School Funding Reform

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That is a typically shrewd point from my hon. Friend. One of the problems we inherited is that under the system that prevailed under the previous Government, guidance was given in 2007 to reduce surplus places, particularly in the primary sector, and we now have a basic need problem. It is good that the Opposition now recognise that we should prioritise meeting basic need.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows that Mildenhall college of technology in my constituency is one of the most dilapidated schools in the country. The skylights are falling in: it turns out that no one fixed the roof when the sun was shining. Will he give me an assurance that fixing the school will be promoted, and that a date will be set for when we can start to rebuild it, so that children can be educated somewhere they can be proud of?

[Michael Gove]

This will be a needs-led process. Putting the jargon aside, that basically means that the money will go to the schools in the worst condition. I hope that we will see that building commence in 2014.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that over the past few weeks a lot of discussions have been going on between the Treasury, ourselves, some of the charities involved and hon. Members who have made these proposals. There are a number of practical problems that we have to overcome to make sure that we get the most cost-effective scheme that has the biggest impact for those who most need it, but I can assure him that it is going to happen.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T8. May I commend strongly to the Secretary of State the proposal for a free school at Breckland school in Brandon—a middle school that was set for closure under the previous Administration? If that happened, there would be no post-11 education in Brandon, but if it gets the go-ahead as a free school there will be education all the way up to 16. That will have a massively positive impact on the community, and I hope that he will commend it.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate today, and I am following a large number of Members who have spoken with great authority and understanding. I have listened with interest to the debate, but one thing seems to be missing. It is the big picture. The biggest impact of the money spent on children’s education, in terms of our ability to improve cognitive skills, is seen in the earlier years. There is now consensus not only in the academic literature but across the House that we need to target resources in that area, because that is where they have the biggest impact on child brain development. However, when we consider how the money is spent in the UK and across the world, we see that the inverse of that is happening. Excellent research has shown that the money going into post-16 education in the UK is 1.5 times the amount per head that is spent at primary level. The differential is even greater for the pre-school and under-twos provision that we have been discussing today.

We all recognise this historic anomaly, but the question is: what can we do about it in the context of the extremely tight public spending limits that are necessary, given the scale of the deficit? That is not an easy proposition. The analysis is easy, and the evidence all points the same way, but it is extremely difficult to achieve the practical and political ability to make that change, so that that money will go to children at the age at which it has the most impact.

I shall give two examples. The Government have made two proposals that will save money, because the evidence showed that the money being used did not have as much impact as it could have done elsewhere. They are politically difficult proposals. First, the Government have asked students to pay more of their tuition fees, and secondly, they are restructuring the EMA. At the moment 90% of those who receive it would have stayed in school anyway, so now the impact will be much greater. Those are both extremely politically sensitive changes, yet they are having exactly the impact that Members of all parties have called for.

In an era of rising budgets it may be easy to put more and more focus on increasing spending at the lower end of the age distribution. In an era of very tight finances, however, it is difficult to redistribute and retarget money from the older end, especially post-16, where the evidence shows that the impact on cognitive ability is the smallest, to under-fives, for whom the evidence shows it is biggest. However, this Government are doing it. Members of all parties ought to recognise how difficult it is to make that change in the context of the very tight public finances.

That supports the strength of the Government’s position, which I applaud, of keeping the early intervention grant flat in cash terms in the forthcoming period. Protecting money for early intervention, in the context of the current spending conditions, is an achievement for which the Minister ought to be applauded.

We then come to the argument about how that money is spent and where the cuts are falling. I did a bit of research and found 27 councils across the country that are managing to keep all their Sure Start centres open despite the difficult public finances. Of those, 24 are run by the Conservative party and three are Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalitions.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage cuts those councils are receiving compared with the 4.4% average cut to local authority budgets?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. My own county council, Suffolk, did not do very well in the distribution of the local authority grant, but because it is making savings in back-office costs, re-engineering how it delivers services, reducing the cost of services and being flexible in how it delivers them, it is able to keep its centres open. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point, and the crucial point is that councils ought to be making savings in the back office and re-engineering their services to protect front-line services, as Suffolk is doing.

