Deregulation Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Rarely have we debated a Bill that is so long and so broad and yet so ineffectual, given what it purportedly seeks to achieve. In true “Yes Minister” style, when faced with the important and necessary challenge of deregulation, the Government have decided to deal with the difficult bit in the Bill’s title and do very little about it in the text.

[Mr Letwin]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I assure her that I shall not seek to intervene on her on a regular basis. If the task of deregulation is so necessary—a proposition I fully agree with—why were no such steps taken during the many years of the Labour Government?

[Chi Onwurah]

I find it hard to believe that the Minister has intervened to make a point for which he has so little evidence. During the last Labour Government, we deregulated to bring benefits to business of £3 billion a year. This Government’s record is in no way comparable with that.

[Mr Prisk]

The hon. Lady might wish to reconsider those remarks. When we checked with the House of Commons Library, we found that, during the last Parliament under the Labour Government, the equivalent of six new regulations were introduced every working day. Does she deny that?

[Chi Onwurah]

The figures that I gave were accurate. Speaking of the regulations that we brought in, was the hon. Gentleman against the minimum wage? I know that he voted against it. Was he against every aspect of the legislation that we brought in?

[Mr Prisk]

No; what I am against is Opposition spokesmen standing at the Dispatch Box pretending that they somehow helped business when in fact they hindered it, day in and day out.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman would be pleased if his Government had our record on growth and business starts.

We now know where the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has been hiding for the past year. He has been off with the Minister for Government Policy tackling big issues such as deregulating the sale of knitting yarn, freeing our children to buy their own chocolate liqueurs and decriminalising household waste. When the Prime Minister told people suffering from high energy bills to put on a jumper, the Minister sprang into action by making it easier for them to knit their own.

[Alok Sharma]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has something to say about knitting yarn.

[Alok Sharma]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy made the point that there is a lot of regulation that we can do nothing about because of EU regulation. If the hon. Lady cares so much about regulation, why will she not support the European Union (Referendum) Bill?

[Chi Onwurah]

I know that the Government face a real challenge in keeping their Members off the subject of Europe, but perhaps in this debate on deregulation, they will understand that we are not here to discuss the potential of a referendum. I will come on later to talk about the relevance of Europe to the matter under discussion. Europe is not the issue that confronts my constituents today. My constituents are being hit by the cost of living crisis and the measures that this Government, not Europe, have brought in to ensure that their wages do not rise at the same rate as prices.

It is nice to know that when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke eloquently about every Englishman’s right to have the remnants of their tikka masala collected promptly, the Minister boldly made sure that they would not face prosecution if they placed it in the wrong receptacle. It is all in this Bill—farriers, road humps and late-night takeaways. This is the Christmas tree Bill to end all Christmas tree Bills. In fact, Christmas trees are one of the few things that are not covered by this Bill.

[Alok Sharma]

rose—

[Chi Onwurah]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has something to say about that.

[Alok Sharma]

It appears that the hon. Lady is going to oppose every measure in this Bill. Is that the case?

[Chi Onwurah]

There are some measures in this rag, tag hotch-potch of a Bill that are welcome and that we do not oppose. What we oppose is the approach of this Government to a cost of living crisis, which is to attack the rights of ordinary working people.

By my count, the 69 clauses and 17 schedules cover at least 12 Whitehall Departments. As I have said, although there are many parts of the Bill that we support or do not oppose, there are some very disturbing proposals hidden beneath the knitting yarn, which we will vigorously oppose. There are fresh attacks on employment rights, with the removal of yet more powers from employment tribunals. Those are measures that the Government’s own impact assessment claims will have a negligible effect on businesses or even cost them money. We will not support any new attacks on working people.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that the cumulative effect of the Government’s reforms of small business red tape and regulation have made it easier for those businesses to create jobs and growth and provide the results that we all want, which is our constituents in work?

[Chi Onwurah]

We all know that small businesses need a cut in business rates, as we have proposed, and then a freeze. We will also freeze their energy bills, which will save an average of £1,800 a year. At the same time, we would change the economy so that it delivers secure employment, which would benefit businesses large and small.

We want this Government to acknowledge, once and for all, that it was not working people’s job security that caused the global financial crash and that preventing employers from discriminating against pregnant women is not the root cause of the cost of living crisis. This Government are so out of touch that they not only do not understand the challenge they face—the need for an economy that works for all, delivering good, well-paid jobs—but fail to understand the real solutions to the problems that they do see.

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

The hon. Lady talks about preventing mythical attacks on working people. Does she concede that under the policies of this Government more than 1 million more people are in work in this country?

[Chi Onwurah]

I know that almost 1 million young people are unemployed and that 1.3 million people in part-time work are seeking full-time work. I also know, because I speak to these people in my constituency, that some people who are supposedly in jobs with zero-hours contracts are getting no work, cannot make any plans and cannot go out and spend money. That is the working environment that this Government support and that the next Labour Government will change.

Let us turn to the first, and most worrying, part of the Bill—the general measures affecting business. Exempting self-employed people in certain industries will create confusion about who is covered and who is not. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, the chartered body of health and safety practitioners and the world’s largest health and safety professional membership organisation, is opposed to that, calling it

“a very short-sighted and misleading move”,

and saying that

“it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion.”

Even the Federation of Small Businesses, which supports the change in principle, says that the implications are not well understood and it is particularly concerned about the unintended consequences for insurance, which will need to be considered further in Committee if the Bill gets there.

The Bill will also remove employment tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations to employers who have been judged to have discriminated against someone unlawfully. Such recommendations are only advisory—they are not mandatory and they promote good working practice. Why are the Government trying to prescribe the ability of tribunals to make observations? What are they afraid of? The Prime Minister says that we are in a global race, but that race cannot be won by attacking employment rights at every opportunity. The Opposition will not support a race to the bottom.

