Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend was a distinguished Minister in my Department. Right from the very beginning, all this was envisaged under the Localism Act 2011. Rather than trying to move all local government at the same speed, we will of course devolve this power to those councils that are capable of managing larger budgets and delivering a deal. I envisage that within the next five years most local authorities will use such a system. For those that do not, the Prime Minister made it clear in a speech a couple of weeks ago that it will be our intention to get the retention up to 66%. I shall be disappointed if we cannot exceed that, but for most local authorities self-sufficiency and being able to raise their own finance locally and to spend Government money sensibly, and so on, is the future. I have great hopes for what is happening in Greater Manchester, and it shows that people of good will right across the political spectrum can work together.

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

Can the Secretary of State clarify whether all new business rates will be retained, or whether it will be all incremental business rates in addition to those currently predicted?

[Mr Pickles]

It is very straightforward; it is the same scheme that has existed since the retention scheme was introduced. It is the growth in the business rates. If a council goes out of its way to bring in new investment, it is only right that it should not be penalised for doing so, as it would have been under Labour. It should reap the benefits. I know that Opposition Members have difficulty with the idea that people should be rewarded for creating wealth and working for the common good, but that is how it is going to be. The Government are helping to expand local economies, and we also want to expand powers for local areas. As I have said, we have already devolved significant powers to the Greater Manchester combined authority.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). I hope that he has many more contributions to make.

Yesterday we were treated to the spectacle of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury delivering an alternative Budget less than 24 hours after the actual Budget, and then promoting it with a yellow Budget box outside the Treasury. Given that in the next Parliament there are likely to be more MPs from the north-east than Liberal Democrats from the entire country, perhaps I should ask your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to present a north-east Budget, and then I could parade up and down Whitehall with a black and white Budget box in the colours of the Northumbrian tartan, and of Newcastle United. My hon. Friends from Sunderland and Middlesbrough might object, so it is just as well that I am not seriously considering such a stunt. The Labour party is a one-nation Opposition and will be a one-nation Government for everybody, not just for the few. A Labour Government will recognise how essential it is that all our regions prosper.

The north-east has many economic successes to shout about. We are the only region outside London that has a positive trade balance. Our export surplus is now £2.5 billion a year. One in three cars made in the UK comes out of Nissan in Sunderland, making the north-east the country’s No. 1 car producing region. The Tees valley is home to the UK’s largest integrated chemicals complex, which is the second largest in the European Union. Over 1,400 companies operate in the sector, exporting more than £12 billion of goods a year. More than 70% of the oil and gas platforms operating in the North sea were built in the north-east. We have world-class businesses and world-class institutions, such as our universities. Newcastle university’s achievements in mitochondrial DNA were debated only recently in this Chamber. Of course, we have fantastic people, not to mention our outstanding countryside and culture, and what is perhaps beyond price—a collective identity.

I grew up in Newcastle in the 1960s and ’70s. It was a city and a region that valued engineering and was proud of making and building things. We still lead the way in exports, and we are increasingly becoming a centre for hi-tech and digital businesses. There are few better places to live, work or innovate. However, I am not under any illusion as to the scale of the challenges we face. Unfortunately, we heard little this week in the Budget about how we might face those challenges. As the headline in our excellent local newspaper, The Journal, put it: “What about the North East, George?” The region has suffered a disproportionate level of cuts, and, as a result, has seen its economy shrink by 10% in recent years. The north-east has the highest rate of unemployment in the UK.

It is therefore not surprising that few of my constituents will recognise the unbridled good news that the Chancellor was trying to spin this week. Under this Government, everyday working people in my constituency and across the region are feeling the pain of the longest cost of living crisis in a century. They are £1,800 per year less well-off. Too many people are trapped in low-wage, insecure jobs where they work hard but do not see the benefits of that work. Inequality is continuing to rise. It is not good for the north-east or the country as a whole to have a deep and growing divide. A one-nation economy needs an innovative and dynamic north-east.

I know that the region is up for this challenge. In the decade between 1998 and 2008, with the support of the regional development agency, One North East, the region added 67,000 new jobs, many of these in the private sector, and saw growth of 10%. The new combined authority and the local enterprise partnership, working with their partners across the region, can play a crucial part in building a more innovative economy. Since the regional development agency was abolished by this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said earlier, the north-east, unlike London and the devolved nations, has had no collective voice to shout about its strengths and focus on its weaknesses. That is why I was pleased when the combined authority proposals came to fruition last year. However, the authority and local councils need real powers if they are to be able to make a difference.

This week the combined authority told us what some of those powers might be. They include a north-east investment fund made up of a range of current short-term funds combined into one and allocated by the authority as part of a long-term investment plan. We need more regional involvement in how European Union funding is invested. It is a scandal that this Government have allowed much needed EU funding to be lost. We also need the devolution of skills funding, the Work programme, and tourism and culture powers. We heard nothing about that in the Budget, and we heard very little about the future of our regional infrastructure. The combined authority has called for investment in transport networks and the creation of a new body to work on integrated transport delivery across the region for passengers and for freight.

The Chancellor seems to have managed to recognise the existence of the north in as much as he often talks of a northern powerhouse. It does not seem to spread as far as the north-east, but I guess it is a step forward that he can at least say the word “northern” on a regular basis. A real northern powerhouse that included the north-east would have had many of the powers announced in the Budget, or at least a movement in the right direction.

The Government talk about a northern powerhouse at the same time as imposing crippling council funding cuts. Councils are currently being forced to make almost impossible cuts, to a point at which some are questioning whether they can do anything other than deliver the services that they are obliged to deliver by law. Furthermore, the cuts imposed on the northern metropolitan councils have been much greater per head than those imposed on councils in other parts of the country which are, in many instances, represented by Tory Members.

My hon. Friends and I believe that, rather than being simply local delivery vehicles, councils and local and regional structures should have real power: power to bring about the positive changes that our constituents deserve, and power to bring about those changes in areas where they know the need exists. That is why we have said that we will pass an English devolution Act to reverse a century of centralisation. The Act will secure devolution to the people of England’s cities and county regions and transfer £30 billion of funding over five years, thus giving local communities more power to address local priorities and grow their local economies.

We will put economic power into the hands of those who know what their areas need, rather than leaving it in Whitehall. We will give city and county regions more power over their public transport networks, so they can set the right bus routes and operate fairer fares, as well as integrating their transport services to help working people and businesses to succeed in their areas. Unlike the present Government, we will support bus quality contracts.

Central to the future of the north-east is a fair funding system. Analysis by Oxford Economics found that the knock-on effect of the unfair distribution of cuts meant a further £1 billion loss of private sector investment in the region, a loss that we can ill afford. A Labour Government will end the bias against our poorest areas by ensuring that the funds that we have are distributed more fairly, and in a way that will allow councils to plan for the long term.

During the industrial revolution, the north-east powered the economy. When the Labour Government who will come to office in May are prioritising investment in the green industrial revolution and devolving powers to our councils and communities, the north-east will once again be able to power the nation’s economic success.

Tax Avoidance

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I shall deal with the substantive thrust of that intervention when I come to the general anti-abuse rule later.

