Oral Answers to Questions

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am not going to prejudge the work of the joint ministerial working group, which includes Ministers from the Northern Irish Government, my colleague the Exchequer Secretary, who is there on behalf of the Treasury, and the Northern Ireland Secretary. That group will soon produce a report, which will come to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister. We look forward to considering it and responding in due course.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Does the Chief Secretary agree that the seed enterprise investment scheme announced by the Government in the past year is the sort of highly attractive fiscal incentive that will both encourage angel investors to back entrepreneurs and, at the same time, stimulate the job growth in the private sector that we need?

[Danny Alexander]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has been doing to promote the seed enterprise investment scheme. His description of it is absolutely right, and I know it is being looked at widely by investors who wish to invest in small firms in this country. I hope it will help to transform the landscape for that sort of investment in newly formed companies in this country, and I hope that he will continue his hard work.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless]

No, and that is not a sensible point at all, because we have a one-off opportunity. It is this House that ultimately votes, so if any Government Members feel uncomfortable—not because of who I will be following through the Lobby, but because of who may be following me, in support of my Conservative amendment—I say to them: if we send the Prime Minister to Brussels telling him that it is acceptable to agree an inflationary increase, he may come back to this House having agreed that inflationary increase. We will then have to vote on primary legislation, in Committee and on Report, for that inflationary increase for the EU budget, all the way to 2020. If Members do not want that, they should vote today for my amendment.

The other strong argument for the amendment is this. Some people say, “We’re not going to get a real-terms cut,” but we will certainly not get one if we do not even try. If we use the veto, that is not a bad place to be; in many ways, it is better than where we would be with an agreed inflationary increase. There are two strong reasons for that. First, either we operate within a multiannual financial framework under the old, frozen ceilings carried forward, or we agree new ceilings going up by inflation, allowing higher budgets in future. Each of those budgets is always negotiated under qualified majority voting annually; the question is, where we have unanimity and where we need legislation, do we allow inflationary higher limits to 2020 or not?

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Reckless]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall continue, as others may like to come in

The second point is that if there is no agreement on a new MFF, the process of money being transferred from the budget towards the new member states will not continue. What happened, in that disgraceful decision in 2005 when Labour gave away the rebate, is that a process was put in place whereby the new member states do not pay towards our rebate in the way that the old member states do. If the Prime Minister vetoes an MFF package, that process of money shifting to new member states will be suspended; therefore, the process by which the rebate is given away will, at least for that period, be stopped, which is a significant gain for Britain. If there is an inflationary increase, as the Government propose, we will be looking at a net contribution going from £9.2 billion last year to £13.6 billion at the end of the process. We simply cannot afford that.

The European Commission put out its own press release, which asked the question: “What will happen if a new MFF is not agreed?” The press release states that failure to agree a new MFF

“would considerably complicate the adoption of new programmes. And in the absence of new legal bases, including their indicative financial envelopes, no commitments could be made…those multiannual spending programmes…the 2014 budget would probably only cover the agricultural payments and the payments on outstanding commitments,”

and that organisations

“benefiting from EU-funds…would face severe drawbacks.”

If hon. Members are prepared to vote through primary legislation—later, when we get that chance—and if they are happy with an inflationary increase in the EU budget, plus everything else that will happen because of the continued loss of the rebate if that is agreed, they should vote for the Government motion. If hon. Members think that the European Union has too much money and that its budget is too large and needs to be cut, they should support my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I feel rather uncomfortable with what I am about to say, because I agree with pretty much everything that has been said, particularly by Government Members. Of course we all want a real cut—I am sure the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary do. The nub of the debate, however, is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said. It is about how the Prime Minister negotiates, and negotiation is about achieving realistic objectives.

I think that the multiannual financial framework, or EU budget to use a simpler term, is insane. For the European Union to ask for a 10% real-terms increase above inflation is insulting to our constituents and to the people of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland, who are being told to pull in their belts. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said—I think I am getting this right—that people are being asked to make painful cuts in their household budgets. Each and every one of us has constituents who are being told to pull in their belts, and we all agree with that.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am flattered that my hon. Friend has quoted me. One way in which the Prime Minister’s hand can be strengthened is by having a united Parliament rather than a disunited Parliament when he goes to Brussels to negotiate on my birthday, 22 November.

[Mr Newmark]

I hasten to add that it is my wife’s birthday as well.

Let us discuss and decide today what message the Prime Minister should be given. Clearly he will read Hansard, and he will know the message that the Whips give him and so on, but do we want to bind his hands when he goes into the negotiations? He has already discussed a real-terms freeze with the Germans, French and Dutch, who are buying into the fact that this is a reasonable prospect. Do we want to push him over the edge and ask for something that we know he can never realistically achieve?

