Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Clark Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to encourage investment in science.

[The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities (Greg Clark)]

I am looking forward to travelling after Question Time to Birmingham, to the British science festival, where we will reflect on the important contribution that science, research and innovation make to our long-term competitiveness and growth. The Government have ring-fenced the science and research programme at £4.6 billion a year from 2011 to 2016, and we are committed to providing £1.1 billion a year in science capital, increasing with inflation to 2021—the largest ever capital grant to UK science.

[Mr Wilson]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. Reading university is an outstanding higher education institution and will shortly welcome thousands of new students, who will receive a high-quality education. The university contributes to jobs and growth in the area and is planning a new science park. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the autumn statement will reflect further support for science and the plans and priorities of universities such as Reading?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words. He has been a great champion of higher education in Reading and across the country. One of my tasks over the next few weeks is to work on the science and innovation strategy, including the science capital consultation, which will be published alongside the autumn statement. That will make clear and reinforce for a 10-year horizon the continuing importance that we attach to science.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Manchester is the home of the revolutionary material graphene. This week, we heard the tremendous announcement of a £60 million second hub for graphene in the city. Will the Minister join me and everyone involved in securing that funding, particularly Manchester university and Masdar, the Abu Dhabi clean energy and renewables technology group?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. Along with my hon. Friend the Life Sciences Minister I was with the chancellor of the university of Manchester yesterday. I congratulate the vice-chancellor, Nancy Rothwell, and all responsible on securing a huge coup for this country. Having a Nobel prize-winning piece of research located for the future in the UK and in the north-west is a cause for great celebration.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

7. What steps the Government are taking to ensure the value of the minimum wage keeps pace with inflation and encourage firms to pay a living wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to increase access to higher education.

[The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities (Greg Clark)]

Last year, the Chancellor announced that we would remove the cap on the number of university places in 2015-16 so that no bright person who wants to study at a higher level should be turned away. The Government have also put in place a new framework placing more responsibility on higher education institutions to widen access, and that approach is paying off, with more young people admitted to university this year than ever before and a big increase in the number of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Oliver Colvile]

Earlier this year, the Government announced plans to create a further education college for nuclear engineering. As my right hon. Friend will know, not only is Devonport home to an engineering university technical college, but its dockyard deals with the refitting and refuelling of nuclear submarines. As he might also know, it faces a real challenge with Hinkley C. What progress is he making in introducing either higher or further education for engineers?

[Greg Clark]

From the work we did on the Plymouth city deal, I know that my hon. Friend is fully apprised of the need to invest in skills in Plymouth. The Government are working with the Nuclear Industry Council to determine the remit and location of a national nuclear college, and we hope to announce some progress later in the year.

[Mr David Willetts (Havant) (Con)]

May I welcome the Minister to his post and congratulate him on those excellent figures for participation in university? Will he confirm, however, that many of the best access initiatives, such as bursaries and summer schools, are financed from the income from fees above £6,000 and that if fees were reduced to £6,000, those excellent initiatives, which have improved participation, would have to be closed?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done in this field, which is respected on both sides of the House and across all the institutions of higher education. One of the great pleasures of taking this office was to check my desk drawer and discover that there was no note from my predecessor with some unwelcome news. It is a very happy inheritance.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the system we have in place for student finance, which he took through the House, is proving remarkably successful. We have seen record student numbers, and only this week the OECD said that the

“UK is…one of the few”

countries

“that has figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance”

and that

“that investment…pays off for individuals and tax payers.”

He grasped the nettle and made the reforms, and those reforms are now working.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his post, and as he rightly acknowledged, he has some big shoes to fill—I, too, pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), and the extraordinary work he undertook. I am surprised, however, that he did not leave the new Minister a briefing on the disaster of the student loans system and the £50 billion to £100 billion extra that will now be written off as public sector net debt as a result of the spiralling resource accounting and budgeting charge.

My question today, however, is different. This week, the Minister has to decide whether to abolish the disabled students allowance. All over the country over the next month, disabled students will be applying to Oxbridge and medical schools, and they deserve to know whether they will have good support in place—not just PCs, but people. This week, will he heed the call from vice-chancellors, the National Union of Students and Members on both sides of the House and ensure that disabled students do not have their chance to study—wherever they get into—destroyed by the abolition of that vital allowance?

[Greg Clark]

I second the praise that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant, but it is curious that he should reflect in the way he did on the finances of the system. I would have thought that he of all people might have cause to reflect on the state of the finances. Reading his recent pamphlet, I noticed that he said that to win arguments

“we must show that we will spend taxpayers’ money sensibly, effectively and efficiently.”

I wonder whether, on reflection, he would regard that as consistent with his record in government.

On the disabled students allowance, I think everyone here shares the ambition, as I stated in my first answer, that everyone who is capable of benefiting from a university education should be able to do so. That of course applies forcefully to people with disabilities. The decisions we take on support for people with disabilities will be entirely about making sure that they have the support to be able to pursue their studies to the best of their abilities.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

11. How many registered businesses there were in May 2010; and how many such businesses there are now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Department announced the local growth fund recipient projects in July, and, for some bizarre reason, the A64 was left off the list. This has put a real question mark over the chances for rural economic growth across Ryedale and North Yorkshire. Will the Secretary of State review that decision at the earliest opportunity?

[The Minister for Universities, Science and Cities (Greg Clark)]

North Yorkshire did pretty well out of the local growth fund. It has the BioVale campus, which I know my hon. Friend is strongly in favour of. Such was the calibre of the projects that we were able to allocate £6 billion of investment. I am now keen to move on to the next set of allocations, and she has just made a strong pitch for investment in her area.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I wonder if the Secretary of State would care to amend the reply he gave to me about when the pits closed. Just for his information, between the end of the pit strike in 1985 and the onset of the Labour Government in 1997, 170 pits were closed, out of less than 200. Those are the figures. They cannot be denied, and if he checks the record he will see that I am speaking the truth. On a second issue, is it not stupid to be getting rid of 3,000 mining jobs in the three pits that I have referred to while at the same time importing more coal from Russia when there are supposed to be sanctions? Is there not a stench of hypocrisy here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

May I ask the Secretary of State about the remuneration of university vice-chancellors, because the entry level appears to be about £160,000 a year? There are 127 vice-chancellors receiving more than £200,000 annually, 33 receiving more than £300,000 and four receiving more than £400,000. What is it about running a university that makes it so much more difficult and so much more remunerative than running the country?

[Greg Clark]

The robust tradition among universities is that they are independent institutions; Ministers do not have the ability to direct them. Universities are now in a competitive environment: they compete for students and with each other for research funds. I am sure that vice-chancellors across the country who are meeting today in Leeds at their annual conference will have the hon. Gentleman’s message relayed to them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Willetts (Havant) (Con)]

I was hoping to ask the Minister about Glasgow and to confirm that in a nationwide competition, Glasgow city won the funding to get £25 million of investment in smart city technologies. Do we not think that the best way for Glasgow to remain a smart city is for it to remain part of the United Kingdom?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only did Glasgow win that investment, but I was delighted to sign a city deal with it during the summer that involved the establishment of a new centre for stratified medical imaging in that great city. It is one of the advantages of being part of the United Kingdom that the excellence of Scottish institutions allows them to punch above their weight in terms of population and GDP. The question that is being asked in the Scottish research community is why spoil such a huge success story.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When university tuition fees were increased, some feared that it would result in a fall in the numbers applying to enter higher education, particularly those from poorer backgrounds. Will the Minister tell the House whether those fears have proved justified?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to point out that those fears have been completely unjustified. Since 2010, there has been a 17% increase in students from the poorest backgrounds, including an 8% increase in the past year. More students from disadvantaged backgrounds are going to university than ever before, and the gap between the richest and the poorest has never been smaller.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

UK Atomic Energy Authority (Triennial Review)

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Greg Clark)]

The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. The triennial review of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) is one of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) scheduled to commence during the first year of the second programme (2014-15). This is not a review of the policy relating to fusion research to which the Government remain committed.

The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.

The first stage will:

Identify and examine the key functions of the UKAEA and assess the requirement for these to continue;

If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate;

If one of these options is continuing delivery through the UKAEA then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.

If the outcome of stage 1 is that delivery should continue through the UKAEA as an NDPB, then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that they are operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.

When completed the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

1. What steps the Government plan to take to increase the number of people registered to vote.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

The House will know that on 10 June the Government launched online electoral registration, making registering to vote quicker and simpler than ever before. This is the biggest change to electoral registration in generations. Applying to go on the electoral register now takes as little as three minutes, and I can tell the House that it is proving to be a huge success. As of midnight last night, 93,000 applications have been made since 10 June, 93% have been made online, and 98% of those using the online service said that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the experience.

[Kate Green]

The Minister will be aware of Mencap’s “Hear my voice” campaign, which is encouraging learning-disabled voters to engage with Members of Parliament in the run-up to the general election. He will also know that in 2001—the most recent election for which we have data—only one in three people with a learning disability exercised their vote. What more can the Government do to ensure both that this important group of voters are on the electoral register and that they exercise their voting right?

[Greg Clark]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, who will know that Mencap has been funded specifically by the Government to carry out its important work in making sure that we correct that figure so that everyone takes up their right to vote, including those with learning difficulties.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

A disproportionate number of those not registered are among the 200,000 members of our armed services. Many of them are either not interested or are registered in places where they used to live or used to be based. What more can the Government do with the Ministry of Defence and our armed services to encourage our servicemen to register to vote and then, of course, actually to vote?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the great advantages of online registration is that it is available to our serving servicemen and women around the world. It is a huge step forward that they do not need to rely on the post.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In the Sheffield city region, which, of course, includes Bassetlaw, students are particularly keen to vote at the next general election. What specific assistance are the Government giving to colleges and, in particular, further education colleges to ensure they can play their role in maximising the number of students who are able to vote?

