Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Debate between Christopher Chope and Chi Onwurah

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate all the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches on their passion and their commitment to their constituency, which has come across so well. Age does not wither, nor custom stale the privilege of being in this place, and I too want to thank my constituents, who have returned me to Parliament to represent them all and the wonderful city we call home.

I spent 14 years on the Opposition Benches, standing up for my constituents against a Government who were bearing down on them. It is absolutely fantastic to speak from the Government Benches in support of a Government who will help and empower them. Some Conservative Members have been painting a rosy picture of our economic inheritance, but the message of working people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West was clear and consistent: “We need change.” It is not hard to see why. People are worse off; over a third of children in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West live in poverty; and over 2,000 households in Newcastle are homeless. Those are just a few of the issues that my constituents face, so please, let us not pretend that we should be grateful to the last Government.

But everything changed on 4 July. Indeed, as I was buying my fish supper last Friday at one of the excellent fishmongers in Grainger market—locally smoked cod, since you ask—they told me that on 5 July, sales of halibut soared. That is an expensive fish, so they took that as a sign of celebration, but also of optimism, hope, and confidence in a better future. There is nothing fishy there, because the Bills set out in the King’s Speech will give Newcastle our future back. Our destiny will be in our own hands, with the English devolution Bill and the better buses Bill giving local leaders such as our fantastic Mayor Kim McGuinness the powers needed to drive growth and prosperity locally. Our region’s immense potential in the green industries of the future will finally be unlocked through the national wealth fund and Great British Energy; planning reform will take the handbrake off building new homes and spaces for business, making us an even greater city with an economy that provides great jobs and good homes for all Geordies; and by expanding the rights of workers, tenants and minoritised groups, the Government will make sure that work pays and everyone in Newcastle enjoys their fair share of our national prosperity.

Having worked around the world as an engineer, I have been proud to champion science and innovation in Newcastle and across the UK. I am now privileged to have both of Newcastle’s fantastic universities in our constituency, and our city is looking forward to building a proper industrial strategy once again—one that can boost our universities as drivers of inclusive economic growth. Unlocking private investment through measures such as the national wealth fund and the recently announced pensions review will super-charge spin-outs and start-ups in the north-east, and I believe that sites such as Helix—home to innovative businesses and entrepreneurs in cutting-edge industries—are a tantalising glimpse of the future of Newcastle.

Technology has the power to make our constituents’ lives so much better, and measures such as planning reform will make that a reality. As an ex-shadow science Minister, I have spoken to Lord Vallance, as he begins his ministerial role, to offer my support, and to make the case for investment in regional research and development. I know that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology team are already committed to opening up careers in science to everyone, getting money outside the golden triangle and connecting science to industrial strategy, healthcare and economic growth.

As I have said, this Government inspire hope that has been lacking in Newcastle— that is, apart from on match days. That is why, as the MP for St James’ Park, I welcome the football governance Bill. From Mike Ashley to the Saudi Public Investment Fund takeover, football governance has been a thorn in our side, and Geordies around the world will welcome the safeguarding of our precious football club.

My constituents sent me to this place because our party promised change. With this King’s Speech, with this Government back at the service—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. I call Olly Glover to make his maiden speech.

Regulatory Authorities (Level of Charges) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Chi Onwurah

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.