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The real-terms freeze that the hon. Gentleman says is realistic is of course an inflationary rise. Does he really believe that it is unrealistic that the European Union can find modest efficiencies to deliver even a modest cut? When I am to his right on a subject, he is definitely wrong.

[Mr Newmark]

If it was the hon. Gentleman and I negotiating, I am sure we could find some realistic efficiencies. The fact is, however, that for the time being—I say this for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—we are in something called the European Union. We therefore have to negotiate with more than 25 other countries.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Newmark]

No, I think I will proceed.

On the Labour party’s chutzpah and hypocrisy, the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) argued for more financial restraint and for looking after taxpayers’ interests, but there was a 47% real-terms increase in the EU budget while Labour was in government. What has suddenly changed their minds? We need not take any lectures from them. Their policies are incoherent, opportunistic and completely lacking in credibility.

That brings me to the nub of the argument: which way will we go? Will we ask the Prime Minister for something that he can achieve, which is a real-terms freeze? That does not mean that he will not do better than that, because I believe he will fight our corner for real-terms cuts. I am sure he is listening to everybody who is fighting for real-terms cuts, or at least to Government Members, but what is his bottom line? What is the red line beyond which we should pull out the veto, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East has not admitted he is willing to use? That red line has to be at least a real-terms freeze. That is what today’s debate is really about.

I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider what message we want to give the Prime Minister. It should be that he should negotiate in the best interests of UK plc. That means fighting for a real-terms cut—I want that, and so do all my right hon. and hon. Friends—but the bottom line should be a real-terms freeze, which I believe is achievable in the negotiations.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I welcome that investment in infrastructure improvements, but it was something that I had to campaign and fight for as a prospective parliamentary candidate—not even a Member of Parliament. That says something about the priorities of the last Labour Government. My constituents look with confidence to this Government to take positive action to rebuild our roads and railways, to meet the ever-increasing demands of the growing population in the county of entrepreneurs.

I urge Ministers to consider some particular projects in Essex. The first area is rail, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Commuters on the Greater Anglia franchise return £110 million a year to the Treasury on a profitable franchise, but face some of the longest delays and worst facilities in the country. For a modest fraction of the money that the Government receive from the franchise, the rail service could be upgraded from being one of the worst performing in the country to one of the best. We are lobbying the Government, in particular the Department for Transport and the Treasury, to hear our case on this. Local commuters, not only in Essex but along the route of the franchise, would welcome Government investment in the line.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important piece of infrastructure to build would be a loop between Braintree and Witham? That is something for which I have campaigned for 10 years. That important link would help all those who commute from Braintree to London.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point for our constituents. Branch lines are a vital part of our rail network for commuters. Let us not forget that Essex is growing. We now have more homes and commuters, so we desperately need that investment.

I also press Ministers to use the opportunity presented by the Bill to invest in the road network. Anyone who is familiar with Essex will know that the A12 and the A120 are vital economic links for the county. They are at the heart of Essex, connect London to Great Yarmouth and Hertfordshire to the port of Harwich, and pass Stansted airport. Their importance to the region cannot be understated. The A120 is the country’s 10th most dangerous road. It is regarded as such a vital economic link that it has been designated as part of the trans-European road network, yet it has not received the investment that it needs to deal with capacity, in particular for freight. Upgrading those roads would send out a powerful signal that Essex is at the heart of the economic engine room of our country and will continue to be so. It would support traffic going to our ports and airports, leading to more jobs, growth and prosperity in the county, from which the Treasury would benefit.

The Bill is about financing options. The debate has touched on the financing issues of the past, in particular with respect to the private finance initiative. I would welcome an insight into the Treasury’s thinking on the progress that has been made on alternative investment vehicles, including infrastructure bonds, direct foreign investment, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. How can we strengthen our links with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds overseas to support infrastructure investment in this country?

I want to highlight the London gateway, in south Essex, as a good example of foreign direct investment. If the Minister has the opportunity, I would urge him to visit this amazing project, which is run by DP World, as it provides a clear insight into what can be done when foreign investors commit to building major infrastructure projects in Britain. Dubai Ports has invested in building one of the world’s leading deep-sea container ports. The level of job creation will be immense. The project is situated at the gateway to London, and although it came with some bureaucratic hurdles—that goes without saying with big projects—there are lots of insights that we can learn and benefit from when it comes to ambitious infrastructure investments.

