Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s consistent commitment to the idea of improving the capability of the civil service. However, I do not think I agree with his premise, and I invite him to visit the Government’s digital service because he will see a department that feels unlike any other in Government. It is full of extraordinary talent that has come in to work for Government, often at below market rates, because they want to make that difference.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The arrogant complacency of the Minister’s answers shows just how out of touch he is. Some 80% of Government interactions take place with the bottom 25% of society, but only 15% of people living in deprived areas use a Government service online. The promised assisted digital provision is still nowhere to be seen, locking our citizens out of his digital democracy. That is why Labour has announced a review of digital government, to make it work for the many, not the few. Is it not time that he did the same?

[Mr Hurd]

Again, we absolutely will not take any lessons from the Labour party about digital government. We are committed to the idea of transforming the great digital service. The feedback has been tremendous so far, and we have a hard commitment that every transformation will be accompanied by an assisted digital programme.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a real honour to follow so many passionate and eloquent speeches.

This morning I went to South Africa house to sign the book of condolence. It is still a really strange experience for me to enter South Africa house, having spent so much time on the pavement outside. Indeed, at one time I was convinced that the pavement there was particularly hard and cold, especially around midnight. I have since entered it in very different circumstances and in triumphant celebration of a free South Africa. The fact that the lobby of South Africa house has so many photographs of so many activists, including myself, makes it all the more welcoming.

This morning was different. It was sad—so very, very sad. As I signed the book in the name of Newcastle and anti-apartheid activists everywhere, I thought about how personal his death was for so many who had never met him personally. That was due to Mr Mandela’s towering personality, but it was also because apartheid was personal to so many of us who had never set foot in South Africa.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is easy now to forget how widespread the support was for South Africa and how much British racists took comfort and, indeed, solace from white rule. At the heart of apartheid was injustice, discrimination and separation. Do hon. Members remember the Bantustans? The justification of apartheid was for separate development, with blacks being given their own so-called homeland.

The belief that the races could not live together was obviously taken very personally by a young child in Newcastle with a black father and a white mother. It was also taken personally by so many people throughout Newcastle, the north-east and across the country. I want to pay tribute to the international working-class solidarity that supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The idea that what someone was and what they could achieve should be defined by the colour of their skin was taken as a personal attack by black people, by white people, by all people.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement is the most successful mass-movement this country has ever seen. It was the focus of my own activism for many years, spent in its headquarters on what is now called Mandela street, and I eventually joined its executive. Indeed, the first time I entered the parliamentary estate was for executive meetings organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), Richard Caborn and Bob Hughes. I also want to pay tribute to Mike Terry who, tragically, died so young a few years ago, and to ACTSA—Action for Southern Africa—which is what the Anti-Apartheid Movement became.

Although the movement was successful, it was not simple. There were intense debates, concerns over tactics and alliances, and, of course, dirty tricks from the South African secret service and others. The evil of apartheid not only gave rise to the most terrible oppression in South Africa; it also corrupted its neighbours in southern Africa. Nelson Mandela was our strength, inspiration and source of unity. The minor debates and divisions within the movement were as nothing in comparison with the huge divisions within South Africa that were deliberately fostered over decades. Mr Mandela’s achievement in putting aside 27 years of imprisonment—much of it with hard labour—and in forgiving though not forgetting and in unifying his country is, therefore, all the greater. He did it not by playing to the fears in all of us, but by magnifying the goodness in all of us.

At a time when there are many debates about what it means to be the United Kingdom and a united Europe and about who we should let in, and at a time when asylum seekers are vilified and those on benefits are mistrusted, I believe that one of Nelson Mandela’s many lessons for us is that, if we do not live in the harmony that he sought, it is not because our differences are so very great, but perhaps because our politicians are not great enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on this subject, and everything he says about it must be taken extremely seriously. Yes, there is a point there to which we need to have proper regard.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

According to the Government’s own figures, 87% of small businesses experienced a cyber-security breach last year and were attacked, on average, 17 times, yet more than four fifths of the Government’s cyber-security budget goes on the intelligence services, big business and government, leaving small businesses and consumers to fend for themselves. Now we learn that the Minister has set up his own wi-fi network in the Cabinet Office to bypass all that expensive security. When will he stand up for small businesses and consumers and get a grip on cyber-security?