[Mr Slaughter]

I will try to keep this non-party political, but since the hon. Gentleman makes that point, I will ask him the same question that I asked the Chair of the Education Committee. If councils are closing most of their Sure Start centres, should we just shrug and say, “Well, that’s a matter for localism”, or, given what the hon. Gentleman has said, should the Minister take an interest?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

There is of course a statutory amount of Sure Start provision that must be in place, as I am sure the Minister will spell out in more detail. The question is whether services can be provided in a way that delivers better value for money, through savings in the back office. I recently chaired a report on councils’ ability to save money and deliver services better by bringing together the delivery of local services. Reference was made earlier in the debate to the fact that when that has been done, it has not only saved money but actually improved services. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) talked about Sure Start centres that also have health and social services, so that they are a one-stop shop. Those are exactly the sort of innovative solutions that we need to examine.

One example of a council that is doing that extremely well is local to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). Hammersmith council, and others across the country, are saving money by changing how services are delivered. That is far better than cutting front-line services, and I commend that approach. I mention that not to make a party political point but to argue that by allowing local councils on the ground to spend money in the way that they see fit, with the flexibility to deliver early intervention as best they can, we allow innovation and improvements in delivery instead of the attitude that the man in Whitehall knows best, which top-down provision and tight ring-fencing bring.

[Mr Slaughter]

The theory sounds fine, but the practice is different. I am trying not to be party political, but let us say that a council decides it is going to cut the Sure Start budget by about half and close most of its centres. That cannot be dressed up as back-office services, and for many children, the essential services with which they are currently provided will not be there. Should that be a matter for the Government to take an interest in?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is why it is important to have a specified national minimum level of provision, and then allow councils to ensure that they meet—and, one hopes, exceed—that level. The reason for allowing local innovation and flexibility with a national minimum level is to enable different approaches to be taken in different places, so that best practice can emerge. That lets local councils and people deliver in the way that is most helpful and appropriate to local people, but it is also about ensuring that instead of a centralised, bureaucratic system, we have a local system that responds to local need.

We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that we need better management, but we have had a centralised system for years. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I am obviously well aware of National Audit Office reports, and, sad to say, the NAO found that the amount of formal child care among the most disadvantaged fell between 2004 and 2008. Instead of leading to more provision for those people, the centralised approach actually led to less, so let us try a different way.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had too centralised a system, we would lose the excellent work of many voluntary sector organisations in specific areas, such as the charity with which I have been involved in Oxfordshire, OXPIP? We would not have the opportunity to introduce local services to meet local needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s passionate argument earlier, which made exactly that case. Local innovation and a local ability to respond to local events, with a national set of standards that must be met, allow money to be spent better.

I come to the central reason why I support that approach—the fact that it is about outcomes, not inputs. Tight ring-fencing is all about ensuring that the inputs go to a certain area. I understand as well as anybody how easy it is to get a headline out of writing that x million pounds is going to such and such a project—but what matters to people on the ground is not the amount of money poured in at the top, but the outcomes delivered at the bottom. The ability to improve value for public money, get better outcomes and have innovative social groups, such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) mentioned, is, given the extremely tight fiscal environment, vital. I therefore applaud the Government’s approach in loosening ring-fencing while retaining minimum standards to allow flourishing local innovation and improve the value that we get for the hard-earned taxpayers’ money that we spend on their behalf.

In the context of spending more money on early years, and thus getting better outcomes, I also applaud the free entitlement to 15 hours of early years education for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. That is another example of managing to get money from the older part of the age range to the younger part. I also strongly applaud the desire for increased qualifications in the work force and better leadership, especially through the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services, to ensure that we get more highly talented people into the work.

Of course, I welcome the 4,200 extra health visitors, targeted at very young age groups. I think we can all agree that the reduction in the number of health visitors in the past few years was a mistake. Reversing that and ensuring that there is universal coverage, and more health visitors, is very valuable.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman made a good point. As soon as I realised that he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee I took great notice of his words. However, early years professionals and a qualified teacher will not be required even in the children’s centres that have full-day provision. Surely, if he believes in professionalism in the work force, he deplores that. On a visit on Friday, I found that people are giving up on the early years qualification, because they feel that it is no longer valued and will not be funded after 2012.