[Greg Clark]

I am sure there are lots of people in Bassetlaw who are very keen to vote, but it is hard to say whether they will vote for or against the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that, in times past, a smaller number of students have been registered to vote in other places. That is why under the funding formula more money now goes to every place where there is a substantial student population, including Sheffield: £47,000 has been allocated to Sheffield city council specifically to drive up electoral registration.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last time, I asked the Minister about the schools initiative advocated by Bite the Ballot. I welcome what he has told the House today about the early take-up of online registration, but does he agree that there is no need for an either/or option? May I press him again: can we not combine online registration with a duty on schools and FE colleges so that we ensure that we have a maximum number of young people on the new register?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, needs to update his brief. Online registration is now live. There is no point in going back to the system that prevailed in Northern Ireland when only paper-based voting was needed. The group most likely to take up the opportunity of electronic registration is young people. In fact, the latest figures show that 43% of those registering are under 30, so online is the way to go with young people.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the integrity of the electoral register.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

The introduction of individual electoral registration will help enhance the accuracy of the register, with applications being verified against Government records. The Electoral Commission is conducting a study of the accuracy and completeness of the final electoral registers before IER, which were published in February and March. They were compiled entirely under household registration and the commission plans to report its findings in July. It will then conduct a similar study of the electoral registers when the transitional arrangements for IER come to an end.

[Nick de Bois]

Is the Minister aware that if when a voter presents at a polling booth a presiding officer has doubts about their identity, there is no process to substantiate the identity of that member of the public? Is it not time to consider what many other countries have done, including Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, which is to have presentation of voter identification?

[Greg Clark]

I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, but it is important to bear in mind the fact that there is a very low incidence of voting fraud in this country. I do not want that incidence, which is very small, to be used as a pretext to bring in a national form of identity cards, which would be a step backwards.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The precise figure for the number of times that there have been successful prosecutions for electoral registration fraud is one: there has been one case since 1999, and that was in 2007. Since 2007, there have been no cases of voter electoral registration fraud. Does the Minister think that the Electoral Commission has gone overboard with its recommendation for photo ID for voters?

[Greg Clark]

I have said that I do not agree with that. It is perfectly proper for the Electoral Commission, as an independent body, to put forward proposals, but it is also important for them to be considered and debated in this House before they are in any sense approved. I have made my views known to the commission and to the House.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

3. What steps he plans to take to improve the functioning of the coalition Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I have had fruitful discussions with ministerial colleagues on the devolution of powers and funds to our cities, towns and counties, resulting in 39 growth deals, which I announced yesterday as part of our long-term economic plan. I am delighted that Blackpool features so strongly in the Lancashire growth deal, which takes £233 million from Whitehall and puts it into the hands of the business, civic, university and college leaders of Lancashire.

[Paul Maynard]

I welcome the £233 million that was announced yesterday, and I was pleased to be in Blackpool to do so. Will the Minister confirm that this is the beginning and not the end, not merely because I have a lengthy shopping list for my constituency but because we want all our great northern cities of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds—and maybe even Sheffield—to form a real economic powerhouse to rival London?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right, and there is no greater champion of the north-west and Blackpool than he. I can confirm that such has been the success of the growth deals—three and a half times oversubscribed, with projects that bring in a lot of private sector funding—that we will proceed immediately to negotiate further such deals, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will talk to the authorities in Blackpool to further their case.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

In his discussions, is the Minister reconsidering whether it would be wiser to have strategic, directly elected mayors in some of our regions so that we do not just give them the money, but have democratic accountability for areas greater than the current boundaries?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady and I share an enthusiasm for directly elected mayors. If we look around the world and at the example of London, and now Liverpool and Bristol, we see that it makes a difference to have someone with a mandate who can speak for the whole city. That is not the current Government’s policy, but various members of the Government have made statements in recent days that might form part of a future Government’s plans.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. Is the Minister aware that the devolving of power, which has led to funding the smarter routes to employment project, the Woodside link road and the Leighton-Linslade engineering construction skills centre in my constituency, very much reflects the local priorities to improve skills, create more jobs and spread prosperity as widely as possible?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He elucidates the principle of the deals. It makes no sense for people in Whitehall to claim to know what is needed in a very local sense across the country. It is far better to give local people and local businesses the opportunity to make those decisions and to bring in private investment. You get a bigger bang for your buck that way.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why there was no representative from Liverpool there when the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Northern Futures board on Friday? Will he or the Deputy Prime Minister work with local MPs to ensure that Liverpool’s voice is not lost?

[Greg Clark]

There has been no shortage of ministerial visits to Liverpool in recent days. I pay tribute to the mayor and the authorities across the north-west for the international festival of business in Liverpool, which has been a huge success and drawn people from around the world. We were delighted in the Liverpool growth deal to confirm that the second such festival will take place in two years.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

5. What plans he has to discuss constituency boundaries with the Boundary Commission; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to avoid a fall in the number of people registered to vote as a result of the introduction of individual voter registration.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

As part of the transition to individual electoral registration, we are using data matching to confirm the majority of current electors on the existing register without their having to make a new application. The transition is being phased in over two years, which means that no one registered to vote at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the general election in 2015. The Electoral Commission will have an awareness campaign; in addition, the introduction of online registration makes electoral registration much more accessible.

[Nick Smith]

I understand that two thirds of electoral registration officers have not data matched their records with Government databases. What action will the Minister take to ensure that they do so?

[Greg Clark]

No, the hon. Gentleman is out of date. Of the applications made since 10 June, more than 90% have been successfully confirmed with Government data, so it is going extremely well. The electoral registration community around the country is pretty pleased with the progress.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s good news about the take-up and about online registration. To go back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), is the Minister aware that more than 250 local authorities have not confirmed whether they have data matched their registers with central Government databases, as they were supposed to do, and that almost 100 have failed to conduct a door-to-door canvass at least once in the past five years of those who are not on the register? Will he look into that and tell us what he is going to do about it?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself. The new system started on 10 June. There is a big campaign in which every electoral registration officer will write to every household in the weeks ahead. They will then follow that up with the door-to-door canvass. After that is the time to see how they have performed. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on the current rather than the past system.

Local Growth Deals

Greg Clark Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about growth deals.

During the past four years, the Government’s long-term economic plan has turned the British economy around. The deficit has been cut by a third, employment is at a record high with 2 million more private sector jobs created, inflation is low and the UK is one of the fastest growing economies in the G7.

One of the striking features of the recovery is the resurgence of our regional economies. Since June 2010, almost three quarters of net new jobs created have been outside London. In the west midlands, where I was this morning, export growth is higher than anywhere else in the country. In Yorkshire, more than 16,000 more businesses have sprung up since 2010, but our plan is for the long term and we want to go much further.

National growth is the sum of local growth. For our nation to prosper, every town, every city, and every county needs to be able to fulfil its potential. It is hopeless to try to run proud, distinct and unique cities, towns and counties remotely from London. Instead, the people who live, work and do business in each area must be given the power to exercise local leadership and that is exactly what we have done through the city deals programme.

The 39 growth deals we have agreed today build on the success of city deals and go much further. Responding to Lord Heseltine’s report, “No Stone Unturned”, the Chancellor committed at least £2 billion a year, for at least six years, of resources previously controlled by Departments in Whitehall. Control of this money will now be devolved to business and civic leaders across England. In response to this opportunity, local enterprise partnerships have developed action plans detailing how they would use those resources to drive local growth.

The results have far exceeded expectations. The first year’s available funds were oversubscribed three and half times with proposals that were strong and credible. As a result, I am today announcing the transfer of £2 billion not just for the first year but for subsequent years too. The strength of the proposals means that I can today allocate a total of £6 billion. That includes major strategic investments that will continue over several years and commitments to projects that cannot start next year but for which planning and development can now get under way. That is still within the minimum of £12 billion that the Chancellor has made available, and I am now inviting all LEPs to begin immediately discussions on their next proposals, building on this substantial momentum.

It is important to underline that we are not spending any more taxpayers’ money: this is a transfer of resources from central Government—one of the most centralised Governments in the world—to local communities, where they can get better value for money and make a bigger impact. Across all 39 deals as agreed so far, more than 500 projects will be funded by the local growth fund in partnership with local councils and private investors. They include more than 180 roads schemes, such as the dualling of the A421 in Milton Keynes and the building of a tunnel providing access to Wichelstowe in Swindon, allowing the creation of thousands of jobs and thousands of homes. They include the building or refurbishment of 17 railway stations, including a major upgrade to Wolverhampton station, the extension of the Metropolitan line through to Watford junction, and making Curzon Street in Birmingham ready for HS2, and linking the HS2 station directly to Wolverhampton by tram.

The projects include the devolution of skills investment, such as an oil and gas academy in Redcar—hon. Members may have been wondering when Teesside would come up; the oil and gas academy will provide skills to people in the Tees valley—and an engineering training programme at the MIRA technology park. There will be investments in science and technology, including in the Cheshire science corridor at Alderley Park, a new metrology centre for the world motorsports cluster at Silverstone, where most of the world’s Formula 1 teams have gathered, and an expansion of the Bristol robotics hub.

There will be a dedicated local small business advice and support service run in partnership with the chambers of commerce and other small business organisations in almost every part of England, and there will be further investments in house building, flood defences, tourist attractions, broadband infrastructure and further small business advice.

The city of Glasgow is an indispensable member of the family of great British cities. Having seen the success of the city deals programme in England, I was greatly encouraged by the enthusiasm of Glasgow’s leaders to negotiate a city deal for their own city. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Scotland does not have local enterprise partnerships, I have concluded a heads of terms agreement with Glasgow that mirrors the English city deals and will result in £1.13 billion of investment in the Glasgow area, including a rail link to Glasgow airport, an innovative series of labour market schemes that will reduce unemployment, and an investment package in life sciences and small business support. Further details of the life science and business support package will be announced in the coming weeks.

The components of each growth deal will transform the prospects of local economies. However, the whole is even bigger than the sum of the parts. This is a permanent change in the way we run our country and our economy. No longer will Whitehall monopolise decision making and shut out the role of local economic leadership. In this, the week of the 100th anniversary of the death of Joseph Chamberlain, the great mayor of a great city, we are reviving the spirit of local leadership and entrepreneurship on which our nation’s prosperity depends. I commend this statement and these growth deals to the House.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is courteous and constructive. That is part of the reason why he is respected by MPs in all parts of the House and by local authority leaders around the country, including in my own area. The problem is that the Minister is something of a lone voice in the Government, trying to convince his colleagues to help all the regions of the UK to fulfil their promise.

For today’s announcement to represent the kind of progress that we need, three tests must be met. First, does it represent a truly ambitious devolution of power and funding? Secondly, have local communities, their businesses and councils determined the priorities? Thirdly, are today’s announcements new—is this new or additional investment? Of course, we welcome any investment. The Minister knows that I have supported the local enterprise partnership bid in my area, and people across Northamptonshire will welcome the announcement about Silverstone. However, today’s announcement is too little, too late from a Government playing catch-up.

