Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of levels of funding for the UK science base.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

We are committed to making the UK the global go-to nation for scientists, innovators and tech investors. That is why, as part of the industrial strategy, we have announced an increase of £4.7 billion in public research and development funds—the biggest increase in science support for 40 years.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I welcome the Government’s recent £14 million investment to develop space technologies in Leicester, including the university-led national space park. What further steps could the Minister take to encourage the space industrial cluster in the midlands?

[Joseph Johnson]

The space industry has an important role to play in driving growth across the UK, and the Government are working closely with the sector to make that a reality. I am pleased that the Leicester and Leicestershire local enterprise partnership is grasping this opportunity. The Satellite Applications Catapult has funded a centre of excellence in the east midlands for the past three years, focused on linking industry to local and national expertise. In addition, the UK Space Agency is supporting business incubators in Leicester, Nottingham and Loughborough to develop innovative space start-ups.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Page 98 of the Government’s industrial strategy talks about the importance of long-term institutions. Many of those who work in the science-based industries in Wirral and elsewhere feel that the single market is a long-term institution that has served them well. Has the Minister asked the Prime Minister to change course and keep our country in the single market?

[Joseph Johnson]

The UK is a powerhouse of academic research, and our collaborations with institutions in Europe and around the world are an important part of that success. Through the industrial strategy, we want to continue to play to our great strengths as a science and research powerhouse, and we will continue to welcome agreements to collaborate with our European partners on major science and technology programmes in years to come.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Agri-science plays a vital part in the industrial strategy, but more could be done. Is the Minister aware of the excellent work of Harper Adams University in my constituency? It exports its excellence all over the world.

[Joseph Johnson]

I am aware of the excellent work undertaken by that institution in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Agri-tech receives considerable support through our public investment in R and D, and will continue to do so.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The European Medicines Agency, which is based in the UK, is one reason why our pharma industry is so successful. What will happen to the agency when we crash out of the EU? What is the Science Minister doing to ensure that we have effective regulations that support our pharma industry?

[Joseph Johnson]

The right hon. Lady should wait until we have embarked upon the negotiations for our future relationship with European funding streams. We anticipate that we will continue to collaborate closely with our European partners, so that our scientists can develop institutions such as the one she mentions to the benefit of this country for years to come.

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Scientifica is a Wealden-based science and technology business that won the 2016 British Chambers of Commerce awards for business of the year and export business of the year, and I joined Scientifica members at the London Stock Exchange to open the markets yesterday. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Scientifica on championing and promoting the best of British science and research?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am delighted to congratulate Scientifica. Companies such as that are doing brilliantly at exploiting the research that is undertaken in our science base to this country’s benefit and maximising the commercial opportunities arising from our significant public investment into R and D.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Looking beyond the two-year period to when we exit the EU, will the Minister ensure liaison with the devolved Administrations—hopefully all fully restored before then—so that excellent facilities such as the science centres in Belfast and Londonderry can be availed of and replicated right across the UK to ensure that we get the maximum advantage?

[Joseph Johnson]

Through the creation of UK research and innovation, a UK-wide global funding and research agency, we will continue to ensure that excellent science and research are supported throughout the UK in the years to come.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to support the oil and gas sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend set out how he intends to shape the regulatory environment as we leave the European Union, including through such things as visa allocation, to ensure that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of the technological revolution?

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

The UK is the No. 1 place in Europe for inward investment in technology, and the Government’s industrial strategy will deliver the Prime Minister’s vision of Britain as a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. We are making sure that our regulatory landscape and visa system are up to that challenge through a range of measures, including the tier 1 exceptional talent visa.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

T7. Scotland’s economy, from its thriving universities to our diverse food and drink sector, relies on EU freedom of movement. How does the Minister hope to close the skills gap and pave the way for a highly skilled economy if he cannot safeguard the rights of EU nationals living here?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Government have made it clear on many occasions, including at the highest level, that we value tremendously the important contribution that EU nationals make to the success of our higher education institutions and scientific establishments across the country, including in Scotland, and we have every intention of that continuing in the years ahead.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

When I visited the Corby steelworks on Friday, there was real enthusiasm for a sector deal for the steel industry and a real commitment to ongoing partnership working. Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State willing to visit the Corby works to discuss those opportunities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Many of those focused on driving forward the fourth industrial revolution are in new sectors such as robotics and 3D printing. Can the Minister ensure that the industrial strategy’s sector engagement includes new, innovative challengers, not just incumbents?

[Joseph Johnson]

I certainly can. Through our industrial strategy, we are backing Britain’s innovators with the biggest investment in science and technology since 1979 and a new industrial strategy challenge fund to bring cutting-edge ideas out of the lab and into the wider economy.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

T10. A recent Resolution Foundation report stated that one in three UK businesses admitted to under-investing over the last five years. What measures will the UK Government take to turn that around?

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, this country does recognise that it has been under-investing in research and development, and that is why at the autumn statement and in the Budget we have made the biggest investment in R and D for more than 40 years. Public investment in R and D helps to bring in private sector investment at the rate of about £1.36 for every £1 of public investment.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend outline what measures are included in the midlands engine strategy to support small businesses and enterprises such as those in Cannock Chase?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage new innovation support for SMEs in our key foundation industries, which make materials such as glass, ceramics and steel for cars, including those needed for Nissan in my constituency? This could help to create hundreds of jobs in the supply chain that are actually made in Britain.

[Joseph Johnson]

Support for innovation has received its biggest boost since 1979 in the autumn statement and in the Budget that was just announced. The industrial strategy challenge fund has just seen the first allocation of £270 million, which will help to boost innovation in key areas across the economy.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Diesel-powered generators add to poor air quality. Will the Minister welcome the contribution of Off Grid Energy, a small, innovative business in my constituency, whose mobile hybrid units provide green energy to the construction and event sectors?

Sale of Student Loans: Regulation

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate. It provides a useful opportunity for me to set out the Government’s approach to the proposed sale of part of the student loan book. I would like to explain the rationale for the sale and make sure that some important points, particularly those relating to the protection of students and graduates and to our commitment to securing value for money for the taxpayer, are firmly on the record.

We are all aware that tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement to the House on the Budget. I have been re-reading the statement he made in November of last year. He set out then his commitment to fiscal responsibility, and as part of that, he was clear that public sector net debt must be falling by the end of this Parliament. It is vital that the public finances continue on the path to sustainability.

Selling assets can reduce fiscal pressures and allows the Government to invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns. The Government’s policy is to sell assets where there is no policy reason to own them and where it is value for money for the taxpayer to do so. There is clearly no policy purpose to continuing to hold the student loan book on the Government’s balance sheet.

When we provide student loans, our purpose is to ensure that people who want to pursue higher education and have the qualifications that come from it are able to do so, regardless of their personal financial situation and with no limit, now, on their numbers. As soon as a loan is issued to support a student as they study, its purpose has been met. As I will explain in more detail, the planned sale would have no impact on the position of students or graduates.

A comprehensive assessment indicates that we have a good prospect of achieving value for money. The sale process is designed to achieve the best possible price to benefit taxpayers. As additional reassurance, I must emphasise that we will only proceed with the sale if market conditions remain favourable and the final value-for-money assessment is positive.

I know there is interest in the reasons why a private investor might be interested in the student loan book. The student loan book generates a long-term, inflation-linked set of cash flows, through an efficient and established collection mechanism. Our engagement with the markets has shown that that is attractive to investors—crucially, at a price that represents value for money for the taxpayer.

[Mr Sheerman]

Could the Minister tell us who the Department has been consulting—which experts, City firms or organisations have been giving the advice that this is a viable enterprise?

[Joseph Johnson]

There has been a process of engagement with the market, which has been conducted on behalf of the Department by a number of financial advisers, including Barclays and Rothschild among others. Our engagement has shown us that this is attractive to investors at a price that represents value for money for the taxpayer.