[Matthew Hancock]

It is important to have highly qualified people, but again, I would not make that mandatory for a centre because many people are highly qualified to work in and deliver early years education, but do not have the specific qualification. If people in, for example, the charity with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is closely involved do not have that qualification because they have come to it through a different route, I would not want to put a barrier in their way. That does not mean that we should not have more professionally qualified people.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is okay for unqualified people to provide the professionalism in Sure Start centres? That seems to be happening in the schools sector—in free schools—recently. Do qualifications mean nothing in the profession any longer, according to the Government?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course qualifications are meaningful, but does the hon. Gentleman claim that no person without the formal paper qualification is up to the job? I do not think so. Of course, a qualification is part of someone’s resumé and experience, but we should not be so bureaucratic about the piece of paper. We should look at the person’s ability and qualifications through their history.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On qualifications, in the charity with which I am involved there are people with PhDs in psychotherapy, and paediatricians, who have decided to move to working with the very young. It is nonsense to say that having a specific piece of paper uniquely qualifies someone to support early years.

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree wholeheartedly.

There is a consensus—I am glad that there is—about the need to focus resources on early years. There is much more difficulty with actually doing that, and several people will the ends without willing the means. I regret it when the subject becomes a political football, because almost all of us agree about the ends. Before the election, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) went to Ipswich and said that Sure Start centres would be closed there. However, they are all open. It was a mistake to make that prediction, and she should withdraw it. Similarly, it is a mistake for the Labour party to argue that the amount of cash for the early intervention grant is falling when it is being kept flat. We should work together to achieve the ends, about which we all agree, in the difficult circumstances that the Government did not bring about, to ensure that we serve our children best and improve their life chances, cognitive abilities, skills and happiness. We should not create a political football, saying that we agree about the ends while disagreeing on the means to achieve them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady, who has only just joined the debate. I have been here for two hours.

If we take out the money allocated to Liverpool schools, Ministers have decided to cut the money for children and families by 35%. In the city with the greatest need, more than a third of the budget for children and families is being shed.

We all support efficiency and back-office cost savings, but I asked the Minister in a named day question on 15 February what the average back-office costs for a Sure Start centre are. I am still waiting for a response.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am puzzled; I hope I will not be shocked. I know that Liverpool council’s total spending power is falling by 15% over two years in real terms. The hon. Lady has just claimed that spending on children’s services is falling by 35%. Is it true that Liverpool council—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

A Labour council.

[Matthew Hancock]

Is it run by the Labour party? Is it true that that council is cutting children’s services by so much more than the total overall cut?

[Luciana Berger]

The grants to children, which are not allocated to schools, are being cut by 35% in Liverpool by the Government. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

I will not reconsider the decision on ring-fencing because I believe that it is the correct decision. As I was trying to say before I took the interventions, this is not taking place in a vacuum. Payment by results will ensure that we focus much more on outcomes. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk powerfully put it, the problem with ring-fencing is that it focuses on inputs. I do not think that it is inputs that generate outcomes. We have to try to drive behaviour to focus on the outcomes.

[Matthew Hancock]

Does the Minister accept that in my area of Suffolk the removal of the ring fence has allowed the council to work up much more innovative solutions and to integrate different services? It can provide better solutions by bringing the delivery of services closer together, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, and get better value for money. I therefore strongly applaud the Minister’s decision not to put the ring fence back in place.

[Sarah Teather]

I absolutely agree. The point is that local authorities ought to have the freedom to decide whether they want to integrate these services with their youth provision. I want them to make better use of what are often fantastic assets, which are not always fully utilised. If we provide flexibility for local authorities, they will have the opportunity to do that.