In the context of what has been happening on the Government’s watch in revelations to tax avoidance, we have now had the shocking revelations about HSBC. We now learn that the Government were handed information about malpractice at HSBC, and that one of their first acts was to make the then boss of the bank, Stephen Green, a lord and then a trade Minister. Richard Brooks, a former HMRC tax inspector and BBC reporter, has said that the Treasury and HMRC

“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”

in 2011, but that they

“simply washed their hands of it”—

a damning indictment, if ever there was one.

The consequences are clear. More than 1,100 individuals were identified as allegedly guilty of tax avoidance or evasion, but we are led to believe that in only one case was there sufficient evidence to prosecute. In November 2012, a senior HMRC official told The Times that the Government had adopted “a selective prosecution policy” towards cases related to HSBC. Later that month, HMRC told the Public Accounts Committee that another dozen criminal prosecutions were to follow. However, there have been none since. It seems that HMRC adopted a deliberate strategy to minimise the number of prosecutions, rather than pursue them, which explains why just £135 million has been recouped, which contrasts unfavourably with France, for example, which has prosecuted more cases and raised more money on the basis of fewer account files being handed over.

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

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Has she contrasted this Government’s aggressive sanctioning and demonisation of benefit claimants with their lax approach to those who avoid tax, and does she think it might be because they know far more tax avoiders than benefits claimants?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We should pursue with equal vigour all those who game the rules in our country, whether it be benefit fraud or tax avoidance and evasion.

There remain serious questions for the Government to answer. I hope we hear some answers from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to these pressing questions. Did he ever speak to Lord Green about tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC? If not, why not? I am happy to give way to him, if he wants to clarify those matters now, but it does not seem as though he is willing to take up that offer. I hope he will see fit to answer some of those questions in his speech. The Prime Minister was asked about conversations with Lord Green four times during Prime Minister’s questions today, but he failed to answer each time.

It has been difficult to keep up with the conflicting reports about who knew what and when, but today the Government have claimed they knew that HSBC customers were in the frame for tax avoidance and evasion but not about any possible culpability by the bank itself. It is ridiculous to suggest that, despite having files showing that 1,100 customers of a bank possibly avoided or evaded tax, Ministers did not consider the possibility that perhaps the bank itself had a hand in it and did not bother to ask any questions of a ministerial colleague they knew was head of the bank over the period in question.

The Government were given the data in May 2010; Lord Green took office in January 2011; and the Swiss tax deal was signed in August 2011. In fact, the Minister and David Hartnett, the senior tax official, started negotiating the Swiss tax deal straight after the data on HSBC were received from the French authorities, so at a time when the Government knew, or should have known, that serious wrongdoing had been going on.

I think we need some answers from the Minister about whether he ever discussed the Swiss tax deal with Lord Green, who was, after all, a colleague who had run an organisation with a Swiss banking arm. We need the Minister to explain the conversations he had—or the conversations that, on reflection, he now feels he should have had—with colleagues in government, and to clarify whether he has any regrets.

We also need to hear explicitly from Lord Green—our motion calls for this—with a full and frank statement about what he knew and what discussions he had with those in government about his knowledge of what was going on in the Swiss arm of HSBC. I also think it is about time we heard from the Chancellor. He has been quiet since Sunday, when all this started to come to light, so we need to hear from him as the head of the Treasury what he knew.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right that small businesses are absolutely central to our country’s economic growth and job creation in the future. We have cut small companies corporation tax in this Parliament. From April, we will have a single corporation tax, as it is consolidated around 20%, which removes a lot of the bureaucracy. On top of that, we have taken the smallest businesses out of business rates, and the employment allowance has helped with the national insurance bills of small businesses. Of course I will bear in mind anything else we can do to help small businesses. We have got some measures in the pipeline, but there is clearly more to do.

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

T6. This Government are demonising those on benefits, while doing little about tax evasion and avoidance, which, as we have heard, have risen significantly on their watch. Today sees the launch of the Tax Dodging Bill campaign, as 85% of British adults say that tax avoidance by large companies is morally wrong, even when it is legal. Why will the Chancellor not impose penalties for breaches of the general anti-avoidance rule, as we have called for?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

First, it was this Government who got the base erosion and profit shifting process running with the OECD, looking to deal with the international rules. It was this Government who announced at the autumn statement that we are bringing in a diverted profits tax to deal with some of the contrived and artificial behaviours that people are worried about. It was also this Government who introduced the general anti-abuse rule and it is this Government who are consulting on bringing in penalties for it. I have to say, it is not a bad record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to highlight the importance of these changes. As a local Member of Parliament, he has a particularly important role to play in promoting them, as he has done for the businesses already taking them up. I encourage him to continue to do that and to talk to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about whether there is more we can do to get that message across.

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

T5. Last week, the Chancellor said: “What I reject is the totally hyperbolic BBC coverage on spending cuts. I had all that…four years ago and has the world fallen in? No”.At my surgeries, I meet mothers dependent on food banks to feed their families, fathers desperate at lost Sure Start services, and disabled pensioners choosing between heating and eating. They tell me that their world has fallen in. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Chancellor that they are being “hyperbolic”?

[Danny Alexander]

I am sure the hon. Lady explained to those constituents that the severe economic problems this country is experiencing and recovering from were caused on her party’s watch when it was in office. Although I share the view that these are difficult issues, I hope she would also highlight the fact that her constituency has seen 5,200 jobs created in the past 12 months.

Energy-intensive Industries

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this debate on energy-intensive industries, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), as well as the Backbench Business Committee, for securing it.

I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for your flexibility in enabling me to contribute. Unfortunately, constituency engagements mean that I might not be able to stay for the winding-up speeches. I apologise to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for that. I will read Hansard with increased interest.

I am keen to contribute to this debate because energy-intensive industries are such an important part of our economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said in his excellent opening remarks. They employ about 200,000 people directly in the UK and support 800,000 jobs throughout their supply chain. They are an important part of the real economy, particularly, I might say, outside the south-east. My constituency is home to several energy-intensive businesses, such as Michell Bearings, which has been in Newcastle since 1920. There are many more throughout the north-east.

If we can look back that far, 160 years ago the north-east—one of the most innovative regions in the world—was leading the UK into the first, carbon-based industrial revolution. Sir Charles Parsons established his engineering works in Newcastle and he invented the multi-stage steam turbine, which was the iPhone of its day and helped to power Britain into a new era. Mosley street in my constituency was the first street in the world to be lit with electric light—something to which we have become all too accustomed.

Newcastle university, also in my constituency, was founded on local strengths such as marine, electrical, civil and chemical engineering, as well as agriculture and medicine, and they remain key strengths of the city and the university today: global reach and local roots. Today, the region remains a global base for manufacturing innovation. It is the only English region with a positive balance of trade. As well as the industries and companies that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North spoke of, we have fantastic facilities such as the National Renewable Energy Centre in Blyth and the Centre for Process Innovation on Teesside, which were both set up with the help of One NorthEast—regrettably abolished by this Government. In Newcastle, we have recently opened the Institute for Sustainability.

Energy-intensive industries and carbon reduction are crucial to the north-east economy. There is not, and should not be, any contradiction between the two. The transition to a low-carbon economy is a huge opportunity for the UK, with the potential to be a major source of jobs and growth. However, that transition is being put at risk as a direct result of this Government’s failure to develop a long-term, sustainable energy policy. They have failed to get behind green businesses. The UK is falling behind with investment in green growth, meaning that jobs and industry that should be coming to this country are now going overseas. I have spoken to the senior management at companies that would prefer not to be named who have said that the lack of a clear long-term energy strategy is putting off investment that could create jobs tomorrow, next month and next year. That is clearly detrimental to our economy overall.

