggestions about Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. We are willing to listen to such suggestions from those in all parts of the House, because it is of course an occasion that we must all celebrate.
Apprenticeships (West Midlands)
We are taking a number of measures to encourage businesses to offer apprenticeships. The National Apprenticeship Service promotes and expands apprenticeships. Spending has gone up from £832 million in 2007-08 to a planned £1.2 billion next year. In December, we announced an apprenticeship grant for employers that offer £2,500 to employers who offer apprenticeship places to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds. In the west midlands, the area which my hon. Friend represents, 790 employers have committed to recruiting young people, including 31 employers in Coventry.
We want to promote apprenticeships in many sectors. We are making a particular effort to promote apprenticeships among unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds; that is why we recently announced the apprenticeship grant for employers, which offers £2,500 to employers who offer an apprenticeship. It is urgent that, in the difficult economic times that we have had, we avoid what happened in previous recessions, when young people were unable to find work and then sometimes spent years, or decades, never having a job. We are determined to ensure that that does not happen this time. That is why we are putting so much effort into ensuring that young people have opportunities, and that if they are out of work, that does not turn into long-term and sustained unemployment.
Can the Minister explain why the apprenticeship grant for employers began at the beginning of the calendar year instead of at the beginning of the academic year, making it impractical for small businesses in my constituency, such as James Holden’s business in Honeybourne, to access the scheme, as to support his apprentice he needs him to be able to access courses at South Worcestershire college alongside his apprenticeship?
We want to work with all parts of the economy to make this work for people, including employers and those parts of the education system that participate. I think that this has worked well for the education system. I simply contrast the numbers: a decade ago, we had about 60,000 apprenticeships; last year, we had some 240,000 apprenticeship starts. The truth is that we have brought back apprenticeships as a mainstream part of the labour market. They were in the intensive care ward when the Conservatives were in power, but they are now alive and well, and we are determined to support them in the future.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a particular difficulty with skills levels in the west midlands, notwithstanding the welcome increase in the number of apprenticeships. One of the reasons for that is the perception among young people that going into industry is a dirty job that is not worthy of their particular talents. Will he undertake to work with employers and the educational system to try to change that culture to get young people with aspirations to use their talents within their local companies and local industry?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our constituencies neighbour each other and are very similar: they both have many high-quality engineering companies. He is right that despite the fact that these are good jobs, and often quite well-paid jobs, young people are sometimes not attracted to them. One of the things that we have done is to work with the Engineering Employers Federation to set up Manufacturing Insight, whose important job is to go into schools to ensure that engineering is seen as an attractive occupation. Alongside our policies on apprenticeships, I am sure that we can attract more young people to take up careers in manufacturing, because it is critical to the UK economy and represents significant opportunities for them.
The Department meets regularly both banks and business representatives to discuss the availability of business finance. This has included the quarterly meeting of the Small Business Finance Forum and a recent “Going for Growth” seminar, which brought banks and businesses together to look at current issues affecting business bank credit and how they might evolve as the recovery of the economy progresses.
The Federation of Small Businesses has found that nearly half of small businesses in Scotland are having to use personal savings, personal loans or personal credit cards as a major source of business finance. The Minister will know that the Public Accounts Committee found that Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland fell well short of their promises to lend £39 billion last year. Can the Minister tell the House what he will do this year to get the banks lending and, at the very least, ensure that the part-nationalised banks meet their lending targets for small businesses?
The Department has a help for business unit and, if the hon. Lady has individual examples with which she needs assistance, we are happy to take those up and discuss individual cases directly with banks. We are very conscious of the availability of lending and how important it is in taking forward the recovery. There have been signs of progress in the last quarter, but we will continue to engage with both banks and small businesses to ensure that that recovery builds.
Is the Minister aware that the Bank of England’s report last month showed that the fall in bank lending in 2009 was the worst since records began, and that lending to business crashed by a whopping £4.3 billion in December alone? Does he not remember the Chancellor’s words about the Government’s bank rescue plans 18 months ago—as far back as October 2008—when he said:
“The purpose of these proposals is to get lending started again”. —[Official Report, 8 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 280.]
Given the latest figures, does the Minister not feel even the faintest shred of embarrassment about the yawning gulf between the rhetoric and the reality?
What I do remember is that when I was running a small business in 1992, interest rates increased in a morning from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. We do not wish to see those days of instability return. We understand small businesses and engage with them, and we are continuing to work to restore credit and investment in industry. There are signs of positive steps forward and we will continue with those as time passes.
One of the problems that small businesses in my constituency have with the banks is the operation of the enterprise guarantee scheme. Despite businesses meeting all the published criteria, the banks simply will not lend, often saying that businesses are unviable because they have had a drop in profitability over the last year—hardly surprising in the midst of a recession. Will the Minister look at the operation of the scheme and put pressure on the banks to deal with small businesses more equitably?
To date, more than £1.2 billion of eligible applications have been pursued through the enterprise finance guarantee from 10,738 companies, and £857 million has been offered to 8,378 businesses. That has meant real help to those individual businesses. As I indicated to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), if hon. Members—on either side of the House—have individual examples, I will work with them to help small business.
As the economy starts to grow, the provision of credit for all business, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, will be vital as working capital. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, the PAC has drawn attention to the fact that the nationalised banks have failed to meet their lending commitments. Last week, the Institute of Directors published a survey that showed that 57 per cent. of those who had applied for credit were denied it. Worst of all, of that 57 per cent., 83 per cent. were not even offered information about the enterprise finance guarantee scheme. So the banks are failing to lend, United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd is failing to do anything about it, and the enterprise finance guarantee scheme is also failing. What will the Minister do about that catalogue of failure?