The House of Commons Library considered the impact assessment for that measure and found that despite the Minister labelling it deregulatory and counting it as an out under the Government’s arbitrary one in, two out system, business will incur a cost as a result of the removal of the power. Only this Government could propose a supposedly deregulatory measure that costs business money. Those on the Front Bench look slightly puzzled; this is work by the House of Commons Library.

[Alok Sharma]

I am not sure how often the hon. Lady talks to business, but perhaps she saw the submission from the British Chambers of Commerce, which said:

“The BCC supports the thrust of this Bill. The BCC welcomes measures to reduce unnecessary health and safety regulations on the self-employed”.

She should talk to business more before she comes to this House.

[Chi Onwurah]

I have just quoted the FSB, which stands for the Federation of Small Businesses—I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. I talk to business regularly and if he disagrees with the FSB, we would be pleased to hear the evidence on which that is based.

The Government sacked hundreds of staff at great expense several years ago, and they are now seeking to re-employ them through a recruitment firm, hiring at least half of them. I have seen the job advert, and apparently they will work on the Government’s red tape challenge and deregulation programme. [Interruption.] Well, it is certainly true that the Government need all the help that they can get, but I hope that they will succeed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Maynard, I do not need comments like that. We are listening to a debate. I know that it is not normal for everyone to agree with every word, but we have had enough of comments being shouted across the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is very gallant of the hon. Gentleman to offer that information. I will say to him as well that, although his hon. Friend has also been making comments across the Floor of the House, I hope that it will stop now.

[Chi Onwurah]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the new employees will succeed in making the Minister understand that we do not build an economy that works for working people by attacking their rights.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Lady welcome the shared parental leave that the Government have introduced as part of trying to make things easier for couples who want to work and share parental leave during the course of their professional life?

[Chi Onwurah]

The Labour Government did more to support working families and working parents than any Government before, and of course we support that measure.

I shall try to make progress and speak to my experience with business. Before entering the House, I worked for many years in telecoms in the private sector in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Nigeria and many other countries around the world; I worked in companies large and small. I then worked for the industry regulator in this country, Ofcom, for six years, so I have seen regulation from many different viewpoints, and I am familiar with the impact that it can have on businesses of all sizes. I recognise the burden that it can represent, particularly on small businesses.

The Opposition believe that Government must seek to reduce unnecessary regulation at every opportunity, but unfortunately, this Government’s debate on regulation is stale and simplistic. Smart regulation underpins fair markets, and can level the playing field for small firms and new entrants—the very people and businesses that create new jobs and prosperity. Smart regulation saves lives. It is a matter of great pride for all of us, I hope, that the 2012 Olympic infrastructure was built without the loss of one life. We can certainly be sure that regulation played a part in that. The men and women working on those construction sites know the value of having clear health and safety laws in place, and I only wish that were the case for Government Members.

Smart regulation can help to drive innovation and growth. Labour’s zero carbon policy helped to make this country a world leader in low-carbon technology and architecture. Yes, regulation—

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Chi Onwurah]

I am going to make progress, as many Members wish to speak.

Regulation is a concern for some businesses, but business people understand that rules are needed to protect people’s safety and rights, promote competition and prevent employers from being undercut by those who do not play by the rules. As the Federation of Small Businesses has noted, the concerns of business are often about how regulations are developed and introduced, how they are enforced, and the duplication and overlapping rules that waste their time. The Government’s rather crude “one in, two out” approach fails to recognise that sensible and proportionate regulation introduced and implemented properly can promote healthy, competitive markets. The issue is more complex than the number of rules coming in and out.

We believe it is essential to take a fresh look at existing regulation, how it is implemented, and how—in response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood)—it is translated from European directives. Regulation protects consumers’ and employees’ rights, ensures that our industries play their part in moving to a green and sustainable future, and keeps citizens safe; it has saved many lives. It is important that it is effective and enforceable. Challenges arise when ill-thought-through regulation has unforeseen consequences or is interpreted bureaucratically and inflexibly. Some regulation can certainly represent an unnecessary burden on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that may not have access to legal advice to interpret regulation accurately or the resources to implement it fully.

When in power, Labour sought to reduce regulation by introducing the Better Regulation Commission and the ongoing better regulation programme, and made a number of legislative changes to reduce the cost of regulation. Our programmes for simplifying regulation delivered—[Interruption.] Our programmes delivered— I would have thought this figure would be of some interest to Government Members—£3 billion of savings to business per year. In contrast, the impact statement for the draft Bill—Ministers have not dared to produce a comprehensive summary for the current Bill—estimated that it would save business and civil society £10 million over 10 years. So we have savings of £10 million or £3 billion; I think the Minister can do the maths. The figures underline that while we all agree unnecessary regulation can be a burden on business, a sensible approach to deregulation is about more than repealing statutes.

In government, we introduced legislative reform orders to help Ministers to get unnecessary burdens on business off the statute book. However, as the Regulatory Reform Committee has noted, instead of using those 11 procedures already available to Government for deregulating, Ministers chose to invent a new one. We also set up the primary authority scheme and the Regulatory Policy Committee, as well as a Cabinet Sub-Committee to focus minds at the very top of Government. That was our record in government.

Building on Labour’s progress in government, the Bill seeks to introduce a growth duty on regulators, as the Minister explained. This duty will compel them to have regard to the promotion of economic growth when carrying out their functions and to carry them out in a necessary and proportionate way. We support the aims behind the duty and, clearly, the principle that regulators should go about their business in a proportionate way, but we must ensure that the duty does not inhibit or contradict the primary function of any regulator.