Building Schools for the Future

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He, along with the leader of Sandwell council, Sandwell teachers, parents and young people, was able to come and meet me in the Department, and he made the case for the schools in his local authority very effectively. An opportunity now exists for the decision to be reviewed, but the judge was quite clear that that decision should be taken by the Secretary of State.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the very reasonable tone of the Secretary of State’s response to the reasonable judgment. Does he agree that it is not reasonable to ask pupils to be educated in schools that are falling down, or that after 13 years of a Labour Government, they see dripping wet rain coming in and, in some cases, skylights falling in, because dilapidation was not as significant a factor in the scheme as it should have been, and affected schools were therefore not eligible for BSF funding?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. I note that while he was talking about dilapidation and making the case for reform of how we allocate capital with passion and urgency, Opposition Front Benchers were laughing. They might consider that this is an appropriate subject for levity, but I believe that they should reflect on their record in office and consider why, after 13 years and after they inherited a golden economic legacy, so few schools were in a fit state. Was it anything to do with any of the mistakes that might have occurred on their watch?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In the past, regional development funds have ignored areas of deprivation in some parts of the country—for instance, those in West Suffolk—because they are surrounded by areas of comparative wealth. Will the Minister confirm that any area of the country can apply for funding under the new regional growth fund, no matter how small the area of comparative deprivation might be?

[Mr Prisk]

All bids will be considered fairly and on merit. That means that when there is an opportunity to transform the economy so that it is less reliant on the public sector, irrespective of location, those applications will be considered with due care and consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. Students who complete degrees are rightly lauded as graduates at elaborate ceremonies that are all too often unlike those for people who learn valuable crafts. Does the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning agree that we must do more to recognise the value and status of those who complete apprenticeships?

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

For too long we have conned ourselves that the only form of prowess that matters is academic accomplishment. We need, in the spirit of Ruskin and Morris, to recognise that practical skills matter too. I recommend that my hon. Friend read my speech to the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce on that subject. Signed copies are available, but I am told it is the unsigned copies that will be clamoured for in years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question; she has a distinguished record as an anti-racism campaigner. She will be aware that the last Government looked at how to prevent members of the British National party from teaching in the classroom, and decided in the end that the current legislative framework was sufficient. We do not take that view. We are now looking to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent BNP members from being teachers. I very much take her point about the need to ensure that governing bodies and other organisations related to schools are not populated by people with a racist or extremist agenda. We will do everything in our power, consistent with commitments to basic civil liberties, to ensure that racists cannot poison the minds of young people.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T4. The Secretary of State may be aware that over the last month there has been a double dose of good news in Haverhill in my constituency, where Castle Manor school has been awarded outstanding status for the first time and the Samuel Ward school has now become an academy. Will he visit these two schools with me so that he can learn about how they have achieved these improvements and also see how to ensure that those achievements will continue?

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to visit West Suffolk. It is striking that in the six months since the coalition Government were formed—and my hon. Friend took his seat—educational standards in that particular part of East Anglia have significantly improved.

Public Accounts Committee Report (CAFCASS)

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Hodge]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I was the Children’s Minister when his Committee considered that report. We had hoped that putting in a new chief executive and a new board would enable the organisation to manage the transition to the new arrangements and provide an effective service for children. It is particularly depressing in coming back to this issue a few years later to find that that has not taken place. I agree with the implication of his assertion—the time has probably therefore come to review the arrangements that were put in place and to see whether they are appropriate to ensure the proper care of children. I take that point seriously.

CAFCASS’s ability to respond to private law cases, where demand is still increasing, was also woefully inadequate. One third of the section 7 reports required by the courts are more than 10 days late and CAFCASS also faces the ongoing challenge of an ever-increasing number of open care cases remaining on its books. At the end of September, CAFCASS had nearly 12,000 open care cases—over 2,500 more than a year before.

During 2009-10, CAFCASS reached an agreement with the judiciary which enabled it to prioritise new and delayed cases, to introduce a duty system to support the courts in care cases and to write fewer reports in private law cases. All sides agree that, although those temporary changes were necessary, they were not desirable and the duty system for public law cases did not serve the needs of children well. The guidance underpinning those practices has now been amended to minimise the use of duty guardians, but that simply adds to my Committee’s concerns about the capacity of CAFCASS as an organisation to respond to the demands placed on it.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under the right hon. Lady on the Public Accounts Committee. Will she take this opportunity also to note the evidence that we heard that, despite all the problems, the hard work and commitment of the case workers and of social workers were commended by everybody from whom we took evidence?