I have already recounted the figures on the extent of the success of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme—the money invested in businesses and the numbers of businesses that have benefited. We always wish to do more, and as the recovery gathers pace, we will continue to engage with business and banks to ensure that the banks provide assistance to the economy as it grows.
We reaffirmed our commitment to wider and fairer access to higher education in “Higher Ambitions”, published last November. The number of students going to university from lower socio-economic groups is rising, and almost 10,000 more young people entered higher education in 2007-08 than five years earlier.
I thank the Minister for that answer, but with graduates facing debts of more than £20,000 and with the debate about whether to raise the cap on tuition fees to £7,000, I was pleased to sign the Leeds university union pledge against any such rises. Is it not time that the Government were clear about their policy going into the election, and will he now be clear whether he will oppose increasing the fee cap to £7,000—yes or no?
That is a little rich coming from the Liberal Democrats, given that they have had five positions on tuition fees since Christmas last year. Recently, there was a policy change indicating that they would not phase out tuition fees in the next Parliament. The Government have been clear that we will not pre-empt an independent review. We have asked Lord Browne to look at access, and the position of students, parents and employers. I will take no lessons on tuition fees from the flip-flop Lib Dems.
Bank Lending (Businesses)
The majority of small and medium-sized enterprises applying for finance continue to receive the finance that they require. For businesses with a turnover of less than £1 million, the proportion of applications that banks approved increased in the second half of 2009, and the average monthly approval rates for those businesses in the fourth quarter of 2009 were about 67 per cent. for loans and 72 per cent. for overdrafts.
In the real world, many small and medium-sized businesses in Southend, West are still suffering in the current economic climate, and their situation is not being helped by the negative attitude of banks towards lending. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses showed that only 1 per cent. of moneys is being got from Government finance, so will they now accept my party’s proposal for a national guarantee scheme?
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I live in the real world too—in Wrexham—and I have small businesses in my constituency as well. We all know that we have had an extremely difficult 18 months and the most substantial global recession in living memory, but we are improving access to credit for businesses. We do not want a return to the up-and-down approach—and the instability that came with it—taken by the Conservative party when I ran a small business.
The Government have no plans to alter the ring fence around the science and research budget.
I thank the Minister for that reassuring reply. The only problem with it is that, because the Government have put off the comprehensive spending review, no one has any idea what sort of sum is being ring-fenced. If it is not to be all show and no substance, will he indicate what sum is being ring-fenced, otherwise is it not nonsense to say that the ring fence will be maintained?
Access to Credit
We have a number of targeted interventions working to ensure access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses. I have already given the House figures concerning the enterprise finance guarantee, which is one example of those interventions.
The experience on the ground is that we are seeing signs of increasing investment in business and of businesses beginning to recover as consumer demand develops. Consumer demand is extremely important. That is why it is vital that we do not reach the levels of unemployment in this country that we saw on two occasions under the last Tory Government.
Euro (UK Membership)
The Department has received no such representations recently.
I am amazed at that response from the Minister. Is it not a fact that the floating of the pound and the depreciation of sterling have been enormously useful to small businesses and manufacturers in this country, making their goods cheaper abroad and making imports more expensive? Is it not great news that we still have the pound, and will the Government now give up their policy of taking us into the euro?
The Government’s policy remains as it was when it was set out by the previous Chancellor in a statement to the House in October 1997, and when the last assessment against the five tests was made in June 2003, when we said that
“we cannot at this point in time conclude that there is sustainable and durable convergence or sufficient flexibility to cope with any potential difficulties within the euro area.”
The whole House will see exactly what we meant.
I meet regularly with the chief executive of the Insolvency Service to discuss the agency’s performance and measures to improve it. I also agree the targets for the agency’s performance, which are set after discussions with an external steering board of industry experts. I ensure that the service is set goals that, although achievable, are challenging.
You are very generous, Mr. Speaker.
Will my hon. Friend take on board the fact that for many small businesses the system for individual bankruptcies is cruel and punitive? Big consultancy firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers charge £200 an hour; indeed, a constituent was charged £800 for a letter to be answered. What is going wrong when these big companies can leech money from small people?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. An important part of the Government’s approach is to develop alternatives to formal bankruptcy procedures, through debt management plans and debt relief orders. We intend to offer a range of help to individuals and businesses, to enable them to avoid the formal procedures for insolvency, if at all possible.
Our Department’s key task is to work with business to help secure recovery from the global recession. To do that we have put in place a strategic investment fund designed to support key areas such as low-carbon industries, the digital economy and advanced manufacturing; strong regional development agencies, working with business in the regions; and tax support for industry in the form of capital allowances to support investment. We are not about to withdraw £3.5 billion of support for industry through reforms to capital allowances, as advanced by the Conservative party.
I know that the Government are also committed to more apprenticeships. There are still tens of thousands of young people who are not in education, employment or training. Will Ministers look at the idea of posting the apprenticeships that are available, either by local authority area or by postcode, both to make them easier to access and to hold employers in the public and private sectors to account?
We have an online service to match employers with young people seeking apprenticeships, and as I said a few minutes ago, in December we announced a programme of grants of £2,500 for employers to take on unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we do not want young people to become completely distant from the labour market because of the economic troubles that we have been going through in the past couple of years. That is why apprenticeships are important, why the numbers have increased and why we have put in place the new grant specifically for unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds.
The negotiations have been taking place on an intense level since the turn of the year. They are chaired by Mr. Roger Poole, the former deputy general secretary of the Unison union, and I believe that he has the trust of both sides. The aim of the negotiations is to reach a comprehensive agreement governing all the modernisation and change that needs to take place to put Royal Mail on to a healthier footing. We are not yet at the point of agreement, but I hope that we will be, and I very much hope that the talks will be successful, because that will be in the interests of Royal Mail, its staff and, most importantly, the public who depend on the postal service.