One of the first acts of this Government was the dogma-driven destruction of the regional development agencies, without providing a proper replacement. It was economic vandalism, pure and simple. What of the Government’s flagship regional growth fund, mired in chaos and delay, creating more losers than winners, leaving successful bidders waiting for two years to receive their money, and leaving hundreds of millions of pounds to gather dust? Sadly, after four years of this Government, it is little surprise that we have seen regional imbalances become starker and local areas held back.

Lord Heseltine’s seminal report, “No Stone Unturned”, promised much and raised the hopes of many, but today’s announcement shows that the Government are happy to leave plenty of stones unturned all over the country. Will the Minister say how much of the funding that Lord Heseltine’s report recommended should be devolved has been devolved to local areas, and by how much today’s announcement falls short? The Minister is making the most of today’s announcement—he is one of life’s optimists—but deep down, surely he knows that although it signals some progress, it falls well short of what is needed, not only in scale but in terms of how the Government have gone about this.

The second test is about who makes the decision. Today’s announcement is not real devolution; it is a list of centrally agreed projects. The criteria required shovel-ready schemes; local enterprise partnerships were given the nod on the understanding that schemes needed to be ready for next May, so that it looked like something was happening before the next election. Is it not time to move on from making these kinds of decisions in Whitehall, where local areas have to take part in a beauty parade so that Ministers can pick winners? Why not devolve the funds properly and let local areas decide the priorities? Why not let them make the decisions that are right for their economy, not just right for the Minister’s political timetable?

The third test is whether this is new money. The Minister claims to be announcing £2 billion today, but it turns out that £1.1 billion has already been committed to local transport projects. Some £267 million of this money still has not been allocated. Will the Minister confirm when it will be allocated? As for the £6 billion figure, most of that, as the Minister well knows, is money from local sources that we would try to bring forward anyway; certainly, Labour local authorities are in the lead in doing that. [Interruption.] Well, the Minister has agreed that combined authorities in Labour areas all around the country are trying to show real leadership. Will he confirm how many unsuccessful bids there have been, and tell the House what estimate he has made of the total cost, to both local authorities and businesses, of putting together those failed bids? Is he aware that small businesses in particular have been put off applying by the amount of bureaucracy, and by the requirement to pay the cost of due diligence up front? Many successful applicants have not proceeded for the same reasons. What steps is he taking to address that?

The Minister will be aware that the Leeds city region deal, which he personally signed, has been undermined by the Secretary of State’s announcement on referendums and precepts. Will the Minister reassure me that he will sort this mess out—a mess of the Government’s making—so that the Leeds transport fund can be properly established?

In contrast to today’s much-hyped but severely limited announcements from the Government, Labour has committed to devolving £30 billion of funding from Whitehall to city and council regions to spend on skills, housing, transport, and business support, and to giving combined authorities the power to receive 100% of additional business rates revenue generated by growth to support infrastructure and future economic development. Whereas this Government are failing to deliver for businesses and communities across the country, a Labour Government will step up and genuinely pass down power and resources to local areas.

[Greg Clark]

What a ray of sunshine the hon. Gentleman is! I am grateful for his warm words, but if he thinks that I am a lone voice, I do not know who he thinks the people behind me and opposite him are. It is some “lone voice” that delivers £6 billion of funding from central Government to our local economies. If that is a lone voice, it seems a pretty strong one.

Why is it that whenever Labour Front Benchers get the opportunity, they talk the regions down—I say this to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague on the Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), too—while their colleagues back in their constituencies are talking the regions up? Contrast the comments of the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) with those of Labour leaders right around the country. The Labour leader of Leeds city council said today that this was tremendous news. He said:

“We are glad that the government has now listened to our exceptionally strong case to put the financial power in our hands”,

and that the announcement

“could be truly transformational”.

Sir Albert Bore, the leader of Birmingham city council—I was with him in Birmingham this morning—said:

“This is great news for Birmingham.”

Joe Anderson, the mayor of Liverpool, said:

“This is great news for Liverpool.”

Sir Richard Leese, the long-standing leader of Manchester city council, has said that there has been more progress towards the devolution of powers to the core cities in the last three years of the coalition than during 13 years of Labour. The only “lone voice” is the increasingly lonely voice of Labour Front Benchers opposing the increasingly unanimous view that we should be devolving power around the country in the way that we are. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get with that, because we have confidence in our cities and it is no wonder that the cities are losing confidence in their representation from the Labour party.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding that we have provided. I made it clear in my statement that we have gone further than was originally proposed. We made it clear that only £1 billion of the £2 billion figure was competitively available, but we have gone further by allocating £6 billion because the scheme was oversubscribed by 3.5:1, which means that the quality of the proposals was so high that we thought it would be ridiculous to say, “Come back in a year’s time.” Why not give investors confidence to get on with projects now so that they can create jobs around the country?

It is worth saying that this is not just Government investment. For every £1 of Government investment there will be at least £2 of local investment as a result. The hon. Gentleman asked about Lord Heseltine’s view on the scheme. I was with Lord Heseltine this morning, and he has travelled with me around almost every one of the 39 local enterprise partnerships to negotiate the deals. He expresses himself to be “thrilled” with the ambition that we have set through the programme, which exceeds what he thought possible. He is delighted with the programme.

I have thought about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should go further. Of course we should go further, and the Chancellor has committed at least £2 billion a year, but at no point during the 13 years of the previous Government was any of this suggested. It is important that such things should be rigorously funded. I read the Adonis report, and the small print states that 100% of business rates should be devolved to the cities. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, half of business rates are now given to local authorities, which again did not happen during 13 years under Labour. Of course, £11 billion goes to the Treasury, so how will that £11 billion be found? Is there a black hole? In fact, the small print of the Adonis report states:

“This should be revenue neutral to the Exchequer through offsetting reductions in government grants”

to councils. In other words, it is a swizz: £11 billion of grant cuts to councils to pay for the headline with which he came up.

The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we act on our ambitions by taking money from central Government to invest in local government, rather than the other way around.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on this extraordinarily ambitious announcement, which will command support across the whole country. I understand that not every constituency in the land will benefit from that ambition, so may I bring the leader of Mid Sussex district council and his economic development team to tell the Minister about an absolute belter of an idea that we have for the next round?

[Greg Clark]

I am always delighted to meet my right hon. Friend and his council leaders, whom I have met previously. The great advantage of my announcement today that we are immediately reopening negotiations for the next set of projects to build on the momentum is that that meeting will be very timely indeed.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I press the Minister? As co-chair of the Yorkshire group of MPs, I recently saw Lord Heseltine, and he did not look that excited to me about the Government’s policy. Is it not the truth that we have had four pretty barren years? I do not deny that there is some good stuff in the programme, but the fact of the matter is that we still have central direction: some £80 billion will be spent on High Speed 2, with no give or take on the local referendums that some of us would like to see on that expenditure. Could there not be more money for university partnerships with local enterprise partnerships and local business?

[Greg Clark]

I am not surprised that my friend Lord Heseltine was a bit downcast if he was meeting Labour Members, but he has cheered up since he has been in our company. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) should be cheered up that the chair of his local enterprise partnership said today that this is “a game-changing moment” for Leeds. We have worked tirelessly with businesses to play a leading role in the UK economy. His hon. Friend the Member for Corby referred to the Leeds city deal, and when he reads the documents that I sent to every Member he will see that a £1 billion transport fund is now available for the Leeds city region to invest in its own priorities for transport projects across the region. I was talking to Keith Wakefield, the leader of Leeds city council, last Thursday, and the deal exceeded even his expectations for what could be achieved. He is happy, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be happy, too.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What is in this announcement for Dorset, and will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about how much money we could get if we abandoned HS2? If we did so, we would have a lot more money for these schemes.

[Greg Clark]

I will not be tempted to go in that direction, because I think that HS2 is very important for further boosting our regional economy. Dorset does very well from the scheme. As my hon. Friend will know, the package of improvements for unlocking transport around Bournemouth airport is very important, and the port of Poole is receiving a lot of investment. There has been particular investment in skills in Dorset to ensure that its growing businesses can attract the people they need to meet the demands of their growing order books.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

The North East local enterprise partnership has said that it needs to create 60,000 new jobs by 2025 and that today’s announcement will create 4,000 by 2021. Where will the other 56,000 new jobs come from?

[Greg Clark]

The reason we are devolving powers in this way, and the reason the deal with the north-east has received such enthusiastic support, is that the best people to make these decisions, and the people who know about an area’s skills requirements and transport investment, are those who live and work there. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in these matters, the fact that one of our agreements is to improve the standard of secondary education across the north-east—to do what has been done in London by transforming the prospects of every young person. As someone who grew up in the north-east, I think that will be of immense value not just for young people, but for employers.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I welcome the fact that both coalition parties are determined to raise standards in the north-east, but will that not also require a change of attitude by some Labour council leaders, such as those in Northumberland who are withdrawing support for travel for those young people seeking to improve their skills, even though they have to travel a long way to get to a further education college?

[Greg Clark]

It is true that one of the hallmarks of a successful local economy is people putting aside their differences and working together. One feature of the growth deals that have been negotiated is the remarkable ability of people who previously did not get on to put their differences aside and work together locally. I hope that will be the case in the north-east.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Some exciting stuff is being bid for in Bristol, such as robotics and the use of composites in marine technology, as well as much-needed investment in public transport, but may I ask the Minister about flexibility? When money has previously been offered by local government, local people have been told that there is no scope for negotiation and that all the money will simply be taken away if they object to the proposed schemes.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; she gives an accurate description of what happened under the previous Labour Government. One of the differences we are making is giving the flexibility to allow good and capable local enterprise partnerships to set their own priorities, so if an important economic opportunity arises, they should be able to change things around. That will be available to Bristol, as it will to other places across the country.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I enthusiastically welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, particularly the support for the transformation of the Food and Environment Research Agency in Sand Hutton. For that transformation to succeed, smooth and safe access to the A64 will be imperative. What does he understand by the term “shovel-ready projects” that qualify before the highways authority will allocate any of that money to road improvements?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Member for Corby asked me about that. It is prudent that money should be spent on projects that are available to have that investment; otherwise we are tying up money that could be used elsewhere. A project needs to be deliverable in 2015-16 if that is what the funding is for. The great advantage of announcing a pipeline of future schemes is that if they are not quite ready yet, they will be able to have the green light shone so that they can go forward in future.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

There are some excellent projects in the Birmingham and Solihull area in today’s announcement, not least the long-awaited Longbridge connectivity package in my area. Will the Minister join me in saying thank you to Labour-run Birmingham city council and the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP for working with the Longbridge connectivity group to make this happen, in contrast with the rather disengaged attitude of the former Conservative city council administration? Does that indicate to him that where local partnerships work, the Government should be more ambitious in devolving power? Is not that the real message of the Adonis report?