This Bill has the power to transform our nation’s infrastructure beyond anything we have seen for a long time, whether it is through road, rail, planning or energy projects. I urge the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister to rule nothing out and to be ambitious in their thinking. Naturally, I urge Ministers to send a powerful message to my constituents and the county of Essex by effectively applying their commitment to infrastructure renewal and helping to get our county moving. It goes without saying that I support the Bill’s Second Reading.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

This Bill is a small but necessary step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—and not just her, but many members of both coalition parties—has repeated the mantra, which we hear time and again, about Labour’s borrowing being the cause of all evil. They sound like a record stuck in a groove. It is not surprising that the public are losing confidence in the coalition parties. Two years ago they told the public that the Government were borrowing too much and that they would clear the deficit by the end of this Parliament in 2015. My party agrees that the deficit, which was necessary to stop the 2008-09 meltdown, has to be cleared, but we warned the coalition that if it cut too fast, it would snuff out growth, which would reduce tax receipts and increase the national debt.

Let us look at the debt figures. When the coalition came to power, the national debt stood at £779 billion. The latest figures, for July this year, show that in just over two years under this Government’s stewardship, the national debt has risen by 33% to £1,032 billion—above £1 trillion for the first time in this country’s history, as a result of the economic policies that the two Government parties have been pursuing, and this from a party that is worried about borrowing. There is no prospect whatever of the deficit being eliminated by the end of this Parliament. That was a brave promise, but one that will not be met. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the national debt is set to rise to £1,437 billion by 2015-16—getting on for double what it was when the coalition parties came into government.

[Mr Newmark]

But under the hon. Gentleman’s party’s proposals the national debt would be increasing by even more, so what is the logic in what he says?

[Hugh Bayley]

No, it would not, and that is the central fallacy. If we snuff out growth, we snuff out revenues and the Government spend more on benefits for people who are unemployed. If we promote growth, we increase the Government’s revenues and we are thereby able to reduce the deficit.

I would acknowledge that the UK went into recession in 2008. Labour policies, including our policy to go for short-term borrowing to jump start the economy, pulled the UK out of recession in the middle of 2009. By the time of the general election, under Labour there was a recovery that had delivered four quarters of growth. Since the general election, there have been three further quarters of growth and five quarters, under the coalition Government, in which the economy has been shrinking—quarter 4 in 2010, quarters 2 and 4 in 2011, and the first two quarters of this year. It is therefore quite clear to me that plan A has failed.

This Bill represents a U-turn, and it is a U-turn I welcome. I wish it had come earlier, but the Government are right to bring forward these proposals. However, if the Bill is to make a significant difference to growth, and therefore to the Government’s ability to reduce indebtedness, they will have to drive forward investment with real determination and vigour. I therefore have some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. First, last year, in 2011, the value of new orders in the construction industry was £46 billion. Clause 2(1) permits the Government to commit a further £50 billion to infrastructure, but I would like to know against what time scale they expect that level of investment to be committed. Are the Government going to commit to £5 billion in new orders for the construction industry—a 10% increase in round terms—in the year to come, or do they hope to commit the lot in one year and thereby double the level of investment? These are crucial questions. Will the Government provide a quantum change in the level of infrastructure investment in this country, or will they tinker at the edges?

My second question relates to clause 2(2), which we have already discussed a bit, which says that the £50 billion ceiling will apply to expenditure and contingent liabilities. However, despite the Chief Secretary’s clarification, I am still not quite clear whether the Government intend to count the full value of the loan guarantees against the £50 billion or a lower figure, tied to their estimate of a proportion of the guarantees which they expect would be drawn down in hard cash.

Thirdly, will the Government guarantee that their assistance will go to all regions, with extra help for those parts where infrastructure investment has taken the hardest hit? I have looked at the change in the value of orders for new construction in Great Britain between 2009 and 2011, and the figure varies enormously from region to region. In London, infrastructure investment in 2011 was up 18% on what it had been in 2009, in the last year of the Labour Government. In the south-east the figure was up by 6% and in the north-east it was up by 14%. However, in all other regions of England, as well as in Wales and Scotland, there was a decline, with infrastructure investment down 3% in the south-west, 9% in Scotland, 15% in the east midlands, 21% in the west midlands, 23% in the east of England, 31% in Yorkshire and the Humber and in the north-west, and 32% in Wales. Will the Government target money on those regions, including my region of Yorkshire and the Humber, that need help most?

Fourthly, clause 1(3) defines “provision”—the uses to which the £50 billion will be put—to include design and construction, as well as operation and repair. It looks to me as though the Government intend this new vehicle to be the substitute or replacement for the PFI model. If that is their intention, I would like the Minister to describe a bit more what the Government have in mind.