Have Ministers noticed the report in this morning’s Financial Times that the chemicals company Ineos, the largest private firm in this country by sales, has joined the queue of companies intending to move their headquarters out of the United Kingdom, citing levels of corporate and personal tax? Are Ministers also aware that, in the Davos World Economic Forum league of competitors, the United Kingdom has now slipped to 81st in the world in terms of its tax levels? Will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor that he should follow the Conservatives’ recommendations on lowering levels of corporation tax? Will he also tell the Chancellor that the choice of national insurance as a source of revenue in 2011 is particularly disastrous when we are supposed to be trying to come out of a recession?
I regret the Ineos decision, but I must point out that our corporation taxes are lower now than when we came into office; they are the lowest in the G7. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I would approach the Chancellor and ask him to support the policy that his party has advocated. Just a few days ago, his colleague, the shadow Chancellor, said that that policy would involve the withdrawal of £3.5 billion of support for investment allowances for manufacturing industry. That is absolutely not what our industry needs at the moment, and, combined with the Conservatives’ policy to abolish the regional development agencies and to attack the strategic investment fund, it would represent a real threat to British industry. That is not what we want at the moment; we should support industry through the investment allowances and through strong RDAs working with—
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. I am announcing today the formation of Broadband Delivery UK, and the appointment of its chief executive, Adrian Kamellard, to drive forward the universal service commitment to deliver 2 megabits per second broadband to every UK household by 2012, and to manage the £1 billion next generation fund, which will result from the proceeds of the 50p a month phone line levy, to deliver next generation broadband to 90 per cent. of the country by 2017. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of this service in rural areas. Virgin Media recently made the welcome announcement of 100 megabit per second services across its whole network by the end of the year, which will be available to almost half of UK homes. That reflects current demand, and we need to get a move on in delivering such services in rural areas as well.
We have outlined the support that we have put in place. Some 160,000 businesses have been helped by the time to pay initiative, which has allowed businesses large and small to delay payment of a total of £5 billion in tax, to help them through the recession. Some 8,000 businesses have been helped through the enterprise finance guarantee scheme. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that small businesses in his constituency would not be helped by his shadow Chancellor’s policy to abolish the £50,000 investment allowance that exists under this Government.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that prompt payment is important. The Government should be a good customer and the Prime Minister has placed a great emphasis on that. As the Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend for East Ham (Mr. Timms) said in response to an earlier question, the vast majority—more than 90 per cent., I think—of the bills in my Department are paid within the target date. That is important because small businesses rely on prompt payment. That is why we have taken it seriously during the recession.
It is simply not the case that the Government are failing to take action to support small business. It is very important to increase the levels of consumer demand within the economy to increase the demand for small business. That is why we must focus on unemployment levels and also support business by extending assistance through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by delaying payment. If we had followed the policy of the Conservatives, none of that assistance would have been available because the money would not have been there to assist businesses in their time of need.
Some years ago, there was a campaign called Save British Science. It is no longer necessary because we have invested so much extra in science. We value the contribution that science can make. We are a world leader: we have 1 per cent. of the world’s population, but 12 per cent. of the world’s scientific citations. That is a testament to the success of British science, which the Government have strongly supported. My hon. Friend is absolutely right not only that pure science is good in itself, but that the potential for spin-offs between the scientific research councils, higher education and companies is now enormous. We are seeing increasing success in this.
Some of my constituents work for the engineering company, Firth Rixson, in Darley Dale, one of only three plants in the world making rings for aeroplane jet engines. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to help resolve its dispute with Tory-controlled Derbyshire Dales council? It has put in place a noise abatement order that could close down the company, which has been there for 70 years and employs 160 people.
My hon. Friend draws attention to the UK’s strength in aerospace—not only in her constituency, but in many others, too. Aerospace is one sector that has been strongly supported by the strategic investment fund that we have set up. Sadly, that support has been described as disgraceful by Conservative Members, but we believe that it is valuable and important.
Traditional English market towns are very important for the economy. A couple of years ago, when the west midlands suffered floods, the regional development agency’s marketing of the area was important in saying that we were open for business. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy of abolishing RDAs would be so damaging to the market towns that he supports.
My hon. Friend raises a similar point to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) a few minutes ago. He is right that accessibility for account holders of other banks is important to the future of the Post Office. Some banks have stepped up to the plate and ensured that, and some 20 million accounts are available in that way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) that more should do the same, and I assure him that we are working on that with other banks.
We have introduced to our insolvency system several different alternatives to formal insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, such as debt management plans and debt relief orders. The range of options now being put forward by the Government are an effective way to deal with problems for individuals and businesses that enter financial difficulties.
The Minister will be aware that the motor sport industry in the UK is a world leader. However, it is 10 years since the Government commissioned any research on the industry. Will he consider an up-to-date survey to ensure that the UK keeps its lead in the motor sport industry?
Yesterday, I returned from the Geneva motor show, where I met superb British companies such as Lotus that are making excellent, innovative, world-beating progress in their part of the industry. The world renowned UK Automotive Council is leading our approach to investment and research in the automotive sector, of which the automotive sport sector is an important part.
I share entirely the hon. Gentleman’s support for manufacturing. With my constituency being Wolverhampton, South-East, I see the value of manufacturing day in, day out. It is therefore important to support investment in manufacturing through the tax system. I hope that he will make representations to those on his Front Bench that they should desist from their policy of withdrawing £3.5 billion of tax support for investment in manufacturing—
But on that point, has the Minister seen the front page of today’s Libération, which refers to the sickness of French industry under a Conservative Government and contrasts that with the more robust health of British manufacturing industry? Does it help our firms to have the shadow Chancellor and shadow Business Secretary touring meetings and studios talking down the British economy?