[Greg Clark]

The attitude behind the hon. Gentleman’s question is not the attitude that has caused the success of the Birmingham and Solihull deal. People have not been partisan or parochial; they have worked together and not sought to jockey for political advantage. That is the right approach to take.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, in which he confirms the Government’s commitment to the north of England. I particularly welcome the investment at the CATCH—Centre for the Assessment of Technical Competence—training facility at Stallingborough in my constituency. That is a partnership between the public and private sectors. Does he agree that those types of partnerships are the way forward if we are to develop the skills that northern Lincolnshire and the Humber area need in the modern economy?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituency, and I have visited him and his colleagues on the Humber many times. He is one of the people who have been instrumental in forging a consensus between the north bank and the south bank of the Humber. Now that that consensus exists, the Humber is motoring; we can see the progress and momentum behind the economy there. He has played his part in that, and I congratulate him on it.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Minister is a South Bank lad, so he should have some understanding of the challenges faced in the Tees valley. His statement tells of helping to create 1,000 jobs by 2021—in other words, 1,000 jobs in seven years. That is less than 20% of the total number of unemployed people in Stockton, one of five boroughs in the Tees valley. Why has he not come up with something more substantial from the Government in terms of investment for his former community?

[Greg Clark]

The jobs figures that the hon. Gentleman cites are for the first year’s investment only. We have taken a conservative view. The Government do not create jobs directly; it is up to businesses to create jobs. The business community in the Tees valley, very ably led by Sandy Anderson, have come forward with a set of proposals that they believe will propel the Tees valley forward, and we have been able to say yes to them.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that Government investment in infrastructure projects such as Tipner, and in marine manufacturing and status projects such as Sir Ben Ainslie’s America’s cup challenge, is transforming Portsmouth into the maritime heart of the UK, and that the next focus must be a new life and a new order book for Portsmouth’s shipyard?

[Greg Clark]

I commend my hon. Friend, who has been an absolutely indefatigable campaigner for Portsmouth. That resulted in the Portsmouth city deal, which, as she has rightly said, involved the release of Ministry of Defence land that was not being used to make it available for the marine engineering businesses whose future is very bright across the south coast, and particularly in Portsmouth.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The devolution of finance must not only be seen to be accountable but actually be accountable. What discussions has the Minister’s Department had about the appointment of Paul Woolston, the chair of the North East LEP, who has now been appointed to Middleton Enterprises, a company run by Jeremy Middleton, a well-known Conservative who is also on the LEP investment board? We also learned last week that the chief executive is now working for a Middleton company. Have the Minister or his Department had any discussions about this?

[Greg Clark]

Of course, I meet the local enterprise partnerships—all of them—regularly to discuss the kinds of deals we are announcing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the local authority leaders work very closely together—in fact, his own local authority leader, Simon Henig, is the chair of the combined authority—and that they are democratically elected, and I know that they make sure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend, both politically and personally, on his commitment to delivering a further significant tranche of devolution? Does he agree that, in order to see this through, it is very important not only that local authorities abandon the tribalism in evidence on the Opposition Benches, but that they make maximum entrepreneurial use of the other important devolutionary power we gave them—the power of general competence in the Localism Act 2011, which will complement this tranche of measures?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has personal responsibility for that power, since he, with me, piloted the Localism Bill through Committee. The power is available to local authorities and I hope they will take it up.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I first respond to the Minister’s more partisan points before I move on to the less partisan point? People in Manchester will judge his Government on all their policies, including local government cuts 10 times those of other, more prosperous areas and the welfare reform agenda that is hitting my constituents the hardest. On the less partisan point, which is what I had hoped the statement would be about, given the reports by Michael Heseltine and Lord Adonis and today’s statement by Sir Richard Leese, we now really have cross-party consensus for dramatic decentralisation, and I hope the Minister will ensure that it goes further and faster over the coming months.

[Greg Clark]

I had also hoped that this statement would be less partisan, but that was not entirely evident from the earlier exchanges. Greater Manchester has been doing very well in recent years. If we look at the cross-party leadership of Greater Manchester, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour leaders, we will see that they get on well together in the interests of Greater Manchester. The hon. Lady should take a leaf out of their book.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I congratulate the Government, because this is a really important step towards devolution and local decision making. I particularly welcome the contribution to Dorset, which will enable it to build on its already great strengths with its mixed economy. Should any partnerships anywhere in the country run into obstacles in making proposed investments in a timely fashion, will the Department be able to support them? I want to see action, not just words.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful for her kind words. That is one of the reasons we have established a pipeline so that, if there is a delay in any particular project, another will be ready to take its place and be implemented. Dorset has a huge contribution to make. I have mentioned some of the schemes. One of the very interesting and exciting ones for the visitor economy in Dorset will be a new visitor attraction called Jurassica, which will feature the great strengths of the Jurassic coast. It has been suggested that some exhibits might come from the Opposition Benches, but I am sure the fossils will be from Dorset.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that this modest but welcome proposal is certainly not a giant step towards rebalancing the British economy? Will he also confirm, as I think he was angling towards doing in an earlier response, that there is in fact no new money involved in today’s proposal? I think that the focus on affordable housing in London is correct, but could not the Government have done more about the borrowing powers of local authorities, to really get affordable housing going in London, where it is much needed?

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the small print, he will see that that is part of the announcement. I do not agree with his assessment. He should talk to the leader of Leeds council, who has said:

“This deal spells the beginning of a fundamental shift in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions. It marks the first steps of a new era which will allow the north”—

he is from Leeds—

“to truly control its own destiny.”

Such endorsements show that this is a pretty significant set of changes.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I was delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to Gatwick this morning, where the Coast to Capital LEP bid of £202 million was announced. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that future growth deals will continue to benefit the county areas, as well as our great cities?

[Greg Clark]

They certainly will. It is very important that our cities should prosper and succeed, but we have huge strengths in our counties and districts, which is why I am particularly pleased that we could extend city deals to all parts of England through what we have agreed in the programme today.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

In Chesterfield, we are grateful that the Minister has approved two of the proposals brought forward by our local enterprise partnership. Does he not recognise, however, that real devolution is not about the Minister sitting in Whitehall and saying which proposals he agrees with? It is about devolving the funds and letting the responsibility lie with local authorities, precisely as Lord Adonis has proposed. Will the Minister acknowledge at the Dispatch Box that what he is proposing is a third of the size of the devolution proposed by Lord Adonis and does not put responsibility and powers truly in the hands of local authorities? Why does the Minister not follow Lord Adonis’s recommendations?

[Greg Clark]

No, the hon. Gentleman is not right. He is right that Chesterfield will have substantial investment in skills, which will be very important for his constituents, but he is wrong to say that there will no flexibilities. It will be open to the local enterprise partnership to bring forward projects, as it has done—it made those proposals—and to vary them if it thinks that that is in the local interest.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

May I tell my right hon. Friend that the people of Wolverhampton are very heartened by this news, particularly as people have tried to talk down the city in the past? In that vein, will he elaborate on the Wolverhampton interchange, which will help private enterprise and connectivity in the 21st century?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning for improvements to the Wolverhampton interchange for all the time he has been in the House, and it is a great day for him to succeed in that campaigning. The interchange is supported by businesses locally, and it will mean big advantages not just for Wolverhampton but for the whole of the region because of the connections that will be made—for example, from Wolverhampton to the new HS2 station.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is fantastic and so unusual to have an opportunity to heap praise on the Minister, but with the general election 303 days away, how much of the £350 million will Greater Birmingham see before the election, and when might we expect our first down payment on Selly Oak’s life sciences park?

[Greg Clark]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words—it might strike a different tone if he took his place on the Front Bench. There will be a cheque for £63 million of the funding for Greater Birmingham and Solihull at the beginning of the next financial year, but all the rest will be committed. I am sure he would be delighted to come to the contract signing ceremony; it will be written down, just in case people do not trust us.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

This afternoon, I was with the Secretary of State for Transport in Fylde, where we announced the Lytham St Annes to M55 link road. Will the Minister assure the people of Fylde, who are very excited about this announcement, that this shovel-ready project will indeed get under way in 2015-16, as planned?

[Greg Clark]

It will, indeed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The process of devolution to Greater Manchester was of course started in 2008 under a Labour Government, but I certainly welcome today’s announcement, including the funds for Tameside college, which serves my constituency. If the Minister has any unallocated funds, may I beg him to look again at the small town centre initiative as part of the Greater Manchester package? That package includes a shovel-ready scheme for the Denton link road that would provide important access to the Oldham Batteries employment site, which has lain derelict for 10 years, but is an important piece of our regeneration jigsaw.

[Greg Clark]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was the last Labour Member standing, while there are still plenty of Government Members standing. The great advantage of the arrangements is that he can take his case to Greater Manchester. It should no longer require a Minister to agree to a local project; as a result of this deal, the people who now have the budgets to implement such things are those in the Greater Manchester authority.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Like our city deal, Oxfordshire’s growth deal is great news for local people: it will deliver more jobs and more housing; it will close the skills gap by delivering vital skills opportunities; and it will take us a big step closer to delivering flood protection. I do not want to seem ungrateful, but will the Minister also consider vital A34 improvements at every future opportunity, because they are essential to our long-term local economic plan?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is nothing if not tenacious. She has had a city deal, she has had a growth deal and now she wants another one. I have said that we will reopen negotiations, and it sounds as though Oxfordshire will be first in the queue.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend because he has truly reached parts of England that the last Labour Government failed to reach. The commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds to Cornwall today is really welcome, but does he agree that the power shift from Whitehall to Cornwall is equally vital because it ensures that local decisions can be made for the benefit of our local economy?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is a great champion of Cornwall. It is crazy to try to run a place as distinctive as Cornwall from Whitehall and Westminster. Quite apart from the investment that is being made, we are giving a big vote of confidence to Cornwall and its ability to run its own affairs. I am delighted to be doing that.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Roger Marsh, the chair of the local enterprise partnership that includes Kirklees, has said:

“This is a game-changing moment for the Leeds City Region.”

Does the Minister agree that, with the £1 billion of investment for the West Yorkshire Plus transport fund, the expansion of the skilled work force, business grants for growth and two days of the grandest of Grands Départs in Yorkshire, this really has been a momentous weekend for Yorkshire?