[Mr Maude]

I am glad to say that the most recent rankings of countries in relation to cyber-security had the UK in top position, but we are not at all complacent; much more needs to be done. The hon. Lady is very interested in the wi-fi arrangements in my office, which were installed by the Cabinet Office IT supplier and are fully compliant. We take all this extremely seriously, but the threats are changing all the time and we need to be agile in how we respond to them.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend was a lowly—although perhaps not a very humble—Treasury official, and the point is well made.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Government Members have suggested that Government amendments 92 and 93 clarify matters, but does my hon. Friend agree that they actually have the opposite effect, because whereas before the Government were badly defining what lobbying activities are, they are now badly defining everything else that lobbying activities are not?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend expresses far better than I could exactly what I was trying to say earlier, and she is absolutely right.

Let us consider how two areas would be affected by the Bill and the proposed amendments. The first of them is the introduction of droit de suite. When the European Union insisted that every country in Europe had to have an artists’ resale right, the Government at the time—a Labour Government—were wholeheartedly opposed. However, some members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were wholeheartedly in favour and wanted to persuade the Government to take a different course of action, which we thought was going to be inevitable anyway.

At the time the Design and Artists Copyright Society, the body that administers copyright for artists, was lobbying very hard to have droit de suite introduced in the UK, and on a generous basis—more generous than that originally intended by the UK. So far as I am aware, it never lobbied the permanent secretary, but it certainly lobbied all the Culture, Media and Sport Committee members and a lot of junior DCMS and Treasury officials, and in the end it won its case. It would not be caught by this Bill, however, because its primary purpose is not to lobby, but to administer a system of collecting rates for artists. My argument is that that is wholly inappropriate. The body that was opposed to the introduction of such a right was the body that represents all the art houses and art galleries. It, too, would not be covered by this Bill, but I think it should be.

Communications with Members of Parliament should be included, as the new clause of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) would allow, just as much as communications with Ministers or anybody else should, because knowing who is trying to influence proposed legislation, and who tables amendments and who does not table amendments and so on, is a vital part of knowing what is going on in the lobbying business.

Let us consider, too, recent events in the newspaper industry. I think all Members would agree that it has been ferociously lobbying for quite some time, sometimes through direct means and sometimes through indirect means. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission is Lord Hunt. I am not sure whether he is still the chairman, but he is a Member of the other House. I am not sure whether he would be included in this legislation by virtue of being a Member of the other House, but he has certainly been lobbying on behalf of a whole set of other newspaper agencies, and he is paid to do so. The Government may say, “Yes, he probably would be included, as that is consultant lobbying.”

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that the Minister is getting her advice from the Treasury Whip, but I hope that when she replies she will spell out which lobbying professionals agree with her definition and think that Australia and Canada are a suitable comparator. As someone who has worked for eight years in the industry, it strikes me that civil servants have licked their finger, stuck it in the air and come up with a figure of—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House chunters from a sedentary position. Perhaps he wishes to add something to the debate. Apparently not. We are going to get the usual curmudgeonly Deputy Leader of the House role; the second Liberal Democrat to do that with such skill and grace in the last few years, and heckle anyone who has the temerity to disagree with his views.