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely. We changed the way in which my Committee normally operates in that we deliberately took evidence from members of the judiciary. It was heartening to hear that they found the quality of the reports presented to them to be good; there was no criticism at all of the quality. We found it rather more disturbing that both the permanent secretary in the Department and the chief executive of CAFCASS thought that they were running a world-class organisation, whereas the evidence suggested that the quality of the organisation was far from world class.

Education Funding

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions with the brevity demonstrated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) are an inspiration that others might seek to follow.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the hard work that the many inspirational teachers in West Suffolk do to wade through some of the bureaucracy with which they have to deal. Does he agree that it is irresponsible to raise hopes of new schools when no sustainable funding is available?

[Michael Gove]

I entirely agree. It is irresponsible, cynical and poor politics. It was one of the terrible things about the last Government that they raised hopes before the last election knowing that they would not be able to honour them.

Industry (Government Support)

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman sums up the problem with the attitude of the Liberal Democrats. They are determined to say that we are no longer a strong manufacturing country, but I have news for him: we are the sixth biggest manufacturing economy in the world.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about growth and the need for a growth strategy. Is it still the Labour party’s position to put a tax on jobs in the middle of the recovery?

[Mr McFadden]

The proposals we made on the tax to which the hon. Gentleman refers would have kicked in next year. If I were him, I would not be so cocky about tax just a week before his Chancellor comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us his tax proposals.

To return to my specific questions, will the new Government go ahead with the port development competition that was so pivotal in attracting offshore wind suppliers to the United Kingdom? Will the new Government stand by the support to Airbus and Rolls-Royce, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends? The Government have already caused damaging uncertainty by placing a question mark over those projects. If they abandon them, all their words about manufacturing and rebalancing the economy will rightly be seen as worthless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on his confident and well-spoken maiden speech. I noticed that he mentioned in the early part of his speech that he had worked in the Labour Whips Office, so I suspect he will be extremely useful to his new colleagues in helping to explain to them exactly how this place works. He also mentioned the need for jobs for the future; I entirely endorse what he said and agree with him on that.

I think it was the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills who set out earlier the basic difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition regarding the spending of money, and that is reflected in the Government’s amendment to the Opposition motion. The previous Government tested to destruction the theory that if we throw money at a problem, we will resolve it. We all know now that that is not the case.

All Members should welcome discussion in the Chamber of the importance of manufacturing, and of the need for a balanced economy. I might have misheard the shadow Secretary of State earlier, but he seemed to imply that only Labour Members of Parliament understood the needs of manufacturing because it was based in their constituencies. Perhaps Labour Members have missed this, but there has been an election, and some seats have changed hands. I for one represent a seat with a significant amount of manufacturing, although there will be less when AstraZeneca closes its site at the end of 2011. However, my constituency has a large amount of high-tech manufacturing, including a wonderful engineering department at Loughborough university.

[Matthew Hancock]

Does my hon. Friend share my bafflement that all the speeches that we have heard from Labour Members seem to ignore the fact that over the past 13 years the share of manufacturing in our economy has halved? It is entirely contrary to the facts for them to talk about the brilliance of the Labour Government as regards manufacturing.

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Manufacturing has fallen at a faster rate over the past 13 years than in the 1980s. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke about the need for a balanced economy, but the previous Government had 13 years to achieve that. I welcome the fact that the Conservative-Lib Dem Government’s coalition agreement says that there is a need for a balanced economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

With respect, the idea that, somehow, our wealth was purely predicated on Government spending is exactly the principle that Conservative Members have problems with.