The crude proposals in the Bill do not fit into an overall strategy or vision for this country. They show no recognition of why growth is important to deliver good, sustainable jobs, to help people’s incomes rise faster than costs, and to ensure that we become richer as a nation. They do not mention long-term or sustainable growth—they refer simply to growth—and they fail to recognise that good regulation is necessary to protect jobs and growth. Is it right that a housing bubble or a casino-capitalism-fuelled, short-term growth spurt should be a primary consideration for the Office for Nuclear Regulation? I hope we all recognise that markets need to be regulated in order to protect growth and jobs, or are the Government suggesting that the underlying cause of the global financial crisis was too much regulation?

[The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I am sorry to put the hon. Lady out of her stride, but I have slightly lost her point; I will be replying to this debate, so I just want to follow her argument. She has said that she is in favour of regulators paying regard to the aim of getting growth in the economy and of their regulations being proportionate to the risks they guard against, but now she appears to be speaking against that. I do not follow her argument: is she proposing to vote against the regulators being asked to have regard to the growth of the economy and against their regulations being proportionate? If so, I have not followed her logic. How on earth would our proposed measures produce a casino-like growth bubble? We are simply proposing a sensible constraint on regulators to make sure that they remain proportionate and do not do out-of-proportion economic damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, which, I regret to say, illustrates that this Government still do not understand the driving forces behind the global financial crisis.

Although we want regulators to have regard to the impact of their regulations, we do not agree that one of their primary objectives should be to support or promote short-term growth. There is a list of regulators. Should short-term growth be a priority for the human rights regulator? Either the Bill should be amended or the impact of the proposals should be clarified, so as to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a situation whereby all the regulators seek to promote short-term growth spurts, regardless of the consequences elsewhere. I hope that explanation has offered clarification, at least to a certain extent, and that Government Members will find it easy to discuss.

We have concerns about other parts of the Bill. Housing is a critical part of the cost of living crisis for families up and down the country, so should there not be a coherent, long-term approach, rather than ad hoc tinkering? Will not reducing the right-to-buy qualifying time hamper the ability of councils to build more homes at a time when they are needed more than ever? We will certainly seek proof that that will not happen. We will also seek clarification and reassurances on some of the measures affecting transport, licensing and local authorities, among others.

The decriminalisation of waste will, apparently, reduce the regulatory burden on households, but it should be remembered that in 1991 a then Tory Minister said something similar about the decriminalisation of parking offences. I doubt that many car owners feel that parking is less of a burden as a result, but it is certainly the case that it opened up new avenues of revenue for hard-pressed councils.

The proposals on justice are interesting. I imagine that the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), approached the Lord Chancellor, who had just taken his job, and asked him what regulations he would like to get rid of, and that he came back with the idea of stripping away safeguards on the seizure of evidence from journalists, although we hear that that was not the intention, and a proposal to remove parliamentary scrutiny when he wants to close prisons. In answer to one of my parliamentary questions, the Ministry of Justice has revealed that, since 2010, it has yet to repeal any regulations, but has introduced eight. If those are the sorts of ideas that it has come up with, perhaps it is a good thing that we have been spared any deregulation by the Ministry of Justice during the past three and a half years.

Some measures in the Bill are welcome. Although those affecting businesses will have only a small impact on a small number of them, they are welcome, as are those on child trust funds. The measures on rights of way are also good news, provided that the full package agreed with the stakeholder working group is passed.

I pay tribute to the hard work of the Joint Committee on the draft Deregulation Bill, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Rooker. Although it was not given the time it felt appropriate, thanks to the Joint Committee the Bill is in a slightly better state than it was last July, but it is fair to say that the Government have not responded to many of its criticisms.

It is also fair to say that the overall reaction to the Bill has been underwhelming—lukewarm at best. Ministers are delighted with it, but reading the Bill, I realised that that is because it seems to be about removing burdens as much on Ministers as on business. By my count, half the proposals in the Bill will take away burdens from Ministers and the Government, while less than half will remove them from business. This is more doublespeak: deregulation is apparently about deregulating Whitehall, not small business. For some reason, that reminds me of the Localism Act 2011, which has somehow resulted in hundreds of powers being localised in Whitehall.

That explains why the expected impact of the Bill is rather low, and underlines why it is a rather simplistic tool for a multifaceted challenge. All Governments say that they want to reduce regulation—I am sure that every Byzantine emperor came to power on the promise of reduced regulation—but getting regulation right is much more about working behind the scenes with business and interested parties than about bluster and press releases.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am just finishing.

Once again, this Government’s rhetoric extends far beyond their reach. The Opposition will seek to remove or amend the iniquitous clauses if the Bill is committed, and we believe that the remaining clauses will have a very limited, if welcome, impact.

St John Ambulance

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this important, if difficult, debate. It is important because of the critical work that St John Ambulance does throughout the country, and I would like to echo the words of Members from all parties who have praised that work. Its volunteers are often literally the difference between life and death.

In my constituency, St John Ambulance volunteers are at St James’s Park—for those not fortunate enough to be supporters of Newcastle United, that is the home of football—for every home game, and they were also there for the Olympics. They are out in Newcastle every weekend supporting the ambulance service’s mobile treatment centre, the “booze bus,” so that our young people can enjoy themselves in relative safety and security. They also do vital work, as we have already heard, in educating and training young people in schools across the city.

The hon. Member for North Thanet raised some specific points that I will address in time, but I want to start by raising a few broader points to which the Minister can respond. As we have heard, like many charities, St John Ambulance has recently restructured. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) emphasised the fact that the recession has hit the voluntary and charity sector hard. Last year, 58% of charities reported that Government measures had had a negative impact on levels of funding, and half had taken steps to reduce wages and salary costs.