Is the Minister aware of the excellent work of the staff at Telford college of arts and technology, who do a great job providing skills and training for the long-term unemployed? Is he aware that the Skills Funding Agency is seeking to reduce next year’s budget, despite unemployment in the west midlands being at record levels? Will he intervene to ensure that funding is forthcoming to help those who are on the dole?
Overall funding for the sector will increase by about 3 per cent. next year. I shall be happy to look into the individual case of the college to which the hon. Gentleman has referred if there is anything untoward, but I should point out that we have invested in further education, and it would not help if we had to make an extra £1 billion of cuts this year.
As the Minister will know, the science learning centres at York university and in nine university towns in the regions are the result of a magnificent effort by the Government, with the Wellcome Trust. However, they will not work unless teachers are able and willing to go to them for their courses in CPD—continuing professional development—and they need funds if they are to do so.
I recognise the need for teachers to be able to gain access to those courses. I shall be happy to discuss any problems with my colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Next week the board of the Payments Council, which represents all the major high street banks, will meet to rubber-stamp its decision to phase out the use of the cheque, despite the opposition of the Federation of Small Businesses and many other groups. Will the Minister, even at this late stage, make representations to the board and ask for a rethink?
I have made this confession before: I am a cheque user. I do not know whether that makes me a luddite, but I believe that cheques still provide people with a valuable payment mechanism, and I hope that the banks will think long and hard before abolishing them.
Business of the House
The business for next week will be as follows.
Monday 8 March—Remaining stages of the Crime and Security Bill.
Tuesday 9 March—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on NHS London, followed by a debate on access to higher education. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Wednesday 10 March—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on alcohol, followed by a debate on taxes—
Taxes—and charges on road users. Details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows:
Department of Health in so far as it relates to alcohol: 1st Report from the Health Committee, HC 151.]
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 11 March—A topical debate on International Women’s Day—Women’s Representation, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [Lords].
Friday 12 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 March will include:
Monday 15 March—General debate on defence in the world.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady.
May I begin by adding my own voice to the many tributes that have been paid to Michael Foot? He was a former Leader of the House, and one of our greatest parliamentarians. I remember him as the man whose brief it was, during my second Parliament, to hold together a legislative programme in a Government with no majority, which he handled with tact and ingenuity—although one day he had to introduce five guillotine motions. As an orator, he was one of the few who could fill the Chamber. He was a brilliant and at times unpredictable force, instilling terror in his civil servants by speaking on industrial relations legislation without notes for 30 minutes, and, equally memorably, winding up the motion of no confidence in the Labour Government in 1979. On that occasion, even his flights of rhetoric were not enough to save them from defeat by one vote. He was a man of great courage, courtesy and integrity, and from these Benches we salute him.
I note that although the Leader of the House said that later we would debate motions relating to the Procedure Committee’s report on the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, only one of those motions appears on today’s Order Paper. What has happened to the others, and when will they be debated?
May we have a statement from the Justice Secretary on the decision to return one of the killers of Jamie Bulger to jail? Does the Leader of the House agree with me—and, apparently, the Home Secretary—that unless there are very good reasons for keeping the information secret, it is in the public interest to know why Jon Venables has been sent back to prison?
Last week I was rebuffed by the right hon. and learned Lady when I asked for two days on Report for the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. As I predicted, the Bill has now been sent to the other place with many groups of amendments not debated. Given that the Bill will not receive its Second Reading in the Lords until 24 March, what hope does she have that the Government’s flagship constitutional Bill will make it on to the statute book before the election?
Can we have a debate on the devastating report from the Public Accounts Committee today on the establishment of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission? Given that the right hon. and learned Lady was responsible for this, I hope she will find the time to explain the situation to the House.
Last week, the right hon. and learned Lady gave what she called a “strong hint” that next week’s topical debate would be on international women’s day. Does not she think it somewhat illogical to announce a topical debate two weeks in advance, and is she not in fact using a topical debate to escape from the Government’s commitment to give the House one set-piece debate on this subject?
On timings, can the right hon. and learned Lady explain why the business in the Lords up until 26 March has been announced and published on the internet, but today she has given us the business only until 15 March? It would be unfortunate if the business question were added to that long list of questions the Government are unable to answer.
On the date of the Budget, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said on Tuesday that it would be announced
“if there is to be a Budget.”
Will the right hon. and learned Lady clarify whether there will be a Budget, or have relations between the Prime Minister and his Chancellor now rendered that impossible?
Finally, can the right hon. and learned Lady give us the dates of the Easter recess? Last week the Leader of the House of Lords said that there were four and a half weeks before the Easter recess. If the Leader of the Lords can announce it in another place, why cannot MPs be told—or are we second-class citizens?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Michael Foot, who was, as he said, a great parliamentarian, orator and Leader of the House between 1976 and 1979. He was a passionate socialist. Everyone has commented that he was not only incredibly clever, but highly principled. I have very warm personal memories of him joining me in my by-election campaign in 1982. He went down a storm on the Walworth road, where he is fondly remembered to this day. We all miss him. His intelligence and commitment remained sharp right up until his death.
On the motions relating to the Deputy Speaker and Speaker, I have made it clear that Mr. Speaker has asked that we look into having elections for Deputy Speakers. I have made that undertaking and we can debate the motions on that subject this afternoon.
On the killers of Jamie Bulger, the court order requires anonymity and the processes have to be in compliance with that order.