[Greg Clark]

It has been a fantastic weekend for Yorkshire. This is a Grand Départ of our own: we are setting off in a very different direction from that which we inherited. For 100 years, power has been sucked away from places such as Yorkshire; we are sending it back.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is a worthy heir of Joseph Chamberlain. In Norfolk and Suffolk, we are thrilled by the investment that is coming back to the region as a result of his announcement. Will he confirm that items of expenditure that are not on the current list but that are still on the wish lists of LEPs can be brought forward in a very short period?

[Greg Clark]

I certainly can confirm that. I look forward to meeting the New Anglia local enterprise partnership to take those matters forward.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for investing tens of millions of pounds in unlocking the economic potential of world-class Worcestershire, particularly through skills and transport improvements such as the Worcestershire Parkway station and the Southern link in Worcester. I give him particular thanks for the fact that the money is coming to Worcester rather than going to Wichita, as some Opposition Front Benchers have suggested.

[Greg Clark]

It is indeed. One of the great advantages of travelling around the country negotiating these deals is that one has the chance to meet people in the places they represent. There is no substitute for having a bit of local knowledge.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I welcome the tremendous £45 million funding announcement for the Congleton link road. Congleton is an aspirational town and Ministers listened to the business case that was put forward by business leaders, East Cheshire chamber of commerce, the local authority, the LEP and elected representatives. Does that not prove that when there is effective joint working, we can really make a difference to the prosperity of the people we represent?

[Greg Clark]

We certainly can. Cheshire is a vital part of the economy, particularly given its investment in science and the possibilities that that brings. It was good to be able to reinforce that through the deal that we negotiated.

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

One of the biggest constraints on the economic growth of Worcestershire is the inadequacy of its rail links. I therefore thank the Minister warmly for his announcement of funding for the new Worcestershire Parkway station, which enables me to declare victory in the 25-year campaign to get that vital station built.

[Greg Clark]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am just sorry that he will not be able to use it for his commute to this place. However, it will be a good monument to his campaigning over the years.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The unforgettable amazing two days in which the Tour de France went through Yorkshire showed what can be delivered by Welcome to Yorkshire, the local councils, the local businesses and the local people if they are allowed to get on with it. This announcement is great news for the Leeds city region, but will the Minister confirm that it will allow us to make the decisions that he knows we need to make with regard to transport, including a link to Leeds Bradford international airport and getting something better than the trolleybus?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right to say that with £1 billion of investment available, it is up to Leeds, through the combined authority and the local enterprise partnership, to make those choices in a way that it could not before.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As the shadow Minister will know, in north Northamptonshire unemployment has come down by more than a third in the past 12 months, and £50 million private investment has just been made in Rushden Lakes. Today the Government have made announcements about Stanton Cross, the Tresham institute and the Isham bypass. Next time will the Minister ensure that his statement is known about more widely in advance so that more Labour MPs can turn up? I have counted four Labour Back Benchers, whereas the Government Benches are packed.

[Greg Clark]

It is very disappointing; I sometimes feel that Opposition Members do not want to hear good news, whether it is about the national economy or local economies. We have Deputy Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow so they have another chance to come, and I press them to do so.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the commitment to fund Porton science park. This welcome measure will breathe life into the life sciences sector in Wiltshire. Does he recognise that it will be extremely helpful in securing additional funding from the European structural investment fund so that Wiltshire can secure further development of this vital project?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the other decisions we have taken is to align European funds with local enterprise partnerships, so that this kind of joint investment, which makes administrative and economic sense, can take place.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In what has become an intense competition to welcome the Minister’s announcement most warmly, may I make a bid on behalf of Gloucestershire—I think I am the only Member from the county here—to welcome the Gloucestershire growth deal, which includes a real opportunity to generate more Gloucesterpreneurs and some great participation in nuclear and green projects too? My right hon. Friend will know that I particularly welcome the commitment to finance the last remaining slug of the new bus station, which is the transport hub of the county, as it will make a huge difference. Does he agree that the autumn statement and the Budget provide opportunities for further bids for such projects as the Blackfriars regeneration?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is nothing if not tenacious. I enjoyed my visit to Gloucester with him a little while ago. There will be other opportunities, because negotiations will continue. I dare say that Gloucestershire will build on its success.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, in particular on transport improvements on the A47 in north-east Peterborough and on the food manufacturing centre of excellence at Peterborough regional college. The imperative for this Government investment should be its impact on the labour market, so will the Minister give an undertaking to encourage LEPs to work collaboratively—for example, with the Department for Work and Pensions to have an impact on unemployment among young people, particularly those not in education, employment or training?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would like to extend more broadly the next phase of negotiations and discussions, so that where local authorities and businesses can make a real difference to some of our intractable social problems they will be given the chance to show that they can do that.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I welcome the black country local growth deal announced today, particularly the new advanced science and technology centre at Halesowen college, which will allow us to upskill local people in the black country to get the jobs that are available. Does the Minister agree that this type of initiative is crucial to areas such as the black country, where we need to increase skills and generate growth?

[Greg Clark]

I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. “Made in the black country” is a brand that is proudly marketed around the world, and people have confidence in the quality that that implies, but it is important that the next generation of people in the area are trained in those skills so that that reputation for quality can continue. The investment will help with that.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tireless work to deliver this huge local and regional boost to economies. I commend the additional investment in Reading and urge him to pursue a third Thames bridge and semi-fast Crossrail, both strongly supported by business, for the next round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is no slouch when it comes to local campaigning. He has been a hugely successful advocate for Reading, and I dare say that that will continue in the future.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Unemployment in my constituency has fallen consistently and now stands at 2%. That is good news and shows that businesses are investing, but we need good transport links to get people to work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement of the West Yorkshire Plus transport fund is a step change in the ability of local providers to get people moving around Yorkshire, particularly given the wonderful advert we had this weekend, which we have already heard about?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everyone in Yorkshire agrees that the £1 billion fund will make a transformational difference to Yorkshire’s economic prospects.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I commend the Minister for his statement, particularly the news about the Croxley rail link, which will link Watford Junction station with the Metropolitan line. Will he write to the chief executive of Network Rail to ask him to prioritise the redevelopment of Watford Junction station, so that the whole of Watford has a 21st-century interchange?

[Greg Clark]

That is the great advantage of these investments: investment in transport can have other consequences for regeneration. It is one of the big reasons why taking things out of Whitehall silos and making decisions in the round is so much more effective. I will certainly talk to my hon. Friend about that outside the Chamber.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the care he has taken over the detail of the bids, and particularly for backing the winner in respect of Lancaster university’s innovations park and the £17 million of real money coming to Lancashire to support it. I remind him that there was also a proposal to move junction 33 of the M6, which was also part and parcel of this growth bid.

[Greg Clark]

The good news is that when the negotiations open, that proposal can be considered, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to persuade his area’s local enterprise partnership to put it forward.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I particularly welcome the £4 million for a construction skills centre at Whitehill in Bordon—a great investment in the future of the people of this town. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging more employers to look at the exciting opportunities in the area?

[Greg Clark]

I will. One of the striking features of this growth deal is how many local employers are committing their own time and enthusiasm to working to ensure that people have the skills that they will want to employ in the years to come. That is good for everyone locally.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Today’s announcement is a crucial boost to Swindon’s economic regeneration. Does the Minister agree that the process rewards forward-thinking areas that develop shovel-ready plans for growth?

[Greg Clark]

I do indeed. Swindon is the definition of forward thinking, and it is ably represented by both my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) with whom he works so closely.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Electoral Register

Greg Clark Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Greg Clark]

Both the paper forms and the new online registration channel to be used under individual electoral registration have been designed to meet a wide range of accessibility needs. The Government has no current plans to commission such research, but the Electoral Commission is currently aiming to publish its assessment of registration rates under individual electoral registration in July 2016.

The correct answer should have been:

[Greg Clark]

In the 2010 spending review, the Government ended ring-fencing of all main revenue grants from 2011-12. The removal of ring-fencing from local government grants has given councils the freedom over the money they receive and allows them to work with their residents to decide how best to make their spending decisions.

As part of the preparation for the transition to individual electoral registration (IER), the Government has paid grants to EROs and in advance of this sought a signed declaration from all Section 151 officers in local authorities in England and Wales, and electoral registration officers in Scotland, agreeing that they would not reduce the level of funding to electoral registration over the transition to IER.

Conflict Decisions and Constitutional Reform

Greg Clark Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and to respond to two reports by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. May I say how useful it is that the Committee has given us the opportunity to debate these issues? The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) presides with great accomplishment over the Committee, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) accurately described as comprising a lot of the most thoughtful and well-motivated people dealing with this issue. However, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Newport West chose his adjectives correctly when he talked about opinions on the Committee ranging “from the deepest red to the densest blue”—I think he meant the most brilliant blue, but we know what he means.

Let me start with the constitutional convention. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his generous remarks about my involvement in that particular question of devolution. Given that the Government responded to the report in November—however opaquely, in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—I will be relatively brief, although I hope I can clarify some of the opacity he alluded to.

As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, there needs to be a compelling case for establishing a constitutional convention, but none has been made at this time. Indeed, some members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend, took the same view.

When we say that our approach to constitutional reform should be guided by public demand and responsiveness to local circumstances to have the greatest chance of success, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch regards that as unclear. However, having known his views for many years, I should have thought that that was exactly the kind of Conservatism he would espouse—that things should emerge in the most appropriate way, rather than being engineered by some central body and imposed on a surprised nation. That—I perhaps put it less elegantly than he could—was the intention behind the Government’s response.

Like other members of the Committee, my hon. Friend knows that, unlike the constitutions of other countries, the UK constitution was not born out of revolution or an independence movement—it evolved. Nor do we owe our constitutional settlement and political institutions to a single point in time or a uniform set of principles; we owe them, of course, to centuries of history, throughout which the differing cultures and traditions of these islands have woven together.

Indeed, if we look at the devolution settlements to date, we recognise that. We have different arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, reflecting their different historical and political identities, their differing needs and the appetite for devolution in different places. Each took a different path to devolution, and their individual settlements reflect that.

In the same way, the original devolution Acts contain a range of order-making powers, which have allowed for adjustments over time to make each individual settlement work better. This Government, too, have made commitments on devolution, and we have delivered. For example, in Northern Ireland, the transfer of policing and justice functions to the Assembly and Executive in 2010 reflected the continuing development of the political process there. Last year, the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive committed to examining the potential for devolving additional fiscal powers.