A survey by The Guardian’s voluntary sector network found that nearly one in 10 charities fear that they will not exist in five years’ time. In its report on the impact of welfare reform in Newcastle, published in November, called “The Big Squeeze”—I have a copy here for the Minister—Newcastle council for voluntary service found that, in the north-east, 30% of charities, rather than one in 10, fear that they will not exist in five years’ time. Nevertheless, year on year, demand for services continues to rise. In Newcastle, 62% of charities experienced an increase in demand for services last year, and 52% were using their reserves simply to survive. Newcastle CVS said in its report that, as a result, charities and voluntary organisations are all having to think differently and change their organisational culture in an attempt to be more resilient. We have heard some of the consequences of that in the case of St John Ambulance.

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, has said:

“The combination of increasing demand, rising costs and income levels that are often static or falling means that many charities are under unprecedented pressure at the moment.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) alluded to the fact that that pressure is being felt most in our most deprived communities, where charities are often most concentrated. The Civil Exchange think-tank has said:

“Millions of people, especially those who might need it most, are being excluded from the big society as cuts hit them hardest.”

That has put increasing demand on charities, and the issue is not just funding cuts. Welfare changes, such as the bedroom tax, and the reorganisation of the NHS, are putting more pressure on charities. At the beginning of the year it was reported that St John Ambulance is being sent to 999 calls as NHS paramedics are being driven to “breaking point”. It is not surprising, therefore, that charities are finding ways to adapt and survive in a climate of near permanent austerity.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) emphasised that charities are not an arm of the state. We must regulate the sector to ensure that donors know that their money is not being spent fraudulently, but charities are not under the direct control of Parliament. Nevertheless, we must remember the pressures under which charities such as St John Ambulance operate when we criticise their response to those pressures.

While they are facing such serious and sustained financial challenges, charities also find themselves under attack from Ministers in the form of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which is being debated on the Floor of the House as we speak. Ministers seem keen to return to some Victorian vision of society where charities provide welfare and services but do not have a say in policy. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

It is in such a climate that we must understand the operation of the Charity Commission. It has recently been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for its failure in tackling fraudulent charities. The Cabinet Office is currently consulting on whether to extend the commission’s powers to act where there is abuse of a charity or non-compliance with charity law. When the Minister responds, will he tell us whether he feels that the commission is able fully to discharge its duties, and the proposed new duties, given the 30% cut it is operating under? Given that its board is picked by Ministers, will the Minister clarify the independence of the commission, which we have debated, and its role in policy making?

We recently learned that the Charity Commission wrote to Lords ahead of their consideration of key amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, effectively “torpedoing” amendments to exempt charities from the Bill, as one charity head of policy put it. It is a strange situation wherein the charity regulator—a public sector organisation—is lobbying for a gag on charity campaigning. Will the Minister explain exactly what he sees the commission’s role as and how it can carry that out given its tight budget?

Finally, we have heard much about the concerns regarding the specifics of the St John Ambulance restructuring, particularly the impact in Kent, but also elsewhere. The restructuring of a shared service—on a shared ambulance basis—has apparently undermined local pride and support for the services on which so many depend. That seems to speak to a desire to ape what is all too often the private sector approach to public sector service delivery. However, the strength of charities is in their local communities, something emphasised by the Government’s talk of big society and localism.

Nevertheless, we all too often see priority given to big national players when it comes to public sector contracts. I hope the Minister will give his views on the importance specifically of local, social and community assets in carrying on the good work of so many in the third sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s consistent commitment to the idea of improving the capability of the civil service. However, I do not think I agree with his premise, and I invite him to visit the Government’s digital service because he will see a department that feels unlike any other in Government. It is full of extraordinary talent that has come in to work for Government, often at below market rates, because they want to make that difference.

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

The arrogant complacency of the Minister’s answers shows just how out of touch he is. Some 80% of Government interactions take place with the bottom 25% of society, but only 15% of people living in deprived areas use a Government service online. The promised assisted digital provision is still nowhere to be seen, locking our citizens out of his digital democracy. That is why Labour has announced a review of digital government, to make it work for the many, not the few. Is it not time that he did the same?

[Mr Hurd]

Again, we absolutely will not take any lessons from the Labour party about digital government. We are committed to the idea of transforming the great digital service. The feedback has been tremendous so far, and we have a hard commitment that every transformation will be accompanied by an assisted digital programme.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a real honour to follow so many passionate and eloquent speeches.

This morning I went to South Africa house to sign the book of condolence. It is still a really strange experience for me to enter South Africa house, having spent so much time on the pavement outside. Indeed, at one time I was convinced that the pavement there was particularly hard and cold, especially around midnight. I have since entered it in very different circumstances and in triumphant celebration of a free South Africa. The fact that the lobby of South Africa house has so many photographs of so many activists, including myself, makes it all the more welcoming.

This morning was different. It was sad—so very, very sad. As I signed the book in the name of Newcastle and anti-apartheid activists everywhere, I thought about how personal his death was for so many who had never met him personally. That was due to Mr Mandela’s towering personality, but it was also because apartheid was personal to so many of us who had never set foot in South Africa.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is easy now to forget how widespread the support was for South Africa and how much British racists took comfort and, indeed, solace from white rule. At the heart of apartheid was injustice, discrimination and separation. Do hon. Members remember the Bantustans? The justification of apartheid was for separate development, with blacks being given their own so-called homeland.

The belief that the races could not live together was obviously taken very personally by a young child in Newcastle with a black father and a white mother. It was also taken personally by so many people throughout Newcastle, the north-east and across the country. I want to pay tribute to the international working-class solidarity that supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement. The idea that what someone was and what they could achieve should be defined by the colour of their skin was taken as a personal attack by black people, by white people, by all people.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement is the most successful mass-movement this country has ever seen. It was the focus of my own activism for many years, spent in its headquarters on what is now called Mandela street, and I eventually joined its executive. Indeed, the first time I entered the parliamentary estate was for executive meetings organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), Richard Caborn and Bob Hughes. I also want to pay tribute to Mike Terry who, tragically, died so young a few years ago, and to ACTSA—Action for Southern Africa—which is what the Anti-Apartheid Movement became.