The lack of an overall energy strategy and an integrated strategy for supporting energy-intensive industries is putting jobs and investment at risk. Conflicting signals from this Government about support for green energy versus terminology such as “green crap”—I think that was it—has seen the UK’s attractiveness to renewables investors slide down international tables. If we want to support the real economy and to build a long-term, sustainable economic environment, businesses need to know what they can expect from Government. They need long-term regulatory and policy certainty, and they are not getting that from this Government.

As my hon. Friend said, the carbon price floor was intended to create a floor underneath the EU emissions trading scheme, but since the collapse of the ETS price, energy-intensive British firms have been faced with far higher energy bills than European competitors. We need to know how Government are going to support these vital industries over the next five, 10 and 20 years, because that is the kind of life cycle they have for building plant and investing in countries. We need a long-term energy policy that supports and drives green growth and creates jobs in a low-carbon economy—a policy that gives investors the certainty and confidence they need to invest by committing to decarbonising the power sector by 2030. Yet as a direct result of this Government’s mixed messages, we are falling behind.

I have always considered myself a champion of new technologies in this House and elsewhere. When energy-intensive industry representatives first spoke to me of their concerns about some of the Government’s energy policy, I asked them what they were doing to improve their energy efficiency. Were they, for example, asking the Government and policy makers to subsidise obsolete industrial processes? Following further investigation, I was made to understand that many of the processes related to reducing energy consumption and improving energy efficiency are reaching the limits of the laws of physics. I am sure we are not all as familiar as we perhaps should be with the periodic table and the chemistry education we received, but I think we can all understand that a certain amount of energy is needed to change the state of molecules and to change gas to liquid. We have made so much progress in the efficiency of many such processes that it is not possible to go further. Given that so many of the processes are essential to our manufacturing base and a balanced economy, it is unarguable that they need to be supported during this transition.

The energy costs of energy-intensive industries can be more than three quarters of their addressable costs, and they are often already operating in highly competitive markets. There is also already a considerable incentive for them to innovate and become more energy efficient.

The industries need support from Government and a clear, long-term direction of travel. They need action in a number of areas, including fixing the broken energy market, as Labour has promised to do; exploring new sources of green energy, such as clean coal; and specific and long-term support so that they can continue to compete internationally.

In government, the Labour party was more courageous in this area than many others. The Climate Change Act 2008 made us the first country in the world to introduce a legally binding framework to tackle climate change.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady, but does she not agree that the Climate Change Act is actually one of the reasons why we got ourselves into this awful situation in the first place? We are taxing industries in order to try to solve a problem that I am not even sure exists.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but his final comment gave away his position. He said that we are taxing a problem he is not even sure exists, but the consensus on the need to address climate change is global and we certainly owe it to our children and our children’s children—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering, but I am afraid I cannot follow him. The Climate Change Act is not responsible for climate change; it is a response to climate change and one that is necessary for the long-term sustainability of our economy and the global economy.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Are not the industries under discussion also totally behind the drive towards a green economy, because that in itself creates opportunities for new products, innovation and economic growth?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting very clearly—I should have done so myself—the position of many in the energy-intensive industries, who see the need for a long-term future for their significant investments and wish to see a more competitive transition towards it.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Lady. To say that members of the energy-intensive industries want us to go further and faster than other countries with the green stuff is a bit of a leap. Although no one disputes that we must decarbonise, the issue we need to address—the hon. Lady has not yet done so—is the extent to which we need to do that more quickly and more unilaterally than others. That is a fair question.

[Chi Onwurah]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). She said not that the energy-intensive industries seek to go further and faster, but that they recognise the need to transition to a green economy if they are themselves to have a long-term economic future in this country and globally. I certainly support that position.

[David Mowat]

I will not intervene on the hon. Lady again, but as she said that I had misinterpreted the point, I want to come back on that. The issue is that we in this country are doing things unilaterally that other parts of the EU are not doing—it is not an EU issue—and that is a problem for many of the people, including my constituents and perhaps those of the hon. Lady, who derive their income and prosperity from the 900,000 jobs in energy-intensive industries. The valid point for us to debate is the extent to which we should be out of step with other countries, including in other parts of Europe.

[Chi Onwurah]

It was of course the hon. Gentleman’s Government who introduced the carbon floor tax, but I very much agree that it is legitimate for us to discuss such subjects, which is why I was so keen to take part in this debate. The way in which the UK leads in moving to a sustainable economic future is itself an opportunity for jobs and innovation, but it should also protect our energy-intensive industries.

I shall soon bring my remarks to a close, but I wanted to say that the previous Labour Government established the Sustainable Development Commission, the Committee on Climate Change, and the Warm Front scheme to tackle fuel poverty, and they invested in low-carbon industries. The economy was growing, but the air quality in our towns and cities nevertheless improved. Our CO₂ emissions fell by 10.8 million tonnes in our final year in government, when our greenhouse gas emissions were 66 million tonnes lower than in 1997. We helped 5 million households to get better insulation and keep warm, which reduced emissions and saved consumers money at the same time.

The next Labour Government will carry on that work. We recognise that a secure, clean energy mix is vital to powering our economy, meeting our climate change obligations and protecting customers from bill rises driven by events overseas. A long-term strategy should look at and support innovative new techniques, such as carbon capture and storage and underground coal gasification. Five-Quarter, a company spun out from Newcastle university, is leading the world in looking at the development of underground coal gasification as a clean way to deliver electrical power.

My key point is that aggressive action to tackle climate change is not incompatible with a strong manufacturing base. With the right strategies and support in place, the north-east can be the vanguard for a UK that competes globally in manufacturing and labour-intensive industries, while also setting an example in tackling climate change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have instead introduced a permanent bank levy on bankers’ balance sheets, which, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, will raise £8 billion during the life of this Parliament, and up to £18 billion by 2018-19, so they are paying a fair share towards our economic recovery.

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

10. What recent estimate he has made of the difference between the rate of inflation and the rate of growth in average earnings since May 2010.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)]

We recognise that times have been tough for hard-working people. However, the Government have taken decisive action in getting more people into work than ever before—cutting taxes for hard-working families through increases in personal allowances, freezing council tax and fuel duty, cutting energy bills, and providing tax-free child care up to £2,000.

[Chi Onwurah]

In July the Chancellor came to Newcastle to announce that the economy was back on track. Office for National Statistics figures show that the real value of average wages in the north-east has fallen by £1,811 per year since this Government came into power. Is that what he means by “on track”—falling wages for working people and tax cuts for millionaires?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady will know that our economy is recovering from the deepest debt-fuelled recession in living memory. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made it clear that there have been very significant falls in real earnings as a direct but delayed response to the 2008 recession. In the light of this honest assessment, she will know that the only way to raise living standards in a sustainable way is to tackle the country’s economic problems head on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

Of course I congratulate them, and I think the Oceans of Hope project is fantastic. The crew are a real inspiration and deserve our warmest congratulations.

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

The Minister will no doubt be aware that Northern Stage’s excellent adaptation of Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22” closed at the weekend at Richmond, following a successful nationwide run. What is the Minister doing to ensure that regions outside the north-east benefit from the excellent cultural talent that we produce?