In Wales, we delivered a referendum, which resulted in the Assembly assuming primary law-making powers. We have established the Silk commission to consider the Assembly’s powers. The outcome of that work is the Wales Bill, which sets out a significant package of reforms giving the Welsh Government more levers to deliver economic growth and strengthening their accountability.

In Scotland, the Scotland Act 2012 will see the Scottish Parliament take on responsibility for raising as well as spending money, which will see the amounts it is responsible for increase from 16% of devolved spending in Scotland to nearly a third of the total block grant.

In each case, devolution has been driven by, in the words of the Committee, a continuing conversation about the differing needs of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Devolution in England is a case in point. The previous Government promoted the prospect of greater regional devolution—an idea that did not resonate. With some justification, many people in the north-west, for example, feel a greater attachment to, and identification with, cities such as Manchester and Liverpool than with an administrative Whitehall-conceived region called the north-west, which would submerge those historical identities.

This Government have not, therefore, continued to pursue devolution to those regions, and the Committee’s findings support that. We have established the McKay commission to explore how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only England, and Ministers are considering its recommendations, so I am afraid that, on this matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will have to continue showing his legendary patience a little longer.

The fact that devolution has not happened in England in the same way as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does not mean that power is not being pushed out from the centre. The remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham North underlined that. I have had the great privilege of being associated with a Government programme that has decentralised more power than has happened for decades. In fact, members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party have been generous enough to acknowledge that the present Government have made greater progress, in many respects, than was achieved in the 13 years of the previous Government. We have introduced local enterprise partnerships, and we signed two waves of city deals. I shall be in Cambridge this evening to sign one, and I was in Teesside and Sunderland on Monday to sign another.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned the city deal struck with Liverpool. I was at the international festival for business in Liverpool, which is already proving a great success at establishing a new reputation for the city; that contrasts with the reputation that it acquired in the dark days of the ’70s and ’80s, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) correctly said was injurious. It is now deliberately creating a reputation as a good place to do business, and an attractive location for businesses from around the world.

The approach to decentralisation and localism in those initiatives gives localities the right of initiative; they can tell central Government what can be done differently, so that they, knowing their economy and people, can operate in the way most likely to help them grow and prosper. We are totally committed to further empowering communities right across the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned the evidence that Professor Iain McLean gave to the Committee, but I was struck by another part of his evidence, when he said:

“The main problem for a proposed UK constitutional convention is that nobody in England, representing 85% of the population, seems to feel much urgency about it.”

I think that is a fair reflection of the state of debate in the UK at present.

Against the backdrop of continuing reforms and without a strong political impetus, especially in England, for a constitutional convention, it is doubtful whether it would be as successful as some previous initiatives, which went with the grain of public opinion, might suggest. However, I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will accept my assurance that I and the Government will not give up. I sincerely hope that he is right in wishing me the opportunity to continue doing my job for many years; his Front-Bench colleague, for whom I have the highest regard, may want to enter a caveat about that. Nevertheless, I reiterate on the Government’s behalf the commitment that we share to the further transfer of powers outwards from the centre.

[Mr Chope]

I have a question about Scotland. Perhaps the Minister’s constituents are not like mine, but mine are increasingly concerned about the fact that people living in England seem to have no say over the future relationships of the United Kingdom. There is a prospect that on a simple majority vote the Scots could become separate from the United Kingdom, so where does that leave ordinary people who live in England but want to stay in the Union?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend and I share a view, which you, Mr Weir, may not share but are constrained from commenting on, that that eventuality will not arise, and that the people of Scotland will commit themselves to being part of a United Kingdom that has proved an extraordinary success for all its nations. The McKay commission of course was set up to address those matters, and did so in a considered way, with a recommendation. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Government had not responded formally to the commission; we will do so, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that collective response to the advice we have been given.

We have had a useful and lively debate on the role of Parliament in conflict decisions. I must beg the Committee’s patience again, and say that we will respond to its report soon. It is right, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, to weigh things carefully, because the decision to deploy British troops in overseas conflicts is one of the most momentous that a Government can take. In 2011 the Government recognised that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were deployed overseas the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. That convention has since been recorded in the Cabinet manual and the Government’s commitment to it was most recently demonstrated by the decision to request the recall of Parliament on 29 August 2013 to debate the role that the United Kingdom should play in relation to the conflict in Syria.

There have been suggestions that the convention should be formalised, either by parliamentary resolution or by statute, and both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee have held inquiries to explore the matter. The hon. Member for Nottingham North will know that they reached different views. Their lordships concluded against formalisation in their report of 17 July, arguing that the existing convention was the most appropriate mechanism by which Parliament could be involved in conflict decisions. In our response to the Committee’s report, the Government communicated our continued support for the convention and advised that we would carefully reflect on the case for formalisation before informing Parliament of the position. Since then, of course, the Committee has put forward its case for formalisation.

The first recommendation from the Committee was that the Cabinet manual should be updated to include a reference to the events in the House of Commons on 29 August 2013. The current manual refers to the fact that

“In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”

The Committee makes a reasonable point in suggesting that that should be updated to reinforce the importance and value of that convention by reference to the events of 29 August. The Government accept the recommendation. We will respond in due course to the other recommendations, but it seems reasonable to tell the House today that we will change the Cabinet manual at the time of the next major revision.

The Committee requested that the Prime Minister should give a specific Minister responsibility for making progress on formalising Parliament’s role in conflict decisions, and appoint a senior civil servant to support the Minister in that work. The Government already have a clear governance structure in place, and of necessity that is an area that cannot be devolved to a single individual. It must command the attention and involvement of very senior Ministers in different Departments and cannot be compartmentalised in a pure way. Overall responsibility for constitutional policy rests with the Cabinet Office and is overseen by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but he works on those matters in close consultation with other relevant Cabinet Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and Attorney-General. Support to all Ministers is informed by advice from the national security secretariat. Decisions on the Government’s legislative programme are made collectively by the Cabinet.

The Committee ultimately recommends that the convention that Parliament be consulted before UK troops are committed overseas should be enshrined in law and that, as an interim and more immediate measure, a parliamentary resolution clarifying and formalising that convention should be adopted. The report contains a draft resolution.

It is worth noting the success of the existing arrangement, which has ensured that this Parliament has been consulted on both the major conflict decisions that have arisen since 2010: Libya and Syria. The Government believe that the Prime Minister’s decision to recall Parliament to debate involvement in Syria on 29 August 2013 further demonstrated the Government’s unwavering commitment to the existing convention.

The Government have been considering the complexities and risks associated with formalisation of the current convention, either by legislation or by resolution. As the Committee recognises, formalisation by statute risks rendering deployment decisions justiciable. The Government’s view is that either a statute or a resolution could increase the risk of challenges being brought in the courts to various aspects of Government deployment decisions or decision-making processes. They are concerned that, even when there would be good arguments against such challenges, the potential involvement of the courts could undermine the operational independence and effectiveness of the armed forces, as well as international reliability and credibility.

Furthermore, formalisation by legislation or resolution of the House presents significant definitional challenges, which would require the resolution of difficult questions on the type of action or deployment that would trigger parliamentary involvement, as well as the nature of the exemptions that would apply for reasons of urgency and secrecy. I readily acknowledge that the Committee not only reflected on and noted those issues but proposed some solutions.

If the nature of the military operation were to change, perhaps suddenly, the terms under which approval had been given might no longer apply, and there might be ambiguity about whether they did or did not apply. That could limit the ability of UK forces to conduct operations until the matter was clarified or Parliament had been consulted, or could require the Government to seek retrospective approval, which could undermine the authority and initiative of commanders in perilous situations in battle.

The nature of armed conflict is evolving, driven by the development of advanced military technology and the range of situations in which armed forces might be deployed. Any definition could quickly become redundant, which could constrain the activities of the armed forces when deployed on operations. In relation to any exemptions for urgency or secrecy, as well as presenting similar definitional problems, it would be necessary to accept certain important constraints on the information that could realistically be provided to the whole of Parliament—for example, if action were taken on the basis of sensitive intelligence information to which only certain Members of Parliament were authorised to have access.

There is no doubt that this is a particularly complex matter that presents challenges associated with effectively capturing the existing convention in statute or resolution. There has been much deliberation of the matter and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, who chairs the Committee, is aware that it has been and continues to be subject to serious reflection by the Government.

A range of views was expressed to the Committee and the two Houses of Parliament came to different views on the same subject. The Government continue to reflect carefully on those positions and to examine the available evidence, including the differing conclusions and recommendations of the two Houses of Parliament, and to reflect thoroughly on the experience of the current convention. We will provide the Committee with further details of our position in our formal response shortly.

The Government have demonstrated that they remain totally committed to the existing convention that, before UK troops are committed to conflict, the House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate and vote on the matter, except in an emergency when such action would not be appropriate. We expect future Governments to observe that convention, which is why it is outlined in the Cabinet manual and, as I noted earlier, we will certainly accept the Committee’s recommendation that the document is updated to include a reference to the debate on Syria next time a major revision is undertaken.

I am grateful to the Committee for its report on Parliament’s role in conflict decisions. The Committee, because of its character, makes an important, considered and thoughtful contribution to the debate on this important constitutional arrangement. I would like to thank others who have contributed to the discussion, not least those in their lordships’ House and the individuals who submitted evidence. I assure all contributors that the Government remain committed to ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise decisions to deploy our armed forces overseas. We have not rushed to a judgment, which is a reflection of the seriousness of the issue and our desire to ensure that the right decisions are made instead of peremptory and perhaps wrongly based ones.

City Deal

Greg Clark Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Following the successful completion of the first wave of city deals in July 2012 with the “core cities” the Government committed to work with a further 20 cities and their wider areas to negotiate a second wave of city deals in October 2012.

I can today inform the House that the Government, local businesses and civic leaders from Cambridge, south Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire have reached agreement on a city deal.

This deal will provide funding through an innovative “gain share” mechanism where the area is rewarded for investing in transport projects that will deliver the greatest economic impact over 15 to 20 years. The agreement will launch a programme to enhance transport capacity, strengthening employment hubs and high-tech clusters through the development of a sustainable transport network that will make movement between them more efficient and convenient.

Substantial new investment in the area will help create a locally responsive skills system, forging stronger links between employers and the education system to deliver the jobs that are needed. Local skills teams will be created to work with small and medium-sized businesses to support development of their training plans and by working more closely with employers and young people, generate increased demand for apprenticeships in areas aligned to key growth sectors.