Although the movement was successful, it was not simple. There were intense debates, concerns over tactics and alliances, and, of course, dirty tricks from the South African secret service and others. The evil of apartheid not only gave rise to the most terrible oppression in South Africa; it also corrupted its neighbours in southern Africa. Nelson Mandela was our strength, inspiration and source of unity. The minor debates and divisions within the movement were as nothing in comparison with the huge divisions within South Africa that were deliberately fostered over decades. Mr Mandela’s achievement in putting aside 27 years of imprisonment—much of it with hard labour—and in forgiving though not forgetting and in unifying his country is, therefore, all the greater. He did it not by playing to the fears in all of us, but by magnifying the goodness in all of us.

At a time when there are many debates about what it means to be the United Kingdom and a united Europe and about who we should let in, and at a time when asylum seekers are vilified and those on benefits are mistrusted, I believe that one of Nelson Mandela’s many lessons for us is that, if we do not live in the harmony that he sought, it is not because our differences are so very great, but perhaps because our politicians are not great enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on this subject, and everything he says about it must be taken extremely seriously. Yes, there is a point there to which we need to have proper regard.

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

According to the Government’s own figures, 87% of small businesses experienced a cyber-security breach last year and were attacked, on average, 17 times, yet more than four fifths of the Government’s cyber-security budget goes on the intelligence services, big business and government, leaving small businesses and consumers to fend for themselves. Now we learn that the Minister has set up his own wi-fi network in the Cabinet Office to bypass all that expensive security. When will he stand up for small businesses and consumers and get a grip on cyber-security?

[Mr Maude]

I am glad to say that the most recent rankings of countries in relation to cyber-security had the UK in top position, but we are not at all complacent; much more needs to be done. The hon. Lady is very interested in the wi-fi arrangements in my office, which were installed by the Cabinet Office IT supplier and are fully compliant. We take all this extremely seriously, but the threats are changing all the time and we need to be agile in how we respond to them.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend was a lowly—although perhaps not a very humble—Treasury official, and the point is well made.

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

Government Members have suggested that Government amendments 92 and 93 clarify matters, but does my hon. Friend agree that they actually have the opposite effect, because whereas before the Government were badly defining what lobbying activities are, they are now badly defining everything else that lobbying activities are not?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend expresses far better than I could exactly what I was trying to say earlier, and she is absolutely right.

Let us consider how two areas would be affected by the Bill and the proposed amendments. The first of them is the introduction of droit de suite. When the European Union insisted that every country in Europe had to have an artists’ resale right, the Government at the time—a Labour Government—were wholeheartedly opposed. However, some members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were wholeheartedly in favour and wanted to persuade the Government to take a different course of action, which we thought was going to be inevitable anyway.

At the time the Design and Artists Copyright Society, the body that administers copyright for artists, was lobbying very hard to have droit de suite introduced in the UK, and on a generous basis—more generous than that originally intended by the UK. So far as I am aware, it never lobbied the permanent secretary, but it certainly lobbied all the Culture, Media and Sport Committee members and a lot of junior DCMS and Treasury officials, and in the end it won its case. It would not be caught by this Bill, however, because its primary purpose is not to lobby, but to administer a system of collecting rates for artists. My argument is that that is wholly inappropriate. The body that was opposed to the introduction of such a right was the body that represents all the art houses and art galleries. It, too, would not be covered by this Bill, but I think it should be.

Communications with Members of Parliament should be included, as the new clause of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) would allow, just as much as communications with Ministers or anybody else should, because knowing who is trying to influence proposed legislation, and who tables amendments and who does not table amendments and so on, is a vital part of knowing what is going on in the lobbying business.

Let us consider, too, recent events in the newspaper industry. I think all Members would agree that it has been ferociously lobbying for quite some time, sometimes through direct means and sometimes through indirect means. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission is Lord Hunt. I am not sure whether he is still the chairman, but he is a Member of the other House. I am not sure whether he would be included in this legislation by virtue of being a Member of the other House, but he has certainly been lobbying on behalf of a whole set of other newspaper agencies, and he is paid to do so. The Government may say, “Yes, he probably would be included, as that is consultant lobbying.”

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that the Minister is getting her advice from the Treasury Whip, but I hope that when she replies she will spell out which lobbying professionals agree with her definition and think that Australia and Canada are a suitable comparator. As someone who has worked for eight years in the industry, it strikes me that civil servants have licked their finger, stuck it in the air and come up with a figure of—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House chunters from a sedentary position. Perhaps he wishes to add something to the debate. Apparently not. We are going to get the usual curmudgeonly Deputy Leader of the House role; the second Liberal Democrat to do that with such skill and grace in the last few years, and heckle anyone who has the temerity to disagree with his views.

[Chi Onwurah]

I support the excellent comments that my hon. Friend is making. Will he set himself the challenge of explaining why a Government who set such store in supporting small and medium enterprises, should, as he describes, put such a regulatory and financial burden upon them?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who spoke eloquently from the Front Bench during proceedings on my private Member’s Bill last year, setting out why the Opposition want to see workable legislation. I am more than happy to set out what is wrong with the impact assessment. It uses the Government’s figures and is confused. It says that the register, which covers only consultant lobbyists, will cost £500,000 to set up and a further £200,000 to run each year. That is according to the Government’s own figures, so it must be right. Almost all the firms who are members of the APPC are SMEs. I would be amazed if there were one that employed more than 250 people in total. Most are firms with between 20 and 50 employees, so these are not large firms. They are the entrepreneurial firms that we hear so much about from Government Members. But the Government and their civil servants have made up some rash figures. They have said that there are about 1,100 lobbying consultants in this country. I am still not clear where that figure has come from. I think they have taken the APPC list and accepted that that is probably pretty much every one who is “a lobbyist”. They have then said that, if the cost is £500,000, that can be shared by 1,000, which I assume is the 1,000 lobbyists. However, the Bill contradicts that. It says that payment is per firm—the Deputy Leader of the House graciously nods in agreement—and probably only 10 to 20 firms will be caught by the current definition. I am not a great mathematician, but if one takes £500,000 and divides it by 20, that is not £500. It is significantly more. That is just the start-up cost in the first year. That is a disproportionate and huge impact on small businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I must conclude, because there is plenty of work before the Committee tonight.