The private sector is willing to take on the risk and uncertainty of future repayment cash flows because it values this long-dated asset, while Government are looking to transfer that risk and generate cash for reinvestment in policies with greater economic and social returns. I hope hon. Members will therefore agree that there is a strong rationale for selling part of the student loan book. It is good financial management by the Government; it can help support policies with greater economic and social returns; and can be achieved without affecting the position of students or graduates.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), asked whether terms might be changed. I can tell them that investors have no rights whatever to change terms as a result of any sale process.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister will understand why students find his reassurances quite weak, given his track record. Would it not be easier simply to accept the amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill, which would embed in law a requirement to make no retrospective changes to the terms of repayment?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said, as a result of this privatisation process, investors will gain no right to change the terms and conditions of the student loans they hold, so students will not be impacted by the sale.

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

I am worried that the Minister seems reluctant to agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), which would assure students that the terms will not be changed in the future.

[Joseph Johnson]

I have just given exactly those assurances. After the sale of this part of the student loan book, terms and conditions will not change as a result of any actions by the investors who go on to own them.

The sale process we have launched covers loans issued under the previous system, which operated before 2012. Specifically, the loans in scope are those issued by English local authorities only, and which entered repayment between 2002 and 2006. A loan enters repayment the April after the student leaves his or her course, so most of the loans in the scope of the sale were taken out between 1998 and 2002. Some loans taken out after that date might also be in scope if they entered repayment in 2006. Loans issued by the devolved Administrations are not in scope, and nor are loans to EU borrowers, who became eligible to apply for a student loan from an English local authority only in 2006.

[Dr Huq]

Has the Minister has seen the Financial Times article from 8 February, which says that the Government are in a unique position to be the lender because they are able to monitor graduates’ earnings? How will private companies do that? The article’s headline is, “Selling off student loans makes no sense”. Does the Minister have any comments on that? That was not the Socialist Worker, but the Financial Times.

[Joseph Johnson]

I cannot be held accountable for the views of the FT. The Government have made it clear that we will proceed with a sale only if it represents value for money. There will be a rigorous assessment, and, as per the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 passed by the last Labour Government, the Government will be obliged to produce a report to Parliament within three months of the sale explaining the whole process. Parliament will have an opportunity to assess that point in great detail.

The sale will comprise the future repayments on the outstanding balances on a selection of these loans, which have a total face value of about £4 billion. The retention value to the Government is lower and is calculated using the standard Treasury Green Book methodology that was developed for asset sales. It also accounts for Government subsidy of the student loan system. The loans that are being sold have already been in repayment for 10 years or more, and therefore much of their original value has already been paid back to the Government.

A securitisation structure will be used for the sale to enable the Government to maximise value for money for the taxpayer. Under that structure, the loans will be sold to a new independent English-domiciled company known as the issuer, whose sole purpose is to own the loans on behalf of investors. Investors will purchase notes issued by the issuer, and the issuer will make payments on the notes using the repayments made on the underlying loans. The sale is a competitive process open to all eligible investors. Market testing reassures us that the different tranches of notes are expected to be attractive to a range of potential investors, thereby promoting an efficient market and optimal pricing.

I emphasise that the sale will not affect the position of graduates or students. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Student Loans Company will continue to service loans in the scope of the sale on the same basis as equivalent unsold loans. As I said earlier, investors have no right to change any of the current loan arrangements or directly to contact people with student loans, including those in the scope of a sale.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Joseph Johnson]

I have dealt with that point.

The sale will categorically not result in private investors setting the terms or operating the collection of student loans. Furthermore, it will not alter the Government’s policies towards student finance and higher education. Under the current system of student support, whose framework has been in place since 2012, we will continue to offer a comprehensive package of financial support to eligible students. That is part of ensuring our economy works for everyone. The current system is and will remain fair and sustainable. That is why the OECD praised our student loan system and said that we are one of few countries in the world to have figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance.

I am happy to explain where we go from here. The sale process began on 6 February and will last for several months. The final timings and the number of loans in the scope of the sale remain subject to market conditions. As announced in last year’s autumn statement, the sale is expected to be the first in a series of pre-2012 English student loan sales, targeting £12 billion of total proceeds by the end of financial year 2021. Each sale will be subject to an assessment of value for money.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry South for giving me the opportunity to discuss the proposed sale of part of the student loan book. I am clear that it represents an opportunity for the Government to reduce fiscal pressures and invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns. I am unequivocal in my commitment that we will do it without the sale changing the position of students and graduates. I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman and colleagues in this House in the coming months on this important process.

Question put and agreed to.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I begin with an apology on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who is unable to respond to this debate due to other business. However, I am here and happy to respond on her behalf. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this important debate. It is timely as it allows me the opportunity to confirm the budget agreed with the EHRC for the remainder of this spending review period, something which has been of interest to many hon. Members.

Before I move on to provide greater detail, I want to take a moment to remind ourselves of the wider context of Government fiscal controls. At the beginning of the last Parliament, as hon. Members will remember, the Government inherited the largest deficit in the post-war period. The EHRC’s position needs to be seen against that background and against the significant spending reductions that apply to central Government, including making over £20 billion of savings by 2019-20. I can confirm that the EHRC’s settlement for this spending review period amounts to a total budget of £20.4 million for 2016-17, £19.3 million for 2017-18, £18.3 million for 2018-19, and £17.4 million for 2019-20, equating to a 25% reduction across the spending review period since 2015-16. Obviously, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West made clear, reductions in the EHRC’s budget stretch across a longer timescale than just this spending review. With its settlement now confirmed, the EHRC will have had an approximate budget reduction of 68% between 2010-11 and 2019-20.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Joseph Johnson]

If hon. Members give me some time, I will supply some context for the reduction, most of which we did not hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the context of a current budget deficit of around £68 billion, is he seriously telling the House that cutting the EHRC’s budget by 68% down to £17 million is really necessary or relevant?

[Joseph Johnson]

The context that I am about to provide will help hon. Members understand in more detail why cuts of that magnitude were appropriate. If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West bears with me, I am sure that I will answer the question that he was about to ask.

First, when the EHRC was set up in 2007, it had an extraordinarily high budget to facilitate the merger of three previous bodies—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Disability Rights Commission—into a new body. The budget was simply not right for the organisation during its infancy. In 2007, the EHRC had a budget of £70 million, which was an astonishing £20 million more than the combined budgets of the three previous commissions. The EHRC never managed to spend more than £62 million in any year. Indeed it often struggled to spend its allocation, reporting significant and repeated underspends. In June 2010 for instance, the EHRC budget was reduced in-year from £62 million to £55 million. However, the EHRC’s actual expenditure in 2010-11 was £48 million, of which £16.3 million, or 35% of its budget, was spent on its corporate costs.

Secondly, those with longer memories will acknowledge that the organisation was poorly managed at the time and had poor spending controls, as a result of which its first three sets of accounts were all qualified. That inevitably called into question its financial controls and the amount of funding that it should be given.

Thirdly, Members should be aware that the EHRC’s budget reductions have simply reflected changes to its range of functions. A number of significant functions have been repealed, or are no longer funded, to help it concentrate on its core remit. Most notably, the EHRC has stopped its large grants programmes, which had been mismanaged and cost several million pounds. The EHRC also lost its helpline, which cost £2.5 million a year, and its conciliation role in service provision. Those functions ceased in 2012-13 and were costed at £10.1 million or 21% of the EHRC’s budget at the time.

Those changes were considered in the review of public bodies conducted by the Government in 2010, and it was decided that the EHRC should be “retained but substantially reformed”. In March 2011, the coalition Government accordingly set out plans to reform the EHRC in the consultation document “Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

The current Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister for Women and Equalities along with her Liberal Democrat coalition partner Lynne Featherstone, set out proposals

“to transform the Equality and Human Rights Commission into a valued and respected national institution.”

A comprehensive budget review was set up in 2012 to identify the minimum level of funding needed for the commission to discharge its statutory functions effectively, in accordance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2006. The review concluded that steady state funding of £17.1 million would be adequate for the commission to continue to fulfil its statutory functions.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister seems to be suggesting that the £17.4 million budget for 2019-20 is only to support the commission’s core statutory functions, which I understand is the direction of travel. Will he confirm that, in previous years, the commission received up to £7.8 million of funding to support its wider functions?