[Mr Vaizey]

The latest round of Arts Council funding has pushed more money out to the regions, and I am particularly pleased about the new £15 million fund it has set up specifically to support talent outside London, and to keep people outside London working in our regional theatres and doing innovative work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

What was really interesting about going to the international summit—it was the same when I went to the Commonwealth summit in Bangladesh last year—was just how many of the same issues we share around the world in terms of enabling women to play their full part in economies. We talked about gender equality, parental leave, returners to work, supporting older workers, women’s access to finance and the importance of coaching, mentoring and role models in encouraging women to set up their own businesses.

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

Last week we had national women in engineering day. As the Minister says, only 7% of professional engineers in this country are women. What she did not say is that that is the lowest figure in Europe. In eastern European countries, the figure is 30% and countries such as China and India are far ahead of us. In her conversations, will she see what we can learn from other countries that are more successful?

[Nicky Morgan]

When I speak to counterparts overseas, I always engage with the lessons Britain can share and what we can learn from other countries. I am proud to represent Loughborough university, which has, I am told, the highest number of female engineers in the country. I understand that last night the hon. Lady was at the Royal Academy of Engineering awards, where more than one half the rising stars awards went to female engineers. There is, however, more progress to be made.

Finance Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Let me deal first with an old canard from the Labour Benches that is simply untrue and unfair: the idea that Conservatives welcome tax cuts for the rich, but do not think that tax cuts are appropriate for anybody else. Government Members believe strongly that tax cuts work for everybody, and that is why the Government have given back a lot of tax revenue to people on low pay by taking them out of tax altogether. We have supported and welcomed that, and that is where the missing revenue that Labour worries about is concentrated.

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

The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are taking many low-income people out of tax. But he must recognise that by raising value added tax, the least progressive of taxes, which everyone purchasing goods has to pay, regardless of their income, they are increasing the burden on the lowest paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I will give the Labour party the benefit of the doubt. It has the national policy forum at the weekend, where there is the discussion and development of policy. That is the healthiest level of democracy we have had in the party for a number of years. I hope that it is bubbling up into a comprehensive programme that we can put before the electorate and that addresses the central issue of inequality. One way of doing that is to have accurate information before us, which is what the new clause seeks.

I will finish there because I know that other Members want to speak. I just warn the House that unless we address inequality, we will reap a whirlwind in our society. We saw riots only a few years ago. I think that the injustices in the distribution of wealth will provoke even greater conflict in our society unless it is addressed.

[Chi Onwurah]

I shall be brief. The new clause would force the Chancellor to publish a report that made it clear how the Government were balancing the books on the backs of the poor. [Interruption.] Ministers may laugh, but that is why they are afraid to make the information available. The benefits of rising prosperity and productivity are increasingly concentrated on a small group at the top.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that economic inequality is a drag on the economy. Business profits, literally, from being part of a better functioning and more equal society. Businesses can function only when people form a society that is structured around the principles of trust, responsibility and fairness.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chi Onwurah]

I will not give way because other Members want to speak.

From the “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett through “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by the current economic rock star Thomas Piketty to “The Entrepreneurial State” by Mariana Mazzucato, economists and social scientists are raising their voices against the claims from Government Members that inequality is good for growth. Recent analysis concluded that

“inequality is bad for both the magnitude and sustainability of growth”.

Before Government Members jump in, that is the view not of some left-leaning sociologist but of the International Monetary Fund.

Equally, President Obama’s chief economic adviser has said that reducing inequality is good for growth. In other words, we must not balance the efforts to reduce the deficit unfairly on the poor, as they are less likely to be in a position to reap the benefits of any growth that follows. None the less, that is exactly what the Government are seeking to do.

The new clause would make the impact of the Government’s policies absolutely clear. I know what the impact of their policies is from my Newcastle surgeries. One constituent who is on a low income uses his so-called second bedroom to store his wheelchair and oxygen bottles. The result is rent arrears and constant anxiety. The threat of eviction hangs over his head. He is only hanging on because he believes that the next Labour Government will abolish the hated bedroom tax. And yet, at the other end of the income scale, taxes are being cut. If the rest of the House does not join Labour in voting for the new clause, people will know what to think.

The next Labour Government will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for the top 1% of earners to ensure that the books are balanced in a fairer way. We will cut taxes for 24 million working people on middle and low incomes with a lower 10p starting rate of income tax. At the next election, the Labour party will put an alternative vision to this Government’s classic 1980s trickle-down economics to the British people. Our vision is to build a new kind of economy that works for communities and ordinary people, and that does not put a premium on social and economic inequality.

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). New clause 14 is simple, and I cannot understand why the Government would not want to produce figures showing whether the 50p tax rate raises more or less money. When the Budget was announced, the Red Book stated that the tax cut would cost £3 billion. If politics is the art of the possible, it is also about priorities, and if we consider the priorities of this Government, we see clearly why that cut was unfair and should be reversed, and why the Government should accept new clause 14 and state why they think that lowering taxes for millionaires is the right thing to do.

We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about the bedroom tax—that was a priority introduced by this Government. The bedroom tax raises only 10%, if not less, of the £3 billion that the 50p tax rate cost. The use of food banks has exploded across the country in all our constituencies, which is a disgrace in a modern society, and people on welfare are waiting for their personal independence payment applications to be processed—at the current rate it will take perhaps 42 years. Tuition fees have trebled, which is hitting young people and aspiration in this country, and we have seen the NHS privatised, with money spent on a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for. Those are the priorities that the Government have introduced, which is why it is important to get from them in black and white as part of the Finance Bill the implications of what a tax rate does, what it raises, what it does not raise, and how much other levels of tax could raise. It may be that some of the pernicious policies introduced by the Government could be reversed if they realised that they could raise more money from different levels of taxation.

Consumer Rights Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

We come to the Report stage of the Consumer Rights Bill. I am minded of the words of the great English churchman Thomas Fuller, who said that our lot was to be born crying, live complaining and die disappointed. Of course, as true Brits, we know that that approach can be best encompassed in a “tut”, but we see the Bill as offering much more than a “tut” for people who have been ripped off. We see the potential of the Bill to free us of that particular malaise, and with that in mind we have tabled a number of amendments that we hope will receive the support of the House.

We believe that the Bill should be subject to the tests—that they should be performed with reasonable care and skill—that it sets for goods and services. At the moment, it is found wanting, and that is why today we are looking for a repeat performance and hope of speedy redress. The new clauses speak to that and in particular to the Opposition’s approach to consumer rights, which should not be only about dealing with problems when something has gone wrong, but, when done well, could avert problems. For that to happen, consumers need three things—more information, strong advocacy and speedy forms of redress.

In introducing the Bill, the Minister has opened a veritable Pandora’s box, given how some of its clauses will be perceived on the consumer landscape in the UK. We are mindful that hope lies at the bottom of Pandora’s box, and we hope with the new clauses to bring hope for how consumer rights legislation could work. Let me explain what I mean. I want to turn first to new clause 3 and new schedule 1, which new clause 3 brings into effect. The schedule refers to the first principle to which I referred—information. How do consumers get the information that they need to make the right choices for themselves the first time? We know that having access to more information is vital to empowering consumers.