I have reservations about new clause 5, although I respect the serious work that Members have done with lobbying representatives. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans not to press new clause 5.

Amendment 161, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), would make all lobbying businesses, not just those that lobby on behalf of third parties, liable for registration. As I have said, it is difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Let me turn to the Government amendments in this group. It is clear that they have been spectacularly misunderstood by Labour Front Benchers. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who laughs loudest, claims to care for small businesses but appears not to have read the papers in preparation for this debate.

Amendments 76, 77, 81 to 85, 92 and 96 to 98 are designed to exclude the smallest organisations from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. They do so by amending the definition of consultant lobbying such that it includes only those who are registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has read in great detail.

The Government are committed to ensuring that small businesses are not subject to disproportionate burdens. An exclusion for those small businesses that are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists will ensure that whatever burden may be associated with registration will not be placed on them. The VAT registration represents a clear threshold.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Smith]

Would the hon. Lady like to explain VAT registration?

[Chi Onwurah]

It would be a great pleasure to explain VAT registration, but not at this point in time. Is the hon. Lady saying that all companies that pay VAT registration are large companies, or is she acknowledging that many small businesses are registered for VAT?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will be as quick as I can in making a few points about Government amendments.

It has always been the Government’s intention that those who communicate with Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activity should not be required to register as consultant lobbyists. These are not the people or organisations that this register is intended to capture. Let me be clear that it is our intention that multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and that lobby in a manner that is not merely incidental to their other activities should be captured. These are the exact professional consultant lobbyists that this register is intended to capture.

We have listened to those who suggested that the exemption in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 was too broad and should be refined, including the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Our amendments 91, 93, 94 and 95 will refine that paragraph by substituting the insubstantial proportion test with one that focuses on incidental lobbying. Specifically, paragraph 3 will provide that a person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they are part of a non-lobbying organisation or if the lobbying communication they make is incidental to their normal non-lobbying activity.

In conclusion, we are proposing not a fully blown regulator for the industry, but a solution to an identified problem. I am sure that Members throughout the Committee will have read the US federal lobbying regulation manual, “The Lobbying Manual”, which runs to 894 pages. That is what we wish to avoid. I therefore oppose various amendments but support those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I look forward to hearing what the Opposition think they can do better now than they did for the past 13 years.

[Chi Onwurah]

It is testimony to the ineptitude of the Government that, after months of delay, they have introduced a lobbying Bill that covers just 1% of lobbyists and still manages to be full of loopholes.

We have heard a lot today about the importance of lobbying in our democracy. We have heard that it is nothing to be ashamed of and that transparency is a good thing that is welcomed by the industry. There is a consensus on both sides of the Committee about that, or so I had thought until I read the Bill and the Government amendments. I was entirely baffled by many of the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in the clause and the accompanying schedule. It is plain that the Government were no clearer, because they tabled their own set of amendments. However, those amendments —[Interruption.] I have read the amendments, despite what the Minister says from a sedentary position, and rather than clearing up the confusion that the Government have created, they create more confusion. In this Bill, it is difficult to distinguish between what is the result of poor drafting and what is the result of poor judgment.

Ministers appear to have created a loophole whereby the vast majority of the lobbying industry can avoid having to register at all. Even the current voluntary registers capture more of the industry than the proposals would. The Deputy Leader of the House estimated in this debate that 350 companies would be caught by the Bill. George Kidd, the acting chair of the UK Public Affairs Council, has estimated that 100 would be caught. At least 15,000 companies operate as lobbyists, so it is clear that the Bill captures a minute proportion of them.

I find the Minister’s assertions that the Bill will not have an impact on the voluntary registers hard to believe. The Government talk about the great impact of regulation and law-making, but they seem to be saying that this Bill, which defines lobbying—it defines it badly, but it defines it nevertheless—will have no impact whatever on the existing lobbying registers. They have very little respect for the impact that the Bill will have, intended or otherwise.

I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers, who have said that the Bill does not reflect an understanding of what lobbying is. The Bill has also been described as a net that is badly drawn and an albatross. I agree with the Financial Times, which said today, less figuratively but equally accurately, that the Bill is “not good lawmaking”. The whole industry agrees with that, rejects the Government proposals and supports the intent of the Opposition amendments. That is why we will press amendments 2 and 9 to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this, as does the Committee he chairs. He will know that we inherited a regime that had, rightly, been tightened up, with arrangements embedded in legislation. He will also know that we reviewed the arrangements when we came into power and took the view that the right balance had been struck. The arguments are well rehearsed and although I know that he does not like the message, we are not going to change the arrangements and I do not think that that message is going to change.

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

Let us look at cyber-statistics. In answer to my parliamentary question, the Minister put the cost of cybercrime at £27 billion, but that turns out to be a 2010 “guestimate” from defence company Detica. The National Audit Office misused Cambridge university figures, managing to confuse pounds with dollars. We all know that online crime is rising, but the Government rely on outdated third-party figures. Is he surprised that the public do not trust the Government’s efforts to fight cybercrime, given that they clearly cannot even measure it?