[Joseph Johnson]

The EHRC is receiving money in excess, although modestly so, of the minimum amount regarded as necessary to support its statutory functions. The hon. Gentleman is correct.

[Kate Green]

I understand the Minister’s point about focusing the commission on its statutory and strategic functions, but how can he be confident that it has the resources to do that well when we know that many local authorities are failing to comply with the public sector equality duty and that the Government are the subject of a number of significant criticisms from UN bodies for failing to comply with our obligations under socioeconomic and other rights treaties?

[Joseph Johnson]

Work was undertaken in the last Parliament to assess the minimum level of adequate funding necessary to ensure that the commission is in a position to discharge its statutory functions. As I said earlier, the review concluded that steady state funding of £17.1 million would be adequate.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned staffing reductions, which I recognise is also a concern of other hon. Members. As an independent body, it is for the EHRC to determine the level and structure of its staffing, which includes defining the appropriate grading and staff numbers. The commission has had to make difficult decisions in order to deliver value for money in its use of public funds while also ensuring that it is furnished with the right complement of skills and experience. Once the commission has concluded its restructuring under the target operating model, the total number of posts will be 179.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) asked about the impact of the EHRC’s restructuring on the Government’s goal of halving the disability employment gap. In terms of actual redundancies, the restructuring affects six disabled staff members. More widely, the EHRC retains good links with disabled groups, is continuing its work on disability issues and is working with disabled groups specifically to improve its enforcement work on disability discrimination cases.

The Government are also working generally to combat hate crime. Other hon. Members asked about the impact of the restructuring on the commission’s ability to deal with instances of hate crime. The Government are working generally with the police to provide a breakdown of data on religion-based hate crime to help them target resources and increase understanding. We recently published the hate crime action plan, in July 2016, and are now delivering locally based projects to tackle hate crime. We have announced additional funding for communities to increase reporting, with £2.4 million to protect places of worship and £900,000 to support community projects. We are engaging with groups to ensure we understand the public’s experience of hate crime and make it easier for victims to come forward.

Let me turn specifically to points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Although the EHRC needs to have due regard to fostering good relations, it is not a criminal enforcement agency, as he knows, and it has no role in prosecuting offenders or ensuring compliance with the law in this area. Therefore there will be no impact on the Government’s ability to tackle hate crime.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is saying that the commission does not have duties in terms of dealing with criminal behaviour, but he has yet to comment on how staff were treated. They were dismissed with one day’s notice and told to clear their desks. Does he believe that that is appropriate?

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Joseph Johnson]

I will take another intervention on the same point and then I will deal with one from the hon. Member for Pontypridd.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to add to what my hon. Friend said. The Minister seemed to be alluding to a strategic review of what the commission needs to do to carry out its core work, so how does sacking people by email and sending them home comply with the strategic review? There is no way that can be a skills-based assessment.

[Joseph Johnson]

Turning to the points about restructuring, hon. Members will know that the EHRC has followed a multi-staged process, to mitigate the impact of job losses on all staff, including consideration of those with protected characteristics. The commission is confident that the processes undertaken to date have been fair, evidence-based and transparent. Trade unions have been extensively consulted to offer every alternative to compulsory redundancy, where possible. Despite that, they have called five strikes in recent months.

Happily, the EHRC is no longer the focus for the tabloids’ wrath. Its accounts have not been qualified for five years. It has provided respected policy interventions on stop and search; the treatment of religion in the workplace; and pregnancy and maternity discrimination. It has intervened successfully to help enforce the Equality Act and human rights at the European Court of Human Rights.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Joseph Johnson]

I will give way, but this has to be quick as we are running out of time.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous in taking interventions and is trying to answer our questions. However, in so doing he is making our case for us, because he has just admitted that six of the people who are being sacked are disabled, which will clearly add to the disability employment gap. In conceding that we are seeing a rising tide of hate crime, despite the fact that we have this commission, he is surely making the point that the £17 million it currently has to support its work is inadequate.

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the EHRC’s restructuring in the context of its ability to carry out its broader work to support people with disabilities and to ensure that their rights are not affected by their disabilities in terms of their ability to access opportunities in the workplace.

As the National Audit Office notes, the EHRC

“has responded to its budget reductions in a number of ways”,

and it is increasingly working in partnership with other organisations and being more selective in the legal cases it takes on, taking on cases with the potential for the most impact and thereby enhancing its overall effectiveness. We are working with the EHRC to increase its effectiveness further. We share the view that members of the Women and Equalities Committee expressed in January: the EHRC should play to its unique strengths and powers, as provided in its legislative framework, by making more selective legal interventions and leaving the research to other bodies that can already fulfil that function.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. He must appreciate the anger felt by Opposition Members about how staff were treated—they were effectively sacked by email. Will he confirm that the commission will be given some human resources and personnel advice and expertise by Government Departments? Is he going to intervene regarding the concerns we have about those staff who have been sacked?

[Joseph Johnson]

We are satisfied that the EHRC has conducted its restructuring in an appropriate manner. It has consulted all the relevant partner bodies, as required.

I understand that the EHRC chair, David Isaac, shares the objective of the commission sticking to its legislative framework—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Griffiths.)

[Joseph Johnson]

I was just in the process of delivering my concluding sentence. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities look forward to working constructively with the chair, David Isaac, and his board in the years to come, to the overall benefit of equalities and human rights in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

The Government’s Productivity Plan

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for opening this debate and the hon. Members who have taken part in this afternoon’s excellent proceedings. I welcome the Committee’s decision to focus on the challenge of boosting productivity in the UK; it is one of the Government’s key economic priorities over this Parliament, as we of course recognise that this is the route to raising living standards for people in the UK. Since the financial crisis, we have focused on stabilising the economy, tackling the deficit and creating jobs. As hon. Members have said, the UK has seen strong growth since then: the economy has grown by more than 14% since 2010—that is the second fastest growth rate among major advanced economies, after the United States; employment has reached a record high, with 2.8 million more people in work now than in the first quarter of 2010; and unemployment is at its lowest level for 11 years.

However, if we raised our productivity by just one percentage point every year, within a decade we would add £240 billion to the size of our economy—that is £9,000 for every household in Britain. That is why the Government have taken action to improve productivity in the UK economy. As hon. Members have noted, we published “Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation”, a plan for productivity growth in the UK over a decade. It outlines how we can encourage further investment in science, education, skills and infrastructure, and how we can promote a dynamic economy through reforming planning laws, boosting competition and creating a northern powerhouse.

Today, I will seek to address some of the Committee’s concerns and report back to the House on some of the progress we have made in implementing the plan’s commitments. Before doing so, I would like to tackle the questions the hon. Gentleman put about the status of “BIS 2020” and the impact of the machinery of government changes he mentioned on the delivery of the plan. The principles behind the “BIS 2020” work are still important: creating a simpler, cheaper and better Department by 2020. Recent events reaffirm the importance of our becoming increasingly flexible and able to respond rapidly to the demands of new priorities. Given the machinery of government changes, we will be considering in the coming months how the reform plans of BEIS—of its two predecessor Departments—should be best aligned.

[Mr Iain Wright]

The Minister is giving a similar answer to the one given by the Secretary of State before Christmas, but the new Department has now been in operation for seven months and the Minister still cannot say what the savings will be and what activities will be stopped. Does he really think that is good enough, seven months into the new Department’s life?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said, the alignment of the two Departments’ work programmes is complex, but the process is well under way. Further reports will be made available to the Select Committee in due course.

In its report, the Select Committee expressed concerns about the clarity of the productivity plan’s objectives and the extent to which it represented a new plan for productivity growth. The plan sets out clear objectives that directly target the high-level drivers of productivity performance. It also contains several innovative new policies, such as the commitments to set up a national roads fund and a network of prestigious institutes of technology.