If the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill goes into the wash-up and does not complete its stages in the House of Lords, it will be for the Opposition parties to negotiate with the Government so that we can get through a great deal of what was in the Bill, much of which arose out of the Kelly proposals and pertain to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. There are many things in the Bill that the House wants to see get through. If the Bill cannot find its way through the Lords, we will make sure at the wash-up that the provisions that the public want get through.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That subject could be raised during the debate next week on international women’s day. As it turns out, I was correct in anticipating that that would be a topical debate; it is going to be topical.
On the business of the House, I announce the business for the following week each Thursday; that is all I do. [Interruption.] No, anything after that is provisional. The business for next week is firm, so hon. Members can be clear and know what they are doing next week, but after that it is only provisional.
The Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Oh dear, I am going to have to get this right: the shadow Leader of the House made a point about the relations between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I would like to raise a point about the relations between the shadow Leader of the House and his party leader, however, because how on earth is he still prepared to serve under a leader of his party who, when he spoke the truth about Lord Ashcroft’s tax status—
The entire Government are sounding a little provisional at the moment.
May I join in the tributes to Michael Foot? He was a member of a west-country radical family of some note, and came from a political age when it was felt important that Members of Parliament might have read a few books, as well as be able to grin inanely at a camera. He will be remembered with great affection.
We get used to people being appointed tsar of this and champion of that, but we actually have a rather important post of that kind: the Rural Advocate. The current Rural Advocate is Dr. Stuart Burgess, and his post is important because each year he can send a report about what is happening in our rural areas directly to the Prime Minister. He has done so today, and he has pointed out that, as a consequence of rural areas having no services, phones, internet or transport, they are losing young people, who are finding that they have to move away in order to have any hope of getting jobs. In rural areas, 40 per cent. of those aged between 16 and 24 are unemployed. I want to know what happens to these reports once they have gone to the Prime Minister, because I do not hear him talking about rural issues. I would like this House to do so, however, so may we have a debate on rural issues in the near future?
I have just listened to Business, Innovation and Skills questions, and there is clearly great concern about the difficulties facing small businesses and the opportunities open to them, so may we have a debate on small businesses? We might include in it a discussion of the future of the cheque book—a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter)—because that issue also means a great deal to small businesses.
I note that there will be a debate on alcohol on 10 March, and hon. Members rightly feel very strongly about alcohol abuse. Some would argue that there is a case for hugely increasing the duty payable on alcohol, but may I ask—this is special pleading on behalf of my constituency—that artisan cider-makers are not forgotten in any such discussion, because they will be put out of business if there is a substantial increase in alcohol duty? Perhaps we could address that issue in our debate.
Yesterday during Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Leader of the House managed to cause a great deal of excitement in the House every time she mentioned a certain Member of another place, which she did with great frequency. May I suggest today—in a rather quieter, more sensible and less hyperbolic way—that the issues to do with that have been conflated? There are, in fact, two issues, one of which is the quite extraordinary sums of money being given to political parties and then being spent in marginal constituencies. We have yet to grapple effectively with that issue, so may we have a debate on it?
The second issue is to do with appointments to this Parliament: commitments that are given, the way in which people are appointed to the House of Lords, and the proper principle that people should not make laws for this country if they do not pay taxes in this country. Can we have a separate debate on that? Perhaps we could tighten things up so that we do not have, as The Daily Telegraph put it today, the shadow Foreign Secretary being
“kept in the dark…for 10 years”.
That is not the right way to manage a commitment given.
The shadow Leader of the House said that he had been “rebuffed” on an issue. I was not rebuffed but ignored by the Leader of the House last week when I raised what I thought was a perfectly proper matter. I am referring to one of the Prime Minister’s ideas, which he set out in the “Governance of Britain” Green Paper as follows:
“The Government believes that the convention should be changed so that the Prime Minister is required to seek the approval of the House of Commons before asking the Monarch for a dissolution.”
I am sure the Prime Minister would not say that if he did not mean it, and he would not mean it and then not do anything to bring it into effect, so when are we going to have the debate? When is the Leader of the House going to table the motion? When are we going to have the vote for the dissolution of this pretty awful Parliament?
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Rural Advocate. Department for Communities and Local Government questions will take place next week, at which he will have the opportunity, if he so wishes, to raise the question of housing. It is very important to have affordable housing in rural areas, and it is important that planning authorities—not just Tory councils, but Lib Dem councils—ensure that they allow the planning of housing only if it includes affordable housing. Everybody should look closely at their own party’s policies on that.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have pressed forward on good health provision in, and on improving education in, rural areas, and that one of the reasons why we brought forward our “Digital Britain” paper was precisely to ensure that enterprise and economic initiative can go into rural areas, with high-speed broadband covering all areas. So there are further opportunities to debate that issue.
On small businesses, we have, as the hon. Gentleman said, just had Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions. He will have an opportunity to raise the issue of artisan cider-makers again in next week’s debate about alcohol.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to be less hyperbolic about the question of Ashcroft—[Hon. Members: “Lord.”] He asked me to be less hyperbolic about Lord Ashcroft and his breach of his assurances on tax. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome the decision announced this morning by the Public Administration Committee that it will carry out an inquiry into this matter? I am afraid that I cannot offer to tone down my views on this, because the truth is that this is sleaze on a multi-million pound scale and the—
Order. I absolutely understand that the right hon. and learned Lady does not want, in any way, to qualify or compromise her views, but I should make two points. First, we are making references to a Member of another place and that has to be done with considerable care. Secondly, from now on—the right hon. and learned Lady has said what she has said—we must focus our remarks on the business of the House.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw it.”] No, I am not going to withdraw it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked me a question about this. I am entitled to answer that question and I am entitled to put forward my views. I hope that when the Select Committee holds its investigation it will call the shadow Foreign Secretary, and I hope he will be more honest and forthcoming with the Committee than he has been over the past eight years.
