Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The academic subjects in the baccalaureate reflect the knowledge and skills that young people need to progress to further study or employment. In fact, the E-bac subjects are what the Russell group calls the “facilitating subjects” at A-level, the ones that are most likely to be required or preferred for entry to degree courses and keep more options open.

On social mobility, it cannot be right that children from the poorest backgrounds are significantly less likely to have the opportunity to take the baccalaureate subject GCSEs. Just 8% of children eligible for free school meals took that combination of subjects last year, compared with 24% of pupils overall.

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

I welcome increases in the number of pupils studying science, but they need to be at all levels and across all abilities. Does the Minister not agree with the president of the Institution of Engineering and Technology that by downgrading the engineering diploma in the face of almost universal industry opposition, he is failing our young people by not providing a non-academic route into engineering and science?

[Mr Gibb]

I am afraid that the premise of the hon. Lady’s question is wrong. We have not downgraded engineering. The principal learning unit of the engineering diploma is still very important in the performance tables. We asked Alison Wolf to examine all the vocational qualifications, and she has streamlined them, driven out the weaker ones that do not lead to progress and employment and left us those of much higher quality. We have 150 very high-quality vocational qualifications, including the principal learning element of the engineering diploma, which we value very highly indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the care he shows in ensuring that every school in his constituency finds itself in the right position and has the right status. When an academy order is granted, it is a rules-based process; if a school satisfies certain criteria, it is appropriate that an academy order be issued in most circumstances. Subsequently, however, a number of concerns—beyond those that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised—are being investigated. At the conclusion of that investigation, I will make sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as the constituency Member, and others are informed about the decision that is eventually taken.

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

8. What recent discussions he has had on academies and free schools in Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

My Department has a series of meetings with individuals in Newcastle and elsewhere about the progress of academy and free school applications.

[Chi Onwurah]

A free school is being proposed in Newcastle right next to an academy that was built only three years ago. Additionally, primary and secondary schools across the constituency are being forced to convert to academy status against the wishes of parents. Now that the city council finds that it faces a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds for these conversions, will the Secretary of State assure me that the council tax payers of Newcastle will not have to pay for the chaos he is imposing on our education system?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As was explained earlier, the Prime Minister, the Trade and Investment Minister, I and others have made strong representations to the Indian Government on the merits of BAE Systems for this contract. The hon. Gentleman will know that the contract was narrowed down to two companies on the basis of quality. The Indian Government appear to have made a narrow decision based on price, but this is by no means the end of the process. BAE Systems will have plenty of opportunities to restate its case on quality and life-time costs and we shall reinforce it.

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

The Secretary of State has leapt to the defence of the tax deal by which a public servant running the Student Loans Company avoids tax of £40,000 a year. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman is not as vigorous in defending the interests of small businesses when it comes to bank lending. Can he confirm, as the Minister implied earlier, that this arrangement will end immediately? Does he agree that when his Government say, “We’re all in this together”, they mean the tax avoiders and the excessively paid, not the people in businesses who desperately need support in order to get our economy working again?

[Vince Cable]

My colleague, the Minister for Universities and Science, has already given a very full answer on this issue. When I spoke about it earlier, I should have made it clear that Mr Lester had accepted a pay cut, not a tax cut. In addition, there will shortly be an urgent question on the matter, when any further details can be pursued. As for the wider policy questions, we made it very clear last week that we believe that our reforms of executive pay will radically reduce the rewards for failure and mediocrity in business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

We are committed to postgraduate education in the UK, and of course we will continue to review the implications for it as our higher education reforms come through, but at the moment we are seeing an increase in the number of postgraduate students in the UK—a record of which we can be proud.

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

Eighteen months into a Government supposedly focused on growth, we finally have a paper focused on innovation—the engine of growth. We welcome it and will consider it carefully. However, we have seen that this Government’s fine words are not matched by action. The director of the CBI recently described their action on solar panels as the

“third smack about the head”

for investors in renewables. In China, the US, India, Germany and Finland Governments are taking action to create large-scale technological and market opportunities in renewables, ICT, pharma and nanotechnology. What real action will the Government take as a result of the report?