The report also questioned the extent to which Ministers are engaged in the implementation of the plan’s policies. The ministerial team regularly discusses issues relating to the main policies in the productivity plan at several Cabinet Committees, including the Economy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Alongside the Cabinet Committees, the Government have set up a series of implementation taskforces, which are attended by relevant Ministers and senior officials. For example, the earn or learn taskforce is supporting the Government’s commitment to reach 3 million apprenticeships starts in England by 2020, which is one of the many ways the Government are addressing the skills challenges the country faces.

As recommended by the Select Committee, our response includes an update that details the progress made on and future implementation of each of the plan’s 172 commitments. It shows that more than a third of commitments have now been fully delivered, and that outstanding commitments remain on track. For example, we have published a new national infra- structure delivery plan, which details more than £100 billion of planned public investment in infrastructure to 2021; we finalised the funding policy for the apprenticeship levy ahead of its introduction in April 2017; and, through the Housing and Planning Act 2016, we legislated for key planning reforms, such as automatic permission in principle on brownfield sites.

Further mayoral devolution deals have been signed in Liverpool, Sheffield and the west midlands and we have increased the annual investment allowance to £200,000, which is its highest ever permanent level. We also announced at autumn statement a new national productivity investment fund, which will provide £23 billion of additional investment between 2017-18 and 2021-22. That will be targeted at four critical areas for improving productivity: housing, transport, digital communications, and R and D.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Some £7 billion of the £23 billion investment fund has been put back to 2021-22. If that money is so important to drive productivity and growth, why is it not being invested now?

[Joseph Johnson]

The plan is ambitious and involves the expenditure of an unprecedented sum of £23 billion between 2017 and 2021-22. The profile of that expenditure is optimised so that it has the greatest impact on productivity outcomes.

On 23 January this year we published a Green Paper, “Building our Industrial Strategy”, which sets out our approach to developing the strategy. Its main goal is to improve living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity and driving growth throughout the whole economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) asked what the relationship is between the two plans: they are part of the same family of work that sits beneath the long-term economic plan. The industrial strategy will form a key part of how the Government take forward the productivity agenda set out in the productivity plan.

Crucially, the Green Paper sets out three key challenges that we must face up to, now and in the years ahead. First, we must build on our strengths and extend excellence into the future. The UK has real strengths, but we cannot take them for granted. We need to invest in research and development, develop our infrastructure, and make ourselves ever more attractive to inward investment. That is why we announced an additional £4.7 billion by 2020-21 in R and D funding at the autumn statement. This extra £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament is an increase of around 20% to total Government R and D spending, and more than any increase in any Parliament since 1979. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) offered empty promises, but we are delivering hard cash, and I know which I prefer.

The second challenge is to ensure that every place meets its potential by working to close the gap between our best performing companies, industries, places and people, and those that are less productive. We have sectors and businesses that are among the most productive in the world, but we also have too many that lie far behind the leaders. Driving up our productivity across the country means that we must enable those industries and regions that lag behind to achieve their potential. Members asked what it is that creates these divergences in regional productivity. This is a complex phenomenon, as many factors drive differences in growth and productivity, including weaknesses in infrastructure and connectivity, different levels of qualifications and skills, different levels of R and D investment, which tend to be correlated with lower levels of productivity, and many other factors.

It is important to note that there are other structural factors, including the quality of management in our companies, which is why the Government are providing significant resources to support the UK’s business-led Productivity Council, which is to be chaired by Sir Charlie Mayfield. This will provide strong and sustained leadership, help support business-to-business engagement and improve productivity across the business community, which is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) wanted us to do.

Thirdly, we need to make sure that the UK is the best place in the world in which to start and grow a business. The UK has a strong record on business start-ups, but too many fail to scale up into the big employers of the future. Through the industrial strategy, we will aim to identify and address the barriers that many businesses face to scaling up and growing. We have invested an additional £400 million in the British Business Bank to catalyse later-stage capital investments by the private sector, and we will work with it further to understand the obstacles that firms face in accessing capital outside London and the south-east. By responding to all the challenges presented by each of the strategy’s 10 pillars in a rigorous and strategic way, we will be able to achieve our objective, which is to improve living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity across the whole country.

If we want to create a country that really works for everyone, then we need to address this productivity issue. We want to see the same high level of success witnessed in Britain’s best-performing companies, industries, people and places in those areas that are still lagging behind. We plan a bold, new and collaborative approach to industrial strategy in the UK. This is a new approach with the Government stepping up, not stepping back. I am talking about designing an industrial strategy in collaboration with people and organisations across the country, and not imposing it from Whitehall. We recognise our productivity challenges, and we also recognise where we can make improvements and build on our strengths to make the UK a more productive and prosperous economy.

Intellectual Property: British Economy

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, Mr Gapes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) for securing this important debate and welcome the contributions of many of the hon. Members who have spoken.

During this important debate we have already heard about some of the many ways in which intellectual property and the creators and creative minds behind it contribute to the British economy. The Government recognise the importance of IP, as we expressed in our manifesto, in which we committed to making the UK the best place to patent, innovate and grow a business and to protecting IP online by working with internet service providers. I will use this opportunity to outline some of the steps that we are taking to make that happen.

It is clear that IP influences many parts of our daily lives and has an undeniable role to play across the economy. As hon. Members have noted, we as a country are rightly proud of our creative and innovative heritage. Our TV and film industries continue to enjoy worldwide success and, as anybody who watched the Brit awards last week knows, the same is very much true of our music industry, which produces what seems like an endless supply of chart-topping talent. The likes of Stormzy and Skepta were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty, but there are others, such as Rag’n’Bone Man and Ed Sheeran, all of whom delivered great performances last week.

Our cutting-edge research base stands at the forefront of global innovation. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked what commitment the Government were making to support that R and D base. I ask him to look at the recent autumn statement, in which we delivered the single largest increase in research and development expenditure in 40 years, and we are committing a further £2 billion a year by the end of this spending review period to R and D. That clearly underlines the Government’s commitment to this country’s remaining at the cutting edge of science and innovation for years to come.

This is not just about pride; the statistics speak for themselves. Every year since 2001, investment in intangible assets has outstripped investment in physical assets. In 2014, UK businesses invested over £130 billion in intangible assets—£11 billion more than in physical assets. Over half of that £130 billion was protected by IP rights. That not only highlights the sheer demand for UK IP rights, but demonstrates the fact that many businesses, innovators and creators already recognise the benefits of IP protection, of which there are many.

IP rights encourage investment in research and innovation, reward original design and branding, and support all types of creativity. Businesses that manage their IP well grow faster and are more resilient. The use of patents, trademarks and designs is linked with the better creation, transfer and use of knowledge and higher firm productivity. One reason behind that is that the UK’s robust IP regime plays an essential role in improving the balance between risk and reward for innovation and creativity.

Hon. Members have noted that IP enjoys a prominent place in our industrial strategy Green Paper, in which the Government touch on IP in several ways. For example, we have announced a new piece of independent research on approaches to commercialisation in universities, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned. That will look at approaches to commercialisation, including how universities approach licensing intellectual property. That is just one of a number of announcements that were made in the Green Paper, which sets out the Government’s plans for a long-term strategy that builds on our strengths and prepares us for the years ahead.

The Prime Minister has been clear that we need an economy that works for everyone. The Green Paper marks the beginning of a dialogue to develop a strategy to deliver that. The UK already boasts one of the best independently judged IP systems in the world—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Taylor Wessing ranking, which puts us third—but the Green Paper clearly signals the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that our IP system is not just fit for purpose, but unlocks the potential for creativity and innovation up and down the country. That includes a commitment to review how to maximise the incentives created by the IP system to stimulate collaborative innovation and licensing opportunities. The emphasis is on developing a strategy that spreads the benefits of our economic success across the UK. That is why the Government have also announced that IP representatives will be placed in UK cities in the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine—Manchester and Birmingham—to build local capability to commercialise intellectual property.