Business and civic leaders anticipate that the deal will enable accelerated delivery of over 33,000 new homes, deliver an additional 1,000 homes, help create 45,000 new jobs and deliver 1,556 apprenticeships, making this one of the most ambitious city deals to date.

The deal also reaffirms long-term partnerships at a local level and signals that local partners are committed to a step-change in governance which will bring together decision making and funding on strategic transport, housing and economic development issues and enable the local area to take advantage of opportunities such as those presented by east-west rail.

Sutton Coldfield (Royal Status)

Greg Clark Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has represented Sutton Coldfield so ably for more than 13 years now, on securing this important Adjournment debate and on the campaign that he has led which has been so trenchantly, supported throughout Sutton Coldfield by his constituents.

My right hon. Friend thought that the Secretary of State for Education might approve of his references to Shakespeare, but I think that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport ought also to approve of the theatrical rendition he gave. As his constituency is not far from the home of the Royal Shakespeare Company, David Tennant, Sir Ian McKellen and various other luminaries should watch out now that we have seen the talents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.

I have followed this campaign with close interest. This interest is, of course, bolstered by the fact that I represent the town of Royal Tunbridge Wells where we too are proud of our royal connections. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, I had the great pleasure of receiving his delegation in Whitehall earlier this year. On that occasion he brought with him others involved in his campaign and it is clear that the partnership between my right hon. Friend and the editor and journalists on the Sutton Coldfield Observer has developed into a strong and sustained effort throughout Sutton Coldfield that has captured both the enthusiasm and support of local residents.

The evidence that the Sutton Coldfield Observer has collected—as well as how it was presented to me and my officials in a formidable dossier that has pride of place in my office—was of deep historical interest and would be to anyone who looked closely at these matters. It also showed the importance that citizens attach to their local heritage and the interest in and commitment to the history of their local surroundings that people feel.

My right hon. Friend set out the long relationship that Sutton Coldfield has had with the Crown. This began when the manor of Sutton passed into the hands of the King during the reign of William the Conqueror. The royal manor of Sutone gets a mention in the Domesday Book. For reasons that are not recorded, the Crown gave away its royal manor in Sutton Coldfield in 1135, but the fortunes of Sutton Coldfield were revived, as my right hon. Friend has said, by John Harman, better known as Bishop Vesey, after lying dormant for some years. Returning from his bishopric in Exeter to Sutton Coldfield in 1524 to attend his mother’s funeral, it is recorded that Bishop Vesey decided that something needed to be done to regenerate the town.

He obtained the charter of incorporation from the King in 1528 that bestowed on Sutton Coldfield the status of royal town. That charter reads, as my right hon. Friend said:

“the same town and village shall forever hereafter be accounted, named and called the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield in our county of Warwick”.

As my right hon. Friend set out in his speech, Bishop Vesey, having secured this royal recognition, went on to regenerate the town and gave people access to Sutton park by making it a royal forest, allowing Suttonians to use its resources.

Indeed, Sutton Coldfield’s emblem of the Tudor rose also finds its roots in Bishop Vesey’s association with Henry VIII. According to folklore, King Henry VIII was hunting in Sutton Park as the guest of Bishop Vesey when he was charged by a wild boar. Before the boar could reach the King, it fell dead with an arrow through its heart. The King’s saviour emerged from the woods and turned out to be in the form of a beautiful young woman. When she told the King her family had been dispossessed of their property, he ordered that restitution should be made to them. To the young woman he personally presented the Tudor rose, which he decreed should henceforth be the emblem of Sutton Coldfield.

Having looked carefully at all these matters, I fully understand the pride people in Sutton Coldfield feel in their royal heritage and the history of their town. As my right hon. Friend said, the local government reorganisation of 1974 incorporated—I think he used the word “heaved”—Sutton Coldfield into the city of Birmingham for administrative purposes. I am a great admirer of that city, and as my right hon. Friend said, many Sutton Coldfield residents have served with distinction in the city of Birmingham. I am looking forward to attending a conference there next month on one of our great civic heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, organised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).

That was not the first local government change to affect Sutton Coldfield. The town became a municipal borough in 1885, and although it was not designated a royal borough, the title of royal town continued to be used, as my right hon. Friend has demonstrated. In that respect, there are some similarities with my own town of Royal Tunbridge Wells. Since 1974, there has not been any local government authority called Royal Tunbridge Wells, the newly formed borough having taken in several adjoining urban and rural district councils. Nevertheless, the use of the town’s royal title continues.

Our two towns have other things in common, too. We have had more than our fair share of celebrated residents over the years. I note with interest that Sutton Coldfield has been home to much-loved national figures including Sir Roger Moore and—perhaps she is in that category—the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Tunbridge Wells boasts many pillars of the establishment, too, such as Sid Vicious and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).

The case that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have made is clear and simple: while there is no corporation or similar legal entity that carries the royal title, there is no reason why the lack of a local council should prohibit the continued reference to Sutton Coldfield as a royal town. I am very sympathetic to his argument, but he will understand that I must be guided by established precedent in an area that is often complex. I am pleased to tell him that in my researches I have become aware of a clear and helpful precedent. A number of Scottish towns are in an analogous position to Sutton Coldfield, in that local government reorganisations did not carry forward their royal titles into the names of the new authorities. In 1977, the Government of the day clarified that, notwithstanding the absence of a local government body containing the royal title,

“There is no statutory ban to the continuance of historic titles for other purposes.”—[Official Report, 6 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 694W.]

There being no statutory ban, I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend and his constituents should wish to use the title. In other words, I am pleased to be able to confirm today to him and his constituents that there is no statutory prohibition on the use of this historic title. I can therefore confirm also that there is nothing to prevent the people of Sutton Coldfield making use of their historic royal title.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that Mr Speaker had the pleasure of visiting Sutton Coldfield just a few days ago, to speak to Suttonians from the university of the Third Age in the historic setting of Sutton Coldfield’s town hall. While neither he nor you will have known the contents of this Adjournment debate, it had already been granted.

The results of this long campaign in the town will appear in the Hansard record of our proceedings, which will no doubt be read with considerable interest across Sutton Coldfield. The debate also brings to a close uncertainty on the matter, which I know will be hugely welcomed by my right hon. Friend, Sutton Coldfield’s tenacious and invincible Member of Parliament, its much respected newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, and all in the town. I warmly commend him and all those involved in his campaign and I look forward to visiting Sutton Coldfield in due course, not least to deliver my own greetings from Tunbridge Wells to its residents.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on further devolution of power from Westminster and Whitehall.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I am a member of the local growth committee, which is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and brings together Ministers from a wide range of Departments monthly to focus on local growth programmes, including the delivery of the recommendations of the Heseltine review. To date, we have completed 24 city deals and by the summer all 39 local enterprise partnerships, which have submitted their economic plans, will have been assessed and we will make the announcements of local growth deals at that point.

[Bob Blackman]

Further devolution has taken place to Scotland and to Wales, and it has now been a year since the London Finance Commission reported on proposals for devolution to London and the great cities. What progress has my right hon. Friend made in his discussions with Treasury colleagues on devolving property taxes to London and the other great cities of this country?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of empowering our great cities—he is a distinguished leader of a London council—and he knows we have made great progress in this area. He will know that the devolution of business rates, for example, allows London, and other parts of the country, to keep 50% of business rate income. That is worth £3 billion a year to London, and those retained business rates have helped to pay for the £1 billion Northern line extension to Battersea, so this is working in London.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I press the Minister a little more on real devolution to the regions of this country? Yorkshire now has no democratic voice; it has no organisation that strategically focuses on Yorkshire in the coming years. Yorkshire has a bigger population than Scotland, so when can we have that kind of focus and leadership?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. I have a great deal of respect for him but he has not noticed the creation of the combined authority in Yorkshire, which has brought together the councils in the area for precisely that purpose. It has included the signing of a city deal, which has been hailed by the people of Yorkshire, including the leader of Leeds city council, who says:

“This…spells…a fundamental shift in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions. It marks the first steps of a new era”

That will allow the north to “truly control” its “own destiny.” I think the hon. Gentleman should talk to Councillor Wakefield.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Would the Minister concur with the view that in the event of Scotland rejecting the independence option in September, the option of devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall represents a post-referendum way forward—but that it can be only one side of a two-sided coin, with the other being more re-dispersal of power within and across Scotland? The highlands and islands have lost power from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to Edinburgh, from the Crofting Commission to Edinburgh, and over regional and local control of our emergency services. That is not what those of us who were arguing for devolution before some Scottish National party Members were Members of this House had in mind.

[Greg Clark]

The policy and the practice of this Government has been to devolve power from this place to our great cities across the country. I do not think that has been the policy of the Administration in Scotland, who have centralised power and reduced the influence of our great cities north of the border.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

City deals are a good start, but if our city regions really want to prosper the time has come to give them the power to levy a supplement on the business rates, as the Mayor of London has.

[Greg Clark]

I am a great fan of the hon. Lady’s efforts to promote Birmingham, which she does very successfully in this House, and to make sure that that great city has the powers and the future that are a tribute to its glories in the past. Through the city deals we are giving more control of the very considerable expenditure that currently is made in Birmingham but which is handled by central Government. If we do that, we can come on to address proposals that Birmingham is making on other matters.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership on devolving powers and responsibilities from central Government.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I met the board members of Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership, including Christine Gaskell and Howard Hopwood, and the council leaders of Cheshire east, Cheshire west and Chester, to discuss their strategic economic plan on 19 March. We are considering their proposals in their plan and expect to make an announcement on the growth deal in July.

[Stephen Mosley]

One project being promoted by the Cheshire and Warrington LEP is electrification of the west coast main line from Crewe to Chester and beyond into north Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that and other such proposals show the importance of LEPs acting as strong local champions for critical infrastructure projects?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right, and he is exactly such a strong local champion. As a result of his impressive campaign, that proposal features very strongly in the Cheshire and Warrington strategic plan. I know that it has also attracted attention from Sir David Higgins and his report on HS2, which mentions the case for further improvements east and west, so he is doing a good job. We will be considering those plans over the next few months, but he has made his point very forcefully today.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

3. What the Government's policy is on introducing regional Ministers to champion specific areas of the country.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

This Government have instituted the most radical devolution of power and financial autonomy to local councils and community groups for a generation. It is our policy to empower local leaders in cities, counties and districts. Local leaders support that approach. Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester city council, said that there has been more progress on giving cities control of their destiny in three years of this Government than under 13 years of Labour.

[Mr Ward]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he now answer the question that I put about regional Ministers, and say what he thinks about that as a way of providing a voice and focus for regions across the piece?