[Mr Willetts]

The report that we are publishing today is a list of the actions that we have already taken and the further actions that we are proposing to take. That includes technology innovation centres, including specific provision for renewables. It also includes the reintroduction of the Smart awards, which were run into the sand under the previous Government, and a research and development tax credit that will be worth more than £1 billion to companies large and small.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

Of course, we have been able in the past year to fund six of the eight capital projects that the science community identified as the most important. We think that that has been a considerable achievement in tough times, and we will continue to try to secure financing for other capital programmes in the future.

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

The Secretary of State recently said that all long-term economic growth was linked to innovation, yet one year after he claimed to have protected the science budget, the independent Campaign for Science and Engineering has revealed that its budget has been slashed by 12%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned. The Minister’s own Department says that cuts to science will damage our world-leading position, yet businesses up and down the country are being denied the innovation support that they need, and the shambles in university funding makes it harder for universities to provide science places. If innovation is the engine of growth, why is the Secretary of State doing so much damage to it?

[Mr Willetts]

We in the coalition are absolutely committed to the importance of science and research, and we are strengthening the links between science and research and the business community. We are also offering cash protection for the science budget across all main current expenditure, which the hon. Lady’s party never did in government. The very source that she has just cited, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, only a fortnight ago

“welcomed Chancellor George Osborne’s announcement that £195m of new investment will be spent on science and engineering.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

Where the performance of an academy is unacceptably low, we will ensure that urgent action is taken to bring about sustained improvement. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from offering help to underperforming academies, but ultimately it is for the academy or the sponsor to decide whether to accept that help. The success of the academies programme has meant a changing role for local authorities and they will have an important role to play as the champions of pupils and parents in the area, ensuring both sufficiency and quality of places.

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

Many head teachers and governors in my constituency tell me that they feel pressurised into converting to academy status, not only because of the financial incentives but because it is the Government’s policy that as many schools as possible should become academies. Could the Minister say whether that is the case and explain the role of local authorities in state education in future?

[Mr Gibb]

There is no compulsion to convert to academy status, but all the evidence from around the world is that three factors give rise to higher performance: autonomy, high-quality teaching and external accountabilities—and it is autonomy that head teachers seek when they apply for academy status. There is no incentive, financially, to become an academy, as academies are funded on exactly the same basis as maintained schools.

St George’s Day and St David’s Day Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on moving the Second Reading of his Bill, and on making so many pertinent points.

Many great and some not so great men and women have attempted to define the English identity. I will not compete with them by trying to weave tea, Shakespeare, queuing and tabloids into a national narrative. I am even less well qualified to pontificate on the essence of Welshness.

The Labour party strongly supports the celebration of the English and Welsh national identities. We are proud that we helped to reclaim the cross of St George from the British National party. I think it is true to say that when we now see it flying on our streets, all English hearts can swell with pride, rather than fear racist insults. The Welsh have been ahead of the English in maintaining a strong focus on and pride in their national symbols: the flag of St David, the daffodil and their national dress.

Many St George’s day celebrations are held in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne Central. Kids of all ethnic backgrounds delight in recreating St George’s feats of heroism, to which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred. I tried to emulate St George’s courage and skill by competing in the egg and pan race at the Villa Victoria’s St George’s fun day in the Westgate area of Newcastle. I am afraid that I was not worthy of his memory, but I will have another opportunity next year to carry off the golden frying pan.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Perhaps the hon. Lady would have more joy if she participated in “Dragons’ Den”.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will consider that in the run-up to next year’s event.

The royal wedding in April was a huge celebration of national identity. A million people came to London to celebrate with good humour and great pride, and all over the country people gathered in pubs, parks, streets and halls to watch. Even republicans managed to enjoy it in their own way and with good grace. We hope that the Government are already putting in place measures to ensure that the Queen’s diamond jubilee next year is as “amazing” as the wedding, as Her Majesty is reported to have characterised it.

The Opposition do not oppose Second Reading and look forward to seeing the Bill in Committee, but a number of important issues have to be considered before we will support it. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon considered the economic impact, and we are aware of the Government estimate that an additional national bank holiday would cost £2.9 billion. That would have clear implications for business, trade unions and other stakeholders.