[Chi Onwurah]

I support the excellent comments that my hon. Friend is making. Will he set himself the challenge of explaining why a Government who set such store in supporting small and medium enterprises, should, as he describes, put such a regulatory and financial burden upon them?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who spoke eloquently from the Front Bench during proceedings on my private Member’s Bill last year, setting out why the Opposition want to see workable legislation. I am more than happy to set out what is wrong with the impact assessment. It uses the Government’s figures and is confused. It says that the register, which covers only consultant lobbyists, will cost £500,000 to set up and a further £200,000 to run each year. That is according to the Government’s own figures, so it must be right. Almost all the firms who are members of the APPC are SMEs. I would be amazed if there were one that employed more than 250 people in total. Most are firms with between 20 and 50 employees, so these are not large firms. They are the entrepreneurial firms that we hear so much about from Government Members. But the Government and their civil servants have made up some rash figures. They have said that there are about 1,100 lobbying consultants in this country. I am still not clear where that figure has come from. I think they have taken the APPC list and accepted that that is probably pretty much every one who is “a lobbyist”. They have then said that, if the cost is £500,000, that can be shared by 1,000, which I assume is the 1,000 lobbyists. However, the Bill contradicts that. It says that payment is per firm—the Deputy Leader of the House graciously nods in agreement—and probably only 10 to 20 firms will be caught by the current definition. I am not a great mathematician, but if one takes £500,000 and divides it by 20, that is not £500. It is significantly more. That is just the start-up cost in the first year. That is a disproportionate and huge impact on small businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I must conclude, because there is plenty of work before the Committee tonight.

I have reservations about new clause 5, although I respect the serious work that Members have done with lobbying representatives. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans not to press new clause 5.

Amendment 161, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), would make all lobbying businesses, not just those that lobby on behalf of third parties, liable for registration. As I have said, it is difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Let me turn to the Government amendments in this group. It is clear that they have been spectacularly misunderstood by Labour Front Benchers. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who laughs loudest, claims to care for small businesses but appears not to have read the papers in preparation for this debate.

Amendments 76, 77, 81 to 85, 92 and 96 to 98 are designed to exclude the smallest organisations from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. They do so by amending the definition of consultant lobbying such that it includes only those who are registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has read in great detail.

The Government are committed to ensuring that small businesses are not subject to disproportionate burdens. An exclusion for those small businesses that are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists will ensure that whatever burden may be associated with registration will not be placed on them. The VAT registration represents a clear threshold.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Smith]

Would the hon. Lady like to explain VAT registration?

[Chi Onwurah]

It would be a great pleasure to explain VAT registration, but not at this point in time. Is the hon. Lady saying that all companies that pay VAT registration are large companies, or is she acknowledging that many small businesses are registered for VAT?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will be as quick as I can in making a few points about Government amendments.

It has always been the Government’s intention that those who communicate with Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activity should not be required to register as consultant lobbyists. These are not the people or organisations that this register is intended to capture. Let me be clear that it is our intention that multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and that lobby in a manner that is not merely incidental to their other activities should be captured. These are the exact professional consultant lobbyists that this register is intended to capture.

We have listened to those who suggested that the exemption in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 was too broad and should be refined, including the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Our amendments 91, 93, 94 and 95 will refine that paragraph by substituting the insubstantial proportion test with one that focuses on incidental lobbying. Specifically, paragraph 3 will provide that a person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they are part of a non-lobbying organisation or if the lobbying communication they make is incidental to their normal non-lobbying activity.

In conclusion, we are proposing not a fully blown regulator for the industry, but a solution to an identified problem. I am sure that Members throughout the Committee will have read the US federal lobbying regulation manual, “The Lobbying Manual”, which runs to 894 pages. That is what we wish to avoid. I therefore oppose various amendments but support those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I look forward to hearing what the Opposition think they can do better now than they did for the past 13 years.

[Chi Onwurah]

It is testimony to the ineptitude of the Government that, after months of delay, they have introduced a lobbying Bill that covers just 1% of lobbyists and still manages to be full of loopholes.

We have heard a lot today about the importance of lobbying in our democracy. We have heard that it is nothing to be ashamed of and that transparency is a good thing that is welcomed by the industry. There is a consensus on both sides of the Committee about that, or so I had thought until I read the Bill and the Government amendments. I was entirely baffled by many of the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in the clause and the accompanying schedule. It is plain that the Government were no clearer, because they tabled their own set of amendments. However, those amendments —[Interruption.] I have read the amendments, despite what the Minister says from a sedentary position, and rather than clearing up the confusion that the Government have created, they create more confusion. In this Bill, it is difficult to distinguish between what is the result of poor drafting and what is the result of poor judgment.