Let me turn to the importance of IP enforcement, which was a theme in several hon. Members’ remarks. Wherever the market—at home or overseas—the success and economic value of the UK’s intellectual assets highlights the potential risks when IP rights are not respected. The Government take IP enforcement seriously and believe that effective enforcement plays a vital part in supporting our creative and innovative industries. Effective IP enforcement also plays a vital part in denying funds to the many organised criminal gangs involved in counterfeiting, and in mitigating the harm—mentioned, for example, by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)—caused by unlicensed manufacturing, which often goes hand in hand with labour abuse and environmental abuse.

The UK boasts one of the most innovative IP enforcement networks in the world, but we can never afford to rest on our laurels.

[Pete Wishart]

In our inquiry into protecting intellectual property, we heard just how threadbare trading standards is now, with the smallest resources that have ever been applied when it comes to protecting some of these areas. Will the Minister promise to look at that and perhaps to address some of the failings in resourcing trading standards?

[Joseph Johnson]

We certainly want trading standards to perform the function that we need it to perform, and we believe that the resources are in place to enable it to do so.

As I was saying, the UK boasts one of the most effective and innovative IP enforcement networks in the world, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. There are always new challenges to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty and the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for North Antrim, and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) were right to recognise the serious challenge that illicit TV streaming and IPTV boxes pose to our creative industries. We will vigorously combat the normalisation, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West put it, of that harmful activity. It is theft. Last Thursday, the Government published a call for views, as Members have mentioned, to determine whether the existing legislation is working to tackle this important issue. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of the call for views, but if the case is made that legislative change is required, the Government will take the necessary steps.

[Kevin Brennan]

I again urge the Minister to consider trying to do something about this issue in the Digital Economy Bill before it completes its stages in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I am pressed for time, so I will give the hon. Gentleman a short reply. A number of cases in the legal system are currently testing whether we have sufficient legal powers to take the kind of action that we all want. Bits of legislation are potentially relevant—including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Fraud Act 2006, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and others—and we need to see whether they will prove adequate for the task at hand. Cases that are in the pipeline will give us a good sense of whether further legislation is needed.

More broadly, we continue to build on our success in the area of IP enforcement, guided by the new IP enforcement strategy, which was launched in May last year. Innovative solutions that are already in place include the IP intelligence hub and a wide range of voluntary initiatives with partners. Being active on so many fronts has enabled the Government to ensure that UK rights holders have a system that they can rely on.

One of our strongest assets is the police intellectual property crime unit, which is an operationally independent body that works with industry, Government and other law enforcement agencies to counter IP crime, such as counterfeit goods of the kind so graphically described by the hon. Member for North Antrim, which are so detrimental to the economy and businesses and which can be harmful to consumers. The Government are in the process of discussing how PIPCU will be funded in future and will make a statement in the coming weeks. However, the unit is just one aspect of the work that the Government are supporting to address IP crime. We remain committed to tackling the multiple challenges that are posed by IP infringement.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asked about the Government’s role with respect to the Performing Right Society and the minimum £38 tariff for live music concerts, and that is primarily a commercial negotiation between the rights holders and licensees. I know that the Music Venue Trust has been active in that area. Licensees and their representatives can bring a case to the Copyright Tribunal, which is an independent judicial body, if they are unhappy with the terms of a licence.

Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim with respect to whether Governments should create a contract adjustment mechanism, we are currently looking at that issue at a European level, as he knows. Intervention on freedom to contract needs careful consideration before Governments weigh in. The risks of reducing the incentives for businesses to invest in new talent are ones that we must take exceptionally seriously, but we need to listen to creatives too. In particular, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the digital deals declaration—

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Motor Neurone Disease/Gordon Aikman

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I thank fellow Members for their contributions and passion on this topic, and in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for calling this debate.

We have heard this evening how many in this House were saddened to hear of Gordon Aikman’s passing this month, and we have heard how his courageous and incredible efforts to raise awareness of motor neurone disease and help others were truly inspirational and have made a huge difference to the lives of MND sufferers. His loss will of course be most keenly felt by those who knew him best, such as people who are in this Chamber today, and all Members’ thoughts are with his family and friends at this difficult time.

Sadly, Gordon’s condition was not unique. It is estimated that there are up to 5,000 people with MND in the UK today, while each year approximately 1,100 people are diagnosed around the world. The Government are aware of the immense difficulties and challenges faced by MND sufferers and we are taking significant action, both via research funding and alterations to clinical guidelines, to improve MND patient care and treatments.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said, funding MND research is key if we are to find a cure and improve treatments for MND patients. We are investing over £1 billion a year in the National Institute for Health Research, whose spend on research relating to neurological conditions was £53 million in 2015-16. In addition, the Government fund the seven research councils, which invest around £3 billion each year in research covering the full spectrum of academic disciplines, from the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, chemistry and engineering, social sciences, economics, environmental sciences and the arts and humanities. The majority of research council investment in MND research is made by the Medical Research Council, with some relevant research also funded through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

The MRC supports research relating to a broad portfolio of neurodegenerative diseases and currently spends, as the hon. Gentleman said, about £5 million per year on research relating to MND. The MRC funds research at many leading institutes in the country, including the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, the UCL Institute of Neurology, the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and the University of Oxford.

MRC-funded research includes projects to increase understanding of the basic molecular mechanisms underlying MND, improve the assessment of disease progression and identify biomarkers of disease activity in patients with different types of MND. It also works in partnership with charities and other funders, nationally and internationally, to support research into MND.

In addition to the MRC, the BBSRC funds world-class bioscience and biotechnology that underpins health research. In the context of MND, this may include the basic bioscience of motor neurones. Over the last five financial years, the BBSRC has spent about £4.7 million on research projects which focus on basic underpinning research that will increase understanding of the normal cellular processes that support motor neurone function.

In addition to research funding, we understand that positively influencing the healthcare and clinical system is key if we are to improve the lives of MND sufferers. The Government understand that one of the major hurdles facing MND patients is the challenge of getting an accurate and fast diagnosis. No two people with MND will be affected in exactly the same way, and there is no one test to diagnose the condition.

The disease can be difficult to identify in its early stages, as the symptoms are often mild and shared with more common conditions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published its MND assessment and management guidance document in February 2016. The guidance sets out MND’s signs and symptoms, provides information about local referral arrangements and recommends that robust protocols and pathways are in place to inform healthcare professionals about the disease and how it might present itself. I know, and am glad, that the guidance was described by the leading charity, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, as “hugely significant”.

We know that MND patients value and need specialist services, and this is something that Gordon Aikman successfully campaigned for in Scotland. NHS England has set out that services for MND patients should be specialised. Care for MND patients involves a multidisciplinary team approach from MND specialists who should work to ensure that patients are fully supported and co-ordinate with other care providers or teams as necessary.

NHS England commissions the care that patients may receive from 25 specialised neurological treatment centres across England. It has published a service specification setting out what providers must have in place to deliver specialised neurological care. This supports equity of access to a high quality service for patients, wherever they live. Patients are also able to access the drug Riluzole on the NHS. This is the only licensed treatment available that can slow the progression of the disease. I know that specialist MND nurses are highly valued by MND patients and their families. Recruitment of nurse specialists is a local matter, but it is important to highlight that such nurses are a key part of the national specialised services that NHS England delivers for patients with neurological problems such as MND.

Another of Gordon Aikman’s seven key campaign points was to guarantee that no MND patient should die without a voice. Augmentative and alternative communication—AAC—aids are used to restore communication for people who cannot communicate using speech, and to address severe impacts on independence and quality of life. NHS England has established a national AAC service, commissioned from 13 centres. It is the first national AAC service of its kind in the country. Priority for assessment is given to patients who have a life-limiting condition such as MND. I am glad that this was welcomed by stakeholders as a major step forward in providing clarity and consistency of provision.

I hope that this debate has reassured fellow Members that the Government are aware of the immense difficulties and challenges faced by motor neurone disease sufferers and that we are taking action in multiple areas to improve the care and prognosis of MND patients. Gordon Aikman’s legacy will live on for a long time due to his courage and his determination to raise the profile of MND and to make a real difference to the lives of MND sufferers.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Assets Sale

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

Today, the Government are starting the process required to sell part of the English student loan book under the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008. The sale covers loans issued under the previous (“pre-2012”) system, specifically those which entered repayment between 2002 and 2006.