Fifthly, the Government’s national infrastructure plan, published in November last year, included flood defences and communications in its definition of “infrastructure”. We have heard that the Government would regard it as possible to use the resources that the Bill will make available to improve high-speed broadband, for instance, in rural areas such as north Yorkshire. However, flood defences are not mentioned in the Bill. I would therefore welcome a clarification from the Minister about whether flood defence schemes will be seen as infrastructure under the terms of the Bill, and therefore fundable from the £50 billion that is being set aside.

My final point relates to apprentices, a subject that I asked questions about when the Government first started to introduce measures to promote capital investment, in the autumn statement last year. The use of £50 billion of extra public money—or more, if the Government are successful in using their contribution to leverage in more resources from the private sector—to support infrastructure investment will provide a tremendous opportunity to boost the number of apprenticeships in the UK construction industry. We could end up with far more people being trained in the skills that our economy needs, now and in the future, and become less reliant on bringing those skills in from abroad. Will the Minister explain what conditions the Government will place in contracts for which they provide guarantees or loan finance to ensure that the contractors increase the number of apprentices they take on and train?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

It is certainly not hot air. It is very cold. The technology is well worth looking into; it is all about the transfer of pressure.

The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) talked about the proximity of the Bill to private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, and I agree that that proximity exists. We need to learn lessons, however, from our experience of the more complicated and convoluted PFI schemes. We need more flexibility, and we need to give the public and private sectors the confidence to think, “Let’s get this done”. We need to generate a can-do approach, and the Bill will go some way towards achieving that.

[Mr Newmark]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should not do all the heavy lifting when it comes to funding these projects? It is important that the private sector should play its role in ensuring that public projects get funded, and that it should act as a partner in any funding of infrastructure projects.

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill provides a comfort zone for the private sector that will enable it to get involved and to work as a partner with the public sector to deliver the kind of infrastructure that we desperately need.

These arrangements have worked before; the Hoover dam was a good example. It involved hydro-electricity, a relatively modern form of energy, and it is still generating electricity today. No one would claim that it was a panacea, but it was certainly an example of the right kind of investment, and the right kind of relationship between the public and private sectors. We can look to other examples and say, “Yes, this is the way forward to enable the private sector to give comfort.”

In parallel to the Bill, we also need the appropriate policy frameworks to give the sectors a sense of the direction in which we are going. I have mentioned energy, but that applies to transport as well. For example, I hope that the Government will come up with a realistic solution to the question of airport capacity, and that we can be bold enough to recognise that more capacity is needed. We should be thinking big-time about some sort of solution in the Thames estuary or elsewhere. That solution should also include regional airports, and we need a policy framework and the necessary medium-term planning to allow all that to happen.

That brings me to local authorities. It is no good simply saying that we are entering happy times for investment if local authorities do not recognise that they have a role to play in delivering the necessary planning outcomes, and that they need to work together to determine where the most important infrastructure projects should be placed. There must be relationships between local authorities as well as within them if we are to deliver the desired outcomes.

The Bill will motivate the private sector to get involved; it should encourage those who are interested in infrastructure to feel that forward planning is taking place and that they should get involved in the process. I hope that the Government will continue to develop the idea that we need co-operation between the private and public sectors, and that together we will end up with some worthwhile outcomes.

Summer Adjournment

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Mr Brooks Newmark)]

I begin by thanking the Chief Whip for indulging me this one time by allowing me to speak. As the House is aware, in the Whips Office we take a vow of silence, so I am particularly pleased to be given this opportunity to respond to Members in the area of business, innovation and skills, and to thank everyone for their excellent contributions. I feel a little like Garbo in her first talkie, when the next day’s headlines were, “Garbo Talks”, although when tomorrow’s press reports that “Brooks Talks”, I suspect it will not be about my performance at the Dispatch Box.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for organising today’s debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for organising the format, which I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is known as the Hollobone format, in which there is a rapid-fire series of short debates and short replies—a sort of political speed-dating, in which the Member raises his or her questions and sees whether or not he or she fancies the relevant Minister’s replies. I shall therefore do my best to make the Government as attractive as possible in relation to all the areas covered in the debate.

Before I begin my formal response to hon. Members’ contributions, I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) on his excellent maiden speech, which was delivered with warmth and a deep understanding of the community he represents.

Let me respond first to the hon. Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth), all of whom rightly drew attention to the important issue of English provision to speakers of other languages. I know that hon. Members have previously campaigned on this issue and have highlighted the importance of English language provision to members of their respective communities. I am sure that they will agree that, although the ability to speak English is important to ensuring integration, if employers wish to recruit abroad—I address this point particularly to the hon. Members for Nottingham South and for Sheffield Central—they must not expect the state to pick up the cost of teaching their workers English. The reforms will target public funding to those in the greatest need and will ensure that higher standards are set for providers, thereby making ESOL provision work better for learners, employers, and taxpayers.