Ministers appear to have created a loophole whereby the vast majority of the lobbying industry can avoid having to register at all. Even the current voluntary registers capture more of the industry than the proposals would. The Deputy Leader of the House estimated in this debate that 350 companies would be caught by the Bill. George Kidd, the acting chair of the UK Public Affairs Council, has estimated that 100 would be caught. At least 15,000 companies operate as lobbyists, so it is clear that the Bill captures a minute proportion of them.

I find the Minister’s assertions that the Bill will not have an impact on the voluntary registers hard to believe. The Government talk about the great impact of regulation and law-making, but they seem to be saying that this Bill, which defines lobbying—it defines it badly, but it defines it nevertheless—will have no impact whatever on the existing lobbying registers. They have very little respect for the impact that the Bill will have, intended or otherwise.

I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers, who have said that the Bill does not reflect an understanding of what lobbying is. The Bill has also been described as a net that is badly drawn and an albatross. I agree with the Financial Times, which said today, less figuratively but equally accurately, that the Bill is “not good lawmaking”. The whole industry agrees with that, rejects the Government proposals and supports the intent of the Opposition amendments. That is why we will press amendments 2 and 9 to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this, as does the Committee he chairs. He will know that we inherited a regime that had, rightly, been tightened up, with arrangements embedded in legislation. He will also know that we reviewed the arrangements when we came into power and took the view that the right balance had been struck. The arguments are well rehearsed and although I know that he does not like the message, we are not going to change the arrangements and I do not think that that message is going to change.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Let us look at cyber-statistics. In answer to my parliamentary question, the Minister put the cost of cybercrime at £27 billion, but that turns out to be a 2010 “guestimate” from defence company Detica. The National Audit Office misused Cambridge university figures, managing to confuse pounds with dollars. We all know that online crime is rising, but the Government rely on outdated third-party figures. Is he surprised that the public do not trust the Government’s efforts to fight cybercrime, given that they clearly cannot even measure it?

[Mr Hurd]

The Government take the whole issue of cybercrime incredibly seriously. I am not sure that we are going to take any lectures on trust in public statistics from the Labour party; the reason the UK Statistics Authority is in place is because public trust in Government statistics cratered after 13 years of Labour, for ever associated with the dark arts of spin and media manipulation.

SMEs (Public Sector Procurement)

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing this debate on an important issue that does not attract the attention it deserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, hon. Members from all parties are aware of the importance of this issue and it would have been fitting if more had attended this debate. However, important points have been made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said that there was a Celtic emphasis to the contributions. This is a cross-party, national issue.

Contributions, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), and the passionate opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, emphasised the importance of procurement for small and medium-sized enterprises and their importance to our economy.

This has been a remarkably non-partisan debate and I hope that that will not change too much as I make some remarks on behalf of the official Opposition. If there is one thing that all hon. Members agree on, it is that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy and should be supported. They account for 99.9% of all private sector businesses in the UK, 59.1% of private sector employment and almost half of private sector turnover.

As has been said, given the economic challenges that we face, encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises must be a focal point for Government policy as we seek to find growth again. In short, they are critical to our economic recovery. Yet still the proportion of public spend on dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises is far too low. As the UK’s biggest single consumer, government must do more to support SMEs across the country.

In February 2011, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), outlined Government procurement reforms at a conference for SME suppliers, where the famous pledge was made that

“25% of all government contracts”

should be

“awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises”.

Regrettably, that 25% target did not last long. It has been downgraded, rather like our credit rating, and is now merely an aspiration. Last month, the Prime Minister’s enterprise adviser, Lord Young, said that he was

“not convinced that the value of SMEs is being fully exploited across the whole public sector.”