[Matthew Hancock]

Is my hon. Friend aware that Great Britain went into the recession with the largest budget deficit in the developed world and that that was nothing to do with the banking crisis but was solely due to the management of the economy by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am fully aware of those facts. The figures show that the ratio of our debt to GDP is 12%. That is higher than any other country in the west. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I stand corrected. The deficit-to-GDP ratio is the highest of any other country in western Europe and, indeed, in the western developed world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

I have news for the hon. Gentleman: he is sitting on the Government Benches. It is up to the Government to bring their proposals to this House, and it is for this House to make judgments on them. As my right hon. Friend made clear—

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Mr Campbell]

One at a time!

As my right hon. Friend made clear, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills identified £900 million-worth of cuts before the election. Before the election, I was in the Home Office, where we had identified £500 million-worth of savings. It is simply wrong to say that the previous Government did not identify savings, but if the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) wants to go beyond that programme, it is up to his party and his Government to bring forward those proposals.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts that were identified by Labour. We all know that the Labour figures implied £50 billion of spending cuts; for all that we have heard about demanding more money, that is the fact of the matter. He mentions £500 million as an aggregate figure, but can he give us, say, five specific examples of cuts at the Home Office, where he was a Minister, that would have happened under a Labour Government had they been re-elected?

[Mr Campbell]

I would first mention the battle for savings that every police force has to deliver while protecting front-line services. However, I do not necessarily want to talk about that—I want to talk about the money that was in the budgets under the previous Government for a very good reason.

This debate is not only about BIS but about the whole of Government. I hope that the Minister will have a word with colleagues in other Departments, for the sake of construction workers in my constituency. I hope that we can have a decision on Building Schools for the Future in north Tyneside. Our children deserve the best learning environment, but our construction workers deserve jobs, too. When the last new school in my constituency—Monkseaton high school—was built, more than half the construction jobs went to local people. When the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, went to the school, he praised the building. So let us have some commitment from the Government that gives certainty and ensures that Monkseaton high school was not literally the last new school to be built in my constituency.

There was also money in the regional transport budget, but that budget has been frozen. That has caused me concern, but, more importantly, it has caused concern for local businesses and their representatives. There was £30 million in the budget to improve the A19-A1058 Silverlink roundabout. A driver who turns left at that roundabout goes to the new green technology park on the north bank of the Tyne. If they go straight over, they go to the Cobalt business park—the biggest private business park in the country, which is there because of co-operation between the public and the private sectors in bringing those jobs to the area. If we do not get those improvements, then people who go through the new Tyne tunnel—delivered by the previous Labour Government—will end up in gridlock. A whole host of then shadow Ministers came to look at those roads and made promises to my constituents about what they would do. Well, they are in government now, so they had better start delivering on those promises. If the road network in the north-east is not upgraded, if we are excluded from the rapid rail link, and if the new runway at Heathrow does not take place, squeezing out the regional air links, why would an investor who comes to Great Britain think about putting their money into the north-east given that we do not have a transport network for the future to create future jobs?

I want to concentrate on the regional development agency, which has been mentioned. Before the recession, the north-east had the fastest-growing economy of any region outside London. That did not happen despite Government action, it happened with it, and One NorthEast was part of that story.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to see you in the Chair. I am glad to see that you have adopted the traditional attire of the Deputy Speaker. It has been very enjoyable this afternoon to listen to the maiden speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass)—the latter was a particularly charming speech. I agreed especially with the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, and less so with all of the others.

I wanted to speak in this debate on business because I grew up in a small family business. In a sense, that is what brought me into politics. It taught me the values of enterprise and responsibility as I watched that small business grow. It was my first job and it has informed the way in which I think about the world and how it operates. I still remember the occasion when I first realised the impact of Government regulation on small businesses and the amount of time that that could take up to no particularly beneficial effect. The Health and Safety Executive visited my family business—an office-based computer software business—and took two days of senior management time and its own staff’s time to search for something that breached the health and safety code. I am sure that many small business people across the country will recognise that scenario. After two days, all that they had found was a bottle of bleach in the cupboard under the sink in the small office kitchen and no sign saying that it was there. This was put into the report and I remember laminating the sign that still hangs above the sink and says, “There is bleach in the cupboard. Please do not drink it.” That gave the company a clean bill of health from the HSE. What a waste of resources, of management time and of the HSE staff time.