[Mr Hurd]

The Government take the whole issue of cybercrime incredibly seriously. I am not sure that we are going to take any lectures on trust in public statistics from the Labour party; the reason the UK Statistics Authority is in place is because public trust in Government statistics cratered after 13 years of Labour, for ever associated with the dark arts of spin and media manipulation.

SMEs (Public Sector Procurement)

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing this debate on an important issue that does not attract the attention it deserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, hon. Members from all parties are aware of the importance of this issue and it would have been fitting if more had attended this debate. However, important points have been made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said that there was a Celtic emphasis to the contributions. This is a cross-party, national issue.

Contributions, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), and the passionate opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, emphasised the importance of procurement for small and medium-sized enterprises and their importance to our economy.

This has been a remarkably non-partisan debate and I hope that that will not change too much as I make some remarks on behalf of the official Opposition. If there is one thing that all hon. Members agree on, it is that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy and should be supported. They account for 99.9% of all private sector businesses in the UK, 59.1% of private sector employment and almost half of private sector turnover.

As has been said, given the economic challenges that we face, encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises must be a focal point for Government policy as we seek to find growth again. In short, they are critical to our economic recovery. Yet still the proportion of public spend on dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises is far too low. As the UK’s biggest single consumer, government must do more to support SMEs across the country.

In February 2011, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), outlined Government procurement reforms at a conference for SME suppliers, where the famous pledge was made that

“25% of all government contracts”

should be

“awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises”.

Regrettably, that 25% target did not last long. It has been downgraded, rather like our credit rating, and is now merely an aspiration. Last month, the Prime Minister’s enterprise adviser, Lord Young, said that he was

“not convinced that the value of SMEs is being fully exploited across the whole public sector.”

I think that we can all agree with him.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that procurement figures for SMEs are up. The Government do not have a particularly good record on statistics, but it is still depressing to hear the Minister for the Cabinet Office say that most Departments do not know their spend on SMEs and that therefore people “cannot trust the numbers”.

Mark Taylor, the former co-chair of a panel set up to advise the Minister for the Cabinet Office on SME procurement, has accused the Government of “recounting” their procurement SME figures. He said that Government contracts to SMEs were “drying up”, that things were “going backwards” and that SMEs were

“finding it more difficult to do business with Government.”

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Perhaps a way forward is to replicate the Welsh Government’s approach. They are now asking all their local authorities, the NHS and any procurers to carry out regular procurement fitness checks, including monitoring how many contracts are going out to SMEs.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point that I hoped to make later. It is useful to see concrete examples of where that is being done successfully, but the measurement and understanding of procurement practices and, most importantly, what the outcomes are, particularly for SMEs, is a key way of improving the situation.

What is being done to measure SME procurement in Government? What is the Minister doing, specifically, to stop things going backwards? Will she confirm that only two Departments have increased SME procurement spend to any significant degree and that one of those—the Ministry of Justice—only achieved that by including providers of legal aid?

Will the Minister say what concrete action has been taken to increase the proportion of spending with SMEs? Fine words are all very well, but we want to know what is actually being done to address this issue, which everyone agrees is critical. Speeches and leaning on Departments can only go so far. We have all read reports of bloody battles going on between Departments and the Treasury over spending envelopes in the next Budget. There is a huge pressure on Departments to use their buying power to cut costs and, unfortunately, that tends to be through ever-larger contracts.

The Government have spoken many fine words of encouragement to social enterprises, without delivering. Most social enterprises are SMEs. The message that I get from social enterprises—I recently held workshops in Newcastle and London—is that often, how Government contracts are bundled makes it impossible for them to bid. That is, as we have heard, a general concern among SMEs. Will the Minister explain what specific actions have been taken, and what actions are planned, to unbundle as many contracts as possible, to level the playing field for smaller enterprises?

Support through direct procurement is not the only way to support SMEs. The previous Labour Government introduced the innovative small business research initiative programme to drive innovation through procurement. The SBRI allows small businesses to bid for contracts to provide innovative solutions to procurement problems, supporting innovation and small businesses at the same time.

We in the official Opposition had been calling for some time for the programme to be expanded, so we were glad when the expansion was agreed to by the Treasury. This is good news for innovative SMEs. However, a recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that nearly 40% of small firms felt that they were being “sidelined” by the Government because of their persistent belief that bigger firms are better. What are the Government doing to address that?

I turn briefly to the Government’s Contracts Finder, which I am sure the Minister will address. The value of contracts published on the website each month is still very small compared with the £15 billion total value of Government procurement contracts that are outsourced each month. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to ensure that contracts are put on the Contracts Finder system? What is happening on that?

What are Ministers doing to ensure that local authorities are properly engaged with Contracts Finder? What work are they doing with councils to improve their procurement from SMEs? We have heard of a number of examples from local authorities across England and Wales that are being very innovative in that respect, and I would like the Minister to say whether she is studying what is happening in our local authorities.

There are a number of rivalries between cities in the north-east, particularly between Newcastle and Sunderland, but as we subsume them within a combined local authority, I am pleased to say that I can hold up Sunderland city council as an example of innovative and successful work in procurement.

Indeed, only last night, at the Federation of Small Businesses reception, Sunderland city council was praised for its intensive engagement with the FSB and local suppliers before implementing the Buy Sunderland First system for quotations below the tender threshold and the North East Procurement Organisation portal for all opportunities above the threshold. Consequently, spend with north-east businesses now accounts for more than 68% of all third-party spend by Sunderland city council. What other examples would the Minister like to hold up for us of ways in which local authorities are successfully engaging with small businesses?