I think that we can all agree with him.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that procurement figures for SMEs are up. The Government do not have a particularly good record on statistics, but it is still depressing to hear the Minister for the Cabinet Office say that most Departments do not know their spend on SMEs and that therefore people “cannot trust the numbers”.

Mark Taylor, the former co-chair of a panel set up to advise the Minister for the Cabinet Office on SME procurement, has accused the Government of “recounting” their procurement SME figures. He said that Government contracts to SMEs were “drying up”, that things were “going backwards” and that SMEs were

“finding it more difficult to do business with Government.”

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Perhaps a way forward is to replicate the Welsh Government’s approach. They are now asking all their local authorities, the NHS and any procurers to carry out regular procurement fitness checks, including monitoring how many contracts are going out to SMEs.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point that I hoped to make later. It is useful to see concrete examples of where that is being done successfully, but the measurement and understanding of procurement practices and, most importantly, what the outcomes are, particularly for SMEs, is a key way of improving the situation.

What is being done to measure SME procurement in Government? What is the Minister doing, specifically, to stop things going backwards? Will she confirm that only two Departments have increased SME procurement spend to any significant degree and that one of those—the Ministry of Justice—only achieved that by including providers of legal aid?

Will the Minister say what concrete action has been taken to increase the proportion of spending with SMEs? Fine words are all very well, but we want to know what is actually being done to address this issue, which everyone agrees is critical. Speeches and leaning on Departments can only go so far. We have all read reports of bloody battles going on between Departments and the Treasury over spending envelopes in the next Budget. There is a huge pressure on Departments to use their buying power to cut costs and, unfortunately, that tends to be through ever-larger contracts.

The Government have spoken many fine words of encouragement to social enterprises, without delivering. Most social enterprises are SMEs. The message that I get from social enterprises—I recently held workshops in Newcastle and London—is that often, how Government contracts are bundled makes it impossible for them to bid. That is, as we have heard, a general concern among SMEs. Will the Minister explain what specific actions have been taken, and what actions are planned, to unbundle as many contracts as possible, to level the playing field for smaller enterprises?

Support through direct procurement is not the only way to support SMEs. The previous Labour Government introduced the innovative small business research initiative programme to drive innovation through procurement. The SBRI allows small businesses to bid for contracts to provide innovative solutions to procurement problems, supporting innovation and small businesses at the same time.

We in the official Opposition had been calling for some time for the programme to be expanded, so we were glad when the expansion was agreed to by the Treasury. This is good news for innovative SMEs. However, a recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that nearly 40% of small firms felt that they were being “sidelined” by the Government because of their persistent belief that bigger firms are better. What are the Government doing to address that?

I turn briefly to the Government’s Contracts Finder, which I am sure the Minister will address. The value of contracts published on the website each month is still very small compared with the £15 billion total value of Government procurement contracts that are outsourced each month. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to ensure that contracts are put on the Contracts Finder system? What is happening on that?

What are Ministers doing to ensure that local authorities are properly engaged with Contracts Finder? What work are they doing with councils to improve their procurement from SMEs? We have heard of a number of examples from local authorities across England and Wales that are being very innovative in that respect, and I would like the Minister to say whether she is studying what is happening in our local authorities.

There are a number of rivalries between cities in the north-east, particularly between Newcastle and Sunderland, but as we subsume them within a combined local authority, I am pleased to say that I can hold up Sunderland city council as an example of innovative and successful work in procurement.

Indeed, only last night, at the Federation of Small Businesses reception, Sunderland city council was praised for its intensive engagement with the FSB and local suppliers before implementing the Buy Sunderland First system for quotations below the tender threshold and the North East Procurement Organisation portal for all opportunities above the threshold. Consequently, spend with north-east businesses now accounts for more than 68% of all third-party spend by Sunderland city council. What other examples would the Minister like to hold up for us of ways in which local authorities are successfully engaging with small businesses?