I was therefore delighted to hear that the Government will review health and safety laws. We all recognise the importance of health and safety—indeed, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Factory Acts—but the over-bearing, centralised, top-down, intrusive, suspicious, expansive and expensive health and safety system that has grown up in the past few years needs to be reviewed.

I have given just one example of something that has happened frequently over the past 13 years. The end result has been the economic crisis that we are now in and that members of both parties on this side of the House are trying to face up to and solve for the future good of our country. I have been astonished that in this debate Opposition Members have joined in a leftward march away from the centre of political debate, ignoring entirely the depth of the crisis that we face. Even the former Minister, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) could not specify a single reduction in spending in his Department, despite saying that he had identified £500 million of cuts.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

I identified £116 million of back-office savings that police forces were instructed to make. That is £116 million of cuts, is it not?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is £116 million of unspecified cuts, which is precisely the point that I was making.

[Mr Campbell]

It is not for us to tell police forces where they should make cuts. It is for us to set the police budget, but police forces are operationally independent, and it is for police authorities to make those decisions. The Government do not tell them how to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

We have not heard a single consequence of the £50 billion cuts that the Labour party would have had to introduce had they won the election. That puts the Labour party out of the debate, and leaves it to others—especially those on this side of the House—to work out how we get our country out of this terrible mess.

Over the past 13 years we have heard about the six regulations a day from the Secretary of State and the £11 billion cost each year of extra regulations. I used to say that we had the longest and most complicated tax code in the world except for India, until last year when India overtook us—I mean, when we overtook India. I will get it right eventually! Youth unemployment is the highest on record; we have had a record fall in business investment; and for all the hot air about manufacturing, the number of manufacturing firms in this country has fallen by a fifth over the past 13 years. We do not need to hear anything more from the Labour party about manufacturing as we try to turn the economy around.

I am delighted that, in the agreement on in-year spending reductions of £6 billion, £50 million was found to put right part of the catastrophe in further education funding that happened under the last Labour Government, when so many promises were made with no funds attached, when the budget was completely overcommitted, and when the Government had to go around the country to half-started projects and take away the funding. Since the election, we have heard that that is the case in Department after Department, and that FE was just unlucky that it all came out before the election. So I welcome strongly the statement by the Minister for Universities and Science that that money will go to FE colleges and that we can try to put right some of that wrong and reduce the deficit in a way that does not cause the greatest possible damage. I will be writing to him today to argue the case for Haverhill college in my constituency. It was ready to go and had been allocated funding by the previous Government, but had the funding taken away at the last minute because they had overcommitted the budget. I welcome the £50 million that the Government have found to do that.

More than all those things, and more than the Mandelson cheques we have heard about, businesses crave stability in the broader economy. Under the last Government, we had an asset price boom and bust, a credit boom and bust, uncertainty and complexity in the tax system, the longest recession in the world, the deepest recession since the war and the worst peacetime public finances in our history—and perhaps worse than all that, we had no answers to the questions of how to deal with those problems and of where growth would come from. I noted earlier that the shadow Secretary of State refused to say whether it was still Labour party policy to put a tax on jobs via an increase in national insurance, and I will be fascinated to hear whether the leadership candidates plan to argue next year that taxes should go up on every job in the country. Instead, all we have heard is the tinny sound of demands for cash and, from one hon. Member, a demand for an unfunded tax cut—those used to come from our party!

[Phil Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that VAT should go up next week?

[Matthew Hancock]

I think that is one for the Budget statement on Tuesday.