The Government’s research, “Better Choices, Better Deals”, argues that if consumers were able to use price comparison sites more effectively, they could gain £150 million to £240 million a year. That is why the Opposition welcomed many of the ideas and intentions behind the midata project to give consumers more access to their information in a portable and accessible format. In Committee we expressed concern that, despite the project, four years on, it is not really working. There is a lack of information coming forward to consumers. The Minister defended the slow progress of the midata project, telling us that taking action now would prejudice the results of a review of the project that she has commissioned, and she did not think that that would be beneficial to the programme or, ultimately, to consumers. We have tabled the new clause and schedule because we fundamentally disagree. We want to go much further.

Currently the midata project covers four areas of consumer data, but we think that the power in the new schedule offers the potential for a framework for improving consumer and citizen access to data in a way that can transform outcomes and improve our consumer markets; that would be good for business and good for Britain.

We do not understand why the Government gave themselves the power, under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to enact the midata project and yet have not done so. The first thing that new schedule 1 does, therefore, is put that power into effect to ensure that consumers get the information they need, in a portable and accessible format, about a key utility bill.

Every time we click, we create wealth—whether we are giving our contact details or browsing online, companies are harvesting information that drives their marketing and product development. Datasets such as store loyalty cards, medical records or tax affairs are an important and revealing resource for both the public and the private sector. Facebook is making more money than any of us can dream about from the content that we are creating. That stream of data should not be one-way. Citizens and consumers should have access to those data in a meaningful way, which allows them to start calling for the kind of products and services that they want.

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

My hon. Friend is making a number of key and critical points about the potential power of data in both the consumer and the public sector. Has she been able to detect a strategic or coherent approach to data access from the Government in respect of the Bill?

[Stella Creasy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in the digital review that she is conducting for Labour, which reflects precisely what she is talking about—a strategic approach. That stands in stark contrast to the shambles that we have seen in relation to the care.data project, the tax return data project and some of the amendments that have been tabled to the Deregulation Bill.

This Government talk about data being like oil—a resource that can be exploited to make new industries and potentially huge profit margins. If we are creating it, however, we should also benefit from it. That is why in the new schedule we have set out a framework to enable that. We want to make sure that the British public are firmly in charge of their own data, so that they benefit from those data and how they can be used.

This should happen not just in the private sector, through the midata project, but in the public sector. It is important that we flag that up, not least because when the Bill was originally proposed, and in Committee, the Minister tried to tell us that it had no relevance to the public sector. She told the Committee:

“The purpose of the Bill is to look at the rights that consumers have in their relationships with business; it is not to look at any rights that consumers have when it comes to public services.”––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2014; c. 66.]

Only when we questioned her in the Committee did she admit that the provisions of the Bill affect the public sector. That gives us the opportunity to ask how we can ensure that consumers and citizens have access to data to make good choices in both the public and the private sector.

So far the Government have admitted that the provisions cover valuable benefits such as personal health budgets, university tuition fees and child care vouchers. Given the framework that the Government have set out, we think that the licence fee, perhaps controlled parking zones, bus fares and possibly even water and sanitation services—directly provided services that consumers pay for and for which they therefore have a contract with the provider—should also be covered.

There are concerns about access to services in the public sector, which the amendments would address. One in five of us has experienced a problem with public services in the past year, but a third of us who have experienced a problem with the public sector do not complain. We are what the Public Administration Committee has called a nation of “silent sufferers”. “More complaints please!” is the title of its report. That is not what is coming forward from the public.

As we all know, good complaints help to generate feedback. They therefore help to make services in the public and the private sector more responsive. I estimate that two thirds of our casework as MPs is about public service decisions gone wrong. Much of that is to do with what we would recognise in the private sector as information asymmetries—people not knowing what services they are entitled to and therefore getting a raw deal.

New schedule 1, which is inserted by new clause 3, is about the lessons that we can apply from the midata project to information across our lives in both the public and the private sector. We know that sharing data directly with citizens can help reform public services and improve outcomes, but we also recognise that the relationship that people have with the public sector is different from their relationship with the private sector, so regulators should look at how to make it work in both fields. We recognise that we are both providers of public services, as taxpayers, and also users and consumers of public services in our daily lives.

The benefits that come from releasing data in the public and the private sector are manifest. We need a clear framework to make sure that it is not only those with the loudest voices or the largest wallets who are able to access the benefits, whether it is giving patients the information they need on their health care to manage conditions for themselves, improving parent and pupil involvement in schools, or communities designing their own cities. The benefits from this process could be legendary, but the Bill does little to move that debate forward. Our concern is that as currently drafted the Bill could create further inequalities, as those who understand their rights in the public sector are able to use them but those who do not cannot.

Let me explain how we think the issue could be addressed. New schedule 1 is about access to information, allowing people to make the right choice the first time. New clause 1 acknowledges that choice is not enough to guarantee a good outcome. People often need an advocate, an expert or an adviser with whom to work through the options and decide what works for them. New clauses 1 and 5 both introduce a clear commitment to advocacy in the public and the private sectors to help improve the relationship betweens service providers and service users.

In the public sector, advocacy can not only improve outcomes but cut costs. A study in Nottingham showed that 60% of cases that a local advice provider was working with involved public sector decisions made badly the first time. Involving advocates reduced the number of complaints by 30%, reducing the burden on the public sector and improving outcomes for the users of services. It is a win-win scenario. The more challenge there is in the public sector, the more information and the more advocacy in the private sector, the more we can make our markets work better and our services serve our people.

However, it is clear from the work that we have done since the initial conversations in Committee that that approach, ethos and understanding of what the Bill could do for the public sector, how information could make a difference, and how advocacy could be beneficial, has not been progressed in Government discussions. It is worrying to us on the Opposition Benches to discover that, having admitted that the Bill will cover sections of the public sector, the Minister has not had talks with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about what that might mean for the licence fee.

Many of us might have watched the Eurovision song contest on Saturday night. Many of us might have had comments about the coverage—some supportive, some negative. Under the Bill, it could be argued that we have a right to a service performed with reasonable care and skill, so if we did not think that Graham Norton was the most erudite host, we could make a complaint. In theory, under the Bill, we would have a right to a repeat performance, a price reduction or a refund. That has huge ramifications for the BBC and for the licence fee, yet no conversations have yet taken place between DCMS and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the matter. We are also told that the Minister has not spoken to Ministers in the Department for Education about how the Bill covers child care tax vouchers, yet she admits that it does. Clearly, the Bill opens up the possibility that some parents will be able to use such rights to challenge the provision of nursery services in their areas, whereas others who do not know their entitlement will not.

We know that the Minister has at least spoken to the Department of Health about how the provisions will affect personal care budgets. She has, apparently, had regular informal contact. Given that many of us know that the silent sufferers are often incredibly vulnerable people, frightened of complaining about a carer because they are frightened of what will happen next, regular informal contact, I would wager, does not cut it when the Bill could transform what happens.

The Minister has, however, spoken to some people in her own Department about tuition fees. Unfortunately, the Minister with responsibility for higher education tells us that no meeting has taken place with external stakeholders about how the Bill will affect tuition fees. That might be because in Committee the Minister was not entirely sure whether students were consumers—having spoken to students about their consumption patterns, I think we can agree that they are when it comes to paying tuition fees. That is why, when the Minister responsible for higher education tells us that there have been no meetings with student representatives, higher education providers and universities on the implications of the Bill, we are rightly worried. The new clauses are needed to put in place a framework to understand those implications.