I have asked a number of questions of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has raised a number of important points, and my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for Inverclyde have made a number of suggestions. I draw my remarks to a close by saying to the Minister that, although we have seen some small steps forward, the Government’s approach lacks the required urgency. Whether on procurement or bank lending, Ministers across Government are failing SMEs.

Responding to a recent National Audit Office report on improving Government procurement, the head of the CBI said:

“Two and a half years after the Government committed to centralising public procurement, individual departments are still too often doing their own thing. We need to see strong leadership from the Cabinet Office to drive a culture shift across…Whitehall”.

Such complacency is all too common among Ministers. The CBI survey report recently stated:

“Across the board the rate of reform requires more urgency. The lack of progress on turning sound policy into actual change is not only damaging to government and costly to the taxpayer, but it also stunts growth.”

Will the Minister now take action to ensure that permanent secretaries prioritise and buy into that? Will they visibly start to split major contracts into smaller chunks? Will they take steps to record the success or failure of those policies?

Successfully changing the mindset on procurement so that we use and support our SMEs more effectively is an issue that unites the whole House, so will we see decisive Government action so that our ambitions can be realised?

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I did not intend to speak in this debate because, unlike many here, I did not know Margaret Thatcher personally and I have no desire to intrude on personal grief, particularly that of family and friends who have suffered a great loss. However, this has become a public debate on Mrs Thatcher’s legacy and having heard so much about how much she welcomed different views, I think it is appropriate to give the House the views of some of my constituents and of my home city of Newcastle.

Words cannot express the almost visceral dislike with which some of my constituents regard Mrs Thatcher, so I shall not attempt to express it. Instead, I shall speak briefly about her impact on my life and on the north-east. Just as Mrs Thatcher was a child of Grantham, I was a child of Newcastle, although this was in a council flat rather than a grocer’s. Just as she grew up always knowing that she wanted to be a politician, I grew up always knowing that I wanted to be an engineer. I grew up in a city and a region that valued engineering—making and building things. It was the birthplace of the railways, and it was the powerhouse of the country, with the coal beneath our feet, the steelyards and the great ships being launched from Wallsend and Sunderland.

When I was accepted to study engineering at Imperial college it was the proudest day of my life—until my election of course. So hon. Members can imagine how my heart sank when the Prime Minister of our country said, not long after, that engineering and manufacturing were the past, that the future was services and that the world would be our workshop while we would keep our hands clean. I had no desire to keep my hands clean. I had already seen what that policy was doing to the north -east: the unemployment; the communities devastated; and the lives of men and women robbed of meaning and pride. The statistics speak for themselves: between 1979 and 1987, the level of employment in the north fell by 1.3 million; 97 mines had been closed by 1992; Sunderland, the largest shipbuilding town in the world, no longer built ships; and Consett had lost the industry that had been a part of its fabric and identity for more than 140 years. I ask Conservative Members to contrast the huge bail-out that a Labour Government offered the financial services sector to protect jobs and investment with the brutal, bone-crushing and soul-destroying destruction that Margaret Thatcher’s Government offered the shipbuilding, steel and mining industries, losing those very skills which we now need so very much.

There are those who say, “It was all part of the harsh reality of the new global order”, but that is not true. Change was necessary, but it is the Government’s job to protect communities from the impact of change. That change could have been managed; there could have been a transition and that could have been invested in. There was another way, and Nissan, which has been mentioned, provides an example of that. It is a great private sector success story that has been enabled by the support and investment of central Government, local authorities and the unions. The 2008 intervention by the previous Government through the car scrappage scheme and bringing forward training enabled Nissan to go through a difficult period and showed that intelligent active government is possible.