Finally, we are starting to get the answers to some of these deep-rooted problems. We heard today about the changes to financial regulation, and I wonder how long it will take the Labour party to involve itself in the debate about the future of financial regulation. We think that banks should be properly regulated, not regulated under the old system that failed. The Government are also putting forward solutions to help credit flow to businesses; we are getting increased certainty in the tax system; and of course we have measures to tackle the deficit. As a result of those last measures, since the election, the interest rates paid on Government bonds has fallen by 0.4%—one tenth—which means that the interest on Government debt has fallen by one tenth in just over a month since the election, in anticipation of action to deal with the deficit.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I want to emphasise that point. We heard so much about the financial stability that the previous Government were going to give us, yet the international markets have sent out an incredibly strong signal: that we finally have a Government with the guts and the policies to tackle this deficit, which hon. Members who are now on the Opposition Benches could never even own up to, let alone deal with. The markets are saying, “This is now a country that we want to invest in again,” and interest rates have fallen as a consequence. I want to underline the importance of the statistic that my hon. Friend gave in demonstrating the world’s view of Britain finally being open to business, now that we have had a change of Government.

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

[Rachel Reeves]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

It would be a delight to give way to the hon. Lady, who has made so many fascinating interventions this afternoon.

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted a fascinating statistic, but does it not fly in the face of what those on his Front Bench have been saying about how, because nobody wants to buy our debt—that is what one of his colleagues said earlier—we have to make cuts immediately? If interest rates are going down, surely there are lots of people who want to buy our debt.

[Matthew Hancock]

Interest rates are going down in the market because people can see a Government who are taking action and getting to grips with our problems, who have already made in-year cuts and who will finally put this country back on the path to fiscal sanity. That is exactly why interest rates are going down, which is a commendation on the action that the Government have taken so far.

The point that I will rest on is this. Across this country, businesses are paying interest rates that are in some cases extremely high. They need to borrow in order to invest for the future and get the private sector recovery that even some Labour Members talk about. The single best measure to do that is to have low interest rates and a stable economy, with confidence in the future. That is exactly what this Government’s programme is delivering, and I commend them on that. I strongly support the amendment to the motion, and I look forward to voting for it later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that we can tell from the debate today that different Members, representing different areas of Britain, have different views about their RDAs. I plead with the Minister. Labour Members representing Yorkshire, the north-east and the west midlands have spoken with huge passion about their RDAs. They have related the stories that they hear day in, day out from businesses and the people they represent. Let us keep our RDAs and let them continue to do the work that they are doing in our regions. That is all that I ask.

[Matthew Hancock]

Given what the hon. Lady has just said, does she support the Government policy on RDAs, which is to allow local people to decide whether local economic partnerships should cover the region or a smaller area?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

Order. Only one Member can be on their feet at any one time. Please allow the Member to finish before rising again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The reason that I talk so passionately today about regional development agencies is that they are what the Government intend to cut.

The regional development agencies do not create jobs. I recognise that, and I believe that all Labour Members recognise it. Siemens and GE will bring those jobs, but they could bring the jobs to anywhere in Europe and anywhere in the world. It is the work of the regional development agencies with businesses, on skills and with people in my region that means that those jobs are coming to Yorkshire. That is why I and other Members on this side of the House speak with such passion about the work that the regional development agencies do.

[Matthew Hancock]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a short-term populism that pushes us towards more Government intervention? What we need is a thriving and effective private enterprise to lift our economies up and through to better times—not my words but those of Tony Blair.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that I have made it clear that I support the private sector’s coming to our region and bringing jobs with it. However, that requires a Government on the side of our communities and of businesses. That means encouraging jobs to come to this country when they could go to any other country in the world. If we were in Germany or China, we would be urging jobs to come to those countries. If we want a level playing field, we need a Government who support industry.

In Yorkshire, we look to Government for support—to honour the commitments on high-speed rail and on Sheffield Forgemasters. They are key to Yorkshire’s future and good for the British economy, too. Yorkshire Forward and regional development agencies have fought our corner in a way that Whitehall simply cannot. The support is critical and it is good for all of Britain. The short-term hatchet job pursued by the Government risks the recovery and will put Britain in the slow lane of the global economy, making reducing the deficit harder because there will be higher unemployment and tax revenues will be weaker. Growth is the essential ingredient that is missing from the Government’s strategy.

Now is the time for some more ambition. In the wake of the recession, we can build a fairer, stronger and more diverse economy, built on skills and high-end manufacturing, if the Government put in place the policies—