I have asked a number of questions of the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has raised a number of important points, and my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for Inverclyde have made a number of suggestions. I draw my remarks to a close by saying to the Minister that, although we have seen some small steps forward, the Government’s approach lacks the required urgency. Whether on procurement or bank lending, Ministers across Government are failing SMEs.

Responding to a recent National Audit Office report on improving Government procurement, the head of the CBI said:

“Two and a half years after the Government committed to centralising public procurement, individual departments are still too often doing their own thing. We need to see strong leadership from the Cabinet Office to drive a culture shift across…Whitehall”.

Such complacency is all too common among Ministers. The CBI survey report recently stated:

“Across the board the rate of reform requires more urgency. The lack of progress on turning sound policy into actual change is not only damaging to government and costly to the taxpayer, but it also stunts growth.”

Will the Minister now take action to ensure that permanent secretaries prioritise and buy into that? Will they visibly start to split major contracts into smaller chunks? Will they take steps to record the success or failure of those policies?

Successfully changing the mindset on procurement so that we use and support our SMEs more effectively is an issue that unites the whole House, so will we see decisive Government action so that our ambitions can be realised?

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I did not intend to speak in this debate because, unlike many here, I did not know Margaret Thatcher personally and I have no desire to intrude on personal grief, particularly that of family and friends who have suffered a great loss. However, this has become a public debate on Mrs Thatcher’s legacy and having heard so much about how much she welcomed different views, I think it is appropriate to give the House the views of some of my constituents and of my home city of Newcastle.

Words cannot express the almost visceral dislike with which some of my constituents regard Mrs Thatcher, so I shall not attempt to express it. Instead, I shall speak briefly about her impact on my life and on the north-east. Just as Mrs Thatcher was a child of Grantham, I was a child of Newcastle, although this was in a council flat rather than a grocer’s. Just as she grew up always knowing that she wanted to be a politician, I grew up always knowing that I wanted to be an engineer. I grew up in a city and a region that valued engineering—making and building things. It was the birthplace of the railways, and it was the powerhouse of the country, with the coal beneath our feet, the steelyards and the great ships being launched from Wallsend and Sunderland.

When I was accepted to study engineering at Imperial college it was the proudest day of my life—until my election of course. So hon. Members can imagine how my heart sank when the Prime Minister of our country said, not long after, that engineering and manufacturing were the past, that the future was services and that the world would be our workshop while we would keep our hands clean. I had no desire to keep my hands clean. I had already seen what that policy was doing to the north -east: the unemployment; the communities devastated; and the lives of men and women robbed of meaning and pride. The statistics speak for themselves: between 1979 and 1987, the level of employment in the north fell by 1.3 million; 97 mines had been closed by 1992; Sunderland, the largest shipbuilding town in the world, no longer built ships; and Consett had lost the industry that had been a part of its fabric and identity for more than 140 years. I ask Conservative Members to contrast the huge bail-out that a Labour Government offered the financial services sector to protect jobs and investment with the brutal, bone-crushing and soul-destroying destruction that Margaret Thatcher’s Government offered the shipbuilding, steel and mining industries, losing those very skills which we now need so very much.

There are those who say, “It was all part of the harsh reality of the new global order”, but that is not true. Change was necessary, but it is the Government’s job to protect communities from the impact of change. That change could have been managed; there could have been a transition and that could have been invested in. There was another way, and Nissan, which has been mentioned, provides an example of that. It is a great private sector success story that has been enabled by the support and investment of central Government, local authorities and the unions. The 2008 intervention by the previous Government through the car scrappage scheme and bringing forward training enabled Nissan to go through a difficult period and showed that intelligent active government is possible.

Mrs Thatcher’s most meaningful legacy in the north-east is the unemployment across the region, but I would not like to close my remarks without paying her tribute. We have heard how she fought hard and tenaciously for the people she thought she represented. My tribute to her will be to continue to fight for the people I represent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Chi Onwurah Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

No. As I said, we are clear that no one must be excluded from this process. That is why significant assisted digital provision is still in place, and we will shortly make available details of how that will work. There are digital inclusion projects across Government and we are actively reviewing, with partners such as Go ON UK, what more we can do.

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

I look forward to reading the real figures on fullfact.org, which had to correct the Minister’s overblown assertions last time. The Opposition know that ICT can make government more accessible and save money, but the Government have abandoned the universal broadband pledge and failed on digital inclusion, so 75% of over-75s and a third of people with disabilities are still not online. In those circumstances, is digital by default not simply digital exclusion by diktat?

[Mr Hurd]

I will take no lectures from the Labour party on wasting money on ICT, because the processes we inherited in that regard were absolutely scandalous. I repeat what I said: we see a big opportunity in digital by default. It is a chance to transform the way people engage with the Government. We can see significant savings, which I do not think have been overstated at all. As I said, we have an active commitment to assisted digital, the details of which will come shortly, and to continued activity to support digital inclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in this area and for how he consistently raises issues about the British Sikh community, the immense contribution it makes to our country and the respect that we should show it. I also thank him for accompanying me on that trip to the Golden Temple—something that I will never forget. It gives me the opportunity to say, on behalf of the House, how much British Sikhs give to Britain and how much we thank them for it.

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

Q6. My constituent Jordan Kingston found himself homeless aged just 17. He was offered social housing and is now studying for his A-levels, determined to improve his situation through education. From his £56 weekly benefit, he will lose £14 in the bedroom tax and £3 in council tax, leaving just £11 per week to live on after utilities. Based on the Prime Minister’s experience of hardship, what advice does he have for Jordan?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the Government are investing in social housing, and the hon. Lady will hear more about that in a moment. Secondly, when housing benefit costs £23 billion a year, we simply have to reform it. There is a basic issue of fairness: why should someone living in private rented accommodation not receive a spare room subsidy and someone in social housing should? There is a basic issue of fairness, and that is why it should be put right.