Mrs Thatcher’s most meaningful legacy in the north-east is the unemployment across the region, but I would not like to close my remarks without paying her tribute. We have heard how she fought hard and tenaciously for the people she thought she represented. My tribute to her will be to continue to fight for the people I represent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

No. As I said, we are clear that no one must be excluded from this process. That is why significant assisted digital provision is still in place, and we will shortly make available details of how that will work. There are digital inclusion projects across Government and we are actively reviewing, with partners such as Go ON UK, what more we can do.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I look forward to reading the real figures on fullfact.org, which had to correct the Minister’s overblown assertions last time. The Opposition know that ICT can make government more accessible and save money, but the Government have abandoned the universal broadband pledge and failed on digital inclusion, so 75% of over-75s and a third of people with disabilities are still not online. In those circumstances, is digital by default not simply digital exclusion by diktat?

[Mr Hurd]

I will take no lectures from the Labour party on wasting money on ICT, because the processes we inherited in that regard were absolutely scandalous. I repeat what I said: we see a big opportunity in digital by default. It is a chance to transform the way people engage with the Government. We can see significant savings, which I do not think have been overstated at all. As I said, we have an active commitment to assisted digital, the details of which will come shortly, and to continued activity to support digital inclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in this area and for how he consistently raises issues about the British Sikh community, the immense contribution it makes to our country and the respect that we should show it. I also thank him for accompanying me on that trip to the Golden Temple—something that I will never forget. It gives me the opportunity to say, on behalf of the House, how much British Sikhs give to Britain and how much we thank them for it.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Q6. My constituent Jordan Kingston found himself homeless aged just 17. He was offered social housing and is now studying for his A-levels, determined to improve his situation through education. From his £56 weekly benefit, he will lose £14 in the bedroom tax and £3 in council tax, leaving just £11 per week to live on after utilities. Based on the Prime Minister’s experience of hardship, what advice does he have for Jordan?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the Government are investing in social housing, and the hon. Lady will hear more about that in a moment. Secondly, when housing benefit costs £23 billion a year, we simply have to reform it. There is a basic issue of fairness: why should someone living in private rented accommodation not receive a spare room subsidy and someone in social housing should? There is a basic issue of fairness, and that is why it should be put right.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Bayley, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing this debate. Collective Cabinet responsibility is a major concern to perhaps dozens of our constituents. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have argued passionately that collective Cabinet responsibility is an important pillar of our constitution and underpins our system of government. The economy, jobs, housing, health care, crime and education may be at the forefront of our constituents’ minds, but it is important to discuss how government is carried out.

In his 2009 speech on fixing our broken politics, the Prime Minster, who was then Leader of the Opposition, promised to end the culture of sofa government. He said:

“we’ll put limits on the number of political advisers, strengthen the ministerial code, protect the independence of the civil service, and ensure that more decisions are made by cabinet as a whole.”

I would welcome an update from the Minister on progress on each of those points.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has said that we must put

“democratic renewal and a willingness to reach out to others beyond our party at the heart of the way we do our politics.”

Labour Members have a one-nation vision for governing this country that will deliver a fairer and more productive economy. The coalition parties do not.

We all understand that although coalition government is not new, it is something of a novelty, and that conventions may need to be tweaked and adjusted. Our system of government has evolved over centuries, and it must continue to evolve. One-party Governments often disagree, so it is no surprise that a Government comprising two parties will disagree regularly. We have heard many examples today, and Leveson is the most obvious. It was the first example of a double statement from the Government since 1932, which was the last time we had a peacetime coalition Government.

The ministerial code states:

“The principle of collective responsibility, save where it is explicitly set aside, requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached.”

We have heard that the Cabinet Secretary signed off suspension of collective responsibility for the boundary review and Leveson, but questions remain to be answered—for example, on why the Conservative party yesterday published its ideas for Leveson on a Government website before they were agreed by both parties. The Prime Minister’s inability to answer hon. Members’ questions comes as no surprise to anyone who has sat through Prime Minister’s questions.