[Greg Clark]

The route we have taken is to empower the leaders of our great cities and counties to provide that leadership of their area. We do not want to send, as the previous Government did, governors-general from Westminster and Whitehall to preside over the regions. That is why our 24 city deals have been based on what local leaders and businesses want; it is their ideas that they have put forward and we back them.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

The Government have conceded the principle of territorial Ministers in England with the appointment of the City Minister for Portsmouth. As I understand it, the reason the Government did that was economic development-led. Surely the case for the north-east of England is far stronger, with unemployment rates being higher.

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman was a regional Minister in the previous Government. Let me just reflect for a moment on my home town of Middlesbrough. I carry around with me a medallion that was struck to commemorate a statue, publicly unveiled, to the first mayor of Middlesbrough. We are still waiting in Middlesbrough to see a public move to erect a statue to the former regional Minister of the north-east. We want to empower our local leaders, and what we are doing is the right way round.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure we are all very interested in the Minister’s medallion.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that this idea of regional Ministers is not the way forward, and that it is important to strengthen local government. Does he agree that there is a place for elected mayors within that?

[Greg Clark]

I do agree with that. Having cited the first mayor of Middlesbrough, Henry Bolckow, and noted that a statue erected by public subscription was made to him, I think that it would be good if we had a rash of them across the country in tribute to the leadership that mayors can play.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not realise that devolving power is useless—worthless—if, at the same time, this Government are cutting local government funds by 40%?

[Greg Clark]

That is not the view of council leaders in the hon. Gentleman’s area, who have been extremely enthusiastic about the city deals that have been struck. The chair of the Sheffield city region, in which the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is involved, says that the powers that have been devolved through the city deal will

“drive forward real economic growth and create jobs”

for the whole region, including for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

4. What steps he plans to take to reform the system of party political funding and donations to political parties by trade unions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Leicester and Leicestershire local enterprise partnership on devolving powers and responsibilities from central Government.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I was in Leicestershire on 24 March this year to launch the Leicester and Leicestershire city deal, when I visited the Loughborough university science and enterprise park. The city deal will support the expansion of the science park by opening up new employment land. It will also increase investment in youth employment schemes and give tailored business support.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Last Friday, I spoke at the “North West Leicestershire means business” event at the world-famous Donington Park race track in my constituency. At the event, we heard contributions from the Leicester and Leicestershire enterprise partnership about their efforts to promote economic growth. Will my right hon. Friend outline how he believes the recent city deal will help to promote further economic growth across the county of Leicestershire?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his support for the city deal, which includes not only the city of Leicester but the whole of the county of Leicestershire. One of the features of the city deal proposed by local businesses was to give support and guidance to small businesses that are seeking to expand. Grants of up to £1 million are available to small businesses throughout Leicestershire that have that potential. I know that he drew the scheme to the attention of his businesses and I hope that he will continue to do so.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of progress on the Government’s policy of decentralisation in England.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

This Government have instituted the most radical devolution of power and financial autonomy to local councils for a generation. After ever-increasing centralisation under the previous Government, we believe that all regions, cities and towns can play a part in securing the economic recovery and in building a better and stronger economy for the future.

[Lorely Burt]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving local enterprise greater control over its own destiny has helped to rejuvenate the entrepreneurial spirit of local areas? Will he commend the ambition of Birmingham and Solihull LEP’s strategic economic plan, which aims to create 41,000 jobs for a Government investment of only £86 million next year?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed commend that ambition. It is appropriate that the enterprise partnership that brings together Birmingham and Solihull has the great good fortune to be led by Andy Street, the managing director of John Lewis and one of the country’s most admired business people. It is fantastic that he is devoting his time to helping the local economy to grow and providing that private sector leadership, which is in marked contrast to the regional development agencies that we had in the past, presided over by governors-general such as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The social economy is becoming an increasingly important driver of innovation and growth. We have 75,000 social enterprises in this country, employing 1 million people, and one in four businesses in the European Union is now a social business. Will the Minister commit in his conversations about city deals and about local enterprise and growth to ensure that social enterprises and the social economy are at the heart of that drive to reinvigorate the regions of this country?

[Greg Clark]

I certainly will. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. I recall going to Brighton to sign the Brighton city deal in a social enterprise—a hub for start-up tech businesses, brought together by the voluntary and social enterprise sector, that is thriving. Part of the deal was to expand it. That is a model to which I hope other places in the country will aspire.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Government are right to pursue the principle of decentralisation, because local communities are best placed to make public investment decisions in their area? An excellent example is the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, building on the strength of the area, which is advanced manufacturing.

[Greg Clark]

I do indeed agree and my hon. Friend was a stalwart in campaigning for the city deal. The people who know and understand their areas best are those who live and work in them. That is the simple principle behind our city deals and the policy of this Government.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I thank the Minister for his answers and his commitment to this area in general, which we support? Council leaders of all parties in London and the Mayor of London believe that greater powers, including financial responsibility, should be devolved to London. The Minister answered the question from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about business rates—a move that we welcome—in the past tense. Do the Government have any plans to transfer power from Whitehall to city hall and town halls in London?

[Greg Clark]

Yes. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a personal interest, as he is hoping to move on from this place to city hall, although he might face a tough fight in doing so. We are committed totally to moving power from here to the city halls and town halls of the country. At the moment, we are negotiating a £2 billion a year transfer of funds from the centre to every city and county across the country, including London, to put control of these resources in the hands of local people rather than officials in Whitehall.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Individual electoral registration will help to enhance the accuracy of the electoral register by verifying applications against Government records. We will also use data matching to ensure the completeness of the register during the transition to the new system by confirming the vast majority of existing electors. Five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain are sharing £4.2 million of funding aimed at maximising registration. The introduction of online registration will be of particular help to groups such as overseas voters, students and young people.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

If the Electoral Commission recommends in its report due in 2015 that the move should not go ahead because too many voters have dropped off the register, will the Minister listen to its advice?

[Greg Clark]

With respect, the hon. Lady is bringing together two different points. The Electoral Commission has already said that individual voter registration should proceed, stating:

“We have independently assessed how ready the plans are for this change…and have concluded that it can proceed.”

The decision on whether to close the transition is a decision for the next Government and the Electoral Commission has said that it will provide advice during the next Parliament.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, the registration of young people fell dramatically. A duty was then placed on schools and colleges to help register their students and Northern Ireland now has registration rates among young people that are higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister introduce a similar duty to apply to schools and colleges in the rest of the United Kingdom so that we maximise the number of young people who are registered?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter, as he knows. We have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland and that is one reason we have provided the funding we have to enable groups of people to go into schools and encourage people to register. One of the differences from which we have learned a lesson concerns the importance of online registration, which was not available in Northern Ireland. Our approach to registering young people is to encourage them to register online, and that will be carried out across the country.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Returning Officers Indemnity Arrangements (European Parliamentary Elections)

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explain the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

This minute sets out the Cabinet Office proposal to indemnify returning officers and local returning officers in the forthcoming European parliamentary elections against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties. We will also provide a certificate confirming that we will bear any employee liabilities of the returning officer or local returning officer which would otherwise be covered by insurance procured under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. Indemnities were previously provided by the Home Office in 2012 at the police and crime commissioners elections and—in more limited form—by the Ministry of Justice for the 2010 UK parliamentary general election and the 2009 European parliamentary elections.

European parliamentary elections will be held on 22 May 2014.

Returning officers and local returning officers are independent officers appointed by statute—see section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, the European Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Order 2013 and the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004—and are separate from both central and local government. As such, they are personally liable for the conduct of the European parliamentary elections. They are therefore exposed, as a result, to a variety of legal risks and potential challenges. Existing insurance that covers returning officers and local returning officers in taking forward their statutory duties at local elections will not, in most cases, cover them in these elections.

In the light of this, Cabinet Office proposes to provide returning officers and local returning officers with a specific indemnity, where existing insurance coverage will not apply. We will also certificate returning officers and local returning officers under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998 in respect of any liability to their employees.

Besides the elections on 22 May 2014, we also wish to cover liabilities incurred in any subsequent European parliamentary by-elections. Therefore this indemnity is expected to run until the day before the poll at the next European parliamentary elections for all Members of the European Parliament in 2019.

The precise level of the legal risk covered by this indemnity and likelihood of it arising are difficult to quantify. However, the level and value of claims arising in recent UK parliamentary general and European parliamentary elections has been very low. In the last 10 years the largest claim met under previous insurance and top-up indemnity arrangements for a national election was £24,035.75 at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Minor injury and damage claims met at national elections have amounted to less than £10,000 over the last decade.

However, it is not possible to rule out a more significant claim in future. If an election petition involving a returning officer or local returning officer went to full trial and ran for several days it is conceivable that the bill for legal costs could run into many £100,000s or more. It is also conceivable that there could be more than one occurrence associated with an election. This has, however, not happened in the recent past with other elections and is considered an extremely remote possibility.

The indemnity is therefore unlimited save for particular exclusions. It will provide returning officers and local returning officers with cover for:

Amounts excluded by the excess or that exceed the upper limits on any existing insurance policies held by returning officers or local returning officers, or local authorities on their behalf, that will provide coverage;

Any reasonable costs resulting from their liabilities to the public, as an employer and in their professional role.

The indemnity will have the following exclusions:

It will not cover any costs which arise in whole or in part from any deliberate or wilful negligence by a returning officer or local returning officer;

It will not cover situations where an existing insurance policy offers an alternative means of cover;

It will not cover any claim relating to the acts or omissions of a returning or local returning officer in carrying out registration duties;

It will not cover any claim relating to the use of a motor vehicle where such use does not relate to the conduct of the elections and/or should have been covered by a valid insurance policy but was not.

If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought from the Consolidated Fund. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.

I am aware that departmental minutes normally allow 14 parliamentary sitting days after the minute is laid for Members to scrutinise and object to the proposal if they wish. However, in this case there is special urgency as the elections will take place in less than two months. As returning officers are already preparing for these elections and need to continue to do so confident that they are covered in respect of those actions, the indemnity needs to commence immediately and cover retrospective claims, such as those arising from advice they may have already given.

Although in this case Members have not had the normal scrutiny period, given the urgency of the situation, I trust Members will understand that it was necessary to provide this indemnity to returning officers simultaneously with notifying Parliament.

This indemnity does not apply to the returning officer for Northern Ireland or the local returning officer for Gibraltar, who are indemnified or insured through separate arrangements.