Many of us may remember some of our university lectures, some positively, some negatively. The fact that we would have the right under the legislation to complain that they had not been prepared or delivered with reasonable care and skill opens that Pandora’s box. That is why the National Union of Students has said that it is concerned about how the Bill is drafted and the possibility that legal redress could be easier and more effective for students with greater resources, whether in terms of finance or access to legal services.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about the rights of consumers and public service users. Does she not find it strange that parties that are so keen to turn passengers and patients into consumers now do not seem to understand the implications of giving potential public service users consumer rights?

[Stella Creasy]

I absolutely agree. We all want to see an empowered citizenry. We believe that would be positive for our public services by encouraging feedback on how services work for the public. But the risk with the Bill as it stands is that those with sharp elbows will do well and those without will simply be left behind. I think that is why both Citizens Advice and Unison, which after all has considerable expertise in some of these relationships, support the amendments and say that they want to see further debate and scrutiny on how we ensure that we do not have a two-tier system, with only those services that have a direct relationship getting better service responsiveness because of such legal rights, and only those people who can access services and complain getting those rights.

Trading standards has told us how it often refers people to what it calls the “sausage machine” of local council complaint services. Under this new legislation, it is not clear whether trading standards would then be able to pick up issues. That could lead to real inequalities in both the public and private sectors without advocacy and clearer information rights, which is why we have tabled the amendments.

I also want to draw colleagues’ attention to paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, which we also believe will tackle nuisance calls. We recognise that the misuse of data is as important as the analysis of data and that there is a need to put in place a proper framework on that. Many of us will have had constituents complain about nuisance calls and texts. Indeed, only this afternoon, while waiting for this debate, I received a text telling me that I could get compensation for an accident that I have not had—perhaps it came from the Government Whips.

However, we know that there is a gap at the moment where it is hard for the Information Commissioner to prove that there has been a lack of consent, where companies themselves will not be clear about whether they have the consent of the person they have bombarded with text messages and phone calls. In one six-month period alone, 71% of landline customers said that they had received a live marketing call and 63% said that they had received a marketing message. We also know that the Information Commissioner receives about 2,500 complaints a month about unsolicited text messages. We want to close that loophole. The all-party group on nuisance calls also recommended tightening the rules on consent, and Ofcom has said that it agrees. Indeed, the Government’s own report on the nuisance calls action plan said that we should do more on consent.

Paragraph 5 of new schedule 1 would enable fines to be imposed for those people who do not show that they have the explicit consent of consumers to send them that kind of marketing message. We think that is entirely proportionate and hope that Government Members, even if they are scrabbling to understand quite what the Bill would do in the public sector, will recognise the issue of nuisance calls and act accordingly to address it. I would also encourage those among us who speak up for taxpayers—perhaps Gary Barlow should take note—to support new schedule 1.

Children’s Toys (Gender–specific Marketing)

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on such an important topic, Mr Hood. I can think of few questions that occupy parents of young children more than how their children can reach their full potential, and there are few long-term challenges that are more important than having a balanced, sustainable economy with science, engineering and manufacturing at its heart. That is what this debate is really about—or, to quote the name of one of the foremost campaigning groups on the subject, it is about why we need to let toys be toys.

Before entering Parliament, I spent two decades as a professional engineer, working across three continents. Regardless of where I was or the size of the company, it was always a predominantly male, or indeed all-male, environment, but it is only when I walk into a toy shop that I feel I am really experiencing gender segregation. At some point over the past three decades, the toy industry decided that parents and children could not be trusted to figure out what to buy without colour-coded gender labelling—that means Science museum toys being labelled “for boys”, whereas miniature dustpans and brushes are “Girl Stuff”, according to SportsDirect.

I say over the past three decades, because there was a time when toys were toys and blue and pink were just colours. An Argos catalogue page from 1976 shows toy houses, prams and so on all in different colours. Now they only sell them in pink. Recently, a Lego advert from 1981 went viral on the internet because it showed a girl proudly clasping her latest Lego creation. None of the text was gender-specific and the girl was actually wearing blue.

What happened? Did someone dye the Y chromosome blue in the ’80s or force the X chromosome to secrete only pink hormones? No. This aggressive gender segregation is a consequence of big-company marketing tactics. Every successful marketeer knows that differentiation makes for greater profit margins and segmentation gives a bigger overall market, so with three-year-old girls only being able to “choose” pink tricycles, the manufacturer can charge more for that special girly shade of pink and the premium princess saddle. Of course, that trike cannot be handed over to a brother or nephew, ensuring further sales of blue bikes with Action Man handlebars. It has got to the point where it is difficult to buy toys for girls that are not pink, princess-primed and/or fairy-infused.

I go to craft markets, including the excellent ones at Grainger market, the Quayside in Newcastle, and Tynemouth station. At least there people can still find a range of colours for boys and girls, but what may be driving big-company profit margins is limiting our children’s choices and experiences. It is ultimately limiting the UK’s social and economic potential, as well as helping to maintain the gender pay gap.

The lack of women in science and engineering has long been a matter of real concern to me. As a child, I suffered from what I now call Marie Curie syndrome—the inability to name more than one woman scientist. During my career in engineering, I realised that many contributory factors were keeping women out, from old-fashioned sexism to parental preference for what were considered cleaner professions. As an MP, I became aware of organisations such as Pinkstinks, which was founded in 2008 to celebrate the fact that, as it put it,

“there’s more than one way to be a girl”.

In 2011, after a campaign by Laura Nelson, Hamleys on Regent street abandoned its pink girls’ floor and blue boys’ floor. That same year, Peggy Orenstein’s book, “Cinderella Ate My Daughter”, explored princess culture and how it is marketed to young girls. The recent complaints about Disney’s attempts to make over Merida, their one feisty, adventurous princess, into yet another pink replicant highlighted the dearth of non-aristocratic role-playing opportunities for girls.

What really made me focus on this issue was a letter that I received from a constituent about Boots in Eldon Square, Newcastle, where I often shop. She said:

“The children’s toys section…displays signs saying ‘girls’ toys’ and ‘boys’ toys’ above the shelves…This perpetuates gender stereotypes...discourages boys from playing with dolls, and girls from playing with Lego.”

At the same time, the group Let Toys Be Toys published a survey that found that half of stores used explicit “boys” and “girls” signs above shelves. It did a lot of work to highlight the impact of such signs on beliefs, attitudes and career choices, as well as the backlash from children and parents, unhappy that their children’s choices were being constrained. Let me quote a recent example from seven-year-old Charlotte, who wrote to Lego about their girls’ Lego range, Lego Friends:

“All the girls did was sit at home, go to the beach, and shop, and they had no jobs but the boys went on adventures, worked, saved people, and had jobs, even swam with sharks. I want you to make more lego girl people and let them go on adventures and have fun ok!?!”