Order. A particularly large number of Members—more than 40—are seeking to catch my eye today. The record shows over a period of many months that ordinarily I have sought to accommodate and been successful in accommodating everybody. I would like to be so again, but I think that it is extremely unlikely when more than 40 Members wish to contribute. The requirement for short questions and short answers is greater than ever. I call Celia Barlow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My Tory opponent in Hove and Portslade has boasted in Brighton’s The Argus that:
“We are on the target list. Lord Ashcroft is a supporter of target seats”.
In addition to the Select Committee investigation, will the Government carry out an investigation and report, so that Members with marginal seats can work out exactly how much of the £15 million of central American money has been spent in each seat?
I think that what my hon. Friend has shown is that there is deep disquiet about this—about the fact that the Conservative party has completely sacrificed its integrity for money and is trying to buy seats with the Belize dollar. I think we are entitled to feel that that is not acceptable.
Whatever the strength of views of the Leader of the House on any particular issue, does she not accept that, as the Leader of the House, she has a particular duty to observe the long-standing conventions of the House, and that one does not accuse another Member—either of this House or of another House—of an offence where, if the accusation were made outside this House, it would undoubtedly lead to an action for slander? Will she take this opportunity to withdraw the allegation that she made against the noble Lord?
Order. The hon. Gentleman entered the House first in 1959 and has served without interruption in his present constituency since 1966, so he will know that business questions is the occasion to ask a question requesting either a statement or a debate the following week. That did not quite happen, but if the Leader of the House wants—[Interruption.] Order. I require no help from Back-Bench Members. If the Leader of the House wants briefly to respond to what has been asked, that is fine but thereafter I would ask that we move on and, in particular, that questions and answers relate to the business of the House next week.
Questions on the business of the House is also an occasion to discuss what is going on in the House of Lords and in Select Committees—I am sure you would acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. This morning, the Public Administration Committee announced that it is going to look into this issue. I have not said anything in this House that I can say only in this House under cover of parliamentary privilege—what I have said is fact. It is actually a fact that Lord Ashcroft was only allowed to be in the House of Lords because he gave an assurance—that is, is it not, a fact? Is it not also a fact that it is now clear that he broke that assurance? That is a fact, and—
Order. Let me just say to the Leader of the House and to all Members of the House that criticism of Members of the other place should be on a substantive motion. The points that have been made have been made extremely clearly, but I think it is reasonable and proper for me now—[Interruption.] Order. It is reasonable and proper for me now to ask hon., right hon. and right hon. and learned Members to focus on the business of the House next week. The Leader of the House has responded and I am grateful to her.
In a busy week, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement on the principles of universal jurisdiction and, in particular, to explain the serious and, indeed, colossal error contained in the article that he wrote in today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph, where he maintains that arrest warrants for crimes against humanity and for war crimes may be obtained on the “slightest of evidence”? Nobody knows better than my right hon. and learned Friend that a district judge must find a good prima facie case for such crimes, as indeed happened in the case of Tzipi Livni. This is an important issue, so will she find time for such a statement?
No one should be in any doubt about the fact that we remain strongly committed to the universal jurisdiction for the enforcement of international war crimes. The only question at issue is what the gateway to enforcement of those issues is and whether they should be able to be enforced by a member of the public, or whether enforcement should be carried out on the basis of a motion brought to the court by the public prosecution service. Let no one be in any doubt about the fact that we strongly support the universal jurisdiction—the question is just about the gateway to its enforcement.
Because we are taking forward, in this afternoon’s business of the House, issues that were raised by the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). If we can agree by the end of the day on the election of the Chairs and members of Select Committees and on a new Committee of the whole House to agree not only Back-Bench business but Government business, and if we can, in addition, improve the procedure for getting Deputy Speakers, we will have taken great steps forward. We changed the rules when we elected our Speaker, which was the first election by secret ballot, so we have recently addressed that issue by introducing a new procedure for electing the Speaker.
The teaching of English as a foreign language is a vital business activity in my constituency, but it is under threat because of proposed changes to visa rules, which mean that students who want to upgrade their language skills before going to university would have to return home and apply for another visa to come back again. Can we debate this matter? Failing that, will my right hon. and learned Friend nudge her colleagues in the Home Office and ask them to rethink those proposals?
I will ask my colleagues in the Home Office to write to my hon. Friend about this matter. Obviously, foreign students are very important not only for the revenue that they bring into this country but because they increase and foster our global connections, which are important for our trade in a globalised economy. However, we have to make sure that the visa system, particularly the student visa system, is not abused and that people do not come here intending not to study but to work and to be students only as a secondary activity. That has to be cleared up, and that is what the Home Office is doing.
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the scandalous amount of money being paid in medical negligence claims across our country? I have requested such a debate before, but it is vital, at this time, that we look into the scandalous amounts of money being paid, which have totalled £250 million in London in the past three years.
If the hon. Gentleman, a member of his family or one of his constituents were the victim of medical negligence and suffered as a result, they would expect to be compensated for their pain, suffering and loss of earnings. The important thing is to improve patient safety. Certainly, if there is negligence, the NHS should settle to avoid paying high lawyers’ fees. I do not think that we can say that people should put up with medical negligence, which can cause terrible pain and suffering, and that it should not be compensated. The answer is to improve patient safety, not to clamp down on litigation.
Having spent a great deal of time trying to clean up Parliament—I am in favour of the reforms and changes that have taken place—is it not important to have a statement early next week on the position regarding Lord Ashcroft, how he got his peerage, what promises were made on his behalf and what promises he made about paying UK tax in full? Could all the documentation on his peerage—correspondence and the rest of it—be placed in the Library as quickly as possible?