Clearly, it is essential to understand the difference between Ministers speaking as Ministers, and Ministers speaking as representatives of their party, if we are to hold the Government to account. Clarity on when Lords and others are speaking for Cabinet Ministers would also be welcome. We know, for example, that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has the noble Lord Oakeshott to make his views known to anyone who will listen. Last year, following the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, the Deputy Prime Minister vowed to have more public rows with the Prime Minister, just to remind people that the Liberal Democrats still have a separate identity. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition said at the time,

“That is an unusual, probably unhealthy, way to conduct any relationship let alone one in a government that is having such a profound impact on people’s lives. I suspect it is a symptom of a having coalition based on political convenience rather than values.”

In his 2009 speech, the Prime Minister said:

“the driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power—from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the government of the day to account.”

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, but it is not possible when we are unsure who is speaking as a Minister and when. Sad as it is—we have heard criticisms from coalition Members—setting aside collective responsibility is not the worst scandal of this Government. The worst is their chaotic, ad hoc approach to government in general. That may in some part be due to the nature of coalition, as might be the concerns about the suspension of collective ministerial responsibility, but my argument is that it has more to do with incompetence, from those at No. 10 downwards.

As we have heard, there are precedents for setting aside collective responsibility in the European Community referendum in 1975, and back in the ’30s under the last coalition. However, there is no precedent for the scale of incompetence and incoherence we see from Ministers almost weekly. Ministers have locked themselves in Lobby toilets; they have forgotten to vote, sometimes very conveniently; they have been absent from important votes; they have voted both ways; and Cabinet Ministers have mooted abstaining on their own Bills.

The Liberal Democrats seem happy to put collective responsibility aside when it comes to media reform and boundary reform—that is, when that is in their interests—but there was no such hand-wringing when it came to tuition fees, welfare reform or tax cuts. I do not want to let Conservative Members off the hook; last week, when Liberal Democrat Members faced both ways, one Minister referred on her website to her pride in the Government’s commitment to gay marriage, and then voted against it. The fact that we are having this debate highlights the confusion that seems to be the only constant in how this Government are run. It is no wonder staff in No. 10 wake up and tune in to Radio 4 to find out what the Government are up to.

The most serious implication of the repeated suspension of collective responsibility, official or not, is that it is a sign that senior Ministers cannot work together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said when winding up yesterday’s infrastructure debate,

“The Olympics showcased Britain for the great country and the one nation that it is, but that was Labour’s legacy. What will be this Government’s legacy? If they are not careful, it will be dither, delay, stifled economic growth and stagnation.”— [Official Report, 12 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 820.]

We know the Business Secretary agrees. It is nearly a year since his letter to the Prime Minister was leaked, in which he said that the Government were missing

“'a compelling vision of where the country is heading”.

People and businesses in this country need certainty and confidence in Government. That is even more important in these tough economic times. In the past year, we have only narrowly averted a triple-dip recession, and Ministers still have no plan B on the economy. I am not convinced that a revised ministerial code will provide that, but we need a strategy and a coherent plan of implementation to get the economy moving. The Minister could start today, if she feels up to it, by setting out the economic vision for the country, which would help us to understand what, collectively, the Government feel they are responsible for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. When we published the cyber-security strategy we made it clear that there are important opportunities for UK businesses. Our country has long-standing expertise in cyber-security, which makes us well placed to capitalise on the commercial opportunities on offer, both domestically and overseas. I can confirm to him that we have put in place measures to help promote UK products abroad, particularly through setting up a cyber-growth partnership.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

If only the Minister’s warm words on international partnerships were matched by her Government’s actions. In October, the Home Secretary announced that the UK would opt out of cross-border co-operation on tackling crime—cybercrime is, of course, predominantly cross-border in nature. Will the Minister confirm that position? Specifically, will we be part of the new European cybercrime centre, or are her Government more obsessed with damaging Europe than strengthening our cyber-security?

[Miss Smith]

First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in the Opposition Front-Bench team, although I hope that the Labour party has updated its website, as I do not believe its cyber-skills showed her in her correct place at the time she asked that question. Of course, I can offer my reassurance that the UK Government are doing all they can on tackling cybercrime, where there is much to be done. There is also much to be done in Europe.