There are issues besides costs for the Committee to examine. For example, we must make fair international comparisons. As the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) said, I am not sure it is fair to claim that we have significantly fewer holidays than others, because in France, for example, if May day falls on a Saturday or Sunday there is no day off in lieu. With our strong sense of fairness, we ensure that a bank holiday is always a working day. Taking that into account, I believe that, on average, other European countries have only a slightly larger number of bank holidays. The French Government are reportedly considering reducing the number of public holidays. The hon. Lady pointed out that the US has more, but the trade-off is that far less holiday time is provided for businesses and workers.

There is a further concern that is the subject of daily and hourly discussion throughout these isles—the weather. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, an April bank holiday has little chance of coinciding with an English heat wave—nor, I am told, is March the best time to showcase Welsh sunshine. As a nation, we are working harder over longer hours, in more stressful conditions, so should we not have a decent chance of decent weather on a day off?

Furthermore, some might question the principle of telling hard-working men and women what they should do with their time off. It does not sound very English, does it? Unlike the French, the English have no need of an académie to celebrate the language of Shakespeare. Some might question whether a bank holiday is necessary to strengthen the homeland of Churchill, Brunel, Boadicea and St Cuthbert, to name but a few, or for that matter the home of Owain Glyndwr and the Eisteddfod.

As has been mentioned, however, a poll conducted for St David’s day 2006 found that 87% of people in Wales wanted it to be a bank holiday, with 65% being prepared to sacrifice a different bank holiday. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) referred to the strong support in Wales for a St David’s day bank holiday. We therefore believe that there is strong evidence of popular interest in making St David’s day and St George’s day bank holidays, and that it is worth while examining in more detail how the matter can be taken forward. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in pre-consultation on the May day bank holiday, and as a result we hope to learn more about British attitudes to bank holidays. We hope, though, that we will not lose our May day bank holiday.

We believe that we should celebrate our national identity, and unlike the Government we believe in promoting strong local, regional—we have not yet banned the R-word—and national identities. We look forward to discussions in Committee to see whether the Bill is the best way of doing so.

Regulatory Authorities (Level of Charges) Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I commend the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) not only for his customary skill in securing such an optimal slot for his private Member’s Bill, but for his interest in this very important area. Not enough Members are sufficiently excited by regulation, but when growth is flatlining and businesses continue to struggle with the effects of a challenging economy, it is important that we discuss the role of regulators and particularly their impact on businesses.

As somebody who formerly worked for the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to praise, I am familiar with the effect that regulation has on businesses of all sizes. I understand his deep frustration with the Government’s broken promises on regulation. Regulation protects consumers and employees’ rights; it ensures that our industries play their part in moving towards a green, sustainable future; and it keeps citizens safe. It has no doubt saved many lives. It is therefore important that it is effective and enforceable, but challenges arise when ill-thought-through regulation has unforeseen consequences or is interpreted bureaucratically and inflexibly.

[Stephen McPartland]

Police forces have recently suggested that inflexible health and safety regulations have prevented them from doing their job and from going to help people in dangerous situations. Does the hon. Lady agree with them?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We can all agree that the work of the police needs to be supported by effective regulation and by ensuring that our police have the rights needed to pursue their necessary duties in the best way possible.

Regulation can certainly represent an unacceptable burden on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which may not have the legal advice to interpret regulation accurately or the resources to implement it fully. Like many hon. Members, I am a passionate advocate of effective measures to free businesses from red tape, but I do not believe that the answer is to impose arbitrary restrictions on authorities that could hinder their enforcement capabilities. I am afraid that I am not entirely convinced by the Bill. It would introduce restrictions on a wide range of different regulators, and it would therefore need considerable examination in detail in Committee.

When in power, Labour sought to reduce regulation, by introducing the Better Regulation Commission and the ongoing better regulation programme, and made a number of legislative changes to reduce the costs of regulation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not be promoting the Bill if the Government had managed to keep their headline-grabbing promises on reducing regulation. As the director general of the Institute of Directors is quoted as saying in yesterday’s Financial Times, the Government’s rhetoric on red tape and planning has yet to be matched by action.