I think that everybody would like to see the documentation relating to this matter. It is the responsibility of those who assert that Lord Ashcroft was given approval to go back on his assurance to put evidence in the public domain that that was the case. I will think about whether there is some way of making a statement that will allow this issue to be aired in the House, but the problem is that this is not actually a matter for government. The Government do not dictate who goes into the House of Lords: that was done through an independent process, but it involved assurances given by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is now the shadow Foreign Secretary. As I have said, a statement in the House is not needed for those who have the documentation to put it in the public domain, which they have signally failed to do.
May we have a debate on the effectiveness of youth intervention programmes such as the one in Teignmouth, which saw a 40 per cent. reduction in antisocial behaviour? Perhaps we could then get an explanation as to why the new Tory county council has cut the funding for that programme.
That is a warning to people about what would happen if the Tories ever got back into government—we would see very important projects that are important to local communities being cut. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of antisocial behaviour in business questions. No doubt, he can raise it in questions to the Department for Communities and Local Government next week. However, I note that antisocial behaviour orders, which I am afraid that his party voted against, are also important in this area.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider scheduling a debate on the effects of public service cuts on local communities? As well as cutting meals on wheels, Tory-controlled Dudley council voted on Monday night to cut children’s services, including those for children with disabilities, and drug rehabilitation services. The Conservative party is always asking us to judge it on how it treats the most vulnerable and how it runs its councils, and such a debate would allow us to make that judgment.
My hon. Friend raises important issues for people in her constituency and in Dudley—meals on wheels, children’s services and drug rehabilitation services. The evidence coming forth from Conservative councils is that the Conservatives just cannot be trusted with vital public services. Indeed, they seek to use the undeniable need to pay back the public deficit as an excuse to cut services. We would make sure that we paid back the deficit by halving it over four years, but while protecting front-line services.
Many people feel that the Government’s slavish obedience to the United States has corroded and undermined the special relationship. Can the Foreign Secretary make a statement to the House next week on the special relationship, given the unwelcome intervention of Secretary of State Clinton, with whom he wishes to have a special relationship, in the affairs of the United Kingdom regarding Argentina and the Falkland Islands?
I do not think that the Foreign Secretary needs to return to the House on this issue. He made the position absolutely clear only this week regarding the Falklands and the right to self-determination. There is no question about their remaining part of the United Kingdom. I made that clear yesterday, and he has made it clear this week that they will remain in charge of their self-determination. There is no need to clarify the issue because it is absolutely clear.
As my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, it is international women’s day on Monday 8 March. Will she take that opportunity to make a statement about the tremendous support that Labour Governments have given since 1997 to women and hard-working families?
I will accept that suggestion. I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of women in her constituency and this country. We should all remember that it is international women’s day, and we currently have a very big opportunity to press forward the establishment of the new UN women’s agency that will bring together the four parts of the UN that deal with women’s issues so that we will have a single UN women’s agency. That would be a great step forward this year.
The Leader of the House still has not satisfactorily explained why she has cherry-picked from the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Why are we being allowed to debate today only part of those recommendations, all of which appear on the Order Paper, with the remaining matters in the remaining orders? Why did she table all the recommendations, but move only half of them above the line cutting off matters for debate today? It seems to me that, by her actions, she has made an unanswerable case for a House business committee, so that never again can this sort of gerrymandering take place.
I actually agree that there is an unanswerable case for a House business committee. That is why we have tabled a motion that will lead to the establishment of such a committee, and that is why I will vote for the amendment that would extend its remit to Government business. We have had the process for electing the Speaker, and I hope that we will move forward to agree a similar process for the election of Deputy Speakers.
The Leader of the House has referred to next week’s debate on the Transport Committee’s report “Taxes and charges on road users”. It is very important that a Treasury Minister as well as a Transport Minister is present to answer questions on that report, yet the Treasury has refused that request. Does she share my concern, and will she investigate this important matter?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s leadership of the Transport Committee, and to the very important work that it has undertaken. As far “Taxes and charges on road users” is concerned, I am sure that the Transport Minister will be fully co-ordinated with the Treasury when he or she comes to answer the debate next Wednesday and that they will be able to respond on behalf of the Government as a whole.
The right hon. and learned Lady will understand the importance of certainty for the operation of financial markets but, in not responding to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the Budget date, she has created more uncertainty about how the Government will deal with our record deficit. With effectively only three weeks to the end of March, will she explain why she cannot tell us today when the Budget will take place?
It is my responsibility to announce the business for next week, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that that does not include the Budget. He will just have to wait and see when it is announced in the usual way. Meanwhile, the important thing is that we get on with ensuring that we do not pull the plug on the economy, as would happen if his party were in government. We must continue to support the economy through public investment and active intervention, and by making sure that we do everything that we can to protect people, and particularly the younger generation, from unemployment.
May we have a debate about companies that are deliberately and specifically set up as non-trading and loss-making, such as Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd? The debate could perhaps explore whether our tax regime allows such company losses to be used to offset other tax liabilities that might be due to the Exchequer.
Labour and the Tories have thrown allegations about peerages at each other, and the police have conducted their cash-for-peerages investigation in Parliament. Given all that, may we have a debate about when we will have the fully elected second Chamber that this House has voted for? At a stroke, it would end the allegations about both Lords Paul and Ashcroft, and allow fully democratic parties such as the Scottish Nationalist party to take part—if, of course, Scotland is not independent before then.