Yes to that, Charlotte.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I rise to apologise to the hon. Lady and to congratulate her. I apologise because I cannot stay for this debate, because of its new timing; I have a meeting to discuss precisely this issue with someone else in another place. I congratulate her on securing the debate, because this is an immensely important subject. I urge her to resist the criticism that I am sure she is receiving from reactionary voices, who say to her, “This is irrelevant. It is political correctness gone mad.” It is not. Such issues shape girls’ attitudes, particularly to science, technology, engineering and maths, or STEM, subjects, and we must address that if we are to address the serious gender gap in engineering and science subjects. I congratulate her unreservedly on securing the debate.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I appreciate his words of support as well as the campaign that he is leading to encourage girls into engineering. It is true that there has been some suggestion that this is not an important debate for today. I know that the economy is the prime concern of my constituents right now, but this is about our long-term economy, our future society and our ability to compete in decades to come.

The issue is of interest to my constituents; another constituent wrote to complain that in the Gateshead Toys R Us, the Lego police helicopter has a sign in front of it telling people that the girls’ Lego range is round the corner in the girls’ aisle—so police helicopters are not part of the girls’ range. The campaigning group, ScienceGrrl, sent me this post from one of its members:

“Recently I bought my daughter new pyjamas, they were from the ‘boys’ section in M&S. They had robots on. My daughter spent about an hour before bed time pretending to be a robot and we talked about electronics and space”.

As that comment and the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) suggested, there is a link between children’s play, how their imagination is inspired and the careers they choose. Research from many sources, including Argos, interestingly, demonstrates that. Analysis from the Association of Colleges shows markedly different career preferences between girls and boys as young as seven, and that is also one of the reasons for the gender pay gap.

I regret that one of the Government’s first actions on coming to power was to end the funding for the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, which sought to provide a coherent strategy to promote gender balance in STEM. I got the impression that the Government saw their role as being to step back and let the market deliver, in what might be described as a “rising tide raises all boats” approach. However, when I started my engineering degree, 12% of my peers were women, and 30 years later, I am afraid to say that the proportion of female engineering students has not increased at all, so the market has not delivered. At 6%, the UK has the lowest proportion of female professional engineers in Europe. India, a country that has a significant gender literacy gap, manages to attract more women into STEM than we do.

That imbalance is a question not only of social justice but of UK competitiveness, and it is a key factor in the gender pay gap. Traditionally male jobs traditionally pay more than traditionally female ones. Key political and social questions about climate change, genetically modified food, healthy ageing and an expanding population have science and engineering at their heart, and I do not believe that it is acceptable to lock out 50% of our population from making their contribution on those important questions.

As the Government struggle to rebalance the economy towards engineering and manufacturing and away from short-term, housing-fuelled growth, I believe that there is support for a more proactive view. I welcome the recent strong support from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for encouraging girls into STEM, and the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire’s vigorous campaign for more female engineers. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), also recently acknowledged the role of toys in putting girls off maths. With such cross-party consensus, and with active campaigning organisations such as Let Toys Be Toys, Pinkstinks, ScienceGrrl and the Everyday Sexism Project, I hope we will see real change.

The latest survey carried out by Let Toys Be Toys in November gave some grounds for optimism. It found that only a fifth, rather than half, of stores still used explicit gender labels, but 72% use gender cues such as colour coding. The best-performing toy stores were Hobbycraft, Toymaster and Fenwick—from Newcastle, although I am sure that that is coincidental—and the worst-performing store was Morrisons. I should say, however, that when it heard of my debate, Morrisons wrote to me to say that it plans to arrange products based on their cost, and to end the use of pink and blue. Tesco had the most gendered catalogue and Debenhams the most gendered website. Newcastle Boots has taken my constituents’ criticisms on board and no longer uses “girls” and “boys” signs to demark toys.

I hope that the debate helps industry to understand the importance that Parliament places on the matter, and the likely consequences of continued gender stereotyping. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify the Government’s position on the gender stereotyping of children’s toys and the impact that it has. What is the Minister doing to encourage more balanced marketing to children? What does she have to say to public sector organisations that may encourage stereotypical views of girls’ play? I am not calling for legislation. However, others have observed that it is illegal to advertise a job as being for men only, but apparently fine to advertise a toy as being for boys only.

Why should girls be brought up in an all-pink environment? That does not reflect the real world. Had anyone attempted to give me a pink soldering iron when I was designing circuit boards, they would have found my use of it not at all in accordance with their health and safety. Just as importantly, why can future fathers not play with dolls?

Yesterday, I became a proud aunt to twins, a girl and a boy. As one might imagine, I did not welcome them into the world with gender-specific or colour-coded toys. I hope that as they grow through childhood, they have the chance to play with toys that are toys, and not colour-coded constraints on their choices.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for securing a debate on this major issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) said earlier, the matter is important and of fundamental significance to our future economy; it is not just a side issue, which is how it can sometimes be portrayed.

As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, those of us with young children cannot help but be aware of how highly gendered children’s toys are. I should declare an interest in that I have two small boys, so my house is full of blue things—very little pink comes through my front door.

One can see at a glance when entering a shop what is intended for girls and what is intended for boys. As the hon. Lady said, that may be blatant—the shelf may say “girls” or “boys” on it—or otherwise girls’ and boys’ toys may be colour-coded or displayed in separate aisles. What message does that send out? What are we telling our children? We are telling them that girls and boys are different, that they like different things and that they have different interests and skills. We are telling them that their gender defines their roles in society and their dreams about the future.

“Pink is for girls and blue is for boys”—such associations are often discussed as though they were fixed, natural and unchanging. As the hon. Lady said, however, it is a recent phenomenon. A couple of years ago, I read an article that referred to advice for new parents from the beginning of the last century—some 100 years ago—that urged parents to dress their boys in pink, because it was such a definite colour, and to leave wishy-washy blue for little girls. That shows quite how much such things can change over time.

The hon. Lady mentioned that if we google images of children’s toys from the 1970s, we find images of a totally different array of toys from those of today. Some toys were certainly intended for girls and some for boys, but plenty were intended for both. We see far less pink and blue and far more bright primary colours, such as orange, yellow, green and red—I appreciate that those are not all technically primary colours—as opposed to pale, pastel colours.

I have with me some images of toys from the ’70s, including an orange toolbox, a blue kitchen and a blue and grey ice cream parlour with girls and boys playing in it. They are from only a couple of decades ago—during my own childhood—but they show a very different image of childhood. If the space hopper were invented today, it would not be iconic orange; there would be a pink version that looked like a cupcake and another version in camouflage khaki. That shows how much things have changed over the years.

Why does the gendering of toys matter? The subject can appear to be something of a fringe interest, but it matters to individuals because it is not fair. Children are actively learning all the time how they are supposed to feel and behave and what will make them acceptable to their social group, family and so on. It is not fair to make little girls feel that they should not be kicking footballs or building with Lego, and it is equally unfair to make little boys feel ashamed of playing netball or of pushing a doll along in a pushchair.

Children should not be made to feel guilty or ashamed about experimenting with different toys and different kinds of play, but that is what we are effectively doing by implicitly labelling toys “not for you”. That process starts at a young age. Children learn through play, and if we want them to explore their skills and interests and to develop to the limits of their potential, we must not restrict that at the age of two, five or 10 by restricting their choices of play.

A boy who has never had a sewing kit may never discover his talent for design. A girl who has never had a Meccano set may never discover that she has real potential as an engineer. Clearly, not every girl who plays with Lego is going to be an architect. I was excellent at designing Lego houses, but my future was obviously not in architecture. Nevertheless, why should we limit girls’ aspirations at so early an age by making things so rigidly defined?