[Mr Chope]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady is not supporting my Bill. She compares this Government with the previous Government, but what does she say about the fact that, under the previous Government, some fees and charges, particularly those of the then Passport Agency, shot up by four times the rate of inflation?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am expressing considerable doubts about the Bill, but I have not said whether or not we will support it—it is too early to say.

It is regrettable that charges have risen in regulatory authorities, not only for passports but in a number of other areas that hon. Members have mentioned. It is the duty of those to whom the regulators are accountable to ensure that those charges provide value for money for our citizens. I am not convinced that an arbitrary imposition of centralised regulation can effect the right kind of change in regulators’ behaviour.

Answers to parliamentary questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) revealed that, by February this year, this Government had introduced 424 new regulations while removing just 172. That is hardly one-in, one-out. It was reported at the time that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills read the riot act to Cabinet colleagues about their lack of progress, while neglecting to mention that his own Department, which is responsible for regulation, had in 10 months of government removed precisely no significant regulations, while introducing 53 new ones. So I understand why the hon. Member for Christchurch expresses frustration.

The Opposition believe that it is essential to take a fresh look at existing regulation, how it is implemented and particularly how it is translated from European directives. However, I am concerned that this arbitrary blanket ban is, like too much of the Government’s current legislative programme, lacking in detail in many key areas. For example, some regulators’ charges are a percentage of their stakeholders’ turnover. Will the Bill limit the absolute amount or the percentage?

Regulators may at times be able to reduce charges. Would not the Bill create a perverse disincentive to reducing charges, given that regulators would know they have to come to Parliament to increase them? For example, in 2006 Ofcom raised the application fees for radio licences while reducing the ongoing fees in order to meet the important criterion of reflecting cost. Under the Bill it would not have been able to do that.

At the heart of the Bill there appears to be a principle of centralisation. Regulators operate in a wide range of industries and areas. Is it appropriate that one regulation should apply to all? In response to the question, “Who regulates the regulators?” the hon. Member for Christchurch answered, “This Bill,” but in most cases, regulators are answerable to Select Committees and Departments of Government, which are answerable to the people. Does not the Bill imply that these Select Committees and Departments are failing in their duty? Do not the many criticisms expressed by hon. Members who have spoken imply that the issue should be addressed directly, rather than obscured by a blanket ban?

We understand the hon. Gentleman’s deep frustration with the Government’s false promises on regulatory reform and we strongly support reductions in and improvements to regulation, but we fear that the Bill could have significant negative consequences for regulators and for industry. We need smart regulation, not blanket bans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

In November, the Chancellor took £1.4 billion out of capital investment for science. Last week, he gave back about £100 million—strangely, all of it to Conservative constituencies. Our country’s leading reputation in science deserves better than that. When this week’s Royal Society report, “Knowledge, networks and nations”, spelled out the rise of China, India, Korea and Brazil as science superpowers, it was unable to set out the UK’s long-term plan because there is not one. Will the Secretary of State prevail on the Chancellor to agree a long-term plan for science funding, as we had under Labour?

[Vince Cable]

There is a long-term plan for science funding. The hon. Lady obviously has not followed the comments that were made by the Royal Society and many others in the science community welcoming the flat-cash settlement and the ring-fencing of the science budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

The Secretary of State and I have seen this correspondence, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whose close interest in these matters I recognise, that a very satisfactory solution can be found.

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

The Government speak of their support for science—support that has seen the science budget cut by 10% in real terms, stripped away the £400 million of annual science spend by the regional development agencies and exposed science capital expenditure to cuts of up to one third. Now the Minister is abolishing the top scientific post in his Department without even discussing it with the scientific community, which is a move that the former chief scientific adviser, Lord May, described as

“stupid, ignorant and politically foolish”.

So the science community has neither proper funding nor real influence. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s support for science is only skin deep?

[Mr Willetts]

We believe that it is possible to deliver the efficiency savings that mean that the science budget will be protected in real terms, and we are also, of course, committed to making efficiency savings within the Department. We make no apologies, therefore, for reducing the number of civil service posts in the Department. That is the right way to save money. However, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), I am confident that the specific concerns raised by the science community about that post can be addressed.