I am sure that hon. Members will have seen the second impact assessment, and yesterday’s written statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, in which he further clarified our policy in this important area. Members will be aware that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to formulate a strategy specifically to target vulnerable communities and particularly women and families who rely on community-based English language learning to help them gain access to public services and to communicate with their children’s schools. That point has been stressed by all the hon. Members who spoke on this issue. The Government are anxious to ensure that women and families do not lose out on this important provision.

My final point on this issue is that my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has listened to and worked with the Association of Colleges and other key providers to make sure that we make rapid progress in this area—we hope by September when we reconvene—to ensure further and better integration in our communities.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has demonstrated his lifelong interest in horology and has done much to promote that sector. I particularly appreciate his concerns about horology training facilities in the UK and the need for small, specialist courses, and I agree that we must support specialist British industries such as the watch-making and clock-making industry. I add that, although there is a British watch maker called Newmark, we are not related. My hon. Friend rightly cited the importance of the Government’s internship programme, and I assure him that the Government are exploring the opportunities for the craft sector to engage with the apprenticeship programme. I have met my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning to discuss this matter, and he will write to my hon. Friend about the progress that the Government are making to boost craft apprenticeships so that Britain will become the international centre of excellence in horology that he so rightly wants it to be.

On regulation, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) should be commended for his continued focusing of attention on the behaviour of the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, which he has mentioned in this place in the past. I particularly thank him for drawing my attention to the need for greater transparency and good governance, especially for companies dealing with developing countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Government expect and the law requires all UK directors of companies to adopt high standards of business conduct. We rightly focus on bad behaviour and we certainly do not condone criminal offences such as bribery or phone hacking. We need to help directors and shareholders through a strong system of corporate governance. Overall, the current system works well but needs to evolve continually to meet new challenges.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for highlighting the importance of having a strong town centre and a vibrant community, as well as for continuing to be a strong champion for Swindon and for mentioning the importance of supporting retailers and small businesses in his area. I agree that having a successful and buzzing town centre helps to create and maintain jobs in shops and offices. A vibrant town centre creates a positive image that attracts new businesses and employment. Indeed, we should applaud the work of independent groups such as Forward Swindon and InSwindon which, in conjunction with the local council, have sought to revitalise growth and prosperity in the town centre.

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for focusing on Lloyds TSB and the sale of flats in the Cube in Birmingham, and for highlighting the concerns of Mrs Shah and other small investors. He raised the inability of flat owners to secure mortgages, and I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be made aware of his concerns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is right to raise the important issue of Tata Steel and the development of north Lincolnshire. He mentioned the importance of renewable industry in Lincolnshire and the need for improved transport links. The pan-Humber local enterprise partnership has focused on strategic opportunities growth based on renewable energy, ports and logistics, and chemicals among other things. The Humber LEP is bidding for an enterprise zone to support the creation of renewable clusters in the area. I shall of course pursue that matter with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the demands of local people and investors can be met. On Tata Steel, the recent meeting between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Members to discuss the issue was cancelled, and will be rearranged, as is the case with a visit by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Prime Minister has expressed disappointment at job losses resulting from reductions at Tata Steel, but he is working hard with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring a taskforce together to ensure that we do everything possible to mitigate the impact on local jobs and communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) is right to emphasise economic growth. He mentioned the importance of not driving growth with debt, and the need to reduce unnecessary regulation. Growth remains at the centre of the Government’s strategy, and the growth review will work throughout this Parliament to address barriers facing industry. The Government’s role is to create the conditions conducive to private sector investment and to make long-term choices, not offer short-term fixes. We continue to listen to businesses to understand how to help them.

Finally, on maternity and paternity leave, Government proposals will allow both parents to take an active, caring role while retaining their attachment to the workplace. Our proposals allow more flexibility, because one size does not fit all firms or families. We will work with businesses to help them to adapt to these changes. My hon. Friend made a specific point about national insurance, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is made aware of his concerns. Once again, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for arranging this debate, all the speakers for their contributions and wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all Members a relaxing summer break.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Thank you, Minister. Before we move to the health debate, I remind Members who are taking part that page 5477 of the Order paper states:

“Members are expected to attend throughout the debate for which they are grouped.”

That includes listening to the Minister at the end of the debate, so it is regrettable that some Members who participated in the debate that has just concluded are no longer in the Chamber. I am sure that the Whips will inform them.

Health