As the hon. Lady said, the issue also matters to society and our economy more broadly. Today, women make an enormous contribution to the UK and there are more women in work than ever before, but they still do not have an equal chance to succeed. Women continue to earn less than men. We are under-represented in senior roles and over-represented in low-paying sectors. More women than men work part time or not at all. Some of that is down to the practical barriers that women face that can stop them getting on in work, and the Government are working with business to remove those barriers wherever we can find them, but some of it comes down to the simple fact that we do not encourage girls to believe in their own potential and explore the full range of their skills.

The way we play as children informs the skills we develop and how we perceive ourselves. Girls and boys take into the classroom assumptions that they develop as part of playing. That has a significant impact on how they then develop, and on their future career aspirations. It is therefore unsurprising that boys who have routinely experienced the sense of accomplishment associated with designing and building something, which can often can come from playing with what would be seen as a boy’s toy, feel more at home with subjects such as maths and science, which utilise such skills more.

If they do not have such experiences when they are younger, girls feel less confident, and it is just a small leap from that to assuming that they are not good at those subjects. That really affects how they progress at school. Assumptions and stereotypes about girls’ abilities and interests—the perception that certain subjects, just like certain toys, just “aren’t for you”—go on to shape the choices girls make at school. Those choices have significant implications.

By the time they get to university level, boys and girls are strongly segregated in some areas with, on the whole, boys dominating in the subjects that can lead to the most financially lucrative careers. In 2013, only 6,600 girls took A-level physics, compared with just over 25,000 boys. That is a massive difference—girls made up just over 20% of the cohort. Of the 13,000 students who took further maths at A-level, only 3,700 were girls. That shows a clear differentiation. Of university places accepted, only 13% of engineering places, 18% of technology places and 22% of mathematics and computer science places are taken by women. Fewer than 9% of engineers in the UK are women, compared with around 20% in Italy and 26% in Sweden. There is no intrinsic reason why we should not be able to make a significant difference to that in the UK.

On the other hand, women made up 89% of students studying nursing and 85% studying education—areas of work that are often poorer paid than those that follow from a science degree. That not only results in women being poorer than men—as the hon. Lady said, 22% of the gender pay gap can be explained by the industries and occupations in which women work—but it also costs our economy significant amounts. There are skills shortages across the science, technology, engineering and maths sector, but as long as girls continue to feel that that world is not for them, our businesses will continue to miss out on vital talent that they need for future development. Put simply, we cannot afford not to allow girls the opportunity to enjoy and pursue the whole range of subjects, starting right at the beginning with their learning through play.

The hon. Lady asked what the Government were doing. They are playing their part. Public pressure on companies helps a lot on this issue, and a number of the organisations she mentioned have been extremely effective. The Government support the Women’s Business Council, which has done excellent work to raise girls’ aspirations. Alongside the council, we are taking action in schools on career advice, apprenticeships, technical colleges, STEM careers, enterprise, child care, equal pay and flexible working, all of which will help girls to reach their full potential in the workplace. In response to the WBC’s recommendation, we are currently developing an online resource for parents of teenage girls that will help them to guide their daughters to make confident and informed career choices independent of gender stereotypes and representations. Hopefully, that will lead girls to make different decisions in future.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) held two round-table discussions towards the end of last year to look specifically at raising girls’ aspirations. Officials have met retailers, manufacturers and others to discuss the issues we are talking about today.

[Chi Onwurah]

I was not aware that the Government had been meeting retailers and others. Can the Minister share some of their responses?

[Jenny Willott]

I can get back to the hon. Lady with more information on that. There has clearly been some progress on the issue—she cited some examples of the moves made by retailers in response to the pressure on them. Some of them are beginning to recognise that there are wider implications to gender-specific marketing. The issue is not just about selling twice as many bikes because pink and blue cannot be used interchangeably; there are broader implications for the economy as well.

There have been some really positive moves from retailers, some of which the hon. Lady talked about. For example, she mentioned Boots, but Debenhams and The Entertainer have also stopped gender-specific labelling of toys, and M&S has committed to making its own-brand toys gender neutral. I find it enormously encouraging that there is starting to be a recognition that things have gone too far and something must be done. I hope that those companies lead the way so that we see such changes emulated more widely.

I recognise that there are some arguments in favour of the gender marketing of toys. For example, science and engineering kits are aimed at girls by using pink and purple to attract them to play with them more, and there are also pink Lego sets, pink globes and so on. It is argued that such products sell well and show girls that science and other potential careers are for them. That might be true, but it raises the issue of whether, in the longer term, that just reinforces the notion that if it is not pink and pretty, it is not for girls. That concerns me. As someone who never wears pink, I feel that we should be able to broaden out. Girls should have wider aspirations, rather than just assuming that they have to play with it if it is pink.

It is often suggested that those of us who oppose gender-specific toys are somehow going against nature and attempting social engineering against children’s perfectly natural and hard-wired preferences, but nothing could be further from the truth. I am not trying to stop boys from playing football or girls from playing with dolls. Nature undoubtedly has a role in how children play and interact with toys. My three-year-old son is completely obsessed with cars, trains and diggers, and he always has been, but he also makes a mean cup of pretend tea and is very good at making pretend cakes. Nature has a role to play, but it is not the be-all and end-all.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister is making an excellent point. Does she agree that the issue is not about saying that boys should be playing with cookery sets or that girls should or must be playing with engineering sets, but about letting them and their parents have the choice, free from external pressures?

[Jenny Willott]

I could not agree more. There will be boys who grow up to be fantastic chefs and designers, and there will be girls who will be professional footballers or engineers or scientists. The issue is about ensuring that children have the choice and are able to play with a wide range of toys to develop their skills across the board and decide what is best for them and where their interests and skills lie. That will be different for every child.

The issue is also about ensuring that parents are able to help their children have that choice without feeling completely bound by the marketing that suggests they are supposed to buy only certain types of toys for their child because of the child’s gender. We should free people to make choices based on the interests, skills and desires of the children, rather than on the associated marketing. Surely it makes sense that when children first start to explore the world and discover their interests and skills, they should be completely free to let their imaginations roam and to identify what they want to do with their lives.

I sense that most reasonable people would agree that it is wrong to limit our children’s horizons, particularly at such an early age; wrong to restrict their creative play and, as a result, their occupational opportunities; and wrong to shame them for wanting to explore a wide range of toys. Perhaps where people differ is on how important they think the issue is and how much impact it has. We could do with some rigorous, high-quality research to help guide parents, teachers, manufacturers, retailers and advertisers on the right and responsible way forward. I have looked, and there seems to be little, if any, research in that area. It would be good to see some research on what impact the issue has; that might persuade people to change how they retail or advertise toys and help parents shape the choices that they make on behalf of their children.

Toys are a hugely important part of our children’s learning and development. It is of course for children and their parents to choose the toys they play with, as we were just discussing. They should be able to make those choices freely from a full range of toys. How our children play helps to shape their aspirations for the future, and I want those aspirations to be based on their abilities and interests, not on stereotypes. I value the right of every single child to be treated as a unique individual and to be given the opportunity to explore their own interests and develop their own potential and talents, wherever they may lie. That is important not only for children now playing, but for the future of the economy.

Question put and agreed to.