The Government’s intention to launch this sale at this time, subject to market conditions, was set out in last year’s autumn statement. The decision to launch this process is consistent with the Government’s fiscal policy and approach to asset sales. The position of all graduates, including those whose loans are part of a sale, would also not change as a result of the sale.

This Government are committed to cutting the deficit, reducing debt, and living within our means as a country. The Government’s policy is to sell assets where it is value for money to do so and where there is no policy reason to continue to own them. Selling assets gives headroom for the Government to invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns and reduces fiscal pressures.

The Government’s policies towards student finance and higher education are not being altered by this sale. Under the current system of student support (the framework for which has been in place since 2012) we will continue to offer financial support so people who have the qualifications and want to pursue higher education are able to do so, with no limit on their numbers. This is part of making sure our economy works for everyone.

Students are protected by statute and completely unaffected. A sale would not alter the mechanisms and terms of repayment and sold loans would continue to be serviced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Student Loans Company (SLC) on the same basis as equivalent unsold loans. These protections mean that purchasers would have no right to change any of the current loan arrangements or to directly contact borrowers.

The Government have launched the first sale process on the basis there is a good prospect of achieving value for money, but will only proceed with the sale subject to market conditions and a final value for money assessment. The assessment of value for money is in accordance with the HMT Green Book framework and includes a comparison of the value of retaining the student loan book and receiving payments over time (the retention value) and receiving cash now (the proceeds of the sale).

This sale will comprise the future repayments on the outstanding balances on a selection of loans, with a total face value of around £4 billion. The retention value to Government is lower and is calculated using standard Treasury Green Book methodology developed for asset sales, and also accounts for Government subsidy of the student loan system. The loans which are being sold have already been in repayment for over 10 years, and therefore much of the original value of the loans has already been paid back to Government.

The sale process is expected to take several months. Selling the loan book involves securitising the remaining future repayments on the loans and selling securities representing the rights to these to a range of purchasers. The House will be informed if and when a sale is completed.

[HCWS458]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

10. What steps he is taking to safeguard investment in research and development in Scotland as a result of the UK's decision to leave the EU.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

As the Secretary of State has already said, the Government are supporting research and development throughout the UK. We protected the resource budget at the 2015 spending review and committed an extra £2 billion in the most recent autumn statement—the largest increase in science funding since 1979.

[Richard Arkless]

A hard Brexit will threaten Scotland’s world-class university sector, and the price of the research development investment that we are discussing was a staggering €8.8 billion from 2007-2013. What representations are this Department making to the Treasury and the Brexit Secretary to protect that vital investment?

[Joseph Johnson]

Scotland is a powerhouse for academic research, and we want to play to one of this country’s great strengths, so we welcome the agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science and technology programmes in years to come. Britain will remain at the forefront of collective endeavours to improve and better understand the world in which we live.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The most important investment that we must safeguard is the people who work in science and research. What is the Minister doing to ensure that EU researchers in Scotland are sure of their place as we go through the Brexit process?

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech the week before last, we greatly value the contribution that EU nationals make in our institutions. The Government have been exceptionally clear that during the negotiations we want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

13. What financial support his Department is providing to the life sciences sector.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

We invest £2 billion a year in health life sciences research through our research councils and the National Institute for Health Research. Through funding for the biomedical catalyst, we are helping businesses to bring that research to market. We announced in the new industrial strategy that Sir John Bell will be leading work on a strategy to make the UK the best place in the world to invest in life sciences.

[Kit Malthouse]

Alongside that welcome support, private investment will be critical to the success of the industry. Will the Minister outline what suggestions he might make in his Budget submission to the Chancellor to stimulate such investment?

[Joseph Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Access to finance is key to a dynamic life sciences sector in the UK. In November, the Prime Minister announced a review of patient capital to identify barriers to access to long-term finance for growing firms, looking at all aspects of the financial system. We look forward to the review’s recommendations ahead of the autumn statement.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

The industrial strategy will have a major impact on speeding up Genomics England’s ability to sequence the genome. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is working with the Department of Health to ensure that the Government’s investment will be spent effectively to encourage greater productivity?

[Joseph Johnson]

The industrial strategy Green Paper highlights work on a new strategy for life sciences, bringing together the health system, industry and academia and potentially leading to an early sector deal. The accelerated access review sets out a vision of the NHS embracing innovation, and the Government will respond in due course.

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

14. What steps he is taking to encourage businesses to support local economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

19. What steps his Department is taking to promote medical research.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

This year the Medical Research Council will spend £655 million on world-class research. Our commitment to the future of the UK as a world leader in biomedical research is unwavering. For example, in November, Her Majesty the Queen opened the Francis Crick Institute, and we will continue to invest in this kind of excellence throughout this Parliament.

[Mrs Gillan]

Autism is the most expensive medical condition in the UK, costing the economy more than £32 billion a year, according to the London School of Economics, yet we spend hardly anything on autism research compared with what we spend on research into cancer, heart disease and stroke, which cost the economy less. What can the Minister do to encourage more spending on autism research, which is so vital to people in this country?

[Joseph Johnson]

Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, the MRC spent £13.3 million on autism research, and it always welcomes high-quality applications for support on any aspect of human health. Such applications are subject to peer review and are judged in open competition. The Department of Health, through the National Institute for Health Research, also funds research in this area, and the MRC’s centre for neurodevelopmental disorders at King’s College London opened recently, in November.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) can always have her question framed and put up on the wall in a suitable part of her home, of her own choosing.

Photonics Industry

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I start by thanking fellow Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their passion for this under-appreciated sector. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for calling the debate. As she mentioned, it is particularly timely, given the launch of the Government’s industrial strategy Green Paper by the Prime Minister earlier this week. I congratulate her on her initiative in setting up the first all-party group on this exciting sector.

Too often, the photonics sector is unfairly and unwisely overlooked. We have heard this morning that it is a fascinating field and a great example of the types of sector that we are focusing on in our industrial strategy. It also makes a great and tangible contribution to all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. As an enabling technology, it underpins a wide range of sectors and applications, including aerospace, eye surgery, LED lighting, counterfeit detecting and all the other important examples that the hon. Lady gave. There are more than 1,500 photonics manufacturing companies in the UK, together employing more than 70,000 people. They generate an economic output of £10.5 billion. Our industrial strategy looks to build on that kind of success, further strengthening our science and research base while helping to bring new goods and services to the market more simply and more rapidly.

The photonics industry has been built on the UK’s outstanding expertise. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West mentioned that it was particularly evident in industry-facing institutions such as Heriot-Watt. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council maintains a significant portfolio of photonics research spanning across multiple themes such as ICT, physical sciences and manufacturing. The total portfolio exceeds £170 million in value, and its significant investments include £10.2 million in the national hub in high value photonic manufacturing at the University of Southampton; £7.2 million awarded to University College London for the photonics systems development project; £5.6 million to the University of Sheffield to research semiconductor quantum photonics; and £4.9 million to Heriot-Watt University in the hon. Lady’s constituency for its industrial doctorate centre on optics and photonics technologies.

[Joanna Cherry]

I thank the Minister for making an interesting and detailed speech and talking about the success of the university sector, particularly Heriot-Watt in my constituency. However, he will be aware that academics in centres such as the institute in my constituency are worried as a result of the Brexit vote about two things: funding and the international pool of academic and postgraduate talent on which they draw. They are looking for assurance beyond 2020 that the sources of funding and international brain power will not be lost to them.

[Joseph Johnson]

We are sensitive to such concerns, which is why the Prime Minister in her speech a week last Monday made clear statements as to her objectives for our Brexit negotiations. She detailed the importance that she puts on continued collaboration with our European research partners, and on continued access to the brightest and the best—the people who make such a difference to the success of our scientific endeavour in this country. As she underscored in her powerful speech, we are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe and we remain an outward-looking and globally focused country committed to being the global go-to centre for science and research.

