Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Matt Hancock and Ian Murray

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course that will be allowed, but the point is that we would still have control over our public health policy. I can give that reassurance, which was sought by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Labour Front Bench, so I hope he will now remove that objection. I do not want to conclude that some Opposition Members do not want to be reassured, but increasingly that is the only view I can reasonably come to.

[Ian Murray]

That was not the question I posed to the Minister. The question I asked was: if there is any threat whatsoever to the NHS and the UK’s wider public services, will the Minister and the Government sign a TTIP trade deal?

[Matthew Hancock]

The Health Secretary has already made it clear that if a trade deal threatened the NHS, he would not support it. However, as the former Trade Commissioner has said:

“Public services are always exempted”.

I am glad that we can finally put that issue to bed. I doubt that Labour Front Benchers will raise it again, because they now know that they would be misleading the nation if they did so.

UK Anti-corruption Plan

Debate between Matt Hancock and Ian Murray

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

That is the second time in two days that somebody has referred to my book, which I thought was long forgotten. I am delighted not to have to promote it myself and that others are doing so for me.

My hon. Friend raises a series of important points. This is the first UK anti-corruption plan that brings together actions across government. It takes significant steps forward, but nobody would say that the job is complete. Everybody would say that there is further work to do, and I look forward to working with him and other right hon. and hon. Members to do that. Ultimately, we have to balance the need for transparent and non-corrupt contracts with the fact that Britain gains great advantage around the world from having the legal system on which many, many international contracts are based. So we need to draw up the plan carefully and sensibly, but at the same time firmly.

On overseas territories, I can confirm that conversations are under way with overseas territories to ensure that progress is made, and we are indeed making good progress. On the transfer of new units, the two units in the police that have the biggest impact on corruption are in the Met and the City of London police, and both of those units will be part of the National Crime Agency. We are undertaking an additional piece of work to review how much further we need to go in the institutional arrangements. For too long all the work on anti-corruption was split between a multitude of forces and agencies. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, as he was previously an investigator of such activity. Instead, that work is being brought together in the NCA.

On the point about the number of alleged offences taken forward, the purpose is precisely to raise that number. I hope that further action will be taken. On beneficial ownership, following the Lough Erne agreement, the clauses being considered in the other place, which went through this House in the autumn, are among the most advanced in the world in making sure that corporate transparency is the order of the day—the standard practice. We will see how those clauses bed down. I have no doubt that in years to come we will want to review the effectiveness of those clauses to make sure that they are used appropriately and that the functioning of the register works. Crucially, we must make sure that we continue to drive forward the actions in the UK that have relevance around the world to make sure that we stamp out corruption wherever we find it.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

If staff in my office are watching this exchange, may I say to the person assigned to give me a “secret Santa” gift that I would prefer not to receive the Minister’s book?

We know that corruption can do huge harm. The cost of corruption in Africa has been estimated at £100 billion and the EU estimates that the cost to Europe is £120 billion a year, much of it incubated here in the United Kingdom. That is why the UK must pledge to do its part in cracking down on corruption. We welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far and we welcome today’s plan, although the House has been waiting since June for it to be published. I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, which has done so much to push the agenda forward.

The Labour Government introduced the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and the Bribery Act 2010, which allows for the criminal prosecution of any organisation

“which is incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom”

for the failure to prevent bribery. I have a number of questions for the Minister about the plan and his statement.

What resources will be available for enforcement of the new action plan beyond the pooling of existing resources? The plan states that a new central bribery and corruption unit will be created within the National Crime Agency by bringing together resources from the NCA and Department for International Development-funded units. In June 2014 it was reported that the budget of the Serious Fraud Office, the agency previously responsible for investigating and prosecuting the most serious cases of fraud and bribery, had fallen from £52 million to £32 million, so what resources will be in place?

When will the new inter-ministerial group meet, who will make up its membership, and, vitally, how will it report back to this House?

What impact will the action plan have on DFID and on UK aid recipients? Will the Government take steps to make aid recipient countries publish asset declarations for their publicly exposed persons—a matter that was raised by the APPG? What discussions has the Minister had with the British overseas territories, which are a huge component in this issue?

Given last month’s Financial Conduct Authority report which concluded that most small banks have significant problems with anti-money laundering provisions, what measures are in the plan to deliver a more focused money-laundering regime?

Finally, will the Minister join me in wishing everyone in the House a very merry Christmas?

[Matthew Hancock]

I think the hon. Gentleman and members of his office would benefit from reading my book, because it is all about why the worst financial crash in the history of the world happened on Labour’s watch. Labour Members have a few lessons to learn.

The hon. Gentleman rather unhelpfully missed the tone of this discussion, but I will deal with the more constructive elements of his questions. The issue of resources is very important. First, it is about the effectiveness of the deployment of resources. Bringing together actors from different agencies will help to deliver a more effective response from any level of resources. Some of the funding currently comes from the DFID budget. We are exploring how international development funding can further support anti-corruption work at home and abroad. That is part of the plan, and announcements will be made on it in the coming months.

I am glad to report that the ministerial group has met. I chair it, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, and it includes representatives from across Government and different agencies. We are accountable to Parliament, and I am indeed reporting back now. Discussions with the overseas territories are under way, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay).

I welcome the cross-party support for an anti-corruption plan. The substance of the hon. Gentleman’s questions was relevant. I look forward to working with him, with the APPG and with others to strengthen the plan further, because we are a better and stronger United Kingdom if we work together to enact it.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Ian Murray

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. There has been considerable consensus and agreement on many of the measures, and I welcome the support from Members on both sides of the House for our doing everything we can to improve the environment for small businesses. It is a clear goal of this Government to make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and this Bill, the first of its kind, will make a significant contribution to that. Small businesses make a huge contribution to the UK, accounting for around half of UK jobs and a third of private sector turnover, and they are vital to our prosperity and to the UK economy.

The Bill strengthens and improves the way in which regulation is dealt with in government. We have introduced the one-in, one-out and the one-in, two-out approaches to regulatory management, and these have delivered over £1.5 billion of savings per year to businesses since January 2011. I am delighted that there has been support for enshrining the principles of transparent regulatory management in legislation through the regulatory reform measures.

The Bill makes significant inroads into improving the business environment for small businesses even further while also, crucially, providing new protections for the employees who lie at the heart of our recovery. For the first time, we have addressed the abuses of zero-hours contracts. Despite Labour’s promises going back 20 years, no action was taken. Now, however, we have passed legislation to address exclusivity in zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister tell the House how he can enforce the provisions on exclusivity clauses?

[Matthew Hancock]

Thanks to the Bill, exclusivity clauses will no longer be valid; they will be null and void. The Opposition promised to do this in opposition last time around, they did nothing about it for 13 years and now they witter on about impractical solutions, whereas this Government are interested in making changes that will improve the labour market. I am proud that we are doing this at the same time as increasing the number of jobs in this economy to record levels.