May we have an urgent debate on matters that are before the Electoral Commission? There is concern that some issues of significant public interest—the activities of people such as Lord Ashcroft in trying to influence the general election, and the illegal use of foreign money to finance political parties—might not be reported on until after the general election. A debate would give us an opportunity to stress to the Electoral Commission that these matters are in the public interest and should be reported on before the general election.
My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask those questions at next week’s Department for Children, Schools and Families Question Time. I pay tribute to her for the concern that she has shown for all the children in her constituency, including those who go to madrassahs.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have an early debate on the processes for re-electing Mr. Speaker? She will know that there are two motions, 69 and 74, in her name on today’s Order Paper. One is in favour of the status quo, and the other is in favour of the secret ballot used for electing the Chairmen and members of Select Committees, and the Deputy Speakers. Why have we got two motions in the right hon. and learned Lady’s name, and when will we be given the opportunity to speak and vote, and to determine the matter one way or another?
The substantive motion on the Order Paper for debate and voting on this afternoon is about the election of Deputy Speakers. It will bring the arrangements into line with those that we have agreed for the election of the Speaker. We have already changed that process: indeed, our current Speaker was elected by a ballot of all hon. Members.
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make time available urgently next week to debate the Ashcroftgate affair? We are moving towards a general election, and allegations have been made that really need to be cleared up, as they go to the heart of our democracy. They also go to the heart of a political party that wants to become the Government after the election. It is an important matter, as I am now getting correspondence from constituents asking how a person can spend £120 million and still not pay taxes in this country.
Once again, I will give consideration to the point that my right hon. Friend makes. There is clearly a desire in the House to understand what has gone on, and he is right to say that the affair affects both our democracy and public trust in it. On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was in favour of transparency, but we discovered on Monday that we have had nine years of smokescreen and secrecy. On Sunday, he said that he was in favour of new politics, but on Monday we discovered that this was the same old sleaze from the Tories.
The Leader of the House will share my concern at reports from service charities and in the press about the plight of ex-Gurkhas. Apparently, they are being offered spurious money advice by unscrupulous organisations in Kathmandu, even though the same service is available free from the Gurkha Settlement Office. Can we have an urgent debate on the matter, and will she raise it urgently with her colleague the Defence Secretary?
In the last Session, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on financial disclosure. It demands that anyone standing for election or placement in another place must provide full financial disclosure, including tax returns. Is that a Bill that the Government might like to introduce, as a matter of urgency, so that we can clean up the mess that we are in?
Again, my hon. Friend raises a very important point, and the Government will have to reflect on it. The assumption has always been that people would play fair and by the rules, with everyone working to shore up confidence and trust in our democracy. I agree that we need to restore confidence: the background to the matter is our deep concern about the money—the tens of millions of pounds—that should have gone to pay taxes, but which has gone to the Conservative party instead.
May we have a debate on the desirability or otherwise of positive discrimination in the workplace? During that debate perhaps the Leader of the House will explain why she is so in favour of all-women shortlists in every single constituency around the country, apart from when her husband is seeking selection, and whether she considers that to be sleaze.
Even I am not in favour of 100 per cent. all-women shortlists, although when I see the hon. Gentleman it tempts me to think that I might be mistaken. Unlike the Conservative party, more than half our shortlists are all-women—more than half. With regard to the fewer than half of shortlists that are open shortlists, anyone can apply, both women and men. Indeed, women have been chosen from some of the open shortlists that we have had.
Order. I was probably over-generous in allowing the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to ask that question, which did not obviously relate to the business of the House next week. There have been accusations and counter-accusations of sleaze. I really think that it would be for the benefit of the House and our reputation with the electorate if we were to move on from those matters.
May we have an urgent debate next week on parliamentary language? The Clerks, one of whom I think was present, will confirm to you, Mr. Speaker, that 10 years ago, your predecessor but one accepted as parliamentary language my adumbration to Lord Sleaze of Belize. I will not use that again, but it is clear that we now have a serious problem, because what I raised 10 years ago has turned out to be true, but now the real question is the dissembling and cover-up of leaders of the Conservative party, which deeply shame our democratic parliamentary proceedings.
Once again, there is evident concern. There are questions to be answered that pertain to our democracy. They are not to be answered by the Government. The Select Committee investigation will be important, but I will think whether there is any way in which we can assist light being shed, because there are genuine concerns and fears.
Is the Leader of the House ashamed of herself for the dissembling way in which she has answered questions about the election of the Speaker following the return of Parliament? She has tabled motion 69 in her name, which is not yet available to be debated in the House. Can she assure the House that she will not withdraw—
Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word “dissembling”. I have a matter of seconds ago indicated to the House that we should have seemly exchanges. That word in this context is not seemly. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it and to complete his question in parliamentary language. [Interruption.] Order. That is the request, and I expect it to be honoured.
I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that, obviously, if you say that the word “dissembling” is non-parliamentary, I will withdraw it, but it does not alter the substance of my question to the Leader of the House. She has put down motion 69 calling for the re-election of the Speaker at the beginning of the Parliament to be with a secret ballot. She is now saying that she has no proposals to debate that or to allow a vote on it. Is she now proposing to withdraw motion 69 from the Order Paper so that we are deprived of the opportunity of voting on the first report of the Procedure Committee? If not, what will she do about it.
The motions on the Order Paper and the amendments to those motions that are for debate and decision this afternoon arise from the Wright report. If we can get on with agreeing not only the election of Deputy Speakers, but with the election of Chairs of Select Committees, the election of members of Select Committees and a new House Committee to decide Back-Bench and non-Government business, we will have done a good days’ work.
Talking about unparliamentary language, I could hear somebody behind me—I think that it might have been my Parliamentary Private Secretary—saying “He’s Chopeless.” I wonder whether that is unparliamentary.