The Government recognise the importance of research to the UK, which is why, at the spending review in 2015—the spending review before last—we protected the science resource budget in real terms at its 2015-16 level of £4.7 billion for the rest of this Parliament, and pledged to increase the science capital budget to £1.1 billion in 2015-16, which will rise with inflation to a total of £6.9 billion over the period 2015-21. At this year’s autumn statement we made the significant announcement that we would make an additional investment in research and development of £2 billion a year by 2020-21. As I have been at pains to say on many occasions, that is the biggest single increase in investment in R and D in this country since 1979.

[Carol Monaghan]

The funding is very welcome and much needed, but we also need certainty over what people can do now and how able they will be to travel in future.

[Joseph Johnson]

We certainly recognise that concern. That is why, to refer back to the Prime Minister’s speech a week last Monday, she again repeated her desire to be able to guarantee as quickly as possible the rights of EU nationals residing in the UK. If other countries across the European Union are able to offer the same assurances to our nationals living in their countries, we will be able to put those uncertainties to rest.

As I have mentioned, it is important to ensure that the excellent research carried out in the UK can be successfully commercialised where appropriate. This is why we provide support to that effect through Innovate UK. Photonics is one of Innovate UK’s enabling technology areas. Companies can apply for funding for photonics projects in all the so-called emerging and enabling technology calls, as well as calls related to the application of photonics in healthcare, manufacturing and elsewhere. Over the past six years, typical spend has been in the range of £5 million to £10 million per annum, with most funding going to SMEs working in collaboration with research organisations and larger companies. More than £3 million has already been invested in projects in the Glasgow-based firm, M Squared Lasers, since 2008, helping the company to reach an annual turnover that now exceeds £10 million.

Up to £500,000 has been invested in innovative research and development projects through the north Wales photonics launchpad. At the Fraunhofer Centre for Applied Photonics in Glasgow, Innovate UK has funded 20 projects for the centre to collaborate with UK companies.

We have an edge in photonics, but we are not taking that for granted. Our economy has great strengths, but while many people, places and businesses are thriving, opportunities and growth are still spread too unevenly around the country. That is why it is so important that a modern industrial strategy delivers a high-skilled, competitive economy that spreads benefits and opportunities to people throughout the UK.

The Green Paper that we published on Monday marks the beginning of a dialogue to develop a strategy that will also ensure the UK remains one of the best places in the world to innovate, do business and create jobs. We acknowledge the challenges we face. Growth has not been even. Prospects and opportunities for businesses and people vary too much. We have world class businesses and sectors, but some are not yet achieving their potential. Now is the time to face up to the challenges with an industrial strategy that ensures we have a resilient economy for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“(c) commissioning a product for disposal.”

This amendment would ensure the commissioner is treated the same as the manufacturer in the case of infringement. This would make it consistent with the arrangement for trademarks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. In my speech on Second Reading last week, I noted that it is essential that the Bill makes sufficient provisions to protect manufacturers from unjustified threats. The Government, in bringing forward the Bill, made the claim that manufacturers and importers of infringing products do more commercial damage than retailers, stockists and customers. It has also been suggested that manufacturers, having invested in the product, are better placed to determine whether a threat of infringement proceedings is justified.

The amendment would ensure that commissioners and manufacturers are treated on an equal footing and go some way to protecting manufacturers. Such an arrangement already exists in trademark law. Any company that instructs or commissions work that applies a trademark it does not own is treated as a primary infringer and can be written to freely. That is not the case for patents and designs. In such cases, the manufacturer is instead treated as the primary infringer. They can be written to freely, but under the Bill’s provisions the person or company that commissioned the manufacturers to do the work cannot be written to without fear of a threats action.

That is perhaps more troubling when we consider the unequal relationship that often prevails in such cases. More often than not, it is a larger company that commissions work and instigates the infringement of a design or patent, while the company carrying out the work is a smaller manufacturer, perhaps a small or medium-sized enterprise based in one of our constituencies. Many of those smaller manufacturers will not realistically be in a position to insist on indemnities in the contracts with the commissioner. We know how unequal contract negotiations often are between large companies and smaller companies in their supply chain. The manufacturer will get dragged into infringement action, as they can be written to freely, but the real prime mover is protected by the provisions in the Bill. As they stand, the provisions allow infringing commissioners to hide behind manufacturers, who would not be protected. This amendment would prevent such circumstances arising and I urge the Minister to accept it.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve in Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her amendment, which gives us a chance to discuss this important IP legislation again in more detail. The existing IP legislation defines clearly those acts that can infringe intellectual property rights. It is essential that the threats provisions are entirely consistent with those definitions of infringement. Otherwise, we would create a real mess for businesses in this area. The amendment would mean that threats made to someone “commissioning” an allegedly infringing product will not give rise to a threats action. The person commissioning would be treated in the same way as a manufacturer or importer. However, commissioning infringing goods is not itself an infringing act in any of the existing statutory definitions. That is an important point.

The amendment would therefore create an anomalous situation in which a threat to sue for infringement could safely be made to someone who is not, under the definitions, an infringer at all. There is no situation in which such a threat could be justified. The amendment would remove protection from people who are not actually infringers. That cannot be right. Treating commissioning as if it were an infringement, just for these purposes, would also bring confusion and inconsistency more widely to the law of infringement.

I want to make it clear that there is no inconsistency with the situation found in trademark law, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central referred. The provisions in the Bill relating to trademarks do not allow threats to be made for “commissioning”. The phrase

“causing a person to apply”

simply clarifies what is covered by the existing infringing acts in the Trade Marks Act 1994, in line with established case law. The amendment therefore seeks to address an issue that does not exist. For those reasons I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his clarifications and comments. Can he address my central point, which is that small manufacturers are in an unequal relationship with those commissioning the products to be manufactured, and the provisions in the Bill may put them at greater risk than those who are commissioning the infringing product? Will he consider ways in which small manufacturers can be better protected in the circumstances that I outlined?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am happy to attempt that. Manufacturers will benefit from the way these provisions prevent distortions in the wider marketplace. No evidence has been presented to the Government that stakeholders want that important aspect of the provisions to change. Manufacturers are already given considerable protection by the way in which the provisions prevent threats being made to others. Given that manufacturers are often the worst affected by unjustified threats made to those further down the supply chain, it is their customers who are scared off by threats of infringement proceedings. That is why the provisions allow anyone aggrieved by the threat to make use of the provisions, not just the recipient.

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, after “do,” insert “or claims to do,”.

This amendment deals with people or companies who hold themselves out as the primary infringer: ie, they claim to be the manufacturer or importer of a product (and therefore can be written to freely) when, in fact, they are not.

One of the virtues of the Bill is that it seeks to simplify and improve the workings of IP law and reduce the number of infringement cases brought before the courts for mistaken or outright false reasons. The amendment would enhance that aspect of the Bill by further reducing the scope for unnecessary litigation.

The amendment would allow people or companies that claim to be the primary infringer—that is, the manufacturer or importer of the product—to be communicated with freely by the rights holder, until it is clear that they are not the rights holder. That is a detailed point, and it may seem to be an obscure change, but it is important, otherwise I would not have tabled the amendment.

Under the Bill, the rights holder would not be able to communicate with a party falsely claiming to be the primary infringer, as that would run the risk of triggering the Bill’s provisions. If the amendment is agreed, the provisions would allow for communication from the rights holder until it is clear that the retailer or stockist is not, in fact, the manufacturer. That would reduce the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises—supporting SMEs is a constant theme of ours—and other organisations, because there would be fewer court actions and more such matters would be dealt with in the right way, which is directly between the participants. As such, I argue that the amendment is entirely in the spirit of the original Bill, and I ask the Government to accept it.

[Joseph Johnson]

In order to provide much-needed protection to retailers and customers, it is crucial that the IP threats provisions encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an infringement. To facilitate that, the Bill sets out a clear statement of those acts that will not trigger an unjustified threats action.

The amendment would introduce circumstances where threats made to those further down the supply chain, such as retailers, would not give rise to an unjustified threats action. Those are exactly the people who should be protected by these provisions. The amendment would introduce the new concept of “claiming” to manufacture or import a product, and that is an inherently vague concept. It would no doubt be very difficult to prove in court and therefore the risk of satellite litigation on the point is considerable. Introducing the new concept would mean less certainty for businesses. It would likely be a long time before they would have clarity from case law about what constitutes “claiming”, and the additional complexity is unwelcome. The aim of the Bill is to help to clarify this area of law and make it easier to navigate.

Critically, the amendment would undermine protection for retailers and others further down the supply chain who inadvertently use ambiguous language, such as a reference to “our new product”. A retailer might easily imply, even accidentally, that it had made a product. Under the amendment, the retailer could lose all protection from unjustified threats. A rights owner may choose to rely on the public statement and issue a threat. By doing so, the rights owner chooses to risk that the recipient may bring a threats action. However, in the very unusual situation in which someone deliberately set out to entrap the rights holder, such behaviour would no doubt influence how the court would grant any remedies.

I am not convinced that there is an issue here that needs to be solved. If a rights holder is uncertain about whether a retailer is also a manufacturer, it can use a permitted communication to seek clarification. That removes the risk of an unjustified threats action. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I agreed in my speech that the amendment could appear obscure, but the fact is that supply chains are increasingly complex. He talked about the amendment introducing the new concept of claiming to be a manufacturer, but it is not a new concept in practice, given the increasing complexity of global supply chains. It may be a new concept to the Minister.

It is incredibly important that the Bill supports small businesses generally, and in particular our small manufacturers. At the least, it should not put further barriers in the way of their effective commercial working, because it is our small manufacturers that we hope to grow into large manufacturers and create the high-skill, high-wage jobs that we all seek for our future prosperity. I ask the Minister specifically to take a further look at the amendment or to consider different ways of achieving the same objective.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

In the Bill as it stands, rights holders can refer only to current Acts without triggering the Bill’s provisions, and cannot refer to future Acts. That state of affairs seems to place an untenable level of burden on rights holders, and I ask the Minister to remedy it by accepting this amendment and—if he chooses not to do so—to detail his response to the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys,.

[Joseph Johnson]

It is crucial that the threats provisions allow rights holders to enforce their rights, but also that they encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an infringement—those performing what are known as primary acts. For patents, that would include manufacturers and importers. The provisions will allow a threat to sue for infringement to be made to the manufacturer of a product, for example, a hair dryer. Threats can then also be made to that manufacturer for retailing that same hair dryer. Once the rights holder has found the manufacturer of the product, it is entirely sensible that the rights holder can raise all of the allegedly infringing acts they believe the manufacturer to be carrying out in relation to that product. That encourages sensible negotiation and helps to resolve the dispute.

However, the amendment would allow threats to be made to the same business for retailing similar hair dryers, even though the business in question is—for those products—merely acting as a pure retailer. That would chip away at the principle at the very heart of the threats provisions—that of protection for those further down the supply chain. The amendment would also blur the clear line between what does and does not give rise to a threats action, making it harder for rights holders to approach alleged primary infringers with confidence. In addition, the concept of “the same features so far as is material” is exceedingly vague and will create a great deal of uncertainty for business about whether products are, or are not, materially “the same”. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am disappointed that the Minister did not give more weight to CIPA’s concerns. His concern about the language being vague in certain provisions does not reflect the excellent work that I am sure could be done by his Department to make the language less vague. Equally, it does not reflect much of the language in existing provisions. However, I do not wish to test the patience—or, indeed, the presence—of the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Review of the impact of exiting the European Union on provisions within this Act

“( ) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the impact of the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union on the provisions within this Act, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.” —(Chi Onwurah.)

A probing new clause to assess the impact of exiting the European Union on the provisions within this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I agree that anything that reduces the costs of doing business across jurisdictions—with appropriate safeguards, of course—will be welcomed by businesses and companies that seek to do just that. Given that as we leave the European Union we will have to be more outward looking and focused on trade, immediately acting to impose extra burdens on businesses that might be seeking to invest in this country is not a particularly good signal. However, the Minister may well be about to provide us with every ounce of assurance possible and set out in full the Government’s intention with regard to our participation in the court.

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central again for her new clause and for the opportunity to touch on this morning’s court judgment. It was, however, delivered after the start of our proceedings, so I have not had the chance to look at it in full, although I can tell hon. Members that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will make a statement to the House at, I believe, 12.30 this afternoon, which will no doubt provide them with more information about the Government’s response.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister enlighten us about the Government’s intention towards the unified patent court agreement?

[Joseph Johnson]

I will happily come on to that in due course. I remind the hon. Lady that the Bill is not part of the ratification process for the unified patent court and we are in danger of straying off topic and beyond the scope of the Bill.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union on the provisions of the Bill within 12 months of it coming into force. The Law Commission review that led to the Bill was of the existing threat provisions that apply to all patents, trademarks and designs that have force in the UK, including the relevant EU-wide rights. The Bill therefore applies the new threat provisions to EU trademarks and community design rights.

It is important that businesses in the UK are protected against unjustified threats in relation to their activities in the UK, regardless of whether those threats relate to infringement of a UK national intellectual property right or an EU-wide IP right that is in force in the UK. Not to cover EU-wide IP rights in so far as they apply to the UK would leave a large loophole and make the threats regime inconsistent across relevant IP rights.

In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, there is no question of the UK leaving the European Patent Office and the international patent convention that underpins it. It is not connected to the EU.

The Bill also ensures that the threats regime is compatible with the proposed unitary patent and unified patent court, when they come into effect. The Law Commission did detailed work with legal and business interests on that specific point. For as long as we are members of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full and active role. Ensuring that the IP regime continues to function properly for EU-wide rights is an example of that. However, that position and our decision to proceed with ratification of the UPC should not be seen as pre-empting the UK’s objectives in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU. No decision has been taken on our future involvement in the EU IP framework once we have left. That will be part of the negotiations, which have not yet begun.

It is likely that the negotiations will still be in progress one year on from the point at which the Bill would come into force—the point at which the new clause would require us to report. The Prime Minister has been firm that we will not provide a running commentary on negotiations. Publishing the report required by the new clause could well undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain in this area.

In her speech on 17 January, the Prime Minster set out our negotiating objectives for Brexit. We seek an equal partnership between an independent, self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU. The UK has one of the best IP regimes in the world and our work continues to support and develop that. The UK leaving the EU will not change that. We will continue to deliver high-quality rights-granting services, to lead the world in IP enforcement and to be a positive force in the international IP arena. In light of my remarks, I ask the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to withdraw her new clause.

[Chi Onwurah]

Let me start by saying that I welcome the Minister’s clarification on us remaining a member of the European Patent Office. At least, I think it was a clarification; it was not entirely clear whether it was a clarification or simply an exposition on the current status.

In the Minister’s response to the questions put and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, he did not seem to recognise the respect for Parliament and accountability to Parliament that—I do not want to try the patience of the Chair—today’s judgment has enforced and reflected. He gave that as a reason why he cannot deliver a report on the implications, but his position is highly inconsistent. My hon. Friend characterised it as sitting on the fence, but it is an inconsistent fence. It is almost like sitting on two fences that are one.

At the same time as the Minister said it is clear that we are a member of the European Union until we are no longer a member of the European Union, he also said that that was not to presuppose any of the negotiations. He then effectively refused to give any kind of report on the implications of the negotiations when throughout the world investors who are considering investing in the UK and the manufacturing of particular products will be in a state of uncertainty. As I am sure the Minister and everyone on the Government Benches recognise—we certainly recognise it on the Opposition Benches—uncertainty is the death knell for business. Business needs as much certainty as is possible.

Given that we are in such uncertain times, not to be prepared to offer a little more certainty by giving a report one year out on the implications for patents of such a big change in our legislative framework seems short-sighted. I hope that the Minister has now had time to reflect—and perhaps to look at the judgment on his electronic device—and feels able to consider supporting the new clause, which would create a not unjustified level of sharing of implications and reduce business uncertainty. I am sure we can all agree that that is important, as we move towards leaving the European Union. The Minister does not seem inclined to respond to my appeal, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.